These are the world's leading industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are going to go… We were also offered Esso Rockefeller money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the center as they move to the left. The present educational conventions fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition, we work our good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk.
The task we set before ourselves is a beautiful one, to train these people as we find them to a perfectly ideal life just as they are. So we will organize our children into a little community and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way in the home, in shop, and on the farm. Carroll Quigley: "Tragedy and Hope". Hopefully, the logical foundation in Reality will help us avoid much of the silly dialogue with each side misunderstanding the other that occurs between proponents and opponents of postmodernism.
But questions remain, and they are the focus in the following post sections.
Talent Reality 101
But for now, what you see below is all there is. I think Christian ethical principles and commandments are best because they come from God, who knows us he designed and created us and wants the best for us. But should nonbelievers be persuaded by this reasoning? Will they be better people, and will we have a better society, if they follow ethics from the Bible?
Or should they decide that a nonreligious system of ethics -- such as making decisions based on "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" -- is better for individuals and for society? These questions won't be discussed here. Instead, I will ask four other questions, and will discuss the third question.
Is ethics a human-independent reality with standards decreed by God or a humanly constructed reality with standards negotiated by humans?
- HSem H, Reality -- or, "A Survey of the Human Predicament" | honors;
- Salmagundi Vietnam;
- Hidden Worlds.
What is the relative importance of choosing a particular ethical system, and of actually living according to the ethical demands of whatever system is chosen? Would we have a significantly better society if everyone behaved in a way that promoted the greatest good for the greatest number of people? In making ethical decisions, usually most nonbelievers are not highly motivated to behave in a way that would produce the greatest good for the greatest number of other people.
Instead, they mainly want to promote what is good for themselves, or for a small circle of family and friends. The other people can fend for themselves.
By comparison, Christians are more motivated -- although it still is a challenge to "live by faith" instead of following our natural selfish instincts -- to focus on thinking and behaving in a way that promotes the good of others, because we know that God wants us to do this, and we believe that eventually God will reward us, later in this life or in heaven. And we believe that God spiritually inspires and empowers us, through the Holy Spirit, to do acts of selfless love.
The two summaries below are from a page that asks, Should scientific method be eks-rated? Tolerance and Truth in the context of worldviews. Modern Quantum Physics : Does science show that we create reality? Should "scientific method" be eks-rated? Do scientists study nature, or create nature? Somewhat amazingly, Woolgar argues that scientists construct objects through their representations of them.
Objects, according to Woolgar, whether they are countries or electrons, are socially constructed entities, and do not exist aside from this social construction.
Science is therefore not the process of finding things that already exist, but the process of creating things that were not there to begin with. Finkel, , p. A description of the way scientists typically think about the observation of real objects no, it is not necessary to "create the reality" of the objects is provided by a real scientist, a cell biologist: First, I assume that cells are real objects.
Second, I assume that other people can see and think about things the way that I do. Others' basic experience of reality is similar to mine.shrineofthemartyrs.com/cell-phone-locate-for-alcatel-5v.php
If they were standing where I am standing, they would see something very similar to what I see. Scientists act as if Grinnell, , p. There can be truths that no one believes. Symmetrically, there can be beliefs that are not true. The expression "It's true for me" can be dangerously misleading.
Sometimes saying this If that's what you want to say, just use the word "belief" and leave truth out of it. However, there is a more radical idea that might be involved here. Someone might use the expression "true for me" to express the idea that each of us makes our own reality and that our beliefs constitute that reality. I will assume that this is a mistake. My concept of truth assumes a fundamental division between the way things really are and the way they seem to be to this or that individual mind. Sober, , pp. By contrast, What I do deny is that the mere act of thinking, unconnected with action or some other causal pathway, can make statements true.
- The Wolf King Ascends?
- By Nate Hagens: Reality What every student (and citizen) should know – un-Denial?
- Mending Broken: A Personal Journey Through the Stages of Trauma + Recovery.
- Talent Reality - Hawkeye Community College.
- Team Building.
- Restaurant Reality 101.
I'm rejecting the idea that the world is arranged so that it spontaneously conforms to the ideas we may happen to entertain. Sober, , p. Second, I'll look at only the easy questions , those that can be logically understood using the "minds" part of our "hearts and minds. With a correspondence definition of truth, the truth is what actually is happening in reality , or what actually did happen in reality.
When we make claims based on a theory by assuming the theory is true, and using "if With a pragmatic definition of truth, a statement is true if it produces satisfactory results when it is used as a basis for decisions and actions. To avoid confusion, I think the word "truth" should be reserved for a correspondence definition of truth. We should not use the word "truth" in any other way, and when other people do use "truth" in another way, we should challenge them, gently and logically.
The non-correspondence definitions of truth — with defining by consensus truth is a majority opinion , coherence truth is a logically coherent system of beliefs , pragmatism truth is a useful principle , or in other ways — are humanly constructed claims about what is true, so they should be called truth-claims or theories, beliefs, principles, Just call it a truth-claim and explain that when you say "truth" you mean correspondence-based truth which is reality-determined truth.
About this event
We should distinguish between absolute truth which certainly does exist if we use a correspondence definition of truth and absolute knowledge which seems impossible for humans to attain. Yes, language is important in our thinking, communicating, and constructing of theories, as discussed in "Using Precise Language" above.
Postmodernists are skillfully using language to support their views and increase their influence. Non-postmodernists should pay more attention to the uses of language in society. Both perspectives exert strong influence. To some extent, the type of reality affects the type of influence.
Modernism, which emphasizes the authority of science, is more influential for questions about independent realities. And postmodernists try to dominate discussions about the process by which constructed realities are constructed. But there are overlaps and interactions. For example, most postmodernists prefer to believe the naturalistic conclusions required by the naturalistic assumptions of the current scientific establishment.
And both perspectives can use the authority of naturalistic "scientific conclusions" which are actually nonscientific assumptions as a basis for for labeling other views "unscientific," thereby marginalizing these views and minimizing their influence in society. Some of the main claims of Christianity such as the deity and resurrection of Jesus are rejected by other religions, and these mutually exclusive claims cannot both be correct.
Some perspectives on truth blur the line between belief and reality. For example, "Postmodernism affirms that whatever we accept as truth and even the way we envision truth are dependent on the community in which we participate. There is no absolute truth; rather, truth is relative to the community in which we participate. But the second sentence confuses these beliefs with reality. It would be correct to say " beliefs about truth are relative to the community In other cases — for example, when we ask "What would Jesus drive?
In these cases, humility is especially appropriate, and declarations that a person or group is promoting " the Christian perspective" should be made with caution, and should be open to questioning. Perhaps simply saying that it's "a perspective based on or inspired by a Christian worldview," or something like that, might be better.
Learn more about CEC's publications and journals. Special Education Topics includes information about the different exceptionality areas; international special education; hot topics in special education; and professional practice topics such as assessment, evidence-based practices and inclusion. Deadline extended to October 24!