Religion has been on earth for thousands and thousands of years and it never figured out, and does not know how to produce healthy humans. — JerseyFlight

I've seen some quite healthy and happy Mormons.Even Jehova's Witnesses, in between statements of "there is only one true God," seemed happy. I guess it's all an illusion. Of course there is always collateral damage of some sort... those who can never belong to the group and suffer for it.

Happiness is not the sole marker of psychological health. One can learn to be happy being oppressed. Talking about what comprises a healthy human doesn't merely equate to feelings of happiness, the spectrum is much broader.

Knowing that knowledge is a privileged enterprise empowers us to create a more intelligent species. — JerseyFlight

This is all very idealistic. Knowledge is not something disembodied and abstract. At least not in the form that modern society is privileging it.

Modern society is pragmatic. It wants scientists so it can build machines, harness resources, run a growth-predicated economy. Once it has got that going, then it needs to generate consumption to match. It needs a creative community who invent new ways to waste energy and keep the whole deal going.

So history has been advanced by this general entropic imperative. It is "good" to establish a culture where people think rationally, and better yet, mathematically. That gets the basic structure of economic expansion on a "free world" going. Then because this mode of growth is so successful, society has to also build its creativity to provide a sink for all the production.

With tongue in cheek, I describe this pragmatic view of knowledge a little negatively. But I just want to underline the unthinking positivity with which you characterise human knowledge and intelligence.

Is it good, is it bad, is it is what it is?

I think we at least have to start closer to the pragmatic truth of knowledge. It must be serving a purpose. The question becomes whose?

Is it in fact ours? It may well be. Or you may be talking about some Romanticised image of the actuality.

It is indeed a significant fact of history that humans have shifted up a level from being "emotional" animals to being "rational" beings due to the semiotic power of developing language.

But have we overshot the mark in trying to construct a purely rational society? Or even a purely mechanistic one, now that we have added the semiotics of numerical syntax to that of linguistic syntax?

It could also be that this is just Hegelian inevitability. We are following Nature's course somewhere "good".

It is a live question. And the deeper one to be addressed.

This is all very idealistic. — apokrisis

No this is not all "very idealistic" but very materialistic, just the opposite, it is the result of thinking about reality from the basis of its most primitive point of concretion. As to what I said about producing healthy humans, see Allan Schore, Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self. What happens to a human in the process of development, and how it happens, is not idealism but has empirical verification.

It is indeed a significant fact of history that humans have shifted up a level from being "emotional" animals to being "rational" beings due to the semiotic power of developing language. — apokrisis

This is too vague for me, we can pinpoint it far more specifically than this. You didn't obtain the knowledge you have because you grew up in a war-torn country that was lacking in social resources. The actual case is that it's just the opposite. Right now you are manifesting, not that you have superior will power, but that you have been a beneficiary of society to a higher degree than others. I deal in concrete facts not abstractions.

Now, I'm not trying to put you on the defensive, but I am trying to make sure this conversation is not derailed by idealism. This is no easy task.

I think we at least have to start closer to the pragmatic truth of knowledge. It must be serving a purpose. The question becomes whose? — apokrisis

I do not find this to be a very intelligent question for the simple fact that it pretends like humans are not allowed to answer with their own interest. Last time I checked food and water were the basic building blocks of intellectual life. Do you deny this? You can try to say it fails to make contact with your position, but it is in fact the most primitive point of your being and every other intellectual being. Hard to see how one could negate it with idealism? You can of course, try to minimize it, and pretend like food, clean water, shelter, are just given, but you are intelligent enough to know that would merely display ignorance or arrogance.

