it’s been so long since I saw it that I’m not sure.

Wasn't that genetic engineering to improve the genes rather than selecting from the "best" gene combo?

At the end of the day, Philosophy is just people trying to make sense out of life ... being, truth, knowledge, etc. ... just how to live. These are topics that would be helpful for young people to begin to explore. They have all the questions ... just need a little help getting started.

Problems for two generations and then everyone is Brave New World ready.

Came here to comment this!

hello GATTACA

The essay appears imho to do most of its pitching for studying philosophy of education by pitching the philosophy of other topics, like epistemology.

>With this in view, it seems obvious that education should matter to philosophy. And not just because education raises new and unexplored issues, but because it provides opportunity for a fresh approach to old issues that philosophy has traditionally struggled with. We start to see, for instance, that an adequate epistemology must recognise that the manner in which knowledge is acquired, communicated and shared is internal to the nature of knowledge itself, and that the metaphysics of personhood needs to countenance the formation of reason if we are to understand how rationality and animality are united in the human person.

He makes only a cursory mention of any "new and unexplored" issues, gives a critical section to a rather strange proposal by Kitchener at the end as the extent of mentioning old issues in the field, and spends the bulk talking about the "formation of reason", from which I learned nothing about the philosophy of education. Just because the "formation of reason" requires a person to undergo education (in his argument) does not make that automatically within the philosophy of education category -- there's points of common interest intersecting all over among subfields, but intersecting such a point does not mean that entire category is relevant to that subfield. If it did in practice then everyone in every field would be taking interest in their fields' education research subfield, and that's definitely never been the case.

Afaik, philosophy of education was handled seriously within history and philosophy of science over the recent decades -- probably more seriously than how education was handled by the bulk of academics in other fields. I think it was only in the late '90s and '00s that education in STEM and medicine especially became a much more serious issue within those departments, in part because countries like the US started getting more serious about more controlled experiments and a wider experimentation with techniques. When the data showed as dramatic results as it did, old-guard medical lecturers were willing to completely change formats -- an important note to consider, because one of the hurdles to education reform in the US is the inertial resistance to technique changes from old-guard teachers. This hints at just a few areas in which philosophy can investigate further, with no mention of everything that's been studied in terms of teacher-student communication, the changing student psychology and cultural identity (and that political pile of worms), addressing the US controversy over college indoctrination (hey, you don't even have to leave your campus for that one!).

A wasted potential for this essay imho. Sorry.

Lol appropriate

And in addition to that, every moment of every day is one more piece of evidence in a trial we are unwittingly participating in

[removed]

Gosh life must be exciting when you've no idea when anything happened.

My observation is that, in the article written by the original poster, a figure is shown representing "quadrants". Two statements formed the basis and these two statements were further modified by replacing the word "only" with the word "best".

Reading through your post, I see that you may be suggesting a change to this quadrant which would increase the number of types of epistemological scientism from 4 to 9. Your addition of the phrase "most reliable" requires this expansion.

I think you are being quite reasonable here by pointing out that there is a context of knowledge which is driven by the unique circumstances of the owner.

Yes, in that the sand is there to eat because elements of the water, in this case parrotfish, have created the things that make extrinsic experience possible, i.e. eating sand.

In the same way, the experiences we have are made possible by both conscious and intentional action, like the parrotfish eating coral, and by unconscious feelings, biases, wants, needs, fears, and interpretations, like the parrotfish shitting out sand and the sand washing up on shores to make beaches. When you interact with the world, it's never a straightforward, 1:1 engagement where what you see is exactly what you're getting. When you sit down and eat sand, you don't think about the fact that you're putting fish shit in your mouth until someone points it out. You can criticize the unpleasantness of the physical experience of eating sand, but, once you become more aware of the unseen processes that lead to the sand being there to eat, you can also criticize the experience from the deeper, but just as real, reality of eating fish shit.

[deleted]

Premise 2 in my argument is blatantly obvious. I'm not stipulating some contrived conclusion, I'm just pointing out that clearly, determinism could be true without all of our beliefs being true. There's nothing about determinism that would imply that all of our beliefs are true. This is far easier to defend that any of the premises in Huemer's argument.

> if P is false, then you should refrain from believing it

But this is just false if ought implies can, because there are plenty of situations where you can't help but believe falsehoods (say, when you're being convincingly tricked).

The Epic of Gilgamesh was written tens of thousands of years later than the first human tribes.

Agricultural revolution and the Bronze Age are a hell of a drug.

It seems like the gist of what is being said is “everything happens for a reason” and I believe that is true. Hope definitely gets us through the tough times and it’s a really important mental skill to be able to tell yourself to have hope and will yourself to believe it even during the toughest moments. But I don’t agree that only Lincoln and Jefferson have self-actualized. There’s a lot of other people that are at their peak of existence.

The Trial at times felt like reading Lovecraftian cosmic horror because the overwhelming presence and power of the authority bearing down on Josef K felt so faceless and so incomprehensible it might as well be some malevolent godlike entity and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

This is why I (and probably everyone else) try to cut toxic people out of our lives. Being toxic literally spreads to others and perpetuates the cycle of being a dick.

> That is a myopic view that must change

normative theory they adhere to, ah?

I made a typo, and I just corrected it. The sentence you quoted should have said: >Maslow's goal of self actualization wasn't was something which almost nobody could reasonably be expected to achieve.

I don't see how believing you are already self actualized is a prerequisite for becoming self actualized.

If you flow like water, you'll just be a puddle. People are complex, both internally and in their relationships with each other and the world around them.

All water always follows the same simple rules, and has no control over the rules it follows. It is passive, and it requires energy from an external source to move from a resting state.

People follow complex behaviors (which they seemingly are able to control) and interact with the world in a myriad of ways. They can harvest potential energy, and use it to change their circumstances.

It's bad to be too preoccupied with the past or future, or with things you can't control. But a Buddhist who stayed living entirely in the moment would starve to death; they most definitely are attached to their traditions, amongst other things; and if transcendence was attainable by the masses, then no other religion would exist.

“But who will protect us from climate deniers and anti-vaxxers…” Just when you think academics haven’t all drunk the Cool Aid…

I agree

The most existentially terrifying book I’ve ever read. Logic doesn’t run the world, various regimes of corruption do. How dare you be rational in your thinking! This book haunts me to this day..