Evidence of another captured institution which puts a self-serving adult agenda before kids’ well being. We carry on.
Elisabeth, your research spotlighting Dr. Stosny’s work on identity resilience needs to go to every corner of the western world. Our schools are harming kids. This is rectifiable.
Thank you very much for your endorsement and for your wonderful hope-filled comment, "It is rectifiable". I want to start writing about that part too, referencing Dr Stosny's recommendations on his website www.compassionpower.com
Hey Elisabeth! I was just thinking of you and here you are on my feed! 😀 PESA are part of the corrupt academic system. Love to tell you about the drunk Prof harassing me after I was forced out of Waikato uni. Let’s talk soon!
Does my question ('what is your relationship to logic? In terms of logic being either superior to you, equal to you, or subordinate to you') violate the laws of logic?
New Zealand schools began to change for the worse in the 1970s when the appointments for educational policy stopped requiring expertise in the Philosophy of Education, but instead began to focus on the Psychology of Education. The study of the Philosophy of Education was also removed from teacher training, meaning that teachers no longer were taught to discern between true Education, schooling, training and indoctrination. So, the teachers themselves have been indoctrinated into thinking that training-manuals were 'quality pedagogy', and they've been seduced away from truth and towards 'The Science of learning'- which is a glamorous term for 'how to indoctrinate'. Teachers are recruited based on their desire to be 'change-makers' rather than a desire to truly Educate. Absolutely horrifying, but at last people here in NZ are beginning to wake up to the death-inducing ideological 'woke-ness'.
Focussing on the concept of ‘truth’ in the context of policy, ideology or propaganda is not ideal, because in this domain ‘truth’ is intentionally and strategically left undefined, just like any other weaponised term (‘what is a woman’). In order to be persuasive, not to the propagandists but to their audience, one must appeal to a common principle that can be individually verified, and there is really only one principle that fits the bill: sense. Sense vs non-sense is differentiated according to the laws of sense, which can be reduced to the law of non-contradiction, and anyone who can be shown to contradict themselves is automatically in a tight spot. People naturally recognise contradictory/inconsistent arguments are defective and false.
The principle of sense is also something that all humans have in common., allowing all humans (as conscious, rational beings) to make sense together, to communicate, to generate meaning. The laws of sense are also the primary standard according to which some claims can be objectively refuted and dismissed as nonsense, while other claims are a priori consistent, logically necessary, presupposed by our common dependence on making sense. The laws of sense unites us as a kind: all human beings have the capacity to rely on the structure of sense to understand one another, irrespective of cultural barriers, provided they are willing to communicate in good faith, genuinely trying to understand the arguments and draw unbiased conclusions based on the consistency of the argument and its premises.
I asked this same question in my university days, in our student newspaper. No-one replied.
After my degree (92) I did a post grad Dip Second Language Teaching and became an English language teacher, to international students, whose first languages were very different from English. I specialised in teaching the 'super-beginners'... which led me to think deeply about basic structures in English that I would have otherwise taken for granted. In particular, I thought about the verb 'to be' which expresses existence, especially when combined with 'there', as in, "There is a cat on the mat."
That construction calls the cat into existence in the mind of the listener (or reader).
'To be' and its different forms (am, are, is) quietly declare 'existence'... and to my mind, existence inherently contains Truth. So when I click on your link to "What is truth", I'm drawn to the word "is" ...and also to scripture. The name of God is "I am that I am." Existence, existence...Truth, truth.
How can we utter or write the verb 'to be' if we dont pre-acknowledge 'Truth'? All efforts to explain 'truth' rely upon the verb 'to be'. I haven't studied logic so I expect there will be holes in my argument.
But as I see it, we are all made by God with an innate understanding of truth, even though we struggle to articulate it. The spirit part of ourselves is the great discerner of Truth. When we compromise truth, the Spirit part of ourself nags and tugs at the soul until we let go of our intellect and concede to our spirit, and accept 'the truth'.
I can't put truth on the backburner and start using 'sense'.
I have no idea what you'll make of my response. But I enjoy these sorts of conversations. Thank you for reading and writing.
