God.

[Age]

You both need tutoring in communication via use of English.

Could 'we' all need more tutoring in 'communication', via use of whatever language?

If no, then who is/are 'the one/s' who do/es not need any tutoring in communication?

One would be very good indeed if one did not benefit from Improvement.

Great. So, I suggest instead of saying things like, 'you, others, need tutoring in communication', and if 'this' is replaced with things like, 'We all could do with more tutoring in communication', then 'that one' would not come across, through communication, that 'it' is somehow 'better' than 'the others'.

Which, in and of itself, is a 'lesson' 'we' could all learn to become 'better' in communication with 'each other'.

You don't need to be told who makes the best use of English on the forum.

If 'you' say so. But, are you implying that 'you' know 'me' better than 'I' do?

Also, 'i' have no clue as to who makes the best of "english" on 'this' forum, (if 'that' is what you meant).

Try thinking this out for yourself ,then what you do is try to formulate a general rule for good use of English for the purpose of transmitting ideas.

Again, the main reason 'I' am, here, in 'this forum' is to learn how to communicate better with you, human beings.

What is the 'this' word in relation to, exactly, which you suggest or tell me to, 'Try thinking out for "myself"?

What do you mean by, 'try to formulate a general rule' for good use of "english", (for the purpose of transmitting ideas)?

1. What does the word, 'good', (or 'bad), in relation to 'use of "english", even mean or is referring to, exactly?

2. Will 'you' inform 'us' of what 'your own general rule' is for, so-called, 'good use' of "English"?

3. Is not the 'best rule' to 'transmit ideas' to just be 'succinct'?

If yes, then what I have found when communicating with you human beings is that you all have previously obtained 'beliefs', which I have found are impossible to 'infiltrate' no matter how 'succint' words are.

[promethean75]

"you all have previously obtained 'beliefs', which I have found are impossible to 'infiltrate' no matter how 'succint' words are"

Socrates had the same problem. Don't sweat it, bro.

[Eodnhoj7]

The nature of God is the everpresent potentiality, limitless void, by which infinite actuality occurs by degree of a patterned process of distinction, as that is the nature of actuality itself, where being, as the actual, is but everpresent and infinite distinction by degree of the self contrast of potentiality, evident with the actualized distinction of potentiality itself. The nature of potentiality being distinct is but the occurence of actuality for what is actual is distinct thus by nature God is both evident through existence and beyond it as void.

God exists through the degree of man evidenced by the void nature of man's intellectual, emotional and physical dimensions where this void is but the potentiality by which the constitution of man acts as a central catalyst for change. Man as intermediary is but the superimposition of different dimensions of reality that by nature contains potentiality for further change and transformation evidenced by the act of attention being the process by which change is induced.

By degree man is but a god within, through and of God for the nature of attention, by which he or she derives his or her identity, is but the holographic process of creation itself as transcendental identity, thus endorsing man as having a cosmological or divine dignity endowed by nature of being a mediator of change within known experiential reality and by said degree claims right of co-creator evidenced not of a self created accord but through the intrinsic aspect of awareness itself present within his and her multidimensional constitution.

By the act of attentive distinction is man relatively justified and relatively condemned by degree of effect of given judgements, thus giving experiential reality expression by infinite degrees of awareness, within and without the dimensions of man, where the proto-pattern of the Divine Plan evident within man is the occurence of attention by degree of distinction, through which attention exists.

The constitution of free will evident within man is the potentiality contained by intrinsic act of the awareness of awareness as but a means of choice as to what and how distinctions arise from the interior depths of observation, for choice is evident by degree of selective attention giving or recieving and from this attention cause is evident where the effects are the distinctions which arise by nature of the fabric of experiential reality itself as but the natural act of awareness.

[Belinda]

Could 'we' all need more tutoring in 'communication', via use of whatever language?

If no, then who is/are 'the one/s' who do/es not need any tutoring in communication?

One would be very good indeed if one did not benefit from Improvement.

Great. So, I suggest instead of saying things like, 'you, others, need tutoring in communication', and if 'this' is replaced with things like, 'We all could do with more tutoring in communication', then 'that one' would not come across, through communication, that 'it' is somehow 'better' than 'the others'.

Which, in and of itself, is a 'lesson' 'we' could all learn to become 'better' in communication with 'each other'.

You don't need to be told who makes the best use of English on the forum.

If 'you' say so. But, are you implying that 'you' know 'me' better than 'I' do?

Also, 'i' have no clue as to who makes the best of "english" on 'this' forum, (if 'that' is what you meant).

Try thinking this out for yourself ,then what you do is try to formulate a general rule for good use of English for the purpose of transmitting ideas.

Again, the main reason 'I' am, here, in 'this forum' is to learn how to communicate better with you, human beings.

What is the 'this' word in relation to, exactly, which you suggest or tell me to, 'Try thinking out for "myself"?

What do you mean by, 'try to formulate a general rule' for good use of "english", (for the purpose of transmitting ideas)?

1. What does the word, 'good', (or 'bad), in relation to 'use of "english", even mean or is referring to, exactly?

2. Will 'you' inform 'us' of what 'your own general rule' is for, so-called, 'good use' of "English"?

3. Is not the 'best rule' to 'transmit ideas' to just be 'succinct'?

If yes, then what I have found when communicating with you human beings is that you all have previously obtained 'beliefs', which I have found are impossible to 'infiltrate' no matter how 'succint' words are.

Yes, 'be succinct' is a good rule for a philosophy discussion. Editing one's ideas for succinctness helps the transmitter himself, as well as the receiver of a communication.
I absolutely understand your frustration. If you wish to ask me any succinct question I will do my best to answer it as lucidly , fully, and honestly as I can.

You have already demonstrated you can think for yourself. Doing philosophy in a group risks publishing very personal sensitive ideas. That is why philosophy is classed among other humanities subjects such as human geography, history, creative writing, drama. autobiography.

I have found some posters are easier to read than others and I'm a little surprised you cannot identify any. Some posters are still very much seekers after reasonable ideas and have not formulated any previous suppositions.

If you did a tutored course in philosophy it would be the tutor's job to explain so you understand.

[Age]

The nature of God is

you do not yet know the nature of you human beings, yet you, still, go on to speak and write as though you know there very nature of God, Itself.

the everpresent potentiality, limitless void, by which infinite actuality occurs by degree of a patterned process of distinction, as that is the nature of actuality itself, where being, as the actual, is but everpresent and infinite distinction by degree of the self contrast of potentiality, evident with the actualized distinction of potentiality itself. The nature of potentiality being distinct is but the occurence of actuality for what is actual is distinct thus by nature God is both evident through existence and beyond it as void.

God exists through the degree of man evidenced by the void nature of man's intellectual, emotional and physical dimensions where this void is but the potentiality by which the constitution of man acts as a central catalyst for change. Man as intermediary is but the superimposition of different dimensions of reality that by nature contains potentiality for further change and transformation evidenced by the act of attention being the process by which change is induced.

By degree man is but a god within, through and of God for the nature of attention, by which he or she derives his or her identity, is but the holographic process of creation itself as transcendental identity, thus endorsing man as having a cosmological or divine dignity endowed by nature of being a mediator of change within known experiential reality and by said degree claims right of co-creator evidenced not of a self created accord but through the intrinsic aspect of awareness itself present within his and her multidimensional constitution.

By the act of attentive distinction is man relatively justified and relatively condemned by degree of effect of given judgements, thus giving experiential reality expression by infinite degrees of awareness, within and without the dimensions of man, where the proto-pattern of the Divine Plan evident within man is the occurence of attention by degree of distinction, through which attention exists.

The constitution of free will evident within man is the potentiality contained by intrinsic act of the awareness of awareness as but a means of choice as to what and how distinctions arise from the interior depths of observation, for choice is evident by degree of selective attention giving or recieving and from this attention cause is evident where the effects are the distinctions which arise by nature of the fabric of experiential reality itself as but the natural act of awareness.

[Age]

One would be very good indeed if one did not benefit from Improvement.

