CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Eric Newman75 › Posts

Posts by Eric Newman75

255 posts shown.

The Philosophy of Pornography in Philosophy ·
Nancy Martin36 said:I don't think that's quite right.
He produced some truly incredible documentaries exploring sexuality within American culture.

I am genuinely curious to see how you'll perceive Nancy, considering there's about a thirty-year gap between your perspective and mine.

There are some pretty wild fantasies in there, both male and female perspectives. They’re written with this raw, vivid directness that I actually really dig. I can totally see why her books were massive hits back then, even if they caused a stir. It's interesting because modern feminism is basically split on this. You’ve got one side—think writers like Wendy McElroy—who follow that line of thinking, arguing that pornography can be empowering because it breaks down old taboos and liberates female sexuality. Then you have the other side—specifically Catharine MacKinnon—which is much more radical. From their view, pornography is just straight-up oppression and needs to be banned. Now, obviously, things get complicated when you start talking about coerced filming, kidnapping, or human trafficking. But she takes it a step further, claiming those things shouldn't even fall under the umbrella of free speech. There isn't an amendment in the Constitution that could protect pornography if that logic holds up.
The Philosophy of Pornography in Philosophy ·
Nicholas Grant20 said:I guess looking back, it seems pretty tame by today's standards. I remember reading that one famous book—the one focused on women's desires. It actually traumatized me at the time.
And this whole topic is just... confusing. What does "the philosophy of pornography" even mean? Pornography isn't exactly designed to build up your soul. 🙄

That's just your take on it. But honestly, there are so many different angles you can pull from—everything from feminist and cultural theory to developmental psychology, economic sociology, and media studies. All those fields, plus a dozen others, rely on having an underlying philosophy to make sense of the phenomenon. Take consumption versus production, for instance; it looks like a male domain when you track who's watching, but a female domain when you look at who's actually producing it. It generates massive revenue, it's marketed through very specific channels, and even people living in the Bible Belt tend to gravitate toward content you wouldn't necessarily expect from such a conservative, religious crowd. Or maybe you would. 😁
The Philosophy of Pornography in Philosophy ·
Drew Perez15 said:I was honestly just waiting for those two specific words to pop up, since they’ve been such an incredibly accurate summary of the last three years, haven't they?👍

But hey, as they say—knowledge is for those who seek it. I'm off to find more productive topics to discuss.

And before you go, why don't you stare at the sun for a bit? Might help replenish all that energy you wasted jerking off.

Nancy Martin36 said:She took the raw fantasies of both men and women and distilled them into books. It was the kind of stuff you could never say out loud in polite company back then. At the time, it felt like a genuine sexual revolution. I can still vividly remember that sense of sheer, unbridled tension in the air.

Alright, thanks. Looks like they translated forbidden flower, my secret garden, and his secret garden. Haven't seen any others, and honestly, I can't be bothered reading stuff in English right now. I'll hunt down some e-books later. I assume Nancy is a far cry from your typical sexology textbook like the Kama Sutra.

Actually, I have no idea if anyone else besides Schumacher even touches this stuff. Sexology isn't exactly a mainstream thing here in the States.
The Philosophy of Pornography in Philosophy ·
Nancy Martin36 said:Morning, everyone. I’m crashing into this thread like a skydiver without a parachute.
Back when I was in high school, a librarian let me in on the works of Nancy Friday. I have no idea how we even ended up on the same wavelength, but the woman certainly knew her craft. She hit on both subjects I was obsessed with: sexuality and psychology.

I haven't actually read it yet—what’s the deal? Give me some details.

Quincy:
I don't know what to make of this. Just "baobab." Is that it? No context, no follow-up, just a single word dropped into the void like a random thought from a fever dream. I'm sitting here staring at my screen trying to figure out if we're suddenly starting a botanical society or if someone just had a very specific craving for African fruit. If you've got more to say, lay it on me. Don't leave me hanging. kaže:
Of course, I went in thinking it would follow that whole "name implies the thing" rule—you know, expecting the book to be nothing but pure smut. But if I recall correctly, the actual plot had absolutely zero to do with the title.
How can you say it isn't? You’ve got a novel within a novel here—Mickey Grabar hands it over to Stanislav to look after right before he heads off to the States. The history of pornography.I mean, look at his handwriting. Just... look at it. 😁
The Philosophy of Pornography in Philosophy ·
It honestly feels like you didn't pay much attention in high school or college, did you? Believe it or not, philosophy actually relies on science and hard evidence, not some Taoist nonsense. Real studies show the exact opposite of what you're claiming—men who are sexually active are actually half as likely to deal with cardiovascular disease or prostate cancer. And when it comes to longevity, several studies published in American medical journals by researchers in the UK and Sweden have shown that staying active in your later years brings massive benefits. It can even add three or four years to your life because of the positive impact it has on both physical health and your mental state.
The Philosophy of Pornography in Philosophy ·
When a guy hits that climax, he basically loses all his momentum—which, honestly, just goes to show why women outlive men.

