Meaning and conviction
We need some philosophical speculation to guide us!
Our habit of seeking accustomed satisfactions prevents us from finding new sources of energy with which to see or create new meanings. Blind habit controls our every turn. Familiar modes of thought and accustomed perceptions lock our imagination and will into a strait jacket of passivity.
What tool is available to break this passive mold of inaction and apathy? It is playful imagination that can lead us from the jailhouse we have trapped our self within. We need to remind our self of Plato’s wise expression that the gods are happiest when man plays. This playful attitude applies both to our sciences as well as our arts. It applies to all of wo/man’s symbolic activities.
Physicists found the world inside the atom to be non-intuitive. The world inside the atom seemed to be totally different from our world. Heisenberg’s principle of indeterminacy was about an alien world. If, however, we were able to climb into the atomic world it is quite possible that the principle of indeterminacy would be ‘just doing what comes naturally’.
Some of history’s great thinkers have penetrated into the human mind long before Freud. Rousseau, for example, comprehended an aspect of “unconscious motivation. “The moral of this anecdote is that the honest man can see through himself even quicker than the honest scientist can see through nature.
We could have comprehended the science of the human condition much sooner than we did and the reason we did not is because of the “intolerance of method, the claims to exclusivity, the doctrine of a single valid approach to the study of man¦The place where this took its greatest toll was in the fragmentation of the disciplines, the isolation of the various approaches to man. But undoubtedly the most harmful intolerance of all was the intolerance of philosophy in the science of man. P 168
In the reaction to various philosophical speculations, the scientific community in the mid-nineteenth century shouted ‘no more speculations were needed about the nature of man’. The scientific community followed by the population in general decided that it was only important to discover what was going on within the organism. Psychiatry became uncompromisingly organismic. Science failed to see that its methods were narrowing significantly humanities real striving.
Pragmatism at the end of the nineteenth century was a response to this narrow scientific approach toward the “science of man. It became obvious that we must understand what wo/man is striving for, “as a part of nature, as a dimension of life.
Rousseau taught us that humans wanted meaning and maximum conviction but a major question that the scientific method could not resolve “What was behind all of man’s peculiar urges, what was he trying to do as a vehicle of the life force? For only if we could understand this abstract problem could we answer the greatest practical puzzle of all: What were the possibilities of life on the level of human existence; and, conversely, what was there about the human condition that was hopeless?
What are the limitations and possibilities for human life?
Meaning and Conviction
Meaning and Conviction
Coberst, you say we need some philosophical speculation to guide us! Then you give us only hints without conclusions or your own clear thoughts.
I think Rousseau was incorrect about humans wanting "meaning and maximum conviction." Human kind, as a whole, may have some built in desires which we either have not found or never been able to agree upon.
As to your final question, "What are the limitations and possibilities for human life?" I would say 'None' and 'Everything.' I would really like to see your own answer so I could respond.
intellectualsanonymous.org
I think Rousseau was incorrect about humans wanting "meaning and maximum conviction." Human kind, as a whole, may have some built in desires which we either have not found or never been able to agree upon.
As to your final question, "What are the limitations and possibilities for human life?" I would say 'None' and 'Everything.' I would really like to see your own answer so I could respond.
intellectualsanonymous.org
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Meaning and Conviction
"Our habit of seeking accustomed satisfactions prevents us from finding new sources of energy with which to see or create new meanings."
This makes no sense to me. Get a grip on reality!!!!!
This makes no sense to me. Get a grip on reality!!!!!
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Meaning and Conviction
imsmith;539887 wrote: Coberst, you say we need some philosophical speculation to guide us! Then you give us only hints without conclusions or your own clear thoughts.
I think Rousseau was incorrect about humans wanting "meaning and maximum conviction." Human kind, as a whole, may have some built in desires which we either have not found or never been able to agree upon.
As to your final question, "What are the limitations and possibilities for human life?" I would say 'None' and 'Everything.' I would really like to see your own answer so I could respond.
intellectualsanonymous.org
Comprehension is a hierarchy and can be usefully thought of as like a pyramid. Awareness is at the base followed by consciousness (awareness plus attention). Then comes knowing followed by understanding at the pinnacle.
My posts are an attempt to make the reader conscious of an idea that is important. I think that the Internet forum is a great place to become conscious of new ideas but is a lousy place to gain knowledge. To gain knowledge of any significance one must go to the books. A few paragraphs on a forum are not a way to gain important knowledge. What I hope to do is to arouse the reader’s curiosity sufficiently to lead him or her to the books.
