Posts by steelridge58

Eric Newman75 said:My biology professor used to take us out into the wild all the time. He’d tell us to collect plant samples, but it was never just mindless picking; he’d set up a hypothesis—like how a certain species spreads—and we had to prove it through experimentation.

The man could identify a single leaf instantly, rattling off the Latin name, several local nicknames, and its specific properties. On those trips, we collected hundreds, maybe even thousands, of specimens. I found out later that he was actually one of the leading experts on medicinal herbs in all of Europe. He never bragged about it, though. To us, he was just an authority figure—basically a walking computer. We knew he made his own teas and salves, and that he collaborated with various institutions, but we didn't realize just how wise he truly was until much later. He wasn't teaching us to memorize facts; he was teaching us how to think, measure, and verify.

👍

That is just wonderful. Such a joy to read!

Even if your professor and my biology professor were likely from the same generation and went through the exact same American school system, they couldn't have been more different in how they approached teaching, learning, and treating their students—not to mention their obvious passion for the subject itself. My professor was definitely a jokester and a favorite among the kids, but we never really received that level of quality or that deep approach to learning that you described here.

wearyharbor41 said:I appreciate your sincere, objective, and constructive contribution to this discussion. It stands in stark contrast to others here who seem rather insulated, preferring to dissect what someone else wrote in a textbook rather than applying their own human intellect and reasoning to the reality of the situation and the problems I’ve laid out.

Regrettably, it seems you are yet another casualty of this system—one that inflicted genuine harm and stifled certain human potentials, leaving you acutely aware of just how damaging the whole structure truly is.

😢

If you decide that the only "objective" or "constructive" way to look at a topic is the one that perfectly aligns with your own intensely negative outlook, then that isn't true philosophy, not even in the slightest. And honestly, trying to take shots at others by claiming they aren't being "sincere" or "constructive" enough isn't really how you participate in a real conversation.

I honestly can't help but feel like I’m overthinking this whole thing, but sometimes you just have to get these thoughts out there because they've been swirling around my head all day. It’s funny how we get so caught up in the minutiae of life that we forget to just step back and look at the big picture, though I suppose I'm the last person who should be giving advice on perspective given how much I tend to obsess over the smallest details. Anyway, I was thinking about how much energy we pour into things that might not even matter in the long run, and it really makes you wonder if we're all just spinning our wheels in different ways. kaže:
Look, steelridge58, what you’re describing sounds absolutely perfect on paper, but back then it was nothing more than a total pipe dream, and honestly, I don't think we've moved all that much closer to it even today. Still, the core idea carries so much weight and genuine purpose, because if we listen to what Hekatonhir mentioned above, education is something we simply cannot do without—it's an absolute necessity in this chaotic world we live in right now—even if the specific examples being thrown around here are frankly pretty appalling, though I suppose I can't really act surprised since I see the same mess everywhere I look. It was vital back then, and while it might feel slightly less urgent in our current landscape, it's still fundamentally essential. The way mass production works, it’s just built into its very nature to reject any kind of uniquely crafted soul that refuses to see itself as just another brick in the wall of the system—even if the kids might not consciously realize it, they can certainly feel that pressure deep down—instead of recognizing themselves as these original, one-of-a-kind individuals who aren't even remotely like anyone else.It’s honestly one of the most infuriating things you can witness—watching some completely unrefined individual, someone who lacks even the slightest shred of fundamental common sense, claw their way up to becoming a PhD just because they happen to be hyper-focused on one tiny, narrow slice of expertise. It feels like such a massive slap in the face to the very idea of true education, and frankly, it serves as a pretty grim indictment of our entire scientific and technological civilization that we worship at the altar of such specialized, hollow credentials. 🙂

I had this one perfect photo saved that I really wanted to upload here to illustrate what I was talking about above, but I just can't seem to track it down anywhere. It’s a great shot—it shows this long line of men all standing perfectly straight in a row, looking exactly like they walked out of a corporate catalog, all dressed in these identical, sharply tailored dark suits without a single hair out of place. But right in the middle of them, there's this one kid who is just completely breaking the mold, wearing an unbuttoned flannel shirt over a T-shirt with jeans and sneakers, looking totally disheveled and grinning ear to ear while he's actually doing a handstand right there in the lineup. 😉)

That photo really hits the nail on the head and perfectly illustrates exactly what you were getting at.

The real issue here is that even though the official goals for our public schools claim we’re trying to foster things like genuine student interest, independence, creativity, moral awareness, and a sense of responsibility toward oneself and the environment—not to mention social consciousness and respect for human rights—it all feels incredibly hollow when the actual classroom instruction doesn't allow for any of it. We talk a big game about nurturing autonomy and creative thinking, yet the system simultaneously stifles those exact qualities by refusing to let students learn in ways that actually suit them. It leaves me wondering just how much room there really is for true independence or innovation, especially considering that teachers themselves are often denied the very freedom to be creative and autonomous if they're expected to instill those same values in their students.
So, why is there such a massive gap—and I’m assuming it’s huge—between what people claim they want to achieve in theory and how things actually play out in practice?

It’s honestly kind of heartbreaking when you look at how we run classrooms, because we basically demand that students solve problems at breakneck speed, often forcing them against these incredibly tight deadlines just to see who can finish first. There are plenty of kids out there who simply need a little more breathing room to actually process what they're looking at—they want to sit with a problem, really chew on it, and find their own way through it—but if they don't hit that arbitrary stopwatch goal, they're labeled as slow. It’s a total recipe for frustration, and I truly believe it does massive damage to their self-confidence, not to mention the fact that teachers end up missing these brilliant, creative breakthroughs just because they were too busy staring at a clock to notice a student's unique approach.

That’s exactly why I keep coming back to the idea that the bond between a teacher and a student is everything, though it’s certainly not something you can just write down in a syllabus or codify in a handbook; it’s something that has to be built organically over time. It shouldn't be a one-way street where we expect the student to do all the heavy lifting when it comes to adjusting to different learning styles, because even if the standard curriculum doesn't exactly leave much room for a more relaxed or personalized approach, there really should be space for that kind of mutual adaptation to happen.

