I don't buy this "Rebelution"

[jodokast]

For those who haven't heard about this new 'movement,' the Rebelution (rebel + revolution) was created by two teens who urge their generation (mine) to rise above the low expectations in place for them. In their book Do Hard Things they talk about how the word 'teenager' has come to represent laziness and apathy, and how we must do something quickly to change this stereotype. I agree with many of the points stated by these two individuals, and I see many of these trends among my friends and even among myself. However, the two creators have taken something that had huge potential in reshaping our generation's future and ruined it almost completely.

First off, the Rebelution is based entirely on the Christian God, and everything a 'rebelutionary' does is in the name of God. I go to church, and I believe myself to be a good Christian, but even I can see that these two zealots alienated millions of teens around the world by doing this. Secondly, after reading some of the book, I began to see how much of it seemed like exactly what our parents would say. The words "your parents are usually right" appear too much in the book for it to inspire me to utilize my teen ingenuity and individuality. This is where these two 'revolutionary idealists' went dreadfully wrong. They condemn everything that has to do with being a teenager: drug use, wild personalities, and basically fun in general. That is why the Rebelution forums only have about 4000 members. It is still a solid number, but not nearly enough to facilitate the change the creators talk about.

I'm not saying that drug use is good in any way, but I firmly believe that any generation altering movement should be broad enough to capture the imaginations of everyone around the globe. No matter the race, religion, or lifestyle. I personally know many kids that smoke weed or drink alcohol who have ten times the potential to go further than any other teenager. Trying to change the way teenagers think and act will only work if you embrace the teen years for what they are, instead of condemning them or trying to pretend like they don't exist.

This was my two cents, and I kindly urge you to make your own opinion of it - http://therebelution.com/

PM me with other thoughts or considerations on the subject.

[Daddy]

I see nothing rebel about this.

or revolutionary, it seems like another generic christian teen group

http://www.nobleinstitute.org/ is the actual place that registered the domain so it seems a bit dishonest for them to pass it off as a 'new movement' created by two teens, especially when they are the children of Gregg Harris.

And from Wiki

defined as "a teenage rebellion against the low expectations of an ungodly culture."

sounds a bit hilarious when their father as well as Chuck Norris(who has a foreword in their book) seem to fixated on destroying science education, which would seem to push high expectations.

[hotlikesauce.]

In my experience, most everything that attempts to change something while also being "in the name of God" ultimately fails or never takes off to begin with.

[Slim]

This reads like some shitty homework assignment that you decided to copy + paste here.

It's obviously fucking stupid. What's to discuss?

[Socks]

science education, which would seem to push high expectations.

science without context is meaningless. which is another way of saying "do not regard calculation a a substitute for judgment, or precision as a synonym for truth."

while i see the overall intent presented here, in its true form this is a universal and timeless idea of hope, for all of humanity. needles to say, these individuals are not  near the mark, both in terms of realization and in course of action.

[Daddy]

science without context is meaningless. which is another way of saying "do not regard calculation a a substitute for judgment, or precision as a synonym for truth."

what you just said is meaningless

really, what the hell is the "context" of science education? because i'm pretty sure by definition it would work as truth and is a replacement for judgment. you don't need to "judge" things if you know.

why would you have to "judge" the charges of ions? no you calculate that.  judge temperature? shit can be calculated. judge the mass of a planet? CALCULATION. there is no "judgement" in fact, only calculated evidence.

they are proven facts, hence being science and not pseudoscience or simply hypothesis.

while i see the overall intent presented here, in its true form this is a universal and timeless idea of hope, for all of humanity. needles to say, these individuals are not  near the mark, both in terms of realization and in course of action.

wat

[Socks]

what you just said is meaningless

To a fool, of course it is.  Furthermore, understand my point before you spew drivel.

You have to realize that whether or not it draws on new scientific research, technological progress is unquestionably a branch of moral philosophy, not of science. It is obvious the legend of Thamus has no place in your clinically classified world; it would be prudent to change that, my dear zealous Theuth.

Every inventionââ,¬â€�from an IQ test to an automobile to a television to a thermometerââ,¬â€�is a product of a particular economic and political context and carries with it a program, an agenda, and a philosophy that may or may not be life-enhancing and that therefore requires skepticism, scrutiny, criticism, and control. In short, one must maintain an epistemological and psychological distance from innovation (science) that lacks conscious. It must always appear somewhat strange, never inevitable, never natural.