Our schools and colleges have taught us how to become good little producers and consumers. The other important things in life we must learn from books or perhaps Google. Google is good for a first look.
To become knowledgeable about human kind we must comprehend what humans have the capacity to accomplish and then we must create an ideal for humans to strive for in light of their capacity. Science has discovered what we humans have when we start life. We must learn what this base line is and then start a restructuring of society to reach for what we might be able to become. The present social structure will take us to perdition and if this new generation does not start a new direction wo/man kind may not have another chance.
What is badly needed is a few young people who are capable of learning and leading.
I think Rousseau was incorrect about humans wanting "meaning and maximum conviction." Human kind, as a whole, may have some built in desires which we either have not found or never been able to agree upon.
As to your final question, "What are the limitations and possibilities for human life?" I would say 'None' and 'Everything.' I would really like to see your own answer so I could respond.
intellectualsanonymous.org
Comprehension is a hierarchy and can be usefully thought of as like a pyramid. Awareness is at the base followed by consciousness (awareness plus attention). Then comes knowing followed by understanding at the pinnacle.
My posts are an attempt to make the reader conscious of an idea that is important. I think that the Internet forum is a great place to become conscious of new ideas but is a lousy place to gain knowledge. To gain knowledge of any significance one must go to the books. A few paragraphs on a forum are not a way to gain important knowledge. What I hope to do is to arouse the reader’s curiosity sufficiently to lead him or her to the books.
Our schools and colleges have taught us how to become good little producers and consumers. The other important things in life we must learn from books or perhaps Google. Google is good for a first look.
To become knowledgeable about human kind we must comprehend what humans have the capacity to accomplish and then we must create an ideal for humans to strive for in light of their capacity. Science has discovered what we humans have when we start life. We must learn what this base line is and then start a restructuring of society to reach for what we might be able to become. The present social structure will take us to perdition and if this new generation does not start a new direction wo/man kind may not have another chance.
What is badly needed is a few young people who are capable of learning and leading.
Meaning and Conviction
nvalleyvee;539888 wrote: "Our habit of seeking accustomed satisfactions prevents us from finding new sources of energy with which to see or create new meanings."
This makes no sense to me. Get a grip on reality!!!!!
Young people seem to think that to be negative is to be cool. I think that to be negative is to be dumb. You cannot learn if you start with negativity.
My posts says that we have drilled into us a set of habits that dictate how we see the world and what we think is our role in the world. Until a person learns some of these basic facts they are unlikely to ever go beyond their small world described by those habits.
This makes no sense to me. Get a grip on reality!!!!!
Young people seem to think that to be negative is to be cool. I think that to be negative is to be dumb. You cannot learn if you start with negativity.
My posts says that we have drilled into us a set of habits that dictate how we see the world and what we think is our role in the world. Until a person learns some of these basic facts they are unlikely to ever go beyond their small world described by those habits.
Meaning and Conviction
Pinky
I wish you were corect. The problem does not rest upon the volume of information, the problem rests upon where to place the information such that it adds dimension and understanding. If we do not have a puzzle wherein that fragment of information fits then that fragment of information is of little value. The problem young people face is learning how to learn. Learning how to see behind the curtain was not just a problem for the girl from Kansas it is the principal problem for all young people when their schools days are over.
Let us discuss critically what my posts are about.
Often my posts are ideas that are garnered from a book I am reading. These are important ideas that I hope will arouse the curiosity of the reader.
My essays have one or two principal ideas and the rest of it is devoted to staging the ideas. The staging process generally involves facts that I take from the book’s author and they are not part of the one or two important ideas. These peripheral stage setting facts are not things that I am prepared to examine critically; they are what I consider to be correct facts that the author, an expert about such matters, has chosen to present with his important ideas.
Generally I choose the principal ideas presented because I think they are important and are unfamiliar to the reader.
The reader who wishes to respond has several possibilities. If the reader is knowledgeable about the principal ideas, or is really interested in comprehending these ideas the reader can ask questions about these ideas or they can comment critically or in agreement about them.
If the reader is not knowledgably about the principal ideas they can take a few days or weeks to familiarize themselves and then come back to the thread and critically analyze the principal ideas. This seldom happens.
What does happen is the reader finds something within the stage setting part of the essay about which they have some knowledge and they make some negative remark about this.
So my response to you is that I would love to find someone with whom I can critically examine the principal ideas of the essay; but I must admit such an opportunity seldom arrives.
