Philosophy Now Forum

"It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is known, but to question it."
— Jacob Bronowski (The Ascent of Man)

I've enjoyed several years of higher education and found my self lucky to come into contact with teachers who were highly motivated to unapck and criticise the disciplines they taught. Parallel to these were the more standardised perveyors of the established views and norms of the topic.
I think it fair to say that I gained more from the former. The ones for whom the above quote was not scary, than I did from the latter types.

What has been your experience?

you don't fall off the ladder as often...

then again...

-Imp

There are pros [more rigorous, systematic, deeper, complex, etc. ] with 'higher education" but the con is the 'higher' the education, the narrower the field of knowledge one is confined to as with specialization of a PhD.

What is important is the mastering of philosophy-proper of its basic tool of critical thinking and other relevant tools starting from an early age throughout one's education from lower to higher.
Critical thinking will prevent one from being ideological with the knowledge one has supposedly learned.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 4:08 am There are pros [more rigorous, systematic, deeper, complex, etc. ] with 'higher education" but the con is the 'higher' the education, the narrower the field of knowledge one is confined to as with specialization of a PhD.

What is important is the mastering of philosophy-proper of its basic tool of critical thinking and other relevant tools starting from an early age throughout one's education from lower to higher.
Critical thinking will prevent one from being ideological with the knowledge one has supposedly learned.

That is true, but along the way you acquire transferable skills, so that your skills in understanding, research, writing and reporting are enhanced and can be transfered to other areas of thinking.
In many ways that is why a critical approach, no matter the discipline, is key to personal improvement.
I agree that philosophy can be, and I emphasis can be, the best way to achieve these skills.

But of you are just going to use those skills to peddle a belief system then you might as well have stayed in church, rather than spend time being educated.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:36 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 4:08 am There are pros [more rigorous, systematic, deeper, complex, etc. ] with 'higher education" but the con is the 'higher' the education, the narrower the field of knowledge one is confined to as with specialization of a PhD.

What is important is the mastering of philosophy-proper of its basic tool of critical thinking and other relevant tools starting from an early age throughout one's education from lower to higher.
Critical thinking will prevent one from being ideological with the knowledge one has supposedly learned.

That is true, but along the way you acquire transferable skills, so that your skills in understanding, research, writing and reporting are enhanced and can be transfered to other areas of thinking.
In many ways that is why a critical approach, no matter the discipline, is key to personal improvement.
I agree that philosophy can be, and I emphasis can be, the best way to achieve these skills.

But of you are just going to use those skills to peddle a belief system then you might as well have stayed in church, rather than spend time being educated.

So we first need critical-thinking skills than exploit the pros of higher education and be mindful of its cons.
I believe once a person understands and practices critical-thinking proper [as defined] it is not likely one will fall into the ideological and dogmatic trap.

The problem is where one psychological drives from the existential crisis is so strong, one can be blinded to ignore or sacrifice critical thinking, especially when the issue it too complex to handle.

• At present I am reading,
  Good Calories, Bad Calories
  Fats, Carbs and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health
  by Gary Taubes
  
  which demonstrated why the supposedly "highly educated" mainstream medical scientists [since 50 years ago and still now] believe saturated fats and low carbohydrates caused obesity, diabetes heart diseases and all the chronic diseases of civilization which is false. This false belief is based on merely correlation and not on justified cause/effect.
  
  This is a clear case of a lack of critical-thinking proper that had caused the deaths of many.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:38 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:36 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 4:08 am There are pros [more rigorous, systematic, deeper, complex, etc. ] with 'higher education" but the con is the 'higher' the education, the narrower the field of knowledge one is confined to as with specialization of a PhD.

What is important is the mastering of philosophy-proper of its basic tool of critical thinking and other relevant tools starting from an early age throughout one's education from lower to higher.
Critical thinking will prevent one from being ideological with the knowledge one has supposedly learned.

That is true, but along the way you acquire transferable skills, so that your skills in understanding, research, writing and reporting are enhanced and can be transfered to other areas of thinking.
In many ways that is why a critical approach, no matter the discipline, is key to personal improvement.
I agree that philosophy can be, and I emphasis can be, the best way to achieve these skills.

But of you are just going to use those skills to peddle a belief system then you might as well have stayed in church, rather than spend time being educated.