Great. So, I suggest instead of saying things like, 'you, others, need tutoring in communication', and if 'this' is replaced with things like, 'We all could do with more tutoring in communication', then 'that one' would not come across, through communication, that 'it' is somehow 'better' than 'the others'.

Which, in and of itself, is a 'lesson' 'we' could all learn to become 'better' in communication with 'each other'.

You don't need to be told who makes the best use of English on the forum.

If 'you' say so. But, are you implying that 'you' know 'me' better than 'I' do?

Also, 'i' have no clue as to who makes the best of "english" on 'this' forum, (if 'that' is what you meant).

Try thinking this out for yourself ,then what you do is try to formulate a general rule for good use of English for the purpose of transmitting ideas.

Again, the main reason 'I' am, here, in 'this forum' is to learn how to communicate better with you, human beings.

What is the 'this' word in relation to, exactly, which you suggest or tell me to, 'Try thinking out for "myself"?

What do you mean by, 'try to formulate a general rule' for good use of "english", (for the purpose of transmitting ideas)?

1. What does the word, 'good', (or 'bad), in relation to 'use of "english", even mean or is referring to, exactly?

2. Will 'you' inform 'us' of what 'your own general rule' is for, so-called, 'good use' of "English"?

3. Is not the 'best rule' to 'transmit ideas' to just be 'succinct'?

If yes, then what I have found when communicating with you human beings is that you all have previously obtained 'beliefs', which I have found are impossible to 'infiltrate' no matter how 'succint' words are.

Yes, 'be succinct' is a good rule for a philosophy discussion. Editing one's ideas for succinctness helps the transmitter himself, as well as the receiver of a communication.
I absolutely understand your frustration. If you wish to ask me any succinct question I will do my best to answer it as lucidly , fully, and honestly as I can.

You have already demonstrated you can think for yourself. Doing philosophy in a group risks publishing very personal sensitive ideas. That is why philosophy is classed among other humanities subjects such as human geography, history, creative writing, drama. autobiography.

I have found some posters are easier to read than others and I'm a little surprised you cannot identify any. Some posters are still very much seekers after reasonable ideas and have not formulated any previous suppositions.

If you did a tutored course in philosophy it would be the tutor's job to explain so you understand.

What do you think or believe 'it' is, exactly, that I would need a "tutor" to explain, so that I could understand?

[Belinda]

Great. So, I suggest instead of saying things like, 'you, others, need tutoring in communication', and if 'this' is replaced with things like, 'We all could do with more tutoring in communication', then 'that one' would not come across, through communication, that 'it' is somehow 'better' than 'the others'.

Which, in and of itself, is a 'lesson' 'we' could all learn to become 'better' in communication with 'each other'.


If 'you' say so. But, are you implying that 'you' know 'me' better than 'I' do?

Also, 'i' have no clue as to who makes the best of "english" on 'this' forum, (if 'that' is what you meant).


Again, the main reason 'I' am, here, in 'this forum' is to learn how to communicate better with you, human beings.

What is the 'this' word in relation to, exactly, which you suggest or tell me to, 'Try thinking out for "myself"?

What do you mean by, 'try to formulate a general rule' for good use of "english", (for the purpose of transmitting ideas)?

1. What does the word, 'good', (or 'bad), in relation to 'use of "english", even mean or is referring to, exactly?

2. Will 'you' inform 'us' of what 'your own general rule' is for, so-called, 'good use' of "English"?

3. Is not the 'best rule' to 'transmit ideas' to just be 'succinct'?

If yes, then what I have found when communicating with you human beings is that you all have previously obtained 'beliefs', which I have found are impossible to 'infiltrate' no matter how 'succint' words are.

Yes, 'be succinct' is a good rule for a philosophy discussion. Editing one's ideas for succinctness helps the transmitter himself, as well as the receiver of a communication.
I absolutely understand your frustration. If you wish to ask me any succinct question I will do my best to answer it as lucidly , fully, and honestly as I can.

You have already demonstrated you can think for yourself. Doing philosophy in a group risks publishing very personal sensitive ideas. That is why philosophy is classed among other humanities subjects such as human geography, history, creative writing, drama. autobiography.