I would suggest to the reader who is not knowledgeable with the principal ideas presented, that they take the time to think, and thus comprehend somewhat about the ideas, and then ask germane questions about those ideas. Just the effort to recognize what are the principal ideas of the essay will go a long way toward comprehension.
Our schools have left us intellectually handicapped. We have never learned how to learn; we have only learned how to memorize something that might appear on an exam. Most responders seem to have five minutes allotted to scan, respond, and move on because nothing contained in the essay will appear on an exam.
I wish you were corect. The problem does not rest upon the volume of information, the problem rests upon where to place the information such that it adds dimension and understanding. If we do not have a puzzle wherein that fragment of information fits then that fragment of information is of little value. The problem young people face is learning how to learn. Learning how to see behind the curtain was not just a problem for the girl from Kansas it is the principal problem for all young people when their schools days are over.
Let us discuss critically what my posts are about.
Often my posts are ideas that are garnered from a book I am reading. These are important ideas that I hope will arouse the curiosity of the reader.
My essays have one or two principal ideas and the rest of it is devoted to staging the ideas. The staging process generally involves facts that I take from the book’s author and they are not part of the one or two important ideas. These peripheral stage setting facts are not things that I am prepared to examine critically; they are what I consider to be correct facts that the author, an expert about such matters, has chosen to present with his important ideas.
Generally I choose the principal ideas presented because I think they are important and are unfamiliar to the reader.
The reader who wishes to respond has several possibilities. If the reader is knowledgeable about the principal ideas, or is really interested in comprehending these ideas the reader can ask questions about these ideas or they can comment critically or in agreement about them.
If the reader is not knowledgably about the principal ideas they can take a few days or weeks to familiarize themselves and then come back to the thread and critically analyze the principal ideas. This seldom happens.
What does happen is the reader finds something within the stage setting part of the essay about which they have some knowledge and they make some negative remark about this.
So my response to you is that I would love to find someone with whom I can critically examine the principal ideas of the essay; but I must admit such an opportunity seldom arrives.
I would suggest to the reader who is not knowledgeable with the principal ideas presented, that they take the time to think, and thus comprehend somewhat about the ideas, and then ask germane questions about those ideas. Just the effort to recognize what are the principal ideas of the essay will go a long way toward comprehension.
Our schools have left us intellectually handicapped. We have never learned how to learn; we have only learned how to memorize something that might appear on an exam. Most responders seem to have five minutes allotted to scan, respond, and move on because nothing contained in the essay will appear on an exam.
Meaning and Conviction
Coberst,
You wrote "Comprehension is a hierarchy ..." as if that is a fact, but you give no source for that or the book on which your essay is based, though you do mention Rousseau twice. If I am to look at the book, I need to know which one. If we are to have a good discussion, we need equal informaton or a more precise and concise starting point.
I've often thought that Longinus had a point in feeling a whole work might be developed in order to deliver one 'thunderbolt,' i.e. a good line or thought. Just what is your major thought. Your beginning post held an excellent last line that could be discussed in a forum, but not your whole essay -- that would take a variety of forums.
I do agree we need new leadership and ideas (but not necessarily young) if we are to continue to exist. And, yes, play would be a good device for moving us forward -- if the play did not become a game to win.
intellectualsanonymous.org
You wrote "Comprehension is a hierarchy ..." as if that is a fact, but you give no source for that or the book on which your essay is based, though you do mention Rousseau twice. If I am to look at the book, I need to know which one. If we are to have a good discussion, we need equal informaton or a more precise and concise starting point.
I've often thought that Longinus had a point in feeling a whole work might be developed in order to deliver one 'thunderbolt,' i.e. a good line or thought. Just what is your major thought. Your beginning post held an excellent last line that could be discussed in a forum, but not your whole essay -- that would take a variety of forums.
I do agree we need new leadership and ideas (but not necessarily young) if we are to continue to exist. And, yes, play would be a good device for moving us forward -- if the play did not become a game to win.
intellectualsanonymous.org
Meaning and Conviction
Imsmith
The statement about “Comprehension is a hierarchy is my own idea. I have not specifically found it in any book but have concluded it to be the case based upon my own examination of what I know and about what my experience tells me.
I am convinced that understanding, unlike knowing, is a creation of meaning. Knowing is about truth and has a universal characteristic whereas understanding is about meaning and is a subjective thing.
I apologize for not putting the source for my essay. The ideas and quotes in the OP are from “Beyond Alienation by Ernest Becker.
Becker has written several books and this one “Beyond Alienation is of particular interest to me. In this book Becker creates an argument for the creation of what he calls a “science of man.
