An unpopular opinion of mine: you're not truly an educated Western citizen unless and until you know Greek and Latin. — Mikie

At the risk of admitting I am not truly educated I am somewhat in agreement. But knowing the languages is not enough. One must know and read the literature in those languages.

The old bachelor wasn't so clueless, I assure you. — green flag

Perhaps. I am addressing what was posted.

I don't think Brandom is so naive to think we tend to live up to our wonderful aspirations. — green flag

Ditto.

This is your argument to dismiss Systematic Knowledge of specialized authorities????( 35 years of advances in rapid pace). — Nickolasgaspar

I have not presented an argument and I am not dismissing systematic knowledge or the work of specialized authorities. Those who are worth their salt are in agreement with me as to the state of the art.

The ultimate nature of matter is irrelevant to the field of Neuroscience. — Nickolasgaspar

What is the "ultimate" nature of matter? How do you know it is irrelevant? The best approach to neuroscience is multidisciplinary. Solms agrees. To disregard the question of what matter is and what it does is to cut your legs off.

Different properties of Mind have distinct causal mechanisms in our brain. — Nickolasgaspar

And this is something that is still poorly understood and subject to substantial revision.

...to post your ignorant critique against their Systematic Knowledge — Nickolasgaspar

Take a deep breath Nicky. Go to your happy place and calm down. I have not given a critique. Ask someone you recognize as an authority how far along we are in our understanding of neuroscience, consciousness, the brain, the mind.

Since you don't accept any type of Epistemology — Nickolasgaspar

.

This seems desperate and is wildly off the mark. I have said nothing at all to indicate that I don't accept any type of epistemology.

I never do philosophy on the vague foundations of "all opinions are equal". — Nickolasgaspar

A good policy but again, off the mark.

And whether those interested in philosophy proper are in any better shape. — Noble Dust

Many are disappointed with and turned off by philosophy because it is not what they expected it to be. What they find are concerns matters of language, concepts, and argument, and little or nothing about the self, or, more precisely, themselves. They regard it as abstract, lifeless, and sterile.

They are, to a large extent, right.

People need to be met where they are, with their limited abilities and resources. Pop philosophy has the virtue of addressing them at a level they can understand. It is true that a lot of it is garbage, but then again, so is a lot of traditional and academic philosophy.

Kant understands judging and acting as applying rules, concepts, that determine what the subject becomes committed to and responsible for by applying them.

Seems more like Kant's misunderstanding. Abstract and bloodless. The distinction between humans and "merely natural creatures" looks like a denial of the fact that we are merely natural creatures. Creatures that are not free of or fully in control of natural desires and passions.

The process by which the whole evolves and develops systematically is a paradigmatically rational one, structured by the rhythm of inhalation or amplification by acknowledging new commitments and extracting new consequences, and exhalation or criticism by rejecting or adjusting old commitments in the light of their rational relations to the new ones.

We are not the rational beings Brandom imagines us to be.

The good beyond being or something ? — green flag

This might be of interest. It is, as I piece it together, Plato's argument against knowledge of the Good.

That others may share your opinions does not mean that they are more than opinions. Neuroscience is in its infancy. Our understanding of what matter is and what it is capable of continues to develop.

The question of what matter is capable of is related to but not the same as the question of what minds are capable of.

I have not provided a critique of your opinions. I simply pointed out the fact that those opinions are not facts.

You are confusing different properties of mind with Consciousness. — Nickolasgaspar

You are confusing your opinions with facts.

I don't see the harm. There is, after all, a line of cosmetics called Philosophy. Admittedly I was upset to learn that after years of difficult study I could purchase Philosophy for $29.99, but as I say in my forthcoming pop-philosophy book, life is not always fair.

DJ Trump spins another: the first time ever a porn star is paid to keep her mouth shut.

What would it be like if human beings shewed no outward signs of pain (did not groan, grimace, etc.)? — green flag

This should not be skipped over. There would be no public expression of pain. But there are public expressions of pain. And when someone expresses pain we know that they are in pain, unless they are faking. But there could be no faking if we did not know what it was for someone to be in pain.

Assuming a tribe could survive without eyesight (maybe they live in a system of caves), I don't see why they should have a problem learning about the color concepts in the English language. — green flag

Wittgenstein's thought experiments using tribes assumes isolation.

They could understand that a man got a ticket for running a red light. — green flag

They might understand that there are others who see something that they do not. Something they call colors, and that they are able to distinguish differences between them. The one they call red means stop and that a man who did not stop got a ticket.

