It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Similarities between the government in the book 1984 and the US Public schools - its scary.

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 12:15 AM
Consider your education to be worthless, but go through the motions. Get those test books wired, simplify your education process to obtain the highest possible grades. Get as many test taking books as you can and review those things, while learning the lingo that gets good grades in essays. Minimize you official study time, while maximizing the grades you get.

Now that you have the game process wired with straight A grades as much as possible, do you own homework, and make your actual education a separate process now that you have mastered the jargon of your worthless education. It is time to transition in all this into your authetic education, finding books that kindle your interest but recognizing that all you have learned in those regular school lessons is highly likely to be wrong for you. Don't do anything stupid such as telling others about your separate homework interests, but you might drop hints about it. You may find it a struggle to smuggle your actual ideas into the stultifying so called education process at school, but it may be worth it. You risk a bad grade but you might learn something.

Don't go around rebeling when you discover all your education is a worthless fraud, just play the game while you expand your knowledge as a separate process. Going through encyclopedias can be very helpful. but also the internet allows a real education, not the Fox news education that you are geting in school. Remember these people are setting their standards at the lowest common denominator, and want you to fail and go into the military or to some low wage job, or to jail for that matter. They do not care about you at all, even though they pretend to care. Be sure to avoid drugs that might push on you, you may at some point actually be more knowledgeable than the teachers. They could offer you ritalin or any other number of psychotic drugs to ruin your life. Use your separate knowledge to defeat these people, although it may be a hard battle since your schools try to assume to the role of God with ungodly methods. They are paid by federal mandates to ensnare you into false diagnoses. Read up this subject on the internet. Try to educate your parents, and learn books such as the Gentle Art of Verbal Self Defense by Suzette H. Elgin.

Find your real education and calling, but remember that it is highly unlikely you will find it in school. Keep your new found knowledge fairly secret, because other students can tend to despise it as much as your so called educators. They are trapped in standards as much as anyone, and do not want to "rock the boat." Usually competent teachers are either promoted to serior staff, or end their careers when they insist upon really teaching. Tread carefully, but remember in any age authentic knowledge is basically hated by those who fall into rote agreement with authority. The quality of your education both in the nominal game playing part and even moreso in your authetic separate efforts, is highly likely to be the most fulfilling of things you ever do in your life. The best part is those very special moments when you will have the opportunity to apply the sum of that knowledge.

[edit on 1-4-2005 by SkipShipman]

posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 02:59 PM
Very well said, SkipShipman. I don't like the knock on Fox, naturally, because I feel the education system (esp. with the particular leanings of educators) is more like the doom and gloom expressed by CNN... so replace that knock with MSM (the composite thereof) and I agree with you. It is definately important that you go through the motions, it sucks and seems like a waste of time, but you need to have proof that you can do the bare minimum required by the school systems. I've never found anything I do to be "difficult" just some things take more time to do than others. Apply that thought/philosophy to your schooling and suck it up, you'll be "free" and kicked out into the real world much sooner than you realize you want to be.

[edit on 1-4-2005 by AlphaHumana]

posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 04:17 PM
If you can't learn anything in school, you either

A: Have tremendous reasoning and analytical skills and you should go straight to college...with a 140+ IQ and a designated spot at Yale


B: Are a liar who is just trying to push their lame beliefs that public education is "weally howwible" and "ovewwun wit da libewals"

I tend to believe the second one is the truth for most. Fact is that I have incredible academic skills, but I still learned things in those classes. Granted, I took many "*yawn* classes", but there was still plenty of things there to learn. (yawn classes: English 1-4, Home Ec, P. E. etc.) I took classes like History/Government, Science, and the upper level Math classes and I still remember all of it. Heck, I still use most of it. (I am also an engineering major...Industrial and electronics)

And thanks to that high school education I received, I can even dive into other fields. I took agriculture which covered a whole lot of ground. I learned how to weld, work in the forestry industry, farm, how to butcher and identify the cuts of meat, etc. Even if I did not go to college, I have the beginnings of many different career options.

