education and morals

[Athena]

Those who go to this link will see that the Frankfurt School and German philosophy are related to the social upheaval of the 1960's in the US and cultural change that may not be so good. It is the author's intent to explain our modern social crisis. Our democracy was dependent on classical philosophy and was transmitted through public education. I think changes were made with good intentions, but were not wise decisions.

George Friedman wrote:Auschwitz was a rational place, but it was not a reasonable one. It was rational in that it was efficient and sophisticated for its given task. It would not have been practical or even seriously conceivable except for the technologies of modern science. Furthermore, except for the modern belief that thought and practice can be identical (a belief that is the basis of technology), the translation of Hitler’s nightmare image into practical reality would have been inconceivable.

 

The power of modern reason is that it feels itself honor bound to take everything seriously. This openness to everything is the result of our peculiar skepticism, in which we are reverent about nothing. The modern feels not only that everything is possible but also that all things possible are practical. The destruction of the Jews had always been imaginable. With Hitler it became practical. The skepticism of scientific reason sapped our critical reason. Our obligation to take the awful seriously meant that we were not free simply to condemn. Our social scientists and philosophers felt that there was something terribly wrong at Auschwitz, but their methodologies, their rational procedures, did not allow their personal revulsion to be turned into scientific principle. Their methods required neutrality. Revulsion was reduced to value judgments. Since moral values were viewed as irrational, and the irrational has no place in the scientific mode of thought, our social scientists had to be open to the suspicion that there was nothing demonstrably wrong with Auschwitz.

 

Not only was nothing sacred, but all things had possible merit. Reason denied itself the right to an a priori revulsion at Auschwitz. Modernity’s reason led us into a fully unreasonable condition in which the common sense of the humane tradition had to be denied. It was this unreasonable rationality, this modern paradox, that was the great concern of the Frankfurt School.

 

http://www.jahrbuch2003.studien-von-zei ... school.HTM

[EquisDeXD]

Those who go to this link will see that the Frankfurt School and German philosophy are related to the social upheaval of the 1960's in the US and cultural change that may not be so good. It is the author's intent to explain our modern social crisis. Our democracy was dependent on classical philosophy and was transmitted through public education. I think changes were made with good intentions, but were not wise decisions.

George Friedman wrote:Auschwitz was a rational place, but it was not a reasonable one. It was rational in that it was efficient and sophisticated for its given task. It would not have been practical or even seriously conceivable except for the technologies of modern science. Furthermore, except for the modern belief that thought and practice can be identical (a belief that is the basis of technology), the translation of Hitler's nightmare image into practical reality would have been inconceivable.

 

The power of modern reason is that it feels itself honor bound to take everything seriously. This openness to everything is the result of our peculiar skepticism, in which we are reverent about nothing. The modern feels not only that everything is possible but also that all things possible are practical. The destruction of the Jews had always been imaginable. With Hitler it became practical. The skepticism of scientific reason sapped our critical reason. Our obligation to take the awful seriously meant that we were not free simply to condemn. Our social scientists and philosophers felt that there was something terribly wrong at Auschwitz, but their methodologies, their rational procedures, did not allow their personal revulsion to be turned into scientific principle. Their methods required neutrality. Revulsion was reduced to value judgments. Since moral values were viewed as irrational, and the irrational has no place in the scientific mode of thought, our social scientists had to be open to the suspicion that there was nothing demonstrably wrong with Auschwitz.

 

Not only was nothing sacred, but all things had possible merit. Reason denied itself the right to an a priori revulsion at Auschwitz. Modernity's reason led us into a fully unreasonable condition in which the common sense of the humane tradition had to be denied. It was this unreasonable rationality, this modern paradox, that was the great concern of the Frankfurt School.

 

http://www.jahrbuch2003.studien-von-zei ... school.HTM

 

 

I'm not really sure what your saying, but Hitler didn't kill them because he believed it was some practical purpose for the human race, he just used Jews and Gays and Gypsies as scapegoats to take power.

[Essay]

Not only was nothing sacred, but all things had possible merit. Reason denied itself the right to an a priori revulsion at Auschwitz. Modernity's reason led us into a fully unreasonable condition in which the common sense of the humane tradition had to be denied. It was this unreasonable rationality, this modern paradox, that was the great concern of the Frankfurt School.