First off, what century are you living in? And second, why on earth do you think shamanism, esoterica, and that whole vibe count as philosophy? You can find those topics a little lower down on the bookshelf.
The Philosophy of Pornography in Philosophy ·
Laura Peterson3 said:In this era of late-stage capitalism, pornography has become the ultimate shortcut for mass sexuality. Nobody has the luxury of time anymore, and even fewer have the energy to attempt anything more than being mere spectators.
It offers a sterile kind of security—an escape from awkward emotions, the sting of disappointment, the messiness of falling in love, or the risk of disease.
It’s just us, alone with our screens. A pure, unadulterated spectacle.
What it really provides is resentment and a certain melancholy, looping endlessly with only minor variations to keep the gears turning.
Ultimately, pornography is just a commodity. Everything is categorized and packaged: the classics, BDSM, various fixations, and fetishes. It’s all sitting there, ready for consumption.
The modern individual no longer seeks self-discovery through intimacy with another person. Their own brain, paired with an image or a film, is enough to satisfy the urge.
That is the true triumph of pornography.

I think you’re oversimplifying things just a bit too much there. We have to talk about addiction issues, and let's face it, it can lead to psychological impotence. If a guy gets used to those extreme levels of stimulation, well, it can actually make him incapable of functioning normally, even if he's healthy and genuinely wants to perform. That doesn't mean everyone who watches porn is mentally ill, obviously, but if you're constantly consuming stuff like S&M, group sex, and all that heavy material, then standard, "classic" intimacy between two people might just stop being exciting for you.

So sure, you skip the diseases, but you end up trading them for psychological dysfunction.
Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022) in Movies ·
Mark White11 said:It doesn't have to mean anything specific, though—I totally get people when a movie just doesn't click for them.
It’s just that there were so many things I could relate to in this one... it honestly hit me on a completely different level.

Just for context, the last recent film I gave a perfect 10/10 was Mad Max: Fury Road.

I'll share my thoughts once I actually sit down and watch it, but honestly? Right now, I'm mostly just curious because of Michelle Yeoh. 😁
Freedom and Education in Philosophy ·
steelridge58 said:
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. 🙂)

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.

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.
Freedom and Education in Philosophy ·
Look, I totally get the argument that different people need different skill sets, and yeah, maybe even different levels of depth in those subjects. But there’s a core set of knowledge that just shouldn't be up for debate. Whether you're headed for an Ivy League university or straight into a trade school, you’re going to need math, biology, and language skills. Period. There shouldn't be any "watering down" there. It’s honestly embarrassing when people can't wrap their heads around basic percentages or have zero clue how their own bodies actually function. This whole pandemic situation really drove home the fact that a huge chunk of the population can't even tell the difference between a bacterium and a virus. And don't even get me started on the literacy crisis. High schoolers wouldn't have ever realized that versi refers to specific lines of poetry if they weren't so disconnected from literature—mostly because nobody reads anymore. You've got adults asking what a himba even is. They seem to have a knack for being two-faced and hypocritical, though I highly doubt they'd even recognize their own hypocrisy or the concept of a "hine," which, by the way, comes from the verb hiniti. I even heard about some kids reading works by HLAPIĆ who were asking what klinčići were, and their teacher—completely baffled by this total lack of logic and imagination—just told them they were little nails.

The school system isn't the villain in every single story, just like it isn't the hero responsible for everything.
Freedom and Education in Philosophy ·
And why don't you just actually read everything that was posted before jumping in with a comment?
dariom2 in the History subforum in Feedback & Suggestions ·
Michael Doyle5 said:I honestly don't know what else to do with people who are one step away from checking themselves into a psych ward. Hanging out on a specialized History forum isn't exactly therapy for the mentally unstable—it’s just exhausting. This guy lives in his own little fantasy land. It’s hard to tell if he’s just playing dumb or if he actually believes his own nonsense, but either way, he thinks it's his reality. Now he’s out here making up stories about how he "taught" me something—as if—when I'm literally the go-to expert on this topic here. He’s just trying to convince himself and everyone else that he actually matters. Let me be clear: I have never been grateful to him, and I am never going to tell him he was right just to be nice. And the stuff he says about my Y-DNA? I have zero clue what he's even talking about. Not to mention the absolute flood of insane DMs he used to send me—wild conspiracy theories that even Baba Vanga couldn't make sense of. Honestly, I'm losing my mind. It's infuriating to watch this total madness happen year after year, constantly insulting common sense and basic intelligence.

