Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Kelly Jones wrote:Common sense is always legislated. That's what the problem is: it's not individualistic reason.
When legislators try to legislate common sense, practical application tends to generate a lot of non-sense. For example, classroom overcrowding to the point that effective teaching and classroom control just wasn't happening (we're talking like 40 4th-graders to one teacher sometimes). Common sense indicated that smaller class sizes would help, so they decided to legislate smaller classes. Suddenly there was a teacher shortage, so to comply with legislation, they lower the standards for teachers. It is being found that sub-qualified teacher provide sub-quality education (common sense would have told them that, but it seems they didn't think that one through very well before legislating their first bit of common sense).
That's common sense being applied: lack of individualistic reason. A rational individual has no reason not to consider the likely possibilities and consequences of his actions, rather than leaving things to chance.
Kelly Jones wrote:Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:as Sue pointed out with the "human on TV" blurb, the human trying to speak of something deeper was instantly silenced. It is much the same with politics, - wisdom would be silenced.
How would you get silence to stop talking?
I don't follow what you're asking; I said wisdom gets silenced, I didn't say that silence talks too much.
The reason common sense gets legislated is because it's deafening. No individualistic reason is heard, so there is silence.
So i asked you: how would you get silence to stop talking?
Kelly Jones wrote:A possible step towards individualistic rationality becoming common, might be to legislate parenting as part of the school curriculum, to be taught before, and with, sex education.
That sounds good... as long as they think that one through.
Here are the basics for the test given before the "parenting course" (a fail means the student is not allowed to have reproductive sex, or to parent):
You are not parenting material if you:
- don't like to reason and think
- become frustrated by noise
- are hot-blooded, and hyperactive
- are captivated by sexual attractions
- like to bond emotionally with children
- like to dominate weak people
- have low self-esteem
- use force and violence for discipline, instead of reasoning
- are sexually attracted to children
- don't know what to do about global warming
- don't like children
- don't like quiet time
- want your child to be a copy of yourself and your beliefs
- want your child to be a type of cute and surprising entertainment
- can't keep promises, or follow through on your plans
- haven't learnt to manage your finances
- are not free of diseases and drug addictions
- are not healthy and fit
- are insane (obvious mental disorders and illnesses)
- are emotionally dependent on family and friends
- cannot imagine yourself coping with a child as a single parent
- cannot imagine caring for a disabled child for its lifespan
- cannot hold two full-time or three part-time jobs as a single person
- believe that "blood is thicker than water" (that family should stick together through all crises)
- expect your child should care for you when you are ill or old
- expect your child to "carry the family line"
- think that tv and computers provide suitable supervision, company, or education for children
- don't like faeces, dirt, bacteria, insects, blood, or people in general
- don't like discussing things openly, rationally and deeply
Kelly Jones wrote:It doesn't matter how servile a politician is, the policies that are acted out are still based on his or her judgments and values.
I think you are giving a broader definition to "judgment" than I am. I consider that a person must be able to think clearly and thoroughly to be able to have judgment, and have the greater good in mind to have good judgment.
I think judgment is very simple: just identifying something as it is. It's an inevitable part of consciousness.
If a person likes the feeling of identifying things just as they are, then they also value judgment (so they have reliable judgment). If a person doesn't like being truthful, because perhaps it seems that lying is more interesting, then they value lying more.
The more a person likes being truthful, the clearer their thinking. Eventually they might consider what's the greatest good (the most reliable).
Kelly Jones wrote:Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:The next thing one has to understand is that most people are just not going to understand a deep concept. They might catch the surface of it, but will often turn it around into something ugly.
How would you get a person to trust his own thoughts?
That's not the problem I was referring to. The problem I meant is actually worse - people do trust their own "thoughts" over and above reason. Many people get half a thought in their heads and just run with it - like the class size problem above.
That's the same as common sense, ie. lack of individualistic reason. Common sense says, "Trust in the shoddy and careless way that
"all the others" do things; don't be obsessive about investigating things yourself".
In another thread,
Kelly Jones wrote:Kelly wrote: I define politics as generating wisdom.
If you think this is a "shallow half-thought", why don't you explain why, in the "Zionist femininization of society" thread?
I believe I already addressed that in an earlier post in this thread - politics
should generate wisdom, but it does not in actuality do so.
So far, you haven't actually said anything in this post. I look forward to better stuff from you.
.