[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah I've really only heard it in an insulting manner, I've not heard anyone refer to themselves as woke (maybe people do but I've not come across that yet) I take it to mean people who follow every social justice issue to the letter without question and if you question anything you're automatically on the far right. There doesn't seem to be a lot of middle ground allowed anymore or open conversations on emotive social issues.

I think this is basically what I'm trying to nail my thoughts down on (with the Labour thread too). It's not about centrism or both-sides, in fact I generally find myself falling on one side of the fence more than the other, but I find myself with certain people (or a certain type of person) unable to trust them because I know that despite me agreeing with what they're saying, it feels like their stance is coming from a place of echoed dogma and not their own personal reasoning or rationale. And I know that you can't actually have a discussion with someone with that mindset... so despite agreeing with them... I know that they'll be just as unreasonable with me if opinions happen to diverge. Is it just that trust issue, maybe? I know there's something about current left-rhetoric that has me "ill at ease" even when I largely agree. That's something we're trying to hammer out in the TS household lately. Can't quite nail it down.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

…the thing is for me, working in a school…?…is that Greta engaged the interest of the children in a way that hadn’t been so before…and that was largely obviously because of her age…I do think Al was listened to tbh…but it just didn’t engage in the same way because of that aspect of raising awareness and concerns in our children…

But you know besides the fact that they didn't want to have to think about it, people like Trump are never going to respect or be lectured by a teenager never mind a female teenager

[Ammi]

…I mean, that for me is such a key in working in schools for most of my working life…awareness is raised in adults all of the time and always has been and that’s brought about some changes…but children are our future…(…cliche, I know but it’s true…)…to engage them is the key to an Earth future and to do that, sadly Al just wasn’t going to do it….

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

But you know besides the fact that they didn't want to have to think about it, people like Trump are never going to respect or be lectured by a teenager never mind a female teenager

…exactly, so Trump did what Trump did best and insulted and name called…and then with the help of social media…sadly the age and era of ‘followers’ and people said haha…etc…

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I think this is basically what I'm trying to nail my thoughts down on (with the Labour thread too). It's not about centrism or both-sides, in fact I generally find myself falling on one side of the fence more than the other, but I find myself with certain people (or a certain type of person) unable to trust them because I know that despite me agreeing with what they're saying, it feels like their stance is coming from a place of echoed dogma and not their own personal reasoning or rationale. And I know that you can't actually have a discussion with someone with that mindset... so despite agreeing with them... I know that they'll be just as unreasonable with me if opinions happen to diverge. Is it just that trust issue, maybe? I know there's something about current left-rhetoric that has me "ill at ease" even when I largely agree. That's something we're trying to hammer out in the TS household lately. Can't quite nail it down.

I actually know exactly what you mean. I suppose (and I hate to bring this topic up again, I don't want to talk about it, it just fits my example of what I think you're trying to say) So the trans debate, I know my opinion comes from worrying about women's rights and how they will be/have been effected but I know that some people who agree with me on some of these topics agree with me for different reasons and sometimes it makes me uncomfortable too

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Ammi

…the thing is for me, working in a school…?…is that Greta engaged the interest of the children in a way that hadn’t been so before…and that was largely obviously because of her age…I do think Al was listened to tbh…but it just didn’t engage in the same way because of that aspect of raising awareness and concerns in our children…

I suppose though with reference to the above, part of my worry lies in children being told the correct conclusion rather than being given the tools to reach the conclusion for themselves. I think there's something sorely missing in the development of proper reasoning and formal operational thought. Some of it is tied into education seemingly going down a slightly post-structuralist/post-truth route of extreme individualism.

Like I said I'm in a bit of a philosophical soup with this stuff at the moment so I'm not actually 100% on my thoughts, I just know there's "something" .

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

…exactly, so Trump did what Trump did best and insulted and name called…and then with the help of social media…sadly the age and era of ‘followers’ and people said haha…etc…

Social Media (and I know it has great points too) I think is certainly responsible for the weaponising of all these "buzz words"

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I think this is basically what I'm trying to nail my thoughts down on (with the Labour thread too). It's not about centrism or both-sides, in fact I generally find myself falling on one side of the fence more than the other, but I find myself with certain people (or a certain type of person) unable to trust them because I know that despite me agreeing with what they're saying, it feels like their stance is coming from a place of echoed dogma and not their own personal reasoning or rationale. And I know that you can't actually have a discussion with someone with that mindset... so despite agreeing with them... I know that they'll be just as unreasonable with me if opinions happen to diverge. Is it just that trust issue, maybe? I know there's something about current left-rhetoric that has me "ill at ease" even when I largely agree. That's something we're trying to hammer out in the TS household lately. Can't quite nail it down.

