Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
I knew TED first from Sir Ken Robinson's speech, and loved it. Then I got here. I watched this the first time and agreed with most of the comments that her way of presenting the speech discredited what she tried to address. But I had to do a paper on liberal education, so I decided to watch it the second time. I realized how deep her message actually was, despite of her tone. Now both her and SKR's talks will be on my work cited page
She better be saying that one main topic of future education is the uses of the force, but in the sense that a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away... Jedi did. I think it's more meaningful in that way.
I could not give this a thumbs up or down. There is a lot to think about here, and I have a feeling I agree with most of her observations and conclusions, but the way she put together and presented her thoughts left me wondering at times if she was speaking my thoughts and beliefs, or the antithesis of. I will be revisiting this video.
I've been watching a TED lecture or two every day for a few weeks now. This is the first one I stopped watching before it reached the middle part. What a boring piece of crap, seriously. She couldv'e made her stupid points in 5 minutes, maybe less. The whole thing was just a bloated political speech from an extreme left-wing liberal. I consider myself to be a liberal too, but that woman was wayyy off the charts of reason. And her way of speaking was annoying, too.
There is only one subject in schools now. Conflict theory. Religious students in Iran face less ideology, propaganda and morality training. And you are complaining classes are not ideological enough? If they sign an oath to vote Democratic will you sign one teach them something useful again?
The Soviet Unions system was propaganda? Our students are tools. Their schedules jammed with course work in self-esteem, personal safety, AIDS education, family life, consumer training, driver's ed, holistic health, and gym. The typical American high school student spends only 1, 460 hours on subjects like math, science and history during their four years in high schools. Meanwhile, their counterparts in Japan will spend 3,170 hours on basic subjects.
@BaronVonLichtenstein In other countries, parents take the responsibility for all those other important parts of life that American families -- aside from fundamentalists and cultists -- have abdicated.
I loved this message, I thought that it was eloquent and articulate. But like many of the commentators I struggle with the presentation. It is weak and remarkably limp. It does need to be redone with proper passion and emphasis. The lady is obviously struggling to get the message out while the techniques she has at her command are pitifully undercharged. I read all the comments. hasatum is an adversarial dork and tristramshandy fell into his swamp of ego baiting. Ain't Ted Talks great 5stars
i think she was spot on when she was talking about how specialization takes away from the individual
there are so many things i want to learn about, each one is unique and worth learning; i honestly feel i am missing out by having to choose a major and minor
a. she doesn't understand that she contradicts herself because she is blinded by her own values which she considers to be absolute or b. (less likely) she does it on purpose, as some kind of esoteric message to those who would see it.
but it is a politics of pricipal, not of partisanship." and then 15:32 :"While these past weeks have been a time of national exhilaration in this country, it would be tragic if you thought your job was done.[..] President Obama and his team simply cannot do it alone."
Now, by taking the values that she is referring to, as being what they are, and what she apparently understands them to be - moral truths with no objective basis (competing goods), I am left with 2 possibilities:
14:04 :" The most important discovery we made in our focus on public action was to apreciate that the hard choices are not between good and evil, but between competing goods. This discovery is tranforming. It undercuts self-righteousness, radically alters the tone and character of controversy and enriches dramatically the posibilty of finding common ground. Ideology, zealotry,unsubstantiated opinion simply won't do. This is a political education to be sure;
in effect yield the connection between education and values to fundamentalists who you can be sure, have no compactions to using education to further their values - the absolutes of a theocracy." And then at 11:05 :" "The importance of coming to grips with values like justice, equity, truth becomes increasingly evident, as students discover that interests alone cannot tell them when the issue is rethinking education, our approach to health or strategies for achieving an economics of equity."
Very elegant and beautiful discourse. There some things though, which I simply cannot get my head around. At 3:31 she says: "As one moves up the ladder, values other than technical competence are viewed with increasing suspicion. Questions such as "what kind of a world are we making?", "what kind of a world should we be making?", "what kind of a world can we be making?" are treated with more and more skepticism and are moved of the table. In so doing, the guardians of secular democracy,
As a faculty participant in the liberal arts arena I found the presentation to be an inspiring call to arms to play an active role in changing the future of the planet. Wonderful!
There really is a spirit of reinvention & renewal in many liberal arts colleges today. Some of which are beginning to apply the ideas promoted by President Coleman in this video. I for one am optimistic about the future of the liberal arts.
Education that specializes will probably create specialists because most people don't carry opportunities to learn very far outside their schooling.
(And)
Companies like specialists. It makes someone easy to hire if they have a degree in something where it's "point-to-able" that they have a skill. That employee seems to a hiring manager like a safe bet.
(But)
Innovation grows always from an interdisciplinary view of things. And it's hard to argue that the economy could use innovation.
this is so monotonous. Hearing someone reading word by word is so boring that even though this talk is on a subject that i find very interesting, i find it very hard to follow what she is saying!
I know that this is probably a subject she takes very seriously, but the way the talk is delivered stinks of fakeness, it seems like she is thinking "look at me, I am so clever, I wrote this clever words" rather than actually talking about something she is passionate about. This is insufferable.
You evaluate this talk based almost entirely on the aesthetic qualities of the speaker's voice and cadence of speech. You are not able to make the effort to determine the value of her ideas in spite of your particular distaste for her speaking style. You allow yourself to draw conclusions about the speaker's personality flaws, and in doing so imply that the potential existence of those flaws is enough to discredit the ideas she expresses. In doing so you make her point for her.
No, i don't evaluate this talk on aesthetic qualities, like i said, i find the subject interesting. My evaluation of the subject: VERY INTERESTING.
My criticism: THE TALK IS DELIVERED IN SUCH A MONOTONE WAY THAT IT SEEMS DISHONET(EVEN THOUGH I AM CONVINCED THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE). AS A RESULT OF THE DELIVERY I FIND IT HARD TO CONCENTRATE ON WHAT IS BEING SAID and i find myself thinking of other things even though i am trying to listen to her
and by the way, i am not making an attack on her, I think he flaw was to write it all down as if it was a book and then reading it to an audience. It is TEDTalks, not TEDreadings.
I have no intention of discrediting anything she sais, I am just giving feedback. Saying that someone's delivery is obtrusive to the message does not in any way imply that there is a problem with the message. Get it straight techstyle.
Single Payer Healthcare! Fight For It Like You Would Fight For Your Childs Life! Because That Is Exactly What We Are Doing In Healthcare Reform. Please, Contact Your Local Representatives. GOD BLESS!
The idea that education should be responsible for inculcating political values rather than serving the interests of students is not a new one. The "secular priesthood" has been meddling with our schools since the days of Dewey. Anyone familiar with the history of American education should not be surprised that she was in close contact with the Russians as that has been going on for some time. Search for "Gatto" for more.
No such idea is here expressed or implied, and your criticism -insofar as it is intelligible- is valid only if there is no meaningful distinction to be made between education and propaganda.
What precisely do you mean by the *interests* of students?
What is your definition of religion?
Of dogma?
Of whom exactly is this "secular peisthood" compirised, and against whose perogatives have they been meddling?
To whom does your possessive pronoun "our" refer?
None is expressed or implied? Perhaps you should watch again. By the interests of students I mean that what each individual student would choose for themselves. I don't really need to define religion or dogma since Dewey himself said that educators need to act as a new kind of priesthood. He and his ilk have for the past century been working through the big foundations to get students in line with the interests of large corporations by working against the interests of students' own families.
I watched it, and you may be firmly ensured that I am considerably intelligent than you, and so it is most unlikely that any such message escaped my notice but aroused your own.
Dewy's phrase was a polemic metaphor, intended with no small measure of irony, and you seem tot realize this; so I'm afraid you will have to provide the requested definitions if you wish to be clearly understood (at least by me).
And again, what do you mean by "the interests" of students? Surely you don't mean..
Yes! Students and their families are paying for their education through taxes so they are entitled to decide what they will learn. Right now, lobbyists and special interests determine the curriculum.
Also, before claiming to be more intelligent than another person, it would help to check your grammar first. It should have been "assured" not "ensured" and it looks like you missed the word "more" as well. Better yet, stick to common courtesy and avoid such claims altogether. Take care.
This is simply inconsistent with the very notion of education, whose function is not to confirm and reinforce commonly held beliefs; nor is truth determined democratically
Sixty percent of Americans think creation "science" schould be taught as a competeing hypothesis to the fact of evolutuion; should they have thier way? It is no more a good idea to democratize education than surgery.
Your second point about lobbyists and special intersts is mere hyperbole.
Education is about fostering youth who are able to create knowledge as much as it is about passing knowledge on to a new generation.
Your point about democracy supports my view, not Ms Coleman's. If individuals are allowed to choose their own education, the best ideas will gain traction over time
If, on the other hand, the majority (in terms of population or wealth) is allowed to indoctrinate minorities to accept a particular view, then scientific inquiry is stifled and progress is stymied.