But have we overshot the mark in trying to construct a purely rational society? Or even a purely mechanistic one, now that we have added the semiotics of numerical syntax to that of linguistic syntax? — apokrisis

While I fully embrace the importance of these questions and ask them with you, they overshoot and presume too much about my post. It is not an abstract problem when we talk about poverty and lack of education throughout the world. One should admit this. The questions you are raising, are in fact, secondary questions, they are questions of privilege, once the basic needs of humanity have been met, then we can ask the finer questions you have raised. Seriously, imagine putting these questions to a million war torn refugees. What we need is a society that can get to the secondary questions and questions beyond, how come you can get here? Examine the concrete facts and you will see that your will had nothing to do with it. Come now, isn't it smarter to act at the level of conditioning as opposed to try to pretend there is no conditioning? If we know we are determined by social process and resources, isn't it intelligent to try to intelligently determine this process? Why leave it to chance when we have the tool of thought?

It could also be that this is just Hegelian inevitability. We are following Nature's course somewhere "good". It is a live question. And the deeper one to be addressed. — apokrisis

Event if this is the deeper question, it is not the question of highest value and it is not the question of highest relevance, that belongs to the basic structure of society, specifically, the intelligence of man's production process, because this determines everything else.

Right now you are manifesting, not that you have superior will power, but that you have been a beneficiary of society to a higher degree than others. — JerseyFlight

This simply suggests you haven't read what I said.

I said you are being idealist because you are not understanding that Nature is also about the imperative of entropy production - the dissipation of material gradients.

That is where pragmatism is a corrective. It makes us go looking for the reasons why we would even hold rationality, science and a good education in such high regard. Society is training us for something!

As it happens, I indeed had every privilege. I attribute nothing to any will power or natural diligence. In fact I was as lazy as it comes at school or university.

But being detached is just another level of privilege as it means you can walk through any door, take any path that excites your curiosity.

Last time I checked food and water were the basic building blocks of intellectual life. Do you deny this? — JerseyFlight

Again, you just fundamentally misread my position. A mistake you seem to repeat with many posters here.

I frequently cite Maslow's hierarchy of needs. My whole post is emphasising the concrete rootedness of knowledge - the pragmatism of being an organism. So it is quite amazing you attack me with the very points that I've just laboured.

It is not an abstract problem when we talk about poverty and lack of education throughout the world. — JerseyFlight

But I am asking why you would consider that "a problem".

Aren't folk in Africa or India quite happy - if they have sustainable traditional lifestyles? Isn't that what Western anthropological "happiness" researchers find to their amazement? What kind of psychic oppression are you wanting to liberate them from? Are their lives going to be improved by Latin lessons and trigonometry?

So you start off with the presumption that a lack of education is a problem, and that poverty exists because of it.

I reply, dial back the presumptions. First ask why we might think education so vital. Why do you make it sound an inherent good?

Seriously, imagine putting these questions to a million war torn refugees. — JerseyFlight

Jesus. Whose war tore them up? Why are they having to flee? Those are the relevant questions.

If the answer was that it was because of "modern rational civilisation doing the things it does", then you can see where you are going so wrong. Your words are shallow rhetoric meant to tug on the heart strings. (Ironically.)

If we know we are determined by social process and resources, isn't it intelligent to try to intelligently determine this process? — JerseyFlight

Again, what else am I arguing except to actually think about the social constructionism at work here?

You are only telling me to do what I have done.

The puzzle is why you can't see this. Why are you so defensive about your post being critiqued - to the degree that you need to say that what I should have said, and indeed did say, is what I didn't say, but its opposite?

That's a ninja level of dissembling, you would have to agree. :grin:

There is too much for me to reply to in your response. This seems quite important:

I said you are being idealist because you are not understanding that Nature is also about the imperative of entropy production - the dissipation of material gradients. — apokrisis

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this?

The first time this idea appeared you said:

This is all very idealistic. Knowledge is not something disembodied and abstract. At least not in the form that modern society is privileging it. — apokrisis

I do not see how these two relate, though I expect one is an expansion of the other?

I agree that knowledge is not something disembodied and abstract. I am talking about the concrete possession of it, which is a thing that does exist, and most specifically, in a positive form that you would validate (even if that form was only your own). My charge is that this always presupposes favorable social conditions (which I think you agree with) and that we must reverse engineer the process (replicate it or reproduce it, pick your word).

