quote:Originally posted by pooka: Well, that's true. If "egotheism" correctly describes how people operate, then they are already operating that way.
This is virtually a tautology. (this is a joke related to another thread)
When I started to wonder about Egotheism* it was because I saw around me, IRL, too many instances where this wasn’t the case. And I brought it up on this forum because I saw it has enough “complexity” (read variety) to bring many points of view together. From such a debate we can see the eventual “validity” of this idea and its “universality”.
I think that even watching inside the confines of this thread, the majority doesn’t really accept such an epistemology. Why is that? Well, another interesting question… Maybe part of the answer is in the following quotes:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The question really is, then, "is it possible to cause people to stop claiming to know things they don't really know without unethically coercing them (by the definition of ethical behavior developed through egotheism?)" I think the answer is probably "no."
quote:Originally posted by pooka: But I think it would cause a lot of havoc if everyone had to declaim everything they don't really know.
We touched finally the most delicate questions about Egotheism*. It is such a “paradox”: having an epistemology that “fights” for the right of free choice, to the point of not being able to “win” itself. At least, I tried to “defend” it, and that’s the point of this thread.
That said, I don’t consider this debate over, by far. There are always new inputs to be taken into consideration. At least I, as an egotheist*, believe so.
The next line of questioning:
Why is non-egotheistic* epistemology so widely spread?
You can't have everyone discover all the principles of mathematics from dirt. Indoctrination has to be used to get people up to speed on everything that is generally known in time for them to possibly do anything productive with it while they are still young. That is, at least, the mythology that drives the sorts of people who want doctorates in math.
But you move across the academic spectrum into history and things get a bit murkier, and the idea of indoctrinating someone sounds horrible, but is it any less the case?
One view of education, exemplified by the Arabic darasa, also means to blot out or obliterate, which is what "indoctrination" brings to mind. But "indoctrinate" comes from the same root as docent means more to lead, guide, and bring along.
But I think it depends on the person. Some people are very practically oriented and don't really care how things work as long as they do work.
And who is to decided what disciplines are good to indoctrinate and which are not, or as you keep bringing up, at what age someone could choose to be indoctrinated?
I have a seven year old and he says he wants to make video games when he grows up, and so we are always explaining to him how the things he studies in school will be needed in that area. We have another child who wants to be an astronaut. But what if we had a child who wanted to be an actress or a rock star?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Because it works.
Well … yes. I can’t say it doesn’t. But do you really like the way it works?
Trying to express my feelings about it, I came up with an outrageous analogy:
It’s like training a dog (named A, short for Abigail) to walk on two legs. And doing that by amputating two of A’s four. So yes, if A wants to walk, A has no other option but use the remaining two. Complete success for the trainer! What use is learning something, if by that, one remains “crippled” for the rest of their life?
Maybe A would eventually learn to walk on two legs, even while having four. Maybe A would walk on two different legs than those that the trainer had in mind! Or maybe A couldn’t do it, whatever the effort A puts in it. What then? Is a failure of the trainer, or is it A’s fault? (All this, without even bringing into discussion the “utility” of walking on only two legs…)
quote:You can't have everyone discover all the principles of mathematics from dirt. Indoctrination has to be used to get people up to speed on everything that is generally known in time for them to possibly do anything productive with it while they are still young. That is, at least, the mythology that drives the sorts of people who want doctorates in math.
But you move across the academic spectrum into history and things get a bit murkier, and the idea of indoctrinating someone sounds horrible, but is it any less the case?
I agree that one can’t learn everything at once, nor do I believe that each student has to rediscover the proverbial wheel, but that’s not what “not indoctrinate” stands for. Teaching should be more like, presenting the index of the available knowledge to the student, and giving an introduction to each relevant point. Given the declared interest of the student, the teacher would recommend some point before others (priorities are good ) and give references for any additional and relevant information. I kind of have the impression that in science this goes pretty much like that. (I might be wrong). The question is, why is it “easier” to do otherwise in other fields? Somehow, theology comes first to mind. Why is it so important to walk on the two legs of Christianity? Why not Buddhism? Why not other? And who gives the right to the trainer to choose for A? (Ups, I fell into the analogy again. )
quote:One view of education, exemplified by the Arabic darasa, also means to blot out or obliterate, which is what "indoctrination" brings to mind. But "indoctrinate" comes from the same root as docent means more to lead, guide, and bring along.
Just to be clear, when I use “indoctrination” I mean presenting intentionally only part of the available knowledge. A teacher that was indoctrinated, might teach their students with all the good faith they can master, thinking that they are presenting ALL the information (it being the only available). That is “innocent” indoctrination. But it can’t last for long, because having an open mind will inevitably lead to becoming aware of “more”.
quote:But I think it depends on the person. Some people are very practically oriented and don't really care how things work as long as they do work.
