For those with large video libraries on their local hard drive, please consider trying my MIT Open Source Video Hub App - with scrub-able thumbnail previews of all your videos.
I got a Master's Degree in Education and spent 2 years in Educational Psychology Ph.D. program and absolutely 0 time was spent looking at how other countries do education.
It's baffling how despite numerous other countries outperforming the US in educational outcomes we do not even look at other approaches!
Yes, in the Netherlands we have a culture of moaning about everthing. Youd beter not dare suggest sonething is good enough! This complaining is the only thing we are proud of. lol
(If we had patriotic songs worth remembering im sure i would have)
The problem is this, hoe do you fix something you are proud of? It seems a contradiction?
Agreed, I lives in the Netherlands for a couple years and can agree there isn't much patriotism so much as pragmatism! (I actually mean that as a good thing, I was a very fond of NL and the friends I made there).
Speaking as an American, though, I can both be proud of something and recognize its faults. I'm proud of the core principles that America was based upon, for example, but very much recognize how far we've deviated from them and how much we need to fix.
> I'm proud of the core principles that America was based upon
I think there's never much to gain in being proud of things you have nothing to do with or control over. If you like some principles you would be proud when you uphold them personally. It is when we start feeling proud in the abstract that we start having issues.
Can't help but agree. I would go even further and say that pride itself is problematic. Sure, it can perhaps have some good effects, but pride usually blinds people to faults, even if the do acknowledge there are faults.
"Pride goeth before a fall" is a time-worn saying for good reason.
I'm not a big fan of patriotism in general, but something I noticed about the US patriotism is the tendency to call the US "the best country in the world". This crosses all political differences, e.g. I recall being surprised how Michael Moore was saying it in an interview or movie (when justifying criticising policy, he said he does it because he knows that America is the best country in the world). Even the most patriotic friends I have in other countries would typically not say this.
Yeah, as an American I've always found this cringe-worthy, even kinda icky.
Claiming to be the best (at anything) is just tacky and arrogant. Especially with something as impossible to quantify as "best country". There's no such thing as the best country in the world. Every one has strengths and weaknesses, and you can't really balance and rank them.
What does leftist mean in this context? Sure you could say the "nationalist" movements against monarchies and for more democratic processes were progressive at the time, i.e. they wanted to change the status quo. Calling them leftist in the modern sense (again with a huge caveat about what leftist even mean), doesn't make much sense IMO. Also it's important not to forget that the internationalist movements (which I'd argue fit modern definitions of "left" much more closely) developed quite quickly (in historical timeframes) after, e.g. it was only 50 odd years between the Warburg festival in Germany (generally considered the birth of German nationalism) and the Paris commune.
I guess "the best" is doing a lot of work there, for example the most sung anthem for Denmark "Der er et yndigt land" - there is a lovely land does not explicitly say that Denmark is the best ever, there may indeed be other lovely lands, and in comparison with say America the Beautiful it is downright humble, but on the other hand it is my experience that anthems talk up their country, and if they are talking up their struggle for independence or freedom, like say Il Canto degli Italiani, it will be talking up the martial valor of the people so freed and probably talking about how they aren't going to be put down again, another aspect that America the Beautiful goes into.
The difference between America the Beautiful and other anthems is how much it does, for how long, and making sure it gets everything it can possibly cram in there. It's like a bunch of people standing on a stand at a sporting match shouting "America, America, America" unremittingly, whereas most people might be satisfied to shout "Go {my country}" and be done with it.
meta: I'm again requesting that this monthly text be updated to include "4DWW" as a tag (for Four Day Work Week).
While there are very few companies offering this option, it would be an improvement for everyone to have more of this option available. Including it in a monthly message (only 4 extra characters!) would be a step in a better direction.
I'd like to highly and thoroughly endorse utilitarianism as the best moral / ethical theory / framework to live one's life by. For an up-to-date introduction at a college level of exposition please visit https://www.utilitarianism.net/
I don't particularly care for utilitarianism. It can make the fairly obvious cases rigorous, but it doesn't do a good job of drawing fine distinctions -- for example, the variations of the Trolley Problem. When two utilitarians disagree in their cost/benefit function, utilitarianism doesn't provide a mechanism to resolve it.
That's not meant to discourage anybody from utilitarianism. There is no obviously better system. And we do need some basis on which to make decisions. I am just wary of utilitarianism for myself because I distrust its potentially confident-but-wrong conclusions.
I do think it's a very useful framework for elucidating the problems. Why is it we are willing to pull a lever to let the train kill one person, but unwilling to push a fat guy in front of it? I think that utilitarianism highlights the differences for exploring the moral intuition.
I have a poorly-elaborated notion that the moral intuition has some kind of universal, biological basis -- perhaps similar in origin to Chomsky's Universal Grammar. If that's true, we might be able to learn something from the neurobiology of moral decision-making. And that might in turn put utilitarianism on a firmer footing, or prove that no such footing is possible.
I developed my own internal system of values or ethics when I was in high school. I thought it was great. Then I went to University, read Hume, Mill, et al. and realized that my thoughts were not original at all. That didn't make them less relevant, just made me a little disappointed. I spent a disillusioned year or two thinking University was just going to be giving proper names to thoughts I'd already pondered.
I used to be a utilitarian 15-20 years ago after reading the work of Peter Singer and many others. These days, I have to admit its application has been almost without exception backwards if not reprehensible. It seems to lead inevitably either to (obviously repugnant and utility-destroying) communism or a strangely twisted and fruitless hyper-rationality (think contemporary Effective Altruism).
In the end, and perhaps in service of my original utilitarian impulses, I feel that entirely abandoning utilitarianism is the right path. This is sometimes referred to as `esoteric utilitarianism`, something that Sidgwick wrote about — suggesting that even teaching people about utilitarianism (himself being a utilitarian) might be immoral. Virtue ethics has been particularly appealing!
I'm baffled by your claim about Effective Altruism (EA): "fruitless hyper-rationality (think contemporary Effective Altruism)." Fruitless? You mean the (movement of) people who have contributed billions of dollars to some of the most cost-effective charities on the planet; many of who give at least 10% of their income to such charities ... fruitless? How did you form your opinions about EA?
Utilitarian analysis inevitably is coopted by those in power to frame "good" as what the powerful want.
For example, some say it's more important to keep people's stock-invested retirement accounts solvent by increasing stock prices rather than take corporate profits and pay people who can't even afford groceries or rent, let alone invest in a retirement account.
How can the version of communism one arrives at through a utility-maximizing manner reasoning itself be "utility-destroying"? Surely whatever principles one derives out of of it has more utility than all other alternatives.
Unless you are being facetious in your characterization.
I never watched or read the series but my wife was watching it (last week actually), I passed by and saw a chase scene where they were shooting from their wands at each other and I made a comment like "Oh, it's Jason Bourne for kids.. now I see the appeal"
https://videohubapp.com/ & https://github.com/whyboris/Video-Hub-App
reply