The language of nature may be written in mathematics, but its soul has no need for such a tongue. You cannot assign a quantitative value to human feelings or accomplishment or insight. Numbers will never be able to calculate the qualities of mercy, love, hate, beauty, or creativity. That notion is laughable, and yet currently pervasive. It is vital to teach people independence of thought, regardless of its prevalence.

Tools can never trump ethics. Without context there is equality and blindness, with equality there is no restriction, with blindness there is no purpose, with no restriction there is chaos, without purpose there is confusion, and with confusion & chaos there is unending misery. If you have to ask where the misery is, then I suggest you open your eyes. Truth is relative, and not subservient to precision, and calculation will never replace judgment. These pairs cannot be regarded in unison, or in opposition, but complementary.

You also made the unforgivable error of regarding all information on an equal footing, because you disregard your judgment. I am not against science or progress. I am against excluding that intangible essence which makes us human by governing our being. If you exclude humanity (I do not mean population) from purpose and reason, then your formula is flawed and truly meaningless.

I am honestly shocked and appalled at some of the statements you have made. My dear sir, give your presumptions some more thought. See them from a different viewpoint, one that does not care mere impressions.

wat

Exactly.

[Daddy]

To a fool, of course it is.  Furthermore, understand my point before you spew drivel.

You have to realize that whether or not it draws on new scientific research, technological progress is unquestionably a branch of moral philosophy, not of science. It is obvious the legend of Thamus has no place in your clinically classified world; it would be prudent to change that, my dear zealous Theuth.

Every invention—from an IQ test to an automobile to a television to a thermometer—is a product of a particular economic and political context and carries with it a program, an agenda, and a philosophy that may or may not be life-enhancing and that therefore requires skepticism, scrutiny, criticism, and control. In short, one must maintain an epistemological and psychological distance from innovation (science) that lacks conscious. It must always appear somewhat strange, never inevitable, never natural.

The language of nature may be written in mathematics, but its soul has no need for such a tongue. You cannot assign a quantitative value to human feelings or accomplishment or insight. Numbers will never be able to calculate the qualities of mercy, love, hate, beauty, or creativity. That notion is laughable, and yet currently pervasive. It is vital to teach people independence of thought, regardless of its prevalence.

Tools can never trump ethics. Without context there is equality and blindness, with equality there is no restriction, with blindness there is no purpose, with no restriction there is chaos, without purpose there is confusion, and with confusion & chaos there is unending misery. If you have to ask where the misery is, then I suggest you open your eyes. Truth is relative, and not subservient to precision, and calculation will never replace judgment. These pairs cannot be regarded in unison, or in opposition, but complementary.

You also made the unforgivable error of regarding all information on an equal footing, because you disregard your judgment. I am not against science or progress. I am against excluding that intangible essence which makes us human by governing our being. If you exclude humanity (I do not mean population) from purpose and reason, then your formula is flawed and truly meaningless.

I am honestly shocked and appalled at some of the statements you have made. My dear sir, give your presumptions some more thought. See them from a different viewpoint, one that does not care mere impressions.

Exactly.

you're retarded socks

Seriously. Your pseudo-intellectual / anti-intellectual hybridization brings a idiocy to a level that has yet to receive global recognition.  First you cite "IQ tests" as having any meaning whatsoever. Then you continue with more bullshit examples that still mean nothing. The automobile? What does that have to do with anything?

Socks your post is fucking retarded I don't even know where else to begin with unraveling its arguments with layers as thin as those of an onion. Just two things

Truth is relative

Pure water freezes at 0ºC under exact conditions. There are no facts that are relative about this. They are exact and concise; there is no human emotion whatsoever attached to such.

Tools can never trump ethics

What about you?




and explain how any of your retarded post has anything to do with science education and religious nutjobs wanting to replace it mythological bullshit

[Daddy]

also socks if you want to reply make a post that actually means something.

your post makes no sense at all, you just try to shove as many words that a high school sophomore has learned into a post and then pretend its intelligent.

you come off as an imbecile to everyone except clucky who is on your dick

[Travis]

lol

[Daddy]

lol

amazing how 3 characters make more sense than his entire post

[Socks]

Socks your post is fucking retarded I don't even know where else to begin with unraveling its arguments with layers as thin as those of an onion.