I am going to leave it here.

Jesus often spoke with the authority of someone who had direct knowledge of God, — Wayfarer

We have no knowledge of how he spoke or what he said.

Paul spoke with what he claimed was the authority of Christ but did not call him a god.

He challenged the traditional interpretations of the Jewish Law, emphasizing the spirit rather than the letter. — Wayfarer

This was common practice for the rabbis's dialectical interpretations. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus stressed the letter of the Law.

He welcomed all people, regardless of their social status or background, whereas the rabbis tended to maintain the social heirarchy. — Wayfarer

More than likely this was the influence of Paul on the gospels, and reflected the split and growing animosity between Jesus' Jewish disciples and the followers of Paul. In addition, there were several Jewish sects with different social and religious beliefs and practices.

love for one's neighbor — Wayfarer

This is from Leviticus 19:18.

Jesus performed miracles, such as healing the sick and raising the dead, which were not part of traditional Jewish teachings, and which the Rabbis didn't or couldn't do. — Wayfarer

There were stories of other Jewish miracle workers in addition to the stories of Jesus.

'Pain' is not the name of a beetle. It's the name for a situation approached with aspirin and Novocain and hugs. — green flag

It is the name of something felt, the name of something that leads us to reach for aspirin and Novocain.

I'm frankly surprised to hear that claim from you. I thought you were down with Wittgenstein. — green flag

He is not proposing a theory of pain. He asks us to look at what actually happens. This is why I said that a concerned parent has a better idea of what pain is than someone whose concern is conceptual.

You won't like me saying this, but I don't think you've understood the beetle analogy. — green flag

Unlike the beetle in a box we do not know what pain is only from our own experience. Why would anyone not confused by philosophical confusion think otherwise?

I suppose those born blind don't know anything about color ? — green flag

If everyone in the tribe was blind what would they know about color?

It's the grammar of 'pain,' yes, that it tends to belong a particular person. — green flag

The grammar is based on the fact that I don't feel someone else's pain. It does not "tend to" and does not "belong" to a person. It is not a possession.

But we don't know from our own experience what it means to be in 'pain.' — green flag

Of course we do. Imagine a tribe where no one feels pain. The would have no idea what you are talking about.

In other words, the concept is conventional and public. — green flag

It is, but only because we experience pain. There would be no conventional and public concept of pain in a tribe where no one experiences pain.

I would like to emphasize that you seem to be quoting my paraphrase of another poster in order to correct me. (?) — green flag

I took it to be in accord with your earlier claim:

If your pain is radically yours, radically private, then I cannot 'rationally' comment on it at all. — green flag

Your use of paraphrase is suspect. Several times you attribute something to what was said that was not. In this case that it is "the same pain", which can cause all kinds of mischief and misunderstanding

Elsewhere:

Perhaps you are implicitly assuming — green flag

What you want to say, — green flag

You are assuming that 'pain' is like a label — green flag

Most of us have experienced something we call pain. Pain is "radically private" in that when I am in pain it does not hurt someone else. Pain is public in that we know from our own experience what it means to be in pain.

If 'pain' does not refer to different private experiences but rather to the same private experience, then I can sensibly talk about your pain, because it's the same as my pain. — green flag

It does not matter if it is the same or not. What matters is what caused it and how to alleviate it.

There are reasons he is called God, but that does not mean they are good reasons or even reasonable reasons. They are, however, reasons why Jesus would be pissed off if he knew someone was calling him God. But that's another story for another thread.

What is in the teachings of Jesus that are not in the teaching of Jewish scriptures and works of the rabbis?

I’m webmaster, zoom operator (services are online), and general tech resource. People often thank me for doing what I do — Art48

The problem arises when they thank Jesus for what someone does.

I really don’t understand this devotion to Wittgenstein and this obsession with language. — Michael

What he attempted to do was to straighten out the kind of confusion we see here. A parent attending to a child with an ear infection understands pain better than someone enchanted by and entangled in free floating reasoned argument abstracted from experience.

Wittgenstein says:

Philosophy unravels the knots in our thinking; hence its results must be simple, but its activity is as complicated as the knots that it unravels.

By philosophy he does not mean the kind of conceptual confusion philosophers get themselves into, but rather what he does to disentangle the knots they get themselves into. But too often readers get tangled up by the moves he makes to untangle the knots.

