[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon

| Catalog | Home

File: 1647357862700.jpg (20.88 KB, 254x400, 9780300257304.jpg)


Has anyone read picrel yet? Is it any good, or just more Applebaum tier trash? Obviously I'm not expecting a Leftist take, but anything critical of the usual "the people rose up to overthrow le evil tyranny" narrative would be good, even from the right. I think I heard the WarNerd guys rexerence it, so thought maybe it's not complete shit.


How should I go around teaching a kid a new language?
4 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


the best way to taech a kid a language is to speak it around them at home


Thanks comrade. i am a esl kindergarten teacher and i really really need theory. My school has me essentially coming up with my own cirriculum.

Is there any resources you could point me to on education theory ideally around:
Kindergarten and child development
english as a second language.

I am fucking drowning here so literally anything you can send me helps enormously


Also anything to do with cirriculum creation. I'm reading a book called "how we learn" which is pretty obvious what its about, but it's taught me about spacing and the study test study cycle and what spacing tests are best at retaining knowledge at.

My problem has been that i don't really know what areas of speech i should focus on. Should i teach them verbs and create stories around that that incorporates the target language? should i teach them common sentences? "how old are you? how are you?" etc I don't know if i'm actually teaching the kids anything. I mean i see them pick up some shit but i dunno mang.
sorry babbling. but yeah, i could really use some help


Posting again in hopes of finding any people to help.
I'm again working for a kindergarten that doesn't know what they are doing.

I am trying to find a bunch of decodable books for the kids to read that are genuinely interesting to them.

Does anyone know anything that's like sci-hub for childrens books?


Maybe try the comics section of https://libgen.li/ or something like http://m.fanfox.net/manga/cardcaptor_sakura

File: 1647162414670-1.jpg (477.34 KB, 1573x2048, richelieu.jpg)

File: 1647162414670-2.jpg (236.73 KB, 1050x1600, mcnamara.jpg)


I have recently started reading "Voltaire's Bastards, the Dictatorship of Reason in the West" by John Ralston Saul and I would like to start a thread to further discuss the book. I haven't read too much of it, however it does seem to possit a rather unique worldview and critique of modern (and by modern I mean last 200 years modern) political theory.

The book mainly possits that Reason, which first rose as an ideological tool to combat the divine right of the absolutist rule of the feudal monarchs, had mutated over the years into becoming the same type of tool of social control, a modern cult to justify the divine right of the technocrats. According to Ralston, this extends to all modern ideologies, as in his eyes communism, socialism, capitalism, fascism or nazism are all the same sort of ideologies of absolute solutions, trying to enforce their own types rationality and reason onto the world, while in the end reinforcing the same sort of rule of technocrats, be they soviet politburo or western business elites.

The book seems to be written from a rather idealist position, as to Ralston the main feature of the current age is the absolute dominance of Reason, which prohibits any critiques of the current order by either making it seem irrational and thus mute, or by entangling it into its own language of rationality. The book states that the worst part is that other perspectives of human thought in decision making that lay outside reason have all been marginalized - things like humanism, common sense, emotion or faith - and deemed lower than the perspective of reason.

I originally started reading the book as it seemed like it makes a good attack against the technocratic mindset of capitalism deffenders, which I rather struggled in arguing against when I encountered it, however from what I read, the book also raises claims against the validity of Marxism, and is set to lump it in together with the capitalist ideology. So, I was wondering, are there any Marxist replies to Ralston? Because what I read right now seems like a really prophetic critique of neoliberalism (the book came out right after the fall of USSR), thus its making me want to at least revisit my Marxist positions and see if they hold up.

File: 1646438156267.jpg (39.75 KB, 333x499, beyondleviathan.jpg)


This shit is bullshit, right? The big three (Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau) begin their axiomatic construction of state power that we are totally atomized individuals and social interaction is constructed entirely through self interested contractual bargaining.

Is our entire western political system actually built upon these ideas? WTH?

Also: is pic related any good?



i never signed a contract.


File: 1647103749768.png (1010 KB, 1066x1303, ClipboardImage.png)

K, do it now.


Greetings comrades, I’m searching for books about class in the states that cover history and evolution of class and present day class conditions. Any help would be greatly appreciated!



If there is an objective reality, aren't interpretations of it merely falsehoods besides 1 truthful description of reality? I understand that every perspective is innately subjective, but theoretically, if there is an objective reality, then what we call interpretations could only be falsehoods besides 1 interpretation that actually describes reality as it is.
4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


>If we have an objective reality, which is described by a set of information, then we have enormous amounts of subsets of it. Each can be used to create a model of reality. Each could be strung up in irrational ways. So I would say it's wrong to say only very few reality models are complete falsehoods. Considering the total amount that you could create, we actually have many.
No this is moving the goal post, we're talking about models of the world that people actually use.

>To me, I will call it a falsehood if the interpretation has a falsehood in it and the interpretation, therefore, deviates from the one and only fully truthful description of objective reality.

Perfectionism is stupid. All model have errors, it doesn't make them falsehoods, it just limits their applicability.

