It is quite impossible for an INSTITUTION to uphold any but a common and low standard with respect to the limit-potentials and upper thresholds of both thinking and communicating. The system will feed off the fruits of individual efforts able to somewhat transcend the system’s banality, the same banality that constricts such acts of transcendence to being useful to that which they would aim to deviate from and destroy.
Truth cannot be found in groups, but this is true least of the most minimal groups. “Institutions” prevent such minimal groups from forming as anything other than secret conspirators and insurgents.
Thought is banal. Philosophy is banal. There’s no wonder that most semi-intellectual (mind-orientated) youngsters nearly always pass through a nihilistic stage.
People pass through a nihilistic stage because of academic thought, how could they not want to dissolve all beliefs after being inundated with such trite shit and being told it is the answers to all their questions? Any given non-academic philosophy has a chance at least.
Somewhere along the line, the human species experienced this self-consciousness for the first time. And it separated the human species from the rest of the species on this planet. I don’t even know if there is any such thing as evolution, but we are made to believe that there is such a thing. And it was at that time perhaps that thought took its birth. But thought in its birth, in its origin, in its content, in its expression, and in its action is very fascist. Thought controls and shapes our thinking and our actions. So it is a very protective mechanism. It has no doubt helped us to be what we are today. It has helped us to create our high-tech and technology. It has made our life very comfortable. It has also made it possible for us to discover the laws of nature. But thought is a very protective mechanism and is interested in its own survival. At the same time, thought is opposed fundamentally to the functioning of this living organism.
We are made to believe that there is such a thing as mind. But there is no such thing as your mind or my mind. Society or culture, or whatever you want to call it, has created us solely and wholly for the purpose of maintaining its own continuity and status quo. At the same time, it has also created the idea that there is such a thing as the individual. But actually, there is a conflict between the two – the idea of the individual and the impossibility of functioning as an individual separate and distinct from the totality of man’s thoughts and experiences.
When I see someone who’s mad about academic thought…I think they’re really just mad because inevitably those with the academic training are going to outdo the complainer in the debate. It’s like deciding you hate disney land. Chances are, it’s because you were kicked out, failed at it, or couldn’t afford it. Education is a good thing. If you don’t agree, you’ll probably be dumb for a long time.
If the institution has a lecture/test based format, sure. The institution is upholding, generally, a common and mediocre standard,with exceptions for exceptional lecturers. But since the idea is for the students to uphold the Learning, there is lot of room for, well, anything. (I am thinking of colleges. Schools are institutions but there, at least in the countries I’ve lived in common and low standards of pedagogy are a given) YOu also have colleges that are built on PBL and other Group and indenpendent models of Learning, and in these one is not limited by the institute, particularly.
I never noticed this suppression of minimal Groups, in fact they seemed to be encouraged. Or really, not noticed at all, but those in them tended to either do better or no worse in their official studies - generally better - and then on the side had clear benefits over the other students. I mean what University wants to go around trying to see if students are gathering and Learning things together. That would cost a lot of Money. Bomb building clubs, I suppose, might prick up an ear or two and find themselves visited.
the rehashing of cliches is pretty widespread, so this will happen even when students get together, and it would be great if more professors were inspiring and challenging - the whole publish or perish aspect of much academia means they are not seen as teachers or inspiration but as reputations in suits.
But the idea, in any case, is not for the University to uphold something - they do very Little educating, the idea is to make a Place condusive to people who know how to learn. Given what most people want to learn and their interest level in challenging themselves - as opposed to getting a degree as a step toward ____________, you have to find the right people to be around. But there are usually some there. And who needs more than some.
There’s a difference between getting an academic education for a few years, and staying in academia for the rest of your lives. Learning some method can benefit you the rest of your life, spending the rest of your life examining and specializing in some obscure details of a subfield of a subfield however…
Wouldn’t it be best if you avoided contradicting yourself within less than two days time? You should try to change your views no more than once a week. It wouldn’t be that difficult; let’s say you see someone make a statement or claim and wish to contradict them, all you have to do is ask yourself if you’ve contradicted a contrary claim in the last week, and if so, then avoid comment.
I wouldn’t try to tell any given contrarian how to do their job, but you’re our resident contrarian, and so should strive for a higher standard.
“Training” implies schools. You were just trying to talk someone out of going to school in another thread.
As for the argument, the banality of academic thought, let me give you an example… wait why should I stop with one? Just type into a search engine “academic articles”, and you can see for yourself their low quality. If you want to give me an example of an academic article that you believe is not banal, than please do so, and I will go through it point by point.
There’s something I learned in academia…it’s about why we have case law as opposed to just applying all laws with strict liability. You see…it relates to something fundamental in philosophy. There’s the whole problem of universal applicability. You can’t just say school is good for everyone, and you can’t just say it’s bad for everyone. You have to look at individuals on a case by case basis and use judgement. Also, telling someone that they shouldn’t go to school, and then stating that I don’t think academic thought is banal, isn’t exactly a clear cut contradiction.
Now…on the subject of whether academic articles are of low quality…I’m not sure how to respond to that. You see…you’ve gone into the realm of qualia, where whatever you say could possibly be true. But it could equally be untrue. Whatever the case, I don’t think that there’s a litmus test for banality, and so threads like this really can’t go anywhere past opinion. My thing is this…I’ve read hundreds and hundreds of academic articles. Some are silly, some are obvious flagrant attacks on one view or another and are based on things that the writer knows can’t be validated. Of course there are dumbasses everywhere. The idea is that you read a lot of stuff, and so you become attuned to which people are full of shit and which people actually have something to say. Now in the way of papers that address social and political or economic issues…I think you’re right more often than not. There isn’t a lot of real philosophy to be done around those things that hasn’t already been beaten into the ground. At a certain point, the dead horse starts to stink. But in the field of philosophy, there are actually quite a number of people who are putting out good quality work that…if you’re inclined toward philosophy, should interest you.
Let’s start with Lewis’s “reduction of mind”, or “individuation by stipulation and acquaintance”, then try, “elusive knowledge”, then “are we free to break the laws”.
If you don’t think that those papers have concise, well written, fully intact arguments for positions that should be common sense, and if you don’t think that the articulation of the ideas in those papers is well done and conclusive, and if you don’t think that they are interesting, and if you do think that they are banal, then philosophy may not be for you.
Stuart perhaps is more akin to the character “the self thought man” in sartr’s novel Nausea. Sure there a lot of courses and papers everywhere.
An analogy smears. There is a very contentous debate going on in primary and even seconsdary educational circles relating to the issue of home education. The debate is still raging with both sides arguing about it, while the program is going on, unabated, until some agreement can come about.
I think people who want to home school their kids should have to take some tests themselves, but I also think that kids who are in schools where people are getting stabbed should have another option. It’s a tough one. Again, I think examining each case individually will get the best results.
Yes, I’m self thought, or at least I like to think I am. Smears, your going to have to literally give me an article, as in quote it here, give me a direct link or PM it to me. If not that, then give me a name of an actual book, and the 5-10 pages you find most relevant and I will see about getting a copy and then tell you what I think.