…I often have long chats with the Mister that have stemmed from a forum thread…well, I have to say…it’s less now that I do because so many ‘discussions’ sadly aren’t discussions at all…they’re like backward and forward tennis matches or ball batting of media links and articles and statistics and etc…those best long chats for me that go on in depth and endlessly into the early hours with friends etc…?..we’ve never once so far as I can recall said….hang on, look here’s an article and it says…!!!!!!!….so there…!!!….it’s all about thoughts and the communication of and listening to opinions that sometimes can rearrange your own thinking with a different focus….

[user104658]

One thing that's really bugging me is that moral absolutism and post-truth are concepts that are essentially completely incompatible and yet they are definitely merging and interacting within left-rhetoric. How, and why? There's an inherent incompatibility and I think on some level people know that - because if you push at that incompatibility people get very, very angry which is surely borne of frustration at trying to combine incongruent philosophies?

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I actually know exactly what you mean. I suppose (and I hate to bring this topic up again, I don't want to talk about it, it just fits my example of what I think you're trying to say) So the trans debate, I know my opinion comes from worrying about women's rights and how they will be/have been effected but I know that some people who agree with me on some of these topics agree with me for different reasons and sometimes it makes me uncomfortable too

…(..there are some things, I feel…)….where support is apparently shown toward females in regard to sexist issues….and then sexist threads/comments etc are displayed without any thought at all from those same directions…

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

…(..there are some things, I feel…)….where support is apparently shown toward females in regard to sexist issues….and then sexist threads/comments etc are displayed without any thought at all from those same directions…

Yeah exactly

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I suppose though with reference to the above, part of my worry lies in children being told the correct conclusion rather than being given the tools to reach the conclusion for themselves. I think there's something sorely missing in the development of proper reasoning and formal operational thought. Some of it is tied into education seemingly going down a slightly post-structuralist/post-truth route of extreme individualism.

Like I said I'm in a bit of a philosophical soup with this stuff at the moment so I'm not actually 100% on my thoughts, I just know there's "something" .

…I actually think the opposite tbh……I think that children now more than ever are involved in open discussions and free thoughts and the opportunity to express those thoughts/reasons for them etc…in a way that very much wasn’t the thing back in the day…when children weren’t given that freedom because they were children and not yet ‘qualified’ to express…go away and come back when you’re an adult, please….it’s very much not like that anymore…my children have always been as knowledgeable as I have in things that they’ve taught me…and it’s been a two way thing, the sharing of life experiences etc…of different generations lived in…

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah exactly

…feminist issues can be used as an agenda to express something else and yeah, I don’t feel comfortable about that at all and rarely engage in it if I feel that’s how it is…

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

One thing that's really bugging me is that moral absolutism and post-truth are concepts that are essentially completely incompatible and yet they are definitely merging and interacting within left-rhetoric. How, and why? There's an inherent incompatibility and I think on some level people know that - because if you push at that incompatibility people get very, very angry which is surely borne of frustration at trying to combine incongruent philosophies?

Can you explain a bit more about that

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Ammi

…I actually think the opposite tbh……I think that children now more than ever are involved in open discussions and free thoughts and the opportunity to express those thoughts/reasons for them etc…in a way that very much wasn’t the thing back in the day…when children weren’t given that freedom because they were children and not yet ‘qualified’ to express…go away and come back when you’re an adult, please….it’s very much not like that anymore…my children have always been as knowledgeable as I have in things that they’ve taught me…and it’s been a two way thing, the sharing of life experiences etc…of different generations lived in…

Ahh Ammi that's actually what I'm talking about being the problem . Children are exposed to post-truth individualism much younger than they used to be an essentially are being plonked into a world of free-thinking, that requires robust formal operational abilities, before they've nailed down the previous stage (concrete operational) that forms the foundation for that more advanced free-thinking.

