RationalEgoistSG

I did no such thing. I said that the human mind, especially that of a young child, requires breaks from learning in order to foster proper development. Nowhere did I say that such learning is inherently painful and this is the justification of such breaks. Your claim to the contrary is an arbitray assumption. Again, my claim has NOTHING to do with whether or not learning is "fun" or that "teachers today fail to motivate the students." My arguments are based on the fact that the mind of a child can not properly develop according to your "method." The non-academic "breaks" I referred to would not be isolated nonsense with no connection to learning. I agree that academic "breaks," such as you suggested would be quite helpful to the learning process, but I disagree that non-academic breaks would not be helpful. As I have maintained, the human mind at such a young age can not properly handle the intensity of learning which you advocate for kindergarden children. I would eliminate the majority of the nonsense that goes on in elementary school, but I would not eliminate non-academic subjects entirely. Such subjects should by no means comprise anything even close to the majority of the day, however, they are nevertheless important to the proper growth of a child's mind. Such non-academic "breaks" would be much less important however in middle school and high school, if not completely unecessary. In middle school and high school, I would say that non-academic "breaks" should mostly be a part of after school activities.

I completely agree that the method by which most teachers have been teaching their subjects is terrible. Personally, I have experienced this the most in history, where every teacher attempted to make us memorize fact after fact after fact with very little or no integration. I believe that we both agree that integration of the subject material is critical to training the conceptual faculty properly and that the methods by which most teachers teach today are horrible. However, there is one key area of disagreement. I believe that your method of training the conceptual faculty in the best way possible is completely flawed. We are in agreement that the human mind has an identity, a nature, and requires a specific method in order to be used in the best way possible. However, we disagree on what this method is. You believe, according to your arguments, that the best cultivation of a child's conceptual faculty will come from intense study of a few subjects for 6-9 hours a day with very little breaks in such study. I believe that such a method would be extremely damaging to a child's conceptual faculty. A child, at the kindergarden level, does not have the ability to process and integrate a large amount of conceptual material. Such material, in order to be integrated correctly, must begin at a slow pace and gradually increase in size and difficulty; increasing alongside the children's development of their conceptual faculties across the numerous grade levels of elementary and middle school. Attempting to subvert this fact by jamming close to 6 hours of material into the mind of a child in elementary school would OVERWHELM their conceptual faculties and stunt their growth. What then must be done? At the kindergarden level, teachers should be providing the children with fundamental principles of education at a slow and steady pace. Since a child's conceptual faculty can not process 6 straight hours of material like this EVEN at a slow and steady pace, something else must be done by the educators during this 6 hour (or whatever) period. The children require BREAKS in their study, especially at the kindergarden level. What then is the best choice for educators to fill such breaks with? "Non-academic" activities as you call them. Things such as drawing, light reading, music, etc. Activities which give the conceptual faculty of a young child a much needed rest that allows their mind to REFUEL in order to continue their learning. Such activities ARE NOT justified by some pragmatic philosophy which says that the children should be encouraged to "express their feelings" or "learn how to be one with the group," and other such nonsenese. Such activities are AN OBJECTIVE REQUIREMENT OF THE CONCEPTUAL FACULTY, EVEN MORE SO FOR YOUNG CHILDREN. Such activities would ALSO help to cultivate the conceptual faculty, but in a primarily different way than the "academic subjects." Such activities provide not only the breaks that are required for the conceptual faculty of a young child to function and grow properly, but they also provide a much needed outlet for the application of what they are learning to concrete applications. This method I advocate primarily for elementary school students, with the overall time devoted to non-academic subjects decreasing as the children get older and as the ability for the conceptual faculty to process and integrate data becomes faster and can handle more material. Human beings are more than floating conceptual faculties. Human beings REQUIRE a rest for their conceptual faculty in order to function properly. By rest, I do not mean shutting off one's mind and becoming an idiot. By rest, I mean engaging in activities that still utilitize one's mind but do not completely drain its strength and ability to function properly. Even adults require such rest of the conceptual faculty, but much less than children do. You can not possibly expect to be pouring information into the minds of children for almost 6 hours a day, 5 times a week, and expect them to retain the majority of the material and develop their minds properly. Your primary error in this regard is completely ignoring the nature of the human mind. In your view, you identified the primary error of education as pragmatism. Once pragmatism is eliminated, according to your thinking, children will be able to learn vast amounts of material because the method of doing so will be rational. You are right in condemning pragmatism. But you are dead wrong in claiming that a child's conceptual faculty can develop properly by close to 6 hours of intensive study, 5 times a week. It contradicts the nature of a child's mind.