This is an interesting angle. I agree that the sense of the expression ‘to be’ is entangled with the sense of ‘truth’. Nevertheless, whatever we say about truth, or about being, must make sense, or else it is nonsense, and nonsense cannot be even imagined as a possibility of being. Alternatively, one could say that for ‘truth’ to be a fundamental property (of being) there must be a true definition of truth, but this evidently involves circular reasoning, so it cannot be. In any case, the meaning of ‘truth’ matters only when there are disagreements or doubts about what is true, and this is precisely when our intuition is not enough; we need a tool or common standard to resolve the disagreement or doubt, and the common standard must make common sense. I argue that the meaning of ‘truth’ is derived from sense, which in principle can be discerned by all. Here is my answer to the challenge, which is arguably consistent with the notion of “i am that i am”: https://substack.com/@michaelkowalik/note/c-82599428
I've been thinking more on this. I decided to look up the etymology of truth. Assuming what I found is correct 'true'!), then, etymologically, it is...
"..attested by late 14c. as "that which IS [there's that verb 'to be' again] righteous or in accordance with divine standard; true religious doctrine; virtuous conduct." Truth! as an expression of assent or emphasis is by 1530s".
So then, in that 14th century context, 'truth' is a perfect resonance with God's doctrine.
What does that mean for people who don't believe in God?
It means that they will struggle to understand what 'truth' IS.
So then.
Either:
* human intellect is greater than a notion of 'a God who created everything with doctrine of right and wrong'; and the notion of 'truth' - born of the absurd recognition of the Divine - is therefore also absurd and should (perhaps as a consequence of evolution) be subordinate to a much more useful humanly notion of 'sense';
Or,
* human intellect is incapable of comprehending the intelligence of God- but having surrendered our incapability, God recognises our surrender and is pleased and rewards us with a vital sense of "knowing and recognising the Truth"- which is difficult to adequately communicate to people who dont believe in God, because they can't feel it, because they have rejected God in favour of themselves.
Ftom a logical point of view, could it be possible that God is real and is infinitely more intelligent than us humans, but that we have been duped into thinking that He is a lie and that our own intellects are the highest form of intelligence?
If you would define ‘truth’ in terms of ‘God’ then you need a definition of ‘God’ that does not presuppose the meaning of ‘truth’, is not circular and does not beg the question.
Evidence of another captured institution which puts a self-serving adult agenda before kids’ well being. We carry on.
Elisabeth, your research spotlighting Dr. Stosny’s work on identity resilience needs to go to every corner of the western world. Our schools are harming kids. This is rectifiable.
Thank you very much for your endorsement and for your wonderful hope-filled comment, "It is rectifiable". I want to start writing about that part too, referencing Dr Stosny's recommendations on his website www.compassionpower.com
I look forward to reading and sharing what you publish.
Thanks
Hey Elisabeth! I was just thinking of you and here you are on my feed! 😀 PESA are part of the corrupt academic system. Love to tell you about the drunk Prof harassing me after I was forced out of Waikato uni. Let’s talk soon!
Wow! I'm amazed too! So lovely to connect again and thank you very much for sharing my post. Yes let's talk soon. :)
I’ve cited your work here: https://open.substack.com/pub/informedheart/p/ask-me-some-questions-ill-tell-you?r=q9aq0&utm_medium=ios
Does my question ('what is your relationship to logic? In terms of logic being either superior to you, equal to you, or subordinate to you') violate the laws of logic?
Hello Elizabeth,
Come and join me then for this conversation:
https://fotinihamplova.substack.com/p/one-truth-and-freedom
https://fotinihamplova.substack.com/about
Thank you, I like your ideas and writing.
New Zealand schools began to change for the worse in the 1970s when the appointments for educational policy stopped requiring expertise in the Philosophy of Education, but instead began to focus on the Psychology of Education. The study of the Philosophy of Education was also removed from teacher training, meaning that teachers no longer were taught to discern between true Education, schooling, training and indoctrination. So, the teachers themselves have been indoctrinated into thinking that training-manuals were 'quality pedagogy', and they've been seduced away from truth and towards 'The Science of learning'- which is a glamorous term for 'how to indoctrinate'. Teachers are recruited based on their desire to be 'change-makers' rather than a desire to truly Educate. Absolutely horrifying, but at last people here in NZ are beginning to wake up to the death-inducing ideological 'woke-ness'.
Focussing on the concept of ‘truth’ in the context of policy, ideology or propaganda is not ideal, because in this domain ‘truth’ is intentionally and strategically left undefined, just like any other weaponised term (‘what is a woman’). In order to be persuasive, not to the propagandists but to their audience, one must appeal to a common principle that can be individually verified, and there is really only one principle that fits the bill: sense. Sense vs non-sense is differentiated according to the laws of sense, which can be reduced to the law of non-contradiction, and anyone who can be shown to contradict themselves is automatically in a tight spot. People naturally recognise contradictory/inconsistent arguments are defective and false.
