Who is a teacher?

[Ananke]

Please support this, or qualify it as merely your personal opinion.

 

Welcome to the internet.

 

When were those days? Please, do tell.

 

You dont think a caveman, for instance, would be able to master all the knowledge then available? Even into the rennaisance, it was possible for one person to have read pretty much everything written, and to have an informed opinion on all the issues of the day.

 

Uhmm... hmmm.... maybe be more driven and insightful themselves? Question everything, and remain open, trying to be aware and responsible for the knowledge they acquire and motivated when seeking more...

 

People have neither the time nor the will to devote to such a thing. Any why should they? Just because you have decided to waste your life on endless study, doesnt mean other people should do so also. Most people are content not to know, and just get on with enjoying themselves.

 

This again is your personal opinion, and really does more to speak of your own insecurities and need to mentally elevate yourself above others than it does to express the current median state of human society in an aggregate manner. Oh, and it's hateful too.

 

If it is merely opinon, why is it supported so conclusively by the evidence? If I were wrong, would people really act as they do? Would people be able to say "We are an idiot nation"? If you truely doubt that most people are limited in their mental capacities, then I suggest you spend less time reading books are more time talking to people.

 

As to insecurities, I am not prone to such a thing. Neither do I seek to elevate myself over others. That I am well above average is simply a fact, and I see no reason to deny it. If you see what I said as hateful, that is your opinion, not mine. I neither hate nor love the current median state of human society, but I cannot deny the fact that they resemble perfectly a mass of drones. If it looks like a duck...

[InfiniteNow]

If it is merely opinon, why is it supported so conclusively by the evidence?

Well, considering the evidence is still lacking in your posts, I cannot comment. This is not to say that evidence does not exist, you have just failed to offer any. Please read the last few posts and support your claims, acknowledge them as merely personal opinions, or retract them entirely.

 

 

Cheers. :beer:

[Ananke]

I do not need to present evidence for things which are universally apparent, any more than I have to proove that the sky is blue.

[InfiniteNow]

I do not need to present evidence for things which are universally apparent, any more than I have to proove that the sky is blue.

Really? Let me share something with you, a guest on this site. They're called the rules.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/?page=rules

 

 

Besides, by calling something "universally apparent," you make yourself look rather foolish. You made a claim on this site, and were asked to support it by providing evidence, but have failed thus far to provide it. Let me ask, what is the next method you will use to evade my request?

 

Provide support, acknowledge it as opinion, or retract it. Someone as intelligent as you claim to be really should have no problem doing so.

[infamous]

I do not need to present evidence for things which are universally apparent, any more than I have to proove that the sky is blue.

Nothing is universally apparent Ananke, and here at Hypography, making claims without evidence is discouraged. Making statements like, "I do not need to present evidence" is rude and insulting. As Senior Moderator, I find that statement to InfiniteNow in violation of forum rules. If you cannot conduct yourself in a neighborly manner, you may find yourself subject to penalty or even bannishment. Please be advised...................Infy

[Ananke]

I simply cannot understand how anyone can not see this is true. Are there more scientists than plumbers? Do more people get the highest grades in exams than not? When anyone, anywhere on earth, can see that most people are drones, how can you deny it?

[Turtle]

I simply cannot understand how anyone can not see this is true. Are there more scientists than plumbers? Do more people get the highest grades in exams than not? When anyone, anywhere on earth, can see that most people are drones, how can you deny it?

 

drone

 

I'll take a stab at this one Ananke. First, if most people are drones in the derogatory manner you imply, then they will fail to see the droneatude in others.

Now while the term drone has a ubiquitous derogatory connotation, I find it is fallacious to so apply it. These connotations take their root from the term drone as it applies to the male honeybee and in particular because it gathers no honey, but this overlooks the vital function it serves which is to fertilize as new Queen. No drones, no bees. Their function is a vital as any.

Same too with the plumber, the maid, the waste hauler, or any job considered menial and mindless. Without them, the "elite" (or whatever term you care to apply to non-drones) would be swimming in their own filth.

To sum up, there is value in everyone whether you recognize it or not. We hold these truths to be self-evident.

[Spiked Blood]

I'm fairly sure Ananke is refering to the validity of information and people being receptible to any information they are given, not the usefulness of people as a whole.