I Just read a Bertrand Russel essay on Education, and he mentioned something I have long been talking about:
"The examination system, and the fact that instruction is treated mainly as training for livelihood, leads the young to regard knowledge, from a purely utilitarian point of view, as the road to money, not as the gateway to wisdom."
-this seems to be a crucial point to me.
Also, we use property taxes to perpetuate a permanent class war that really screws minorities disproportionately.
I'm no fan of Bertrand Russell. While I think that knowledge should be inherently valued, I don't think that educators should organize to try to change attitudes about knowledge. In our efforts to get students to not think about the utility of knowledge, we have encourage apathy and passiveness. We should instead be encouraging students to pursue their own goals and help provide them with the knowledge that they desire to meet those goals. Innovation and entrepreneurship depends on this.
I absolutely disagree with you. I think educators should organize to change the way we look at knowledge.
We have turned knowledge into a commodity. It isn't just something to encourage business- knowledge and philosophy help to inculcate morality and ethics. THAT is what is missing in our society today.
More of our "businessmen" need to be trained in philosophy- that will keep them more honest.
Why don't you like Russell? The more I read of him, the more impressed I am with his intellect.
Who's to say that philosophy isn't good for business? A moral business is a profitable business. Educators must always strive to be humble. If we value knowledge, we should try to show our feelings and demonstrate its value, not conspire together to jolly along another generation who will come to see learning the way they do exercise and eating vegetables. Always remember: educators work for their students, not the other way around. Ultimately, it is their goals that are important, not ours.
I said philosophy IS good for business- I also argue that it is the LACK of philosophical knowledge and reflection that creates these short-sighted, myopic businessmen and women.
I don't understand your reply- I'm interested in turning knowledge into a valuable thing for its own sake- not as a means to become wealthy financially.
If you agree that philosophy and knowledge are good for business, then you agree that it has instrumental value. To argue in the next breath that motivating by instrumental value is not your goal is fine, but what about those throngs of students who sit in our classrooms with no sense of future, so sense of purpose? What about the ones who don't CARE that knowledge is inherently valuable because they know they're not going to make any contribution to it? They want to matter and to live.
how do they know they aren't going to make a contribution to it?
I would try to motivate those students and get them to understand how valuable knowledge is- not just for the inherent monetary rewards that accompany it, but also, and far more importantly, the sense of happiness and confidence that a well educated man possesses.
If they refuse to accrue knowledge, then yes, I believe they are guaranteed to be unhappy failures (with few exceptions).
How do they know? Are you serious? Because they're not stupid. They know that they could do a lot more but they also know that will simply push students at the top to work even harder. Most students don't want to compete academically and a "well-educated man" only derives pleasure and confidence from the sense of superiority he gets. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what money is: it's just a way of storing and trading work. Good luck motivating.
I thought that humility and acceptance of our own profound ignorance was one of the cornerstones of philosophy? I have read both Thoreau and Russell and many others besides; I was a philosophy minor in university after all. I really have to wonder why you take such pleasure from being educated. Surely people a thousand years ago were less educated and just as happy. Surely people a thousand years hence will consider you to be a brute. Would you be so proud of your present education living then?
We recognize great minds for their achievements in their own times, but if Socrates were living today as he did then, he would be in jail. Pedophilia, after all, is no longer acceptable in society. For all his mental acuity, he would be considered profoundly ignorant of even the most rudimentary science and many of his beliefs would be considered ridiculous or savage. If you were to be transported into the future, your education would be treated with similar contempt.
Which of Socrates beliefs would be considered savage? That the unreflective life is not worth living? That humans are essentially ignorant creatures? That truth and honor are the most beautiful things in the world?
That is all still true- and that was the core of his teaching.
It's unfair to impugn him based on different social conventions.
Aristotle, Shakespeare, Socrates, etc. all STILL considered geniuses by most intellectuals.
How about the belief that women are basically chattel? How about the belief that sex with children is a healthy and character building exercise? What about the implicit belief that conquering other people, looting their cities, and taking their people into slavery is fine and good for a Greek land holder?
You missed my point about genius. Living TODAY he would effectively be a moron; he understands no technology, geography, or science. Living today, his education would be almost worthless.
you are transferring today's social conventions to yesteryear; it's simply not an effective means of refuting genius.
Have you READ any Plato?
Read Plato's "The Apology" and "Crito" (both are short pieces) and you will understand why, as long as there are human beings still alive, Socrates will be considered perhaps the greatest of them all.
Montaigne, 2000 years later, calls Socrates the greatest soul to ever live.
I think you underestimate the importance of philosophy-regardless of the era
You still miss my point. While his education had instrumental value for dealing with his own society, it is almost useless today. While his contributions to philosophy remain pertinent, his education in today's world, both practical and ethical, would be drastically devalued. As such, it cannot be said to be inherently valuable since it does not maintain value universally across time. I suggest that you are confusing the universal value of his disposition with the local value of his education.
I could just as easily say you are missing my point. I understand what you are saying :) I disagree.
His education would not be useless; in fact, his education would be the MOST useful in our society today.
If I were to open a school today, I would form it along the lines of Plato's academy, where the ENTIRE point of education is to instill critical thinking skills and profound question asking capability
Those are never useless; in fact they are always the most useful, no matter when you live
I believe his teachings still maintain their value; I am a perennialist- which is an educational philosophy stating that men have not changed very much over time.
Because I believe men have not fundamentally changed very much over time, I still place very high value on works of Plato, Shakespeare, Sophocles, Swift, Pope.
Read Gulliver's Travels- same shit as today.
Read the satires of Horace- same shit as today.
I have endless evidence. That is why I believe it.
You disagree with what? I thought we were arguing whether education was inherently or instrumentally valuable? Are you going to now try to argue that I should sit happy and smug all because I have critical thinking skills? The value of critical thinking comes from what it allows us to do.
You are correct that people's nature has not changed but the skills needed have. The majority of what Socrates thought he knew was wrong and useless in today's society. To point at the fact that he knew people and debate but then ignore all of the practical day to day knowledge necessary to survive is exactly the problem I'm pointing out. Students who are facing down poverty see your program as irrelevant to the real problems they face. Will you tell them to take comfort in Shakespeare? Really?
I won't tell them to take comfort in Shakespeare, I will tell them to study the classics as a PRACTICAL means of improving their lives.
Did you know that over half the ceo's of fortune 500 companies were English or History majors?
Critical thinking, which is what studying the classics is all about, is ALWAYS the most valuable skill any student can achieve. It is the primary goal, or should be, of education.
Instilling critical thinking is the point of education. Using it is the students' job.
Also, I am not a relativist. Evil is evil whenever it is performed. Many of Socrates's beliefs were savage just as many of the beliefs of today are savage. One can be a genius and still be a savage.
As for philosophy, I will put it this way: If it helps good people to be better, does it have value? Of course, it has instrumental value. Truth may have inherent value, but education can neither pretend to instill truth nor make students value the truth. Character education has been a fraud.
I see. Without recourse to an argument, you drop names of writers (who, yes, I've read) and then make a poor and unsupported attempt at damning with faint praise. Your approach shows that I was right when I said that what you were really looking for from education is a sense of superiority. I suggest that you get out more and drop the sarcastic grins.
You are wrong. This has nothing to do with vanity or superiority. Studying the classics of literature and philosophy is PRACTICAL in today's world. This isn't about becoming an erudite intellectual, it is about becoming a thoughtful human that has a strong sense of history- the history of ideas.
What have you read by Plato?
What Shakespeare plays have you read?
Did you read Walden?
The essays of Montaigne?
Aristotle?
Show me you understand what it is you speak of- talk to me about your reading
No. I could, but I don't think I will. First you fail to answer my arguments. Then you are uncivil. Now you want me to engage in some kind of dick measuring contest comparing who has read the most? And you want to couch it as if you're just ensuring that there is a mutual understanding of the dialectic of ideas? Are you serious? You really do have a serious ego problem.
So, your argument is that reading people from a long time ago is not useful today.
That begs the question: what have you read from a long time ago?
What have you read from Plato?
From Aristotle?
What Shakespeare plays have you read?
What other works of classical literature and philosophy have you read?
I'm not waving my dick around here dude. I'm making sure you have a clue what you are talking about- and I am quickly becoming convinced that you know not of what ye speak.
First, I tried to stay on topic by reiterating the main point that we were talking about inherent versus instrumental value. You ignored this.
Next, unable or unwilling to supply further argument, you tried insulting my intelligence in a round about way. That is regarded by most as very uncivil.
Finally, angered by the fact that I pointed out your basic sense of insecurity, you cry with teenage angst that I "don't know what I'm talking about."
