Formal education is to learn subjects.
Religious education is to promote beliefs.
Philological thoughts are to improve wisdom.
°●°●○°○°▪︎°°
My rebuttal:
Good rational assembly of the same (yet different corresponding elements), seperated as an accurate description to that end. Although, do I have myself asking why? Why is:: I also have a problem with the formal educational aspect. What does formal education have to do with the other principles. In my extraction of these postulates, I would fear, learning is only useful a tool ~ as if the immoral view of life unless we know something (unspecified) that connects it? All the postulated principles, in theory, are correct. However, given the context which I am providing (as it seems) my attachment to your descriptions are usefully observed. What is the purpose of knowing these principles. Again, it appears untested.
Mind you, the postulates are only problematic if they do not subscribe to a visceral point of view. What truth behind the principles, if I have collected my thoughts properly herein.... can be attributed without a fallacy being committed. That is the direction I am thinking in. The principles appear calculable unless they have some purposely given definition to qualify them. Are they just meant to be open ended principles? (i.e. universals)
Edit: ~clarification on my query re; "immoral view of life" is to ask what order of things are set, based on a set of unknown variables if set against your views? I see groups of things. And that those things are not real (e.g. do not fall under your principles) what else is there apart from uniformity or free will.
- Marco
No comments:
Post a Comment