And who is to decided what disciplines are good to indoctrinate and which are not, or as you keep bringing up, at what age someone could choose to be indoctrinated?
I’d say let’s be fair, and NOT indoctrinate anything! As for the age, there is no external “force” to decide that. It can only be found out inside!
quote:I have a seven year old and he says he wants to make video games when he grows up, and so we are always explaining to him how the things he studies in school will be needed in that area. We have another child who wants to be an astronaut. But what if we had a child who wanted to be an actress or a rock star?
Well, what education do you think the actors and rock stars have? That’s what should be explained to anyone interested in becoming one.
You see, the point isn't forcing children to become egotheists* as soon as possible. First and foremost, it’s for the teachers to use Egotheism* as a way of teaching. As we’ve seen before, it’s not the job of the egotheist* teacher to decide for the student. Maybe the student would choose freely what kind of education they want: an “open” one, where all knowledge is available, or a “closed” one where they will learn one single side of the knowledge, the way teacher decided was best?
The question is, which one would you like to be the “default” for your child?
A.
PS:
BTW, here are the proposals for the <new name>:
From pooka: - “idtheism” ( I’m not even sure how to pronounce it … ) - “metacognition” ( a bit too general, as in not-specific enough ) From myself: - “egosophism” ( unification of “ego”-self and “sopho”-wisdom ) - NEW: “egologism” ( self + logos ) From TomDavidson: - “positivist existentialism” (this might prove to be the “technical” term for it )
Any new candidates?
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Metacognition is more of an ethical framework for people dealing with other people. It has to do with what you're talking about, but is not really the same thing.
I just think there is a whole lot of baggage that goes with "ego", mainly thanks to Freud, and you're better off with "Aut" if you want to preserve the self-focus. We have words like Authentic, autonomous and author.
I think "sophism" is a vastly better label than "theism" as far as accuracy goes, since your ideas don't necessarily involve God.
I'll have to look into positivist existentialism to see if I agree that it describes your baby. It may be compatible with it without accurately describing it.
As to chopping legs off dogs, I don't know. I had a dream the other night that someone cut the ears off my sister's dog. It was very upsetting (my sister doesn't really have a dog, but my brother did).
When we allow a child to acquire our language, we cut off their ability that they have at birth to acquire any language.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Idtheism was mostly tongue in cheek.
Metacognition is more of an ethical framework for people dealing with other people. It has to do with what you're talking about, but is not really the same thing.
Ok.
quote: I just think there is a whole lot of baggage that goes with "ego", mainly thanks to Freud, and you're better off with "Aut" if you want to preserve the self-focus. We have words like Authentic, autonomous and author.
I think "sophism" is a vastly better label than "theism" as far as accuracy goes, since your ideas don't necessarily involve God.
I don’t have any problem with „ego”, whatever Freud might have said. I see your point about „aut” though, and therefore propose as a new candidate: „autosophism”
Also, I was thinking about: „egotruism”. And that’s because the essence of Egothesm* is that as long as you trust your PGK, it is essentially „true” (i.e. very, very certain) for yourself.
quote:I'll have to look into positivist existentialism to see if I agree that it describes your baby. It may be compatible with it without accurately describing it.
Yep, me too. I’m working on it.
quote:When we allow a child to acquire our language, we cut off their ability that they have at birth to acquire any language.
No we don’t. I’ve seen many people learning more than one „mother tongue” (see inter-cultural families), and others being able to learn more when they grew up. Impossible it is not.
Do I think that a child should learn ALL languages at once? (This would seem to be the direct application of Egotheism* on the matter.) No. Learning two or three would be enough. Also, learning one that is very widely used, might open up the chances to get in contact (sooner) with the knowledge mainly available in that „translation”. It’s like studying Computer Science in France. Sooner or later you have to know English as most of the courses/documentation is in English.
quote:When we allow a child to acquire our language, we cut off their ability that they have at birth to acquire any language.
I'm not sure where this comes from but it isn't true. The ability children have at birth to acquire any language is normally retained until puberty at which time those circuits in the brain begin to harden. The data all suggests that a childs ability to learn language is cut off by the maturation process and not by acquiring a language.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The ability children have at birth to acquire any language is normally retained until puberty at which time those circuits in the brain begin to harden. The data all suggests that a childs ability to learn language is cut off by the maturation process and not by acquiring a language.