Daniel, I would like to discuss this matter with you further. Can you explain your premises on this subject and your conclusions? As I see it, your premises are as follows: 1. the purpose of education is to cultivate the conceptual faculty 2. the subjects that primarily fulfill this purpose are reading, writing, math, history, science, literature 3. courses such as music, art, computers, etc., while providing some value, do not provide anywhere near as much value as the above subjects 4. if students were to take such "elective" subjects, they should not detract from the academic courses, they should be optional, and maybe even limited to after school activities only Am I correct in the summary of your basic premises in this subject?

Tom, exactly. So why hasn't such a treatise been written or is being planned to be written? I think that if one is truly interested in the spread of Objectivism, one must be SURE that the absolutely critical base of the philosophy, metaphysics, is perfectly explained and masterfully written. Has that been achieved yet? Or does Objectivism need a more extensive examination and demonstration of metaphysics? I tend to think that Objectivism could clarify many metaphysical principles and provide a much more robust defense against some of the dominant principles of metaphysics in modern philosophy. But, perhaps it's just an inadequate knowledge of Objectivist metaphysics on my part.

I am currently re-reading Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, and I am fully realizing that Objectivist metaphysics really establish a good foundation for everything that follows. In the majority of philosophical disputes that I've had with others concerning ethics, politics, and aesthetics, the fundamental disagreement has almost always come from differing views of metaphysics and epistemology. I believe that Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology firmly establish the correctness of their ethics, politics, and aesthetics, and I believe go a LONG way to refute the philosphical errors of the past. Ayn Rand, as a great a writer as she was, primarly focused on writing about ethics and politics, not devoting nearly enough time to metaphysics and epistemology. I am wondering, considering the crucial importance of metaphysics and epistemology to an integrated system of philosophy, why hasn't there been more written on them? There is Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and OPAR, but I think more writing in these areas, ESPECIALLY in metaphysics, would go a long way to establish more serious study of Objectivism amongst academic philosophers (the ones not engaged in a process of evasion at least). I know that Peikoff is working on a detailed book on epistemology, specifically, on integration, but I am not aware of any Objectivist writers (actual Objectivists, not the TOC garbage and other variants) who have written a more detalied account of Objectivist metaphysics or who are planning to do so. Does anyone have information on any such books that currently exist or are in the process of being written or planned? Or, does anyone have good reasons as to why more writing detailing Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology haven't been done?

I would like to share a personal experience about an "elective" course. The band program that I was a part of was the best thing that ever happened for my conceptual faculty in my entire field of education. There are so many advantages to playing a musical instrument for the cultivation of the conceptual faculty. One is taught certain fundamental principles about the instrument and must learn to apply them to concrete situations as one increases their ability to play the instrument. Once you are to play the instrument well enough to be in a band, a whole new list of fundamental principles are learned (such as knowing your instrument's place in the overall and, melody, rhythm, tone, pitch, volume, etc.), which must be applied to a large number of concrete situations (all of the various musical pieces which are played in the band). By having this extremely challenging course, I was better able to understand the process of applying the principles that I've learned to concrete applications. Not only did I benefit in this way, but I greatly benefitted by the guidance that I had under the direction of the three band directors that I had. Through the concert band program (which was duing the school day) and all of the other bands I was in (marching band, jazz ensemble, brass ensemble, private lessons, solo performances, etc.) I learned about such virtues as independence, pride, productiveness, integrity, honesty, and many more. The band program that I was a part of is considered to be the best in NJ. Our band director started the statewide concert band festival, which we have won (fairly) for the past 7 years, we performed with such greats as Fred Mills (one of the founding trumpet players of Canadian Brass and one of the best trumpet players in the world), we performed in Lincoln Center in NYC, and so much more. I can not fully demonstrate to you the profound positive impact that this band program had on my life. Daniel, I believe that your problem is a failure to recognize that a human being is not a floating conceptual faculty, but rather the integration of mind and body. I believe that elective courses such as band, art, computer skills, etc., primarily supplement one's ability to use their conceptual faculty correctly and make it grow (and as a secondary consequence, provide potential practical job skills).

