Through Occupy, and the “Reduce the Fees” movements I’ve been hearing a lot of talk from university go-ers, alumni or university age folk touting the idea that education (specifically post secondary) is a “right”.
There’s many changes we should be lobbying for in terms of tuition costs and Gov’t funding, but we should not be doing it under the banner of “rights.” I am in university, I have a loan, I work and I come home every night to a fridge that has food in it. The same cannot be said for many people in this province and for most of the people on this planet.
It’s not by right that we are here and able to study nor even to have food in our fridges or roofs over our heads, it’s by privilege. I am not entitled to my education, food or shelter but I am fortunate enough to have it. Claiming it is my right is like smacking those less fortunate in the face, for whom “rights” are clearly not working. —Lucky to Be Here
This article appears in Nov 17-23, 2011.
kmn
true story…
you should refer those people to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_…
where they can live with relatively free education if they like….
if they can stand living there for a few yrs.
very well said.
University isn’t even necessary. And community college (which is actually the more profitable education choice) is not very expensive for the kid who is motivated to study there.
Scholarships are also available for very intelligent and hardworking students.
Ridiculous to assume university is a right. Those same people, should they get their wish, would bitch about having to use that education towards getting a job that will fund that same “right” of generations to come.
If university students are that retarded then the last thing we need is MORE of them attending. University should be reserved for those with extreme potential. Community college is cheap, fast and most graduates make more money and have more fulfilling careers than the average person graduating from university. I say average in terms of intelligence and talent.
Plus.. consider how many students go to university and drop out as soon as they realize they’re not as smart as the really smart kids in their class? Or drop out because they chose the wrong major or want to “find themselves” or want to travel or live in a tent o parade square or get pregnant or get married or decide to attend college instead or get a job early…
Food isn’t even a universal right. if you think it is, ask your average Ugandan. Free university for rich, and usually lazy, westerners is pretty low on the list of global concern priorities…
Plus clearly the quality of education will decrease drastically once it becomes free. That’s only obvious.
I shudder to think that of these bleating morons, some were probably economics majors..
It should be.
Bra-fucking-vo.
I often wonder when I see the inevitable protest around campus/province house every year, of how many of those protesting for less expensive education or a ‘right to it’ would consider having enrollment reduced by 75% or so at the same time.
Well said, pg.
i don’t usually use acronyms
I had to look it up. I don’t blame you for not wasting keystrokes!
Free Education IS a right. Up until grade 12.
I once knew someone named Ayn who believed that selfishness was a virtue that would make her free, but instead it made her very unhappy.
The only power that can really make you free is love.
Believe this.
http://www.wimp.com/belgianboy/
A right to a free education, what would be next? The right to graduate without really passing?
If something costs you nothing, then that’s what it’s worth.
Thanks Xeno 🙂 put a tear in my eye.
An education is a right, that’s why it’s mandatory to attend until a certain age, a secondary education is also a right. Well… I guess the accesability to a secondary education is a right, that’s why they have government student loans. No bank in their right mind would lend money to teenagers when there is no guarantee they will even graduate… unless… the government says we’ll pick up the tab if the little stoner flunks out. Accessibiliy to a secondary education is a “right”, but you cannot force it down peoples throats. Who would do all the unglamorous jobs if we all had a higher education? That would mean people with degrees working in retail, making our morning coffee, etc…oh shit.. Wait a minute… Too late, it’s already happening. ( Buries head in the sand and waits for the rapture )
enough already, this has been beaten to death, 50 times so far. get something new. for fuck’s sake.
A RIGHT? YES. A PRIVILEGE? NO.
“Claiming it (a university education) is my right is like smacking the less fortunate in the face, for whom ‘rights’ are clearly not working.” (Lucky to be Here.)
But Lucky, you have it reversed. It is not so much that university education is a “privilege” for those who, like you, are lucky, but rather it is claiming that university education is not a “right” which is more like “smacking the the less fortunate in the face.” One might well ask, of course, just why Lucky is “lucky to be here.” Why? Have you thought about this Lucky? Is it a matter of simply a luck of the draw as you seem to suppose or are there other grounds upon which university education should be awarded?
