/edu/ - Education

>>11719
Or possibly they're looking for autonomism

>>11715
i are many smarts

>>11722
thats ok, anon, you don't need to contribute to be worthy of love
/b/ is where you'll find the discourse you want
>>11717
idk if this is sarcastic or not, but it's not at all an easy answer. One thing that's really annoying with socialist revolutionaries (like lenin e.g.) is how much they talked as if revolution was itself the goal and highest value to be achieved. It's one thing to laugh off philosophical charlatans pretending to be all objective, and assert your goals which align with your class, but when you need to rest on absolutely solid ground it's not good enough to leave open room for nihilist and pragmatist critiques, and force skepticism out of its safe spot before the crossroads of idealism or materialism.
>>11716
Why?
>>11719
it's not about technical professionals having final political say (out of the scope of their work - though obviously i'm not discounting the socialist tradition of critiquing professional cretinism and the need for people under socialism to be more broadly educated and all disciplines of science to be brought into communication and agreement) or AI rule or anything. Idk maybe ur right tho i don't know much about technocracy
>>11721
i think that's smth totally unrelated

>>11724 (me)
*and you gotta force skepticism out of its safe spot

>>11715
Read "The Democratic Principle"

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?

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…