Author Topic: Boomer Philosophy vs X-Gen vs Millennial  (Read 1077 times)

Re: Boomer Philosophy vs X-Gen vs Millennial
« Reply #30 on: June 03, 2020, 04:55:43 PM »
Research into the Positivist political agenda of the academics who founded it.  This was Fabian communism.  We did get public schools more and more as we go into the 20th century.  My father's father was still unusual, to have completed HS, in 1916.  The government schools (rather than religious) and the movement after 1900 to remove religious control from governance of universities and colleges, and mandatory chapel for students ... are all part of the secular progressivism we know as Progressives (see Wisconsin/Minnesota) from 1920.  Gradual, non-radical reform along the lines immigrants from Scandinavia were looking for.  This is why Minneapolis is burning now.

The narrative of utopian sociology is ... The Foundation, by Isaac Asimov.

Haven't read the Foundation (though I have a copy of the entire thing on my shelf). So I'd need some context for the last remark.

I think academics have been proponents for positive progress since Socrates/Plato. And why not? Though they're not perfect, they are willing to look at information with rigorous scrutiny, and use logical argument. (Unlike the rest of the populace.)

Marx has influenced many disciplines (history, philosophy, sociology)-- true. But only because he made some very good points. And had some very compelling methodologies for interpreting history and society.

Sure. Marx's theory is weak in many ways. But I don't blame anyone for taking him seriously. So many of his criticisms were on point. And, as I'm sure you know, even proponents of Marx in academia reject a great many of his ideas. But only a fool would reject the whole of Marx's criticisms.

I, for one, like Marx's take on why Minneapolis is burning now.

Offline aitm

Re: Boomer Philosophy vs X-Gen vs Millennial
« Reply #31 on: June 03, 2020, 05:12:08 PM »
Shit happens. We either adapt or not.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Offline Baruch

Re: Boomer Philosophy vs X-Gen vs Millennial
« Reply #32 on: June 03, 2020, 07:15:03 PM »
Haven't read the Foundation (though I have a copy of the entire thing on my shelf). So I'd need some context for the last remark.

I think academics have been proponents for positive progress since Socrates/Plato. And why not? Though they're not perfect, they are willing to look at information with rigorous scrutiny, and use logical argument. (Unlike the rest of the populace.)

Marx has influenced many disciplines (history, philosophy, sociology)-- true. But only because he made some very good points. And had some very compelling methodologies for interpreting history and society.

Sure. Marx's theory is weak in many ways. But I don't blame anyone for taking him seriously. So many of his criticisms were on point. And, as I'm sure you know, even proponents of Marx in academia reject a great many of his ideas. But only a fool would reject the whole of Marx's criticisms.

I, for one, like Marx's take on why Minneapolis is burning now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hari_Seldon

Hari Seldon is a character in the first book, crucial for the entire Foundation series.  He is a psychohistorian ... he can in broad brush over long periods, predict the general development of history.  As the Galactic Empire falls (Star Wars is a cheap imitation) he thinks that a Dark Ages will result, but if he gives critical nudges over time (long after he is dead) thru oracular recordings, he can shorten the total length of the Dark Ages.

See my other post on the real politik behind Socrates' reasonable views.  Proper academics start with the Academy of Plato, of course ;-)  Government employment of such is centuries later, with Quintilian ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintilian

Quintilian is the first "professor" aka a publicly paid teach of higher education.  Which for Romans centered in rhetoric.  All other teachers prior to that were private.  Students paid for instruction.  With a "professor" the State pays his salary.

This all fell into disuse with the rise of Christianity and the fall of the Roman Empire.  In Byzantium, higher education continued, but it was entirely Church directed.  The schools of Athens and Alexadria were closed down, because secular learning was associated with paganism.

Higher education didn't resume in the West, until the University of Paris and Oxford University (a rebellious offshoot of the University of Paris).  Aside from medical schools in various places, which were inspired by Aristotelian medical science in the Abbasid Empire.  Of course, their intent was to serve the Catholic Church.

Until the Renaissance and Reformation, there were no higher schooling intellectually independent, or open to non-Catholics.  Even in the 17th century, higher education in England was there to serve the Anglican Church.

So by progress, this means different things in different places at different periods.  You are probably aware of my old avatar, Baruch Spinoza.  He is the beginning of modernity, his ideas being the central ideas upon which the development Enlightenment thinking was based.  This level of discussion isn't for most people, you are a breath of fresh air in a stale Internet Cafe ;-)

A proper discussion of Marxism is a whole other thread!
« Last Edit: June 03, 2020, 07:23:51 PM by Baruch »
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.