I have to agree with RadCap after reading his arguments. Concrete applications of the abstract material that one is learning in the "academic" classes is EXTREMELY important to one's education. It is very important to learn about the abstract, but in order to properly integrate one's actions and be able to act on all that one has learned, one must engage in concrete applications as well. Now, I believe that many modern educators have attempted to justify these "elective" courses by pragmatic means, and I think, Daniel, that is what you are arguing against. However, the justification for such courses is wrong, not the courses themselves. Perhaps the frequency of the courses should be decreased, but certainly children should not sit in a classroom 7 hours a day being taught abstract ideas with no concrete applications, teaching them how to apply what they are learning to their lives. The major consequence of failing to integrate the abstract with the concrete is the typical whining of a person in algebra class, "what the hell does this have to do with real life?"

I firmly agree with your statements regarding the primacy of integrated academic subjects over vocational classes.

Good: Giving students the choice to take vocational classes IN SUPPLEMENT to academic classes, where integration should be championed. Bad: Giving students the choice to take vocational classes INSTEAD OF academic classes, where there is little or no integration.

Thanks for the suggestion. I've added it to my list of ideas for new blog entries, so you should see something on rational egoism soon.

Yeah my name is Steve. Sure, go ahead and post quotes from my blog if you'd like, just make sure that you always give proper authorship. Also, whenever you give a quote, I would request that you please say something like, for the full context of this quote, please refer to The Rational Egoist's post on...date of post, titled...title of post and give the link to my website.

Welcome to the board. I had a similar experience during my senior year when I read The Fountainhead. Since then I've read a large number of Objectivist books (many of them more than once) and I've been hooked on the writings of Ayn Rand ever since The Fountainhead. Ask as many questions about Objectivism as you'd like. Answering such questions allows those of us with a more experienced knowledge of Objectivism to refine our knowledge.

Sure you can link to my page. Link me as The Rational Egoist please. I will place a link to your site on my blog as well. What would you like to be referred to as?

Semm, I believe that you are confusing objectivity with omniscience. Objectivity denotes a specific relationship between existence and consciousness. Being objective means that one recognizes that existence is primary and consciousness is that which perceives existence, and does so by an exact method: logic. In order for a law to be justified (objective) it does not have to be infallible but rather must be based on the best observations and integrations of reality to date. Based on our current observations and integrations of reality, a fetus does not have the preconditions which are necessary for one to have the right to their own life. If science and logic eventually prove otherwise, then our laws should be changed accordingly. You can not demand omniscience of our laws and then claim that any law which does not represent such omniscience is "arbitrary." Something is arbitrary when it has no relation to the facts of reality. The current laws about abortion however, are based on the most recent evidence concerning the facts of reality. Since I do not know the extent of your knowledge of Objectivist epistemology, I can not solve your problem further. However, it certainly seems to me that epistemology is the source of your error.

You did not object to my last post, but is there anything else in this particular subject that you do object to? Or have I cleared up your original confusion in this matter?

Ok. A man is an entity. Consciousness is an attribute of man. When a man thinks, it is not the mind that is acting but rather the man. The man's consciousness is an attribute of his identity, his MEANS of acting in a particular manner (thinking). This attribute can not exist on its own, it is dependent on the entity of man. Where is your objection?