Regarding what you mentioned about targeted competence, I’ve got to say, I see this all the time at my job where I work alongside these high-level IT specialists who practically have PhDs hanging on their walls, yet they couldn't put together a single decent, functional resume if their lives depended on it. I honestly don't know how else to put this, but I really feel like we need to get our act together regarding this whole situation because everything feels so incredibly disorganized right now. I’ve been sitting here staring at my screen trying to figure out how to phrase this without sounding like some soulless corporate robot, because honestly, nobody wants to read a memo that sounds like it was written by an AI from 2010. I’m working on two different versions of a notice for our clients—one that’s a direct letter they actually need to act on regarding their accounts, and then a second, much more casual "FYI" style email that’s just meant to keep them in the loop without causing a panic. It’s that delicate balancing act, you know? You want to be clear about when they need to swap out their info or move things around, but you also don't want to sound like you're shouting at them through a megaphone. I'm just hoping I can nail that tone where we sound professional enough to be trusted, but human enough that they don't immediately hit "unsubscribe."

I suppose I wouldn't be quite as hard on those kids who don't really grasp what little ones are supposed to know yet. 🙂)

Joseph Murphy10 said:Look, Volver, that would be the dream, but back then it was pure fantasy—and honestly, I don't think we're much closer today. Still, the core idea makes sense. Like Hekatonhir pointed out above, education is a necessity, whether you like it or not (those examples mentioned earlier are honestly revolting, even if I see them playing out all the time). But the system is just too "cookie-cutter." It’s designed to reject anyone who doesn't fit the mold—anyone who isn't just another brick in the wall. Kids might not realize it consciously, but they feel it—that pressure to be exactly like everyone else instead of being their own unique selves. And the worst part? You get these totally unrefined individuals who wouldn't know their head from their elbow, yet because they're hyper-focused on one tiny niche, they end up with PhDs. Talk about a bad look for both actual education and our precious scientific civilization. 🙂

Maybe we can take this further and talk about modern life. Most of us live in cities now, which are basically hubs for alienating people from their true nature. City life actually encourages that "one-size-fits-all" approach to learning. Realistically, the future isn't in the concrete jungles; it's in getting back to nature. I'm not the only one saying that, either. Especially when civilization eventually bites the dust. When that happens, the most vital skill will be knowing what's edible and what isn't. I've actually got a bit of an edge there, haha. I can catch a bird with a makeshift trap, hook a fish, grow potatoes, spot a few types of mushrooms, find wild greens, and even snack on snails. Maybe the younger crowd will actually live to see the day when those skills become the most important things you can know.

I completely agree.

Last spring, during one of our trips, our little group ended up on a high mountain plateau in the Ozarks, and we were just absolutely floored seeing sheep scattered under a sky filled with "fluffy clouds," along with horses, goats, and kids... and encountering that stunning landscape, combined with everything else we found there, left us feeling a bit dazed from that crisp, sharp mountain air. It was all made perfect by meeting a local man who lives there, tending to his animals and looking after them (he sounds just like that schoolmate you mentioned), and we ended up talking with him for hours; he kept questioning us, laughing at our ignorance while asking if we knew the names of the plants we were stepping on, before kindly explaining which was which and how they could be used medicinally... all in all, it was a couple of hours of unforgettable "outdoor class" that I would wish upon anyone, and I'd love to experience it all over again myself.

I'm certain that man would gladly host an entire classroom for a two-hour lecture on Nature.

Joseph Murphy10 said:Oh, my dear Volver. 🙂
Volver Hekatonhir's got a point—I probably should've actually read the thread first...

Look, I don't think it *has* to be an either-or situation—it could go either way. But honestly? You’ve gotta look at this alongside everything else that’s gone wrong in modern life here in the West. We've basically built a society that runs totally contrary to actual human nature. Since we aren't exactly planning on reverting back to being cavemen anytime soon, our only real move is to dial back our freedom and bend it to fit what education requires—with a few rare exceptions, obviously. As for what those exceptions actually look like? Well, maybe this little story from my school days about 50 years ago will give you a hint.

Look, we gotta be real about how things used to work back in the day in American schools. Times were different—way different. You didn't question the teachers; you respected them, period. End of story. Back then, if a kid was acting up, teachers could actually discipline them—a quick slap to keep them in line or a few choice words here and there to set them straight. Nobody blinked an eye at it. But here’s the thing—it wasn't just about being a bully. Kids knew exactly which teachers actually earned that authority through actual presence and leadership, rather than just relying on raw force.

So, we had this student back in the day who was—to put it mildly—completely checked out from everything the school was teaching. It wasn’t that he couldn't keep up or anything; it just wasn't his vibe. His world was out in the fields, living off the land, dealing with livestock and ranching. Fast forward to today, and that’s exactly how he lives. From what I hear, he’s happy, healthy, and totally content without needing any of these modern digital distractions. If he ever decides he wants an iPhone 13, he'll just go out and buy it with cash like any other professional would. And hey, if having purchasing power and owning stuff matters—and Marks says it definitely does, arguably more than anything else in the world—then he's doing just fine.

Going to school every single day was a total nightmare for him. Honestly, he couldn't stand being away from his sheep and horses for even two hours—not that he actually learned a damn thing while he was there. Not that failing out of class meant much in the real world—thanks to the sheer power of the iPhone 13, he’s doing just fine surviving today—and since he’s still out there living his life, I guess he hasn't exactly found a "higher purpose" either.

So, there was this one time he went head-to-head with his teacher. It went down like this:

Teacher: Hey class, what was the last thing I said? You, quit messing around—pay attention. Repeat my last sentence back to me.
Student: I haven't got a clue—I'm not even listening to you guys.
Teacher: Seriously, how are you gonna survive out there? What’re you even gonna do for a living? You don't know jack—not a single thing! You don't even know what a verb is? Explain the Pythagorean theorem to me. Tell me the difference between gymnosperms and angiosperms. You've got zero clue! Who even let you make it to seventh grade?! HOW ARE YOU THIS STUPID!!!

So, this kid spent the whole time playing dumb—answering "I don't know" to basically everything. But then the teacher finally snaps and calls him stupid right to his face. Big mistake. Kid wasn't having it and decided to swing back.