Well obviously by committing to offense, scorn, and ridicule, of course.

I see that even after half a century of rebuke, Sir Charles Snow's The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution still makes inroads because there are others willing to make the same mistake as he did. We have no fight here James, all of us are Humanists, take second to think about what that implies.

Faith in science should never serve as a comprehensive belief system that pretends to give meaning to life, as well as a sense of well-being, morality, and even immortality. I find all claims that have a quarrel with that assessment to be very deceptive and baffling; in part, because such a belief blurs the distinction between processes and practices.

By "processes" I refer to those events that occur in nature, such as the orbiting of the planets or the melting of ice or the production of chlorophyll in a leaf. Indeed such processes have nothing to do with human intelligence, are governed by immutable laws, and are, so to say, determined by the structure of nature. If one were so inclined, one might even say that processes are the creation of God. To understand the processes purely to understand them, says nothing of the merits of the individual, and only of the merits of God, or nature. When one ventures beyond detached workings and into the realm of interpersonal significance, then we can say you are in the domain of "practices". I will go further and state that only then, finally, does one show a glimmer of hope in the direction of holistic intelligence. They cease to be mere Infocrats and develop into proper spiritual intellectuals. I strongly suggest you make that switch.

Anyway, not to get ahead of myself, let us continue with what practices are. They are the creations of peopleââ,¬â€�those events that result from human decisions and actions, such as writing or reading this post, forming a new government, conversing at a dinner or falling in love. These events are a function of holistic human intelligence (which encompasses more than a strict cognitive interpretation) interacting with environment, and although there is surely a measure of regularity in human affairs, such affairs are not determined by natural laws, immutable or otherwise. In other words, there is an irrevocable difference between a blink and a wink. A blink can be classified as a process; it serves a biological function, so it has physiological causes which can be understood and explained within the context of established postulates and theories. But a wink must always be classified as a practice, filled with personal and to a large extent unknowable meaning, and in any case, quite impossible to explain or predict in terms of causal relations. This is the great secret that Scientism (default present Holy Book) has sought to subvert and render false. It could not possibly be any truer, however. I offered as an example a very basic and trivial thing. Imagine, however, the profound damage which this perverted disease of thought has caused, and the extent to which it has spread and manifested itself in virtually every facet of modern human existence.

Perhaps you cannot, given you way of reason is part of the problem. You're living a hollow life, I'm afraid, equating information with knowledge, and knowledge with wisdom. To claim, essentially, that the greatest form of appreciation of, and meaning in, let's say grass, is to understand and know the process by which it exists, is rather tragic. I refer you here to the works of Whitman and Thoreau (if you want specific recommendation of where to start, I will gladly oblige), and the notion of 'improved means to unimproved ends'. Seek and consider your convictions, character, and soulââ,¬â€�cultivate them. By doing so you will develop a great understating and acknowledgment of, in this case water, even before you worry about under what conditions it freezes, or even know that it does.

So what we call science, then, is the quest to find the enduring and universal laws that govern processes, presuming that there are cause-and-effect relations among these processes. It follows that the quest to understand and regulate human behavior and feeling can in no sense except the most trivial be called science. We can say, fairly, that by the very nature of the occupation (yes, it is a business) a scientist studies things independently of what people think and do about them. Unfortunately, the opinions people hold about the external world or the internal one are, to scientist, always an obstacle to be overcome. Total abandonment of dogma forââ,¬Â¦ perpetualism, with nothing as a guide but itself. There needs to be a balance, cohesion, and unification. The former must always be at least somewhat responsible for the latter, or else you risk progressing backwards spiritually while moving forward  materially; that is an unstable and unsustainable format. Because as we all know, a scientist's pictureof the world is quite different (not necessarily "better") from what most people believe the world to be like. This fissure appears due to a lack of universal purpose and moral application, the very way in which humanity has actually developedââ,¬â€�recklessly, on all sides. Moreover, in their zealous-like desire for objectivity, scientists proceed on the assumption that the objects they study are indifferent to the fact that they are being studied. This "fact" relieves the scientist of inquiring into their values and motivations, and for this reason alone their derived opinions are largely meaningless (in terms of authority) in these areas of conscious. Because it is a misuse of context.

