![[ The Hunger Site Donate Free Food ]](../images/hungerbanner.gif)
People will do for fear what they will not do for love. Fear is a great motivator.
Courage is not the absence of fear. It is action in the presence of fear.
[ Top ]
What is your idea of education?
The idea of education is to learn as many perspectives, about people, as possible. How do people think? How have people thought? While education is continuing process ideally, the end is to learn as many perspectives as possible, and then choose to apply the ones 'that work.' Note that my wording is affected, or biased, by my pragmatic view. Generically, one can replace 'that work' to 'makes sense' or 'is logical.' But this latter terminology is biased as well. The bottom line is to learn all your biases and everyone elses, and you'll win.
My ideal teacher is one who believes in something, some idea, and has the desire, or passion, to communicate that idea as fully as possible to his students, without regard to other perspectives. Pluralism is not helpful in education. The master-apprentice relationship of ages past was effective, in producing quality, for a reason.
[ Top ]
What is your primary perspective?
I do not know the term, but my most basic assumption is that life, if it is about anything at all, is about producing more life, continuity, if you will. Nothing that does not contribute to the continuity of a species, or to procreation, survives for more than one generation(?). E.g. fertility goddesses.
Why ask 'What do you believe about people?'?
In studying any 'ism,' or system, asking this question is key to understanding all the components of the system. What is the basic assumption about people does the 'ism in question have? This, in turn, affects how the rest of the system works. If there is anything one should choose to remember about the study of anything, it is the answer to this question.
All intellectuals eventually fall into the determinist trap. It is, in particular, a problem in societies in where freedom, or free will, is emphasized. While it is true that Hume, and others, questioned cause and effect, it is a given in nearly all fields of study, especially science, and, for that matter, all areas of life, that there is a relationship between 'cause' and 'effect.' We are saturated with causality. Unfortunately, this concept is difficult if not impossible to reconcile with the concept of free will. However...
How does one get out of the determinist trap?
Contemporary ways of thinking generally make it impossible. There are, however, work-arounds. One popular one is, 'I don't know the future, so why does it matter if my thoughts and actions are determined or not?' Or, 'What impact does knowing that everything is determined have on my day to day decisions?' 'I'm going to do what I want to do anyway. Why does it matter now how I arrive at my choice?' Or, 'For all practical purposes, I have a choice.'
Or as Big Jon says:
In reality, the future isn't already written, as someone who learns about cause and effect is lead to believe. At a fundamental level, reality is best described by quantum mechanics that tells us that things happen with a probabilistic distribution rather then by definite outcomes. Put another way, knowing everything one can about the universe and given an infinite time to think about it, one wouldn't be able to predict next week's lottery numbers nor the course of one's life.
The trap I fall into is that there can be no free will. I'm a human. I never chose to be this way; it's just what I am. Being so, I have instincts. I never chose these instincts, yet they are my desires; I can want for little else. Free will would be freedom to choose my will, which is something no one has as it is a logical impossibility.
Does anyone really know? Most people think they know, but I choose only to make a distinction between two types of freedom. First is the freedom to do something. The second is the freedom from something. All discussions regarding freedom must begin with these.
What is the dominant view of freedom today?
Matt presents a 'modern,' rationalistic, if not dominant, viewpoint:
Certainly we live in a non-deterministic world. Free choice, and the fact that humans are not well-disciplined in our current free societies, enables a large variability in decision making depending on circumstances. I would argue that free choice is the cause of non-determinism, not prohibited by it.
You can't control all of the variables in the universe, but you can control your actions, your direction in life. That is free will, and if you are disciplined it makes for much more deterministic outcomes (in terms of things happening that you choose to happen) than not.
Furthermore:
There needs to be a distinction between Will and desire, or Drive. Human beings have certain Drives: to eat, to drink, to procreate, to interact with each other. These are internal stresses, and can be internalized or regulated by the mind. Some individuals do this better than others, but all people when properly conditioned can self-regulate. [Bear in mind, I'm not talking about physiological functions such as urination, involuntary muscle contraction, or things like that.]
What I think of as "free choice" is the ability to choose one's actions. Free will means we can determine our course of action, that we can choose against what we "want" or "desire" (where our drives point us).
The disciplined human is able to base his or her actions on the basis of high-level rational control, thereby decreasing the variability of decisions with changing drives, or external stimuli, in a given situation. This is the essence of free choice, the ability to deliberate with one's mind the actions and the desires of one's body. The Drives of the body pale in comparison.
[ Top ]
For most of society, 'it's what everybody believes is moral.' In anomic societies, this is an often asked question for more than a few not insignificant individuals. An easy way to find out if something is right or wrong is to ask oneself, If everyone does what I'm doing, will it cause suffering? Does it cause harm?
It is an assumption that suffering is an observable physical response.
[ Top ]
The Elder Pickles were asked, 'what advice do you have for us [soon to be married]?' The Elder Pickle simply said, Love is a choice. This is the key to a successful, life-long, relationship.
How does one live the good life?
There is a difference between ethical or psychological, egoism and altruism. I conform to the ideas of psychological egoism, people are by nature selfish, and ethical altruism, people should be selfless. It is assumed that that one must recognize his nature in able to transcend it(?). Regardless, I believe individuals find the most fulfillment in their lives by putting others needs before their own. Secondly, intrinsic fulfillment is found through procreation, or marrying and having children. The latter, I also believe, is how human beings solve the problem of death, or the fear of death, 'through my children do I live.'
[ Top ]
Music is a means for releasing emotions. It is an avenue for 'emotional release.'
What kind(s) of music do you like?
I like classical. I like punk. I like punk because it is intelligent, and probably because it is also a counter-culture, which in turn I believe gives a more accurate view of the main or dominant culture (not unlike professional wrestling). It is also often exhilirating, though not necessarily so. I like classical because it is complex, or 'for everything else.' Or, in other words, it tends to appeal to people universally.
![[ Best Viewed With Any Browser ]](../images/anybro.gif)