Look, Teach, I get where you're coming from, but let me throw a curveball at you. Fine, you're the expert—so tell me this: if you're so damn smart, whose donkey just knocked up Marks' mare?
Whose? How the hell am I supposed to know that? What kind of nonsense is this?
Look, teach, you gotta listen—this matters to me. I mean, look at this mare she popped out for Frank—it’s a beast, straight from Mark. If you actually take a second to look at this filly, you'll see she's a total sweetheart—strong, huge, and perfect for pulling heavy loads.
And what does any of that have to do with me?
Look, it actually has everything to do with me—it’s vital to my life. It matters way more than all your nerdy nonsense. If we're talking about a beast that's actually calm, then I can load it up with firewood and gear without it kicking my teeth in or making my job a total nightmare. That's what I care about in this life—not your damn verbs or Pythagoras math. 😁

🙂))

verbs and Pythagoras

That story would honestly come off as nothing more than a joke if you hadn't prefaced it by saying you actually saw it happen during your time in school.

That teacher was absolutely terrible!

But it's also worth considering how these seemingly irreconcilable sides could not only be reconciled, but could actually drive positive progress in both directions when looking at the big picture.

If that teacher had any real intuition, he could have suggested to the student—and perhaps even the whole class—that they organize a field trip out into the countryside. It could have been part of the curriculum, held right where that student lived, in his own world—out in the fields, surrounded by nature, sheep, horses, and all that agricultural life. While there, they could have practically studied the differences between gymnosperms and angiosperms, or even applied the Pythagorean theorem to three-dimensional objects. It would have been such an interesting challenge to design math problems based on practical applications found in his immediate, everyday environment. Doing something like that would have fostered much more mutual respect, and I'm certain that student would have been far more eager to show up to class and actually engage with the lessons.

In my view, the success of whether students actually enjoy their studies or develop a genuine interest in their subjects rests almost entirely on the teachers; regardless of whatever educational system is in place, the relationship between the teacher and the student plays a massive role in how receptive a student is to learning.

Joseph Murphy10 said:Fair point, man! My temper flared up there—definitely wasn't my finest moment. My bad.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy A52 using Reddit

Well, maybe we should try to see a more positive side of things for once?

🙂)

What’s your take on the whole relationship between freedom and education—do you think they actually work together,
or does one inevitably end up stifling the other?

copperhound12 said:

I mean, I guess if we're really going to sit here and dissect this, we have to look at the sheer scale of it all. It’s just... it's overwhelming, isn't it? Maybe I'm overthinking things, but I can't help but feel like we're missing the forest for the trees. I honestly don't know where to start, but let me try. There's this sense that everything we thought we understood about the subject is being completely upended, and frankly, it's infuriating! It feels like every time we get a handle on a concept, someone comes along and shifts the goalposts again. It's exhausting. I suppose I should be more patient, but how can you be when the foundation keeps shifting under your feet? It's just one thing after another. I guess... maybe I should just say that...
So, look, we’re supposed to be talking about the education system here—that's the actual topic at hand—but then, out of nowhere, you start pivoting and rambling about the nature of science instead. I mean, ah... sorry, but... 😁

Science. Education and upbringing—it all falls under that umbrella, doesn't it? It covers the fundamental frameworks of institutional schooling. I suppose the ultimate purpose of this whole field of science is to help tackle actual human problems, but honestly, it shouldn't stop there. It has to go deeper than that; it needs to be able to read between the lines and truly interpret the underlying realities we're dealing with. Critical.I mean, you really have to frame it as a public good. That’s the only way to make it work, because her entire fundamental premise is centered on actually solving problems—otherwise, she just falls straight into dogma. Real science isn't supposed to be some rigid, stagnant set of rules; it should be an adventure, a total game.

Look, if you really want to get into this, I’d highly recommend diving into David Bloor, specifically looking at the Edinburgh School and their work on the Strong Program. It's worth your time, I guess.

How could I possibly say no? I’m giving you the exact same response I gave when I first suggested you sit down and actually study that book.University transcript V. Stambolović

It’s actually a total paradox, and honestly, it feels like our own personal tragedy that we have to approach everything through its exact opposite. I mean, think about it—we have to embrace slavery just to even begin to grasp what freedom really means. We have to confront ugliness just to recognize beauty, or lean into hatred just to truly experience love. Even goodness... I guess we have to pursue the good only so we can finally, fully understand the primal evil lurking at the core of it all. It's exhausting, really.

Maybe it’s worth taking a moment to actually explain the "why" behind Basaglia's whole crusade. What you’re touching on here is what we call the Basaglia Law, or Law 180, which was all about the de-institutionalization of psychiatric hospitals. Even though Basaglia had moved on from his time working in Gorica (which is basically like a smaller version of a city in the Midwest now) quite a while before that, the specific psychiatric hospital where he used to work was eventually shut down for good back in 1978. I might dive deeper into the specifics of that later on. But fundamentally, Basaglia believed that psychiatric patients didn't deserve... Institutions. It always comes back to the institutions, doesn't it? I mean, really, if you look closely at how everything is structured, it’s almost impossible to ignore the sheer weight they carry over our individual lives. They aren't just buildings or sets of rules; they are these massive, immovable forces that shape every single thing we think and do. It's honestly exhausting to even consider how much influence they exert on the collective psyche. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we often forget just how much power these entities hold over us, acting as the silent architects of our entire social reality. It’s all quite overwhelming when you actually stop to analyze it. I just can't see them being therapeutic. Kids go to school to learn, and that’s my observation—they aren't heading to class for therapy. Honestly, adults don't exactly flock there for that reason either, though I suppose there are always those few exceptions to every rule. 😁 I honestly think it’s worth pointing this out so the rest of you folks on the forum get the full picture. Look, Basaglia wasn't out there writing down rigid dogmas, so I suppose you can't really blame the authors themselves if someone else decides to twist their theories into some kind of unshakeable doctrine. That’s just how people work, I guess. But regardless, you have to recognize that Basaglia was actually one of the absolute heavyweights driving the democratic psychiatry movement over in Italy during the 1960s and 1970s.