I have another suggestion, Lucky. It’s called intellect. One has a “right” to food and shelter simply be being alive, by being a member of the community. But university education is not like that, Lucky. A university education is a “right” but only for those who have the clearly demonstrable intelligence to profit from it. Do you understand that, Lucky? Insufficient intelligence resulting in academic failure and you’re out. Do you get that Lucky? But, of course, you want to ask what do I mean by “intelligence?”
This is not an obscure or ultimately unanswerable question, Lucky. It is also not a question that can be answered in a strictly quantifiable terms, but it is, nonetheless, a question that any competent university professor can answer in an instant. Lucky, it is called “demonstrable intelligence of a superior order.” Do you understand that, Lucky? It means intelligence which is demonstrated on essay tests, term papers and in seminar sessions but perhaps most of all in the obvious presence of an inquiring mind. In other words Lucky, such demonstrable intelligence is evidenced – are you holding on to the arms of your chair? – in the clear possession of a MIND!
Sorry Lucky, but given what you have written in your bitch, you have dismally failed to provide such evidence. For you, university education ought to be neither a privilege nor a right. You do not belong there.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
LOL free or cheap university tuition just means more people with degrees, thus making MY degrees less valuable.
I say jack up the price of tuition. Raise it so fucking high that having a degree is a rarity. The rarer it gets, the more valuable and ‘in-demand’ my degree is.
Again mm, your facts are skewed. Intelligence is all relative to the job you ask your brain to do. Some people are absolute geniuses with their hands, such as artists, carpenters, mechanics, others understand entirely different languages such as the many dialects used in computer programming, legalese, etc, or the magicians that brought us the “tangelo”. I doubt your doughy typing fingers are up to doing such essential things as fixing your own computer, car, or building your own fucking house. There’s more to life than just being a self professed philosophical wizard and genius. What an ass!!!
all these new “rights” are NWO lefty BS..
Well written OP 😀
Food, shelter and education are not rights everywhere in the world, at this time: but they should be. By placing education in the same category as food and shelter, OP, you have just proved yourself wrong. This occupy movement is making people stupider. On both sides. Geez Louise.
People who think university should be universal have no concept of general equilibrium.
Who’s going to mow my lawn? Oh yeah the guy with the MA in Health Promotion.
Basic education makes sense, so people can function socially, read hazardous warning labels, etc, but beyond that I’m not sure an education is a right.
“Who’s going to mow my lawn? Oh yeah the guy with the MA in Health Promotion.”
That’s what it’d come to, canned, if university was universal and deemed a ‘right.’
Degrees would be worthless.
Very well said. You nailed it.
MM: Yes, but plenty of dumb people have degrees as well.
Canned: Use your degree/native intelligence to ask yourself why you have a lawn instead of native perennial flora. I get your point, and agree with it, but I hate stupid grass lawns.
RSVPs
: Stephen Harper (Nov. 17, 8:33PM) –
“Intelligence is all related to the types of jobs you ask your brain to do.”
Well, Stephen, the first thing to point out is that your statement is ontologically schizophrenic. The picture looks like this: Here I am, and there is my brain. Now, I can ask my brain to do certain jobs and, one supposes, not other jobs. Whether I am intelligent or not therefore depends on the types of jobs I ask my brain to do. Now Stephen, doesn’t this picture strike you as being a bit odd? Do you know why? Because, Stephen, you ARE your brain (understood in the sense, of course, of being your mind and not simply a lump of organic matter).
But your ontological schizophrenia necessarily gives rise to epistemological incoherence. You have confounded intelligence with the possession of talents, skills, dispositions and so on. But intelligence is not synonymous with these. For example, one can be, without contradiction, a stupid computer repair man, and so on. But, Stephen, the issue goes deeper than that. Are you still with me?