Like judolino says—there’s really no other way to deal with idiots. You either walk away or you get pushed out. There isn't a middle ground here. If the people who actually know what they're talking about—the ones with actual expertise—decide to bail or just stop engaging, what are we even left with? A total circus. Honestly, it feels more like an asylum than a professional community at this point. Look, this isn't some place meant for mindless jokes or messing around. People come to these boards to stay informed and actually learn something useful. But instead? I just end up feeling shocked and frustrated. It’s just a constant flood of useless, brainless, and downright ugly posts clogging up every single thread. And the worst part? Most of them go completely unpunished every single day.

We really need to update the title here—we should probably link coastalstag7 with Croat22, who’s been around since 2014. Honestly, that guy struggles with intelligence and character just as much—I can never tell if he’s playing dumb on purpose or if he’s actually losing it. He’s constantly droning on about "White Americans being everywhere," acting like some genius expert on population genetics, even though he hasn't grasped the basic terminology after nearly ten years of people explaining it to him. It’s exhausting. He just ends up confusing and misinforming all the newer users on the Forum. The guy has never even taken a test, isn't active in any American genealogical communities, and certainly isn't part of any US DNA projects. He doesn't follow any of the actual scientific research that's sitting right there in the public domain. He’s totally out of the loop—he doesn't know anything, so he just complains because he lacks the info. Nobody wants to deal with him—he's just not sane, and frankly, he’s more trouble than he’s worth. It’s the same old story—these ego-driven outbursts where he tries to defend his online persona by attacking and belittling me—and today, he went after Amater33 and the US DNA project too. Out of pure spite, he spins lies and trolls us, claiming I haven't posted a single theory in seven years. He keeps demanding I finally "show my work" today, even though I’ve been doing exactly that for years—he just wants to put himself on some imaginary pedestal while making the rest of us look bad. No true patriot would ever stab their own people in the back like this, but he’s such a fanatic. He does it because he’s deeply insecure; he has to constantly convince himself and everyone else of his "pure" heritage because, deep down, his own family has Mexican roots. If anyone dares to counter him with actual facts, he spirals into these massive dramas. He’s a nobody who just wants to drag everyone else down to his level and link our legitimate work to his weird, anti-Mexican theories. That’s the worst part—it attracts those Mexican trolls from sites like Ancestry who then associate *us* with *him*. It’s a vicious cycle that needs to end because it’s only causing damage. We went through a huge blowout with these same users just over a year ago. This is hands down the biggest cancer currently eating at the History sub-forum.

I really don't want to bring up Dilberth here, but I'm mentioning him because he's been going absolutely overboard lately with his low-quality trolling about regional stereotypes and "Wendim." Honestly, we should have started cracking down on troll posts ages ago—this stuff just ruins discussions on related threads and ends up attacking other users too. The whole vibe here has gone downhill. All those high-quality posts and deep dives basically end up being for nothing. It’s almost like we need some parallel reality where the smartest move is to only engage with a handful of people and completely ignore everyone else, regardless of how much their posts mess things up. You can't even have a normal, argued discussion without getting interrupted. It’s a perfect reflection of how the moderation is handling things.

Seriously, this has crossed every line of reasonable tolerance. It is high time the moderators actually start doing their jobs properly—otherwise, by being too tolerant and letting things slide, they're basically breaking their own Forum Rules. At that point, we might as well just get a new mod. Even if we're looking at this through a capitalist lens—since I assume the owner wants more clicks, views, and active users—fixing this is easy. It’s literally just three mouse clicks. There’s zero excuse for not taking action.

Lately?

Give me a break. Dilberth isn't any better than guys like coastalstag7 or Croat22. Looking at the ratings they love to post, I honestly wonder if a "2" was just their favorite grade back in elementary school.

Dilberth has been spewing nonsense since back when Dilecto Filio was moderating History, which was ages ago. We all just put up with it because nobody has the guts to finally step in and say, "Look, scientific sections are science sections," and that having a right to post doesn't mean you get to be wrong. If Natural Science is strictly moderated, then Social Sciences, Linguistics, History... they should all be treated the same way.

Is that elitism? No. Tried explaining things to people like that—it's a proven waste of time; you'll never get through to them. And the moment you snap and insult them? Boom, you get a warning. I don't care. Honestly, I'll take the warning. It just shows the readers that on the History Forum, we aren't actually punishing ignorance—we're just watching the mods coddle idiots.

To hell with this Forum and this style of moderation.
Freedom and Education in Philosophy ·
I was talking about the specific genre of the novel.
Freedom and Education in Philosophy ·
And once again, nope. Instead of jumping to conclusions, why don't you actually try opening up a conversation?
Freedom and Education in Philosophy ·
ruggedraven36 said:I know the concept—I just don't necessarily buy into it, at least not entirely. I'm not sure how I'd even apply that logic to a Goethean novel. To be honest, I read it ages ago and most of it is a blur now. Sure, spiritual growth and personality shifts show up in plenty of books (even if we wouldn't label them Coming-of-age novels) because protagonists go through stuff that changes them—it leaves a mark on their soul, whether the author spells it out or just shows it through their actions. It's true that William Master travels around, stays in places for a while, and deals with his own existential baggage, but those aren't some "metaphorical stages"—he's dealing with real-world issues, not just playing mental games.
Maybe "learning" used to mean something broader back in the day. Nowadays, people usually just think of learning as picking up a skill or memorizing facts through some specific method.

