14 Comments
User's avatar
Linda Middlekauff's avatar

Wow! Your plan to offer SSE training into the public school sector is SO needed; it will benefit our entire country & perhaps ensure our Republic. I'm sure that you're aware of the private school movement of Classical Education & Christian Classical Education, which I've found to be very effective in teaching Socratic logic. Many homeschool programs have woven this method into their curricula as well. Well done, Dr. Boghosisan!

Expand full comment
Graham L's avatar

Plenty of these questions are really non-questions. They carve the world up into very left-hemisphere [see the work of Iain McGilchrist] either/or questions, rather than seeing the messy real-life positions in which many things co-exist, and in which human nature is limited and prone to corruption and ideological possession. Or simply to incompetence - imagine the high levels of a capitalist corporation, interested in profits but with little or no awareness of cultural trends, simply "swimming with the tide" and trying to make money out of whatever fashionable attitudes seem to be dominant; they take on DEI consultants, thinking "well, everybody is doing this" or "this seems like the right thing to do"; they subsequently find out that these consultants are training their staff to be anti-capitalist and socially destructive, and therefore working against their interests instead of for them; and they dismiss the consultants. That was just human nature, swilling about in its multi-faceted way, not "thinking" about capitalism or wokeism or socialism.

Expand full comment
Col Edward H R Green's avatar

The first step in Socratic dialogue is to define one's terms.

Expand full comment
John Hoggett's avatar

Pedagogy of the oppressed when practised well should give rise to greater truth and not be didactic where as wokeism is very didactic. Obviously I am making a claim and not offering proof or explanation but at its heart the practitioner asks people what is life like round here, how they feel about it and what shall we do about it? Those questions usually lead to different answers which need to be worked through before effective action can be taken where as wokism assumes the correct answer is known, though that known answer is always changing as new fashions emerge. I think the bigger problem with school education is the immense amount of managerialism and micromanagement of both teachers and pupils. In terms of Marxism, which was originally one strand of socialism, the women's question was debated but in the context of building a mass socialist movement, now that idea has gone and we are left with wokeism, where people squabble over tokens of the benefits of capitalism. Some see capitalism as competing rackets, wokism is below that, it is mere squabbling over tattered remnants of what were once serious social movements.

Expand full comment
dave's avatar

But there are people who hold contradictory beliefs. They acknowledge this and are proud of it.

What then?

Expand full comment
Peter Boghossian's avatar

How do they know how to hierarchically prioritize those beliefs? (Esp. when there's a contradiction.)

Expand full comment
Bill Bradford's avatar

WHY do they need to "hierarchically prioritize" their beliefs in the first place? Serious question. Seems to me, that you're trying to explain something in logical, rational terms, but that something is inherently illogical & irrational.....

Expand full comment
Peter Boghossian's avatar

Indeed

Expand full comment
Col Edward H R Green's avatar

A belief is a willful commitment of one's mind for which one has no, or extremely little and misinterpreted, sensory evidence. It is a non-cognitive, subjective construct; therefore hierarchical arrangement does not apply.

Beliefs can be internally logical, but this is a misuse of logic because it is not applied to facts; consequently, their result is nothing more than floating abstractions.

Expand full comment
Bill Bradford's avatar

I *think* that you're basically saying what I'm saying, or at least we're in agreement. Also, I like your new comment below. Thank-you!

Expand full comment
dave's avatar

Beliefs are axioms

Expand full comment
SingForever's avatar

Depending on the context & scope, the hierarchy may or may not exist or could be reevaluated further, when both parameters are expanded.

Expand full comment
Col Edward H R Green's avatar

If they are "proud" of it, they will not tolerate any challenges to their contradictory position as they are choosing to be committed to being intellectually disingenuous and evasive, which is a character flaw, for it is a willful rejection of reason, which is our basic means of survival, and logic applied to facts.

This position exemplifies the mentality of "queer" activists, for to be "queer" is to be contrarian for its own sake. It rejects everything that is the naturally given, reason (the faculty that identifies and integrates material provided by the senses), logic (non-contradictory identification), ethical/moral standards, facts, evidence, and the social/cultural status quo, regarding all of these as "tools of oppression".

The correct response when faced with such an individual is immediate non-engagement, and ostracism.

Expand full comment
dave's avatar

"Satan" is the Hebrew word that mean oppose. To be a contrarian or to oppose something for the sake of opposing is ..."satanic". Literally. It's revolutionary.

Expand full comment