OK I get it- you have nothing of value to say, so you are playing defense. Wonderful.
I will go on teaching the classics to students because it is practical and will help improve their lives tremendously; as it has mine.
You can go on thinking of Socrates as a pedophile and of Aristotle and Shakespeare as useless in today's world.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I have to conclude that your opinion is not based on extensive experience actually reading the things you say are worthless.
I never argued that the classics were useless or worthless. You are putting words in my mouth. I would have thought the fact that I said I minored in philosophy would have disavailed you of that belief. Perhaps the fact that I majored in English will further convince you? I did say that Socrates was a pedophile because that is true. I must admit I have a preference for true statements. I'm also glad to see you realize you have a problem with being uncivil in debates. That's a start at least.
you said that people 1,000 years ago weren't well educated, and that in 1,000 years, I would be considered a brute. That clearly implies that old writings do not maintain their relevancy.
You are absolutely wrong about that. The genius of Socrates would be JUST as important in today's world as it was in Athens.
I'm glad you realize how off-putting your pretentious self-righteousness is.
I'm sure you are happy to end this. I'm also gratified by your apparent lack of insight into my background and I certainly don't give a damn whether you're Jewish or not. I wouldn't call this an exchange of ideas since you still insist on ignoring arguments and making ridiculous sarcastic smirks.
I feel sympathy for your students. It makes me wonder: Is this vitriol really just you venting frustration over your students' apathy towards your classes? I hope you can tell me otherwise.
It is common practice to lump usage (collocations) under the heading of grammar, but you are correct that usage is more accurate.
One typically assures someone of a fact rather than letting them know that they can be ensured of it..
You did not make note of the missing "more" before the word "intelligent" in your previous message. I won't remark further on numerous spelling errors that are surely typos
Also, it is better to adopt a more civil tone than simply talking about doing so.
Please read the entire thread before calling me a bully. I don't usually bother to worry about someone's use of language until they claim to be more intelligent than me.
I can't stand it when people recite prepared essays with poets' inflection and cadence. It's clear she's accustomed to giving lectures on literature and poetry and criticism, not presentations of anything substantive.
This is deeply dull, and merely a long string of metaphors and assertions of opinion cloaked as fact. I couldn't keep listening past about 9 minutes.
As a product of a good liberal arts education, the wide intentional exposure to a world of multiple disciplines, I am driven to differ from the speaker to this conclusion: Each of us has our own personal prejudices that defines our world view and see any liberal arts information through a skewed prism that reflects back to us our personal history, life's experiences, and innate limitations. It is coincidental that a liberal arts education changes us in our core values.
Polymath7, apparently your self-declared knowledge of many subjects doesn't extend to the English language. "Nonesense" is spelt "nonsense", "jibberish" is spelt "gibberish", and "citezens" is spelt "citizens". Congratulations, you've demonstrated an impressive level of illiteracy in only a very few words...
Hello, Slabbers. I rememember you quite clearly from the seris of excellent comments you left on parts eleven and fifteen of the D'Souza/Dennett debate about a year ago
As I've already said, my initial comment here was in jest; the misspellings are intentional.
Ah yes, sorry, I didn't read the rest of the comments: Poe's law indeed still holds! Excellent channel by the way, there's loads of lovely stuff I've not seen on there. From the music selections, it looks like we have a lot in common. I don't have a favourite genre, though I have avoided pursuing too much pre-20th century classical music so far; not 'cos I don't like it, but I already spend far too much time collecting and learning about music from the last century.
As this played, my heart started pounding & I got tears in my eyes. Whoever this woman is, her capacity for acute perception is impressive. I've worked in curric. devel't & adaptation, and I'd just love to have coffee with her. I've so much to ask her! I'd like to know how she feels about the +ive & -ive roles of commercial priorities in determining curric. goals. I'd like to hear more about the role of the Fine Arts in pragmatic domains (eg: medicine, law) & vice versa. What a stimulating film.
nice jump to conclusions you made there. if governments do anything right, it is only out of coincidence. An unrealistic expectation would be for you to think that Obama is doing what YOU are telling him to do... and your right, a president is not like a boss.. because if a boss does something i dont like, i can quit.
people saying that they are bored by her talk.. are saying more about themselves then about her.
I believe there is room for improvement in her presentation (intonation for example) sure.. but the message is quite clear to me. And it sure rocks if you ask me!
I think change in thinking is in order when teaching students because the liveless reductionism in classrooms teached today , is not from this time.. certainly when you consider students suffering from "short-term attention syndrome".
yep, people these days refuse the concept that paying attention takes effort in favor of belligerently declaring that if it cant hold their attention on its own, it is unworthy of attention. I suppose thats a way to separate the wheat from the chafe, but why let wheat be discarded as chafe? demand more of your peers.
10:36 and I have just realized that I stopped listening to her at 2:13 O_O. I'm sorry to say, she is boring and it's shutting off my attention. she should work on her presentation.
The question of where to start is easy - PRIVATIZE TODAY. There should be separation of school and state in the same way and for the same reason as we have the separation of church and state. (Same goes for the economy and state.)
"Where were you while 6 million were gassed and burned?"
And what will you say in 20 years, ladies and gentlemen, when our current education crisis bares fruit? Or is it baring its fruit already?...
It's been bearing it's fruit for a very long time, at least since the 60's (the start of my personal recollection). How do you think we got into the mess we are in?
The 'vast' majority of people out there don't understand the first thing about economics and how food winds up on their table. And they have no understanding of any sort of philosophy that might lead them to civic engagement beyond distraction from their personal ennui.
This was good: she is absolutely right about everything she said. This isn't anything I didn't already know... but I feel a lot better knowing that other people are thinking this way.
My biggest complaint is an echo of Taylor Mali. On the subject of "slam poetry" he said that a slam poem differs from that of T.S. Elliot's, in so far as a slam poem doesn't need to give up all of its "gems," but it must immediately give some of them. Likewise, a Ted talk--or any public speech--needn't be 100% accessible to 100% of the people, but it ought to be generous and not esoteric.
Her talk was ideal for a graduation speech, but not for an exchange of ideas.
She's my principal. During orientation she misquoted the dude from the McCarthy hearing ("Have you no shame, sir?...") and I corrected her ("Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you no sense of decency?") But she looked cross with me.
You were right to correct her, but honestly, it would have been more respectful to do so in private, and likely that was the cause of the cross look. The misquote did not materially change the meaning. And correcting her during orientation was you shaming her in public as well as in one sense, wasting the time of the rest of the student body. It could rightly be seen as you grandstanding at her expense.
I got a bit riled by that myself. I see it as the typical hubris of the academic elite. Only those who have paid their way to get the approval of the previously approved are afforded respect. There is some reason for that to be sure. That approval process does serve to weed out a great many crazies, leaving a far higher concentration of insanity in the unapproved blogosphere. But there is also far more entrepreneurship in such freedom. I dare say many of the big ideas are now there.
Exactly. The failure to see the possibilities of online discourse and the availability of discussion there is really a marker of how absent these people are from keeping up to date with the world.
Looking back at her quote she was being quite vague and perhaps I was being too specific. I agree with you though that online discourse is highly undervalued by academics. I think it will slowly become a large area of academic interest, as I know some profs at my school are getting into it - its fun and exciting and new. But she might have meant anything by the "voices of democracy".
online communication is tremendously inferior to face to face communication. So much communication is non-verbal, and physiognomy is invaluable when talking with other people.
we need to get off our computers and get together in the same rooms to talk- and I do realize the irony of posting this message online :)
She is mistaken, there are people who see the educational system as the root of the problem. Just take a look at the liberty loving people, they are really concerned of the system as it has become/always has been the indoctrination camps to brainwash the masses to obediently follow their masters, the so called authorities.
IMO the real danger in public education is the standardized, assembly line process of grades 1 through 12. Everyone is to learn the same thing, so everyone learns the same government approved version of history, and everything else, errors and all. Identical widgets. University at least breaks this mold and allows for people to diverge into myriad paths and perspectives. And none of those paths leads better towards independent critical thinking than Liberal Arts.
Yes, diplomas-r-us is what so many universities have become. It is in many ways a pandering to, and, truly a repudiation of the noble undertaking of the traditional university, where learning must now have its functional and practical outcome, and where the student is channeled through his respective career preparation. The university risks being a great lie.
Is this girl so liberal arts that she can't give examples- it's a basic tenet of composition ( a liberal art) that broad theoretical statements should be followed up by concrete examples- I guess she was absent the day they taught that.
Rhetoric, design, mediation, improvisation, and qauntitative reasoning. I guess you were absent the day they taught you how to listen. She probably knows more about liberal arts then you'll ever know.
Because the hallmark of being basically educated is that one is able to think rationally and to judge argument based upon reason rather than superstition and doctrinal assertions. Belief in evolution is a fantastically good litmus test as to the level of rationality of a person, and a pretty good indicator as to their level of education.
