Does education disconnect you from reality or make the connection stronger?

@Pongobongo,

This relativism seems to be where I want to be at, any one know a good introductory book or text that will elaborate on it?. I read the Wikipedia article on it and it sounds very intriguing.

1 Reply

@de budding,

See I find problems in the word 'relative' especially when used in the context of for example 'person relative via perception to environment', why? because the two things are not actually related, although they are commonly recognized as being related. So there's a problem with the language making assumptions that it probably should not.

Let's say that person a is related to a dolphin, fair enough I'd say. But saying that a person is related to their name? it's like saying 'apple = 1' - totally unrelated, no common ancestory, just a recognition.

So we recognize some things as being related, and do not recognize as related some things which are related.

Relativism?

1 Reply

@Doobah47,

Doobah47,

I think you may be taking relativism in a literal sense which is why you find it problematic.

When you use relativism in the context of "a person relative via(by) the perception to the environment" the principle becomes confused. First, I'm assuming you mean that "a person is relative to the environment." However, I do not understand the proposition you were attempting to convey with not being related thought they are commonly related? This seems personally axiomatic and not in line with the principle of relativism.

From as far as I can tell, your propositions say;

1.Person (a) is related to a dolphin. (though, is this fair enough to say???)

However;

2.Person (a) related to their name. (i.e. identification???)

Thus;

Unrelated, no common ancestor, just recognition. (Does this conclusion follow from the premises?)

You would have to clarify your statement because I think you are operating off of unstated personal assumptions.

"So we recognize some things as being related, and do not recognize as related some things which are related. Relativism?" (Doobah47)

This seems to be your thesis, correct? We either do or do not perceive relation in extended objects. Relativism does not equate to genera, only the recognition of omni-genera's with the same truth value.

Relativism is simply this?

You say you like tomatoes and I say I don't like tomatoes, as relativists, we both agree to disagree because to disagree is to criticize and persuade and be inappropriate from a relativistic point of view.

There are two truth tracks on which we both travel, rather than a universal singular true or false track. If I say I sincerely like something, I cannot be wrong? it is true to me. Relativism is the recognition of a difference in perspective and accepting two unilateral truth tracks as we would a singular truth track.

1 Reply

@VideCorSpoon,

Yeah, I don't like to read philosophy or submit to generic titles, so if I see a word like 'relativism' or 'essentialist' I make my own meaning.

There were no premises or conclusions, simply the idea that society sees relations between things which are not related - like the relativism between your love of tomatoes and my love of tomatoes - yet it does not see as related my ear and your toe.

1 Reply

@Doobah47,

Doobah47 wrote:

Yeah, I don't like to read philosophy or submit to generic titles, so if I see a word like 'relativism' or 'essentialist' I make my own meaning.

There were no premises or conclusions, simply the idea that society sees relations between things which are not related - like the relativism between your love of tomatoes and my love of tomatoes - yet it does not see as related my ear and your toe.

Doobah,

The above does not sound like a really good idea, unless what you mean is that all words are qualifications and/or limitations, thus, a word is largely defined by its context. Perhaps Our inability to see or discern the relations between things, is the reason for our perception of duality. That fact that there does not seem at the outset any correlation between my toe and your ear is probably from trying to see it or understand it without proper context. The correlated growth of an individual of a species is a model if you like, and there is a correlation between you and your species, the particular and the general.

1 Reply

@boagie,

I see words as defined by their text, less con-text.

So 'relativism' is re-la-tive-ism - like this: consistent actions + that + suffix + suffix. So 'relativism' can be described as 'consistently doing x' (a fairly standard definition).

Quote:

Relativism

the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.

apple dictionary and thesaurus

That changes the perspective, but does not change the doctrine - my argument is that relative things are relative in as absolute a context as possible; thus 'relativism' is a misleading definition of the concept of theory being abstracted from reality.

What I'd like to say is that although we can never say that 'x=reality' without it being false, we can conceive that the carbon atoms that infest our universe make everything relative: so your toe and my ear are related, and you are related to a dolphin. What we cannot say is that x=reality, which is what all knowledge, truth and morality try to do. Of course this is the fun part of relativism, where it makes the point that every x is relative to some human construct/perception/structure, and not strictly relative to reality; so I do agree with relativism, but I do not like the terminology.