No. You can actually break down Wilhelm Meister’s development into distinct stages. I won't bore you with the details here, but honestly, just read this discussion; it should clear things up for you. It covers everything from the historical context to the philosophy and literary theory behind it.

ruggedraven36 said:I know the concept—I just don't necessarily buy into it, at least not entirely. I'm not sure how I'd even apply that logic to a Goethean novel. To be honest, I read it ages ago and most of it is a blur now. Sure, spiritual growth and personality shifts show up in plenty of books (even if we wouldn't label them Coming-of-age novels) because protagonists go through stuff that changes them—it leaves a mark on their soul, whether the author spells it out or just shows it through their actions. It's true that William Master travels around, stays in places for a while, and deals with his own existential baggage, but those aren't some "metaphorical stages"—he's dealing with real-world issues, not just playing mental games.
Maybe "learning" used to mean something broader back in the day. Nowadays, people usually just think of learning as picking up a skill or memorizing facts through some specific method.

Actually, no—it's more about a specific German tradition, a type of novel designed to educate the masses by instilling ideas of self-actualization and autonomy. As you'll see in the linked article, using a trial-and-error approach instead of just handing out ready-made solutions isn't a bad way to educate a society, one individual at a time.
Freedom and Education in Philosophy ·
ruggedraven36 said:I remember being pretty baffled by Goethe's "years of learning Wilhelm Meister" back in the day. Given the title, I went in expecting a deep dive into his formal education—you know, a breakdown of his schooling or at least some commentary on how the books he read actually shaped him. Not even close. The guy basically just "learned" through life itself. You can see him evolving through his various encounters and relationships with different people, but there’s zero explicit focus on any actual "learning" process.

It sounds like you might be missing the whole point of the Bildungsroman, which was incredibly popular back then. The core focus isn't on schoolwork; it's about the formation of character and spiritual growth. Thomas Mann actually noted somewhere that an educational novel is essentially just an adventure novel relocated to the psyche. The hero moves from one state of being to another, tackling existential crises—not out in the world, but entirely within their own head.
Freedom and Education in Philosophy ·
Steven Clark2 said:Haha, so which books were on your shortlist? 😁 If you memorized them, we could just carry you around as a walking library! 😁 To be honest, when I first picked up this book, I thought it was an absolute slog—I don't think I've ever encountered anything more tedious. However, during my second pass, things started to click. Since I had to tackle it for a final English exam (back when I was still stuck in school, unfortunately), I ended up diving much deeper into certain themes and even wrote an essay on it. Given that all of this happened only about a month and a half ago, the details are still quite vivid in my mind. 😁 Especially that scene where Montag incinerates his boss with a flamethrower—do you have any idea how many times I had to re-read that part before I could actually believe what I was seeing? 😬

Oh, there were plenty—my memory is still decent enough. I used to daydream about owning entire collections. But honestly, it wasn't just academic; it was about love. I remembered things because I actually cared about them, not because I was drilling them into my brain through rote memorization. I knew every single one of Matoš's and Cesarić's poems, and a good chunk of Ujević's too. The Book of Ecclesiastes. Parts of Zarathustra. I was obsessed with anything expressive, anything poetic. To this day, I can still recite quite a bit by heart, even if my memory is starting to glitch a little thanks to getting older and some rather bad habits. Don't go thinking I'm some kind of walking encyclopedia, though.😁
Freedom and Education in Philosophy ·
Steven Clark2 said:🤦 I believe there might be a misunderstanding. I haven't actually proposed any specific methods yet, but I have spent the last few days considering putting together a formal presentation to send to the executives. If they approve of the direction, they can distribute it further. I’ve already begun gathering relevant materials on the subject. While I don't recall every single detail—given that this isn't exactly a recent thought—I have been focusing heavily on digital engagement. In our current school system, students participate in various extracurriculars, but remote learning often boils down to sitting there, idling, and listening. It offers virtually zero active engagement. Sure, teachers assign tasks to be completed later, but it is incredibly difficult to maintain a child's attention for forty-five minutes staring at a screen where nothing dynamic is happening. When there actually *is* an attempt at activity, it feels quite meager. I have observed that children truly come alive when there is some sort of interactive element—be it trivia, scavenger hunts, or anything else that is genuinely useful and engaging. There could be many ways to implement this; the goal is simply to move away from those standard lectures that consist of nothing more than dumping theory onto students, which ultimately results in zero retention. I recently sat in on a few "classes" with my younger son, and frankly, it was stomach-turning. It all boiled down to teachers reciting textbook definitions at the students. If it was that exhausting for me to sit through, I can only imagine the struggle for a child. Don't get me wrong, I certainly respect their hard work and effort, but I cannot help but wonder: surely, we can design something a bit more creative?