Another apt quote from him:

I am sitting with a philosopher in the garden; he says again and again 'I know that that’s a tree', pointing to a tree that is near us. Someone else arrives and hears this, and I tell him: 'This fellow isn’t insane. We are only doing philosophy.

If we are to make headway on the problem of consciousness where do you think it might come from if not cognitive science?

You don't sound to be familiar with Aristotle's work on the systematization of the field. — Nickolasgaspar

What are Aristotle's two basic steps? How do they form a system? What is the framework that led to knowledge of certain principles and causes?

Aristotle, like Plato and Socrates before him was a zetetic skeptic. He does not give us answers, although it may appear to the casual reader that he does. He wants us to think, not hang posters of wise statements on our cave walls.

In both the Physics and Metaphysics Aristotle introduces accidental causes. What are the implications of Aristotle’s accidental causes? Simply put, the cosmos cannot be understood in terms of the four causes or necessity. This fifth cause makes a systematic philosophy impossible.

And this is why those two steps are important in any Philosophical inquiry. — Nickolasgaspar

You mean the two steps you refuse to identify?

Well Socrates was (probably) Plato's creation and this is why we don't have any writings from this dude. — Nickolasgaspar

Socrates was a real person. His contemporaries Aristophanes and Xenophon also wrote about him. In any case, in the Phaedrus Plato's Socrates discusses the problem. "Wise statements" cannot be questioned. They cannot clarify or defend themselves.

Yes Socrates's method guided a discussion through challenging questions(απορίες), but those questions were design to expose inconsistencies between opinions, facts of the world and logic. — Nickolasgaspar

Aporia are not challenging questions, they are an impasse. The point where logos or reasoned discussion can go no further. The point where there are no answers to our questions. The point where problems go unsolved.

No they don't. — Nickolasgaspar

This is like answering the question "this or that?" by saying yes.

quote="Nickolasgaspar;795213"]But I still don't understand why you insist on talking about Plato or Socrates.[/quote]

In order to show that Bunge's assumption that philosophy is about problem solving is too narrow. It is true of much of modern philosophy but not ancient philosophy.

My question is really simple. How one can philosophize without using objective knowledge as the foundation for his auxiliary assumptions. — Nickolasgaspar

My answer is really simple. Philosophy is not grounded on objective knowledge. Modern philosophy attempted to establish such a ground but failed. This is one reason why there is so much interest in ancient philosophy. But we can also look at contemporary anti-foundationalist philosophers.

Actually they almost always end in aporia. If they don't , then it means we have the data to answer them....in that case we are no longer doing Philosophy, we are doing science. — Nickolasgaspar

We are more or less in agreement on this.

Philosophical frameworks (wise statements) are usually theories within a scientific field or in Mathematics. — Nickolasgaspar

If you are claiming that philosophical frameworks are not frameworks for doing philosophy, then we are in agreement. But I do not agree that theories in science and mathematics are a philosophical framework or wise statements.

You will need to provide an example or else I can not accept it as a meaningful answer . — Nickolasgaspar

In Plato's Symposium Socrates describes the philosopher as someone who loves wisdom. He calls this love eros, desire for something one does not have. Aristotle begins the Metaphysics by saying we desire to know. The Metaphysics does not satisfy that desire. The desire to know always exceeds what we know. In your own terms, it is not science.

that isn't an example. that is a vague claim. — Nickolasgaspar

Self-knowledge is not about:

objective , empirical data that allow a reality check over our conclusions. — Nickolasgaspar

We often deceive ourselves about ourselves. The problem is honesty, not empirical data. We can collect data that supports what we want to believe about ourselves and ignore what does not. We can think our self-evaluation is objective when it is not.

Don't you make any observations(acquire knowledge) — Nickolasgaspar

Two different things. Of course I make observations. I have not said anything that should lead you to think otherwise. We do acquire knowledge through observation, but have you ever observed that two people observing the same thing come away with different opinions? Opinions rather than knowledge.

You shouldn't question that because is not an assumption. Its a fact. — Nickolasgaspar

It is an assumption about philosophy as a whole, about all of philosophy as it is or should be.

The fact is, not all philosophy is about problem solving. That is why I have been talking about ancient philosophy.

This is what we as human beings do, trying to solve problems and questions. — Nickolasgaspar

Not all human beings are philosophers and not all attempts to solve problems are philosophical attempts to solve philosophical problems.

That's not even even meaningful. Statements don't have "a self". Can you elaborate? — Nickolasgaspar

You have unwittingly made my point. You ask for elaboration. A statement cannot provide elaboration.

