• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What truths would a wise person pursue?

coberst

Active Member
What truths would a wise person pursue?

The book Beyond Alienation by Ernest Becker attempts to clarify the nature of the human problem and to provide a solution for this problem. If humanity is to resolve this problem it must find a way to instruct itself wisely in the matter of social morality.

Humanity must develop a synthesis of knowledge that can serve as a reasoned basis for constructing a moral rationality. We need to develop a means whereby secular moral science becomes the central consideration for learning.

If I had the ability I would draw a cartoon character with an Arnold Schwarzenegger-like upper torso supported on two thin, spindly, and varicose veined legs. This cartoon character would represent humanity as I visualize the human species.

The strong upper torso represents our strong aptitude for technological achievement and the supporting legs represent our weak and wobbly moral rationality that is failing to provide the foundation needed by humanity.

Philosophy and theology does deal with morality but in a fundamentally different manner. The moral philosophy Becker speaks of recognizes that knowledge is never absolute and therefore must not remain static but must be dynamic reflecting the constant discovery initiated by science. Knowledge is that which helps to promote human welfare in the here and now.

Pragmatism is a self-consistent philosophy that honors the idea that what humans value is that which is relative to what is satisfying. This did not mean just the satisfaction of human appetite but there is recognition that humans are rational creatures; meaning that a value is judged so only when it is chosen in a critical mode of careful examination. “And it is the community of men, in free and open inquiry and exchange, who formulate the ideal values.”

Dewey’s pragmatism was dedicated to the task of reconstruction. Education was considered to be “the supreme human interest” wherein all philosophical problems come to a head. Dewey’s pragmatism failed because it was a call to action without a standard for action. Education must be progressive and must have a strong critical content.

The big question then is what can philosophy and science tell education to do? “What truths is man to pursue for the sake of man? What should we learn about man and society, knowledge that would show us, by clear and compelling logic, how to act and how to choose in our person and social life?”

Becker thinks that we must transform the university from its present vocational education institution into one leading the transformation of society. It is in this solution that I differ with Becker. I do not think that higher education will ever change its role of preparing students to become productive workers and avid consumers—at least until after the revolution.

I think that in the United States there is a great intellectual asset that goes unused. Most adults engage in little or no critical intellectual efforts directed at self-actualizing self-learning after their schooling is finished. If a small percentage of our adults would focus some small part of their intellectual energies toward self-actualizing self-learning during the period between the end of their formal education and mid-life they could be prepared to focus serious time and intellectual focus upon creating an intellectual elite that could make up a critical intellectual element dedicated toward the regeneration of our society.
 

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
The truth most pertinent to everyone is the truth of our existence. Each person must, primarily, discover why it is that he/she exists. After that, all other truths fall into place. One should base truth on reason and on experience. One should be resolute in what they know to be true, but open should it be discovered that their truth is in fact false.

With truth, with intelligence, we can (and in my opinion will) rebuild our society.
 

coberst

Active Member

It appears to me that science has accumulated a great deal of knowledge regarding human nature that would be very useful for everyone to know. Unfortunately our schools and colleges are focused almost exclusively upon teaching us what we need to know to get a good job. I think that this situation needs to be radically modified.
 

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
It appears to me that science has accumulated a great deal of knowledge regarding human nature that would be very useful for everyone to know. Unfortunately our schools and colleges are focused almost exclusively upon teaching us what we need to know to get a good job. I think that this situation needs to be radically modified.
Lol. Interesting you should say that. I believe that school shouldn't even be mandatory. Let those who wish to learn do so of their own volition. Let them reap the benefits of their work and their studies. Why demean education by forcing people who don't want it to learn it?

Besides, I think school should be to teach basic principles. Not everything that has to do with life. School should give universal principles that would be applicable in all of life. Nothing more, nothing less. I plan to be a cop, I don't need to know the reactions of acids and bases to do that.

Science progresses most when people do it because it's what they love to do. As opposed to it being something they were forced to do, or something they do for the money.
 

BucephalusBB

ABACABB
Lol. Interesting you should say that. I believe that school shouldn't even be mandatory. Let those who wish to learn do so of their own volition. Let them reap the benefits of their work and their studies. Why demean education by forcing people who don't want it to learn it?

