11

Article Says Lack of Rational Philosophy Cripples Millennials

Posted by  $  BeenThere 4 months ago to Culture
40 comments | Share | Flag

Interesting claim that absence of Aristotelian based morality has set Millennials adrift. Maybe some sanity is still out there in the culture.
SOURCE URL: http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/millennial-offers-true-reason-her-generation-so-fragile


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by fosterj717 4 months ago
    To be fair, how can Millennials without honest teachers who are not idealogues hope to learn anything of value let alone Truth? The system has created this sad group that were turned into mindless robot "Snow Flakes". Truly! It is not their fault that they have been exploited by the Allinsky/Gramsci, Progressive Left (I.e., the modern Democrat party).

    If they were taught how to think instead of what to think, they could become our greatest generation. Aristotle must be turning in his grave by what is transpiring in Public Education and especiall "Higher" education!

    Time to get Gramsci and Allinsky out (or at least give equal time to de Toqueville, Murray Rothbard and the truly great thinkers who taught Truth and gave their students the opportunity to think for themselves!

    Truth be told......
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1musictime 4 months ago
      The baby boomers comprise the greatest generation.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by fosterj717 4 months ago
        Unfortunately it was we Baby Boomers that gave us most of the libertine, self-absorption that has become the norm. If you peel away all of the politics of division, it was an outgrowth of the radicalism nurtured by Allinsky following Gramsci's roadmap for destroying the industrial democracies. That is a fact! Free love, drugs, "me first" dogma couched in the feel good rhetoric is on us and unfortunately, no one else!

        The "Greatest Generation" was our parent who survived the Great Depression and fought WWII. Feats that we probably at this point would be hard-pressed to replicate. That is the sad Truth....
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 4 months ago
    Aristotelian logic requires questioning statements to determine the facts (today called "fact checking"). It's ironic that a generation that marched under the banner "Question Authority" now demand unquestioning acceptance of declarations by certain media and political figures without asking if they're true. The danger in this is that we now have a media that presents rumor, innuendo, and gossip as fact, counting on their followers to believe them without question.

    Children used to be taught how to think. Today they're taught what to think, and questioning is not tolerated, with the questioning student subject to bullying into submission. After years of being instilled in the idea that questioning results in punishment, it's no wonder that young people fear hearing statements that contradict what they've been told is truth, and demand "safe spaces" where they can hide from unacceptable thoughts.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 4 months ago
    In view of the fact that millennials are products of the government schools means they were crippled before they had a chance to get an education to even comprehend the word philosophy let a lone a rational philosophy. if you were to go into the street and ask any of them if they knew of Aristotle was they would not have a clue. seeing someone like Watter ask modern day question yield answers proving how dumb the youth of America is!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Susanne 4 months ago
      Not just that, but the school system run by the government is neither excellence nor knowledge drive, but instead driven by the fear of lawsuits, political correctness, and the whole babysitter mentality they feel is their job.

      Years ago I had a friend who was a teacher, Jr High and HS level, and he gave it up because he had teenagers fighting tin the back of the room, others having intercourse a bit more intense than just social, and a system that told him if he didn't follow THEIR party line and inability to enforce discipline, he was not only subject to termination, but prosecution.
      Those kids that WANT to learn face not only social pressures to be one of the cool f***-ups or be ostracized, but similar pressures by the school administration itself, who are more worried about what a child WEARS than what a child LEARNS... and that each represents not our future, but a chunk of that free money they get for their spending barrel, that is little johnny doesn't show up to learn nothing but deviant behavior, they get less in their feeding trough.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 months ago
    I think it's the hovering parent hypothesis. I do not see evidence, at least in my anecdotal experience, of a decrease in morals. In fact, millennials seem remarkably disciplined about avoiding junk food and trying to do the right thing. They seem to have as strong a moral code as I remember kids having in the 90s.