Your view is a pale reflection of Howard Gardiner’s rejected theory of “multiple intelligences.” This is a great favourite of those who would “democratize” intelligence but the fact is that intelligence is not “democratic.” In his “Multiple Invalidities” (in Jeffrey A. Schaler (Ed.) “Howard Gardiner Under Fire: The Rebel Psychologist Faces His Critics” (2006) John White pointed out that Gardiner’s “multiple intelligences” was an “a priori” concept and not the result of empirical verifiability as he claimed. In other words, the concept existed in Gardiner’s mind prior to his listing the various activities which he claimed demonstrated various “intelligences.” Indeed, it was by virtue of his “a priori” concept of multiple intelligences that Gardiner was able to bestow the title of “intelligence” on these activities in the first place! But, in psychology, which prides itself on being an empirical “science” whose truths MUST BE VERIFIABLE by observation and experiment, “a priori” concepts such as Gardinder’s are NOT ACCEPTABLE! Stephen, that’s called uttering a self-refuting assertion. Gardiner has appealed to a realm which psychology itself explicitly rejects! You must go away, Stephen, and think this over.
: Pretty Kitty (8:35PM & Nov. 18, 7:06AM) is, of course, locked into her blinkered economic paradigm and is unable to distinguish between the intelligence which makes university education a right and the degree itself which would then be “worthless” since “everybody” would have a degree. In addition to her blinkered and incapacitating persective, she is also factually wrong in supposing that making university a right DEPENDENT ON INTELLIGENCE would result in flooding society with degree holders. In fact, just the opposite would be the case which, of course, would rule out “degrees” in fields such as “public relations.”
: Misspiggy (Nov. 17, 10:32PM) – You don’t often get a knee-slapper self-contradiction like misspiggy’s so I thought I would drop it in. She states that while food, shelter and education are not rights everywhere in the world (no one said they were) “but they should be.” Now, she goes on to say that, “By placing education in the same category as food and shelter, OP, you have just proved yourself wrong.” But misspiggy, don’t you see, YOU have just placed education in the same category as food and shelter. Now, misspiggy, what’s your next sentence going to be? Right! You must admit that you have just proved yourself wrong! Go away misspiggy, and think this over.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
RSVPs
: Xenophilia (Nov. 18, 9:29AM) – “MM: Yes, but plenty of dumb people have degrees as well.”
I hope you don’t think I was ignoring you Xeno, it’s just that your post came just before mine and so it wasn’t included in my replies.
So, what can we say about your assertion to the effect that there are plenty of dumb people with university degrees? Well, the first thing we can ask is, what sort of assertion is it? At first it looks like it is an empirical assertion, i.e., a statement of FACT that there are plenty of dumb people with degrees. But empirical assertions stand or fall on their verifiability or, alternatively, on their falsifiability. It’s got to be one or the other. So Xeno, is your assertion empirically verifiable or falsifiable? Can you demonstrate it? Of course not. So it cannot be an empirical assertion after all. It must be another kind of assertion, Xeno, but what kind?
There is only one other kind, Xeno. Like Gardiner’s assertion regarding “multiple intelligences” (see my reply below) it must be one based upon your “a priori” knowledge of the case. In other words, Xeno, you must be (a) in prior possession of the concept of what constitutes the basic standard of intelligence and (b) on that basis know that there are plenty of people who have university degrees who do not meet that standard.
So, Xeno, it seems that the ball is back in your court. Why not start with (a) i.e. demonstrate just what constitutes that basic standard such that some people may be called “intelligent” and are to be distinguished from those who are not. Once that has been established, Xeno, we can move on to (b) to demonstrate that there are plenty of people who have degrees but who do not meet that basic standard, i.e. that they are dumb.
Let’s get this baby off the ground and into the air, Xeno.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
A right? Fuck that. Who wants some retard poor person wasting tax dollars to become a permanent student. Oh wait, they already do that for the natives.
RSVPs
: Sebastian (Nov. 18, 9:52PM) – Sebastian, try reading my post (Nov. 17, 8:09PM) again. Do you see the second paragraph? There’s a sentence there that reads: “Insufficient intelligence resulting in academic failure and you’re out.” Do you see it, Sebastian?