I just believe that those who learn nothing in high school simply had the wrong type of arrogant attitude or simply did not try.

posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 05:45 PM
I've always wanted to read that book. I never get remember to ask for it when I go to the library. I did see the movie and that is what inspired me to read the book. That and the book Animal Farm. I do think that the education system needs to be fixed. There are too many problems with it.

posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 06:22 PM
Wow, I never saw knew they made a movie of it (just looked it up on Amazon because I didn't believe you, heh, I always thought THX 1138 was the closest thing - and it blows)... regardless, you MUST read the book!
Its a quick read and very good especially considering when it was written (I don't have my hardcopy on hand atm, but I'm sure it was 40's or early 50's... guess who "big brother" referred to at the time) Without sounding like a hypocrite for having lost track of my copies, it's definately a keeper for the "permanent bookshelf" we all dream of.

Btw, though I know you didn't read the book, how is the movie?

posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 07:04 PM

help me with a chosen future career

Education shouldn't be about telling you only the things that will let you get a job, if it was then why not give five year olds Aptitude tests and then just drill them with whatever they are supposed to be destined for. Education is suppose to give you the chance to do as many things as you could want, obviously there will be a few people who it cannot cater for, but that should be taken care of by the person's parents really. I could go on a much longer rant about education and the benefits of individual subjects (I wrote an essay on this exact topic last year) but i won't because its pretty pointless, if you can't see what education is supposed to be for, grab a dictionary and find out.

Also, I would have to agree 100% with, OXmanK, I am currently studying theoretical physics in Uni, but I did history, French and Latin as optional extras and, even though they are unrelated to what i am doing now, i couldn't be much happier that i did them.

[edit on 1/4/05 by cmdrpaddy]

posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 10:31 PM
A great post, cmdrpaddy, alia iacta est

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 12:39 AM

Originally posted by Azza
Everyone should deny religion, in place of philosophy it would make for a far happier world

What? You think I'll give up my God for philosophy? Any good Christian or Jew would say no. How would it make for a happier world? If everyone went to hell, how would that make the world happier?

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 05:38 AM
quote: Originally posted by Azza
Everyone should deny religion, in place of philosophy it would make for a far happier world

quote:What? You think I'll give up my God for philosophy? Any good Christian or Jew would say no. How would it make for a happier world? If everyone went to hell, how would that make the world happier?


No Offense kid; but one day after you actually read a book other than your bible
you may realize the FACT that modern Christianity was BORN out of the Greek Philosophers ' philosophys in the first place!!

you learn that in Philosophy 101

nearly every world religion, believes that MATTER AND SPIRIT are the SAME THING
western christianity however; concluded erroniously that Matter and Spirit were seperate alltogeather

see even Science proved the eastern philosophys Correct
E= MC^2
it means Energy = Mass x (Speed of Light x Speed of light)

basically Energy = Matter

well what is your "spirit" composed of ???
of course

since Energy is virtually the ONLY thing in existance in the entire universe *or perhaps even anti-energy *

but none the less
the western christians have been PROVED wrong in their most dear of assumptions
"that Energy and Matter are seperate alltogeather"

by the way
Evolution isnt a theory
its an Observable Fact!!

heres a very simple proof for a very minor evolution process

Your Dad; and your Mom
created you

Do you Look just like them?
or are you a little different?

see your DNA, has changed !
thru nature; the combination of your mother and fathers DNA thru sexual intercourse has created a New Better MORE EVOLVED strand of DNA

typically this evolution takes most of the good traits *to aid survival*
and gets rid of traits that arent so great

but; evolution is VERY SLOW
and alot of these 'bad' traits such as heart disease, cancer , etc
can be left over in the DNA strand
these critical errors are rather complex and just a few generations of DNA mutation are not sufficient enough to eliminate that error

but perhaps over say; 10 thousand to 100 thousand years: this DNA 'malfunction' possibly could be resolved naturally

just look at sharks; they are one of the few creatures on earth that almost Never form Cancer cells
it was probably due to the fact that Sharks are Ancient creatures and have had sufficient time to evolve their DNA into less error prone strands

when you take philosophy class you can really begin to think for yourself ; such as i have successfully shown

i was not following the norm; i was creating my own critical thoughts based on my own plethora of "cold facts " or "boring knowledge" as all the losers call it

also i do agree with you about public school being corrupted and mindless
thats why i ignored most of my schooling and guess what i did

i actually read the textbook
there was actually some very interesting facts in there

too bad im one of the only ones who will ever know that
since im one of the only ones who actually read it

right school sucks
but its life; you have to adapt! Agian Proof of Evolution
Adapt to your Enviornment or be CRUSHED!!!
it Sucks so hard core doesnt it!?
but its Life!