In contrast you are trying to derail the conversation in the direction of privileged questions (please note, I don't much like this word, and I don't like using it here). What you are getting at is indeed quite abstract:

That is where pragmatism is a corrective. It makes us go looking for the reasons why we would even hold rationality, science and a good education in such high regard. Society is training us for something! — apokrisis

This is an abstract program. We don't need millions of people asking the privileged question of why we would hold rationality, science or good education in such high regard, you are ignoring the concrete fact that the positive fruit of these categories already exists, and that is what I am referring to. I comprehend what you are asking, it was asked, far more profoundly than you are asking it here, by the Frankfurt School.

Back to the concrete. I referenced an exceedingly important text by Allan Schore, in this text he has traced the biological and psychological development of human beings from the early stages of life. This is a major game changer and it has broad significance to philosophy-- philosophers just don't know it yet. If you and I can actually begin to understand each other, and be honest and open, willing to have our beliefs changed, much progress can be made between us. The consciously combined power of minds is the medium of excellence that is seldom achieved in society.

I can put it in simpler terms, is it even a matter of asking questions, or is it a matter of action at this point? We have completed so much theory, there is no point in reinventing the wheel. This is one reason I would never write a text on Critical Thinking, it would be useless, I know of several masterpieces in this area. What this allows us to do is use this material to better society. By proceeding thus we can make more progress. We must overcome the psychological desire to prove something about ourselves, we must reach the point of maturity where we are trying to change something in society, not merely prove ourselves in society.

No this is not all "very idealistic" but very materialistic — JerseyFlight

I think he’s not saying “idealistic” in a sense opposed to “materialistic”, but a sense meaning “naively optimistic”, or “not skeptical enough”. He’s saying you seem to value intelligent, reason, etc, as virtues or ideals in themselves, and he’s trying to call attention to the practical reasons to value them instrumentally instead.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this? — JerseyFlight

Seems simple enough. Society invests in knowledge creation for pragmatic reasons. We need to know how to harness the material resources of the natural world to our advantage.

So there is a purpose behind our concept of what constitutes knowledge.

That raises the question of in whose interests would you be wanting to impose some universal system of education? The objective sounds grand and impressive. But you are so far just presuming it has legitimacy. And that “our education” is the privileging one.

We don't need millions of people asking the privileged question of why we would hold rationality, science or good education in such high regard, you are ignoring the concrete fact that the positive fruit of these categories already exists, — JerseyFlight

You call the fruits positive. That is the presumption I have challenged you to justify.

The fruits at least seem mixed to me.

And the equation with poverty is suspect. Education doesn’t have to cost much. Wealth is as much likely to result in intellectual indolence. Poor countries can churn out well educated people.

Your OP is full of florid statements about the need to produce healthy people and avoid individual pathology. And yet how much attachment is impossible in the modern nuclear family where parents are chasing careers and children are being pushed from birth to be genius achievers?

If you have an argument, it doesn’t feel well constructed so far.

I comprehend what you are asking, it was asked, far more profoundly than you are asking it here, by the Frankfurt School. — JerseyFlight

Perhaps. Or maybe the Frankfurt School gets a lot of stuff wrong. Does it have some concrete successes in terms of high functioning states?

I referenced an exceedingly important text by Allan Schore, in this text he has traced the biological and psychological development of human beings from the early stages of life. This is a major game changer — JerseyFlight

Seems like commonsense parenting. But modern life goes against that. One of my points was the concrete observation that an over-emphasis on “getting an education” is a major thing against actually getting a good one.

We must overcome the psychological desire to prove something about ourselves, we must reach the point of maturity where we are trying to change something in society, not merely prove ourselves in society. — JerseyFlight

This is very abstract. I have no idea what you mean in actionable terms.

So maybe you would bring up your kids exactly as I brought up mine. Maybe you have the same notions of what a well rounded person would be.

If so, all the theory talk is happily redundant.

Yep. So it isn’t the ideal vs the materialistic. A pragmatic dialectic would stress these two things must be complementary.

They have to be the two aspects of the functioning whole.