Quentin Tarantino:
In a world where traditional schooling no longer exists, libraries would become absolutely vital, especially when paired with a vast collection of digitized works.
It is quite an intriguing thought. In such a scenario, libraries would essentially become forbidden zones—sort of like some illicit underground gathering spot. After all, if someone actually had the desire to educate themselves, they would be viewed with suspicion, as if seeking knowledge were somehow a subversive act. 😁 Have you ever actually sat down and read Fahrenheit 451?

Yeah, I have. Honestly, it’s got me thinking about which books I’d want to just commit to memory. 😁
Freedom and Education in Philosophy ·
Steven Clark2 said:What did I learn? Honestly, it found me when I least expected it. For instance, I learned how to actually construct content, and more broadly, I learned about the nature of "content" itself. There is quite a bit of professional literature on the subject. When we talk about "content," we aren't just talking about text; we mean everything you encounter when you land on a webpage—everything from the typography and imagery to the video, audio, and the actual substance of the writing (the tone, the theme, etc.).

It started with abolishing elementary schools, and heaven knows where this is headed.

In the US, this is referred to as anti-schooling activism, and there is plenty of material out there if anyone wants to dive deeper. Abolishing schools might sound fine in theory, provided an alternative is actually established. Without some form of schooling or structured education, I truly struggle to see how civilization can sustain itself. If we dismantle schools in their current form, we absolutely need a replacement ready to go. And what happens to our libraries? Would they even be necessary in such a world?

Furthermore, what I have observed regarding schools is that they offer much more than just a delivery system for "information." There are other vital components—at least in my view—such as the socialization of children, teaching them their social responsibilities, etiquette, and foundational habits. It is obvious to everyone that schools are far from perfect—they never have been and likely never will be—but they remain incredibly important today. Have you ever met parents who worked grueling, back-breaking jobs just to ensure their children could attend school and eventually become doctors, scientists, or engineers? I would love to hear someone tell those parents that we should just abolish the school system entirely.

Thirdly, there is the option of homeschooling. I know a family with two daughters who have never stepped foot in a traditional classroom, and it is perfectly legal. I actually considered it myself for a while, though I don't think my own children are suited for that path. While I don't know all the intricacies, the option is certainly there. In the US, roughly 3 million children are homeschooled, which is a significant number, yet even these students are still receiving an education.

Reform, yes; abolition, no.

That would constitute a massive reform. While it isn't strictly impossible, it certainly isn't simple. My general view is that schools ought to be in a state of constant evolution. Teachers should be continuously refining their craft, but unfortunately, that process often moves far too slowly, if it happens at all.

Maybe I wasn't being clear enough. I was asking about those recommendations for teachers—what specifically did you advise them? If you're arguing they aren't teaching effectively because there's such a massive gap between an online presentation and a traditional classroom lecture (which is obviously true), then what specific methods or techniques did you suggest based on what you've learned about digital content?

Steven Clark2 said:What did I learn? Honestly, it found me when I least expected it. For instance, I learned how to actually construct content, and more broadly, I learned about the nature of "content" itself. There is quite a bit of professional literature on the subject. When we talk about "content," we aren't just talking about text; we mean everything you encounter when you land on a webpage—everything from the typography and imagery to the video, audio, and the actual substance of the writing (the tone, the theme, etc.).

It started with abolishing elementary schools, and heaven knows where this is headed.

In the US, this is referred to as anti-schooling activism, and there is plenty of material out there if anyone wants to dive deeper. Abolishing schools might sound fine in theory, provided an alternative is actually established. Without some form of schooling or structured education, I truly struggle to see how civilization can sustain itself. If we dismantle schools in their current form, we absolutely need a replacement ready to go. And what happens to our libraries? Would they even be necessary in such a world?

Furthermore, what I have observed regarding schools is that they offer much more than just a delivery system for "information." There are other vital components—at least in my view—such as the socialization of children, teaching them their social responsibilities, etiquette, and foundational habits. It is obvious to everyone that schools are far from perfect—they never have been and likely never will be—but they remain incredibly important today. Have you ever met parents who worked grueling, back-breaking jobs just to ensure their children could attend school and eventually become doctors, scientists, or engineers? I would love to hear someone tell those parents that we should just abolish the school system entirely.