 

http://www.jahrbuch2003.studien-von-zei ... school.HTM

 

I'm intrigued by this notion that our education system is to blame for our modern mindset of "relativism." I think this is a complaint of some right-wing ideologues who blame liberal education for destroying America's moral fabric (if I understand that perspective correctly). I often feel there is partially a certain truth in that notion about liberal education, but rationally I feel confident that liberal education is appropriate (afterall, it's what I was taught).

 

As I read your posts, it seems that notion of "relativism" is the common factor in the problems you describe. Cultural relativism, biological relativism (evolution), social relativism (objectivist/libertarian), and of course physical relativism (relativity), as well as the moral relativism that seems to be politically correct in a secular society, all contribute to the fundamental background of our society.

 

Materialism, consumerism, and a vicious circle of capitalism --as manifested through Marketing-- has elevated relativistic individualism to a fundamental value of Western society, which is validated by our education system, and this may lead to ...ummm, basically the seven deadly sins... or "moral decay" or the decline of civilization, civic apathy, etc. There are certainly examples of this sort of pattern throughout history, right? Anyway....

 

God & Religions used to keep societies cohesive to whatever extent was needed at the time and place. Things move a bit too fast these days, and are relatively global in nature, so we need a new paradigm to focus our need for cohesiveness and the communitarian benefits of civilization. With that in mind, have you heard of:

====

 

ReInventing the Sacred, a book by Stuart Kauffman, argues [iMHO] for a natural morality since a strictly rationality-based morality is easily corrupted or too short sighted.

http://www.noetic.or...venting-sacred/

 

With Reinventing the Sacred, Kauffman joins the ranks of a growing body of progressive scientists attempting to articulate a new, scientifically rigorous worldview that leaves room for, and even honors, humanity's spiritual yearnings.

 

Best known for his work as one of the Santa Fe Institute's pioneering complexity theorists, Kauffman has spent the last two decades illuminating the chaotic patterns underpinning our seemingly orderly universe. In his new book, he sets for himself an even loftier task: to show us why the newest revelations from the frontiers of science seem to call for the invention of a new kind of God.

 

Now, if the notion of humans "inventing" (or "reinventing") God sounds to you like a hubris-laden inversion of the causal chain, you'll be pleased to know that your materialist radar is in sound working order. The God Kauffman points to bears little or no resemblance to the God worshiped by the great traditions, let alone the God experienced by mystics throughout the ages. Where that God is concerned, Kauffman is right in step with his materialist brethren. He dismisses any notion of a transcendent, creative intelligence to be the naive, outmoded fantasy of a bygone age. For Kauffman, the God worthy of our awe is decidedly more down to earth. He suggests we turn our reverence toward not that which transcends space and time but toward a "natural God," which he describes as "the creativity inherent in the physical universe."

 

This notion of something that is "sacred" or recognized as eminently significant, by everyone in common, is what relativism erodes--it seems to me. So maybe this new perspective of Kauffman's could help move us beyond relativistic fundamentalism, eh?

 

~

Edited October 13, 2012 by Essay

[Athena]

I'm not really sure what your saying, but Hitler didn't kill them because he believed it was some practical purpose for the human race, he just used Jews and Gays and Gypsies as scapegoats to take power.

 

Did you read the link? I don't know how to deal with your response because it is so far off the point. Sincerely, can you help me here? Did you get the part that this school of education is directly related to what happened in the US in the 1960's and the following cultural change?

 

I'm intrigued by this notion that our education system is to blame for our modern mindset of "relativism." I think this is a complaint of some right-wing ideologues who blame liberal education for destroying America's moral fabric (if I understand that perspective correctly). I often feel there is partially a certain truth in that notion about liberal education, but rationally I feel confident that liberal education is appropriate (afterall, it's what I was taught).

 

As I read your posts, it seems that notion of "relativism" is the common factor in the problems you describe. Cultural relativism, biological relativism (evolution), social relativism (objectivist/libertarian), and of course physical relativism (relativity), as well as the moral relativism that seems to be politically correct in a secular society, all contribute to the fundamental background of our society.

 

Materialism, consumerism, and a vicious circle of capitalism --as manifested through Marketing-- has elevated relativistic individualism to a fundamental value of Western society, which is validated by our education system, and this may lead to ...ummm, basically the seven deadly sins... or "moral decay" or the decline of civilization, civic apathy, etc. There are certainly examples of this sort of pattern throughout history, right? Anyway....