Don't get me wrong, yiddishesque, I completely agree with many points, including her take on education being more and more detail on less and less, there was just something about her delivery that made it hard for me to remain focussed, and I'm not some impatient ADHD sugar junkie.
I'm a bit bothered by this commentary around social activism, as if it were a legitimate vocation. I'm really tired of politically oriented students who have no idea how the world works.
How do I know they don't understand how the world works? Because they're invariably trumpeting socialism, the most tested and defeated political model ever invented. Even despotism has a better track record.
yeah, we should all be passive observers in political and economic affairs, as was envisioned by the framers. the 'responsible class of men' should continue to 'protect the wealth of the opulent from the population.' that's james madison.
if you're bothered by people wanting to form a functioning participatory society, i think you have a problem.
well maybe a demoractic socialism or social liberalism is what we shoudl all really be after ...
but thats besides the point. this womyn (lol) stated what I have thought and then some. i hope more people take an interest in the liberal arts (and i hope they get good high ranking jobs)
ill keep track on on what happens to that center.
What we need is a government that leaves me alone to do my own thing. Not one that rides on populist movements and tries to sweep me up in its bullshit.
I don't know what you mean by a 'participatory' society. If you mean you want to coerce me into participating, then we have a problem, yes.
What I see are waves of activists upon activists using the force implicit in the political system to compel me, against my will, to either do things or pay for their crazy projects. Postmodern social engineering being a good example.
I do not want to be governed or bullied by activists. I want to be left alone.
i said SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. there is a BIG difference. learn it please.
2nd: in such a system you would be left alone except for the taxes you would pay for essential humanitarian services such as keeping homeless off the streets improving low income communities to reduce crime,ect. were already in one , its just not where it should be due to political opposition.
the other thing is, if you have problems with activists then tell them to fuck off! after a while they won't bother you. dont play a fucking victim role and blame a political ideology for it.
i'd take a good amount of time and think about what you've already been coerced into doing or NOT doing, were i of the mindset you seem to be in. i don't presume to know exactly what you're on about, 500 characters is FAR too little for issues of importance.
And do you believe Democracy has not been 'defeated'? Capitalism has successfully given citizens incentive to disengage from voicing their political opinion by making such expression less 'profitable'. The voice of the citizen is almost inaudible in the cacophony of today's corporate-controlled media and government. So much so that folks would rather say "forget it, someone else will handle it" because speaking up doesn't put guaranteed food on the table.
1) I do not like democracy. It's simply a systematisation of mob justice. The power of the many against that of the few.
2) I don't agree with your comment about capitalism. Capitalism isn't a political system, it's an economic one. If you have economic agents 'buying' political rights, then what you have isn't a capitalist system (by definition), but a system that permits systemic theft. Capitalism is not about money; it's about private property rights.
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 1 week ago
I think its interesting there are people who dislike this video. What is wrong with you? ......???
drsest 2 months ago
I knew TED first from Sir Ken Robinson's speech, and loved it. Then I got here. I watched this the first time and agreed with most of the comments that her way of presenting the speech discredited what she tried to address. But I had to do a paper on liberal education, so I decided to watch it the second time. I realized how deep her message actually was, despite of her tone. Now both her and SKR's talks will be on my work cited page
silverfang0657 8 months ago
She better be saying that one main topic of future education is the uses of the force, but in the sense that a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away... Jedi did. I think it's more meaningful in that way.
erichdaniel 11 months ago
I could not give this a thumbs up or down. There is a lot to think about here, and I have a feeling I agree with most of her observations and conclusions, but the way she put together and presented her thoughts left me wondering at times if she was speaking my thoughts and beliefs, or the antithesis of. I will be revisiting this video.
favorunmerited 11 months ago
ladies a wackjob...
codylawrence100 1 year ago
This is brilliant. Period.
MrTStoddart 1 year ago
I've been watching a TED lecture or two every day for a few weeks now. This is the first one I stopped watching before it reached the middle part. What a boring piece of crap, seriously. She couldv'e made her stupid points in 5 minutes, maybe less. The whole thing was just a bloated political speech from an extreme left-wing liberal. I consider myself to be a liberal too, but that woman was wayyy off the charts of reason. And her way of speaking was annoying, too.
Israeli88 1 year ago
@Israeli88 proves one of her main points: "I didn't get it, therefore it's bad."
eflows 3 months ago
There is only one subject in schools now. Conflict theory. Religious students in Iran face less ideology, propaganda and morality training. And you are complaining classes are not ideological enough? If they sign an oath to vote Democratic will you sign one teach them something useful again?
BaronVonLichtenstein 1 year ago
The Soviet Unions system was propaganda? Our students are tools. Their schedules jammed with course work in self-esteem, personal safety, AIDS education, family life, consumer training, driver's ed, holistic health, and gym. The typical American high school student spends only 1, 460 hours on subjects like math, science and history during their four years in high schools. Meanwhile, their counterparts in Japan will spend 3,170 hours on basic subjects.
BaronVonLichtenstein 1 year ago 3
@BaronVonLichtenstein In other countries, parents take the responsibility for all those other important parts of life that American families -- aside from fundamentalists and cultists -- have abdicated.
eflows 3 months ago
I loved this message, I thought that it was eloquent and articulate. But like many of the commentators I struggle with the presentation. It is weak and remarkably limp. It does need to be redone with proper passion and emphasis. The lady is obviously struggling to get the message out while the techniques she has at her command are pitifully undercharged. I read all the comments. hasatum is an adversarial dork and tristramshandy fell into his swamp of ego baiting. Ain't Ted Talks great 5stars
euripideesshreds 2 years ago 8
TLDR.
maxwell2199 1 year ago
Viva English majors!!! Nothing helps instill critical thought like an intense study of classical literature.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
i think she was spot on when she was talking about how specialization takes away from the individual
there are so many things i want to learn about, each one is unique and worth learning; i honestly feel i am missing out by having to choose a major and minor
cheeseit126 2 years ago
Comment removed
wikicross 2 years ago
a. she doesn't understand that she contradicts herself because she is blinded by her own values which she considers to be absolute or b. (less likely) she does it on purpose, as some kind of esoteric message to those who would see it.
wikicross 2 years ago
but it is a politics of pricipal, not of partisanship." and then 15:32 :"While these past weeks have been a time of national exhilaration in this country, it would be tragic if you thought your job was done.[..] President Obama and his team simply cannot do it alone."
Now, by taking the values that she is referring to, as being what they are, and what she apparently understands them to be - moral truths with no objective basis (competing goods), I am left with 2 possibilities:
wikicross 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*competing Goods
wikicross 2 years ago
14:04 :" The most important discovery we made in our focus on public action was to apreciate that the hard choices are not between good and evil, but between competing goods. This discovery is tranforming. It undercuts self-righteousness, radically alters the tone and character of controversy and enriches dramatically the posibilty of finding common ground. Ideology, zealotry,unsubstantiated opinion simply won't do. This is a political education to be sure;
wikicross 2 years ago
in effect yield the connection between education and values to fundamentalists who you can be sure, have no compactions to using education to further their values - the absolutes of a theocracy." And then at 11:05 :" "The importance of coming to grips with values like justice, equity, truth becomes increasingly evident, as students discover that interests alone cannot tell them when the issue is rethinking education, our approach to health or strategies for achieving an economics of equity."
wikicross 2 years ago
Very elegant and beautiful discourse. There some things though, which I simply cannot get my head around. At 3:31 she says: "As one moves up the ladder, values other than technical competence are viewed with increasing suspicion. Questions such as "what kind of a world are we making?", "what kind of a world should we be making?", "what kind of a world can we be making?" are treated with more and more skepticism and are moved of the table. In so doing, the guardians of secular democracy,
wikicross 2 years ago
I bet half the audience didn't get wht she was talking about.
UTUBECREEP 2 years ago
Comment removed
UTUBECREEP 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice try. Keep it up check out esteembpo + com for social media marketing. czx
jeraldmcginnis 2 years ago
As a faculty participant in the liberal arts arena I found the presentation to be an inspiring call to arms to play an active role in changing the future of the planet. Wonderful!
singaporesparty 2 years ago
There really is a spirit of reinvention & renewal in many liberal arts colleges today. Some of which are beginning to apply the ideas promoted by President Coleman in this video. I for one am optimistic about the future of the liberal arts.
BouTube09 2 years ago
Education that specializes will probably create specialists because most people don't carry opportunities to learn very far outside their schooling.
(And)
Companies like specialists. It makes someone easy to hire if they have a degree in something where it's "point-to-able" that they have a skill. That employee seems to a hiring manager like a safe bet.
