Sold A Story - How adult politics created an American illiteracy epidemic

[Elliott]

I will say, I absolutely do believe a phonetic approach to reading is the best way to read if you don't care about writing, you're converting symbols to sounds, like someone is speaking to you, rather than consciously thinking of the meaning of a symbol, it's easier, more natural. But not to write accurately(half of literacy).

It's kind of funny.....🤔 probably right before Whole Word started, or not too long before it, words weren't standardized, people wrote more phonetically('incorrectly')...... 🤔

......spelling is conformity......

Edited 14 hours ago by Elliott

[UnbornTao]

Liking this thread!

Edited 13 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Thought Art]

@Elliott No, phonetics is taught holistically. Sound, mouth shape, air shape, and letter(s) (image). It makes writing, spelling, and reading better.

Phonetics is not incorrect. Written english is based on phonetics of our language. Phonetics is the correct way of understanding the language. 
 

Phonetics does not impede someone’s ability to read/ write and make sense of the meaning of the sentences. It actually makes it better. 
 

For me reading and writing contain many simultaneous processes. 

Edited 9 hours ago by Thought Art

[Thought Art]

@Elliott The way your mind is grasping this is very interesting to me. 

[Husseinisdoingfine]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

If you wanna learn philosophy just read Wikipedia pages. Saves you all the tedious BS.

LOL

This is one of the funniest things I've read on this site so far.

"Who needs formal academic education when you have Wikipedia ?"

-- Leo Gura

[Thought Art]

@Husseinisdoingfine The quality of Wikipedia is strong now. It has peer review at the core of the development of Wikipedia pages.

[DocWatts]

Most academic philosophy in a nutshell:

Edited 9 hours ago by DocWatts

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

LOL

This is one of the funniest things I've read on this site so far.

"Who needs formal academic education when you have Wikipedia ?"

-- Leo Gura

Paying a university to learn philosophy is literally a scam. The only reason it is done is out of conformity and ignorance.

Edited 8 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Terell Kirby]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Paying a university to learn philosophy is literally a scam.

STEM paths are pretty reliable.

Unfortunate because not everyone is into STEM, should not have to incur thousands in student debt to get a quality university experience.

[Jannes]

1 hour ago, DocWatts said:

Most academic philosophy in a nutshell:

Its a nightmare to read if you arent a good reader to begin with. 

[Basman]

I was once considering trolling a little bit by writing like Kant but that would be too much effort.

[UnbornTao]

16 minutes ago, Basman said:

I was once considering trolling a little bit by writing like Kant but that would be too much effort.

Courtesy of GPT: 

---

"At a certain prior temporal juncture, I found myself, upon reflection, engaged in the deliberation of whether it might be conceivable to undertake a minor exercise in intellectual provocation, executed through the meticulous emulation of the stylistic and discursive peculiarities endemic to the critical philosophy of Immanuel Kant; yet, upon careful consideration of the faculties of my own practical reason and the attendant limitations inherent to my present inclination and capacity for sustained exertion, I was compelled to acknowledge that the undertaking in question would require an effort so considerable as to exceed, in every relevant respect, the bounds of what I could reasonably bring myself to accomplish."

---

haha

[Basman]

For whom it should concern in matters of factual understanding, both conceptually, linguistically and ultimately philosophically, there are a number of dissimilarities relative to the conceptualization of theoretical attainment of the sort attentively and academically sound. It's a matter of simple absorption frankly. Whether or not one where to effectively attain elucidation to the aforementioned standard in a manner most conducive to one's pedagogy hinges on specific inquiries, a) the concept of knowledge, b) the accruement of novel ideas, c) idiosyncratic engrossment, and finally d) the capacity for nuanced internationalization of abstraction. Infering the notion, or notional, philosophical and philosophy of principles and metaphysical acclaims in regard to the likes Kant, Hume or various other men of letters, sages and scholars of abstraction (not to otherwise bias against the presupposition of women within the domain of philosophical abstraction, but merely referring exclusively to the aforementioned account to which cooks can cook). The underlying premise, both backwards and forwards, is entitled to a degree of serious consideration relative to the notion of witticism inherent to particular abstractions. Forwards because for there to acclaim of a modest degree, and backwards, because the exercise of intellection requires naught but esteem. The premise, as outlined, is a chain of notions, I all but attend ardently. You can assume, and rightfully so, presently a stir of commotion of the aching sense. It is no mistake. The awareness of wretchedness is naught but temporal, yet an earnest gesture of a ground not conducive to one's pedagogism as formerly outlined. If, whatsoever, the degree to which the exertion of a certain inclination towards inner absolution is questionable, but not lost on one's actual grasp. Thereby, it is better to leave godhood to gods as opposed to the absolution of haphazard subject matter of the contextual written kind. I feel it is a most important matter.