A problem with Marxism is that it was Romantically unbalanced. It presumed everyone would play nice if everything was communally owned.

But that isn’t a natural dynamic as Nature shows. Systems are built on the productive mix of competitive and cooperative behaviours.

So when it comes to education, it has to be complementary to the means of production. That. Is the general rule.

But then we can step back to critique the kind of society that results. Or also, the possibility that a society has an education pulling in one direction while its material economy is driving in another.

Religion has been on earth for thousands and thousands of years and it never figured out, and does not know how to produce healthy humans. — JerseyFlight

Its purpose is to bind groups with common values/purpose in a system of meaning, not to produce healthy humans, and certainly not to promote “the developmental quality of individuals”, because that would lead to independence, which is in opposition to the point of religion.

Knowing that knowledge is a privileged enterprise empowers us to create a more intelligent species.

I don’t follow this reasoning and skimming through the responses to date doesn’t help. Also, it’s unclear if the point is to create a more intelligent species or a healthier one.

You call the fruits positive. That is the presumption I have challenged you to justify. — apokrisis

This exchange has to be narrowed to get anywhere. Is there no such thing as a quality educated person? Is your criticism then an example of something that should be negated as opposed to replicated?

A healthy human is not just one who is physically healthy but one that is psychologically mature, to simplify it, not driven by defense mechanism or insecure rigidity.

By narrowed, you mean give my objections a wide berth?

I've already said I have my ideas about an ideal education. My parents applied them to me. I applied them to my kids. No one has any complaints.

But my point remains that what is "ideal" has to be plugged into what is "pragmatic", at least if we are talking about everyone on this crowded planet of ours.

Does everyone benefit from an "education"? If we are talking about reaching a post-doc level of comprehension, doesn't that just leave 99% of the population feeling "dumb".

If we are talking about having the most possible people fit to have happy lives, that feels like a very different social investment.

Reading your posts, one can only speculate where you sit on such concrete details.

And yet you are the one complaining my approach is too broad? :chin:

...not driven by defense mechanism or insecure rigidity. — JerseyFlight

So we need to be stable but plastic, clever but wise, young but old, etc.

If you believe in dialectics, then a balance of oppositions is implied. And yet we don't want to be too balanced either!

You did not answer my questions. You accused me and challenged me to justify my claim. As I already said, 'I am talking about the concrete possession of it, which is a thing that does exist, and most specifically, in a positive form that you would validate (even if that form was only your own).'

Please answer my questions.

Friend, I'm super disappointed. You are a total obscurantist and sophist. This is proven by the fact that in your last reply you 1) evaded my questions and 2) tried to introduce multiple red herrings into the exchange. This is dishonest. You are smart enough to know that when you answer my questions you will end up validating the very category you tried to deny, which then provides the premise from which to deduce my position.

You are smart enough to know that when you answer my questions you will end up validating the very category you tried to deny, which then provides the premise from which to deduce my position. — JerseyFlight

All I'm seeing on your end is either a trail of evasion or a constant failure to comprehend. So it is rich that you demand "answers" to questions you don't even seem clear about yourself.

Maybe someone else thinks you are making some kind of sense and will chip in with the replies you feel you need.

But in the end, what are we to make of "arguments" that go like this?....

For example, it is unlikely that a child growing up in the tragedy and violence of Syria, is going to have advanced knowledge in philosophy or science, let alone even much awareness of itself or the world. — JerseyFlight

Sure, bombs don't advance civilisation. At least for those bombed.

And yet bombs also drive civilisation's scientific advances.

Go figure.

Or instead, just steer a wide berth around anything that might actually challenge this kind of false equivalency.

You are now engaged in Ad Hominems. Please answer my questions.

Plato thought philosophers should be cultivated and free from distractions of work. I feel like he was a perfectionist who didn't see the philosopher in everyone. Dietrich von Hildebrand said that most people are not capable of any philosophical speculations. I think this is systematic of extreme traditionalism

You are now engaged in Ad Hominems. Please answer my questions. — JerseyFlight

You are now continuing with your evasions. Please start answering my questions.