Besides, I think school should be to teach basic principles. Not everything that has to do with life. School should give universal principles that would be applicable in all of life. Nothing more, nothing less. I plan to be a cop, I don't need to know the reactions of acids and bases to do that.

Science progresses most when people do it because it's what they love to do. As opposed to it being something they were forced to do, or something they do for the money.
Is funny, because I am very glad I had to go to school. If my parents/law didn't make me, I would not have studied so far into math to start liking it. Nowadays, I use it even in many of my thoughts/theories.
 

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
Is funny, because I am very glad I had to go to school. If my parents/law didn't make me, I would not have studied so far into math to start liking it. Nowadays, I use it even in many of my thoughts/theories.

I see. I'm not saying school isn't valuable, I'm simply saying that not everything school offers nowadays is useful. A lot of school (especially in the CA public school system) is a big waste of time.
 

BucephalusBB

ABACABB
I see. I'm not saying school isn't valuable, I'm simply saying that not everything school offers nowadays is useful. A lot of school (especially in the CA public school system) is a big waste of time.

Everlasting struggle..

I asume you agree with me that untill a certain age you should order a kid to school.
Kids generally like to play a lot more than to learn. Full freedom will not accomplisch progress. Not for the kid, not for the world.

Then there is a specific direction vs allround information. In this we are always trying to find a middle. A kid should get as much information about his future as possible in the beginning. If I never had Math I wouldn't know I was good in it and liked it. So they had to give me math. The same applies to every other class and job.
But from a certain point it is wise to focus on that what you are good at or have fun with. Professionalisation.
The thing is, one has to decide when a kid is ready to really know what he wants to do and every kid differs in that.
Taking myself for example again. I studied math and teached it a short time to eventually go for IT instead. Math was my doorway to IT, wich I really love! If they waited with professionalisation on me, I would have gone for IT instead of math and would have advanced in knowledge greatly. But now I know a lot of math I will probably not use again. The thing you are against. (Not really, but still)
However, I can agree that lots of kids know very soon what they want to do. This is why it is such a problem finding a middle in this.

So it's not like we disagree, I am only leaning towards the other side :p
 
Last edited:

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
Everlasting struggle..

I asume you agree with me that untill a certain age you should order a kid to school.
Kids generally like to play a lot more than to learn. Full freedom will not accomplisch progress. Not for the kid, not for the world.

Then there is a specific direction vs allround information. In this we are always trying to find a middle. A kid should get as much information about his future as possible in the beginning. If I never had Math I wouldn't know I was good in it and liked it. So they had to give me math. The same applies to every other class and job.
But from a certain point it is wise to focus on that what you are good at or have fun with. Professionalisation.
The thing is, one has to decide when a kid is ready to really know what he wants to do and every kid differs in that.
Taking myself for example again. I studied math and teached it a short time to eventually go for IT instead. Math was my doorway to IT, wich I really love! If they waited with professionalisation on me, I would have gone for IT instead of math and would have advanced in knowledge greatly. But now I know a lot of math I will probably not use again. The thing you are against. (Not really, but still)
However, I can agree that lots of kids know very soon what they want to do. This is why it is such a problem finding a middle in this.

So it's not like we disagree, I am only leaning towards the other side :p

I simply feel that we should teach kids how to find the profession they love. Sure, we might get a few who find out what they love to do with our current education system. But if we trained them to look for what makes them happy in a job, what they are good at etc etc. We'd save a lot more time.
 

BucephalusBB

ABACABB
But if we trained them to look for what makes them happy in a job, what they are good at etc etc. We'd save a lot more time.

I do not know about other jobs, but the only way to know you like math is to do math. And the best way to find out you do not like math is to do it as well.
 

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
I do not know about other jobs, but the only way to know you like math is to do math. And the best way to find out you do not like math is to do it as well.
True, but I think a kid should be evaluated for his strengths and weakness academically and then (upon review by those who are knowledgeable) shown a variety of options.

If anything, I think we should have school as being mandatory until the child reaches middle-school age (around 12 or 13) then we should basically have a sort of profession testing phase. They look at a catalog of of various professions and then choosing those which they seem to be interested in. Once they've chosen the ones they think they'd be interested in, they would basically be given time within that profession as a sort of apprentice to see if they enjoy it/are good at it. If not then they move on.
 

BucephalusBB

ABACABB
True, but I think a kid should be evaluated for his strengths and weakness academically and then (upon review by those who are knowledgeable) shown a variety of options.