    I think the issue is hovering parents. My guess on the cause is before it was easy to get 24/7 kids' programming on TV, parents sent their kids out to play where they learned to interact with others and take care of minor problems and disputes on their own. Now it's easier for kids to stay in and watch TV or video games. There are fewer kids out, making it less fun and more risky for kids to go out. So parents keep them in. I would have driven my parents crazy, but today there is so much programming and games available nearly for free that kids are pacified for long periods of time. The first generation of young people raised this way are now young adults.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by StevenRaketic 4 months ago
      I think it is that they are not trained on how to think critically. They are force feed crap and then they have to regurgitate for a test, they pass with flying colors. They grow up increasingly hating school and hating learning until they get out and then they don't want to learn anymore and won't learn anymore. Some will pick up hobbies they enjoy and will learn how to think for themselves in that fashion, some will be challenged by their parents as I am doing, and the elite will always be elite because private schools don't teach you to hate learning, only public schools do that.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 months ago
        "They are force feed crap and then they have to regurgitate for a test, "
        I think in the post-WWII period baby boomers absorbed the message that a rising tide lifts all boats. Get good grades, get to a good job, climb the ladder, and prosperity comes to you. Peter Thiel touches on this in Zero to One.

        "the elite will always be elite because private schools don't teach you to hate learning, only public schools do that."
        I used to think that, but I do not count on it anymore. I had a bad experience with a moderately expensive private school four our kids. My new idea is changes in management or the teacher could at any moment cause the school to get better or worse. We don't count on the school. We do a lot of supplementing. It's so important to talk to them about what they learned in school today. At private, public, and camps, they have taught things I disagree with and agree with. I no longer expect them to go to a place that doesn't have people who say things that are wrong, just as I don't expect all clients, vendors, and employees to make sense to me. They're learning that early.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by StevenRaketic 4 months ago
          I agree completely, you can't count on the school. I was just speaking about the overall education of the masses. I supplement as much as I can, but being divorced where I only see my kids maybe 20% of the year makes that difficult. I have simply taught my kids to question everything. My daughter told me that I am the only person who teaches them things outside of school. Then she said she would believe everything I say. I then had to tell her not to do that, take what I say and prove it to yourself. If you find something different then bring it to me and we can discuss it and maybe I will have to change one of my axioms. I just hope that they can navigate the world of today without being used or taken advantage of. It is getting harder and harder to find the truth. Plus, their mother is liberal minded mainly due to laziness. I mean how can you donate your time campaigning for this: http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/clinton-de...

          The reason my daughter said she would believe everything I say is because I don't shelter them from the truth about this world and the atrocities in it. If it is conspiracy fact I will give them the proof, if it is conspiracy theory I will tell them that and show them where the problem remains unsolved. I am a logic person. I studied mathematics so I reason with them constantly and challenge them to reason or think critically for themselves. Sadly they preface most of the problems that weigh on their minds by saying, "please don't tell mom about this, but..." That is what really weighs on my mind.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  4 months ago
            "I then had to tell her not to do that, take what I say and prove it to yourself. If you find something different then bring it to me and we can discuss it and maybe I will have to change one of my axioms."