Thirdly, there is the option of homeschooling. I know a family with two daughters who have never stepped foot in a traditional classroom, and it is perfectly legal. I actually considered it myself for a while, though I don't think my own children are suited for that path. While I don't know all the intricacies, the option is certainly there. In the US, roughly 3 million children are homeschooled, which is a significant number, yet even these students are still receiving an education.

Reform, yes; abolition, no.

That would constitute a massive reform. While it isn't strictly impossible, it certainly isn't simple. My general view is that schools ought to be in a state of constant evolution. Teachers should be continuously refining their craft, but unfortunately, that process often moves far too slowly, if it happens at all.

Libraries, paired with digitized works available online, would be absolutely vital in a world without schools.
Freedom and Education in Philosophy ·
Steven Clark2 said:My children attended school remotely via Zoom here in the States—though I suppose I shouldn't assume everyone else’s experience was the same. They participated in various other activities through Zoom as well; it wasn't an endless ordeal, lasting perhaps one semester, if not slightly less, though my memory isn't perfectly sharp on the exact duration. At one point, I found myself speaking quite candidly to some of these instructors. I asked them, somewhat bluntly, why they hadn't taken the initiative to educate themselves on how to actually utilize Zoom effectively or how to conduct digital lessons properly. This wasn't coming from a place of mere arrogance; years ago, I worked remotely in America for several years. It wasn't some hobbyist endeavor; I was working professionally in content creation and social media management. Through that work, I learned a great deal—most notably that presenting knowledge in a physical classroom is fundamentally different from doing so over the internet, even if many people mistakenly believe the two are interchangeable. The teachers I spoke to didn't take my critique particularly well at first. However, the tone shifted when I told them that I actually felt a sense of pity for them personally. It truly is a struggle; they are clearly suffering because they are attempting to force traditional, analog teaching methods into a digital space where they simply don't fit.

I feel compelled to share a few thoughts on this matter. To be perfectly honest, I sometimes worry that my tendency toward sincerity might come across as overly earnest, but I believe certain topics demand nothing less than a direct and heartfelt approach. It is my sincere hope that we can navigate these discussions with the gravity they deserve. kaže:
Furthermore, as much as I may harbor deep skepticism toward our institutions, my disdain for anti-intellectualism—or more specifically, this pervasive tendency to dismiss expertise and scientific rigor—is even greater.

Instead of focusing on education, we should shift our attention toward healthcare, law enforcement, the military, religious institutions, and sports.

I cannot speak for everyone else here, but as a parent of two, I find myself wondering about the scope of this discussion. Is our focus strictly limited to the American school system and formal education, or can we broaden the conversation to encompass more? Furthermore, I am curious about which age groups we should be addressing—are we strictly discussing elementary and high school, or should we also include the college years?

I could certainly argue that being uneducated isn't the issue, but as you've already pointed out, it isn't quite the same thing. To illustrate my point, I know a few people who arrived here with very high levels of education. For instance, there is an acquaintance of mine from back home who works as a software engineer at Amazon. When he first started, his salary was two or three times higher than what the average skilled worker earns in a role that doesn't require any advanced credentials—jobs where you could hold a PhD and it wouldn't make a lick of difference, such as being a truck driver or a mechanic. Because this programmer was pulling in a minimum of $100,000 a year (and honestly, if we factor in bonuses and perks, it’s likely at least 15% higher, though I won't get bogged down in the weeds), he was able to purchase his own home after only two years in the States. Meanwhile, others in those lower-paying roles, perhaps earning closer to $35,000 or $40,000 annually, have to wait much longer—if they even want to buy. Banks don't look at your diploma when approving a mortgage, of course, but in the end, having that degree does play a role because it provides significantly better employment stability and opportunities for professional growth.

I find myself reflecting on the concept of water parks lately. There is something inherently nostalgic yet surprisingly complex about them. While they are often marketed as simple venues for family fun, I cannot help but view them through a more analytical lens. One must consider the sheer logistical undertaking required to maintain such massive aquatic installations safely and efficiently. It is quite an impressive feat of engineering, really. kaže:
Foucault held a deeply skeptical view regarding formal education and our modern institutions; to him, they functioned as nothing more than sophisticated extensions of the prison system.

It is my sincere belief that schools serve the exact same social functions as prisons or psychiatric institutions: their true purpose is to define, classify, control, and regulate individuals.

On also held a PhD, which allowed him to spend quite a bit of time at various universities across the US and even in France, where he served as a lecturer. 😁 If we take this statement into its proper context, one might conclude that Foucault actually missed the mark. He really should have looked more closely at his own experience with AIDS—not to mention the way he seemed almost to mock the whole situation, only to ultimately succumb to it in the end.

That isn't quite the crux of the matter, though perhaps it isn't the primary issue today either. Schools have been a fundamental pillar of human civilization since time immemorial. In my estimation, the more significant challenge lies in our need to fundamentally reform the educational system rather than attempting to abolish it entirely or replace it with something else altogether.