By the way mr; did it ever occur to you that God could have created Evolution as a infinite ever changing process to form life?

Evolution and Creation do NOT conflict unless you see things in a narrow view!
Take the blinders off and open your eyes for just one second

What if God used Evolution thru Creation?

philosophy class is the best class of all buddy
they talk about God all day in there
so you WONT be "giving up God for philosophy"

i know being a kid sucks;
when your a kid you think "oh wow im so dang smart arent i"
but after you become an adult; and take a few PHILOSOPHY classes
you will realize this wonderful truth

The ONLY intelligence IS

thank you for your time my rant is over

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 06:38 AM

Any good Christian or Jew would say no.

Or muslim... But i don't believe that what was suggested was to give up your religion, mearly to have a different view of the world based on the accumulated knowledge of thousands of years of philisophy. The idea that religion should be replaced by philosophy and that would make the world better is a bit ridiculous though, don't forget Marx, while being a historian, was also quite the philosopher and look what his work did for the world...

I never studied philosophy in any great detail, i used to go to afterschool talks by my Latin teacher on the classical philosophers, but I can see how it would benefit people.

concluded erroniously that Matter and Spirit were seperate alltogeather

who 'concluded' this exactly? If this is some veiled attack on the Holy Trinity then its a pretty flimsy attack and fails to grasp the other side of the 'argument' completely.

Thanks AlphaHumana. spero adeo, alea est tam felix

[edit on 2/4/05 by cmdrpaddy]

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 07:13 AM

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy

concluded erroniously that Matter and Spirit were seperate alltogeather

who 'concluded' this exactly?

It could be any of the metaphysical dichotomists but it sounds like dead beat Dad St. Augustine and his divine dichotomy of existences (soul & body). The one that made sex bad, the body evil, man of unavoidable original sin and recommended eunuchood and abstinence to all true Christians (that could handle it) seeking the joyous wonders of soul and spirit. That whole body versus soul thing is very western as a direct result of our middle eastern influences. Black & white thinking is king. Everything's a dichotomy. Everything is good or evil. Everything is dogmatic truth or "of the devil." With us or against us. There's no such thing as "secular" in that thinking, because if it's not Holy or Truth it's evil.

This was just as influential on Islam as Christianity. That's why both are considered the "religions of war and conquest." Both invented a "heaven" for spirits and made your body and earthly existence pretty honking pointless except in the pursuit to deny it. Both also allow for grand rationalizations based on this dichotomy to do great evil in this world to secure your place in the next.

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 07:22 AM
ok ill answer your Q

there is 2 modes of thought on earth about 'philosophy
*when we catogorize based on
those that thought Matter was Animate
and those that thought Matter was Inanimate

i will begin with the 6th century BC Greece

the Milesian school
the milesians were called 'Hylozoists'
or "those who think matter is alive"
by the later Greeks because they saw no distinction between animate and inanimate; spirit and matter
since they saw all forms of existance as manifestations of the 'physis'
endowed with life and spirituality
*physics is derived from physis, meaning 'the endeavor of seeing the essential nature of all things*

Thus Thales declared all things to be full of Gods
and Anaximander saw the universe as a kind of organism which was supported by pneuma' the Cosmic Breath *in the same way the human body is supported by air*

the Monistic and organic view of the Milesians was very close to that of ancient indian and chinese philosophy, and the parallels to eastern thought are even stronger in the philosophy of Heraclitus of Ephesus