If anything, I think we should have school as being mandatory until the child reaches middle-school age (around 12 or 13) then we should basically have a sort of profession testing phase. They look at a catalog of of various professions and then choosing those which they seem to be interested in. Once they've chosen the ones they think they'd be interested in, they would basically be given time within that profession as a sort of apprentice to see if they enjoy it/are good at it. If not then they move on.
Yeah, that's actually like it's here, only between the age of 13 and 16 the amount of courses is slowly getting less to make the scholar choose. By the age of 16 he will be getting mostly the courses he wants. Around 6 to 7. You have to choose at least dutch, english and math and nowadays I believe an extra language. The rest is up to you. After that they go their own way. In my opinion a good concept.
 

TheKnight

Guardian of Life
Yeah, that's actually like it's here, only between the age of 13 and 16 the amount of courses is slowly getting less to make the scholar choose. By the age of 16 he will be getting mostly the courses he wants. Around 6 to 7. You have to choose at least dutch, english and math and nowadays I believe an extra language. The rest is up to you. After that they go their own way. In my opinion a good concept.
I take it you live in The Netherlands?

You guys are known for having a much better education system then our own here in the States.
 

TheKnight

Guardian of Life

Quite a wonderful country you have there. I feel jealous of the education system offered. Here, we are forced to go through 12 years of having random information shoved into our brains. Then we are launched into the job world without experience and without guidance with an expectancy to survive. Our schools teach a lot of information, but they don't teach how to use that information.
 

autonomous1one1

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
What truths would a wise person pursue?

The book Beyond Alienation by Ernest Becker attempts to clarify the nature of the human problem and to provide a solution for this problem. If humanity is to resolve this problem it must find a way to instruct itself wisely in the matter of social morality.

Humanity must develop a synthesis of knowledge that can serve as a reasoned basis for constructing a moral rationality........
Greetings. Most would agree that humanity has a problem. As one who teaches spirituality put it - we have a major problem, 'we don't get along.' And of course we all know that many choose violence to satisfy their egoistic solution.

Fortunately, a solution (Truth) was given to us about 3000 years ago with boosts from time to time given at various points throughout history. This approach teaches us to work with ourselves first - get our own act cleaned up such that we embody the solution. When enough individuals have done so the solution will take hold on a broader level.

Said differently, one is to look within to know one's true Self, to find the divinity within and the divinity within all. When the true Self is realized all others will be treated as oneSelf. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, love your neighbor as yourself, love your enemies, etc. all become secondary derivative rules.

This Self realization, or Enlightenment by some definitions, is beginning to boom worldwide right now. The reason that this is so is twofold. First, for the first time in history all of the information is easily available to everyone and the 'word' is getting out. Second, the Realization is such an amazing happening
that there is often a great drive towards it once one looks into it and after Realization there is a great drive to transmit it and help others in their pursuit as is possible.

Regards
 

ManTimeForgot

Temporally Challenged
What knowledge should a wise person pursue?

I think first and foremost you should seek self-knowledge. If you don't know yourself, then how can you possibly know your place in the world? How can you possibly know how best to apply yourself and seek greater comforts and rewards?


But as far as humanity is concerned?

I think a "universal" morality system would great to have, but quite a few people still reject the idea of an "absolute" morality probably because it sounds to them like it would be restricting. In actuality "absolute" morality will have to be flexible enough to take into account the vagueries of human existence and differing situations. Simply "being good to as many people as possible" would not be all that "restricting" in terms of what it would have you do, but it requires interpretation and a kind of abstracting intellect that not everyone has. Perhaps some day with societal simulations, advanced computing, and ultra-fast information distribution we will be able to approximate a practical universal morality system that is usable by all.


I do think that schools should be more important than they are (california has really shown its true colors; we don't want an educated populous we want a slave race with barely any conception of its own bondage). Teaching (especially during the developmental phases of human growth) are of paramount importance in determining the "kind of person" that someone will grow up to be (that and genetics). So I am also strongly in favor of teaching philosophy in schools (mandatory class); specifically tailored to the age levels of course.


Tailoring schools to the individual's "preferences" or "aptitude" will be difficult. In the future this might be a reasonable method of schooling, but for now who is anyone to tell someone that they can't choose to be a good pianist because they would make a great surgeon?


MTF
 
Top