His work is nothing less than a metaphor for what lies ahead of us. That’s exactly how you have to read it—you really have to look deeper if you want to grasp the full picture!

And which institution are you actually referring to? Schools aren't the only institutions out there; there are plenty of them. Besides, how you personally interpret 1) freedom and 2) the concept of an institution is perfectly understandable—I have no issue with that—but not everyone sees things through your specific lens.

All institutions (including schools, for that matter) are functional and necessary (I've already made that point clear in a previous post); without them, society simply wouldn't be able to function. However, at some point, they inevitably deny the validity of personal experience, individual emotions, and independent thought—which effectively turns them into something sclerotic, crippled, and dogmatic. That is precisely why de-institutionalization becomes vital: because these entities trap their own truth, discarding any critical judgment that doesn't fit within their predetermined criteria. To put it bluntly: it is time for a change; the longer we delay, the more painful that transition will be.

You’re right, and you’re also wrong. Institutions are absolutely essential for our world to keep turning. But maturity (and a healthy dose of criticism) tells us that their status quo outgrew our "modern" needs a long time ago. It is time for a paradigm shift: our future has already arrived.

There is this fascinating book, "Better to Be the Wind Than the Leaf," a bestseller by some of our well-known local authors/psychologists: M. Rijavec and D. Miljković (which I often cite in my lectures). It emphasizes that the only true and successful way to raise a child is PARENTAL upbringing, because only a parent can, should, and must understand their child. But—and there's always that "but"—one ought to read wise books, engage with people steeped in experience, and communicate openly and honestly, because that is ultimately good for society and—of course—for ourselves. ☕

I look at what was said above as an affirmation, a positive message sent out to current and future parents to help them realize just how vital their role really is.

However, I don't quite agree with the idea of exclusivity—that parental guidance is the *only* successful path. While a parent certainly can and should try, they don't necessarily have to succeed in understanding their child perfectly, because you can't force understanding through sheer willpower; what matters most is the genuine desire to understand, while the child itself primarily needs love, respect, the warmth of a home or a supportive environment, security, and plenty of room to play...

I remember reading in Robert Fulghum's book, *All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten*, where he mentions—if we think back to our very first picture books and the first words we ever mastered—that the greatest and most important word of all is: LOOK.

I recognized my own experience as a parent in that moment: saying "Look!" when I first carried my baby outside into the crisp air to show them the large snowflakes falling from the sky.

"Look."

What I mean is, it isn't strictly necessary for a child to spend their entire upbringing reading through endless volumes of wisdom, and let's be honest, parents rarely have the luxury of time for heavy reading while little ones are running around; while talking to experienced mentors and practicing sincere communication is always welcome and necessary, what a child needs most, without any doubt, is simply the feeling of being loved.

Yet, there are parents—or perhaps just one parent in the house—who fail to develop that warm, emotional connection with their child; they might be cold or emotionally distant, even if, on the surface, they provide for the child's physical needs just as well as an emotionally engaged parent would. But children are like expert readers of other people's emotions, and because of that lack of sensitivity, they can very early on develop a sense that they aren't loved, which can deeply impact how they value themselves as they grow up.

So, it isn't unusual that once a child starts school, they might find that warmth and sensitivity in a teacher or a mentor instead. School isn't just a place where you go to learn subjects; it's where you make friends for life, where your character is forged, and where the exchange of experiences through classes and after-school activities helps shape you far beyond what parental guidance alone could achieve—even if we tentatively call parental guidance the "only true" method of success.

We also can't ignore the heartbreaking reality that many children—as the statistics unfortunately show—are exposed to various forms of violence and harshness right within their own homes, so in my opinion, rather than saying "but," it would be much better to say "if" regarding the ideals mentioned in that book...

Steven Clark2 said:"Quote:"

I find myself wondering if we might need to reconsider our collective approach to the nuances of West Coast culture. It seems there is an ongoing debate regarding the specific mannerisms and social expectations prevalent among Californians, and I must admit, I feel somewhat ill-equipped to navigate these waters without more clarity. Perhaps I am being overly pedantic, but one cannot help but notice certain patterns that set them apart from the rest of the country. As specified by Steven Clark2: First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your incredibly inspiring and thought-provoking post; it was truly an important read, and I feel compelled to offer my response.

You are very welcome; I truly appreciate you taking the time and effort to engage with this.

I am, quite frankly, aware that this—let’s call it a "working" definition—is somewhat insufficient and incomplete. Why is that? Because if I were to attempt a truly exhaustive and total definition, I would find myself bogged down in explaining exactly why a thing is what it is. In doing so, I fear I would only cloud and dilute the actual heart of the matter: the connection between freedom and education. I hope you can understand my position and the intention behind my brevity, but I must insist: my fundamental and indisputable starting point remains humanism.

I completely agree that every definition remains inherently incomplete. You make an excellent point; it isn't always straightforward to categorize things precisely, regardless of whether one approaches the subject from a humanistic perspective or any other analytical framework.

And tell me, are you writing this from the comfort of your easy armchair—from some safe, secure little bubble—or are you actually out there on the desolate Himalayas, somewhere far beyond the reach of civilization?

I had a feeling you were going to say something along those lines. 😁 I should clarify that I am not merely speaking from the comfort of an armchair; I am reclining quite comfortably, if you must know. But jokes aside—as much as I enjoy my own ease, believe me when I say I have absolutely no desire to impose my views on anyone else. I certainly don't feel entitled to dictate what other people's children should or must do. That is where we differ. It isn't within my power to tell others what their core values should be. There is a certain elegance to the truth: once you truly grasp it, you realize it cannot be forced upon someone else. The moment you attempt to mandate it, it ceases to be a truth and transforms into nothing more than a dogma. And isn't that exactly what you are fighting against as well? 😁

"Quote"

I have two sons (if that is relevant to this debate?).