Heraclitus believed in a world of Perpetual Change; of eternal "Becoming"
to him , all static being was based on deception and his universal principle was Fire, a symbol for the continuous flow and change of all things.
Heraclitus taught that all changes in the world arise from the dynamic and cyclic interplay of oppisites and he saw any pair of oppisites as a Unity
This Unity, which contains and transcends all opposing forces; he called the Logos

The split of this unity began with the Eleatic school which assumed a DIVINE PRINCIPLE standing above all Gods and Men. This DIVINE PRINCIPLE was first seen as the "Unity of the Universe" but later viewed as a Intelligent and Personal GOD who stands above the world and directs it.
Thus began a trend of thought which led; ultimately; to the seperation of spirit and matter; and to a Dualism that has become characteristic of Western philosophy/religion.

A drastic step in this direction was taken by Parmenides of Elea who was in strong opposition to Heraclitus. He called his concept the "BEING" and held that it was unique and invariable. He considered changes to be impossible and regarded the changes we see in the world as mere illusions of the senses. The concept of an indestructable substance as the subject of varying properties grew out of this philosophy and became one of the fundamental concepts of western thought.

In the 5th century BC; the Greek philosophers tried to overcome the sharp contrast between the views of Parmenides and Heraclitus. In order to reconcile the idea of Unchangeable BEING (of parmenides) with that of Eternal BECOMING (of heraclitus), they assumed that the BEING is manifest in certain invariable substances, the mixture and separation of which gives rise to the changes we see in the world. This led to the concept of the atom; the smallest indivisable unit of matter, which found its clearest expression in the philosophy of Leucippus and Democritus. The greek atomists drew a clear line between Spirit and Matter
viewing matter as being composed of "simple building blocks" whereas the cause of their motion was often assosiated with external forces which were assumed to be Spiritual in origin and fundamentally different from matter. In subsequent centuries, this element became essential in Western thought, of the DUALISM between mind and matter; between body and soul.

As the idea of a division between spirit and matter took hold. the philosophers turned their attention to the Spiritual world , rather than the material world. To the human soul and the problems of ethics. These questions were to occupy Western thought for two thousand years after the culmination of Greek science and culture in the 5th and 4th centuries BC.
The scientific knowledge of antiquity was systematized and organized by Aristotle, who created the scheme that was to be the Western view of the Universe for 2000 years. But Aristotle himself believed that questions concerning the Human Soul and the comtemplation of God's Perfection were much more valuable than the investigations of the material world.

The reason the Aristotelian model of the universe remained unchallenged for so long was precisely this lack of interest in the material world, and the strong hold of the Christian Church which supported Aristotles droctrines throughout the Middle Ages.

this is part ONE
and ill post Part TWO
in about 15minutes after i have a smoke and let my hands rest

btw, i am paraphrasing mostly out of a book; the Tao of Physics
i will attest to this book being accurate to the extent that my philosophy textbooks and such repeat the same basic information...
so its verified in that respect; of course none of us can go into the past to "REALLY KNOW" what happened; but according to human's best attempts at History; this is basically true in its assertions

part 2 comes soon...

posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 08:20 AM
ok now to part 2

i will say before i jump in; that Rant's comments about St Augustine were fully correct
Rant knows his philosophy history quite well

ok now; back to what i was doing hehe

Further development of Western science had to wait until the Renaissance, when men began to free themselves from the influence of Aristotle and the Church and showed a new interest in Nature. In the late 15th century, the study of nature was approached, for the first time, in a truely scientific spirit and experiments were undertaken to test speculative ideas. As this development was paralleled by a growing interst in mathematics; it finally led to the formulation of proper scientific theorys, based on expierment and expressed in mathematical language. Galileo was the first to combine empirical knowledge with mathematics and is therefore seen as the father of modern science.

The birth of modern science was preceded and accompanied by a development of philosophical thought which led to an extreme formulation of the spirit/matter dualism. This formulation appeared in the 17th century in the philosophys of Rene Descartes , who based his view of nature on a fundamental division into two separate and independant realms. That of Mind (res cogitans), and that of matter (res extensa)
The 'Cartesian' division allowed scientists to treat matter as dead and completely separate from themselves, and to see the material world as a multitude of different objects assembled into a huge machine. Such a mechanistic world view was held by Isacc Newton who constructed his mechanics on its basis and made it the foundation of Classical Physics. From the second half of the 17th century, to the end of the 19th century, the mechanistic Newtonian model of the universe dominated scientific thought. It was paralleled by the image of a monarchial God who ruled the world from above and imposed his divine will upon it. The fundamental laws of nature searched for by the scientists were thus seen as Laws of God, invariable and eternal; to which the world was subjected.