1 Reply

@Doobah47,

Doobah47 wrote:

I see words as defined by their text, less con-text.

So 'relativism' is re-la-tive-ism - like this: consistent actions + that + suffix + suffix. So 'relativism' can be described as 'consistently doing x' (a fairly standard definition).

That changes the perspective, but does not change the doctrine - my argument is that relative things are relative in as absolute a context as possible; thus 'relativism' is a misleading definition of the concept of theory being abstracted from reality.

What I'd like to say is that although we can never say that 'x=reality' without it being false, we can conceive that the carbon atoms that infest our universe make everything relative: so your toe and my ear are related, and you are related to a dolphin. What we cannot say is that x=reality, which is what all knowledge, truth and morality try to do.

Doobah,

Actually I agree with most of what you say, but, text is context for any word. I think you are right to though that truth, knowledge and perhaps morality needs an entirely new slant on it, Most people have a strange understanding of the concept of these things. What truth there is, is highly functional, everything else just is.

1 Reply

@boagie,

Doobah47,

Reading philosophy and "submitting" to generic titles is paramount in philosophy. Those two factors are among the top things that keep philosophy in the realm of science and not mindless B.S. Reading unsupported arguments in abstract based on no sense of defined axiomatic expressions is next to impossible to utilize academically.

Your idea that, "society sees relation between things which are not related." (Doobah47) is indeed logical and a very good insight. However, this is not relativism. This seems more like perspectivism to me, and only roughly. What seems problematic is when you say, "?if I see a word like relativism or essentialist, I make my own meaning." (Doobah47) Doesn't this seem contrary to the moral of the story of the primary introductory text to philosophical linguistics every freshman reads? Humpty Dumpty by Lewis Carroll???? Alice can't talk in a coherent way to humpty dumpty because humpty dumpty takes words to mean what he wants them to mean (i.e. the concept of "unbirthday" and "that's glory for you") Seems ad absurdium to me. You need some sort of axiom to base your understandings off of.

Still, I think your account of "what is relative" and "relativism" is severely flawed. It takes into account the layman's account of "what is relative" but not the abstract idea of "what it is to be relativistic." You agree with relativism because you have warped its meaning and denied the terminology that gives it relevancy. Don't get me wrong, you have excellent points, but this rationale would never hold up in academic circles.

1 Reply

@VideCorSpoon,

I quit university because I found the study of other people's theories largely unfulfilling. I went back to uni, but now I don't read, I just pick random quotes and write essays based on common knowledge; I get good marks too...

So what if an academic won't listen to somebody who invents a personal syntax or lexicon, an academic is payed to talk about other people's theories - and LO and BEHOLD - the people who write theories invent their own lexicon.

And I rather like to think of myself as that large caterpillar...

1 Reply

@Doobah47,

Doobah47,

Though other peoples theories leave you largely unfulfilled, there is still something to be said and learned from the content scholars past and present have published. You advance your own cognitive faculties based on the development of knowledge, both scholarly and not, that has been recycled and refined over the course of civilization as we know it. To reject knowledge in any way constitutes the very foundation of ignorance.

One problem with your outlook is this. Because you stumble upon some interesting truth by yourself, it does not mean that the idea has never been thought of before. If you read all there is to know on a subject, you can fully grasp the subject to date and build or refute the general understanding in its entirety without error. Also, you say in one of your previous posts that "?carbon atoms infest our universe making everything relative" (Doobah47). You learned by some source of the existence of carbon, atoms, the universe, and relativism. All this shows is hypocrisy and picking and choosing what you will intake and credit and which you will not.

But I do understand your sentiment on knowledge. Aristotle said it best in metaphysics, "?seek knowledge for its own gain and not for any other, for this alone is the primary truth of sciences." It shouldn't matter what the world thinks as long your own life is enriched with wisdom and truth. But that's the rub, isn't it? Is your approach to knowledge wisest and truest? I suppose that's where relativism comes in. You may think that isolated knowledge is best, and I may think that extended knowledge is best, but we can agree on the fact that our opinions have merit to each other as a personal creed and need not argue over it.