>But that's talking about two different things here. I agree that you mental life objectively exists as physiological processes in your brain, but the experience of reality from your perspective is subjective.

Experience of mental life is still a physiological process in the brain. There is nothing beyond physiological processes in the brain. All the consciousness is included in that, there is nothing that is separate from objective reality.


Your insistent misunderstanding and strawmanning of what subjectivity is stems from having read Paul Cockshott, as opposed to Kant or any actual philosopher.


My belief is that there is an actual physical reality (things like where actual physical matter resides in space and time (and etc.?), this is real and non-negotiable, it is beyond the subjectivity of interpretation because it is not an interpretation), and all interpretations by an organic being (human or otherwise) are inherently subjective. No-one has the exact same eyes, the same location, the same brain connections, and thus our realities may be generally congruent but are always a subjective interpretation of our environment that will differ from others in some way.
I also believe that mathematical/scientific interpretations will almost-if-not-inevitably be false for similar reasons. It seems like limitations of measurement alone force any interpretation to be subjective.

am i doing it right? I haven't studied this area of philosophy either.


And to link the above to OP's question,
>then what we call interpretations could only be falsehoods besides 1 interpretation that actually describes reality as it is.
This is a very binary view of the situation. The subjective realities most likely have truths in them, even if they contain many falsehoods. I would call them generalizations, for things that aren't even wrong but aren't the full reality. Is there a real 'blue'? It's a relative social construct; yes, even the number of nanometers we collectively decided was perfect blue wavelength. It's a mathematical interpretation of light we felt made sense to label 'blue'.
But, if you must be absolute, interpretations are ultimately different to reality. I wouldn't even say false; what is success in an interpretation?


Interpretations are symbolic for reality, some being more correct than others. That is how mythology can still be inciteful. Philosophy is mythology devoid of narrative and expressed in logical categories.

File: 1645310162934.png (1.35 MB, 1824x1104, CubanoTalk.png)


What exactly is Charisma? How much of it can be learned? I tried looking at sources for this(Wikipedia articles for example), but most of them seem only tangentially related to the topic. Books and resources are appreciated.
7 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Again, where theory?


Mfr really be asking for sources for charisma and a reading list


welcome to /edu/


"how do I become blessed by god?" Oh my sweet, sweet child…
>Max Weber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_authority
"he identified the term as a prime example of action he labeled "value-rational," in distinction from and opposition to action he labeled "Instrumentally rational."
"Weber indicates that it is followers who attribute the individual with supernatural or superhuman powers, emphasizing that "the recognition on the part of those subject to authority" is decisive for the validity of charisma"
>Marxist evolution nature dialectics: "Charismatic leadership and the evolution of cooperation" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513816300174?via%3Dihub
"A fundamental challenge to understanding our evolved psychology is to explain how cooperative or prosocial behaviors are maintained despite the immediate temptation to free-ride. We propose that charismatic leadership and followership can be best understood as a product of this recurrent, fitness-relevant selection pressure for adaptations that effectively promoted and sustained prosocial behaviors within groups."


Some people are born into it; they have the character and therefore the behavior and social savviness to pull it off. Others do not have it innately but can learn to be socially savvy and gain charisma, some people, usually socially awkward or timid people (or autists) can't learn it at all, even if they may technically understand it.

File: 1638820515251.jpg (26.84 KB, 504x373, grant3.jpg)


how is histmat supposed to help us get to communism? are we still supposed to just support socdem movements? what especially does it mean now in the regressive post-industrial landscape of the past 40-50 years of neoliberalism, if not the entire past century since WWI?


The same way a physics textbook could get us to the moon. As for actual strategy, that's a question thay will vary from place to place. At some points collaboration with the social democrats will be advantageous. At others, strict opposition will be a necessity.


What do you think histmat is and why do you believe it could help us do communism, and how would it help us?


we have to see capitalism through to it's end no matter what


>What do you think histmat is
like figuring out the horrific machinations and implications of commodity fetishism and just like figuring out what to do with that knowledge
extremely late reply, sorry

File: 1645641454120.jpg (39.51 KB, 483x586, stalinvhitler.jpg)


Hey comrades, any of you know any good history books for beginners that aren't too bougie? Or just history books in general? Also textbooks if you know of any.

As always post the pdf if you have it.



"A people's history of the world" by Howard Zinn


Open Veins of Latin America

File: 1641604170351.jpg (58.83 KB, 306x500, 51CYR088YHL.jpg)


"The transformation to a neo-colonial world has only begun, but it promises to be as dramatic, as disorienting a change as was the original European colonial conquest of the human race. Capitalism is again ripping apart and reconstructing the world, and nothing will be the same. Not race, not nation, not gender, and certainly not whatever culture you used to have." —from the preface


As of 07/01/2022: Ch. 2-7 in need of formatting. All chapters in need of citation links. Needs proofreading.


File: 1645750580512.pdf (5.32 MB, 255x197, night-vision.pdf)


Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]
[ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 29 / 30 / 31 / 32 / 33 / 34 / 35 / 36 ]
| Catalog | Home