In essense... I'm currently wondering if there's something slightly risky about shoe-horning free thinking into young minds that aren't quite prepped for it yet. Leading young people to believe that they are free-thinking when they're actually mimicking (below about age 10 or 11 they CAN only be mimicking) and that somehow affecting their ability to develop true independent reasoning later in life, e.g. during higher education. After all - they think they've been doing it since they were kids, so what do they need to know about these advanced concepts?

[Ammi]

…anyways, I do feel that sadly the forum has come to follow the media and social media in terms of ‘click bait’ for too long and that’s been the deterioration of discussion quality…so thank you, Slim ….…for a thread and question that’s been very open and honest and agenda free…more like the thriving SD we’ve all experienced and loved as a core of TiBB…

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Can you explain a bit more about that

In short, post-structuralism (loosely, post-truth) is the concept that we all have "our own truth" and there is no absolute; any description of the absolute is a social construction and ambiguous/up for debate. It's an essential concept in gender theory. Moral absolutism on the other hand is the idea that certain aspects of morality are absolute and beyond reasonable discussion; that discussing the "how and why" of a supposedly-moral statement "that anyone should be able to see is moral" is inherently immoral (making them off the table for discussion, if you don't want to be deemed a wrong'un).

But no form of absolutism fits with post-structuralism... the nuances of morality would ALWAYS be up for debate and an element of subjectivity.

But I see a lot of left-rhetoric strongly advocating for both. Individual truth is real. Objective morality is also real. It doesn't blend, it requires a level of cognitive dissonance to even hold both views similtaneously and I honestly think that's where a lot of the frustration and aggression is rooted. Maybe. It's a work in progress

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Ahh Ammi that's actually what I'm talking about being the problem . Children are exposed to post-truth individualism much younger than they used to be an essentially are being plonked into a world of free-thinking, that requires robust formal operational abilities, before they've nailed down the previous stage (concrete operational) that forms the foundation for that more advanced free-thinking.

In essense... I'm currently wondering if there's something slightly risky about shoe-horning free thinking into young minds that aren't quite prepped for it yet. Leading young people to believe that they are free-thinking when they're actually mimicking (below about age 10 or 11 they CAN only be mimicking) and that somehow affecting their ability to develop true independent reasoning later in life, e.g. during higher education. After all - they think they've been doing it since they were kids, so what do they need to know about these advanced concepts?

…children are learning…(…in all of their lessons…)…through philosophy, through developing their thinking skills and the complexities and layers of many topics and situations and to think beyond themselves to impacts on others around them…not to be more insular in thought or actions but to give more careful thought …and also think less restricting in terms of a right or a wrong, a black or a white…I don’t see that as any negative….


…..sorry I must go, I’m on the drag…but yeah…

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

In short, post-structuralism (loosely, post-truth) is the concept that we all have "our own truth" and there is no absolute; any description of the absolute is a social construction and ambiguous/up for debate. It's an essential concept in gender theory. Moral absolutism on the other hand is the idea that certain aspects of morality are absolute and beyond reasonable discussion; that discussing the "how and why" of a supposedly-moral statement "that anyone should be able to see is moral" is inherently immoral (making them off the table for discussion, if you don't want to be deemed a wrong'un).

But no form of absolutism fits with post-structuralism... the nuances of morality would ALWAYS be up for debate and an element of subjectivity.

But I see a lot of left-rhetoric strongly advocating for both. Individual truth is real. Objective morality is also real. It doesn't blend, it requires a level of cognitive dissonance to even hold both views similtaneously and I honestly think that's where a lot of the frustration and aggression is rooted. Maybe. It's a work in progress

That's very interesting, very 1984 actually, George Orwell was a head of his time.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Ammi

…children are learning…(…in all of their lessons…)…through philosophy, through developing their thinking skills and the complexities and layers of many topics and situations and to think beyond themselves to impacts on others around them…not to be more insular in thought or actions but to give more careful thought …and also think less restricting in terms of a right or a wrong, a black or a white…I don’t see that as any negative….


…..sorry I must go, I’m on the drag…but yeah…

Piaget (which I admit, might be outdated) would suggest that they cannot (physically) do this until the onset of adolescence which I would say there's a good amount of anecdotal evidence for, which again is where I feel some concern dripping in; kids are being told too young that they are capable of a level of objective reasoning that they are not capable of through no fault of their own, and in the process missing out on some of the essential concrete operational skills base that will allow them to fully develop those skills in adolescence and beyond... whilst believing that they do have those skills, because they grew up being told that they have them. That's a risky combination that in fact leads to people with VERY concrete views (moral absolutism) also being VERY confident in those views, but without actually having reasoned through those views independently.