Also, I like the caterpillar too, though I think I identify more with the white rabbit.

1 Reply

@VideCorSpoon,

I didn't mention that I can't read more than 3 paragraphs at a time without some kind of incentive, and yes I pick up alot of knowledge through reading/listening, so I can't exactly say I'm uneducated, BUT I refute that any real wisdom will come through the uptake of other people's ideas; call it ignorance if you want, I'd call it wisdom!

Anyway, back on topic: does an educational facility enhance one's connection to reality?

A proper answer would include philosophical thought, such as 'relativism', but then we find a paradox in that said answer will not connect with reality, so I think the only answer is that the question is at fault. Perhaps it should be rephrased as "does beneficial thought entail improved action?"

1 Reply

@Doobah47,

That you, "?refute that any real wisdom will come through the uptake of other people ideas." (Doobah47) is? well? well, I really don't know how to address that. It screams cyclical. You're theory is? well? your theory is "unique" to say the least. I also suppose you are not familiar with the philosophical concept of ignorance. It is not meant in the same way as "you are simply ignorant because you are uneducated," but rather "I am wise enough to know that there is further knowledge beyond my current aggregate knowledge that I accept that I do not know everything and call myself ignorant in not knowing everything in recognition of that fact."

But anyway? I think we'll leave it at that.

You are right, we should return to the primary topic.

That the original topic is whether or not, "?an educational facility enhance one's connection to reality?" (Doobah47) I don't think that's a correct interpretation of the topic, only your separate line or inquiry from post #5. If you want to pursue that line of inquiry, it's a very interesting diversion.

On the actual topic posted by Pongobongo. Of the two modes of education, the first being immediate knowledge and the second being extended knowledge from extrapolation of immediate knowledge, which modus educo would you prefer?

1 Reply

@VideCorSpoon,

Well I wouldn't call either to be honest, I'd call both.

I wouldn't like to learn about WWII through experience of a shell, yet nor would I be particularly happy if somebody told me about Hitler's theories on propagation of the Aryan species. So I'd actually rather not learn about WWII at all. Of course it might be important to watch kung-fu movies in order to enhance one's ability to shadow-box/fight off criminals, though I also think that shao-lin sessions with master enthusiasts would be worthwhile - although I suppose that both would count in the latter of your two options.

Some things are best left to study books (like war) and others are perhaps best engaged directly, in contact with reality (like music). To be honest I doubt that any study differs from extrapolated knowledge uptake - in that study vs practice would appear to be the question, so my answer would be both.

1 Reply

@Doobah47,

From the world war II comment, I gather that you are disinterested with history in particular. A fundamental understanding of history is essential to understanding the present and the future, so it seems nihilistic to me, but ok.

But it is interesting that you mention that and the concession that you can learn something from kung fu movies. Both study the art of war, only packaged differently. You are picking and choosing what is relevant and what is not. In philosophy (more precisely legal philosophy) this is a flagrant display of naturalism. Not naturalism in "natural world," but naturalism as in justice blindly done in the name of moral or preference rather than law. But it almost seems as though you would prefer a gimmick rather than the substantive message.

From what I understand in your post, you would first rather prefer extended knowledge from the extrapolation of immediate knowledge. If this is the case, how can you dismiss history or the embodiment of war in the form of a shell? Are these not extrapolations of knowledge and innovation? It is very contradicting to your position.

That, "Some things are best left to study books (like war) and others are perhaps best engaged directly, in contact with reality (like music)." (Doobah47) seems exceptionally problematic. In your example, both study books. And reality isn't music, it is an aggregate of human knowledge of harmonics, tone, harness of reverberation, pitch, etc. developed by the human genius. It's as though you put music on as high a pedestal as the dynamics of the universe and forget the fact that the lowly book studying is exactly the same thing as the promoted music. You are again picking and choosing. But your next comment is even more interesting and a very concerning point.

