What do you answer when the kids ask you, "Why ought we question authority?"

I teach them how ideology works to mystify reality and feed us all sorts of lies and distortions about what's what. That's the short version; I can send you my Critical Thinking handout if you want to see it.

"And what do you answer, when the kids don't question you? But slavishly write in their notes, "We must question authority. We must not tell him that we follow this advice."

I accept them where they're at: if they are content staring at the shadows on the wall, I'm not going to force them to go outside the cave before they're ready.

"And what mark does a kid get who does not question you, but answers all questions on his test the precise way you taught him to answer them? — god must be atheist

When they excel in the subject matter (in the Humanities), they earn As. I tell them, It doesn't matter if you never use this subject matter again in your life, because you've gotten better at learning, which is the skill you want to strengthen all your life.

This could lead only to two different responses — god must be atheist

I challenge this assertion. I have found that both online and in person, it takes time to learn another's language with its nuances and inflections. This is exactly what I'm talking about in the Bakhtin topic.

I have found that I understand a couple of my friends on another forum much better after writing with them for three years. Of course, this won't happen with an irrational person or a troll...

I teach them how ideology works to mystify reality and feed us all sorts of lies and distortions about what's what. That's the short version; — god must be atheist

This is no version; it does not address my question at all.

When they excel in the subject matter (in the Humanities), they earn As. I tell them, It doesn't matter if you never use this subject matter again in your life, because you've gotten better at learning, which is the skill you want to strengthen all your life. — uncanni

This ain't an answer either. If the kid does not question you, obviously he ought to get a failing mark. If the kid questions you, then obviously his only thesis coudl be that he rejects the notion that he must question authority, and therefore he did not internalize the subject matter.

In any way, this is a great way to give all students always a failing mark.

Ya da man.

If you called me a troll, you simply reject the reasoning in my criticism. It's fine, but the logic is infallible that you can't teach to question authority. Please see the last part of my comment.

What do you answer when the kids ask you, "Why ought we question authority?" — god must be atheist

You asked me what I answer. I told you. Next you write that it doesn't address your question at all. That is confusing.

And I was not calling you a troll, not by any means!!! I'm saying that there's no dialogue with a troll.

Okay, thanks.

What about the last part of my tri-part question of your teaching?

If a kid questions you, when you teach "You must question authority", then his or her only thesis could be that s/he must not teach authority, therefore they get a failing mark for not internalizing the subject material.

If a kid does not question you, the authority figure, then he or she obviously did not internalize the subject material.

Both ways they deserve a failing mark.

If you were honest in your marking system, therefore, you would have to fail the entire class each time you have a session.

"And what do you answer, when the kids don't question you? But slavishly write in their notes, "We must question authority. We must not tell him that we follow this advice." — god must be atheist

I'm not da man; I'm da woman. And if you knew the concrete circumstances of my students, you would realize that this isn't an exercise in following the logical consequences of questioning authority to its limits, but rather one more along the lines of pedagogy of the oppressed. Are you familar with Paulo Freire? He wrote Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

I apologize for mistaking your gender. I had no way of knowing. You never gave an indication.

But we came to an understanding that you are a woman. DESPITE my assuming you were a man.

So the dynamic was precisely what I advised: I assumed, and you corrected me. I did not have to ask you "Are you a man or a woman", to which you'd maybe answer, "What concern is that to you?" and I would answer, "Why are you asking me if that is a concern to me?" etc.

I don't know if this will help or just send us farther down the rabbit hole. I teach a subject matter; students pass or fail my classes. I hand out a syllabus and I tell them that they have to follow my rules or they can take the course with someone else. Then I proceed to teach my subject matter.

However, I consider this the least important aspect of what I teach my students. There are moments, either in class or in my office, where a real teaching moment, a genuine dialogic moment can occur.

And if you knew the concrete circumstances of my students, you would realize that this isn't an exercise in following the logical consequences of questioning authority to its limits, but rather one more along the lines of pedagogy of the oppressed. — uncanni

Same dialogue. If I knew. How would I know? You told us? I simply went by what you told us on the post. I calls them as I sees them. If I assumed that they had special circumstances, then I'd also have the right to assume they were Martians, or that they were Cantaloupes, or that they only speak Sanskrit while your teaching language is English.