The mind and the brain are inseparable. We all agree. What's your point?

Might I suggest that you not act like a jerk when you post? You'll get more responses and more cooperation that way. Sir, this is a ridiculous straw man. Has anyone claimed this? No. Rather, it has been stated that when someone says "actions of consciousness" or "actions of the stomach," etc., it is implicit that these things are functions of a particular entity, man, which can not exist separately from man. The consciousness, the stomach, etc., are the MEANS by which a man acts in a particular way, not entities in themselves.

I do not understand the confusion here. The mind is not an independent entity but rather is the means for a human being to act in a given way (perceive reality). The mind, the stomach, the lungs, one's circulatory system, etc., are all the means by which a particular entity acts (in this case a human being). The mind thinking is an action, the stomach digesting is an action, the circulatory system functioning is an action, etc. All of these actions are the result of an entity (man), but the means to performing those actions are the mind, stomach, circulatory system, etc. Thus, it was not improper for Rand to refer to something as the actions of consciousness because she identified that the consciousness is not an independently existing entity but rather one of the means by which a human being performs a given action.

I received word, a long time ago, that I was accepted into the OAC, at which time, they requested that I reply to this acceptance. I did so, and since then, I have not received any word as to whether this reply was received, the schedule of the OAC classes, whether or not I will receive a phone scholarship, etc. Is there some sort of major delay here for everyone else? Or has something gone wrong for me?

Mr. Devoon, my comment was based on your original post which said, I'm an anarcho-Objectivist-constitutionalist, which means: Miss Rand made mistakes. Shocking, huh?" Anarchism is incompatible with Objectivism. Anarchism is the theory that states that there should be no government. Objectivism states that human beings need a government, and this government should have a specific identity (and therefore purpose as well, which is, to protect the rights of its citizens). Thus, referring to yourself as both an anarchist and an Objectivist is a contradiction, and a blatant one at that. In response to this blatant contradiction, I referred to you as an idiot. This claim was based on the evidence presented to me (in this context, that you held this blatant contradiction). It was not a "sophomoric" attempt to ridicule you, but rather, it was an objective evaluation of the facts which you presented to me. I still believe this to be true, and so, I stand by my statement. I welcome you to attempt to alter my evaluation by presenting evidence which would give me cause to do so.

Yes I am familiar with them, thank you.

Self-esteem is the feeling that one is competent enough to achieve one's values (thus achieving one's happiness).

Some basic tips (in my opinion) about having a good blog: 1. Keep it simple. If the emphasis is on what you are writing, keep your blog nice and simple. 2. The text should be very easy to read. Make sure that your main text is very easy to read, especially if your emphasis is on your writing. 3. To get your blog out there, my suggestion is that you give out the web address to everyone you know that would be interested, and get your blog in as many webrings, blog lists, etc., that you can. Check out http://www.blogpromotion.com/blog/ for a long list of different webrings and other means of blog promotion. 4. Check out my blog for further suggestions at http://rationalegoist.rationalmind.net Check out the sites I am linked to and all of the webrings I am a member of (which you can find at the bottom of the page.

A human being is not a floating consciousness. In order to benefit their lives, human beings have to act in accordance with reality, which includes, one's own biological nature. For example, you can not choose, by whim, to stop eating. You, as a human being, need to eat food in order to survive and you can not change that by whim. In the same token, it is possible, that one's sexuality is the result of biological factors. You of course have the choice to act against that biological nature or not. One does not determine their biological makeup according to their own whim or choice. Thus, the question still remains as to whether or not homosexuality is the result of one's biological nature, one's choices, or a combination of both. A deeper question is, is sexuality the result of one's biological nature or one's choices? If one's sexuality is the result of one's biological nature, I hold that it would be immoral for an individual to act against the facts of reality (in this context, their own biological nature). If this were true, it would be immoral for a homosexual to act against their homosexuality and the same for a heterosexual, and it would be moral for a homosexual to act in accordance with the facts of reality (their biological nature) and the same for a heterosexual.