(But)
Innovation grows always from an interdisciplinary view of things. And it's hard to argue that the economy could use innovation.
scuppersoh 2 years ago 2
this is so monotonous. Hearing someone reading word by word is so boring that even though this talk is on a subject that i find very interesting, i find it very hard to follow what she is saying!
I know that this is probably a subject she takes very seriously, but the way the talk is delivered stinks of fakeness, it seems like she is thinking "look at me, I am so clever, I wrote this clever words" rather than actually talking about something she is passionate about. This is insufferable.
iosuVakerizzo 2 years ago
You evaluate this talk based almost entirely on the aesthetic qualities of the speaker's voice and cadence of speech. You are not able to make the effort to determine the value of her ideas in spite of your particular distaste for her speaking style. You allow yourself to draw conclusions about the speaker's personality flaws, and in doing so imply that the potential existence of those flaws is enough to discredit the ideas she expresses. In doing so you make her point for her.
techstyle 2 years ago 7
I knew someone would give me this kind of answer.
No, i don't evaluate this talk on aesthetic qualities, like i said, i find the subject interesting. My evaluation of the subject: VERY INTERESTING.
My criticism: THE TALK IS DELIVERED IN SUCH A MONOTONE WAY THAT IT SEEMS DISHONET(EVEN THOUGH I AM CONVINCED THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE). AS A RESULT OF THE DELIVERY I FIND IT HARD TO CONCENTRATE ON WHAT IS BEING SAID and i find myself thinking of other things even though i am trying to listen to her
iosuVakerizzo 2 years ago
and by the way, i am not making an attack on her, I think he flaw was to write it all down as if it was a book and then reading it to an audience. It is TEDTalks, not TEDreadings.
I have no intention of discrediting anything she sais, I am just giving feedback. Saying that someone's delivery is obtrusive to the message does not in any way imply that there is a problem with the message. Get it straight techstyle.
iosuVakerizzo 2 years ago
oh, one more thing: I gave the video 5 stars when i wrote that first comment, so dont make this associations, I like what she's got to say.
iosuVakerizzo 2 years ago
point. game. match.
dkaiii 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Single Payer Healthcare! Fight For It Like You Would Fight For Your Childs Life! Because That Is Exactly What We Are Doing In Healthcare Reform. Please, Contact Your Local Representatives. GOD BLESS!
peaceispatriotic7 2 years ago
The idea that education should be responsible for inculcating political values rather than serving the interests of students is not a new one. The "secular priesthood" has been meddling with our schools since the days of Dewey. Anyone familiar with the history of American education should not be surprised that she was in close contact with the Russians as that has been going on for some time. Search for "Gatto" for more.
hasatum 2 years ago
No such idea is here expressed or implied, and your criticism -insofar as it is intelligible- is valid only if there is no meaningful distinction to be made between education and propaganda.
What precisely do you mean by the *interests* of students?
What is your definition of religion?
Of dogma?
Of whom exactly is this "secular peisthood" compirised, and against whose perogatives have they been meddling?
To whom does your possessive pronoun "our" refer?
polymath7 2 years ago
*possessive determiner
polymath7 2 years ago
None is expressed or implied? Perhaps you should watch again. By the interests of students I mean that what each individual student would choose for themselves. I don't really need to define religion or dogma since Dewey himself said that educators need to act as a new kind of priesthood. He and his ilk have for the past century been working through the big foundations to get students in line with the interests of large corporations by working against the interests of students' own families.
hasatum 2 years ago
I watched it, and you may be firmly ensured that I am considerably intelligent than you, and so it is most unlikely that any such message escaped my notice but aroused your own.
Dewy's phrase was a polemic metaphor, intended with no small measure of irony, and you seem tot realize this; so I'm afraid you will have to provide the requested definitions if you wish to be clearly understood (at least by me).
And again, what do you mean by "the interests" of students? Surely you don't mean..
polymath7 2 years ago
...that students are entitled to determine the curriculum?
polymath7 2 years ago
Yes! Students and their families are paying for their education through taxes so they are entitled to decide what they will learn. Right now, lobbyists and special interests determine the curriculum.
Also, before claiming to be more intelligent than another person, it would help to check your grammar first. It should have been "assured" not "ensured" and it looks like you missed the word "more" as well. Better yet, stick to common courtesy and avoid such claims altogether. Take care.
hasatum 2 years ago
This is simply inconsistent with the very notion of education, whose function is not to confirm and reinforce commonly held beliefs; nor is truth determined democratically
Sixty percent of Americans think creation "science" schould be taught as a competeing hypothesis to the fact of evolutuion; should they have thier way? It is no more a good idea to democratize education than surgery.
Your second point about lobbyists and special intersts is mere hyperbole.
If the university isn't...
polymath7 2 years ago
...relatively free of corperate influence, then no institution is,
If you wish to correct my "grammar", you might first learn the meaning of the word, and how it differs from *usage*.
Nor is my usage incorrect; one *assures* of something, and is *ensured* of something by another.
You will also notice I corrected my elision of the word "more" before you did.
You're right about one thing; I would probably do well to adopt a more civil tone. Take care.
polymath7 2 years ago 2
Education is about fostering youth who are able to create knowledge as much as it is about passing knowledge on to a new generation.
Your point about democracy supports my view, not Ms Coleman's. If individuals are allowed to choose their own education, the best ideas will gain traction over time
If, on the other hand, the majority (in terms of population or wealth) is allowed to indoctrinate minorities to accept a particular view, then scientific inquiry is stifled and progress is stymied.
hasatum 2 years ago
I Just read a Bertrand Russel essay on Education, and he mentioned something I have long been talking about:
"The examination system, and the fact that instruction is treated mainly as training for livelihood, leads the young to regard knowledge, from a purely utilitarian point of view, as the road to money, not as the gateway to wisdom."
-this seems to be a crucial point to me.
Also, we use property taxes to perpetuate a permanent class war that really screws minorities disproportionately.
:)
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I'm no fan of Bertrand Russell. While I think that knowledge should be inherently valued, I don't think that educators should organize to try to change attitudes about knowledge. In our efforts to get students to not think about the utility of knowledge, we have encourage apathy and passiveness. We should instead be encouraging students to pursue their own goals and help provide them with the knowledge that they desire to meet those goals. Innovation and entrepreneurship depends on this.
hasatum 2 years ago
I absolutely disagree with you. I think educators should organize to change the way we look at knowledge.
We have turned knowledge into a commodity. It isn't just something to encourage business- knowledge and philosophy help to inculcate morality and ethics. THAT is what is missing in our society today.
More of our "businessmen" need to be trained in philosophy- that will keep them more honest.
Why don't you like Russell? The more I read of him, the more impressed I am with his intellect.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Who's to say that philosophy isn't good for business? A moral business is a profitable business. Educators must always strive to be humble. If we value knowledge, we should try to show our feelings and demonstrate its value, not conspire together to jolly along another generation who will come to see learning the way they do exercise and eating vegetables. Always remember: educators work for their students, not the other way around. Ultimately, it is their goals that are important, not ours.
hasatum 2 years ago
I said philosophy IS good for business- I also argue that it is the LACK of philosophical knowledge and reflection that creates these short-sighted, myopic businessmen and women.
I don't understand your reply- I'm interested in turning knowledge into a valuable thing for its own sake- not as a means to become wealthy financially.
Life is the best!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
If you agree that philosophy and knowledge are good for business, then you agree that it has instrumental value. To argue in the next breath that motivating by instrumental value is not your goal is fine, but what about those throngs of students who sit in our classrooms with no sense of future, so sense of purpose? What about the ones who don't CARE that knowledge is inherently valuable because they know they're not going to make any contribution to it? They want to matter and to live.
hasatum 2 years ago
how do they know they aren't going to make a contribution to it?
I would try to motivate those students and get them to understand how valuable knowledge is- not just for the inherent monetary rewards that accompany it, but also, and far more importantly, the sense of happiness and confidence that a well educated man possesses.
If they refuse to accrue knowledge, then yes, I believe they are guaranteed to be unhappy failures (with few exceptions).
Have a great day!
It's fun to be alive.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
How do they know? Are you serious? Because they're not stupid. They know that they could do a lot more but they also know that will simply push students at the top to work even harder. Most students don't want to compete academically and a "well-educated man" only derives pleasure and confidence from the sense of superiority he gets. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what money is: it's just a way of storing and trading work. Good luck motivating.
hasatum 2 years ago
I completely disagree that well educated men derive confidence from a feeling of superiority.
I know for a fact, for I am a well educated man, and my love of knowledge has NOTHING to do with thinking I am better than other people.
I would advise you to read Thoreau and Bertrand Russel- two great minds who discuss the inherent value and importance of knowledge at length.
Not in 500 character sound bites.
Life is the best!