The philosophy of Descartes was not only important for the development of classical physics, but it also had a tremendous influence on the Western way of thinking up to the present day. Descartes' famous sentance 'Cogito ergo sum' - 'I think, therefore i am' , has led Westerners to equate their identity with their mind, instead of with their whole organism. As a consequence of the Cartesian Division, most individuals are aware of themselves as isolated egos existing 'inside' their bodies. The mind has been separated from body and givin the futile tast of controlling it; thus causing an apparent conflict between concious will and the involuntary instincts.

This inner fragmentation mirrors our view of the world 'outside', which is seen as a multitude of different objects and events. The natural enviornment is treated as if it consisted of separate parts to be exploited by different interest groups. The fragmented view is further extended to society which is split into different nations, races, religious and political groups. The belief that all these fragments - in ourselves , in our enviornment , and in our society - are really separate and can be seen as the essential reason for the present series of social ecological and cultural crises. It has alienated us from nature and our fellow human beings. It has brought a grossly unjust distribution of resources creating economic and political disorder, an ever rising wave of violence, both spontanious and institutionalized, and an ugly polluted enviornment in which life has often become physically and mentally unhealthy.

The Cartesian Division and the mechanistic world view have thus been benificial and detrimental at the same time. They were Extremely successful in the development of classical physics and technology, but had many adverse consequences for our civilization. It is fascinating to see 20th century science, which originated in the Cartesian split and in the mechanistic world view, which indeed only became possible because of such a view; now overcomes this fragmentation and leads back to the idea of unity expressed in early Greek and Eastern philosophys.

In the early Greek and Eastern world views; the entire cosmos is seen as one inseprable reality - forever in motion, alive, organic; spiritual and material at the same time!
This interestingly enough; is the Exact world view arising from Modern Physics today.
Thus Eastern thought can provide a consistent and relevent philisophical background to the theories of contemporary science; a conception of the world in which scientific discoveries can be in perfect harmony with spiritual aims and religious beliefs. The two basic themes of this conception are the Unity and Interrelation of all phenomena and the intrinsically dynamic nature of the universe.

This Unity of all things; has been called the Tao by many Eastern philosophers.
Here is a quote to describe how they thought about this.
"There the eye goes not,
Speech goes not,
Nor the Mind.
We know not, we understand not,
How one would teach it"

"What is soundless , touchless, formless, imperishable,
likewise tasteless , constant , odorless,
without begining , without end, higher than the great, stable-

by discerning That, one is liberated from the mouth of death"

or even like Lao Tzu said
"The Tao that can be expressed is NOT the eternal Tao"

as Chuang Tzu said
"If it could be talked about, everyone would have told their brother."

ill end part 2 here
and i may bring a part 3
in case no one caught where i was going with this

but im quite sure most of you already are aware of this knowledge, but if you are not; feel free to look deeper into on your own theres literally millions of books that delve into these subjects
if you feel ive left any blanks; go ahead fill them in
if you feel ive made any major mistakes ; go ahead correct me

learning is a never ending process
and all of us are infinitely capable of that

philosophy is the basis of all schools of thought; as hopefully you will see in this explanation into the reasons why there is 2 forms of thought today; the dynamic (changing) and the static(unchanging)
and also hopefully show that modern science has for the most part , proven that the Dynamic view of the universe is more accurate than the static view

and every other development in physics since

hopefully you may be interested in taking a philosophy class now?
as you can see it does not "disprove" God, it only describes "God" with more accurate detail than typical one sided religious theologys may offer.
If you believe in God , Philosophy is FOR YOU.

thank you for your time

posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 11:18 AM

Originally posted by DanD91) Our government teaches our kids not to think for ourselves, but to think what our schools think.