 

God & Religions used to keep societies cohesive to whatever extent was needed at the time and place. Things move a bit too fast these days, and are relatively global in nature, so we need a new paradigm to focus our need for cohesiveness and the communitarian benefits of civilization. With that in mind, have you heard of:

====

 

ReInventing the Sacred, a book by Stuart Kauffman, argues [iMHO] for a natural morality since a strictly rationality-based morality is easily corrupted or too short sighted.

http://www.noetic.or...venting-sacred/

 

 

 

This notion of something that is "sacred" or recognized as eminently significant, by everyone in common, is what relativism erodes--it seems to me. So maybe this new perspective of Kauffman's could help move us beyond relativistic fundamentalism, eh?

 

~

 

Yipes, your post brings us to the complexity of the subject. The 2012 Texas Republican Agenda is to prevent public schools from teaching the higher order thinking skills, because they believe this undermines parental authority. To teach higher order thinking skills is to teach independent thinking, and leads to people questioning authority. Personally I think this is vital to our democracy and morality, and it is why I keep bring this up. It goes with liberal education, so there is a connection with liberal education and morality, and it also goes with every revolution against state authority making citizens subjects to authority.

 

What is sacred is math and logos and our earth. Why is something sacred? Because it is a power much greater than our own and our lives depend on it. Math is the language of God and with it we can understand logos and then we can make moral decisions, and life on earth gets better instead of being destroyed.

 

I forget the German words, but one means being a generalist and other means being specialized. Education for technology specializes everyone, and this is in part what brings us to a mechanical society. Pericles funeral oration explains why Athens is worth fighting for and how it is different from Sparta. Athenians had education for generalist, and were they expected to know something about everything, so when they voted they did so with a broad understanding of life. Sparta specialized and took pride in being as German long before there were Germans. The difference between the democracy we were and the Germany we fought against, was the same as the difference between Athens and Sparta. We are living with this clash today in a new way, because as Athens did, following its war with Sparta, we have also internalized our enemy and now the culture of our enemy has replaced the one we had and we are realizing the problems this manifest.

 

Education for technology is education for specialist, and because everyone is specialized instead of generalist, they are no longer capable of governing themselves as they once were, but this doesn't matter because we also adopted the German model of bureaucracy that goes with specializing individuals. I don't know how to say this in a way that is not offensive, but if it is not understood this stuff, we can not deal sanely with the reality we have created. We do not have the individualism of the past, which resulted from a very different education than our present education for technology, which replaced education for independent thinking with "group think". In the past, the compass for moral decisions was not self interest and how we "feel" about things. In the past we were united by education that transmitted a culture with logos, or God, at the center, and built on decisions were based on learned principles. This was not perfect because it lacked the science we are gaining today, but without it we are realizing serious problems. What is needed is a better balance of the old and new. We are entering a new age with a consciousness so completely different from past consciousness that those of the future will not be able to relate to the history that got us to this point. Just look at the other forum about geology and your post of the thousand cords. Scientific discoveries like this are revolutionizing our consciousness. But to get where we must be, we must now go from education that specializes, back to education that generalizes. That is having citizens who know a little bit about many things, and a belief in human beings as having a responsibility to the rest of humanity and the planet.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Athena

[EquisDeXD]

Did you read the link? I don't know how to deal with your response because it is so far off the point. Sincerely, can you help me here? Did you get the part that this school of education is directly related to what happened in the US in the 1960's and the following cultural change?

 

I know that it was odd point, but the way it's worded, I don't know what else to concretely say because I might be misinterpreting it, I'm not very familiar with the Crisis of Modernity, and it seems the way it was worded perplexed other people as well because everything I research about it seems to conflict somewhat with other sources as well as lacking the ability to generalize the original information. But, it seems like it's pointing out some kind of conflict between following a path of pure reason which is what modern society is trying to do while the axioms for pursing the reason or I guess using any particular part of it are purely emotionally driven.

Edited October 13, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[Athena]

I know that it was odd point, but the way it's worded, I don't know what else to concretely say because I might be misinterpreting it, I'm not very familiar with the Crisis of Modernity, and it seems the way it was worded perplexed other people as well because everything I research about it seems to conflict somewhat with other sources as well as lacking the ability to generalize the original information. But, it seems like it's pointing out some kind of conflict between following a path of pure reason which is what modern society is trying to do while the axioms for pursing the reason or I guess using any particular part of it are purely emotionally driven.