Viva Shakespeare!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I thought that humility and acceptance of our own profound ignorance was one of the cornerstones of philosophy? I have read both Thoreau and Russell and many others besides; I was a philosophy minor in university after all. I really have to wonder why you take such pleasure from being educated. Surely people a thousand years ago were less educated and just as happy. Surely people a thousand years hence will consider you to be a brute. Would you be so proud of your present education living then?
hasatum 2 years ago
acceptance of our own ignorance is crucial, I agree. I will take this opportunity to admit, without any shame, that I am an ignorant human being.
"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise/ man knows himself to be a fool"- Shakespeare, As You Like It (V.i.30-1).
I disagree that I will be considered a brute in 1,000 years. They will still, the educated, be reading Shakespeare, Socrates, Aristotle, etc.
Do we consider Socrates and Shakespeare brutes? NO. No we don't.
Life is the best!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
We recognize great minds for their achievements in their own times, but if Socrates were living today as he did then, he would be in jail. Pedophilia, after all, is no longer acceptable in society. For all his mental acuity, he would be considered profoundly ignorant of even the most rudimentary science and many of his beliefs would be considered ridiculous or savage. If you were to be transported into the future, your education would be treated with similar contempt.
hasatum 2 years ago
I respectfully disagree with you.
Which of Socrates beliefs would be considered savage? That the unreflective life is not worth living? That humans are essentially ignorant creatures? That truth and honor are the most beautiful things in the world?
That is all still true- and that was the core of his teaching.
It's unfair to impugn him based on different social conventions.
Aristotle, Shakespeare, Socrates, etc. all STILL considered geniuses by most intellectuals.
Viva Montaigne!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
How about the belief that women are basically chattel? How about the belief that sex with children is a healthy and character building exercise? What about the implicit belief that conquering other people, looting their cities, and taking their people into slavery is fine and good for a Greek land holder?
You missed my point about genius. Living TODAY he would effectively be a moron; he understands no technology, geography, or science. Living today, his education would be almost worthless.
hasatum 2 years ago
you are transferring today's social conventions to yesteryear; it's simply not an effective means of refuting genius.
Have you READ any Plato?
Read Plato's "The Apology" and "Crito" (both are short pieces) and you will understand why, as long as there are human beings still alive, Socrates will be considered perhaps the greatest of them all.
Montaigne, 2000 years later, calls Socrates the greatest soul to ever live.
I think you underestimate the importance of philosophy-regardless of the era
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Comment removed
hasatum 2 years ago
You still miss my point. While his education had instrumental value for dealing with his own society, it is almost useless today. While his contributions to philosophy remain pertinent, his education in today's world, both practical and ethical, would be drastically devalued. As such, it cannot be said to be inherently valuable since it does not maintain value universally across time. I suggest that you are confusing the universal value of his disposition with the local value of his education.
hasatum 2 years ago
I could just as easily say you are missing my point. I understand what you are saying :) I disagree.
His education would not be useless; in fact, his education would be the MOST useful in our society today.
If I were to open a school today, I would form it along the lines of Plato's academy, where the ENTIRE point of education is to instill critical thinking skills and profound question asking capability
Those are never useless; in fact they are always the most useful, no matter when you live
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I believe his teachings still maintain their value; I am a perennialist- which is an educational philosophy stating that men have not changed very much over time.
Because I believe men have not fundamentally changed very much over time, I still place very high value on works of Plato, Shakespeare, Sophocles, Swift, Pope.
Read Gulliver's Travels- same shit as today.
Read the satires of Horace- same shit as today.
I have endless evidence. That is why I believe it.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
You disagree with what? I thought we were arguing whether education was inherently or instrumentally valuable? Are you going to now try to argue that I should sit happy and smug all because I have critical thinking skills? The value of critical thinking comes from what it allows us to do.
hasatum 2 years ago
No, the argument has shifted as to whether it is still valuable to study and learn from ancient scholars. You say no, and I STRONGLY disagree.
Did you read "The Apology" and "Crito" yet?
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
You are correct that people's nature has not changed but the skills needed have. The majority of what Socrates thought he knew was wrong and useless in today's society. To point at the fact that he knew people and debate but then ignore all of the practical day to day knowledge necessary to survive is exactly the problem I'm pointing out. Students who are facing down poverty see your program as irrelevant to the real problems they face. Will you tell them to take comfort in Shakespeare? Really?
hasatum 2 years ago
I won't tell them to take comfort in Shakespeare, I will tell them to study the classics as a PRACTICAL means of improving their lives.
Did you know that over half the ceo's of fortune 500 companies were English or History majors?
Critical thinking, which is what studying the classics is all about, is ALWAYS the most valuable skill any student can achieve. It is the primary goal, or should be, of education.
Instilling critical thinking is the point of education. Using it is the students' job.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Also, I am not a relativist. Evil is evil whenever it is performed. Many of Socrates's beliefs were savage just as many of the beliefs of today are savage. One can be a genius and still be a savage.
As for philosophy, I will put it this way: If it helps good people to be better, does it have value? Of course, it has instrumental value. Truth may have inherent value, but education can neither pretend to instill truth nor make students value the truth. Character education has been a fraud.
hasatum 2 years ago
So, have you read Plato?
Again, I would urge you to read "The Apology" and the companion piece "Crito".
They are VERY short.
Much of Plato's writing is circular and frankly, annoying. These are NOT.
I could list a very long line of geniuses who disagree with your analysis on education; from Thoreau to Locke and Montaigne.
I'm sure you are a bright guy; but you are not that bright.
Have a good night :)
Have a good night.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I see. Without recourse to an argument, you drop names of writers (who, yes, I've read) and then make a poor and unsupported attempt at damning with faint praise. Your approach shows that I was right when I said that what you were really looking for from education is a sense of superiority. I suggest that you get out more and drop the sarcastic grins.
hasatum 2 years ago
You are wrong. This has nothing to do with vanity or superiority. Studying the classics of literature and philosophy is PRACTICAL in today's world. This isn't about becoming an erudite intellectual, it is about becoming a thoughtful human that has a strong sense of history- the history of ideas.
What have you read by Plato?
What Shakespeare plays have you read?
Did you read Walden?
The essays of Montaigne?
Aristotle?
Show me you understand what it is you speak of- talk to me about your reading
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
No. I could, but I don't think I will. First you fail to answer my arguments. Then you are uncivil. Now you want me to engage in some kind of dick measuring contest comparing who has read the most? And you want to couch it as if you're just ensuring that there is a mutual understanding of the dialectic of ideas? Are you serious? You really do have a serious ego problem.
hasatum 2 years ago
So, your argument is that reading people from a long time ago is not useful today.
That begs the question: what have you read from a long time ago?
What have you read from Plato?
From Aristotle?
What Shakespeare plays have you read?
What other works of classical literature and philosophy have you read?
I'm not waving my dick around here dude. I'm making sure you have a clue what you are talking about- and I am quickly becoming convinced that you know not of what ye speak.
Prove me wrong
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Are we reading the same posts? I fail to address your arguments and I am uncivil?
ALL I have done is address your arguments- which I find to be WRONG
Seriously, are we reading the same posts Are you sure you aren't reading someone else's posts and thinking they are mine?
I'm truly not sure what you are talking about when you make such baseless claims
I think you are just avoiding the uncomfortable truth that you DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
Time to hike in the mountains
Viva life!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
LOL. OK, here goes:
First, I tried to stay on topic by reiterating the main point that we were talking about inherent versus instrumental value. You ignored this.
Next, unable or unwilling to supply further argument, you tried insulting my intelligence in a round about way. That is regarded by most as very uncivil.
Finally, angered by the fact that I pointed out your basic sense of insecurity, you cry with teenage angst that I "don't know what I'm talking about."
Please, grow up.
hasatum 2 years ago
OK I get it- you have nothing of value to say, so you are playing defense. Wonderful.
I will go on teaching the classics to students because it is practical and will help improve their lives tremendously; as it has mine.
You can go on thinking of Socrates as a pedophile and of Aristotle and Shakespeare as useless in today's world.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I have to conclude that your opinion is not based on extensive experience actually reading the things you say are worthless.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I have been uncivil in many u-tube debates. This was not one of them.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I never argued that the classics were useless or worthless. You are putting words in my mouth. I would have thought the fact that I said I minored in philosophy would have disavailed you of that belief. Perhaps the fact that I majored in English will further convince you? I did say that Socrates was a pedophile because that is true. I must admit I have a preference for true statements. I'm also glad to see you realize you have a problem with being uncivil in debates. That's a start at least.
hasatum 2 years ago
you said that people 1,000 years ago weren't well educated, and that in 1,000 years, I would be considered a brute. That clearly implies that old writings do not maintain their relevancy.
You are absolutely wrong about that. The genius of Socrates would be JUST as important in today's world as it was in Athens.
I'm glad you realize how off-putting your pretentious self-righteousness is.