In my view, this carries significant weight because you possess the lived experience of a parent. You have personally navigated—and continue to navigate—the full spectrum of childhood highs and lows within the American school system. 😁 When you write about a topic like this, there is a world of difference between hearing from someone who is actually raising children and someone who is just observing from the sidelines. Having two sons myself, I can certainly attest to that shift in perspective. It seems my eldest is already gravitating toward the tech sector, while as for my younger one... well, I honestly haven't the slightest clue what his future holds. lol

If you examine my current analysis regarding the state of our education system, I am certainly not suggesting that we should simply provide basic social safety nets to those living in material hardship. My argument isn't just about providing standard institutions to pull people out of poverty or offer them a semblance of stability. While they undoubtedly need that material security and humanitarian support, I find myself compelled to look far beyond the immediate needs of the masses. After all, I consider myself to be standing on the shoulders of giants, and my true ambition is to orchestrate an entirely new paradigm.

I’m not sure I fully grasp your point here. Are you suggesting that institutions, like schools or government agencies, actually need to be provided with insurance or something similar?

My goal is to foster a more humane society. That is precisely why I want to challenge and deconstruct institutions—to serve as a witness to actual human reality. This represents a new quality; I am seeking entirely new values.

To be perfectly honest, that sounds like a phrase every dictator in history has recycled. 😁 What was Hitler looking for—something old or something new? What about Lenin? 🤣 You can never truly impose values upon people; once they are forced, they cease to be "values" and instead become, heaven forbid, mere institutional mandates. 😁 Ultimately, you risk becoming a walking contradiction, where the very thing you fight against becomes the exact thing you end up championing. Please remember that values cannot be mandated. Even when we try to instill them through culture, education, or our public institutions—what does that even amount to besides just more structure?

I am applying this specifically within a medical (psychiatric) context. Why? Because I have synthesized various mental states, my own clinical practice, and our social reality, as evidenced in the aforementioned "Institutional Negation" by the late, renowned psychiatrist Franco Basaglia.

Good grief. 🙂

Can you truly believe that you perceive things this way (from my perspective)? It seems our capacity for critical thinking is viewed as some sort of "erroneous" step—initially introduced during our primary socialization, and eventually continuing, developing, and touching upon those vital, critical internal points within us during secondary socialization...

Of course you can't believe it, but there are several valid reasons why things are the way they are.

First off, everything you're describing feels to me like a football game where two teams are playing against one another. You're either on one side or the other. Then you have the crowd cheering for one team or the other—though there are always neutrals—and even the referee is part of the setup. lol. Critical thinking, in this sense, is just being on the field, in the stands, or acting as a player. It is merely a small slice of the broader spectrum of Western culture and nothing more. If you were to ask someone in China or India how they approach thought, you might find a different story. There is also lateral or divergent thinking, concepts that are far less discussed. Critical thinking is typically a linear mode of thought. A perfect example of this mindset would be comparing militant atheists to religious fundamentalists. On a deeper level, there is absolutely no substantive difference between these two groups; the gap is much smaller than it appears at first glance because both utilize the exact same linear methods of reasoning and conclusion-making. I actually studied militant atheism and religious fundamentalism quite extensively a long time ago.

In order to think outside of these rigid categories, you must transcend critical thinking altogether. With critical thinking alone, you won't achieve any true paradigm shifts, even though it seems that is exactly what you are aiming for. 😁Admittedly, change does occur, but only when it is forced—when it is imposed through sheer coercion. That is when values and ideologies are shoved down people's throats, including the very concepts you are discussing here. If history hasn't made that clear by now, then I fear there is a fundamental misunderstanding at play.

"A scientist is an individual whose professional duty is to be disobedient." (Osovsky)

To my mind, statements like that are purely populist. Someone using internet slang might call them complete nonsense, and while I generally dislike using such coarse language unless absolutely necessary, I feel compelled to say it: they are absolute nonsense. Someone having a bad morning might simply ask, "Who cares about Osovsky and what he thinks?" And honestly, they would have a point. Relying on quotes like this makes your argument seem rather unserious. A scientist is a human being just like anyone else—a rancher, a shepherd, or a bus driver. They perform their jobs, believe they are the best at what they do (with rare exceptions, of course), strive for independence, and can just as easily be susceptible to bribery, backstabbing colleagues, lying, or stealing. Beyond those basic human traits, a scientist is, first and foremost, just a person. Every time I hear these myths and dogmas about scientists possessing an aura of infallibility—portrayed in white lab coats and thick glasses—it genuinely makes me feel uneasy. These are all myths manufactured by those who find such imagery useful. A scientist being "disobedient"? Perhaps one in a thousand, which doesn't deviate much from the typical human average. This applies whether we are talking about a preacher standing up against corruption, a miner feeling undervalued compared to his peers, or even a woman at a local farmer's market complaining about her stall fees. It is nothing more than that, and anyone suggesting otherwise is clearly missing the point entirely. Period. It is perhaps because people overindulge in moralizing with pens and paper—or, to put it in modern context, with keyboards—that figures like Dietrich Bonhoeffer are so misunderstood today.

When my eldest was in elementary school, they were using this "Step by Step" curriculum, which had just been rolled out right around the time he started, and I have to say, I was absolutely blown away by how the school operated; it felt more like a series of engaging activities than rigid lessons, and his teacher was this wonderful young woman who truly cared for her students as if they were her own flesh and blood.
The only thing was, we parents were always looking ahead at a potential hurdle—the idea that once these kids transitioned into middle school and hit that more traditional, old-school academic structure, they might struggle to adapt. Since the "Step by Step" approach functions almost like a creative workshop, it felt like such a missed opportunity that the upper grades weren't designed to follow that same creative philosophy.

Nicholas Grant20 said:Good point. Maybe the bigger danger is actually practicing philosophy itself; the risk of getting lost in someone else's logic or swallowing their philosophy as dogma—so that the very thing meant to serve the freedom of the spirit ends up becoming just another trap for it.

You actually touched on this perfectly in your post over in that thread about Nietzsche, which I happened to be reading just a moment ago.

👍

Benjamin Grant67 said:Personally, I’d look a philosopher in the eye and ask: Is it really that much of a struggle to distill a universal truth into just a few simple, coherent sentences?

In the engineering world, there's an old saying that sticks with me: if you can't explain what you do to a toddler, you don't actually understand it yourself!

😁

Someone once said, when they were asked how they first started writing:

I just wanted to tell the world one single word. And that was how I began to write...

🙂)

And I feel like it's pretty much the same thing with those "few simple sentences" you're asking about.

