Yes, OP. You are correct.
This is actually a really excellent point.
It also ties back into how educators used to omit so much detail about Christopher Columbus
Teaching about evil without teaching why it is evil
Posts
Total:
47
-->
@Swagnarok
My guess is that the latter group outnumbers the former, but either could lead to the same end: a new model of education wherein students must accept as an article of dogma that Mustachestan is evil without ever having been taught why it's evil. What I'm raising is a hypothetical where, 30 or 40 years from now, your average young person will have never heard of a certain major genocide, because their textbooks skipped that part in favor of vague generalities about the nature of evil and conflations of this idea with Mustachestan.And when, in the spirit of youthful rebellion, many of these decide to buck said dogma and embrace the idea that "Actually, Mustachestan was good" (I.e. your average edgelord Satanist who grew up in a strict Pentecostal household), they won't understand that this is an immoral position to hold. Sure, they'll know that their teachers and society say it's immoral, but they'll have no reason to uncritically accept this, since the entire time it will have been asserted without any proof given.
I think that is a plausible prediction, I don't think it's 30 years away either, I think the start of the process has already begun.
I have been surprised how many people from different political camps seem to be unaware of the spirit of youthful rebellion you speak of despite the fact that it has been a constant in human history and the birth of many cultural revolutions against dogma.
What you observe isn't isolated, it's a general turning away from rationality. It was never really taught as well as it should have been, but it had a fierce stronghold in universities (1850 -> 1950 especially) that is now wholly absent.
A rabbi Wolpe who did an interview on the Dave Rubin show once described something called "cut flower ethics".
"They stay fresh for a while, but without the soil that nurtured them, how long does that stay... the question is transmissibility"
I believe this phenomenon is real, but the soil is not a bronze age belief in a god whose great moral insight consisted of such things as "don't murder, don't steal, don't lie, worship me".
The soil is reason, and it always was. Those who raise children on faith will never control what they have faith in, or what they will corrupt. They will be controlled by internal psychological processes they do not understand or they will be controlled by deceptive leaders they have no tools to contradict.
The soil is reason, and it always was. Those who raise children on faith will never control what they have faith in, or what they will corrupt. They will be controlled by internal psychological processes they do not understand or they will be controlled by deceptive leaders they have no tools to contradict.
----------
Another interesting quote from this interview was "The claim that there is such a thing as a truth is somewhat counter cultural" - Rabbi Wolpe 6:50
That I have found to be absolutely true. If I had a dime for every time I said "X is objectively true" and a bunch of petty zombies rush in to say "truth is subjective" or "there is no objective truth" or some such drivel.
I cannot emphasize how different that response is from "No, you're wrong, show us your logic and your evidence."
They're not saying I did it wrong, they're saying nobody can do it.
Their epistemology has fallen and they can't really believe anything because of evidence. If they believe mustachean is evil just because (as a misguided person in this thread said) 'evil is just evil' that is because that is the ONLY thing they can think with that gaping epistemology shaped hole in their brain.
----------
In conclusion, yes the evidence of the Mustachestan behavior should be taught. It is history and all history should be taught.
It is not teaching to make students say "that is evil", if they do not conclude that with their own logic and conviction then they have not learned what they needed to: Philosophy.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Truth is subjective.
11 days later
-->
@Swagnarok
Do children need to learn about genocide?
The Holocaust education is so poor that most of the students in US and other countries think all or most of the dead Jews came from Germany. How many know about the mass shootings in the east?
Photos of dead bodies and liberated death camps, testimonies of survivors, and so on.
What does this serve? For example, there is no one who knows more about the Holocaust than the Jew, yet the Jew is embroiled in wars and facing accusations of present-day genocide.
It would be better if we learned about the circumstances of war, the subtle nuances, and every event in chronological order. It would also be better if we took no side.
-->
@yachilviveyachali
What does this serve? For example, there is no one who knows more about the Holocaust than the Jew, yet the Jew is embroiled in wars and facing accusations of present-day genocide.
I disagree that what Israel's doing now is a genocide as opposed to just a very rough military campaign against insurgents literally tunneled beneath every building in the Gaza Strip (the Gazan death rate isn't nearly high enough to convince me they're being deliberately killed off), but even if for the sake of argument you were right, one can teach about a historic genocide without denying that the descendants of the victims are also capable of the same sin.
It would also be better if we took no side.
My gawd, are we bothsides-ing the Holocaust now?
Do children need to learn about genocide?
I mean, not kindergartners or first graders, obviously, but this is something they're going to learn at some point by the time they graduate high school, so.
-->
@yachilviveyachali
"the Jew"
Kinda suspicious making a race a direct object.