Have a great life.
Go read and understand history!
It is our only defense.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Clearly you aren't listening. Go and reread this thread's history. You have no defense.
hasatum 2 years ago
Clearly you aren't worth listening to. And you are uncivil. :)
I shall continue teaching the classics.
I suspect you are probably female, and feel slighted by history's lack of representation.
It happens.
Get over it.
I'm jewish. The classics aren't very nice to me either, but I deal with it.
Have a GREAT life. This poor excuse for the exchange of ideas is officially OVER :)
YAY!!!!!!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I'm sure you are happy to end this. I'm also gratified by your apparent lack of insight into my background and I certainly don't give a damn whether you're Jewish or not. I wouldn't call this an exchange of ideas since you still insist on ignoring arguments and making ridiculous sarcastic smirks.
I feel sympathy for your students. It makes me wonder: Is this vitriol really just you venting frustration over your students' apathy towards your classes? I hope you can tell me otherwise.
hasatum 2 years ago
* considerably more
polymath7 2 years ago
It is common practice to lump usage (collocations) under the heading of grammar, but you are correct that usage is more accurate.
One typically assures someone of a fact rather than letting them know that they can be ensured of it..
You did not make note of the missing "more" before the word "intelligent" in your previous message. I won't remark further on numerous spelling errors that are surely typos
Also, it is better to adopt a more civil tone than simply talking about doing so.
hasatum 2 years ago
intellectual bully
bmed19 2 years ago
Please read the entire thread before calling me a bully. I don't usually bother to worry about someone's use of language until they claim to be more intelligent than me.
hasatum 2 years ago
im sry
arrogant intellectual bully
aka asshole
bmed19 2 years ago
OK, so it's degenerated into mere name calling. Let's see if I can remember how to play this game right... let's see:
You are a meanie. You are not a smartie. You smell bad. Poo poo on you. Neener neener.
Was that about right? Feel free not to bother to reply. I know that I sure won't.
hasatum 2 years ago
breadstick
bmed19 2 years ago
You must reeeeeally listen to appreciate the talk! Sometimes, you must even replay it. I enjoyed it... eventually!
Kimmathykay 2 years ago
I can't stand it when people recite prepared essays with poets' inflection and cadence. It's clear she's accustomed to giving lectures on literature and poetry and criticism, not presentations of anything substantive.
This is deeply dull, and merely a long string of metaphors and assertions of opinion cloaked as fact. I couldn't keep listening past about 9 minutes.
ddunniii 2 years ago
As a product of a good liberal arts education, the wide intentional exposure to a world of multiple disciplines, I am driven to differ from the speaker to this conclusion: Each of us has our own personal prejudices that defines our world view and see any liberal arts information through a skewed prism that reflects back to us our personal history, life's experiences, and innate limitations. It is coincidental that a liberal arts education changes us in our core values.
edleepo 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is nonesense.
Jibberish.
Bullshit.
ALL this country needs is for each and every one of its citezens to accept faith in Jesus Christ our lord.
Simple as that.
Plus I don't really listen to lesbians.
polymath7 2 years ago
If you really did as you suggest your heart would be more open.
michiko38 2 years ago
Polymath7
Your words reflect you as one of true ignorance, or a sense of satire.
Either way your comment brilliantly present the religious ignorance. :D
Plecter 2 years ago 6
It's the latter. Poe's law, my friend.
polymath7 2 years ago
You are an idiot!
millamulisha 2 years ago
your opinion sort of reminds me of the opinions of extremist muslims, and the idealism of the suicide bombers who caused 9/11.
daytripper84 2 years ago
It's not really my opinion. It was a jest.
polymath7 2 years ago
Polymath7, apparently your self-declared knowledge of many subjects doesn't extend to the English language. "Nonesense" is spelt "nonsense", "jibberish" is spelt "gibberish", and "citezens" is spelt "citizens". Congratulations, you've demonstrated an impressive level of illiteracy in only a very few words...
Slabbers 2 years ago
Hello, Slabbers. I rememember you quite clearly from the seris of excellent comments you left on parts eleven and fifteen of the D'Souza/Dennett debate about a year ago
As I've already said, my initial comment here was in jest; the misspellings are intentional.
By the way, what genre of music do you play?
polymath7 2 years ago
Ah yes, sorry, I didn't read the rest of the comments: Poe's law indeed still holds! Excellent channel by the way, there's loads of lovely stuff I've not seen on there. From the music selections, it looks like we have a lot in common. I don't have a favourite genre, though I have avoided pursuing too much pre-20th century classical music so far; not 'cos I don't like it, but I already spend far too much time collecting and learning about music from the last century.
Slabbers 2 years ago
As this played, my heart started pounding & I got tears in my eyes. Whoever this woman is, her capacity for acute perception is impressive. I've worked in curric. devel't & adaptation, and I'd just love to have coffee with her. I've so much to ask her! I'd like to know how she feels about the +ive & -ive roles of commercial priorities in determining curric. goals. I'd like to hear more about the role of the Fine Arts in pragmatic domains (eg: medicine, law) & vice versa. What a stimulating film.
paulmercy 2 years ago
i didnt think this was so great... if obama cant do it, why do we expect him to?
sexdrugsRnR 2 years ago
because you have unrealistic and idealistic expectations of him? all his job is is to do what YOU tell him to do. a president is not a boss or a king
LTBL88 2 years ago
nice jump to conclusions you made there. if governments do anything right, it is only out of coincidence. An unrealistic expectation would be for you to think that Obama is doing what YOU are telling him to do... and your right, a president is not like a boss.. because if a boss does something i dont like, i can quit.
sexdrugsRnR 2 years ago
Wow amazing!
LochanaMusic 2 years ago
Great to hear the thoughts I know I share with so many people articulated so well and with such urgency and passion. 5/5!
yiddishesque 2 years ago 3
this is easily the smartest thing I have ever listened to
NearlyShaoKahn 2 years ago 2
A very exciting and inspiring address. I cannot understand many of the negative comments made.
financialcounselor 2 years ago
people saying that they are bored by her talk.. are saying more about themselves then about her.
I believe there is room for improvement in her presentation (intonation for example) sure.. but the message is quite clear to me. And it sure rocks if you ask me!
I think change in thinking is in order when teaching students because the liveless reductionism in classrooms teached today , is not from this time.. certainly when you consider students suffering from "short-term attention syndrome".
Spenkster 2 years ago 3
yep, people these days refuse the concept that paying attention takes effort in favor of belligerently declaring that if it cant hold their attention on its own, it is unworthy of attention. I suppose thats a way to separate the wheat from the chafe, but why let wheat be discarded as chafe? demand more of your peers.
jwfcp 2 years ago
10:36 and I have just realized that I stopped listening to her at 2:13 O_O. I'm sorry to say, she is boring and it's shutting off my attention. she should work on her presentation.
dragonstorm83 2 years ago
How can people thumb this down? Is there anybody who finds this talk engaging?
dskloet 2 years ago
The content is; she's a droner...
trinitymike 2 years ago
this is some boring shit
melonbarmonster 2 years ago
i agree
DaHighTower 2 years ago
I love arts, and that woman bores me. How someone such concerned by art can talk totally without emotions...
Slimydoom 2 years ago
I've tried listening to all of this talk on 2 separate occasions, unsuccessfully i might add, because i kept falling asleep. **sigh**
Perhaps this is why liberal arts education don't work...humanity courses are boring. **yawns**
Mrmoc7 2 years ago
She was long on criticism of the current situation and short on details of what we can or should do.
MrCropper 2 years ago 3
The question of where to start is easy - PRIVATIZE TODAY. There should be separation of school and state in the same way and for the same reason as we have the separation of church and state. (Same goes for the economy and state.)
"Where were you while 6 million were gassed and burned?"
And what will you say in 20 years, ladies and gentlemen, when our current education crisis bares fruit? Or is it baring its fruit already?...
MrCropper 2 years ago
It's been bearing it's fruit for a very long time, at least since the 60's (the start of my personal recollection). How do you think we got into the mess we are in?
The 'vast' majority of people out there don't understand the first thing about economics and how food winds up on their table. And they have no understanding of any sort of philosophy that might lead them to civic engagement beyond distraction from their personal ennui.
Panpiper 2 years ago
"bears" btw...
trinitymike 2 years ago
here, here!
funnyguise 2 years ago
She sums up almost everything that needs to be sorted out in the Americas! Go go USA, you can do it!
sudiin 2 years ago
nice little display, but its kind of hard to understand what she means. i'm pretty sure her idea could have been summed up in a couple sentences.
sixpackspy 2 years ago
This was good: she is absolutely right about everything she said. This isn't anything I didn't already know... but I feel a lot better knowing that other people are thinking this way.
TED gives me hope.