I strongly disagree. Schools exist to teach students which instigates independent thought, not the other way around. I never had one class in high school in which a teacher told me how to think. Now I did have teachers who persuaded me heavily how I should think, but not all like what you are saying. 93% of teachers are loving and caring human beings who want kids to think on their own, though it may require a certain biasness. It's not as if teachers are cold hearted beuracrats trying to deprive you of your soma until you conform. Want some soma?

posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 10:50 PM
Frosty I know what you mean... but they really seem to exist in order to tell you how to think. Why do they teach you opinions? why do they teach you to not disobey bad rules? they just tell me, oh just live with it, its not causing you pain.
And no thanks on the soma. I dont do drugs :-p
And you all else know what? You think I will believe you? Why would God lie about creation? He didnt.

posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 07:00 AM

Why would God lie about creation?

God never said anything about creation. A book that claims to be the word of God says something about creation, but that book also says a hell of a lot of stuff that is happily ignored.

posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 09:39 PM
Something that's always gotten my goat is how modern English (American) language puts truth in our words & phrases, yet most people deny that truth. A few examples:
If "pro" is the positive side about something & "con" is the negative side, then what is Congress to progress?

Why do we park on a driveway & drive on the parkway?

Why is it called a television "set" when it's a single, whole assembly?

Cargo goes by ship, but shipments go by truck or railroad.

Don't the terms "military intelligence", "peace-keeper missle" & "Christian militia" seem a bit self-contradictory?

And these are terms that kids learn to use regularly from parents, peers & schools...Shall I go on, or can you discover some more on your own?...

posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 01:36 AM
quote: Originally posted by DanD91) Our government teaches our kids not to think for ourselves, but to think what our schools think.

[Quote]I strongly disagree. Schools exist to teach students which instigates independent thought, not the other way around. I never had one class in high school in which a teacher told me how to think. Now I did have teachers who persuaded me heavily how I should think, but not all like what you are saying. 93% of teachers are loving and caring human beings who want kids to think on their own, though it may require a certain biasness. It's not as if teachers are cold hearted beuracrats trying to deprive you of your soma until you conform. Want some soma?

I couldn't disagree with you more.

Independent thought is dangerous, that is part of the reason why they keep retarding the tests. Look at an 8th grade test from the 1800's, and compare it to what is taught today. That isn't progress.
(Read Animal farm (It is available online - free - public domain))

Part of the problem is Those who can - do, Those who can't - Teach.
Teachers salaries only attract the ones that are not sharp enough to make it in any other vocation. If you want real teachers, start paying them.

It isn't that teachers don't want free thought, they don't know how to do it themselves. They have become nothing but parotts reading what little Johnny can't read because he was pushed through school, and never failed a class. The books they teach from are "Selected" by the Govt. "If you want to use this book, we'll pay for it, If you want to use that one we won't". That in itself should say something.

In school I put forth the proposition that weight had more to do with genetics than diet, not saying that diet was not a part of the equasion, just that genetics played a significant roll. Also remember being ridiculed by teachers for maintaining that Eggs were healthy and the studies were rubbish. Never received any apologies when I was proven right.

Then there is Conflicting information taught,
1) One property of matter is that matter constantly gets smaller.
2) We live in an expanding universe.

Does that make any since?

BTW, 87% of people who use statistics make them up.
There are 3 kinds of lies:
1) White Lies
2) Damn lies
3) Statistics

posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 05:56 AM

Then there is Conflicting information taught, 1) One property of matter is that matter constantly gets smaller. 2) We live in an expanding universe.

how are these two things in conflict?

[edit on 10/4/05 by cmdrpaddy]

posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 12:59 PM
It is wrong for them to teach the expanding universe theory. Perhaps one that is not expanding or contracting would be acceptable, but they are wrong.

Matter is always getting smaller, compressing, (That is part of the "Source" of Gravity. Which would be irresponcible to elaboratte on).

All things are made up of atoms, and subatomic particles eg. matter, therefore the universe itself cannot be expanding if it is getting smaller.

It is like saying a skinny fat man, or a short tall fellow.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in