 

Excellent reply. I wish some mods would learn from you. You have identified the point of possible disagreement, making it possible for me to address this point. Let me start with confessing my head is really spinning as all of sudden I am hearing cries from everywhere about our moral dilemma, and a need for a new religion, and there are new books about democracy being written, explaining how democracy is being destroyed, or explaining what an ideal democracy looks like and all the morality that goes with it. I am not alone with concerns about a "modern crisis", although my understanding of how we got in this mess is different. I came to my understanding of the problem by studying the history of education, and did so by collecting and reading old books. My information is not common because the source is not common, however, it is factual.

 

Just now, in a geology thread, I was ranting about this crisis from a different point of view. In general the public is extremely ignorant of geology, and some of noticed their local libraries do not have good books on geology. No matter how good our logic or our reasoning may appear, if it is too narrow, and in fact ignorant of a field of study as important as geology, it is bad reasoning with destructive ramifications. In the geology thread, the greater problem of our present industrial life style was identified as global warming. I threw in the terrible ramifications of being ignorant of where our oil comes from, the reality of it being finite, and the economic, military and political realities of oil.

 

I don't know what is meant by " the axioms for pursuing the reason or I guess using any part of it are purely emotionally driven" means? I think it is reasonable if we have an emotional reaction to the destruction of our lives. Actually I am reminded of a few Star Trek shows that address this question of the value of our emotions. I like what I learned from a diabetic pamphlet about anger. It explained anger is our natural warning system that something is warn. When we become aware of the anger, we are to check for what is wrong and think what needs to be done to correct the wrong. I tell children and their parents that fear is a sign of intelligence. Emotions are not a bad, but are an important part of survival system. What is really scary is humanity can self destruct with complete ignorance of what it is doing!

We need a new frame work for thinking. To ignore this is to remain on the path Germany followed. That is the path to the horrors of NAZI Germany. Let me repeat, there are many cries for an urgent need to gain awareness and change how we think. Others see what I am seeing, but they do not normally mention NAZI Germany. The link I used does mention NAZI Germany, but not what I think is essential to this understanding. What I think is essential to the understanding is, how education for technology is different from liberal education. I have been told I can not talk about this, by those who have no understanding of what I am talking about, so I used a link to make a point. It is really hard to talk about something I have been told not to talk about, but I think it is very important we have awareness of what is happening, why and the ramifications of it. There was a line of philosophy that lead to the idea that planners should plan our lives for us, and this is what we have educated for, a society that is planned and run by policy, while public education conditions the citizens to be lead by the planners.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Athena

[EquisDeXD]

Excellent reply. I wish some mods would learn from you. You have identified the point of possible disagreement, making it possible for me to address this point. Let me start with confessing my head is really spinning as all of sudden I am hearing cries from everywhere about our moral dilemma, and a need for a new religion, and there are new books about democracy being written, explaining how democracy is being destroyed, or explaining what an ideal democracy looks like and all the morality that goes with it. I am not alone with concerns about a "modern crisis", although my understanding of how we got in this mess is different. I came to my understanding of the problem by studying the history of education, and did so by collecting and reading old books. My information is not common because the source is not common, however, it is factual.

 

Just now, in a geology thread, I was ranting about this crisis from a different point of view. In general the public is extremely ignorant of geology, and some of noticed their local libraries do not have good books on geology. No matter how good our logic or our reasoning may appear, if it is too narrow, and in fact ignorant of a field of study as important as geology, it is bad reasoning with destructive ramifications. In the geology thread, the greater problem of our present industrial life style was identified as global warming. I threw in the terrible ramifications of being ignorant of where our oil comes from, the reality of it being finite, and the economic, military and political realities of oil.

 

I don't know what is meant by " the axioms for pursuing the reason or I guess using any part of it are purely emotionally driven" means? I think it is reasonable if we have an emotional reaction to the destruction of our lives. Actually I am reminded of a few Star Trek shows that address this question of the value of our emotions. I like what I learned from a diabetic pamphlet about anger. It explained anger is our natural warning system that something is warn. When we become aware of the anger, we are to check for what is wrong and think what needs to be done to correct the wrong. I tell children and their parents that fear is a sign of intelligence. Emotions are not a bad, but are an important part of survival system. What is really scary is humanity can self destruct with complete ignorance of what it is doing!