The natural sciences have achieved great things since Newton but in the moral realm we have been frighteningly unsuccessful. The ways for solving problems in the natural sciences will not work in the moral domain. The natural sciences deal with pattern wherein mathematics can be a great asset. In the moral domain we are not dealing with a world of pattern so we must learn to dialogue to reach a consensus. To dialogue we must share a common pool of knowledge and it is this knowledge that is lacking.
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. I have however a character that my son has assembled for me using images derived from the web that will serve my purpose.
The strong upper torso represents our strong aptitude for scientific achievement and the supporting legs represent our weak and wobbly moral rationality that is failing to provide the foundation needed by humanity.
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 philosophy becomes the central consideration for learning.
Moral philosophy teaches the hierarchy of values. The moral philosophy Becker speaks of recognizes that knowledge is never absolute and therefore must not remain static; it 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 humans value 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 social 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 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 not until our society has developed a much greater degree of intellectual sophistication.
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 network that could make up a critical intellectual element dedicated toward the regeneration of our society.
The statement about “Comprehension is a hierarchy is my own idea. I have not specifically found it in any book but have concluded it to be the case based upon my own examination of what I know and about what my experience tells me.
I am convinced that understanding, unlike knowing, is a creation of meaning. Knowing is about truth and has a universal characteristic whereas understanding is about meaning and is a subjective thing.
I apologize for not putting the source for my essay. The ideas and quotes in the OP are from “Beyond Alienation by Ernest Becker.
Becker has written several books and this one “Beyond Alienation is of particular interest to me. In this book Becker creates an argument for the creation of what he calls a “science of man.
The natural sciences have achieved great things since Newton but in the moral realm we have been frighteningly unsuccessful. The ways for solving problems in the natural sciences will not work in the moral domain. The natural sciences deal with pattern wherein mathematics can be a great asset. In the moral domain we are not dealing with a world of pattern so we must learn to dialogue to reach a consensus. To dialogue we must share a common pool of knowledge and it is this knowledge that is lacking.
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. I have however a character that my son has assembled for me using images derived from the web that will serve my purpose.
The strong upper torso represents our strong aptitude for scientific achievement and the supporting legs represent our weak and wobbly moral rationality that is failing to provide the foundation needed by humanity.
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 philosophy becomes the central consideration for learning.
Moral philosophy teaches the hierarchy of values. The moral philosophy Becker speaks of recognizes that knowledge is never absolute and therefore must not remain static; it 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 humans value 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 social 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 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 not until our society has developed a much greater degree of intellectual sophistication.
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 network that could make up a critical intellectual element dedicated toward the regeneration of our society.
Meaning and Conviction
If higher education is not going to change (soon, any way), then philosophy can tell education nothing. As a teacher, I'm sure K - 12 is not going to lead in this endeavor you dream of. Socrates tried to change his society along the lines you are thinking; it did not take. Living 'by clear and compelling logic' is hardly the human approach, perhaps our glory. We are more complex, thank the gods.
I agree the US has great intellectual assets (unused). But they rarely influence the influencial, who ignore them. To bridge the gap between thinkers and power brokers, we'd need more awareness of, attendance at, as well as respect for schools such as the Clarmont group in California, St. John's Colleges (Santa Fe and Annapolis), Reed in Oregon, and the U. of Chicago. At this point information and job skills seem to trump thinking.
intellectualsanonymous.org
I agree the US has great intellectual assets (unused). But they rarely influence the influencial, who ignore them. To bridge the gap between thinkers and power brokers, we'd need more awareness of, attendance at, as well as respect for schools such as the Clarmont group in California, St. John's Colleges (Santa Fe and Annapolis), Reed in Oregon, and the U. of Chicago. At this point information and job skills seem to trump thinking.
intellectualsanonymous.org
Meaning and Conviction
imsmith
Our school system, I think, will always concentrate one producing good workers and consumers. But perhaps we can leave our schools and colleges as they are if adults will use their brain power after graduating from school. If we can convince adults that learning has value both for them and for the community then we could have adults becoming intellectually involved in an attempt yo comprehend them self and comprehending the world they live in. If we could convince adults to "Get a life--get an intellectual life" we might find a way restructure our society.
Our school system, I think, will always concentrate one producing good workers and consumers. But perhaps we can leave our schools and colleges as they are if adults will use their brain power after graduating from school. If we can convince adults that learning has value both for them and for the community then we could have adults becoming intellectually involved in an attempt yo comprehend them self and comprehending the world they live in. If we could convince adults to "Get a life--get an intellectual life" we might find a way restructure our society.