You must assume, as a writer, that people will read what you write, and some of the readers will not assume more than what they read. IF there are special circumstances that must be considered to not treat the topic logically, then you must inform the readers. Which you are doing now.

This is acceptable, of course, to correct the readers' perception if the reality is not precisely what you first wrote.

I don't know if this will help or just send us farther down the rabbit hole. I teach a subject matter; students pass or fail my classes. I hand out a syllabus and I tell them that they have to follow my rules or they can take the course with someone else. Then I proceed to teach my subject matter.

However, I consider this the least important aspect of what I teach my students. There are moments, either in class or in my office, where a real teaching moment, a genuine dialogic moment can occur. — uncanni

Do I detect that you don't teach what you originally told us you teach?

You told us origianlly that you teach your students to question authority.

Now you tell us you teach something different.

How would this stand up to some authority who is judging you for consistency? I am not that authority, but still, moving the goal posts of the argument is not very nice.

If I assumed that they had special circumstances, then I'd also have the right to assume they were Martians, or that they were Cantaloupes, or that they only speak Sanskrit while your teaching language is English. — god must be atheist

I wrote, concrete circumstances--not special. And certainly, you can assume any number of absurdities that you wish. I don't think you and I mean the same thing when we refer to questioning authority.

I hand out a syllabus and I tell them that they have to follow my rules or they can take the course with someone else. — uncanni

So in effect you don't tolerate your students to question your authority. "It's my way or the highway", you say on the day you hand out the syllabus.

Not very pedagoguical, I'd say. You fail them for doing precisely what you teach them to do.

Exactly what I had predicted.

questioning authority. — uncanni

What do you mean by that? Let's sort this out as well. You say I assumed you meant something different than what you meant.

So let's hear what you meant. Please.

Do I detect that you don't teach what you originally told us you teach?

You told us origianlly that you teach your students to question authority.

Now you tell us you teach something different. — god must be atheist

I teach many different things to my students. Is that really so hard to understand? I don't think I've ever known a professor who only taught one thing in the sense that you seem to mean.

Who is this "we"? Is that the royal we?

Not very pedagoguical, I'd say. You fail them for doing precisely what you teach them to do.

Exactly what I had predicted. — god must be atheist

Go back and read again, buddy. I work at a university and I'm paid to teach a subject matter. I don't teach or practice anarchy.

So back to the crystal ball with you to seek another prediction!

I calls them as I sees them.

You wrote this originally:

I teach students to question authority and more than anything else, I try to get a dialogic flow going between them and me. — uncanni

You gave no indication at all beyond this about what you teach. I ASSUMED NOTHING BEYOND THIS AS YOUR TEACHING SUBJECT MATERIAL. YOU ARE HANGING ME FOR NOT ASSUMING MORE THAN WHAT YOU SAY.

I teach many different things to my students. Is that really so hard to understand? I don't think I've ever known a professor who only taught one thing in the sense that you seem to mean.

Who is this "we"? Is that the royal we — uncanni

We are the users of the forum. Many people read these posts, not just you and me. When you say here something, you tell not just me, but POTENTIALLY all that can and do read our dialogue.

I don't teach or practice anarchy. — uncanni

Then you did not say the truth when you first posted about what you taught.

You clearly said, you teach your students to question authority.

I proved it to you in logical terms that you must then fail the whole class if you do that.

You said that is not you teach, in order to justify why you don't fail the whole class.

I am sorry, this is a philosophy forum, where logic is supposed to reign.

Many people read these posts, not just you and me. — god must be atheist

I will be surprised--nay, amazed--if anyone has the patience to read the above exchange. But of course, anyone has the right to chime in.

I am sorry, this is a philosophy forum, where logic is supposed to reign. — god must be atheist

I don't see any logic to your arguments above. I see you wilfully distorting some of the things I wrote, and I conclude that it amuses you to do so. You call it employing logic??? What is logical about concluding that a professor teaches one thing only? This is crazy.