Hey, this does have an interesting implication: If the child’s brain is more receptive at an early age, then it means that we should teach them the largest array of basic knowledge that we can, fast, so they could use this solid base for decision making in the future, when “absorption” is limited by the maturation process.
Of course, this makes sense only if all the areas of the brain (not only those that control/contain speech) behave in this way.
posted
Ok, I make it “official”, the term/concept I was trying to define in this thread, will be called from now on Egotruism. (I really hope this term wasn’t used elsewhere ) The choice is based on the fact that at the core, Egotruism (fromer Egotheism*) states that the final choice about the “truth” value (that is, the level of certainty about that value) is made at the personal level (hence the “truism”: if the self takes it as certain, then it is certain for the self.)
Any comment on that is welcomed, obviously.
Either way, I think there are many points that could still be touched here, but the prospect of talking to myself on this thread is not what I’m hoping for.
Therefore, if you (all) don’t have any specific points to comment, I invite you to give your conclusion about this epistemological matter (seen as a whole in this thread).
If you had to choose between Egotruism and non-Egotruism, what would your choice be?
I realize that most of the time a “partly egotruistic” view could be your “answer”, but if you think that only part of it is “acceptable” then you are clearly “not buying” the whole, which is really the grain of the question.
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Google doesn’t offer any definition of the word “egotheism”. Good. I’ll use it with the next definition:
Egotheism = a system of (moral) beliefs based on the principle that each individual has the right to form his/hers own system of beliefs, that is not necessarily transmissible to others.
By this definition, one “becomes” an egotheist when (and only when) one is able to formulate this system by oneself, based on*: education, tradition, dreams, myths, secular laws, “known” religions and whatnot. A true egotheist is preoccupied to understand the world/Universe around, its meaningfulness, the right/wrong balance etc. The goal is self-betterment/perfection, and not at all “convincing” the others that one’s particular system of beliefs is “teh best/truest/worthiest”.
Of course, there are a lot of “problems” to be solved: 1) Is egotheism a valid system of beliefs? 2) What age is best for one to “become egotheist”? 3) What sort of education is recommendable before “becoming egotheist”?
What say you?
A.
*note: randomly ordered list
[edited: thread title] [edited (dec. 2007): on the 4th page, it was commented that this term is already in use with a different definition. So, in this thread, the term doesn't have the "official" definition, but the one proposed above.] [edit: on the 5th page, the term was changed to "egotruism" ]
I don't have an answer for you, but that may be the point. If only there were a way to transmit it to others...*Sigh*. The film "Adaptation" might help shed some light on the subject.
Posts: 278 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
But you see, the whole purpose of this thread (and there are more than 4 full pages for it) was to expand and explain this "un-transmissible" thing. Therefore, I hope that someone who reads it as a whole, can reach a conclusion about it.
posted
I think your definition -- "if the self asserts that X is true, X is true for the self" -- is now a tautology.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Truism is a word in english that means a saying. Like the things Polonius tells his son in Hamlet, I think those are truisms.
Point taken, Rabbit, it's been my entirely anecdotal experience than many bilingual children acquire language faster than monolingual children, and that is the theory behind babysign, that letting a child work with language enhances their ability to acquire it, rather than displacing their capacity.
However, there is a degree to which culture and social attitude dwells in language (I'm trying to avoid a strong Sapir-Whorf stance assigning causality one way or the other.) I'm using language in this instance as the most recognizable figurehead underwhich cultural and social baggage is transmitted to children along with all the critical information they obtain from living with their parents.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think your definition -- "if the self asserts that X is true, X is true for the self" -- is now a tautology.
Ok, even the phrase I used is a tautology, rather than a truism. For me the two terms are virtually the same in this context, but I admit that they are not technically the same thing. I was trying to explain my preference for the new name, which was based on the fact that we did touch on this tautology before as a “core result” of Egotheism*.
As you can see though, I avoided the word "true" in my last version of the tautology/truism, especially because the point about the Absolute Truth was risen several times now, and I am not talking about making it relative to the self. I choose to believe (for now) that if there is such a thing as Absolute Truth (and I think that it does), then it isn’t influenced by individual belief. As dkw noted, I’m not talking about TRUTH but about "certainty of truth value".
I’d like to note, nevertheless, that Egotruism itself is NOT just a tautology/truism. Any sufficiently complex “theory/concept” can produce tautologies. Just like Evolutionism has: “natural selection works by favouring the reproduction of the individuals that are fitter to breed”. But that is not the whole story, just like the tautology that prompted the new name is not the whole story of Egotruism.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(this is a joke related to another thread)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
As for the age, there is no external “force” to decide that. It can only be found out inside!