That statements do not explain themselves does not mean that statements have "a self". It is necessary for someone to do what the statement cannot, address your misunderstanding.

Again the definition of the word includes the ability to make good judgment....I think that proves puzzle solving is what one can do by making a good judgment. — Nickolasgaspar

What one can do with knowledge of principles and causes is not the reason they are sought. The desire to know and what one does with that knowledge are not the same.

False Messiah. Def: — Leader whose followers get crucified before he does. — unenlightened

They do not believe he is a false messiah, but he does want them to believe that they are the one's being crucified. As he told the faithful in Waco:

They're coming after you.

Are you claiming that there are philosophical methods that ignore those two basics steps(all our epistemology ) but they still managed to steer our frameworks to wisdom? — Nickolasgaspar

What two basic steps?

Philosophy is not a how to manual. There are no frameworks to wisdom.

How one can even make any judgements without having actual material to judge? — Nickolasgaspar

I don't see how they could.

-Again, irrelevant! He made observations of the phenomenon in questions and he arrived to a wise claim. — Nickolasgaspar

This is simply wrong. Socratic philosophy is dialectical. The result is often aporia not wise claims. There is a reason Socrates never wrote anything. No book of "wise statements".

Same error you confuse the content with the quality that provides philosophical value at a statement! — Nickolasgaspar

I don't know what this means. Statements have content.

That is not what I rejected. I was referring to Plato's/Socrates — Nickolasgaspar

Plato's writings are works of philosophy. If you or Bunge make these overarching claims about what philosophy is and those claims exclude what Plato does, then the problem is with your claim.

Again, same error....the content of a philosophical Inquiry is irrelevant on how we evaluate the final product. — Nickolasgaspar

"Wise statements" are not the final product of the dialogues. They often end in aporia. It is the inquiry itself, thinking through the questions raised, that is at issue. That we cannot arrive at a "final product" is the point. We are left without wisdom. We are left in the position of the philosopher, that is, of one who desires to be but is not wise.

Now you may not agree, but your disagreement does not mean that the dialogues are excluded from philosophy.

Our (or Socrates) conclusions need to have a specific quality (wisdom) in order to be philosophical. — Nickolasgaspar

This leaves you in the precarious position of having to defend the claim that the Socratic dialogues are not philosophical.

Any objective , empirical data that allow a reality check over our conclusions. We will need an example. — Nickolasgaspar

Self-knowledge is the example.

Solving problems is only an inescapable side effect — Nickolasgaspar

Not according to Bunge. According to him solving problems is the goal of philosophy. I questioned that assumption. I don't think you understand that. You claimed that it is not an assumption. I asked you for clarification. If solving problems is only a side effect then you too reject his assumption.

Here we have a good example of why philosophy is not "wise statements". Statements cannot defend themselves against misunderstanding.

After all certaib principles and causes allow science to solve problems. — Nickolasgaspar

According to Aristotle it is not the ability to solve problems that makes one wise. You are looking at him through the lens of modern science.

You are confusing Socrate's interest in a specific topic (how best to live) with the overarching Philosophical method. — Nickolasgaspar

There are various philosophical methods. Philosophical methods are not for the sake of method. The method is not independent of what it is one seeks to know or understand or clarify, or, the case you are defending, the problems it is trying to solve. The latter is a part not the whole.

His famous quotes, which btw were wise statements, were the "tools" he used to make sense of that aspect of Human life. — Nickolasgaspar

Statements do not stand alone, they are part of his dialectical method. Statements are subject to elenchus. An account defending statements in response to questioning must be given. Socratic philosophy is not about making or collecting "wise statements". It is zetetic skepticism.

Philosophy goal is wisdom, a philosophers goal is to understand a phenomenon (i.e. human nature) by arriving wise statements. — Nickolasgaspar

There are philosophers who eschew talk of wisdom. For Socratic philosophy is the desire for wisdom, a desire that is never fulfilled. A goal that is never reached. The question of human nature is only a part of the larger questions of the the just, the beautiful, and the good, as well as that of the whole.

sorry for rejecting your argument but I think it will complicate this discussion even more — Nickolasgaspar

As I see it, the question of what philosophy is cannot be separated from criticism of it. Questioning Bunge's assumption that the purpose of philosophy is to solve problems does not complicate the discussion, it is at the root of it.