I have found some posters are easier to read than others and I'm a little surprised you cannot identify any. Some posters are still very much seekers after reasonable ideas and have not formulated any previous suppositions.

If you did a tutored course in philosophy it would be the tutor's job to explain so you understand.

What do you think or believe 'it' is, exactly, that I would need a "tutor" to explain, so that I could understand?

History of ideas is a usual structure for philosophy for beginners.

[Age]

Yes, 'be succinct' is a good rule for a philosophy discussion. Editing one's ideas for succinctness helps the transmitter himself, as well as the receiver of a communication.
I absolutely understand your frustration. If you wish to ask me any succinct question I will do my best to answer it as lucidly , fully, and honestly as I can.

You have already demonstrated you can think for yourself. Doing philosophy in a group risks publishing very personal sensitive ideas. That is why philosophy is classed among other humanities subjects such as human geography, history, creative writing, drama. autobiography.

I have found some posters are easier to read than others and I'm a little surprised you cannot identify any. Some posters are still very much seekers after reasonable ideas and have not formulated any previous suppositions.

If you did a tutored course in philosophy it would be the tutor's job to explain so you understand.

What do you think or believe 'it' is, exactly, that I would need a "tutor" to explain, so that I could understand?

History of ideas is a usual structure for philosophy for beginners.

But, what I have noticed is each and every so-called "tutor", like each and every other 'person', just provides their own personal and subjective perspective of what 'the history' 'of ideas' are. Which, obviously, can be in complete opposition. Exactly like what each and every person's own views and perspectives of each and every so-called "philosopher's" own individual and personal subjective ideas, views, and perspectives are, exactly, can be in complete contrast.

Also, what is the actual purpose of learning about the 'history of ideas', if past ideas have never led to any actual real benefit for humanity, humankind, nor for even Life, Itself?

Surely there could be and/or even must be better new/er ideas that would be better to be focused on, instead, right?

[Belinda]

What do you think or believe 'it' is, exactly, that I would need a "tutor" to explain, so that I could understand?

History of ideas is a usual structure for philosophy for beginners.

But, what I have noticed is each and every so-called "tutor", like each and every other 'person', just provides their own personal and subjective perspective of what 'the history' 'of ideas' are. Which, obviously, can be in complete opposition. Exactly like what each and every person's own views and perspectives of each and every so-called "philosopher's" own individual and personal subjective ideas, views, and perspectives are, exactly, can be in complete contrast.

Also, what is the actual purpose of learning about the 'history of ideas', if past ideas have never led to any actual real benefit for humanity, humankind, nor for even Life, Itself?

Surely there could be and/or even must be better new/er ideas that would be better to be focused on, instead, right?

Any tutor who uses her job for political motives should be sacked. In theory you are right , but a good tutor will try her hardest to be objective.

You may be right. However we do need to have faith in something don't we?

New ideas are what we today call creativity. Any tutor worthy of the name 'educator' would encourage creativity. But always within reason.

[MikeNovack]

Also, what is the actual purpose of learning about the 'history of ideas', if past ideas have never led to any actual real benefit for humanity, humankind, nor for even Life, Itself?

Surely there could be and/or even must be better new/er ideas that would be better to be focused on, instead, right?

Age, how do you propose identifying "new/er ideas" without knowledge of "old/er" ideas? Don't you need to be able to say "not one of those" and doesn't that require you to be able to know "those". Or do you think you have identified a property common to "those"? In which case, don't you need to know those to conirm that each of them has this property.

I am far less certain than you are about there being anything entirely new under the sin (in Philosophy)

[Eodnhoj7]

Also, what is the actual purpose of learning about the 'history of ideas', if past ideas have never led to any actual real benefit for humanity, humankind, nor for even Life, Itself?

Surely there could be and/or even must be better new/er ideas that would be better to be focused on, instead, right?

Age, how do you propose identifying "new/er ideas" without knowledge of "old/er" ideas? Don't you need to be able to say "not one of those" and doesn't that require you to be able to know "those". Or do you think you have identified a property common to "those"? In which case, don't you need to know those to conirm that each of them has this property.

I am far less certain than you are about there being anything entirely new under the sin (in Philosophy)

Very true statement.

[Age]

History of ideas is a usual structure for philosophy for beginners.

But, what I have noticed is each and every so-called "tutor", like each and every other 'person', just provides their own personal and subjective perspective of what 'the history' 'of ideas' are. Which, obviously, can be in complete opposition. Exactly like what each and every person's own views and perspectives of each and every so-called "philosopher's" own individual and personal subjective ideas, views, and perspectives are, exactly, can be in complete contrast.

Also, what is the actual purpose of learning about the 'history of ideas', if past ideas have never led to any actual real benefit for humanity, humankind, nor for even Life, Itself?

Surely there could be and/or even must be better new/er ideas that would be better to be focused on, instead, right?

Any tutor who uses her job for political motives should be sacked. In theory you are right , but a good tutor will try her hardest to be objective.

1. Firstly, I am not even sure why you were thinking about politics, here, and then introduced the 'politics' word, here. I certainly never used the 'political' word in a y thing of mine that you quoted above, here. So I do not know why you said any thing about 'politics' nor why you said and write, 'in theory I am right'.

2. Why just 'try to be' objective? Why not just be 'objective' always, anyway?

You may be right.

In regards to 'what', exactly?

However we do need to have faith in something don't we?

you do not 'need to', as once upon a time 'you' did not proves, irrefutably, that you do not 'need to'.

However, while you do 'believe' that you do 'need to', then 'you' will keep telling "yourself" that 'you' do 'need to'.

And, for those while they are 'believing' that they do 'need to', or 'must have to', have faith in some thing, then I suggest that 'they' have faith in the True Self, within, alone. For guidance, for tuition, and for the ability to accomplish and achieve whatever 'it' is they seek and/or want.

New ideas are what we today call creativity

While it is through 'creativity', itself, 'new ideas' are formed and obtained, 'new ideas' are just 'new ideas', and, 'creativity' is just 'creativity', itself. Well to me anyway. The two are not the same, and do mean different things.

Although 'creativity' can lead to 'new ideas', 'new ideas' can also lead to the 'drawing out' of 'the creativity' from within others. How this happens and occurs will very soon come to be fully recognised, seen, and understood.

Any tutor worthy of the name 'educator' would encourage creativity.

The best and greatest 'tutors', in Life, in relation to actual 'living', already exist among you. you adult human beings, however, in the days when this is being written, just do not recognise them, nor listen and follow them.

Now, any of you 'current' human beings with the name and/or label 'educator' would be best learning what the word, 'education', once meant.

And, I will again suggest that you do not assume, and/or then believe, what I am talking about, referring to, intending, and/or meaning in absolutely any of what I have just said and wrote, here, in this post, in this thread, or in this whole forum, and instead just seek out clarification, and thus clarity, first, and always.

But always within reason.

And, here is what would say and call is 'the crux of every thing, here'.

Creativity, itself, is boundless, unlimited, and infinite. However, besides the fact that each adult individual has a different perspective of what is 'within reason's, each time a so-called "educator" 'encourages creativity' 'within reason's they have just limited 'another's creativity' to 'fit into', or maybe more correctly to 'squash into', 'that one's' own very 'limited box'. Or, very 'limited and bounded world view'.

[Age]

Also, what is the actual purpose of learning about the 'history of ideas', if past ideas have never led to any actual real benefit for humanity, humankind, nor for even Life, Itself?

Surely there could be and/or even must be better new/er ideas that would be better to be focused on, instead, right?

Age, how do you propose identifying "new/er ideas" without knowledge of "old/er" ideas?

Really, does it matter anyway? If 'any idea' is put forward, and some one says, 'That is an old idea', then okay. What does it really matter?

And, if 'old ideas' are known, or not, then so what?

1. Obviously 'every idea' that comes to be known, by some one, will be a 'new idea' to that one at some particular point in their life. If 'it' was an 'old idea' to someone else, then who really cares?

2. What does it really matter anyway about identifying 'new/er ideas' from 'old/er ideas'?

3. What really matters, well to me anyway, is that 'any idea' works and 'fits in' with making 'the world' a better place for every one, as One.