What did you learn? If you're up for it, give me some examples or lay out the core principles. I'm curious.

Steven Clark2 said:My children attended school remotely via Zoom here in the States—though I suppose I shouldn't assume everyone else’s experience was the same. They participated in various other activities through Zoom as well; it wasn't an endless ordeal, lasting perhaps one semester, if not slightly less, though my memory isn't perfectly sharp on the exact duration. At one point, I found myself speaking quite candidly to some of these instructors. I asked them, somewhat bluntly, why they hadn't taken the initiative to educate themselves on how to actually utilize Zoom effectively or how to conduct digital lessons properly. This wasn't coming from a place of mere arrogance; years ago, I worked remotely in America for several years. It wasn't some hobbyist endeavor; I was working professionally in content creation and social media management. Through that work, I learned a great deal—most notably that presenting knowledge in a physical classroom is fundamentally different from doing so over the internet, even if many people mistakenly believe the two are interchangeable. The teachers I spoke to didn't take my critique particularly well at first. However, the tone shifted when I told them that I actually felt a sense of pity for them personally. It truly is a struggle; they are clearly suffering because they are attempting to force traditional, analog teaching methods into a digital space where they simply don't fit.

I feel compelled to share a few thoughts on this matter. To be perfectly honest, I sometimes worry that my tendency toward sincerity might come across as overly earnest, but I believe certain topics demand nothing less than a direct and heartfelt approach. It is my sincere hope that we can navigate these discussions with the gravity they deserve. kaže:
Furthermore, as much as I may harbor deep skepticism toward our institutions, my disdain for anti-intellectualism—or more specifically, this pervasive tendency to dismiss expertise and scientific rigor—is even greater.

Instead of focusing on education, we should shift our attention toward healthcare, law enforcement, the military, religious institutions, and sports.

I cannot speak for everyone else here, but as a parent of two, I find myself wondering about the scope of this discussion. Is our focus strictly limited to the American school system and formal education, or can we broaden the conversation to encompass more? Furthermore, I am curious about which age groups we should be addressing—are we strictly discussing elementary and high school, or should we also include the college years?

I could certainly argue that being uneducated isn't the issue, but as you've already pointed out, it isn't quite the same thing. To illustrate my point, I know a few people who arrived here with very high levels of education. For instance, there is an acquaintance of mine from back home who works as a software engineer at Amazon. When he first started, his salary was two or three times higher than what the average skilled worker earns in a role that doesn't require any advanced credentials—jobs where you could hold a PhD and it wouldn't make a lick of difference, such as being a truck driver or a mechanic. Because this programmer was pulling in a minimum of $100,000 a year (and honestly, if we factor in bonuses and perks, it’s likely at least 15% higher, though I won't get bogged down in the weeds), he was able to purchase his own home after only two years in the States. Meanwhile, others in those lower-paying roles, perhaps earning closer to $35,000 or $40,000 annually, have to wait much longer—if they even want to buy. Banks don't look at your diploma when approving a mortgage, of course, but in the end, having that degree does play a role because it provides significantly better employment stability and opportunities for professional growth.

I find myself reflecting on the concept of water parks lately. There is something inherently nostalgic yet surprisingly complex about them. While they are often marketed as simple venues for family fun, I cannot help but view them through a more analytical lens. One must consider the sheer logistical undertaking required to maintain such massive aquatic installations safely and efficiently. It is quite an impressive feat of engineering, really. kaže:
Foucault held a deeply skeptical view regarding formal education and our modern institutions; to him, they functioned as nothing more than sophisticated extensions of the prison system.

It is my sincere belief that schools serve the exact same social functions as prisons or psychiatric institutions: their true purpose is to define, classify, control, and regulate individuals.

On also held a PhD, which allowed him to spend quite a bit of time at various universities across the US and even in France, where he served as a lecturer. 😁 If we take this statement into its proper context, one might conclude that Foucault actually missed the mark. He really should have looked more closely at his own experience with AIDS—not to mention the way he seemed almost to mock the whole situation, only to ultimately succumb to it in the end.

That isn't quite the crux of the matter, though perhaps it isn't the primary issue today either. Schools have been a fundamental pillar of human civilization since time immemorial. In my estimation, the more significant challenge lies in our need to fundamentally reform the educational system rather than attempting to abolish it entirely or replace it with something else altogether.

It started with getting rid of elementary schools, and God only knows where this is headed.

