"Teachers already know that errors or falsehoods are rarely found in homework (except in those exercises where a fixed result must be produced, or propositions must be translated one by one). Rather, what is more frequently found—and worse—are nonsensical sentences, remarks without interest or importance, banalities mistaken for profundities, ordinary “points” confused with singular points, badly posed or distorted problems, all heavy with dangers, yet the fate of us all.” — StreetlightX
"... remarks without interest or importance", what a load of supercilious bullshit. — Pseudonym
What I often got though was a disorganized "picture of thought" as if students believed their impressions of what I was trying to impart could simply be regurgitated on the page and it was up to me to reinterpret that back into some properly organized whole. There was a lack of application of thought to thought, and what I tended be given back was a filtered version of what I gave out rather than a positive transformation of it. — Baden
What I often got though was a disorganized "picture of thought" as if students believed their impressions of what I was trying to impart could simply be regurgitated on the page and it was up to me to reinterpret that back into some properly organized whole. There was a lack of application of thought to thought, and what I tended to be given back was a filtered version of what I gave out rather than a positive transformation of it — Baden
it may also be the case that the integration/systematization took place internally yet they lacked the linguistic capacity to follow on through. It is often mistaken that people who can't speak well don't think well — intrapersona
Moreover, if attention is not properly paid to this inherent structure of thought, much of what we say and think will not merely be wrong, but much worse - transcendentally stupid. — StreetlightX
This immediately makes me think of Australia's new PM's making loud noises about the need to legislate religious freedom. Under questioning he's been made to admit that there is no social problem that currently needs solving in this regard. Yet he ploughs ahead, justifying it on the basis of a need 'to prevent future problems arising'.Thoughts which do not respond to any necessity, which are not motivated by the milieu in which they come to be: — StreetlightX
Teachers already know that errors or falsehoods are rarely found in homework — StreetlightX
"... remarks without interest or importance", what a load of supercilious bullshit. — Pseudonym
Why? — Baden
Please dont ban me, I'm not calling anyone stupid, — Akanthinos
Isn't that one of the main points of Kant's demonstration of the antinomies of reason? — Wayfarer
So, while I agree that there is 'transcendental stupidity', there might also be transcendent realities ... 'There would be no fool's gold', as the saying has it, 'if there were no gold'.
"a stupidity built into the nature of thought" could hardly be more democratic. — Baden
if someone were to use this idea as a cudgel for an ideology, they'd simply be being hypocrites in an amusing way. — Baden
I would like to call this transcendental stupidity. But actually it's quite a cunning way of dog-whistling to religious bigots, that he will seek to restore the permission to discriminate against others that they used to have before the introduction of anti-discrimination legislation (which in most cases is at least a couple of decades old). — andrewk
it's about as democratic a take on stupidity as you might find: a communi stultitia. — StreetlightX
You can blithely use this fallacy to dismiss any "transcendental thinking" you don't personally like as "stupid", "trivial', "insignificant" or "irrelevant". — Janus
The fact that you find the idea "intuitively obvious" pretty much says it all. It 'seems' right to you, so it is right and anyone who sees things another way clearly must be wrong. — Pseudonym
How do you see this as democratic... Is it being done by vote? — Pseudonym
Who's doing the judging about which expositions express this base stupidity. — Pseudonym
Give me an example of someone not using the idea as a cudgel for an ideology. Again, it's just seeing what 'seems' right to you as being obviously right in a universal sense. What you, and those who share your views, espouse is simply 'the truth' and everyone else is promoting an 'ideology'. — Pseudonym
the belief that one can even 'teach' English is an ideology. — Pseudonym
No, I already gave reasons why it fit with my experience of pedagogy. — Baden
The word "democratic" doesn't apply exclusively to elections. I'm using it here in its senses of 'common/shared/available to all' etc. — Baden
Anyone who can think. — Baden
integrated with our intuitive judgements (based on experience) — Baden
The idea that we judge simply on the basis of what 'seems' right or feel we are promoting some universal truth as opposed to everyone else's ideology is bizarre. — Baden
To claim that they can't would be analogous to claiming that we can't make sound and reasonable judgements concerning each other's posts here on this forum, and can just retort to every criticism with "well, that just seems right to you". — Baden
Exactly. It fit with your experience. Do you really believe that what you were identifying in those essays was something universal as opposed to your own personal preference. Your "evidence of a structure to thought" was simply evidence of a structure you recognised. — Pseudonym
Yeah, basically that is what I believe to be the case absent of some specified utility to which the thought is put the achievement of which is empirically verifiable. — Pseudonym
Now obviously as an intelligent adult teaching children, that which you recognise as structure and organisation is quite likely to represent a greater level of consideration than your students, but this cannot simply be presumed to be true for anyone who's had the time to organise their thought, especially about subjects like philosophy and arts. — Pseudonym
Back to the self-immunised selection. Who are those who can think? The ones who give the answers you think are right, of course. — Pseudonym
So what do you think your 'intuitive judgement' is other than what 'seems' right? How would you distinguish those two concepts, because they certainly sound similar enough to me not to be labelled 'bizarre'? — Pseudonym
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.