So we first need critical-thinking skills than exploit the pros of higher education and be mindful of its cons.
I believe once a person understands and practices critical-thinking proper [as defined] it is not likely one will fall into the ideological and dogmatic trap.

The problem is where one psychological drives from the existential crisis is so strong, one can be blinded to ignore or sacrifice critical thinking, especially when the issue it too complex to handle.

• At present I am reading,
  Good Calories, Bad Calories
  Fats, Carbs and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health
  by Gary Taubes
  
  which demonstrated why the supposedly "highly educated" mainstream medical scientists [since 50 years ago and still now] believe saturated fats and low carbohydrates caused obesity, diabetes heart diseases and all the chronic diseases of civilization which is false. This false belief is based on merely correlation and not on justified cause/effect.
  
  This is a clear case of a lack of critical-thinking proper that had caused the deaths of many.

Interesting you should mention diet, since I have also been cribbibg up on the nwe nurtition.
I'm currelty fasting and loosing half a pound a day. I'm already 14ilbs lighter simply by ignoring the standard advice. Having been a yoyo dieter all my life, i'va avoided the punishing sort of obesity that my father suffered from, but have never managed to get near my ideal weight

The advice to limit fat and to consume more carbs has actually caused the massive crisis in diabetes. At my age with a consistently higher than normal blood sugar I have had to take action.
I'm leaning towards keto, but my main strategy is to initiate a non-feeding state to lower insulon without lowering BMR, by having one good meal per day. but fasting for the rest of the time.

But even now we can see the seeds of a new blind orthodoxy in the way some of the fasting gurus peddle their wares.
There is a concept that in order to loose weight you have to achieve a caloric deficit. THe new gurus demand that this idea is completely debunked, and are vociferous in saying so. The trouble is that regardless of all the rest, the CICO (corories in calories out), is an indelible truth. IF you eat more than you need you are going to store food. And if you want to loose that storage you are going to have to burn more than you consume.
Obviously there is more to it than that because the body is a complex black box. ANd you have to account for fat and water reserves, as well as glycogen in the liver and the balance of triglycerides and fatty acids. And the all important hormones espacially INSULIN.
So whilst CICO is not a very good tool for weight loss, it is wrong to throw it out completely, since it is unavoidably true.

I wonder how long it will be before the fasting/clever guts/ low carb phalanx starts to become the new orthodoxy with its high walls of authority?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:21 pm "It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is known, but to question it."
— Jacob Bronowski (The Ascent of Man)

I've enjoyed several years of higher education and found my self lucky to come into contact with teachers who were highly motivated to unapck and criticise the disciplines they taught. Parallel to these were the more standardised perveyors of the established views and norms of the topic.
I think it fair to say that I gained more from the former. The ones for whom the above quote was not scary, than I did from the latter types.

What has been your experience?

I believe that Mark Twain settled this score in the 19th century...

"I never let my schooling to interfere with my education."

simplicity wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:27 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:21 pm "It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is known, but to question it."
— Jacob Bronowski (The Ascent of Man)

I've enjoyed several years of higher education and found my self lucky to come into contact with teachers who were highly motivated to unapck and criticise the disciplines they taught. Parallel to these were the more standardised perveyors of the established views and norms of the topic.
I think it fair to say that I gained more from the former. The ones for whom the above quote was not scary, than I did from the latter types.

What has been your experience?

I believe that Mark Twain settled this score in the 19th century...

"I never let my schooling to interfere with my education."

In 19thC America what was laughingly called schooling was nothing like education as we know it today, though it shares much with bad education as known today.
Victorian schools were more about "instruction", indoctrination and rote learning, usually backed up with a length of willow on the back of the knuckles or buttocks.
And this very much goes back to the distinction I made in the first post.
The task of education ought to be the production of an open mind.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:39 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:38 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:36 am

That is true, but along the way you acquire transferable skills, so that your skills in understanding, research, writing and reporting are enhanced and can be transfered to other areas of thinking.
In many ways that is why a critical approach, no matter the discipline, is key to personal improvement.
I agree that philosophy can be, and I emphasis can be, the best way to achieve these skills.

But of you are just going to use those skills to peddle a belief system then you might as well have stayed in church, rather than spend time being educated.

So we first need critical-thinking skills than exploit the pros of higher education and be mindful of its cons.
I believe once a person understands and practices critical-thinking proper [as defined] it is not likely one will fall into the ideological and dogmatic trap.