The principle of sense is also something that all humans have in common., allowing all humans (as conscious, rational beings) to make sense together, to communicate, to generate meaning. The laws of sense are also the primary standard according to which some claims can be objectively refuted and dismissed as nonsense, while other claims are a priori consistent, logically necessary, presupposed by our common dependence on making sense. The laws of sense unites us as a kind: all human beings have the capacity to rely on the structure of sense to understand one another, irrespective of cultural barriers, provided they are willing to communicate in good faith, genuinely trying to understand the arguments and draw unbiased conclusions based on the consistency of the argument and its premises.
Isn't 'the principle of sense' just a contraction of truth? To avoid saying 'truth'?
https://substack.com/@michaelkowalik/note/c-79411321
I asked this same question in my university days, in our student newspaper. No-one replied.
After my degree (92) I did a post grad Dip Second Language Teaching and became an English language teacher, to international students, whose first languages were very different from English. I specialised in teaching the 'super-beginners'... which led me to think deeply about basic structures in English that I would have otherwise taken for granted. In particular, I thought about the verb 'to be' which expresses existence, especially when combined with 'there', as in, "There is a cat on the mat."
That construction calls the cat into existence in the mind of the listener (or reader).
'To be' and its different forms (am, are, is) quietly declare 'existence'... and to my mind, existence inherently contains Truth. So when I click on your link to "What is truth", I'm drawn to the word "is" ...and also to scripture. The name of God is "I am that I am." Existence, existence...Truth, truth.
How can we utter or write the verb 'to be' if we dont pre-acknowledge 'Truth'? All efforts to explain 'truth' rely upon the verb 'to be'. I haven't studied logic so I expect there will be holes in my argument.
But as I see it, we are all made by God with an innate understanding of truth, even though we struggle to articulate it. The spirit part of ourselves is the great discerner of Truth. When we compromise truth, the Spirit part of ourself nags and tugs at the soul until we let go of our intellect and concede to our spirit, and accept 'the truth'.
I can't put truth on the backburner and start using 'sense'.
I have no idea what you'll make of my response. But I enjoy these sorts of conversations. Thank you for reading and writing.
This is an interesting angle. I agree that the sense of the expression ‘to be’ is entangled with the sense of ‘truth’. Nevertheless, whatever we say about truth, or about being, must make sense, or else it is nonsense, and nonsense cannot be even imagined as a possibility of being. Alternatively, one could say that for ‘truth’ to be a fundamental property (of being) there must be a true definition of truth, but this evidently involves circular reasoning, so it cannot be. In any case, the meaning of ‘truth’ matters only when there are disagreements or doubts about what is true, and this is precisely when our intuition is not enough; we need a tool or common standard to resolve the disagreement or doubt, and the common standard must make common sense. I argue that the meaning of ‘truth’ is derived from sense, which in principle can be discerned by all. Here is my answer to the challenge, which is arguably consistent with the notion of “i am that i am”: https://substack.com/@michaelkowalik/note/c-82599428
I've been thinking more on this. I decided to look up the etymology of truth. Assuming what I found is correct 'true'!), then, etymologically, it is...
"..attested by late 14c. as "that which IS [there's that verb 'to be' again] righteous or in accordance with divine standard; true religious doctrine; virtuous conduct." Truth! as an expression of assent or emphasis is by 1530s".
Source https://www.etymonline.com/word/truth
So then, in that 14th century context, 'truth' is a perfect resonance with God's doctrine.
What does that mean for people who don't believe in God?
It means that they will struggle to understand what 'truth' IS.
So then.
Either:
* human intellect is greater than a notion of 'a God who created everything with doctrine of right and wrong'; and the notion of 'truth' - born of the absurd recognition of the Divine - is therefore also absurd and should (perhaps as a consequence of evolution) be subordinate to a much more useful humanly notion of 'sense';
Or,
* human intellect is incapable of comprehending the intelligence of God- but having surrendered our incapability, God recognises our surrender and is pleased and rewards us with a vital sense of "knowing and recognising the Truth"- which is difficult to adequately communicate to people who dont believe in God, because they can't feel it, because they have rejected God in favour of themselves.
Ftom a logical point of view, could it be possible that God is real and is infinitely more intelligent than us humans, but that we have been duped into thinking that He is a lie and that our own intellects are the highest form of intelligence?
If you would define ‘truth’ in terms of ‘God’ then you need a definition of ‘God’ that does not presuppose the meaning of ‘truth’, is not circular and does not beg the question.