-->
@Swagnarok
I disagree that what Israel's doing now is a genocide as opposed to just a very rough military campaign against insurgents literally tunneled beneath every building in the Gaza Strip (the Gazan death rate isn't nearly high enough to convince me they're being deliberately killed off), but even if for the sake of argument you were right, one can teach about a historic genocide without denying that the descendants of the victims are also capable of the same sin.
I did not say Israel was committing genocide; I said they are accused of it. South Africa has accused them of it. ICC said it was plausible Israel has committed acts of genocide.
I understand that if Hamas laid down their arms, the bombardment would seemingly come to an end. This does not mean there would be no land encroachment or continuation of blockade, which are thorns in the side of Palestinians.
My gawd, are we bothsides-ing the Holocaust now?
History is important. There are going to be problems when you don't understand the enemy as people who did things for their own reasons. What are you going to do? Pummel them into the ground?
I mean, not kindergartners or first graders, obviously, but this is something they're going to learn at some point by the time they graduate high school, so.
I don't believe children can grasp the magnitude of it. In my eyes, you are still at child at 18. You do not stop developing until age 24 to 25. At 25, I have only recently stopped.
In this age, the development of the human seems to take even longer.
-->
@yachilviveyachali
A human is fully functionally developed in their early teens, sometimes before...Such is the reality of the organism.
Though the reality of overthink and conceptualism demands more...Such demands are largely based upon money and materialism.
And today the smartphone...Children grasp things far quicker these days, but money and material achievement is driven by demand and competition.
But in terms of global social cohesion, the species is no better developed than it was 85 years ago largely due to the established concepts of nationalism, theism, cultural differences and consequent selfishness and greed.
To be honest, without technological intervention (AI), I'm not confident that the species would ever learn to function as a cooperative whole.
And you and I think we are better than the others, and the others think that they are better than us.
And we all think that we are virtuous and morally righteous.
But the trouble is, there is no greater authority to decide what is and isn't virtuous and morally righteous.
What we need is a massive spaceship to rock up, with the letters G.O.D emblazoned on it.
You never know.
Though if species development conforms to a universal law, then chances are that G.O.D are intergalactic arseholes.
Though if material development conforms to a universal law, perhaps G.O.D will be technological pragmatists.
-->
@zedvictor4
A human is fully functionally developed in their early teens, sometimes before...Such is the reality of the organism.
What do you mean? That they can procreate when they are in their teens and sometimes earlier?
And today the smartphone...Children grasp things far quicker these days
What do they grasp quicker?
To be honest, without technological intervention (AI), I'm not confident that the species would ever learn to function as a cooperative whole.
AI is either an extension of the human who you think is flawed, or an imposter that should be stamped out. I am not sure what you expect it to do.
-->
@yachilviveyachali
I have only recently stopped.
The living human organism continues to develop, until it ceases to function.
Your assertion is rather arbitrarily in the moment.
So in terms of functional development, one can only say, that once procreational ability is established, then this is when the organism is functionally complete.
The development of knowledge and social interaction is also an ongoing process and doesn't stop at age 25 or 26.
What do they grasp quicker?
Knowledge.
Data sources were far more limited and less accessible to children prior to the advent of personal social media devices.
It would be naive to say that this is not patently apparent...There again, I was born in 1960, so I have the advantage of first hand knowledge, from which to make comparisons.
I would suggest, that the human is what it is, and therefore "flawed" is an adjective that I would not use to describe the human condition.
And AI is an "extension" of an ongoing process of material development, as were humans...Therefore neither is an "imposter".
As I see it, both were inevitable evolutionary developments, and neither is there a collective human will to "stamp out" material progress.
Quite the opposite in fact, modern humans are now functionally dependent upon technology and things will only develop further.
-->
@zedvictor4
The living human organism continues to develop, until it ceases to function.
I consider it more of a revelation than development. The human reaches his strongest state in his 20s and 30s. He will continue to unfold and make new revelations until he is gone. Christ is a revelation, children are a revelation, learning is a revelation, purpose is revelation...
With regard to biology, there is no denying that those over 60 are looking at physical regression, not progression.
So in terms of functional development, one can only say, that once procreational ability is established, then this is when the organism is functionally complete.
Having the ability to procreate does not mean the function can be executed well. It is subpar if the female is still playing with dolls and is a child herself. This is not the optimum time for offspring. The optimum time for offspring is 18 to 35.
The development of knowledge and social interaction is also an ongoing process and doesn't stop at age 25 or 26.
I believe this is grasped by this age.
Knowledge.
Why aren't they more knowledgeable? Where is this knowledge?
sources were far more limited and less accessible to children prior to the advent of personal social media devices.
Perhaps quality over quantity would be a better way to view this. I don't necessarily want to know about Ken's divorce from Jen, or know where an influencer is vacationing this weekend. How much do children know about history? How much do they know about religion? What do they know about philosophy?