Now Sebastian, what do you think this means in respect to your statement about “some retard wasting tax dollars to become a permanent student?” It’s wrong on two points, isn’t it Sebastian since (1) insufficient intelligence rules out the presence of “retards” in the first place and (2) there are no “permmanent students” since either failure results in their immediate expulsion or your so-called “permanent student” must have demonstrated sufficient intelligence to pass all the courses with flying colours so that, on completion of his/her degree(s) they would have – are you waiting for it Sebastian? – GRADUATED! They are then no longer “permanent students.” You do understand that Sebastian, don’t you?
If you have difficulty understanding either of these two points Sebastian, read them over again to yourself. Try not to move your lips.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Post-secondary education is not a right. Period.
Government programs make it more accessible to the masses, but since nothing is free in life, we have to pay them back. (With shockingly low interest rates, I might add.)
I’m entering repayment status in December, and my loan totals over $63,000. Instead of complaining, I took advantage of my degree and found myself a position up north, where my salary is $16 an hour higher than in NS, and I made myself a solid debt repayment plan.
I have no qualms with student loans, it’s just the way it is. In fact, I appreciate student loans for giving me the opportunity to land a great career and experience a totally different type of Canadian culture.
I despise the entitled attitude of my generation.
RSVPs
Heathro (Nov. 20, 6:55AM) – “Post-secondary education is not a right. Period.”
Heathro, it appears that you have not read (or understood) my previous posts on this issue on this thread. My claim was, quite simply, that post-secondary education WAS a right depending solely on (1) the basis of a high degree of intelligence displayed in the primary and secondary levels of education and (2) contingent upon an excellent record at each stage of university. Those not maintaining that record face immediate expulsion. It was not, as you seem to suppose, a matter of “entitlement” but rather of proven ability of a high order.
Your view rests upon the availability of “government programs” to finance university but there are objections to this system. The first is that the recipient of student loans finds himself with a very large debt load (as you did) on graduation which results in many defaults with the taxpayer holding the bag. In the July issue of Harper’s there are a couple of interesting statistics:
“Date on which U.S. student-loan debt is expected to reach $1,000,000,000,000: 12/1/2011”
“Chance that an American who earned a bachelor’s degree in 2008 will be paying off student loans in 2028: 1 in 3”
That’s one trillion dollars, Heathro, and only one in three will pay back the loan after TWENTY YEARS after graduation! No doubt the numbers are even greater for those who did NOT graduate. While the figures are American, the Canadian numbers are no doubt proportionate. If university were a right and not a “privilege” as I have argued on this thread, this problem would not exist.
Secondly, Heathro, there’s the question of what constitutes “education” itself. Those taking out student loans view it as a financial investment, as a means of getting a job. This strengthens the deluded belief that education is ultimately a matter of economics rather than, as I maintain, the cultivation of the mind. If university were a right as I have maintained, Heathro, this perversion of the concept of education would not exist.
Take your own case, Heathro. Since it seems to be only the means to get a job, your “degree” should more accurately be described as a diploma or certificate from a trade school or, at best, a polytechnical institute. Since it is not directly concerned with the cultivation of the mind, it should not properly be considered a “degree.” You did not state just what kind of “degree” it was, so maybe you ARE talking about a trade school certificate or polytechnic diploma.
Write back with your thoughts.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
I don’t feel threatened by more coworkers with degrees. Degrees won’t stop the walking dead from showing up to work and not engaging themselves. Degrees won’t teach them the common sense and problem solving skills needed to solve the problems that they academically understand. Degrees won’t replace their need to acumulate 20 years of experience to keep up with me.
No, I would have to go with the consensus here and say that post-secondary education is not a right. That said, I agree with Stephen Harper I.T.D. that access to post-secondary should readily available (through low interest loans) to all as some with intelligence and motivation come from tough economic backgrounds.
