Philosophy Now Forum

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:38 pm

Greta wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:02 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:06 amWhat I want is no longer possible in public schools. Secular intolerance has won the day and the young are being indoctrinated into service to the great Beast. One has to know when to throw in the towel. I surrender. That is why I encourage private education of a type built on esoteric principles or recognition of the nature of the inner man.

Anyone can verify the tripartite soul or nature of Man. We have a mechanical, emotional, and intellectual nature that function as separate parts out of balance. Each person has an inclination. The ideal for a human education is to harmonize the inner man

Without getting into details, human education should include gymnastics and exercises to calm the body. Music, arts, mythology, of a certain quality should be introduced to arouse the mind and heart in an enjoyable manner to feel beyond the mundane rather than indoctrinate or suppress them as is done now. Along with critical thinking, special attention should be made to open the student to conscious knowledge of the “good” in the Platonic sense: to create an opening to the third direction of thought.

None of this is possible now because of secular bias. Gymnastic invites law suits and gender disputes. Arguments over emotional quality makes teaching objective emotional quality impossible. Arguments over the “good” and the assertion that God must be kept out of secular schools prohibit opening the mind through anamnesis. Needless to say, secular intolerance will prevent a human education in favor of secular indoctrination into the beliefs of the Beast ignoring the question of objective human meaning and purpose in relation to the Good which is the foundation of a human education.

I cannot imagine a better education for the very young than what is provided by the Blue Rock School. Obviously such schools and their teachings are rare but the young who experience it as opposed to learning the art of putting condoms on cucumbers are indeed fortunate.

In other words, you'll like schools to adopt the Steiner model.

I like that but it's not "secularism" but competition that is the issue, competition for university places. The more people you have, the more competition there is for everything, and all good and beautiful things are "rationalised out". I noticed that in the workplace how, every time a job presented some enjoyable aspects you could be sure it would be taken away and replaced by policy straitjackets.

The more people there are, the more they need to be organised to prevent chaos. Look at how people are living in India.

This process of rationalising has been in train for centuries, at least. People 100 years ago would find the controls of today's modern living intolerable, and this generational tension has always existed. We are logically most adapted the decade of our formative years so the inevitable changes that occur over time will usually not be welcome.

Education should provide a foundation for becoming a conscious human being. The human condition has made it so that we don’t know what it is. We create faulty foundations for education. As you suggest as society becomes more complex rationalization natural for a faulty foundation produces chaos. That is what we have now; chaos and fine speeches. It is clear that the situation is hopeless in a secular society which denies the normal human connection to higher consciousness and intensifies its denial through egoistic secular intolerance.

That is why my concern is for the young minority capable of gaining from a human education based on a realistic foundation which requires the rejection of the negative emotion of secular intolerance

Do we create "faulty foundations for education"? Has there ever been a good foundation?

If so, how could ancient models work in a high paced, ultra competitive world, bursting at the seams with ever more people seeking an ever greater share of a rapidly shrinking resource pie? Rationalisation was and is always inevitable - of everything. Take away five billion people and most of our problems would be solved, including the challenge of attaining personal depth when constantly being rushed, pushed and pressured to work harder and longer by an ever more dominant billionaires and multinational companies and their tamed governments.

The notion of obligations comes before that of rights, which is subordinate and relative to the former. A right is not effectual by itself, but only in relation to the obligation to which it corresponds, the effective exercise of a right springing not from the individual who possesses it, but from other men who consider themselves as being under a certain obligation towards him. Recognition of an obligation makes it effectual. An obligation which goes unrecognized by anybody loses none of the full force of its existence. A right which goes unrecognized by anybody is not worth very much.

It makes nonsense to say that men have, on the one hand, rights, and on the other hand, obligations. Such words only express differences in point of view. The actual relationship between the two is as between object and subject. A man, considered in isolation, only has duties, amongst which are certain duties towards himself. Other men, seen from his point of view, only have rights. He, in his turn, has rights, when seen from the point of view of other men, who recognize that they have obligations towards him. A man left alone in the universe would have no rights whatever, but he would have obligations.

Nick_A wrote:...
What collective does she belong to? ...

The modern way is to debate philosophy. ...

I am proposing a discussion about how these ideas effect us. Simone effects people personally. We may as well discuss the experience

I’d rather not discuss it on a site which may feel free to be rude. It isn’t just personal to me but many Russians, Armenians, Greeks, etc. hold it in high esteem. Why risk abuse which would never happen during an in person art discussion?

So what is this relationship?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:08 am

Nick_A wrote:...
What collective does she belong to? ...

Left-wing Christian of the mystical bent.

The modern way is to debate philosophy. ...

No really. The modern way is logical analysis and critique where possible. The idea is to take on the thoughts of another without the hindsight of the present and see if one can find a flaw and if not then to see what one could use today. There's also Logic itself as a study and a whole host of sub-disciplines but in general it's to develop a mind capable of analysing and comparing ideas or at least it was once in the Anglo-American tradition, the Continental tradition is different.

I am proposing a discussion about how these ideas effect us. Simone effects people personally. We may as well discuss the experience

Actually no, you are taking a very small subset of philosophy as there are many more ideas than Weil's out there.

I’d rather not discuss it on a site which may feel free to be rude. It isn’t just personal to me but many Russians, Armenians, Greeks, etc. hold it in high esteem. Why risk abuse which would never happen during an in person art discussion?

Religious iconography then.

So what is this relationship?

I told you, there is no 'life as a whole' but for me it's essentially the relationship between you and your family, love basically and it teaches one the love for others.

What collective does she belong to? ...
Left-wing Christian of the mystical bent.

Yet the person of Simone Weil is here as surely as in any of her other books—the person who is excruciatingly identical with her ideas, the person who is rightly regarded as one of the most uncompromising and troubling witnesses to the modern travail of the spirit.

The modern way is to debate philosophy. ...
No really. The modern way is logical analysis and critique where possible. The idea is to take on the thoughts of another without the hindsight of the present and see if one can find a flaw and if not then to see what one could use today. There's also Logic itself as a study and a whole host of sub-disciplines but in general it's to develop a mind capable of analysing and comparing ideas or at least it was once in the Anglo-American tradition, the Continental tradition is different.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2017 1:11 am Greta

Do we create "faulty foundations for education"? Has there ever been a good foundation?

If so, how could ancient models work in a high paced, ultra competitive world, bursting at the seams with ever more people seeking an ever greater share of a rapidly shrinking resource pie? Rationalisation was and is always inevitable - of everything. Take away five billion people and most of our problems would be solved, including the challenge of attaining personal depth when constantly being rushed, pushed and pressured to work harder and longer by an ever more dominant billionaires and multinational companies and their tamed governments.

Perhaps a reasonable foundation for education existed in pre-sand Egypt or Atlantis but the reality is that it is now only possible on a small scale run by people who understand what a human education is and how best to provide it. This is one of these deep ideas Simone Weil introduces that people can benefit from by discussing rather than arguing.

... Self oriented secularism is only concerned with rights. The battle over rights is all we read about.

... Dominant secularism will never allow it and insist that speeches and the wisdom of the Great Beast will inspire voluntary obligations. Of course this will never happen so the demand for rights will become more violent, the only hope will be a tyrant who can create equality in slavery solving the problem of rights. Secular intolerance will pave the way for the tyrant. The tyrant will provide your obligations. You will have won. The question will become what you have won.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:11 pm Why are you opposed to understanding and so easily satisfied with the superficial?

The idolatry of the protected cucumber.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:06 am

Greta wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:03 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:07 pmGreta, Belinda, and A_uk are all concerned with governments. But if governmentts just reflect what we are, how could they be any different from what we are?

Actually, I asked because for dozens of pages you have talked about how schooling must become more religiously based. You may quibble and say you are not aligned with those *ptui!* secular religions but that leaves a question as to what you actually want.