-Lets not go there,its irrelevant to the Nature of Philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar

It may be irrelevant to what you think of as the nature of philosophy, but there are different kinds of philosophy with different questions, concerns, methods, and answers. Socratic philosophy is concerned with human being and the self, that is, with particular persons, oneself and others.

-This is why Objective Empirical Verification is necessary for any statement in order to be acknowledged as "wise". — Nickolasgaspar

What is the objective empirical verification that informs self-knowledge?

Aristotle includes Epistemology and Physika in his method. — Nickolasgaspar

Aristotle's Metaphysics begins:

All men naturally desire knowledge.

(980a)

and goes on to say:

Thus it is clear that Wisdom is knowledge of certain principles and causes.

(982a)

Knowledge of principles and causes is not knowledge of how to solve problems.

Love of wisdom can mean different things.
— Fooloso4
-Not really, but feel free to describe different meanings. — Nickolasgaspar

You give a very good example:

I can only boil it down to one thing:"our love to arrive to wise statements fuels our intellectual endeavors". — Nickolasgaspar

To arrive at wise statements is not the goal of Socratic philosophy. Socrates wisdom is knowledge of ignorance. Knowing you are ignorant is only the first step. The question is: how best to live knowing we do no know how best to live. It is not about statements or intellectual endeavors, but about how best to live.

In the Republic the philosopher is compelled to return to the cave. The life of contemplation cannot be lived unless the philosopher is wise with regard to political life. Socrates' trial is a case in point. Xenophon is instructive here as well. In his Socratic dialogues Socrates deals with quotidian practical matters, not just intellectual endeavors.

No that's not true. — Nickolasgaspar

If you mean that it is not true that to be wise is to solve problems in the world, then we are in agreement against Bunge.

-It doesn't have a specific direction. Inner problems are also part of this world.(if I understand you correctly, feel free to correct me). — Nickolasgaspar

Consider Plato's Republic. It is not intended to be a plan for an actual city. It is made clear that such a city is highly improbable. The city in speech is said to be to see the soul writ large, and this for the purpose of seeing what justice is. For a soul to be just is possible. A just city is not something he even aims at. If this city were to be made actual we would not think it just.

For more on inward versus outward directedness see Descrtes provisional morality above.

Any type of "knowledge-" even "self-knowledge" is evaluated by its empirical results. (the way you live and the way you can change your world)./quote]

Look at what happens in the Republic when the philosopher is compelled to return to the city/cave. Socrates was found guilty of corrupting the youth. There is clear empirical evidence of philosophy's corruptive influence. They came to question the beliefs and values of their ancestors.

How we evaluate empirical results can differ depending on our state of self-knowledge, with what we value and take to be important.
— Nickolasgaspar

From your health metrics to your impact in your world ...we can use them to see whether the "knowledge" you accumulated did help you to take wise decisions. — Nickolasgaspar

What is the measure of whether or not a decision was wise? If someone is not wise they might think an unwise decision wise. Someone might accumulate knowledge of how to attain a certain result and think it wise when they attain it, but there is a difference between getting what you want and what is wise to want.

Socrates may have hoped to fix the political problems of Athens — Gnomon

He didn't.

Aristotle added the quest for practical knowledge of the physical world (Science) — Gnomon

Good point, but the goal was not to know in order to change the world.

Socrates' metaphysical admonition to "know thyself". — Gnomon

In what sense is this metaphysical?

Philosophy is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language. — Gnomon

Certainly that is one approach or way of doing philosophy, but not the only one. Systematic attempts can force things to fit in place within the system or leave them out.

It is talking to you that leads nowhere.

Like you said, you don't get it.

Calling, chanting, fomenting. The guy must be a sorcerer. — NOS4A2

No, just a demagogue and false messiah. The faithful do what he says.

I don’t get it. — NOS4A2

Yes. That is the point. You are unable to think through what you say. Go back, starting with your rejection of the general or common good and go step by step to your acceptance of "we the people" to the tangled mess you are in now.

Descartes "provisional moral code" from the Discourse on Method marks the difference between ancient and modern philosophy.

My third maxim was to try always to master myself rather than fortune, and to change my desires rather than the order of the world.

This is the approach of the ancients. It is provisional because his method will allow man to master fortune. Man will no longer have to accept things the way they are. Descartes method of reason is, as he says in the Meditations, the Archimedean point from which he can move the world.

The basic question of ‘What should we do?’ then became more about societal means of education to make people’s lives ‘better’ and/or how to ‘rule’ people and generally improve life for yourself and others. — I like sushi

The question of what we should do is tied to the question of what we can do. With the modern project of the conquest of nature the possibilities of what we can do is greatly expanded. Mastering oneself becomes secondary to mastering fortune. Why change yourself when you can change the world to accord with the self?