4. Identifying 'newer from older' ideas is one thing, anyway. But, what I asked was,
'What is the actual purpose of learning about the 'history of ideas',
Especially if past ideas have never led to any actual real benefit for humanity, humankind, nor for even Life, Itself?

5. Learning the 'history of ideas' is also not 'the same' as learning to 'identify ideas'.

Don't you need to be able to say "not one of those" and doesn't that require you to be able to know "those". Or do you think you have identified a property common to "those"? In which case, don't you need to know those to conirm that each of them has this property.

Irrelevant.

Identifying 'new/er' from 'old/er' ideas is just a never ending continual process anyway.

I am far less certain than you are about there being anything entirely new under the sin (in Philosophy)

Okay.

In every generation of human beings, there has always been some, who are either or both scientifically and/or philosophically inclined, who believe that there are some things that human beings can not learn or understand more about. Some older human have a tendency to believe that they, others, or 'we' have reached the pinnacle of understanding and/or if knowing in regards to some things.

However, some know otherwise. That is, until every one is living together in peace and in harmony, as One, then there will always be 'new/er ideas' that could arise. For example, 'the idea' that, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you', although an 'old/er ideas', is not the best or most right idea 'out there'. But, by ust adding, another 'old/er ideas' to it, like, 'But only if you were in their shoes', then doing this could make those two 'old/er ideas' a much better 'new/er ideas', and one that actually works in creating a Truly better world for every one, as One. Then, does it really matter about identifying what is 'new', 'newer', 'old', and/or 'older', here?

If yes, then why?

What I find is really, and most, important, here, is that 'any idea' helps in creating what 'it' is that every one, as One, wants.

Oh, and by the way, any and every idea is just always once 'new/er', and becomes 'old/er', at varying different times to varying different people, anyway. In other words identifying 'new/er' from 'old/er' things just happens and occurs naturally anyway.

What is 'new' to one is 'old' to another, and, what is 'old' to one is 'new' to another. Not every one obtains the same 'new knowledge/ideas’ at the exact same time. So, identifying what is considered 'new' from what is considered 'old' is absolutely relative, and thus subjective, to the observer.

[Belinda]

But, what I have noticed is each and every so-called "tutor", like each and every other 'person', just provides their own personal and subjective perspective of what 'the history' 'of ideas' are. Which, obviously, can be in complete opposition. Exactly like what each and every person's own views and perspectives of each and every so-called "philosopher's" own individual and personal subjective ideas, views, and perspectives are, exactly, can be in complete contrast.

Also, what is the actual purpose of learning about the 'history of ideas', if past ideas have never led to any actual real benefit for humanity, humankind, nor for even Life, Itself?

Surely there could be and/or even must be better new/er ideas that would be better to be focused on, instead, right?

Any tutor who uses her job for political motives should be sacked. In theory you are right , but a good tutor will try her hardest to be objective.

1. Firstly, I am not even sure why you were thinking about politics, here, and then introduced the 'politics' word, here. I certainly never used the 'political' word in a y thing of mine that you quoted above, here. So I do not know why you said any thing about 'politics' nor why you said and write, 'in theory I am right'.

2. Why just 'try to be' objective? Why not just be 'objective' always, anyway?

You may be right.

In regards to 'what', exactly?

However we do need to have faith in something don't we?

you do not 'need to', as once upon a time 'you' did not proves, irrefutably, that you do not 'need to'.

However, while you do 'believe' that you do 'need to', then 'you' will keep telling "yourself" that 'you' do 'need to'.

And, for those while they are 'believing' that they do 'need to', or 'must have to', have faith in some thing, then I suggest that 'they' have faith in the True Self, within, alone. For guidance, for tuition, and for the ability to accomplish and achieve whatever 'it' is they seek and/or want.

New ideas are what we today call creativity

While it is through 'creativity', itself, 'new ideas' are formed and obtained, 'new ideas' are just 'new ideas', and, 'creativity' is just 'creativity', itself. Well to me anyway. The two are not the same, and do mean different things.

Although 'creativity' can lead to 'new ideas', 'new ideas' can also lead to the 'drawing out' of 'the creativity' from within others. How this happens and occurs will very soon come to be fully recognised, seen, and understood.