If you want schools to change their syllabus generally that is political. That is concern with governments. That is your concern.

Now maybe you will answer my earlier question as to what you actually want?

What I want is no longer possible in public schools. Secular intolerance has won the day and the young are being indoctrinated into service to the great Beast.

What essentially in your opinion am I missing that the cast of characters responsible for my current understandings were and are oblivious of?

Nick_A wrote:...
A collective needs more than one person. Find me another woman university trained in science and philosophy with the quality of conscious attention necessary to profit from living a life identical with her philosophy sufficiently to become a Christian mystic

A good description of modern philosophy. It is like arguing algebra. ...

Words lack quality and philosophy becomes limited to logical relationships. ...

The philosophy I’m interested in enables words to have psychological meaning natural for those who define philosophy as the love of wisdom. ...

Take the question I raised with greta for example. People can argue theory as to the relationship between obligations and rights but I’d like to discuss how we experience these concepts in our being if we do at all. ...

Simone provides the opportunity. No need to get stuffy around her. Perhaps we have never opened to the question. That for me is the value of philosophy and impartial contemplation and I believe for others as well given half a chance. If we don’t feel philosophical truths, what good are they?

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:39 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2017 1:11 am Greta

Do we create "faulty foundations for education"? Has there ever been a good foundation?

If so, how could ancient models work in a high paced, ultra competitive world, bursting at the seams with ever more people seeking an ever greater share of a rapidly shrinking resource pie? Rationalisation was and is always inevitable - of everything. Take away five billion people and most of our problems would be solved, including the challenge of attaining personal depth when constantly being rushed, pushed and pressured to work harder and longer by an ever more dominant billionaires and multinational companies and their tamed governments.

Perhaps a reasonable foundation for education existed in pre-sand Egypt or Atlantis but the reality is that it is now only possible on a small scale run by people who understand what a human education is and how best to provide it. This is one of these deep ideas Simone Weil introduces that people can benefit from by discussing rather than arguing.

... Self oriented secularism is only concerned with rights. The battle over rights is all we read about.

... Dominant secularism will never allow it and insist that speeches and the wisdom of the Great Beast will inspire voluntary obligations. Of course this will never happen so the demand for rights will become more violent, the only hope will be a tyrant who can create equality in slavery solving the problem of rights. Secular intolerance will pave the way for the tyrant. The tyrant will provide your obligations. You will have won. The question will become what you have won.

Like the many everyman types who trusted Trump, who embodied the most predatory and amoral aspects of of the wealthy who have ruined their lives, you are blaming the wrong people.

Again, the issue is not "secularists", it's the fact that multinational companies and billionaires are taking over the role of governance from the government - once supposedly the people's representative but now uncritical lackey of their new self-interested feudal lords.

When speaking or rights and responsibilities, do fossil fuel companies take their social responsibilities seriously - or consider them at all, outside of litigation risks?

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:16 am Nick_A wrote:

What essentially in your opinion am I missing that the cast of characters responsible for my current understandings were and are oblivious of?

Uncertainty

I don't see what is so beneficial about this approach for a seeker of truth.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:32 pm Nick wrote, referring to uncertainty which I claimed that , to his detriment, he lacked:

I don't see what is so beneficial about this approach for a seeker of truth.

I know you don't and that is your downfall. Your hubris consumes your freedom.

Actually it's literally 'a friend of wisdom'. The point of modern philosophy is still to be a friend of wisdom and it also teaches you to watch out for those who wish to use words to psychologically influence one.

Philo refers to agape love which is the highest form of love and friendship.
BS for the sake of self esteem is not philo. Who do you know that doesn’t try to use words to influence people? That is the purpose of modern philosophy as a whole. Hopefully Simone Weil’s sincere dedication to truth can inspire some others to do the same and feel the value of doing so.

What does 'in our being' even mean

I agree but I don't think you're much interested in impartial contemplation as you've already made your mind up about your metaphysical reality.