When I read your posts, you contradict yourself several times over in such a short duration of explanation that I think you lose your train of thought half way through your explanation. That may be the problem stemming from your previous post (#29) in which you stated that, "?I don't read, I just pick random quotes and write essays based on common knowledge; I get good marks too..." (Doobah47) Don't get me wrong, I think you have a valid point to put forward and I also think that it is very interesting, but you have to follow some sort of structure to make it coherent. That structure is ironically reinforced with other opinions and theories as well as your own thoughts.

Philosophy seems superficially easy at first. Any opinion goes. But three hundred people "philosophizing" on premises alone are not worth a fraction of a percent of two people philosophizing on premises and eventually reaching a conclusion (even though that conclusion could be wrong.) All the three hundred people are doing is blowing hot air. But that undermines the nature of philosophy in a way if you think about it. Philosophy isn't meant to be a science as a science in itself, but a defragmentation device for established sciences like biology, history, etc. Someone once said to me that philosophy is the garbage can of the sciences, where anything that does not fit into established science is thrown into the default of philosophy. Individual opinions are fine, but unless they are directed, they have as much consistency as an ice cube in hell.

1 Reply

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

But it almost seems as though you would prefer a gimmick rather than the substantive message.

I'd definately prefer to shadow-box with a wall than take a walk around my neighbourhood and see the horror of town-planning post-WWII. The culture I was raised in was completely and utterly mashed up, so yes, WWII can F*ck right off.

VideCorSpoon wrote:

From what I understand in your post, you would first rather prefer extended knowledge from the extrapolation of immediate knowledge. If this is the case, how can you dismiss history or the embodiment of war in the form of a shell? Are these not extrapolations of knowledge and innovation? It is very contradicting to your position.

That, "Some things are best left to study books (like war) and others are perhaps best engaged directly, in contact with reality (like music)." (Doobah47) seems exceptionally problematic. In your example, both study books.

Your position is idiotic. I am a qualified musician and I NEVER studied a book. Absolute crap on your part, absolute bullsh*t. My position on war is that I'd neither like to discover it through immediate knowledge nor through literature. Kung-fu films are violent, they are not an embodiment of war. Jeez where do your go to find that excrement you spout?

Quote:

And reality isn't music, it is an aggregate of human knowledge of harmonics, tone, harness of reverberation, pitch, etc. developed by the human genius.

That's polemic.

Quote:

When I read your posts, you contradict yourself several times over in such a short duration of explanation that I think you lose your train of thought half way through your explanation. That may be the problem stemming from your previous post (#29) in which you stated that, "?I don't read, I just pick random quotes and write essays based on common knowledge; I get good marks too..." (Doobah47) Don't get me wrong, I think you have a valid point to put forward and I also think that it is very interesting, but you have to follow some sort of structure to make it coherent. That structure is ironically reinforced with other opinions and theories as well as your own thoughts.

Philosophy seems superficially easy at first. Any opinion goes. But three hundred people "philosophizing" on premises alone are not worth a fraction of a percent of two people philosophizing on premises and eventually reaching a conclusion (even though that conclusion could be wrong.) All the three hundred people are doing is blowing hot air. But that undermines the nature of philosophy in a way if you think about it. Philosophy isn't meant to be a science as a science in itself, but a defragmentation device for established sciences like biology, history, etc. Someone once said to me that philosophy is the garbage can of the sciences, where anything that does not fit into established science is thrown into the default of philosophy. Individual opinions are fine, but unless they are directed, they have as much consistency as an ice cube in hell.

I actually choose my words quite carefully and I think you'll find that I don't contradict myself, EVER. It's a question of interpretation - too much philosophy (especially in these internet forums) is based on superficial meaning and knowledge derived from other philosophers. You know what? I can prove to you that philosophy is ineffable, but would you care? Ha.

Very Happy

1 Reply

@Doobah47,

Wow? I must have hit a nerve with you at some point. Keep in mind that what I previously said was in no way directed towards you personally, but within the realm of discourse.

So? you would rather shadow-box than perceive town planning, huh. That makes absolutely perfect sense. That is in fact profound in its complexity and depth reaching into my very soul and the inner reaches of infinity.

That my position is idiotic? ok. I say ok because that's the relativistic thing to say, and the more righteous thing to say. Moral high ground you see.

That I do not recognize the awesomeness of your musical prowess, being qualified and not picking up a book? ok. Suzuki violinists learn the same way. But I have to digress from intelligent conversation for a bit. I'm sure the world told you this before, I'm just repeating it? I don't care. But you can continue to pick and choose if you wish. Also, don't get angry, especially conveying it in the form of writing. This is a forum of philosophy, not a hate fest.

I loved your comment that, "Kung-fu films are violent, they are not an embodiment of war." (Doobah47) Because we all know that Kung-fu wasn't developed to be a combative form in the essence of its nature? just violent. And violence is in no way a form of war. Thanks for clearing that profound view up.

And when you cry "polemic!" about my comment, I had to chuckle. The comment is not controversial? just common sense. If you disagree, you could have said something relatively cogent to refute it as this is a philosophy forum, or explained yourself a tad bit better. But injecting irrelevant words is fine too. Something tells me you may be unsure of what polemic actually means. Go to google when you are not sure of what a word means and type in "define x," but don't type in x? x is where you put the word you want to define. Again, and this is important, x is not to be typed in, only substituted for the word you want to know.

I have to say though that I nearly died after I read your comment after "That's polemic" considering the ironic gem that came before. I'm sure you do pick your words carefully and you never contradict yourself? seriously. And I'm not joking about that, I am completely 100% serious. Seriously.

That philosophy is a question of interpretation, I? gasp? am inclined to agree with you.

And I am very excited you can prove that philosophy is taboo. I seriously am. It's off topic, but yeah, sure, I am excited. That is a breakthrough in the history of philosophy and I prostrate myself before you to beg your forgiveness on the matter. Would I care? Sure. Would I care if it came from you given your phenomenal philosophical understanding and grasp of abstract concepts? I would pay money to hear it, that's how interested I am to hear it. As a side note, stand up comedians make a decent wage.

Also, Ha HA! (see, I can do that too, only I added another ha, but I capitalized it and added one of those exclamation mark thingy's to contribute to the overall funniness of the preceding ha to form a type of funniness gradient where the initial ha is followed by a greater, denser HA reaching the climax at the exclamation mark.)

But seriously though, with all wisecracks aside, don't take the exchange of philosophical discourse seriously in that way. Try to approach it from an outer perspective and leave irrelevant emotions at the door. We are here to come to some sort of answer or conclusion, not just blow hot air.

1 Reply

@VideCorSpoon,

I havn't got 'time' to read your entire response, but I must apologize - my outburst was the result of feeling victimized in other threads. sorry.

1 Reply

@Doobah47,

Best method of education:
#2
Reason :By comparing several circumstances with the same underlying structure and differing outcomes based upon the differing strategies used in the context of the time, pattern recognition is developed and technique for resolving conflict is built. One example of this is a strategic study of wars and propaganda and comparing the strategies to other modes of interaction such as buisiness and politics. By doing this there is instilled in the learner a deep understanding of human nature, (how it can be used to gain power and should that be done ect.) and thus a self understanding.

By viewing history from a standpoint of a 'bin of examples', one can develop a scientific approach to problem solving and apply mathematical formulas to model probablility of victory, thus learning basic combinatorics and statistical analysis in an effective way. One can see the out come of various circumstances in history and draw upon them to apply to the current circumstance if history is considered blatantlyto be useful as a 'bin of examples'. The 'oh my this story is sure interesting' is too subjective an approach to history and seemingly irrelevent to the more logically minded students.

All subjects in education, if considered as models from which generalizations and applicable tools can be derived, are inheirently valueble. Rote memorization is useless if there is no application acknowledged. There needs to be problem modeling in school as soon as there is memorization of 'other worlds' which are actually part of this world and applicable to it. If they weren't applicable they would be useless and thus the conclusion must be that so is the system which teaches them. If a use cannot be found the subject must be dicarded as it is obviously a waste of time unless it is for pleasure, then it has no place in school but only in liesure time.

You want kids to stop thinking that education is pointless? Show them it isn't by the methods above. Don't waste their time, show them how to think things out with the seemingly random inforation. They will excersise much better judgment in their every day activities if they get what is taught. This is the only totally effective education model I can think of.

0 Replies

Does education disconnect you from reality or make the connection stronger?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know