We need a new frame work for thinking. To ignore this is to remain on the path Germany followed. That is the path to the horrors of NAZI Germany. Let me repeat, there are many cries for an urgent need to gain awareness and change how we think. Others see what I am seeing, but they do not normally mention NAZI Germany. The link I used does mention NAZI Germany, but not what I think is essential to this understanding. What I think is essential to the understanding is, how education for technology is different from liberal education. I have been told I can not talk about this, by those who have no understanding of what I am talking about, so I used a link to make a point. It is really hard to talk about something I have been told not to talk about, but I think it is very important we have awareness of what is happening, why and the ramifications of it. There was a line of philosophy that lead to the idea that planners should plan our lives for us, and this is what we have educated for, a society that is planned and run by policy, while public education conditions the citizens to be lead by the planners.

 

Well I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, I don't know exactly what the crisis is, but based on the reference to Hitler and a few others, it seems to point out some conflict with the use of technology and how people like to think that society is more enlightened because its more technological and has more science yet most of the time the drive for using science is just emotional. But, that doesn't mean it can't have other meanings. I think that it could also mean that society likes to think its so much more enlightened because of how much technology it has, yet ironically the presence of such technology creates ignorance, people just seem to stop caring about learning because they think they are already so advanced.

Edited October 15, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[Athena]

Well I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, I don't know exactly what the crisis is, but based on the reference to Hitler and a few others, it seems to point out some conflict with the use of technology and how people like to think that society is more enlightened because its more technological and has more science yet most of the time the drive for using science is just emotional. But, that doesn't mean it can't have other meanings. I think that it could also mean that society likes to think its so much more enlightened because of how much technology it has, yet ironically the presence of such technology creates ignorance, people just seem to stop caring about learning because they think they are already so advanced.

 

Well said. We can be aware of causes of global warming, and the harm being done, and how to reverse the causes, but we can not motivate the masses to cooperate with changes we need to make. We have public broadcasting stations, but the government has cut funding to them, so we are not using this technology as effectively as it could be use to educate the masses. When public broadcasting can not make high quality shows, the average person is not attracted to the public broadcasting stations, and instead of being educated, that masses are being entertained by commercial TV that caters to our desire for entertainment rather than a desire to be informed. This makes no sense to me. We are not using the technology we have as efficiently as we could be using it to have a well educated mass.

 

"The skepticism of scientific reason sapped our critical reason." This is the real problem of the modern crisis. Liberal education prepares everyone for critical thinking, but not education for technology. Liberal education internalized authority and education for technology prepares individuals to be dependent on authority. The reason for this is, technology advances fastest when those entering the fields rely on the experts, instead of rethinking everything themselves. Whereas, social decisions, how to vote and what actions a person may take, require independent thinking. Technology favors "group think" to independent thinking, so people work together to advance technology. You can see this cultural change by comparing the original Star Trek shows with the Next Generation. Captain Kirk of the original series is the John Wayne of space. Captain Picard of the Next Generation is of the "group think" generation. I am saying this is a major cultural change brought about a change in education. Advancing technology is the purpose of this education, not advancing a highly moral and refined civilization.

 

The change has effected our legal system. We used to speak of the spirit of the law, and it was said, to go by the letter of the law, is another forum of tyranny. Today we go by the letter of the law and call it being technologically correct. We trusted judges to sentence those declared guilty and now Oregon has taken that power from the judge and mandates some crimes result in 11 year sentences. Added to this is no longer treating the young as different from adults. We seem to be denying the judgment of a 16 year old is very different from the judgment of 42 year old. In the past a person could hide his errors, but today there is no hiding and there is no new start, but a record open to employers and property managers. Sure there are good reasons for things being as they are, but there were also good reasons for them being different. I think we are becoming increasingly brutal.

 

Then there are the debates about morals, and the opinion that morals are just a matter of personal preference. Okay, if morals are just a matter of personal preference, and if we are to be rational and non emotional, and an employer wants to involve you in wrong doing, what do you do? I will tell you what my public policy and administration professor told the class. "Never argue with authority because it would not be good for your career". That means if your employer is doing something that you believe is wrong, or asks you to do something you believe is wrong, you better go along with what your employer wants. That is how the horrors of NAZI Germany happened. They happened because of how the Germans used public education "to organize capacities for conduct." It happened because of Germany being authoritarian and citizens being willing to obey authority without question. A little different from Patrick Henry who is know for saying, "Give me liberty or give me death". In the US we have a tradition of questioning authority and believing our liberty means independent moral decisions, but I am not sure if this is still important in our culture. It was not important to my professor.