Edited 6 hours ago by Basman

[Basman]

Imagine having to read 100+ pages of that kind of nonsense every week. That is your average academic philosophy education.

And real philosophical texts are even harder to comprehend than that.

[DocWatts]

One more, courtesy of Heiddegar:

"In the name ‘being-in-the-world,’ ‘world’ does not in any way imply earthly as opposed to heavenly being, nor the ‘worldly’ as opposed to the ‘spiritual.’ For us ‘world’ does not at all signify beings or any realm of beings but the openness of Being. Man is, and is man, insofar as he is the ek-sisting one. He stands out into the openness of Being. Being itself, which as the throw has projected the essence of man into ‘care,’ is as this openness. Thrown in such fashion, man stands ‘in’ the openness of Being. ‘World’ is the clearing of Being into which man stands out on the basis of his thrown essence. ‘Being-in-the-world’ designates the essence of ek-sistence with regard to the cleared dimension out of which the ‘ek-’ of ek-sistence essentially unfolds. Thought in terms of ek-sistence, ‘world’ is in a certain sense precisely ‘the beyond’ within existence and for it. Man is never first and foremost man on the hither side of the world, as a ‘subject,’ whether this is taken as ‘I’ or ‘We.’ Nor is he ever simply a mere subject which always simultaneously is related to objects, so that his essence lies in the subject-object relation."

What's actually being said here, just in the most inefficient way imaginable:

"Mind and world are entangled. We live in the world before we start making sense of it."

Edited 6 hours ago by DocWatts

[UnbornTao]

20 minutes ago, Basman said:

For whom it should concern in matters of factual understanding, both conceptually, linguistically and ultimately philosophically, there are a number of dissimilarities relative to the conceptualization of theoretical attainment of the sort attentively and academically sound. It's a matter of simple absorption frankly. Whether or not one where to effectively attain elucidation to the aforementioned standard in a manner most conducive to one's pedagogy hinges on specific inquiries, a) the concept of knowledge, b) the accruement of novel ideas, c) idiosyncratic engrossment, and finally d) the capacity for nuanced internationalization of abstraction. Infering the notion, or notional, philosophical and philosophy of principles and metaphysical acclaims in regard to the likes Kant, Hume or various other men of letters, sages and scholars of abstraction (not to otherwise bias against the presupposition of women within the domain of philosophical abstraction, but merely referring exclusively to the aforementioned account to which cooks can cook). The underlying premise, both backwards and forwards, is entitled to a degree of serious consideration relative to the notion of witticism inherent to particular abstractions. Forwards because for there to acclaim of a modest degree, and backwards, because the exercise of intellection requires naught but esteem. The premise, as outlined, is a chain of notions, I all but attend ardently. You can assume, and rightfully so, presently a stir of commotion of the aching sense. It is no mistake. The awareness of wretchedness is naught but temporal, yet an earnest gesture of a ground not conducive to one's pedagogism as formerly outlined. If, whatsoever, the degree to which the exertion of a certain inclination towards inner absolution is questionable, but not lost on one's actual grasp. Thereby, it is better to leave godhood to gods as opposed to the absolution of haphazard subject matter of the contextual written kind. I feel it is a most important matter.

Thank God I don't know how to read.

[UnbornTao]

Quote

"Might one, in the exercise of practical reason and in accordance with the imperatives governing one’s immediate physiological necessities, inquire as to the location of the facility designated for the proper and hygienic evacuation of the human body?"

That's "Where's the bathroom?" translated.

Edited 6 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Leo Gura]

We need a Heideggerian paragraph on the metaphysics of jerking off a mule.

[zurew]

3 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Most academic philosophy in a nutshell:

This is true when it comes to reading books, but when it comes to reading academic articles (like philpapers or iep or sep articles), one's inability to track or to understand can be also explained by not doing enough thinking and reading on that specific subject or area.

We would never say the same thing about science stuff. Like imagine someone saying "yeah, when I looked up what the academia has to say about physics , well I immediately realized that it is just a bunch of empty big words that I dont understand combined sometimes with unnecessary technical detail and arguments".

Edited 6 hours ago by zurew

[Leo Gura]

Even contemporary philosophy papers are deliberately written to be more arcane than they need to be.