On a side but related note,we live in a consumerist society where kids are bombarded through the airwaves that they should have this,that and the other thing. If your family doesn’t have the newest and coolest, what’s wrong with them? This takes money of course and would take time to save up. The peddlers of these goods have a better idea. Rather than save during which time you might actually ask “Do I need this?”, you can FINANCE! Get it now, put off paying! You pay more with interest but later! Hell, you’ll hardly even notice!
This has been going on for a long time of course but has been amped up on a parallel course with quantum leaps in technology. A generation of 20-somethings have grown with these non-essential goods as an entitlement. Not all but certainly a lot.
I think between the parents of these kids and the financial institutions, a great disservice has been done. This issue overlaps the post-secondary education “right”.
The true value of a degree is diminished if it’s considered a right. The holders of these degrees should have to have really wanted them and worked hard to get them. Not just in study but austerity and part-time work. That way you have the most qualified. Only those with a passion for the subject will persevere.
RSVPs
: Great Value (Nov.20, 10:54AM) – “I don’t feel threatened by more coworkers with degrees.”
Well, that’s good GV. I’m glad to hear that. But the difficulty is that it has nothing to do with the issue, i.e., that university education should be a right FOR THOSE WHO POSSESS THE PROVEN INTELLIGENCE TO OBTAIN A UNIVERSITY DEGREE. GV, it appears that you are unable to uncouple a university degree from its economic nexus, its function in getting and keeping a job. As an indicator of intellectual achievement a degree has nothing to do with either. As a result, GV, the rest of your post was incoherent. Of course a degree won’t teach degree holders “the commonsense and problem solving skills that they academically understand” – whatever that means – since a degree was never intended to. Neither will a degree “replace their need to accumulate 20 years experience to keep up with me” since, once again, it was never intended to. GV, I want you to uncouple the concept of education and a job. They are totally distinct. Do it now, GV.
: troondon4 (2:59PM) – “No, I would go with the consensus here and say that post-secondary education is not a right.”
Well, there you go. That’s what Troon said and that’s it. At least I guess it is since Troon offered nothing by way of support for his claim. But Troon, distinguish between a university degree and other forms of post-secondary education. The latter, including things like trade school certificates and polytechnic diplomas should NOT be a right since – wait for it Troon – they are aimed at getting and keeping a job. But that has nothing to do (or should have nothing to do) with a university degree.
You state that “The true value of a degree is diminished if it’s considered a right.” But Troon, you have confounded the concept of “value,” reducing it to its economic function. No Troon, the true value of a degree is INTRINSIC to the degree itself, not its EXTRINSIC economic worth. Your failure to understand this leads you to an interesting observation.
You made reference to our “consumerist society” which you rightly deplore. But Troon, don’t you see that in our consumerist society education itself has become just another object of consumption and, of course, perverted its meaning in the process? A university degree, in other words, has presently been reduced to its extrinsic, economic function. For our society Troon, value is inconceivable independently of its monetary use-value. As the old saying goes, “We understand the price of everything but the value of nothing.”
Pretty soon, Troon, we’ll be consuming others and eventually ourselves. In fact, the process in my view is well underway.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Yo Sméagol, “PROVEN INTELLIGENCE”, how do you do that?
Kinda funny coming from you, considering you haven’t been able to prove your intelligence.
RSVPs
: Hugo Phurst (Nov. 20, 5:37PM) – “Kinda funny coming from you considering you haven’t been able to prove your intelligence.”
Oh dear, another voice from the profoundly stupid. Why is he stupid? He is stupid because all he can do is to launch an “ad hominem” (that’s Latin for “personal”) attack on me since, from the perspective of his native stupidity, I have not been able to “prove my intelligence.” In other words, nothing I might ever say would ever “prove my intelligence” since he is incapable of understanding reasons (to say nothing of “intelligence”). Hugo Phurst doesn’t live at that level. Of course, such is his stupidity that he is unable to realize that this was never the issue in the first place – it was, if you recall, the question of university education as a right. The issue is far beyond Hugo Phurst”s abilities to engage it.