I also conclude that you have an urgent need to "win arguments."

Yes, I admit I enjoy winning arguments. Don't ask me why.

No, I did not distort your story. And the logic stands. You wrote you teach your students to quesion authority. I proved that then you must fail all your students.

Then you said you teach other stuff as well. So did I bend the story line? No, instead, you have given too simplistic a description of what you teach. With what you gave, I was right, and my conclusion was dead on.

Then you introduced other elements... which means that your oriiginal description was not true! This thing I can't be blamed for, and I resent the accusation that I distorted your story. I distorted nothing, I just went with precisely what you said.

You then said I ought to know that the entire curriculum was not restrcted to teaching your students to question authority. How would I know that? You SAID what you taught; it is invalid to think that I should have known more. I knew as much as you told me, nothing less, nothing more.

I beleived you; then you changed your story. I believe you gave a better picutre in the new version, in the changed story of what was close to realliy; in fact, I don't doubt you do also what you said you additionally do. But that was after an argument was too tight for you. You had to introduce new, true stuff, which I had no way of knowing ahead of time.

I therefore resent that you claim I distorted your story of how and what you teach. You gave partial information, and I beleived it; I drew the consequences; then you changed your story.

-----------------

You also said something, do I think you are an anarchist or something similar. You DID say you were a subversive.

You presented things that lead to a self-contradiction, then you rewrote the things. And then you accused me of distorting your story.

If I may interrupt this argument to extend the principle of charity to the OP, I think they are aiming to espouse essentially the core of philosophies like Stoicism or Buddhism: that the proper goal in life, the way to eudaimonia, the good life, is to attain peace by freeing oneself from desires about things beyond one's control, to attend to and accept things here and now rather than worrying needlessly over distant (in space, time, or metaphorically otherwise) matters over which one has no control.

But back on the topic of this argument,
are you familiar with the principle of charity? It seems to me like you could stand to extend it a bit more to uncanni, whom I read as saying that she is employed to professionally teach a university course (on some subject matter unspecified, though I would guess philosophy from context), and in that course she has to make rules against which her students will be graded; but that, in a more casual sense of "teaching", an important principle she tries to convey to her students is the importance of questioning authority, which NB is not equivalent to disobeying authority. She is not, I'm pretty sure, saying that she grades her students on how well they follow her (hypothetical) instructions to not follow her instructions.

Thanks for your views. All of the past nor all of the future is, as you put it, faleshood. I mean the past is a learning opportunity and the future is a planning opportunity and the present is where you apply what you've learned and plan for the future.

If, according to you, only the present is of value then you'd be repeating the mistakes of your past and that doesn't sound so enjoyable.

Perhaps you mean some of our past is worth forgetting and some of our future is not worth the energy spent on planning.

are you familiar with the principle of charity? It seems to me like you could stand to extend it a bit more to uncanni, whom I read as saying that she is employed to professionally teach a university course (on some subject matter unspecified, though I would guess philosophy from context), and in that course she has to make rules against which her students will be graded; but that, in a more casual sense of "teaching", an important principle she tries to convey to her students is the importance of questioning authority, which NB is not equivalent to disobeying authority. She is not, I'm pretty sure, saying that she grades her students on how well they follow her (hypothetical) instructions to not follow her instructions. — Pfhorrest

How does this explain the principle of charity? You, @Pfhorrest, set out to explain it to me, and then you did not, but instead told me what @uncanni has assured me of later in her posts.

What is the principle of charity? I wish to learn it from you.

If you promise something, then please deliver it.

Okay, I read the link in Wikipaedia, and it makes sense now.

Please tell me the name of the process that is the opposite of "Principle of Charity". I suffer from autism, very badly, and to me words are words, with meanings. If I have to extrapolate from the words' meanings, in my view it leads to extremely dangerous territory, as extrapolation can lead to ANY INTERPRETATION.

I like to not fall into the trap of false interpretation, and therefore I am unable to use the Principle of Charity. This is in my nature and conviction as an autist and as a person who has experienced life.

unicanni herself, and probably you, too, advocate to not assume things that are false. That is laughable. How do I discern between a false assumption and a non-false one? I read words, understand them, and form opinions based on what they mean. I don't go beyond that, becasue to do that, I need to make assumptions, and you and uncanni are against making false assumptions, while you don't give guidance how to differentiate between false and true assumptions.

The only guide this Principle of Charity gives is to make the statements lacking in crucial detail filled in so that it makes sense and logical congruence. Even then, the sky is the limit of possible assumptions.

I am sorry, I can't use the principle of charity. In fact, it can be used, but I don't condone it.

With regard to the above, that is, my view on Principle of Charity: If you refuse to use it, then the holy scriptures of any and all religions appear to be bullshit to you. I can't afford to give the interpreters of holy scriptures that freedom of escaping from the truth. If I agreed to use the Principle of Charity, then I give the green light to interpreting scriptures.

IN other words, if I used the principle of charity, then I deny that scripture interpreters are simply rationalizating a completely false claims. And I refuse to deny that.

I'm sorry your autism gives you difficulty with this. I've long suspected I might be somewhere on the spectrum too so you have my sympathies in that regard.

I find the principle of charity actually quite helpful when it comes to figuring out what assumptions to make. Natural language is ambiguous, the same words can mean different things to different people, and I often find myself facing a statement or question from someone that I can see multiple different interpretations of, and that makes me really uncomfortable because I'm afraid to assume one of those interpretations and maybe make a false assumption. I find that the principle of charity helps with that conundrum because it basically says to pick the interpretation that makes the other person seem to make the most sense, which is simultaneously the assumption that's most likely to be correct (as in accurately understanding what they mean) and also even if it's not, the one least likely to upset them, because at worst you'll have assumed they're smarter than they are.

For example, in my job as a graphic designer, I often get requests for things that, on my first (and to my ear, most literal) interpretation of things, sound like requests for things that are impossible or at least really obviously bad ideas. But rather than write back and say that, I ask myself, what might they have meant by this that would be possible and not a horrible idea, even if I think that the actual words they used would be an awful way to put that? More often than not, what I guessed ends up being what they wanted, and when it's not, the feedback is usually "oh wow, no that's not what I meant but this makes so much more sense!"

You can think of it, if you like, as "what mistakes did this person probably make to end up saying this nonsense when they surely set out to say something that was supposed to make sense?" Like, for a trivial example, if you see someone say that "the cat brought it's pray to me as a gift", the literal interpretation "the cat brought it is beseech-a-deity to me as a gift" makes no sense at all, but it's easy to see that they probably meant "its" and "prey", and then they make perfect sense. The principle of charity is like that, but for things besides just grammar and spelling.

I'm a hard core atheist myself, and I do have serious qualms about liberal interpretations of supposedly authoritative holy texts to willfully reinterpret them in a way that is more acceptable to the modern ear while also claiming that they are the inerrant word of God, but I don't think the principle of charity requires you to do that. You can still think that someone is saying something false. It's just a matter of trying to make sure you understand what they're trying to say, and if it seems like they're saying something that would probably seem obviously false even to themselves, then that's probably not what they're trying to say. In the case of religious texts, the authors lived thousands of years ago and lacked much of the knowledge we have today, so it's more reasonable to think that they were saying things that we know are false, but might not have been obviously false to them. In some cases, it does seem reasonable to imagine that they might have been speaking poetically or metaphorically. (For example I was just writing an essay on existential dread and such, which included a note on the possibility that the story of Adam and Eve "did not know death" until eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil could be a metaphorical way of saying that people were carefree and worry-free and had no knowledge of their impending deaths and other dooms back when they were all unthinking animals, and it is the cognitive ability that defines modern humanity that also dooms us to existential dread and such, a metaphorical loss of the paradise of ignorance).

But I guess I'm basically saying that you need to try to get inside the other person's head and think of things from their perspective, and I know that's something that autism makes very difficult, so maybe that's not something I can so easily ask you to do.

I agree with that hypothetically, but in practice, contingently, even single long posts on the board are never focused. — Terrapin Station

Focused on what?

A topic or issue.

You mean the topic or issue of the OP then?