The very first thing Albert Camus did after being awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature was write a thank-you note to his teacher.

I don't think he did it just because the guy taught him how to read or write, but rather because of the whole experience of being educated—all those life lessons he felt so deeply grateful for.

So, I feel like there’s a massive difference between pointing out the cracks in our American education system and trying to fix them, versus advocating for solutions that basically mean
dismantling schools altogether. To put it bluntly using that old saying: "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

Nicholas Grant20 said:Do you actually think you're "better"—not in some arrogant way, but maybe just possessing an extra layer of depth or a different kind of mental dimension—than people who couldn't care less about philosophy, or even worse, people who actively hate it? I’m talking about philosophy in the broadest sense... that general inclination to actually sit and think about the world, why we're even here, what our purpose is, the search for truth, and all those other things that fall under that umbrella.

I really don't. If that were actually how I felt, I’d end up believing that I have absolutely nothing left to learn or exchange with people who aren't interested in philosophy—or worse, those who actively dislike it—and I'd essentially be shutting myself off from all the insights coming from those directions that could feed into my own reflections on the world, our purpose, and our place in it. I’d be robbing myself of that very "extra dimension, depth, and quality of spirit" I’m trying to cultivate, because true growth happens internally rather than by measuring myself against others as somehow superior. For me, even a quick chat with an auntie at a local farmers market or a conversation with someone working hard with dirt under their fingernails can provide so much spiritual nourishment; honestly, everywhere we go and everyone we interact with offers lessons, so if I started viewing myself as "better," it would be like wearing this weirdly selective suit of armor that only lets certain things in, or wearing earplugs that only filter for philosophical discourse, or putting on these specialized intellectual glasses designed specifically for philosophers who look down on everyone else while simultaneously shielding themselves from anyone hostile to the craft. Plus, if I did fall into that trap of thinking I was "better"—which includes the idea of possessing "truth"—it could paradoxically manifest as a hostility toward philosophy itself and the people who care about it, since I'd be looking down on them; I've actually seen this happen on forums like this before, where someone participates in a discussion by belittling almost everyone else or elevating themselves in a way that inherently puts others down.

On the flip side, we can never truly know what other people are thinking in their own private moments or how much (or how little) they philosophize when they're alone; all we ever see is what they choose to present to us, though we might be able to sense more if we're keen readers of the human psyche or if we possess those psychological intuition skills that Friedrich Nietzsche talked about, describing how he could physiologically sense the very core or "gut" of a soul... and if we used that just to feel "better" than others. Your question actually brings to mind Ujević's poem Brotherhood of faces in the universe.

Don't get cocky!

Your thoughts aren't just yours alone

... etc. 🙂

If the topic had actually been framed that way from the jump, the opening post would have clearly stated it, but it just didn't. So, we could always suggest—or honestly, just politely ask, whether it’s here or in one of our other dedicated threads—to start a whole new discussion centered specifically on that question; or we could have just asked to update the original post to include that perspective in the first place. Look, we can all hash things out civilly without throwing malicious jabs, because being petty isn't exactly how you build any kind of productive cooperation.

That being said, regarding the last part of what you just said, I’d really suggest you stop pushing those kinds of inconsistencies, whether it’s here or anywhere else.

A somber Philosophy of Pornography*:

In their book A Billion Wicked Thoughts, two neuroscientists, Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam, conducted an extensive study of the internet by analyzing the digital footprints of over a hundred million men and women—using everything from search queries and site visits to the reading of erotic fiction as the foundational data for their research into pornography. Beyond just flooding us with raw numbers regarding how many people consume this content, Ogas and Gaddam actually included a massive collection of anonymous comments from users on various adult sites, detailing exactly why they seek out and engage with pornography in the first place.

From those scattered comments, you can actually pull out several core categories that seem to transcend cultural or national borders, forming what I might call a universal heritage of pornography that exists regardless of a user's background. We can think of these shared themes as a sort of brief philosophy of pornography; much like how we all agree on certain human traits—like self-awareness, the ability to laugh, or the capacity to learn a new language—which allows us to philosophize about the human condition, Ogas and Gaddam’s research suggests that pornography possesses these cross-cultural categories that are common to almost everyone who uses it.

Virtuality – When I say virtuality, I’m not just talking about what we colloquially call "online content"; rather, virtuality primarily refers to the absence of actual infidelity toward a real-life partner. There is a profound distinction between cheating in the physical world and cheating in the virtual world, because virtual infidelity is often wiped clean as an experience of betrayal in a psychological sense; it leaves a person believing that while physical cheating represents a visible, tangible shattering of a relationship, virtual cheating simply doesn't even make it onto the list of potential causes for a breakup because, in their mind, it didn't truly happen. Furthermore, virtuality implies the absence of that deep-seated internal guilt associated with doing something wrong or forbidden, because a non-existent world cannot generate real guilt, only a mere illusion of it.

Availability – Availability represents a negation of negation—essentially, the total lack of a negative response when it comes to sexual interaction. Availability is always and permanently present, not merely as a possibility, but as a constant reality that can be accessed and realized at any given moment, completely regardless of a person's mood or external circumstances. This availability takes precedence over almost any other human need, even when weighed against basic biological necessities.

To put it more bluntly: there is never any guilt or betrayal (virtuality), and there is always availability, right now, immediately, and forever (availability).

Simultaneity – Simultaneity – Simultaneity refers to the nature of the online content itself, specifically the ability to simultaneously access different websites and various types of content consisting of hundreds of different pornographic categories and subcategories (as Ogas and Gaddam note there are hundreds upon hundreds of them) that can all be viewed at once.

Boundlessness – Boundlessness doesn't refer to the sheer volume of gigabytes available, but rather to that internal feeling and perception that any imaginable fantasy can be fulfilled, because no matter how unreachable, unknown, or hidden a thought might seem, it can always be found within the vast landscape of pornography.

Anonymity – Anonymity in this context isn't about the digital privacy of not knowing what someone is searching for—in fact, the work of Ogas and Gaddam somewhat debunks the myth that internet users are truly anonymous since so much can be known about them—but instead, it refers to the possibility that one's actual thoughts can remain permanently hidden.

*The linked text provides more detailed explanations for each of these categories.

I have this one vivid memory from when I was just a little girl, back when my mom would go visit one of her girlfriends, and while the women were all gathered together for coffee in that classic, old-school small-town way, 😉 sitting there and catching up, we kids would just be out in the backyard running around and playing, and then, during one of those get-togethers, one of those women pulled me aside a little bit to show me something, holding up a card and asking me what I saw on it; what did I see?
And I just blurted out, "a finger in a mouth"

She just burst out laughing, while I stood there looking at her totally pale and confused because I had absolutely no idea why she was finding it so funny; she didn't even explain anything to me, she just—laughing the whole way—turned around and went right back to the group, probably to tell them the whole story and what I had said. Looking back and trying to reconstruct the scene in my head, I imagine someone in that group—probably while they were glancing through a deck of adult cards that maybe one of the husbands brought home from a business trip since he traveled so much—had warned them to make sure the kids didn't see that stuff, and then she probably just brushed it off with something like, "Oh please, the kids wouldn't know what they're looking at... let me go check!"

And so, it was immediately and undeniably proven that little kids truly have no clue what pornography actually is

😉)

Back in the day, before things changed so much, I remember how Dorothy Stratten (Traci Lords) once served as a representative in the Italian Parliament, and I recall her official visit to Boston where she sat for an interview with CBS, if my memory serves me right, conducted by Walter Cronkite, and she was so unmistakable because of her attire, which featured quite a bit of exposed cleavage. Nowadays, in what we call a supposedly democratic society, I honestly think they wouldn't even let her step foot inside one of our major government institutions, even though those places are often filled with nothing but heavy political filth anyway.

I suppose these are just some random side notes that only tangentially relate to the main point, but I really intend to stay on topic.

🙂)

By the way, I’d personally make a distinction between pure lewdness and genuine desire; I’d link lewdness to pornographic content, whereas desire belongs more to the realm of true eroticism.

You guys have such an incredible thread quantum mechanics and metaphysics going on over there, and I honestly think it would be amazing if we could just move this conversation over to that space to keep the momentum alive?

Things are getting a little off-topic here.

frozengardener7 said:I am simply wondering whether a clean break is necessary or if gradual change is the way to go. If you make a sudden cut, there is an expectation that you have established entirely new rules, and then it becomes your duty to stick to them without fail. On the other hand, gradual change involves working on yourself alongside those aforementioned ghosts of the past, slowly rising above them.

Which approach is superior?

It’s just like Robert Reyes4 said: Go with whatever you feel capable of handling.

I wanted to follow up on something you mentioned, though—that part where you say, "if you make a cut, there's an expectation..."—and I have to ask, who exactly is doing the expecting?

Whose expectations are we talking about here, and who is actually tasked with sticking to some predefined path?

I honestly don't think things should be framed quite that strictly, though I suppose I don't fully grasp the nature of these "cuts" or the fabric they're being made upon...

If you ask me, the best way is when things just naturally reach a point where they're ready for a transition—something that feels more like a separation rather than a violent rupture, because things that are brittle tend to just snap or shatter under pressure, whereas a true separation isn't about forcing a break from your past, and I’d also add this thought: "If you are being true to yourself, then the choice is yours."

frozengardener7 said:I’ve been debating whether to post this under Psychology or Philosophy, but one specific quote—one I'm sure most of you know well—pushed me toward the latter.

"You cannot escape yourself."

Does that mean the whole concept of a "fresh start" is just empty rhetoric?

Look at the thousands of people who claim to have started over. Some quit their addictions, some switched careers entirely, others worked on controlling their temper, and so on.

Is it truly a new beginning? Or is it just an upgrade of the existing self? Whether we care to admit it or not, the past isn't erased; it follows you like a shadow.

Was it actually a 180-degree turn, or was it just a slow, incremental process of mastering oneself?

I'm actually glad it leaned toward Philosophy.

🙂

It’s definitely not just a cliché; if you ask me, true human freedom is most clearly seen in our ability to initiate things, to grab hold of those new beginnings!

The idea that "you can't run away from yourself" is also a call to turn inward and face who you really are, because honestly, people *do* try to run—they hide in distractions or lose themselves in various ways just to avoid the truth, and I think plenty of people are quite successful at running away by immersing themselves in things that keep them from ever truly meeting their own souls... it's basically the same thing as the command to "know thyself."

So, realizing we can't escape ourselves is actually a helpful nudge; it points us in the right direction because we have to live with ourselves, and how we treat ourselves dictates everything about who we become.

Think about the thousands of people who decide to hit the reset button—some quit bad habits, some switch careers entirely, others work on controlling their tempers, and so on.

Is it a new beginning? Or is it just an upgrade of the same old self? Because whether we want to admit it or not, the past doesn't just vanish; it follows you around like a shadow.

They are starting over in the sense that they are building new foundations and creating their own conditions so they can act differently than they did before...

You could certainly call that a new beginning, one that is actually the fruit of all their previous experiences—without those lessons, they wouldn't even have the strength to make the decision to open themselves up to change and new experiences, which is exactly what our decisions lead us toward.

And the past shouldn't be erased, even if it were possible (which would essentially just be forgetting), because that would just be another way of running away from yourself; you have to confront the past that follows you like a shadow, and saying that isn't a cliché either.

🙂

Happy first day of fall, everyone!

Now that the summer break is officially over, I’m thinking we should kick off a brand new round on October 1st, and since Immanuel Kant 1, our last winner, earned it, they should be the one to post the next question!

If anyone has any bright ideas for shaking up the rules or refreshing how we do things, please throw them out here. 🙂

Personally, I was thinking it might be a bit smoother if I didn't always have to be the one to open up a new round, and instead, whoever is setting the question could just launch the whole topic themselves.

As for the format, I'd love to set up a template somewhere so that whenever a member takes over as the questioner—and handles the topic—they can just drop the template right into their post (just making sure to update the deadline date, of course).

And then, to keep things consistent with how we've done it so far, the person posting the question would also be the one to open up the discussion thread.

What do you all think about that idea?

Regarding moderation, as long as I'm around, everything will stay pretty much the same, including how we handle the polls, but if we need to tweak anything else, we can certainly talk about it.