This is so because he is incapable of engaging the discussion at any intellectual level, that is, bringing REASONS in support of his position. He has no reasons. That, in effect, is the definition of “stupidity” – one who violently argues a position but without the wherewithal to give reasons.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
You’ve been busy on this thread Monsieur. This must be a topic near and dear to your heart.
The reason I say a degree would be diminished if it were to become a right is because the passion, intellect and hard work needed to attain such a certificate actually acts as a screen to those less qualified or motivated. The value I speak is not economic but more like status as an expert in the field.
Obviously he same goes for trade and technical school certificates.
Those lamenting the cost of university tend to miss that point IMO though I do agree to agree with a lot of what the Occupiers represent.
No one has the right to a university degree. Universities have prerequisites that MUST be met before anyone can gain entrance.Universities have academics standards that must be met by each student before a degree is issued.
Financially?
For those students that can demonstrate academic excellence, lets help them out with scholarships so that they can move up through the ranks of academia if that is what they want.
For the average student who is looking for a career or a job, or anyone that is too damn stupid or lazy to win a scholarship, give them access to a student loan. They have earned their entrance in university, but they haven’t earned a position with the scholarship students.
For the technicians, trades, *ists, etc, provide them with a sensible balance of funding and support so that they can be trained to meet the needs of a growing economy. grants, scholarships, loans. Also, I support more post-diploma bachelor deg programs.There is a tremendous wealth of inteligence and experience in this group, lets give more of them the opportunity to bridge into universities.
For the uneducated masses, most aren’t eligible for university entrance. any sort of education initiative directed at them should include college upgrading for the purposes of university entrance but I don’t think any of them deserve university handed to them until they have stepped up their game a bit more.
RSVPs
: troondon4 (Nov. 20, 8:43PM)
“The reason I say a degree would be diminished if it were to become a right is because the passion, intellect and hard work needed to attain such a certificate acts as a screen to those less qualified or motivated… The value I speak (of) is not economic but more like status as an expert in the field.”
Well, Troon, the first part of your statement seems to concur with my view, at least in part, to the effect that intelligence of a high order (plus, of course, passion and hard work) is the principal criterion for awarding a degree. However, we differ in respect to my claim is that the degree should be then considered a right, not simply a “privilege.”
I disagree with the second part of your statement to the effect that the value of a degree is based upon the status it confers. I am speaking from a first-person perspective, not a third-person perspective. In the case of the latter, a degree might confer status but its real value, from a first-person perspective, is the enrichment of the degree-holder’s mind. In any case, “status” is like economics in that it is an EXTRINSIC and not an INTRINSIC quality attaching to the possession of a degree and therefore irrelevant in my scheme of things.
And you’re right about the topic being “near and dear to my heart.” Do you know why that is? It is because of the present pragmatic utilitarian climate of opnion in which everything of value is reduced to its market value. In the present day, it is inconceivable that anything should not have its monetary price, and I mean REALLY INCONCEIVABLE. But where everything is reduced to its exchange value, education itself necessarily also becomes so valued and by extension, so do the individuals who acquire it.
:Great Value (11:42PM)
“Universities have academic standards that must be met by each student before a degree is issued.”
Congratulations GV, it looks like you’ve come around to my way of thinking. The only diffference is that the degree, in my view, is therefore a right and not a “privilege.” I have already given my views on university financing which I won’t repeat here. (See Montrealman Nov.20, 10:20AM)
Welcome aboard!
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
MM, it is a special skill that you have, to be able to write so much, and communicate so little. as pretentious as I find you, today you have made me smile.have a good day!
Polonius calls me stupid. Lol, that insult might carry some weight if it had come from a cognitive mind, rather than a lame duck. (lame duck – 1. A person or thing that isn’t properly able to function, especially one that was previously proficient. 2. one that is weak or that falls behind in ability or achievement)
“ad hominem” adjective – attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument, isn’t that what you just did annie? Does that mean that you’re stupid?
As far as your “university education should be a right FOR THOSE WHO POSSESS THE PROVEN INTELLIGENCE” – Wow, rights for some but not for others, isn’t that called Fascism?