Steven Clark2 said:My children attended school remotely via Zoom here in the States—though I suppose I shouldn't assume everyone else’s experience was the same. They participated in various other activities through Zoom as well; it wasn't an endless ordeal, lasting perhaps one semester, if not slightly less, though my memory isn't perfectly sharp on the exact duration. At one point, I found myself speaking quite candidly to some of these instructors. I asked them, somewhat bluntly, why they hadn't taken the initiative to educate themselves on how to actually utilize Zoom effectively or how to conduct digital lessons properly. This wasn't coming from a place of mere arrogance; years ago, I worked remotely in America for several years. It wasn't some hobbyist endeavor; I was working professionally in content creation and social media management. Through that work, I learned a great deal—most notably that presenting knowledge in a physical classroom is fundamentally different from doing so over the internet, even if many people mistakenly believe the two are interchangeable. The teachers I spoke to didn't take my critique particularly well at first. However, the tone shifted when I told them that I actually felt a sense of pity for them personally. It truly is a struggle; they are clearly suffering because they are attempting to force traditional, analog teaching methods into a digital space where they simply don't fit.

I feel compelled to share a few thoughts on this matter. To be perfectly honest, I sometimes worry that my tendency toward sincerity might come across as overly earnest, but I believe certain topics demand nothing less than a direct and heartfelt approach. It is my sincere hope that we can navigate these discussions with the gravity they deserve. kaže:
Furthermore, as much as I may harbor deep skepticism toward our institutions, my disdain for anti-intellectualism—or more specifically, this pervasive tendency to dismiss expertise and scientific rigor—is even greater.

Instead of focusing on education, we should shift our attention toward healthcare, law enforcement, the military, religious institutions, and sports.

I cannot speak for everyone else here, but as a parent of two, I find myself wondering about the scope of this discussion. Is our focus strictly limited to the American school system and formal education, or can we broaden the conversation to encompass more? Furthermore, I am curious about which age groups we should be addressing—are we strictly discussing elementary and high school, or should we also include the college years?

I could certainly argue that being uneducated isn't the issue, but as you've already pointed out, it isn't quite the same thing. To illustrate my point, I know a few people who arrived here with very high levels of education. For instance, there is an acquaintance of mine from back home who works as a software engineer at Amazon. When he first started, his salary was two or three times higher than what the average skilled worker earns in a role that doesn't require any advanced credentials—jobs where you could hold a PhD and it wouldn't make a lick of difference, such as being a truck driver or a mechanic. Because this programmer was pulling in a minimum of $100,000 a year (and honestly, if we factor in bonuses and perks, it’s likely at least 15% higher, though I won't get bogged down in the weeds), he was able to purchase his own home after only two years in the States. Meanwhile, others in those lower-paying roles, perhaps earning closer to $35,000 or $40,000 annually, have to wait much longer—if they even want to buy. Banks don't look at your diploma when approving a mortgage, of course, but in the end, having that degree does play a role because it provides significantly better employment stability and opportunities for professional growth.

I find myself reflecting on the concept of water parks lately. There is something inherently nostalgic yet surprisingly complex about them. While they are often marketed as simple venues for family fun, I cannot help but view them through a more analytical lens. One must consider the sheer logistical undertaking required to maintain such massive aquatic installations safely and efficiently. It is quite an impressive feat of engineering, really. kaže:
Foucault held a deeply skeptical view regarding formal education and our modern institutions; to him, they functioned as nothing more than sophisticated extensions of the prison system.

It is my sincere belief that schools serve the exact same social functions as prisons or psychiatric institutions: their true purpose is to define, classify, control, and regulate individuals.

On also held a PhD, which allowed him to spend quite a bit of time at various universities across the US and even in France, where he served as a lecturer. 😁 If we take this statement into its proper context, one might conclude that Foucault actually missed the mark. He really should have looked more closely at his own experience with AIDS—not to mention the way he seemed almost to mock the whole situation, only to ultimately succumb to it in the end.

That isn't quite the crux of the matter, though perhaps it isn't the primary issue today either. Schools have been a fundamental pillar of human civilization since time immemorial. In my estimation, the more significant challenge lies in our need to fundamentally reform the educational system rather than attempting to abolish it entirely or replace it with something else altogether.

Reform, yes. Abolishing it, no. Though, I am absolutely in favor of putting every problematic element of the system that deals with children under a microscope, starting from foster care and moving upward. It might seem unrelated to schooling, but it actually creates these mechanisms of control and dehumanization. Once the state starts "looking after" you from the time you're tiny, you won't end up well—you'll just be moved from one institution to another. Juvenile detention centers are another option; society will basically play ping-pong with you. You might even end up in a psych ward.

I'm exaggerating, but you get my point. I truly believe the educational system does a much better job caring for vulnerable kids; look at us, we weren't raised all bad despite being taught the old-fashioned way, especially when you see how much better it is when there's actual inquiry-based learning instead of just lectures.Look, strictly speaking, once you see teachers actually utilizing digital tools and shifting the focus onto the students—making them take ownership of their own learning process—you realize things are changing, even if it’s happening at a snail's pace. This isn't some overnight revolution in other parts of the world, either; plenty of countries are way ahead of us in terms of modernization and resources.