Any tutor worthy of the name 'educator' would encourage creativity.

The best and greatest 'tutors', in Life, in relation to actual 'living', already exist among you. you adult human beings, however, in the days when this is being written, just do not recognise them, nor listen and follow them.

Now, any of you 'current' human beings with the name and/or label 'educator' would be best learning what the word, 'education', once meant.

And, I will again suggest that you do not assume, and/or then believe, what I am talking about, referring to, intending, and/or meaning in absolutely any of what I have just said and wrote, here, in this post, in this thread, or in this whole forum, and instead just seek out clarification, and thus clarity, first, and always.

But always within reason.

And, here is what would say and call is 'the crux of every thing, here'.

Creativity, itself, is boundless, unlimited, and infinite. However, besides the fact that each adult individual has a different perspective of what is 'within reason's, each time a so-called "educator" 'encourages creativity' 'within reason's they have just limited 'another's creativity' to 'fit into', or maybe more correctly to 'squash into', 'that one's' own very 'limited box'. Or, very 'limited and bounded world view'.

We human beings are none of us objective. Only machines can be wholly objective.
We human beings are political animals . A proper tutor will try to be as objective and apolitical as she can be.

[Age]

Any tutor who uses her job for political motives should be sacked. In theory you are right , but a good tutor will try her hardest to be objective.

1. Firstly, I am not even sure why you were thinking about politics, here, and then introduced the 'politics' word, here. I certainly never used the 'political' word in a y thing of mine that you quoted above, here. So I do not know why you said any thing about 'politics' nor why you said and write, 'in theory I am right'.

2. Why just 'try to be' objective? Why not just be 'objective' always, anyway?

You may be right.

In regards to 'what', exactly?

However we do need to have faith in something don't we?

you do not 'need to', as once upon a time 'you' did not proves, irrefutably, that you do not 'need to'.

However, while you do 'believe' that you do 'need to', then 'you' will keep telling "yourself" that 'you' do 'need to'.

And, for those while they are 'believing' that they do 'need to', or 'must have to', have faith in some thing, then I suggest that 'they' have faith in the True Self, within, alone. For guidance, for tuition, and for the ability to accomplish and achieve whatever 'it' is they seek and/or want.

New ideas are what we today call creativity

While it is through 'creativity', itself, 'new ideas' are formed and obtained, 'new ideas' are just 'new ideas', and, 'creativity' is just 'creativity', itself. Well to me anyway. The two are not the same, and do mean different things.

Although 'creativity' can lead to 'new ideas', 'new ideas' can also lead to the 'drawing out' of 'the creativity' from within others. How this happens and occurs will very soon come to be fully recognised, seen, and understood.

Any tutor worthy of the name 'educator' would encourage creativity.

The best and greatest 'tutors', in Life, in relation to actual 'living', already exist among you. you adult human beings, however, in the days when this is being written, just do not recognise them, nor listen and follow them.

Now, any of you 'current' human beings with the name and/or label 'educator' would be best learning what the word, 'education', once meant.

And, I will again suggest that you do not assume, and/or then believe, what I am talking about, referring to, intending, and/or meaning in absolutely any of what I have just said and wrote, here, in this post, in this thread, or in this whole forum, and instead just seek out clarification, and thus clarity, first, and always.

But always within reason.

And, here is what would say and call is 'the crux of every thing, here'.

Creativity, itself, is boundless, unlimited, and infinite. However, besides the fact that each adult individual has a different perspective of what is 'within reason's, each time a so-called "educator" 'encourages creativity' 'within reason's they have just limited 'another's creativity' to 'fit into', or maybe more correctly to 'squash into', 'that one's' own very 'limited box'. Or, very 'limited and bounded world view'.

We human beings are none of us objective. Only machines can be wholly objective.

Is 'this' an 'objective Truth' or just your own personal 'subjective truth', only, here?

We human beings are political animals . A proper tutor will try to be as objective and apolitical as she can be.

Why does "she" just not be Truly objective, and non political, all of the time. "she" obviously does not 'have to be' political nor unobjective.