?

Weekend Warrior XXXI. May 18, 2022:
What's the actual philosophy behind this whole ecological crisis we're staring down?
Victory: I’ve been sitting here staring at my desk for what feels like an eternity, trying to wrap my head around these heavy philosophical concepts, and honestly, I feel a little out of my depth. It's one thing to read about Immanuel Kant in a textbook, but it's quite another to actually try and sit with his ideas and let them sink in without feeling like your brain is going to short-circuit from the sheer intensity of it all. I really want to get this right, because there's something so deeply moving about the way he approaches the very fabric of human reason, even if I do end up feeling a bit foolish most of the time while I'm struggling to follow his logic.
Round XXX. thoughts and comments.

Weekend Warrior XXXI. October 1, 2022:
Is there actually any moral ground for one person to claim dominance over another?
Victory: Weekend Warrior XXXI.
Round XXXI. thoughts and comments.

Round XXXII. October 20, 2022:
I’ve been sitting here staring at a blank screen for what feels like an eternity, just wrestling with this one nagging question about how creativity actually works. I mean, is it some kind of lightning bolt that strikes you out of nowhere when you least expect it, or is it more like a slow, grinding process where you just hammer away at an idea until it finally starts to take shape? I honestly can't decide if we're all just waiting for inspiration to find us, or if we have to go out and hunt it down ourselves through sheer, stubborn persistence. It's a bit embarrassing to admit, but I feel like I spend more time questioning my own creative process than actually being creative, and I'm genuinely curious if anyone else feels that same sense of uncertainty.
Victory is being split up: Thor i I honestly can't quite put my finger on why I'm feeling this way, but there's just something about the way things are unfolding right now that feels incredibly heavy, almost like I'm wading through deep water just to make sense of it all. It’s one of those days where everything seems slightly out of alignment, and even though I try to keep a level head, I find myself overthinking every little detail until I'm just completely exhausted by my own brain.
Round XXXII. thoughts? Let's hear them.

Weekend Warrior XXXIII. November 9, 2022:
I’ve often found myself sitting around, staring at the ceiling during those quiet hours of the night, wondering if all this deep, heavy thinking actually started out as nothing more than someone being bored or perhaps just playing around with an idea for the sake of it. It makes you wonder, doesn't it—whether the entire foundation of philosophy was born from a simple moment of idle curiosity or maybe even a bit of lighthearted teasing, before it eventually spiraled into these massive, complex systems that we spend our lives trying to untangle.
Victory: Weekend Warrior XXXI.
Weekend Warrior XXXIII. round, thoughts?

Round XXXIV. December 1st, 2022:
Is social inequality actually just a byproduct of shifting economic tides and rapid technological breakthroughs, or is it something more calculated—the direct result of specific policies and political ideologies?
Victory is being split up: I'm really not sure what you're trying to get at here, but if you've got something on your mind, just lay it out for me. I'm all ears. i steelridge58
Round XXXIV. comments.

Jose Edwards16 said:It could also work like this—if that makes sense, I guess.
Hey there.
bok Ž
Send me a nude!
Hey Z.
Man, you really have some nerve...
Ž: I'm a trans woman...
🙄

I guess I could say you’re leaning pretty hard into stereotypes with that last point—maybe just a little bit.

Whenever I'm stuck in some debate and a woman brings up that whole "men are constantly thinking about sex" trope, I usually just counter with—well, I focus on the word "thinking." Because at the end of the day, thinking is a mental process, right? And if we're being honest, isn't philosophy basically the ultimate peak of human thought? I guess it's hard to argue with that logic.
I mean, when I say sex—yeah, I'm a guy. 🙂

I mean, if electronic music, blues, and jazz don't count, then you’re probably missing the point. Personally, I can't stand country music. It honestly hurts my ears—it just gets under my skin—so I guess you could say I'm practically country-music-phobic. My usual solution is just to walk away from it, but if someone actually locked me in a room with nothing but a loop of country hits playing? Yeah, I’d probably lose it and take my frustrations out on the speaker. I'd smash it to pieces.

Basically, I think a phobia implies an active expression of hatred.

I'd have to agree there—sure, actual phobias exist, but it seems like the trans community views any kind of criticism or questioning of their views as an outright assault, immediately slapping the 'transphobic' label on it.
So, I guess I'll just tell them they're clearly acting this way because of excess testosterone, despite being on estrogen.
And wouldn't you know it? They'd probably claim *that* critique is 'transphobic' too. ☕[/URL]

If someone from the trans community actually popped into this thread, they’d probably have a legitimate case to complain about the hostility, the labeling, and the insults being thrown around, mostly because there's almost zero actual civilized debate or constructive questioning happening here.

I mean, what exactly counts as 'civilized' in that little jab you made above, where you suggest they're "clearly acting this way because of excess testosterone even though they're on estrogen"?

If we keep steering conversations on philosophy like this, I really don't see how this community is going to last much longer.

Just one more thing to add regarding the whole gender identity conversation:

Ever since we reached a medical and societal consensus that biological sex—you know, the physical anatomy we’re born with—and gender—the cultural expressions and performances we use to shape our presence in the world—are actually two different things, and that having the freedom to choose how you present yourself is a fundamental American civil right, transgender identity has emerged as one of the most vital ways people exercise their right to self-determination, finally breaking free from that rigid "either/or" binary of male versus female.

Gender identity is really that deep, intrinsic, internal sense of who a person is. Most people just stick to "male" or "female" because those are the categories our society is built around, but identities that don't fit neatly into those boxes are often unfairly treated as somehow less valid or "less real," usually being forced into those same old social norms. That’s why I think it’s so crucial to emphasize that there’s a massive variety of identities out there, many of which can't be shoehorned into the traditional masculine or feminine molds. People often talk about gender as a spectrum—suggesting there’s a middle ground between two extreme poles of masculinity and femininity—but I prefer looking at it as a vast landscape where being neither strictly male nor strictly female isn't just a "mix" of the two, but its own equal territory. At the end of the day, every single person is unique, and no two identities are exactly alike; every identity is just as real and deserves the exact same level of respect. (source; p.7)