RSVPs
Great Value (Nov.21, 1:55PM) – MM has a special skill such that he is “able to write so much and communicate so little.”
GV points, whether knowingly or not, to the disjunct between the number of words one uses on the one hand and the content of what one communicates on the other. One can’t help but wonder if GV is in possession of the conversion calculus such that the number of words in a communication and the content of that communication can be brought into equilibrium. What if I typed in the contents of the Halifax Telephone Directory. Would that satisy your demand for sufficient communication? What about a weather report?
Or, GV, do you mean something else by the “content of communication?” Could it be ideas? Could it be thought? If so GV, write back and explain why I “communicate so little.” What, exactly, do you have in mind by “little thought” or “little communication?”
Hugo Phurst (7:26PM) – “Wow, rights for some and not for others. Isn’t that called Fascism?”
No Hugo, it’s not called “Fascism.” It’s called telling the truth. It has nothing to do with “rights” but you will not be able to understand this. I wasn’t criticizing your character, only your intelligence although the two are usually linked. The simple fact is that you have none. That’s because you can give no reasons for what you say, only invective. I know that you’re burning with resentment but, of course, that is your problem. Deal with it.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
MM:”What if I typed in the contents of the Halifax Telephone Directory…”
MM, sometimes it feels like you have done exactly this. yet the amount of meaningful information fits on a post-it note.
RSVPs
:Great Value (Nov. 21, 8:54PM) – “MM, sometimes it feels like you have dome exactly this, yet the amount of meaningful information fits on a post-it note.”
I think we’re making progress here, GV. The key relates to just what you have in mind by “meaningful information.” I think there’s room for philosophical reflection here, GV. Let’s give it a try.
An initial difficulty relates to the phrase “meaningful information” itself. Information is meaningful only if it relates to some narrow utilitarian purpose. For example, if John wanted to telephone Mary, then the information in the Halifax Telephone Directory WOULD be “meaningful” in the sense that it would be “useful.” But something tells me, GV, that you don’t mean “meaningful” in this restricted utilitarian sense. I think you’re hunting bigger philosophical game.
So I think the first thing we should do, GV, is to drop the term “information” which, after all, is just one step up from random “data” (i.e., information is structured data). What I think you’re really after, GV, is the notion of “meaning” itself which, as I am sure you will agree, relates not to “information” but to “concepts,” that is, to that which bestows coherence on lower-order information (i.e., concepts are structured information). Now, the next question obviously is, “What concepts, for GV, characteristically bestow coherence on his information? What concepts are meaningful for him? How does GV make sense of the world?”
Of course, GV, I don’t want to put words in your mouth. I don’t want to ventriloquize you. Only you can answer what concepts you employ to organize your experience. GV, this is where you come in. You can use more space than a post-it note if you like. As I say, GV, I think that we’re making progress.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
I see that your degree of meaningful analysis is comparable to your degree of meaningful content.
LOLOL this post was one of the stupidest things i have read in a long time. are you sure that you are in university lolol? calling it a right is not a smack in the face u dum dum lol. by calling education, housing, food etc. a rights, or appealing to a rights-based argument, what occupiers and others are doing is demanding that the government take responsibility to ensure that such basic human RIGHTS are enforced. It is the government’s JOB to protect it’s citizen’s RIGHTS, so by reminding the government that food, shelter etc are RIGHTS, and by also reminding the government of the fact that many people go without food, shelter etc., they are demanding that the government do their job and protect it’s citizen’s RIGHTS. Yes, it is a privilege to have those things, but constitutionally it is also a RIGHT, and the fact that many people dont have these things mean their RIGHTS as CANADIAN CITIZENS are being BROKEN. Do you understand?
Also, OP, lol how would you have people lobby THE GOVERNMENT for change lol? you said you have the things you have by privilige, which is true, but technically they are a right. however, only a priviledged few actually get to access those rights. by claiming those things as rights, you are asking that access to them be had everyone and not just your own priviledged self. ya heard me?
RSVPs
:Great Value (Nov. 24, 8:49AM) – Thank you, GV.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!