            Did the same with my four children. It took some time and struggling, but they got there and now they are rational critical thinkers and on "our side".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by StevenRaketic 4 months ago
              It's always nice to know I'm not alone. At first I had the concern that I was setting them up for "failure" in this world. The more I think about it, they should be able to use these skills better than I can because I was not taught about the real workings of people and the world, I had to learn the hard way. I consider my military experience as "walking through the valley of the shadow of death", valley of the shadow of death being the military itself and government it represents along with the overlords above them.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  4 months ago
                Not alone philosophically or spiritually (human spirit) but physically, conversationally, compatibly, yes, which is not our preference, but A is A, so we make the best of it and try to spread reason as best we can. The Gulch is a great help in connecting with "like minds" and gaining knowledge we may not have yet recognized ourselves...............happened for me today.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 4 months ago
    The article appeals to religion as the base of morality, invoking Alasdair MacIntyre, a very bad philosopher, and falsely equates the Aristotelian tradition with religion: "MacIntyre argues that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam superadded divine revelation to this Aristotelian framework, but didn’t essentially change the framework itself". That is of course false. It decried a lack of religious emphasis beginning with the Englightenment, "freed from any overarching, religiously-informed view of man and his supposed purpose in life". The author equates counter Enlightenment philosophers Kant and Kierkegaard, who were very religious, with the Elightenment. He is very confused.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1musictime 4 months ago
      One belief is religion has morality before morality is without religion.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 4 months ago
        The mystical, sacrificial duties demanded by religion are a destructive morality contrary to the principles of the Enlightenment on which this country was founded. A proper, rational morality is necessarily "without religion". The moral revolution of Atlas Shrugged rejects the traditional "beliefs".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 4 months ago
    Unfortunately they vote, at least a lot of them vote. Fortunately most/some of us vote too. We're currently about 50:50 in the US today, proven by the Historical November 2016 elections. How we all vote in the future will determine if the Millennials get what they think they want based on no particular knowledge of the truth nor all of the limited and biased history they have been taught, the rest they ignore. Perhaps part of God's plan for us saves us from this dilemma, we just die off and everyone else gets what they think they want. So be it, if they want socialism/communism, or any of the other ism's out there, that's exactly what they will eventually get. The world is actually a true democracy, the majority rules, even in North Korea. Of course if you want to survive for a lifetime there you really have no other choice, therefore a democracy. It could/might even happen here. Nah, not as long as I'm alive, even though my opinion hardly counts, but it does (sometimes) influence my children.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dteselle 3 months, 4 weeks ago
    God is dead. If so, can science (or rational thought) successfully replace God? The 20th century proves not. These are the questions Jordan B. Peterson, made famous recently by the Canadian decision to compel speech in regards to sexually ambiguous people, is pursuing. Anyone following?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 months, 4 weeks ago
      Ayn Rand's moral revolution in Atlas Shrugged proved that rational thought has replaced the traditional bad duty ethics of 2000 years and its consequences of 20th (and 21st) century altruism and collectivism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by dteselle 3 months, 4 weeks ago
        Whether it "has replaced" is certainly debatable. I question whether Rand's philosophy is an entirely adequate answer for certain personalities, cultures, and levels of intelligence.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 months, 4 weeks ago
          Ayn Rand's philosophy replaces the traditional views, showing again that rationality works. Obviously it has not replaced what most people still believe.

          Personalities, cultures and degree of active intelligence are a result of philosophy. Of course a better philosophy answers bad personalities, cultures and states of knowledge. Every individual requires a philosophic outlook to live, regardless of his degree of intellectual capacity and potential. There is no substitute for rationality. Of course Ayn Rand's philosophy is the answer for different people. It is based on the nature of man as a being who requires his rational thought to live.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Flootus5 4 months ago
    A really good article. Thanks for posting.

    My experience with the younger generations (yes, I am a geezer) has been mostly positive, but I suspect is hardly representative. I have hired and tutored many new mining engineering and geology graduates that have come from very science and technology oriented curricula. They can be really amazing. I have known and befriended many that can think critically even outside of their specialized education. Applying critical thinking to politics - they get it. And the questions they can ask!

    But as a mentor type, I relate other experiences that I have had, particularly in politics and law, especially regarding the Constitution and they are all ears. "They didn't teach us that!"

    I know, but you are hearing it now. Your education has only begun.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 4 months ago
      What does an ability to apply critical thinking to politics have to do with the article? The author is urging pre-Enlightenment religion as a moral foundation and decries, "Alas, St. Benedict has not yet appeared." This country was founded on the Enlightenment ideas of reason, individualism and freedom, not pre-Enlightenment religion. We need the Aristotelian-based moral revolution of Atlas Shrugged, not a return to the mentality of the Dark and Middle Ages.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Flootus5 4 months ago
        Ummm....the article posits that the Aristotelian philosophy of reason was lost with the Enlightenment. Maybe, maybe not. That is subject to debate. The article suggests that the loss of this ability is affecting "millennials" to think critically.

        While true in so many apparent cases, it is not applicable to the entire generation just because they are of that age. That is the usual painting of groups as a collective instead of acknowledging individuals. Which is why I took exception to painting "millennials" as all the same and talked about my experience with some of the younger generation as being different than this collective characterization.