 

I'm not sure why, in a topic interpreting the definition of a teacher, it is necessary to provide evidence to support an opinion that a teacher is accountable to the intergrity of its student.

 

Truth is barely acknowledged in modern society, and is nowhere near equal to personal gain. It is discarded, biased, manipulated and most importantly, believed by the "drones" that Ananke refers to.

 

If I read three serperate links that state that there is an inscription in the Jefferson memorial that reads "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the freedom of truth." Should I not believe that is the exact words inscribed within the monument? Or should I investigate the monument myself and prove what is written there?

 

A bare few investigate, a larger minority believe, the majority do not even care.

[Ananke]

Spiked Blood has understood my point quite clearly. I can only assume that others are being deliberately adverserial, perhaps thru some personal dislike of my position.

 

Turtle, yes, I do not deny for a second the value of such people. Neither do I believe in any kind of elite. All human activity is ultimately pointless. In fact, if you read my posts, you will see that I would tend to favour the attitude of the drone over that of the non-drone. Life is a short game that nobody in all of history has won. Why waste it persuing the impossible dream of knowledge?

[Turtle]

Turtle, yes, I do not deny for a second the value of such people. Neither do I believe in any kind of elite. All human activity is ultimately pointless. In fact, if you read my posts, you will see that I would tend to favour the attitude of the drone over that of the non-drone. Life is a short game that nobody in all of history has won. Why waste it persuing the impossible dream of knowledge?

As I do not have knowledge of all who have lived, I have no basis for concluding no one has won. If all is pointless as you say, then one just as well waste their time pursuing knowledge as any other pursuit. By your reasoning, the Wright brothers' pursuit of achieving the impossibility of flight was a waste of time; arguably however, they did win. :cup:

[Ananke]

Did they? Were are they now, then?

 

I should clarify: I mean to say, no-one survives.

[Turtle]

Did they? Were are they now, then?

 

I should clarify: I mean to say, no-one survives.

 

They are in me, so they survive. :cup: What is sure is that if one doesn't play, one cannot win.

[Ananke]

Its like that movie, Wargames. The only winning move is not to play.

[Turtle]

Its like that movie, Wargames. The only winning move is not to play.

Not playing is a play in itself. I play neither to win nor lose, but to draw. :cup:

[Spiked Blood]

They are in me, so they survive. :) What is sure is that if one doesn't play, one cannot win.

 

Hitler hit the jackpot, then, didn't he? He left a greater mark in society than any other figure of the last century, he is remembered by many, surely his was the greatest of victories. When Kennedy had his brains blown out the back of his head, was that a "win"?

 

If the Wright brothers indeed won, because you know of their actions, is that not more elitist than what Ananke was saying? By definition a winner means there is a loser. If winning is fame, then there are a LOT of losers out there.

 

There is no winning. There are no rules. There are no conditions to be completed. There is no grand plan, no higher purpose. There is life - whatever that is.

[Turtle]

There is no winning. There are no rules. There are no conditions to be completed. There is no grand plan, no higher purpose. There is life - whatever that is.

 

No better said by Humpty Dumpty himself. :) The Vorpal blade goes snicker snack. :)

[InfiniteNow]

There is no winning. There are no rules. There are no conditions to be completed. There is no grand plan, no higher purpose.

Well, as I clearly outlined above, here on Hypography, there are rules. So, considering this...

 

There is also more falsehood on earth than at any other time.

Support your claim with more than comments like, "Anybody can see this." How would you present this if, oh, I don't know, this were a science oriented site?

 

The days when one person could know all there was to know are long past.

State when this was, and support that as well. It would be quite useful as well, but not mandatory, if you could parameterize "all there is to know" and also what it is "to know." Still waiting for you to support this despite your answer.

 

Maybe you can provide an example of some beings who "knew all there was to know," since you seem so sure I'm missing something that's obvious? Per the thread at hand, a good teacher would show the student the path toward knowledge and understanding...

 

Your claims continue to be baseless outbursts against some conception of society at large which you've built up within your own mind, and I'm trying to help you either 1) remove your cranium from your tookis, or 2) convince others of the merit of your own argument.

 

Which will it be? At this rate, you have contributed nothing but your own unsupported perceptions, and I'm sure you can do better.