Now, my dear sir, you enter into the art of philosophy and of ethics, in which science has no business being. When you want to abandon your safe and simple world of concrete functions, I stand ready with open arms to welcome you into the intricate and, dare I say it, subjective! You will find here that one relies not so much in empiricism, but reflection. You are your own source, medium, and measuring stick. Are you ready to stop being led by the hand? Are you ready to stop believing in something that merely proclaims you have to go, but does not offer words for why you must go, or where it is you will end up? It is and exhilarating alternative James, and very enlightening. But it is no fool's game, even if fools regard it as such.

Building on the above, I will conclude this winded (though hopefully not futile) reply with the field of education. Under the prevailing modern view we first attempt improve the education of our youth by improving what are called "learning technologies". At the moment, it is considered necessary to introduce computers to the classroom. To the question "Why we should do this?" the answer is: "To make learning more efficient and interesting." Such an answer is considered entirely adequate, since in Scientism efficiency and interest need no justification. It is, therefore, usually not noticed that this answer does not address the question "What is learning for?" "Efficiency and interest" is a technical answer, and answer about means, not ends; and it offers no pathway to consideration of educational philosophy. Indeed, as mentioned previously, it stifles the way to such a consideration by beginning with the question of how we should proceed, rather than with the question of why. It is probably not necessary to say that, by definition, there can be no education philosophy that does not address what learning is for. Because I assure you, it is not for receiving employment and forcing others into peril.

Confucius, Plato, Quintilian, Cicero, Comenius, Erasmus, Locke, Rousseau, Jefferson, Russell, Kant, Montessori, Whitehead, and Dewey (to name but a few)ââ,¬â€�each believed that there was some transcendent political, spiritual, or social idea that must be advanced through education; universal truth for all Mankind.  Confucius advocated teaching "the Way" because in tradition he saw the best hope for social order. Plato wished education to produce philosophical kings. Cicero argued that education must free the student from the tyranny of the present. Jefferson thought the purpose of education is to teach how to protect one's liberties. Rousseau wished education to free the young from the unnatural constraints of a wicked and arbitrary social order. Kant sought to convey the power of human reason and perception in existence, and to warn against its many dangers. And among John Dewey's aims was to help the student function without certainty in a world of constant change and puzzling ambiguities. Only in knowing something of the reasons why they advocated education can we make sense of the means they suggest.

But to understand their reasons we must also understand the narratives the governed their view of the world. By narrative, I mean a story of human history that gives meaning to the past, explains the present, and provided guidance for the future. It is a story whose principles help a culture to organize its institutions, to develop ideals, and to find authority for its actions. At great risk of further insult, I shall point out that the source of the world's greatest narratives has been religion, as found, for example, in Genesis or the Bhagavad-Gita or the Koran, etcââ,¬Â¦ Do not confuse me for a fundamentalist. I simply ponder what some have observedââ,¬â€�as did the great historian Arnold Toynbeeââ,¬â€�that without an encouraging and meaningful (not literal) and comprehensive religious (spiritual) narrative as its core a culture must decline. To that I say, perhaps. There are, after all, other sourcesââ,¬â€�mythology, politics, philosophy, and science, for exampleââ,¬â€�but it is certain that no culture can flourish and approach some utopian desire without narratives of transcendent origin and power.

Do not dismiss what came before you, do not laugh at antiquity, and do not regard men of history as simply men of vintage. As Cicero put it, "To remain ignorant of the things that happened before you were born is to remain a child."
I hope you understand me James. To quote Whitman, "These are really the thoughts of all men in all ages and lands, they are not original with meââ,¬Â¦" Maybe you cannot understand me. I admit, it seems as if you are woefully unprepared in the skill of inferring and insight. Probably you enjoy procedural and directional modes of communication and conveyance, such as literature on coding or mathematics, while others prefer prose in allegorical and existential form.

Finally, I conclude by saying that the careful and impartial reader will also notice the lack of direct insult in my argumentââ,¬â€�no ad hominem. He will also observe the citing of people as sources, because I consider them the reservoir from which wells are drawn. You might want to consider this humble exercise in restraint of one's ego, clarity in one's thoughts, calm in one's emotions. Rrespect and admire people for who they are, not simply for what they have created and done.

May you have a swell day.

Sincerely yours,

Socks.

[Thyme]

[Classic]

I was tempted to post a bored image, but Thyme did a magnificent job.

Socks, you're talking to yourself. You're not impressing anyone.

[Slim]

Reading over Socks' last post made my nipples erect.