Your position, in order to qualify as a refutation of my position, must in no way validate the existence of quality educated persons. If these people exist, it means society is already producing quality, and that is exactly my position. You denied the existence of this quality, that is why, properly and legitimately shifting the burden of proof, I asked you, 'Is there no such thing as a quality educated person?' This is not a hard question and the answer is obvious. Which then of course, makes my plea to expand what already exists valid! So I would like to make clear to all readers, there is a real elitism attached to your position. You are indirectly claiming that what you possess as an educated person 1) does not exist and 2) cannot be replicated and 3) (and this is where the elitism comes in) that we can't even talk about its integration. The whole time you are speaking from a privileged platform, denying the legitimacy of discourse on the very thing you have. This is not just elitism, it is a form of intellectual tyranny! Intellectuals like you are the problem with society. You are trying to de-legitimize the conversation by making use of a false and generalized negative. Why do you have to answer my questions? Because the burden of proof is in your court.

I fear that communist psychology is just a gateway to Islam

Your position, in order to qualify as a refutation of my position, — JerseyFlight

We’ve established that you have no particular position. There is nothing substantial as yet to be refuted. Only multiple question marks you haven’t addressed.

According to Richard Dawkin's book The Selfish Gene, we are naturally selfish. And yes it is selfish to be an individual. How else can you have romance, which of courses selfish. Someone can love from any mental state except insanity, but the fundamental fact is we are all selfish. So individualism is not a sin. The Dude abides too

I have no interest in evading my burden of proof. I am not trying to play a posture game. I just want to seek out truth, my motivation is not to be right. You raised many points and some of them may indeed stand to correct my position. I would only be grateful for it.

We’ve established that you have no particular position. — apokrisis

This is just an empty assertion, with no particular content.

What I said above was quite clear and quite correct. I will try to put in clearer terms.

Suppose I was talking about freedom in a time of slave plantations, and you went off on an abstract rant about "whose interests [would this freedom serve] would you be wanting to impose some universal system of freedom?"

This helps to expose your elitism. Because lots of people had freedom in America at the time of slave plantations. My position is exactly the same, lots of people have education throughout the world, and every occurrence of it is the result of social privilege. Just like you would be telling me I was wrong to speak of freedom back then, you are telling me that I am wrong to speak of education now. I hold my tongue, but you are seriously a despicable intellectual.

The

Do you consider it a crime not to be always thinking of other people's problems? If everyone did that communication would break down.

I have no interest in evading my burden of proof. I am not trying to play a posture game. I just want to seek out truth, my motivation is not to be right. You raised many points and some of them may indeed stand to correct my position. I would only be grateful for it. — JerseyFlight

This is just an empty assertion, with no particular content. :cool:

Suppose I was talking about freedom in a time of slave plantations, and you went off on an abstract rant about "whose interests [would this freedom serve] would you be wanting to impose some universal system of freedom?" — JerseyFlight

The question would be what interest was being served? That purpose would explain why some interest group might take one view rather than another.

And my general position would be to ask whether some universal system of freedom could even be the case. What would it look like if it was to meet all possible purposes of a variety of interest groups?

I would expect some universal story could be extracted. But I wouldn’t already presume it aligned with what suits me personally.

Just like you would be telling me I was wrong to speak of freedom back then, you are telling me that I am wrong to speak of education now. — JerseyFlight

I’ve said nothing of the sort of course.

I hold my tongue, but you are seriously a despicable intellectual. — JerseyFlight

That’s not holding your tongue. :rofl:

The question would be what interest was being served? That purpose would explain why some interest group might take one view rather than another. And my general position would be to ask whether some universal system of freedom could even be the case. What would it look like if it was to meet all possible purposes of a variety of interest groups? — apokrisis

And all the while you were busy asking would there have been free people at this time in the world?

The Romans were right to acclaim "Who is this Jewish deity lacking such wisdom as to allow himself to be tortured to death?"

Another sentence that doesn’t mean anything. :kiss: