New York City

[phyllo]

With what strings? Are the schools going to be "standardized," without regard for child, parent and community needs and standards? Is it going to become an indoctrination factory for the government, instead of a place of education? And these "improvement projects": will they only be done if a particular community wants them, or will they be imposed in the larger interests of the country, or in the ideological or electoral interests of the government itself? And what will these "improvements" be? In whose interest will things be "improved"?

Literacy would be good. But with what "literature"? And what will not be included? And who will make that decision? And what will this "literacy" consist of? Will it be merely the ability to read for oneself, or will it be a "literacy" in indoctrination?

The problem is that the State always has its own interests. These are not the interests of the community. So all these things can indeed become a "noooooooooo!"

Well if there is no standardization for the country, then every (little) community will set is own standards ... which may be high, mediocre or low. So you will end up with huge variations of knowledge and ability.

Oh NO! The education would be tailored to local needs! How horrible! Kids in Kansas wouldn't be forced to learn Critical Theory, and might learn crop rotation. How sad. They may become rich and successful Kansas farmers, but they'll never get to be idiot blue-hairs from Los Angeles! How tragic! We must standardize now!

See AJ's response. He gets it.

[Immanuel Can]

The "Levelers" are a historical artifact now. Whether we call them "right" or "left" has nothing to do with present day realities. Let's stick to clearer terms. Socialism is nicely defined by Marx and Engels as that situation in which the State owns the means of production.

And it IS relevant to your claim that (today) socialism can only be based on Marxism.

I notice that once again, you didn't even try to answer my question: who ELSE would you base your view on? Why won't you answer that?

Answer: because you would not find any other person more apt for the job than Marx. So you're criticizing nothing.

...you disbelieve that secularists can have morality.

Go back and read my last response, and you'll know you're wrong.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, we agree on all that.

...my primary struggle with “you” in a more abstract, cultural sense...

Well, you need to grow up and learn to deal with propositions, not cavil uselessly about how you feel about a given speaker. You'll "struggle" less, and be much happier.

Welcome to the world of philosophy.

A typical gambit! You play it often. However, I am not only concerned for abstract philosophical principles but rather the psychology of man.

And note the the entire thrust of what I said to you in that last post you skip, as if it were not written.

You will say something like “It has no relevance” or “I am not interested” and double-down on dismissal. And it is precisely there, in the attitude of dismissal, that the psychological element plays itself out.

This is the reason why “the man” cannot ever be dismissed from the conversation in every domain pertinent to human life. Now, rude baseless attacks on character are non-productive and in argumentation generally fallacious. But moreover diversionary.

But not so the consideration of the psychological element. It has to be handled delicately and best with elegance, elan and where possible panache.

Taking and integrating criticism is very very hard for you. It is a psychological problem not merely a philosophical one.

[Immanuel Can]

Well if there is no standardization for the country, then every (little) community will set is own standards ... which may be high, mediocre or low. So you will end up with huge variations of knowledge and ability.

Oh NO! The education would be tailored to local needs! How horrible! Kids in Kansas wouldn't be forced to learn Critical Theory, and might learn crop rotation. How sad. They may become rich and successful Kansas farmers, but they'll never get to be idiot blue-hairs from Los Angeles! How tragic! We must standardize now!

See AJ's response. He gets it.

I get it far more than you imagine, and I'll warrant, far, far more than you do...or very probably, ever could. But I'll leave you to imagine why that's true.

[phyllo]

I get it far more than you imagine, and I'll warrant, far, far more than you do...or very probably, ever could. But I'll leave you to imagine why that's true.

You love your ad homs.

[Immanuel Can]

And note the the entire thrust of what I said to you in that last post you skip, as if it were not written.

Once you go petty, I bother myself no more.

It'll stay that way.

If you get smart, I'll talk to you. You're capable. But you're more interested in posturing, bluster and incompetent attempts at psychoanalysis. It's all very boring, and not at all to the point.

When you get that, we can talk. Until then, I'll do something more useful.

[Immanuel Can]

I get it far more than you imagine, and I'll warrant, far, far more than you do...or very probably, ever could. But I'll leave you to imagine why that's true.

You love your ad homs.

It's not an ad hom. I think you'll find it's a verifiable claim, at least statistically.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Once you go petty, I bother myself no more.

You lie to yourself, Immanuel. It is a very human problem. You are not alone. My suggestion? Be stronger. If ‘pettiness’ is the block you stumble over, nimbly step over it. If you did that you could then respond to ideas challenging to your structures which are formidable. Trust me, this is more psychological than philosophical.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But you're more interested in posturing, bluster and incompetent attempts at psychoanalysis.

Ah, then you propose a competent psychoanalysis?

I agree. Our analysis on that level must aspire to competency.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I get it far more than you imagine, and I'll warrant, far, far more than you do...or very probably, ever could. But I'll leave you to imagine why that's true.

You love your ad homs.

I know the ‘virus’ irks you. I understand. Bear it if possible.

But here is a curious thing: Christianity is fundamentally a psychological stance. It deals with “the psyche” of man. And it is through and through one of “hominem”. That is its entire subject.

[phyllo]

I get it far more than you imagine, and I'll warrant, far, far more than you do...or very probably, ever could. But I'll leave you to imagine why that's true.

You love your ad homs.

I know the ‘virus’ irks you. I understand. Bear it if possible.

But here is a curious thing: Christianity is fundamentally a psychological stance. It deals with “the psyche” of man. And it is through and through one of “hominem”. That is its entire subject.

You think his ad homs, trolling and avoidance tactics are symptoms of the Christianity virus?

That's an interesting take on it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I notice that once again, you didn't even try to answer my question: who ELSE would you base your view on? Why won't you answer that?

Answer: because you would not find any other person more apt for the job than Marx. So you're criticizing nothing.

That is not quite true, Dear Immanuel. Novack referenced the Catholic Worker and Christian Personalism. At least in the case of Peter Maurin his personalism was based in Christian principles.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You think his ad homs, trolling and avoidance tactics are symptoms of the Christianity virus?

I am not ultimately concerned for the positions of our literal Immanuel Can. He is very good when he’s on the mark. And fails miserably when wrapped in his “stuff”.

My point transcends these disputes.

Christianity is overall a religious position dealing with “hominem”. In an ultimate sense, contrary to what IC says, his real concern is “hominem”.

And in this sense (though I choose to transcend Hebraic Christianity) so is mine.

[phyllo]

Hardly seems like philosophy at all.

It's love/hate the man rather than love wisdom.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Depends on who handles it.