        My point is also that reason is not lost, was never lost (hence Ayn Rand in the 20th Century), and will never be lost. It is an inherent capability of mankind.

        Reason is the ability to apply critical thinking to any subject, politics included. This is what separates humans from other creatures. It is endemic to the species. Yes it can be denied and attempted to be aborted, but one can never deny the reality of the capability.....and be correct.

        What I am saying is that this cognitive ability will never be entirely lost to all individuals despite indoctrination, intellectual trends, "movements", and other such collective forces. It is who we are as individuals. That fact can never be entirely negated. It will always bubble to the surface.

        That is why the ability I see in certain young ones as also having the ability to critically think about and question what is going on in politics is so encouraging and relevant to this article.

        The innate ability of reason will never be stopped. The ability for some to think for themselves will always persevere. That is the theme of Anthem. That is why she wrote it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 4 months ago
          What is "Ummm...." supposed to mean? Reason was lost in the western world in the Dark and Middle Ages when civilization collapsed. Whatever few individuals who were left trying to use their reason were vastly outnumbered and dominated by an irrational society; they had to try to start over by themselves and it took thousands of years for the western world to recover from the collapse by the time of the Enlightenment.

          That man's essence is the 'rational animal' does not mean that he behaves rationally regardless of his choices. 'Losing reason' does not mean the biological disappearance of the human faculty of the mind capable of logically integrating in conceptual form the information provided by the senses; it means the failure to practice that, under the influence of irrational philosophy and the loss of the knowledge of how to do it, which is largely what happened under the influence of religion between Greek civilization and the Enlightenment. The influence of reason as a dominant factor in the culture returned in the Enlightenment, beginning with the Renaissance. That is not subject to debate other than by the mystics and the subjectivists.

          The article decried the loss of the influence of religion due to the Enlightenment, obliterates the essential distinction between Aristotle and the mentality of religion that displaced it, then attributed the Enlightenment to leaders of the subsequent counter Enlightenment. It is not a good article. That you still find younger people in this culture now able and willing to think rationally has nothing to do with the article and does not make it a "really good article".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Flootus5 4 months ago
            Ummm is a simple euphemism meaning a thoughtful pause. The article is a good article in that it raises a good topic of discussion. One does not have to agree with it to acknowledge that. I do not agree with the premise which is why I brought up my experiences with a least a segment of the younger population. That point has everything to do with the article.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 4 months ago
              A terribly written article denouncing and misrepresenting the Enlightenment while pining for pre-Enlightenment religion and St. Benedict, all as the alleged cause of millennials not thinking clearly, is not a "really good article" just because it raised a "topic of discussion" it misrepresents. That is not "thoughtful". The article is fundamentally wrong across the board, not "really good".

              The original post in this thread praised the article as an unusual "sanity" for supposedly seeing that a rejection of Aristotle and rational philosophy "set Millennials adrift". The article is the opposite of that, confusing Aristotle with pre-Enlightenment religion and calling for St. Benedict, not rational philosophy.

              Millennials are adrift and worse, as is the whole culture because of the bad philosophy driving it for well over a century. The Millennial generation only happens to be the latest in the trend. That does not mean that individuals are not capable of thinking if shown how, despite the bad education promulgating bad philosophy. The problem is doing this on a cultural scale, where clear logical thinking is routinely undermined by bad philosophical premises that are increasingly difficult to uproot. The article proposes an answer to changing the whole culture with a return to religion under the guidance of the likes of Allistair MacIntyre. That is not the answer. It is the opposite.

              It's not enough to proclaim slogans about "Aristotle" and "rational philosophy". One must understand what Aristotle and the Enlightenment accomplished, how it differed from the religious tradition that destroyed western civilization for over a millennium, how it differs from the road to destruction we are getting today, and what it takes on a philosophical scale to correct it. Instead we see, on of all places an Ayn Rand forum, a post extolling appeals to Allistaire MacIntyre and religion just because a bad article included the name "Aristotle" and decried common behavior of "millennials".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo