/edu/ - Education

This thread has some lulzy stuff from the 1950s-60s.

https://leftypol.org/siberia/res/308343.html

>>3662
sauce?

>>3656
Extinct species likely… if they domesticated the species their use likely lead to the subspecies being extinct if it was relegated to that given area

>>3656
>Did the ancient/medieval Ethiopians domesticate the African elephant?
No, elephants are to long lived for that to be possible, it takes 20-25 years for an elephant to grow up.

>2 years no response
>bump
>immediate answer
Explain

>>11691
Dialetiks or smthg

I'd like to get into epistemology. Which thinkers and what literature do you recommend for that?

>>11673
Start with this https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/help/classic.htm

>>11677
Cool, I‘m reading it. What I noticed first is how confused I was at what exactly the confusion or contradiction was about. Sure rationalism as opposed to empiricism but where is the issue? Until I read

>Meanwhile, in Revolutionary England, the Royalist Thomas Hobbes continues the evolution of empiricism by a consideration of how the action of matter on the sense organs generates thought in the mind

So that was an epiphany at that time. It would be nice to have a complete understanding of what exactly people at a time believed/knew or didn‘t know. I didn‘t get the confusion or dispute at first.

>>11507
Manuel DeLanda
You can watch a lot of his lectures on youtube.

>>11677
Great read. Anything else?

>with a step by step
of this type of equation I mean

>This makes me feel mentally disabled
You're a namefag, of course you feel that way. Drop that junk.

That's set theory, with a couple of complex numbers. I'm assuming you know what those are. If not, look it up.
I'm not great with (nor generally interested in) mathematics, but if I'm reading it right (Q = the set of rational numbers, which is normal for the blackboard-bold symbol Q, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_number , and the final question being what is the intersection between the set S and Q) then it's just asking which of the 6 elements of the set S are rational.
So for example, 1/3 and 22/7 are obviously rational, [pi]/3 is obviously not, and so you need to figure out if the other 3 are rational. I forget all my trig and odd/even powers of those complex fractions so someone else needs to sub in.

Try transforming the complex numbers into trigonometric form, they look like they will have a modulus of 1 which will make the exponentiation easy.

>>11646
/math/ general >>338

> a step by step

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_arithmetic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roots_of_unity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_coordinate_system#Complex_numbers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Moivre%27s_formula

You are asked to count the rational numbers in S. Two of them are evidently rational. π/3 is irrational, but in most contexts this will be accepted as known since the proof is non-trivial. If you can't remember the sine of π/3 take a right-angled triangle with an angle of 60 degrees and take the ratio of the opposite leg and the hypotenuse. Complete your right-angled triangle by reflection to an equilateral triangle and you will easily find the ratio to be sqrt(3)/2. For the irrationality of sqrt(3) take a^2==3*b^2 with a and b coprime, take the unique prime factorization of both sides and simply count the parity of the number of times 3 appears on each side.

For the first two values, identify them as roots of unity, a cube root and an eighth root. Recall that when raising roots of unity to natural powers you may discard multiples of the root order. Reduce 2019 modulo 3 and 8. This resolves the first value, while for the second you are left with the cube of an eighth root. Since you only need the rationality of the imaginary part you can avoid doing any computation by recalling that exponentiation by natural powers on the unit circle amounts to rotation by multiples of the base angle. Since the base angle is π/4, first quadrant, cubing takes you to 3π/4, second quadrant. This has the effect of flipping the real part sign and leaving everything else untouched, whichPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Is this for organizing an NLRB recognized union in the us? I'm in the process and can answer questions.
Or is it for class struggle / IWW style unions?

>>10775
Look at Jane McAlevey's work.

>pro-union palm cards
I guess I've heard this word in a different context, are you talking about small cards you can hand to people? Show us an example or the amount of space you have to work with. It may just be better to link to an adequate guide, depending on your target audience.

>>10651
he wasn't an atheist
that's what i mean

>>10648
I mean the guy asked for non-reddit tier atheism so I just gave him the closest thing, Spinoza's concept of God is so far removed from typical monotheism that he might as well have been an atheist. Ethics is just too good of a read to pass

>>10654
what do you think is the typical monotheistic idea of god

>>10672
usually it is the kind of personal god that is discussed when talking about things like the problem of evil etc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god

>A personal god, or personal goddess, is a deity who can be related to as a person,[1] instead of as an impersonal force, such as the Absolute, "the All", or the "Ground of Being".

>In the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions, God is described as being a personal creator, speaking in the first person and showing emotion such as anger and pride, and sometimes appearing in anthropomorphic shape.[2] In the Pentateuch, for example, God talks with and instructs his prophets and is conceived as possessing volition, emotions (such as anger, grief and happiness), intention, and other attributes characteristic of a human person. Personal relationships with God may be described in the same ways as human relationships, such as a Father, as in Christianity, or a Friend as in Sufism.[3]

>A 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center reported that, of U.S. adults, 70% view that "God is a person with whom people can have a relationship," while 15% believe that "God is an impersonal force."[4]

>>10570
Now that i think about it intellegent materialism is a great response to the question

>>11434
Hey sir, can you post the intended curriculum here for laughs? Many of us don't truly understand the American Experience™ and this could help shed some light on it.
(Don't share anything that would be too specific to your location/school: I'm assuming it's a state-wide curriculum like we have here)

>>11447
I had one who was never explicit in his beliefs but was evidently 'left'-leaning. There was an optional activity after his lectures (night time) where he would put on films, some were comedies or culturally significant to our field of science, but many were thought-provocative like the Enron documentary (Smartest Men in the Room), 12 Angry Men, etc. and would occasionally hint at ideas of collaboration and social constructiveness in his talks. In an analytical field, it was clear he was someone who could see problems in the systems we have and why they fuck everything up for us professionally (think of the whistleblowers in the Challenger disaster that were ignored, resulting in loss of life). There was even a tutorial dedicated to rhetoric, because 'being correct or right doesn't mean anything if you can't get your boss to listen to you', and discussion dedicated to the risks and potential strategies of whisteblowing. Not comparable to what you said but a potential eye-opener, and not one that could get you fired either.
As he would say, he wasn't an educator, he was a teacher.

Teach them Victims of Communism but explicitly list Nazi soldiers as the dead

>>11442
>I think you want to emphasize the origin of the bourgeois republic in the absolutist state apparatus. Germany's civil service had a near seamless transition.
That sound sinteresting, give OP some books he could cite
>You could teach some classical economics as a gateway to the LTV.
Based
>What if you simulated an economic cycle but most students were workers and some stakeholders? You could tie both into each other, as the coordination of funds is the most important aspect of the stock market.
That will be too on the nose and risky

>>11520
Well it's important not to objectify or dehumanize the victims by merely treating them as numbers, as educators tend to do. I recommend OP also explore who these victims were and what they did.

>>11521
>give OP some books he could cite
PDF related is where I read about the German civil service. At least in European history the change from constitutional monarchy or absolutism to bourgeois democracy was less of a rupture as it is often made out to be. The point is to sidestep the "muh freedom" line of argument and accurately portray a transformation of the state apparatus. For US history this could mean focusing on the economic causes for the civil war.
>That will be too on the nose and risky
Then what is the bourgeois position on the stock market. That it's all fun and games?

https://web.archive.org/web/20220429121406/https://leftypol.org/leftypol/res/915690.html
https://leftypol.org/dead/res/2734.html
Personally I think it was ok, people think it refuted Marx or something but it doesn't. I don't see why people fight over whether cavemen only traded stuff with each other based on their immediate personal needs or not, even kids trade toys just for the sake of trading those gained with someone else.

I liked it but I'm an anarchist. It's an academic book so it can get a little overwhelming at parts with the endless cultures and their little rituals and ways of life. It's not propaganda but they do argue that there are alternatives to what we have now. From what I read it was meant to "make space" for subsequent books but I guess that's out of the window now…