If the knowledge is so great, why are they taking longer to mature? They take longer to marry, longer to have children, longer to find their careers, and longer to own homes. They want to have fun for longer periods of time, and are less likely to want responsibility, which the mature have to have. The mature possess knowledge.
It would be naive to say that this is not patently apparent...There again, I was born in 1960, so I have the advantage of first hand knowledge, from which to make comparisons.
I have spent time with my parents and elderly grandparents. I have two living grandparents who were born in 1941 and 1943. They say different. My father, who died with my mother five years ago, was born in 1953 and he said the same. My mother said the same too. Every older person I speak with believes it. You are an unusual man.
-->
@yachilviveyachali
Revelation.
Revelation is simply theo-speak.
The human device acquires data and is able to manipulate and utilise data, both conceptually and physically in terms of material development.
Theo-speak is just generationally transferred data, that harps back to a time of greater ignorance.
And for sure "physical regression" is an inevitable phase of an organisms ongoing development.
So, both male and female remain procreationally functional for as long as their innate programming prescribes, though latterly, we have concluded an optimal range, not solely relative to physical ability but more to do with modern socio-economics, life expectancy and medical intervention.
Why aren't they more knowledgeable.
They are, because they have access to more information.
Few people know much about history, a lot of people are religiously conditioned and philosophy as an academic subject is niche.
Though one could argue that personal philosophy is always relative to the individual.
Why are they taking longer to mature?
They're not...We make subjective comparisons relative to personal experiences.
I would suggest, based upon my British experience that children today compared to my childhood 60 years ago, are far more mature in all aspects of intellectual development.
Which isn't to overlook the fact that modern expectations, can place greater demands upon intellectual ability...But this will vary, relative an individuals acquired expectations...In short, some just think mobile phone and sex, whereas others think university and astrophysics.
Show me a generation that does not have a modified few to that of a previous generation, and a somewhat despairing view of modernity and inevitable change apparent in successive generations...It's the same old story.
You are an unusual man.
Maybe I am...Perhaps I do not conform to the stereotype of older persons that you associate with and describe.
Maybe I have tried to be a tad more philosophical and more aware of a Universal realism and future inevitability...Perhaps most people do not invest their time considering such things...They have plenty else to do.
Whereas you seem to invest time and energy dragging your feet in the past.
-->
@zedvictor4
Revelation is simply theo-speak.
“Develop” originally meant to “unwrap” or reveal. This is how I am looking at the word.
So, both male and female remain procreationally functional for as long as their innate programming prescribes, though latterly, we have concluded an optimal range, not solely relative to physical ability but more to do with modern socio-economics, life expectancy and medical intervention.
As I said, the optimum range is 18 to 35, although women can continue having children until they are 40 or 45. I don't believe a woman needs to wait until she has a career to have children. In fact, I believe she should choose children. It is ideal for a woman to have at least four children.
They are, because they have access to more information.
Yes. I am asking about the richness and depth of the information in their heads. I am sceptical. It seems to me that they are not using the tools available to us as well as they could be. I believe that the internet is a wonderful thing and I use it to discover things and find information. It is also important to read books, which provide a deeper story or deeper insight than articles that you read online. I am 25, Zed. I know what the youth are saying and doing, and it does not reflect deep knowledge. They are very ignorant of history (you appear to concede), politics, and practical matters. It is not only history, religion, philosophy, and politics that they don't know about. The tools we have, including internet and AI, can be used to gain extraordinary knowledge and insight, but I do not see them doing it, and you need to devote more than a couple of seconds to it.
Which isn't to overlook the fact that modern expectations, can place greater demands upon intellectual ability...But this will vary, relative an individuals acquired expectations...In short, some just think mobile phone and sex, whereas others think university and astrophysics.
“University” is very broad, while the field astrophysics is much less broad. Many of them are not studying worthwhile degrees in university. They are studying degrees that should not be degrees. Most are thinking about their mobile phone and sex. I am looking for deep thought, questioning thought, and real thought.
Show me a generation that does not have a modified few to that of a previous generation, and a somewhat despairing view of modernity and inevitable change apparent in successive generations...It's the same old story.
The changes in the last 100 years, particularly last 50, have been rapid and unprecedented. That people tend to lament the past does not make them not worth listening to this instance.
Whereas you seem to invest time and energy dragging your feet in the past.
I don't. I do not like that which is superficial. History is very important to me. It is the story of time and when we take ourselves there, we know so much more. We also understand that we know much less than we think we do. I like to know every piece of information.
I think a person who enjoys stories will love history. I see it as a story with real events and when reading or watching these events, I feel I am there.
The oldest ever man to father a child was reportedly Les Colley (1898 - 1998, Australia), who had his ninth child a son named Oswald to his third wife at the age of 92 years 10 months. Colley met Oswald's Fijian mother in 1991 through a dating agency at the age of 90.