... "wokeness"...

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You have to feel bad for Al Gore - he was trying to get people to listen long before Greta was born. The term "woke" didn't exist but more or less everyone treated him like a joke for it . Sorry Al.

I agree.

The thing that irritates me with Greta is how she intimates that everyone who came before her has stolen something from her and her generation and that simply isn't true. Some people have worked hard to reduce their carbon footprint, Prince Philip, for instance, was talking about global warming decades ago' but it feels like anyone older than Greta is blind to the problems and guilty of exacerbating them. I also am wary of kids pushed into the faces of the public by two parents who know exactly how engage and manipulate the media.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Piaget (which I admit, might be outdated) would suggest that they cannot (physically) do this until the onset of adolescence which I would say there's a good amount of anecdotal evidence for, which again is where I feel some concern dripping in; kids are being told too young that they are capable of a level of objective reasoning that they are not capable of through no fault of their own, and in the process missing out on some of the essential concrete operational skills base that will allow them to fully develop those skills in adolescence and beyond... whilst believing that they do have those skills, because they grew up being told that they have them. That's a risky combination that in fact leads to people with VERY concrete views (moral absolutism) also being VERY confident in those views, but without actually having reasoned through those views independently.

... "wokeness"...

..hmmmmmm…(…I really am so on the drag and need to eat something…)…but to delay the encouragement of free thinking and problem solving thinking etc …to philosophise in thoughts…?..until adolescence would not prepare for their higher school advancement but it would also leave it open for more fixed mindsets …more ‘limited conditioning’ within individual environmental factors and less open to thinking beyond themselves and their world…anyways, ta ta…I think I might faint with food deprivation….

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..hmmmmmm…(…I really am so on the drag and need to eat something…)…but to delay the encouragement of free thinking and problem solving thinking etc …to philosophise in thoughts…?..until adolescence would not prepare for their higher school advancement but it would also leave it open for more fixed mindsets …more ‘limited conditioning’ within individual environmental factors and less open to thinking beyond themselves and their world…anyways, ta ta…I think I might faint with food deprivation….

Oh I'm not talking about creative thought/expression/problem solving, but more advanced abstract thinking and subjectivity. Not to have the same thing come up time and time again, but there'd be a very strong basis to assume that pre-adolescents are not capable of grasping a concept like gender, for example, and their understanding of morality WILL tend to be quite black-and-white no matter how much you try to explain the grey areas.

From personal anecdotal experience; there's something quite fascinating occurring in my daughter's age group at the moment that highlights this really. She's 11, in the final year of primary school, but she's well into "teen territory" in terms of physical development and that tends to be the case at that age; some of the kids are still very much pre-adolescent, some are essentially spotty teens... and there is a clear divergence when it comes to social and abstract thinking that occurs along that line. LOTS of clashes between moody opinionated adolescents and "still more childlike" kids who see things as very black and white. Lots of more advanced concepts seem to "click" and (it would appear) it's much more firmly rooted in actual physical development than in age or education.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Oh I'm not talking about creative thought/expression/problem solving, but more advanced abstract thinking and subjectivity. Not to have the same thing come up time and time again, but there'd be a very strong basis to assume that pre-adolescents are not capable of grasping a concept like gender, for example, and their understanding of morality WILL tend to be quite black-and-white no matter how much you try to explain the grey areas.

From personal anecdotal experience; there's something quite fascinating occurring in my daughter's age group at the moment that highlights this really. She's 11, in the final year of primary school, but she's well into "teen territory" in terms of physical development and that tends to be the case at that age; some of the kids are still very much pre-adolescent, some are essentially spotty teens... and there is a clear divergence when it comes to social and abstract thinking that occurs along that line. LOTS of clashes between moody opinionated adolescents and "still more childlike" kids who see things as very black and white. Lots of more advanced concepts seem to "click" and (it would appear) it's much more firmly rooted in actual physical development than in age or education.

…I’m not really understanding you…obviously emotional and physical developments will vary…but do you mean more peer stuff which would possibly conflict with parental influences…?…


…I’m with you on Year 6 children being a very interesting year group…..years 5 and 6 are probably my favourite year groups……I learn a lot from their thought processes….

[arista]

Originally Posted by Alf

This thread is so woke!