The problem is where one psychological drives from the existential crisis is so strong, one can be blinded to ignore or sacrifice critical thinking, especially when the issue it too complex to handle.

• At present I am reading,
  Good Calories, Bad Calories
  Fats, Carbs and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health
  by Gary Taubes
  
  which demonstrated why the supposedly "highly educated" mainstream medical scientists [since 50 years ago and still now] believe saturated fats and low carbohydrates caused obesity, diabetes heart diseases and all the chronic diseases of civilization which is false. This false belief is based on merely correlation and not on justified cause/effect.
  
  This is a clear case of a lack of critical-thinking proper that had caused the deaths of many.

Interesting you should mention diet, since I have also been cribbibg up on the nwe nurtition.
I'm currelty fasting and loosing half a pound a day. I'm already 14ilbs lighter simply by ignoring the standard advice. Having been a yoyo dieter all my life, i'va avoided the punishing sort of obesity that my father suffered from, but have never managed to get near my ideal weight

The advice to limit fat and to consume more carbs has actually caused the massive crisis in diabetes. At my age with a consistently higher than normal blood sugar I have had to take action.
I'm leaning towards keto, but my main strategy is to initiate a non-feeding state to lower insulon without lowering BMR, by having one good meal per day. but fasting for the rest of the time.

But even now we can see the seeds of a new blind orthodoxy in the way some of the fasting gurus peddle their wares.
There is a concept that in order to loose weight you have to achieve a caloric deficit. THe new gurus demand that this idea is completely debunked, and are vociferous in saying so. The trouble is that regardless of all the rest, the CICO (corories in calories out), is an indelible truth. IF you eat more than you need you are going to store food. And if you want to loose that storage you are going to have to burn more than you consume.
Obviously there is more to it than that because the body is a complex black box. ANd you have to account for fat and water reserves, as well as glycogen in the liver and the balance of triglycerides and fatty acids. And the all important hormones espacially INSULIN.
So whilst CICO is not a very good tool for weight loss, it is wrong to throw it out completely, since it is unavoidably true.

I wonder how long it will be before the fasting/clever guts/ low carb phalanx starts to become the new orthodoxy with its high walls of authority?

CICO is common sense, obvious, & basic physical science [1st Law of Thermodynamics, law of conservation of energy] but it will be a problem when it is ideological. This is one of the limitation and problem of 'higher education' which can lead to dogmatism.

As you mentioned, "Obviously there is more to it than that because the body is a complex black box .." that is why we need philosophy-proper to dig into the complex variables within the black-box that contributed to obesity.

At present there are two main models on the cause of obesity,

• 1. the dominant Energy Balance Model (EBM), energy-dense, tasty, modern processed foods drive a Positive energy balance through increased intake, and thereby result in fat deposition.
  
  2. Carbohydrate-Insulin Model (CIM), a crucial effect of diet is metabolic, by influencing substrate partitioning.
  Rapidly digestible carbohydrates, acting through insulin and other hormones, cause increased fat deposition, and thereby drive a positive energy balance.

Actually both models relied basically on the CICO principle to control obesity, i.e. the calories in must be less than calories out to reduce weight for an obese person.

The problem with the EBM model is it does not take into account the more complex metabolic factors like the impact of insulin & carbohydrates and other metabolic elements like what the CIM is doing.

The Carbohydrate-Insulin Model (CIM) whilst is more effective than the basic EMB model, acknowledges it has its limitations and thus more deeper investigations are needed to understand the obesity pandemic.

Since my blood/urine test had shown numerous unfavorable results some years ago, I have been very aggressive in taking steps to get them within normal range and since then had achieved a lot of success. I have also done very extensive research into those areas of concern, especially on the Low Card Diet - more protein & high fats [not Keto std which require greater discipline and compliance to maintain ketosis].
I have also lost a lot of weight based on intermittent fasting, exercise, resistance training using weights, 5days-water-fasting three times a year to exploit autophagy, etc.

I have also done extensive and deeper research into biochemistry, i.e. into the black-box re the complexities of how body [insulin, cholesterol metabolism, nutrition, digestion, etc.] works.

My point is, to be efficient for the well being of one's life, we need to enhance one's philosophy-proper impulse to supplement the necessary but limited 'higher education.'

