543 ideas match your query.:
Search ideas
One difference between having multiple objectivist countries and having private arbitration services is that the latter can operate in the same territory whereas the former have distinct territories. So this may not be a stolen concept after all.
Building on #17 and #22, imagine a world with multiple objectivist countries. Say the US is purely objectivist, and so is England.
Presumably, Rand would see no problem with multiple objectivist countries coexisting. She would consider this state of affairs not only possible but desirable.
Yet how is that state different from the problem she describes in #14? Objectivist countries would be voluntarily financed by voluntary taxation; private arbitration services would be voluntarily financed through voluntary payments as well.
Isn’t this an instance of a stolen concept?
The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends.
Rand is using a concept – objectivism, which logically depends on peaceful coexistence of voluntarily financed groups of people – to argue against the possibility of the peaceful coexistence of voluntarily financed groups of people!
This is an example of version control for ideas. As I revise this idea, new versions are created and automatically diffed. Click the arrows below to cycle through the version history. You can also click on ‘versions’ to see the entire version history plus diffing.
This is an example of version control for ideas. As I revise this idea, new versions are created and automatically diffed. Click the arrows below to cycle through the version history.
I fixed the typo that was here previously!
This is a comment on version 4, but it applies to subsequent versions as well.
This is an example of version control for ideas. As I revise this idea, new versions are created and automatically diffed. Click the arrows below to cycle through the version history.
Say you make a tpyo. Then you can fix it.
This is a comment on version 4, but it applies to version 5 as well.
This is an example of version control for ideas. As I revise this idea, new versions are created and automatically diffed. Click the arrows below to cycle through the version history.
This is an example of version control for ideas. As I revise this idea, new versions are created and automatically diffed.
Superseded by #62. This comment was generated automatically.
That is not what freedom means.
Freedom does not consist in the guarantee of certain thoughts or scope for action.
Roughly speaking, freedom is when you are left alone by others when you want to be left alone.
If you are sent to school against your will, you are not free. School is forced.
Forcing children to be free is a contradiction in terms.
Children are constantly being bossed around at school. So they can't become independent at school.
It's one thing if you don't share my idea of freedom. But the contradiction above should be enough to dissuade you from your original position: if your goal is for the child to think independently, but it chronically fails to do so at school, then school is no good even by your own logic.
That's right, which is why the teacher's freedom ends where the child's freedom begins.
The freedom of one person, including a child's, ends where the freedom of another begins.
(Kant)
Speaking of 'enabling' here makes no sense when young people are actually forced to do what you describe.
Maybe a given young person has no interest in the digital age. Maybe he is more interested in castles and outer space. But teachers prevent him from learning more about those by forcing him to learn "programming, mathematics, philosophy and biology" or whatever else instead.
And the fact remains that it's impossible to teach independent or critical thinking by paternalizing someone for years and telling them what they can do and think, when they may use the bathroom, when they may eat, etc. How could this possibly "emancipate children in the enlightenment sense"? How absurd!
Superseded by #56. This comment was generated automatically.
A multidisciplinary project involving programming, mathematics, philosophy and biology should be made possible for all young people - shouldn't it? - and would promote future skills for the digital age: expertise, critically constructive and independent thinking, skills to act and judge, epistemology, ethics and anthropology, and ecology. That would emancipate children in the enlightenment sense.
(Kant)
A multidisciplinary project involving programming, mathematics, philosophy and biology should be made possible for all young people - shouldn't it? - and would promote future skills for the digital age: expertise, critically constructive and independent thinking, skills to act and judge, epistemology, ethics and anthropology, and ecology. That would emancipate children in the sense of the enlightenment.
(Kant)
You are a chemist. Doesn't the same criticism apply to you?
We should judge ideas by their content, not by their source.
It doesn't matter that he is a physicist, because his thoughts on the subject are of a philosophical/ epistemological nature.
You are referring to ideas by David Deutsch. He is a physicist; he deals with inorganic matter. His ideas on educating children are therefore irrelevant.
(Kant)