h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

And all this time I thought it was that's what the appendix was for.

That "stuff" just happens to be "Tullamore Dew" Irish whiskey, and it is a variety of the staple for idealist and romantics everywhere.

"Only by seeking to go beyond the veil of symbols can the essence of life be grasped. But first the ordinary has to be appreciated as extraordinary through the artful transformation of experience." Jack Zipes

"Give every man his Dew"

The connectedness of the world of Forms to the world of Matter is like the connectedness of the shapes that occur in Conway's Game of Life to the grid and the rules that give rise to them. The grid and the rules know nothing of the eaters and the flipflops and other patterns, but they are unmistakeably there.

Not sure I follow.

The grid and the rules give us the *possible* forms, but not ideal forms in the sense that Plato seems to have meant.


Noggin

I wonder if there's a form of a .

A question that highlights one of the principle problems with the theory of ideal forms.

Noggin

Yes. I had to explain what a spork was to my philosophy class. Several times.

So presumably they are now all dedicated Thingites.

Noggin

"The grid and the rules give us the *possible* forms, but not ideal forms in the sense that Plato seems to have meant."

Only intelligence can see the "Game of Life" shapes as flyers, eaters etc (whatever they are called); but they are ideal because the rules they arise from have no comprehension of them as entities. Yes, they give us the possible forms, but only in the sense that the forms can be materially explained by *arising inevitably from* the grid and the rules. The rules are blind; they just give us dots, which we then perceive as eaters and the rest.

Similarly matter is indifferent or blind to its contents, which is the world we deal with -- the world of people, living beings and recognisable objects -- things that we know by their forms, as Plato would say.

Alas no, only I amongst them hoot.

Ah, the life of a hooter.

(Humorous misunderstanding involving the phrase "hooters")

I was assuming you were referiing to night owls, I hope I wasn't mistaken. I'd hate to make a cyber faux pax.

But of course. I frequently find my screen is crashed into by nocturnal aviatory beasts.

Nemo. Or even a cyber boob eh!

toxx

Well, their hungry, and what better place to find a mouse?

The scenario and question which I presently put to myself, though not what one considers typical philosphy, is as follows. Any input would of course be appreciated.
I am a working class individual, what I suppose would be called "Blue Collar", barely making it, but I enjoy the work I do and I feel I would be comfortable doing it indefinately. However, I'm 25 and putting myself through school (I'm now a junior), and slowly going in debt doing so. I do not see anything I learn having much of an impact on my carrer life, unless I drastically change it. However, I enjoy the learning and social experience which college brings, even if it provides no evident benefit to myself, other than character and some enjoyment, both of which can be found elsewhere in various forms. I feel like it is a waste of money but it is ingrained in me that it is a good investment. I suppose the question is how important is it to me to be an "Educated Individual" and how important is it to provide a life for myself. Two sides which do not seem to interact for me, but I guess only I can really decide if I want to continue leading a divided life. Or, is school just my fix which I work to provide for, and if I can live without it, how bad will the withdrawals be?

Just had a snoop at your PS.

Looks like you've chosen to do what you want to do with an end (teaching or writing) in view. Can't be that bad.

On the other hand, you're not alone in doubting the value of school.

Descartes had the best education France could offer, and came out feeling he knew nothing, and had to educate himself from scratch.

Milotn educated himelf after graduation by reading for several years.

The 19th-20th century polymath George Bernard Shaw felt that everything useful that had been taught him came in his primary school years; all he learnt in secondary school ("high school") was lying, blackguarding and foul language. He never attended university but educated himself by reading through the Encyclopedia Britannica in the British Library.

Ivan Illich branded school as a tool of oppression, where you go to learn your place and have all your individual creativity stifled, in order to prepare you for the disappointment that is 'working for a living'. See his "De-schooling Society".

Generally it would seem that the reason for going to school is more social than educational. But you knew that. Enjoy it, but (like a bicicle helmet) don't expect it to do much for you.

Perhaps the reason for the lack of appreciation for school is that, at this point we've had several years of it and just can't stand it.

I don't think one should go through school to become just an "Educated Individual"; go through school because you enjoy it and+/or you are getting something positive out of it.

My history teacher left school at thirteen, got a job, etc etc, went to night classes, scraped some GCSEs and went to uni around the age of forty. He's very happy with the decision, I believe.

Don't go to school for the sake of school.