As I defined, philosophy-proper is the inherent impulse to continuously improve and optimize the overall well-being [in terms of knowledge, wisdom, health, etc.] of the individual[s] and therefrom humanity using whatever tools and resources available.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:22 am In 19thC America what was laughingly called schooling was nothing like education as we know it today, though it shares much with bad education as known today.
Victorian schools were more about "instruction", indoctrination and rote learning, usually backed up with a length of willow on the back of the knuckles or buttocks.
And this very much goes back to the distinction I made in the first post.
The task of education ought to be the production of an open mind.

Is not the institution of education the poster child for what socialism brings to the table?

A child's education should be guided by his/her parents until it can be self-directed.

simplicity wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:31 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:22 am In 19thC America what was laughingly called schooling was nothing like education as we know it today, though it shares much with bad education as known today.
Victorian schools were more about "instruction", indoctrination and rote learning, usually backed up with a length of willow on the back of the knuckles or buttocks.
And this very much goes back to the distinction I made in the first post.
The task of education ought to be the production of an open mind.

Is not the institution of education the poster child for what socialism brings to the table?

A child's education should be guided by his/her parents until it can be self-directed.

Yes, improvements in education have always been when socialism has had the reigns of power.
The right prefer to train the masses for war fodder, socialism trains the child to think and challenge the power of the state.
THat is until the revolution is won then the right get control and just call themselves socialist, which is what happened in RUssia and China.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:11 pm

simplicity wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:31 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:22 am In 19thC America what was laughingly called schooling was nothing like education as we know it today, though it shares much with bad education as known today.
Victorian schools were more about "instruction", indoctrination and rote learning, usually backed up with a length of willow on the back of the knuckles or buttocks.
And this very much goes back to the distinction I made in the first post.
The task of education ought to be the production of an open mind.

Is not the institution of education the poster child for what socialism brings to the table?

A child's education should be guided by his/her parents until it can be self-directed.

Yes, improvements in education have always been when socialism has had the reigns of power.
The right prefer to train the masses for war fodder, socialism trains the child to think and challenge the power of the state.
THat is until the revolution is won then the right get control and just call themselves socialist, which is what happened in RUssia and China.

It's interesting to finally get your take on that.

Unfortunately you can't cherry-pick what you wish to believe is the result of "real" socialism [v. the dark-side of the same]. But let's talk about education.

I've been through a great deal of schooling and I have seen my four children go through it as well. Having everybody mass-indoctrinated is not a good thing. Even the so-called best education possible [Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, etc.] will get you what you have now, a world run by complete idiots...people with false views and no courage what-so-ever.

The world is a mess because it is run by an educated elite that cares for nothing but itself. This is what your socialist education delivers...

Not a lot these days, if so-called 'academics' are anything to go by. Universities certainly aren't what they used to be. They've been taken over by PC wankers with autism.

simplicity wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:18 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:11 pm

simplicity wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:31 pm

Is not the institution of education the poster child for what socialism brings to the table?

A child's education should be guided by his/her parents until it can be self-directed.

Yes, improvements in education have always been when socialism has had the reigns of power.
The right prefer to train the masses for war fodder, socialism trains the child to think and challenge the power of the state.
THat is until the revolution is won then the right get control and just call themselves socialist, which is what happened in RUssia and China.

It's interesting to finally get your take on that.

Unfortunately you can't cherry-pick what you wish to believe is the result of "real" socialism [v. the dark-side of the same]. But let's talk about education.

I/m not cherry picking.
What socialism is, is written down. There are clear ideas and manifestos.

I've been through a great deal of schooling and I have seen my four children go through it as well. Having everybody mass-indoctrinated is not a good thing. Even the so-called best education possible [Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, etc.] will get you what you have now, a world run by complete idiots...people with false views and no courage what-so-ever.

The world is a mess because it is run by an educated elite that cares for nothing but itself.

Yes. the capitalists.

# This is what your socialist education delivers...

Bullshit.
Your ignorance is astoninshing.
THe people in control are the IVy league in the US, mostly capitalist, financiers, lawyers, shareholders. Kunts like Trump.
In the UK it is the Buller Boys. People who are rich , from rich families that have been rich for generations; aristocrats and those who aspire to high office and noble honours. None of that is socialism.
The people in control are not fucking socialists you dickhead.

Just look away, sculp. Look away.