The self, following Descartes, is that "thinking thing". Here philosophy and psychology split off. The ancient maxim "know thyself" no longer has a place. It is replaced by the acceptance of an objective attitude, a "view from nowhere".

Political philosophy is replaced by political science. The question of 'What should we do?' is replaced by the question of how to make people's lives 'better'. The question of what makes life better fades into the background, as if answered and settled.

They same people — NOS4A2

According to what you have said:

People = human beings = we

Once again you avoid answering the question. It is not a matter of whether or not you are against taxes. Taxes are paid.

Who gets to decide how tax-payer dollars ought to be spent? It can't be the tax-payers if there are tax-payers on both sided of the issue. This is the same problem you refuse to face with "we". For you it really means "you". — Fooloso4

-Its not an assumption. It is defined by the etymology of the term "philosophy" (love of sophia(wisdom). — Nickolasgaspar

Love of wisdom can mean different things. The assumption here is that to be wise is to solve problems in the world. It is outward directed. This view characterizes modern philosophy and is grounded in scientific advances and the control of nature. The ancients were more concerned with self-knowledge. How to live versus how to change the world.

Massimo Pigliucci "considers the usefulness of philosophy". As opposed to the study of "esoteric matters", he proposes that Philosophy should be "the study and practice of the art of living". — Gnomon

This goes back at least to the story of Thales. Aristophanes ridiculed Socrates not only for the uselessness of philosophy but for it being dangerous. Both Plato and Xenophon address this. Whether it is useful or useless depends on the person and what they want for their life. It is with regard to this that Socrates says that the unexamined life is not worth living. In other words, the philosophic life is the only truly useful life.

You continue to ignore the problem. You are against the power of the state, except when you are in favor of what it does.

Who gets to decide how tax-payer dollars ought to be spent? It can't be the tax-payers if there are tax-payers on both sided of the issue. This is the same problem you refuse to face with "we". For you it really means "you".

... the NY case is not a very good one. — RogueAI

It is too early to tell. We have to wait to see what the criminal charges brought against him will be.

I see nothing wrong with the Parental Rights in Education bill — NOS4A2

I see nothing right with your attempt to evade the issue. But since you wont address those issues I'll address the one you raise in their place.

A bill that passes becomes part of the power of the state. This bill does not expand the power of parents. Despite the name of the bill it represents the very thing you claim to be opposed to, the power of the state.

The state of Florida, not the county, not the town, or the city, or the school district, or the school itself has any right to teach as it deems appropriate. All state employees must comply with the ideology of the state, an ideology that hides from students ugly parts of American history.

But it is not just elementary and secondary education. With the hostile takeover of New College, and his battle with the college board over African American studies, DeSantis's reach extends to college education as well.

Those teachers can teach their own kids about sexuality as much as they wish, but they ought not have that same power over other children. — NOS4A2

It would be surprising to hear you argue for limits to free speech given your argument against limiting free speech, but we have come to expect inconsistency and lack of coherence from you.

For those who prefer the written word. Bunge's criticisms:

Link

There is much here that I agree with, but his criticism is guided by a questionable assumption, that the goal of philosophy is to address and solve problems, to contribute "new knowledge", to be useful in the narrow sense of problem solving.

We are human beings. — NOS4A2

How are we human beings to protect ourselves from ourselves? Do you think that everyone who is not part of the government cares about your interests and will rush to defend you and your rights? Can your guns protect you if you are outnumbered or overpowered?

It’s the nature of state education to have its curriculum determined by the state. — NOS4A2

Don't change the subject. You claimed:

... we grant them the freedom to speak, refuse to intervene when they are doing so, and defend that right if necessary. — NOS4A2

There are individuals, human beings, who are not part of a state educational system who are actively working to limit freedom of speech. As human beings they too are included in "we". So, "we" human beings also deny others freedom of speech. "We" also intervene when "they", (who are also "we"), want to uphold freedom of speech. "We" also deny that right if necessary.

We use our reason, speech, and bodies to derive, confer, and protect rights, like any right that has ever been uttered. — NOS4A2

Who are we? Vigilantes?

So we grant them the freedom to speak — NOS4A2

Again, who are we?

There are plenty of people, from individuals to school board members to the governor of Florida, who attempt to do away with that freedom. In many cases they succeed.