-->
@yachilviveyachali
Well, most words have their roots somewhere, though "revelation" undoubtedly has theological associations.
And yes, in terms of physical health it is far better to have children earlier in life, rather than later. Though whether or not the Planet currently needs every female to produce four children is a moot point...Whereas from a species perspective, survival was one dependent upon high birth rates, to counteract high death rates...Though medical and surgical progress has somewhat negated this necessity...For now anyway.
As for "richness and depth"...Well...For me, this is a somewhat woolly expression that can mean many things to many people, relative to their socially acquired expectations...And social expectations vary considerably.
Whether or not the enforced "devotional" conditioning of outdated ideological and historical information is still necessary in terms of material development is another moot point...Maybe the evolution of data and data gathering has just inevitably progressed, consequently rendering old data gathering methodology redundant...I don't really see this process ever reverting...So clinging to the past is perhaps futile...But the human condition is such, that generational data transfer dictates the rate of intellectual progress.
I am looking for deep thought, questioning thought, and real thought.
See above...Though, what actually is deep thought, what actually isn't questioning thought, and when is a thought not a real thought.
And yes, I would agree that a degree for a lot of younger people, is simply a case of what to do for the next 3 years or so.
Lamenting the past.
Well, aging and getting left behind, is what it is and always has been, and always will be...For the time being I suppose...Though how the organism will evolve along with technology in the distant future, we do not know.
So I direct a lot of thinking effort to hypothesising the future, whilst also trying to rationalise the past within the same context...Nonetheless, my child hood was a wonderful rural idyll, my parents strived but are long gone, my children are now grown up and independent, and the rural idyll is changing at a pace, leaving my wife and I now 65 and pondering the end game...But I do not lament anything.
I don't.
I would suggest, that you just described that you do, and that it benefits you to do so...Which is perhaps your acquired disposition...Just as my acquired disposition is mine....Which is the way it goes, and why we think a tad differently.
It's nice discussing these ideas with you.
"Good" and "evil" only makes sense in the context of a conscious experience. Pretty much, by definition unpleasant experiences are bad for the consciousness, while pleasant experiences are good for it. Morality therefore must be maximizing the latter and minimizing the former. Even religious people accept that: in Christianity, for instance, immoral people go to hell and suffer for eternity, very directly connecting morality to one's experiences.
Where many people go wrong with this is they suggest that such a position necessarily leads to some kind of selfish exploitation of others. But that is a very poor and lazy analysis. Selfish and exploitative people may get something in the short run, but in the long run they will be missing on genuine human connection, on mutually beneficial partnerships and so on - not to mention what it will do to their own psychology: looking at the world as a free for all battle for gold is going to be incredibly stressful. Scarcity thinking is mentally taxing, and people like dictators who have gotten on top through political manipulation and deception are some of the most miserable individuals on the planet.
One can arrive at much of the same general morality as most people would consider to be "good" purely through logic, by starting with the premise that their goal is to maximize personal happiness - and realizing that it involves being good, kind and honest towards other people.
Religions fail at this on two accounts. First, their conclusions rest on the assumption that certain unverifiable truth claims are true - which is already a lousy foundation to build anything on. But even worse, by telling its followers that the morals were dictated by supernatural forces, religion blinds them to the actual reasons the morals work as well as they do. Without understanding of why it actually is good to be kind and honest, he will make countless mistakes in life without realizing that they even were mistakes. For example, many religions vilify homosexuality - so now a person who thinks that it is generally good to be kind and honest will make an exception towards homosexuals... And if homosexuals are not to be treated with kindness and honesty, then who else isn't? How far does the set of exceptions extend? How about members of a different religion - maybe they are also to not be treated like this? The whole thing becomes a huge unprincipled mess.
If your only principle is "everything X said to me is right", then you are screwed.
It is my belief that both good and evil are moral influences ion either direction, that these directions are polar opposites, than that they each generate the fruit of their respective influence. I also believe that, presented with these choices, each of us are given free will to choose to think and act with regard to whichever influence is more appealipng to us, individually, and that no power on Earth in heaven, or in hell can coerce our response one way or the other. To think otherwise, thy these powers do coerce our behavior, leaves no purpose to us individually to act one way or the other.
One of the problems we encounter is that the choices presented to us vary in terms of subject matter and frequency of their varied observed fruit production, so to speak.
In one instance, its fruit grows in plentiful volume, but may actually be detrimental to our continued "goodness," while another fruit grows with difficulty and rarity, but is conducive to our worst behavior of "evil." Both these conditions are the reverse of what we would normally expect as "good" and "evil" behavior, and, thus, are more difficult for us to distinguish because of it unfamiliar effect.