DrostanStudio 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
gay
ElfVSTrolls 2 years ago
Man, you sure do learn a lot from watching youtube! haha It's true. That's why I like it! but this is an absolutely a favorite now haha
Chick6517 2 years ago
My biggest complaint is an echo of Taylor Mali. On the subject of "slam poetry" he said that a slam poem differs from that of T.S. Elliot's, in so far as a slam poem doesn't need to give up all of its "gems," but it must immediately give some of them. Likewise, a Ted talk--or any public speech--needn't be 100% accessible to 100% of the people, but it ought to be generous and not esoteric.
Her talk was ideal for a graduation speech, but not for an exchange of ideas.
Barbedwiremeshsocks 2 years ago
Comment removed
Barbedwiremeshsocks 2 years ago
Comment removed
Barbedwiremeshsocks 2 years ago
She's my principal. During orientation she misquoted the dude from the McCarthy hearing ("Have you no shame, sir?...") and I corrected her ("Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you no sense of decency?") But she looked cross with me.
Joerexia 2 years ago
You were right to correct her, but honestly, it would have been more respectful to do so in private, and likely that was the cause of the cross look. The misquote did not materially change the meaning. And correcting her during orientation was you shaming her in public as well as in one sense, wasting the time of the rest of the student body. It could rightly be seen as you grandstanding at her expense.
Panpiper 2 years ago
Well, I went up to her privately as everyone was exiting the stands. I doubt anybody heard me.
Joerexia 2 years ago
Ah. I apologize. You deserved a smile then, not a cross look.
Panpiper 2 years ago
"the values and voices of democracy are silent"
then what is online blogging and youtube?
bcosten2007 2 years ago
I got a bit riled by that myself. I see it as the typical hubris of the academic elite. Only those who have paid their way to get the approval of the previously approved are afforded respect. There is some reason for that to be sure. That approval process does serve to weed out a great many crazies, leaving a far higher concentration of insanity in the unapproved blogosphere. But there is also far more entrepreneurship in such freedom. I dare say many of the big ideas are now there.
Panpiper 2 years ago
Glad to see someone else noticed it ;)
bcosten2007 2 years ago
Exactly. The failure to see the possibilities of online discourse and the availability of discussion there is really a marker of how absent these people are from keeping up to date with the world.
trinitymike 2 years ago
Looking back at her quote she was being quite vague and perhaps I was being too specific. I agree with you though that online discourse is highly undervalued by academics. I think it will slowly become a large area of academic interest, as I know some profs at my school are getting into it - its fun and exciting and new. But she might have meant anything by the "voices of democracy".
bcosten2007 2 years ago
online communication is tremendously inferior to face to face communication. So much communication is non-verbal, and physiognomy is invaluable when talking with other people.
we need to get off our computers and get together in the same rooms to talk- and I do realize the irony of posting this message online :)
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
She is mistaken, there are people who see the educational system as the root of the problem. Just take a look at the liberty loving people, they are really concerned of the system as it has become/always has been the indoctrination camps to brainwash the masses to obediently follow their masters, the so called authorities.
lordmetroid 2 years ago
IMO the real danger in public education is the standardized, assembly line process of grades 1 through 12. Everyone is to learn the same thing, so everyone learns the same government approved version of history, and everything else, errors and all. Identical widgets. University at least breaks this mold and allows for people to diverge into myriad paths and perspectives. And none of those paths leads better towards independent critical thinking than Liberal Arts.
Panpiper 2 years ago
Critical thinking is nearly a lost process. Last year Barney Frank publicly referred to critical thinking as the ability to criticize.
QuantumRising 2 years ago 3
Argh!
Panpiper 2 years ago
Yes, diplomas-r-us is what so many universities have become. It is in many ways a pandering to, and, truly a repudiation of the noble undertaking of the traditional university, where learning must now have its functional and practical outcome, and where the student is channeled through his respective career preparation. The university risks being a great lie.
whiff1962 2 years ago
Is this girl so liberal arts that she can't give examples- it's a basic tenet of composition ( a liberal art) that broad theoretical statements should be followed up by concrete examples- I guess she was absent the day they taught that.
CoauthoredStaircase 2 years ago
Rhetoric, design, mediation, improvisation, and qauntitative reasoning. I guess you were absent the day they taught you how to listen. She probably knows more about liberal arts then you'll ever know.
Grishenko11 2 years ago 4
Eighteen minutes.
Panpiper 2 years ago
why is the belief in evolution such a marker of basic education.
it's interesting too that she follows the statement with the idea of 'spiritual recourse'
dreemLight 2 years ago
Because the hallmark of being basically educated is that one is able to think rationally and to judge argument based upon reason rather than superstition and doctrinal assertions. Belief in evolution is a fantastically good litmus test as to the level of rationality of a person, and a pretty good indicator as to their level of education.
Panpiper 2 years ago
I really liked this.
Thanks.
MrArob 2 years ago
Specialization is for insects.
I'm into knot theory, in hyperbolic space, but...
my world is so much bigger ( I'm quite old and english.)
I know about myths and cinema.
We MUST teach our kids a broad based humanities !
I hope fore a better world. She's right.
It's sad. The US was such a good model at one time.
If only they can rise to the challenge.
I do hope so. They have been some of the nicest , kindest and smartest p[eople I ever met.
Good sentiments.
faunflynn 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
KidVideoE 2 years ago
Very interesting, if a little too abstract and dense at times; it felt more like the reading of a thesis than actually talking to people.
Valelacerte 2 years ago
Does everything have to be "entertaining"? I thought she did a good job of making it seem genuine.
yiddishesque 2 years ago
Don't get me wrong, yiddishesque, I completely agree with many points, including her take on education being more and more detail on less and less, there was just something about her delivery that made it hard for me to remain focussed, and I'm not some impatient ADHD sugar junkie.
Valelacerte 2 years ago 3
i never liked the idea of an 'expert'
bmed19 2 years ago 2
I'm a bit bothered by this commentary around social activism, as if it were a legitimate vocation. I'm really tired of politically oriented students who have no idea how the world works.
How do I know they don't understand how the world works? Because they're invariably trumpeting socialism, the most tested and defeated political model ever invented. Even despotism has a better track record.
bluebeard2 2 years ago
yeah, we should all be passive observers in political and economic affairs, as was envisioned by the framers. the 'responsible class of men' should continue to 'protect the wealth of the opulent from the population.' that's james madison.
if you're bothered by people wanting to form a functioning participatory society, i think you have a problem.
intrepgun 2 years ago 2
well maybe a demoractic socialism or social liberalism is what we shoudl all really be after ...
but thats besides the point. this womyn (lol) stated what I have thought and then some. i hope more people take an interest in the liberal arts (and i hope they get good high ranking jobs)
ill keep track on on what happens to that center.
Henrin 2 years ago
No, democratic socialism is not what we need.
What we need is a government that leaves me alone to do my own thing. Not one that rides on populist movements and tries to sweep me up in its bullshit.
bluebeard2 2 years ago
I don't know what you mean by a 'participatory' society. If you mean you want to coerce me into participating, then we have a problem, yes.
What I see are waves of activists upon activists using the force implicit in the political system to compel me, against my will, to either do things or pay for their crazy projects. Postmodern social engineering being a good example.
I do not want to be governed or bullied by activists. I want to be left alone.
bluebeard2 2 years ago
so your what? an anarchist I take it?
first of all I DID NOT SAY democratic socialism
i said SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. there is a BIG difference. learn it please.
2nd: in such a system you would be left alone except for the taxes you would pay for essential humanitarian services such as keeping homeless off the streets improving low income communities to reduce crime,ect. were already in one , its just not where it should be due to political opposition.
Henrin 2 years ago
the other thing is, if you have problems with activists then tell them to fuck off! after a while they won't bother you. dont play a fucking victim role and blame a political ideology for it.
peace thx ^_^
Henrin 2 years ago
i'd take a good amount of time and think about what you've already been coerced into doing or NOT doing, were i of the mindset you seem to be in. i don't presume to know exactly what you're on about, 500 characters is FAR too little for issues of importance.
intrepgun 2 years ago
And do you believe Democracy has not been 'defeated'? Capitalism has successfully given citizens incentive to disengage from voicing their political opinion by making such expression less 'profitable'. The voice of the citizen is almost inaudible in the cacophony of today's corporate-controlled media and government. So much so that folks would rather say "forget it, someone else will handle it" because speaking up doesn't put guaranteed food on the table.
KidVideoE 2 years ago
1) I do not like democracy. It's simply a systematisation of mob justice. The power of the many against that of the few.
2) I don't agree with your comment about capitalism. Capitalism isn't a political system, it's an economic one. If you have economic agents 'buying' political rights, then what you have isn't a capitalist system (by definition), but a system that permits systemic theft. Capitalism is not about money; it's about private property rights.
bluebeard2 2 years ago