Post by: xXNovaxX on August 14, 2009, 06:47:32 pm
In other schools we experienced 2-3 math teacher changes a year, some students balmed the teachers inabilty to speak english clearly (though surely this cannot be the main issue), others citing "not qualified", and some blaming "unable to teach". Its difficult to ssay that "people are bad at maths because they dont study", this cant be true for Maths isn't the only subject where people don't complete homeowkr. :crazy2:
What i think the issue is...
- students doing poor at maths now, and grow up to teach maths as teachers at a poor level
- teachers not giving any homework in maths and checking (in every subejct we get homeowkr, and have it marked, in maths everyone bludges and doesn't do it knowing it wont be looked at)
- some textbooks use very poor/limited examples, maths is a subject which needs a lot more in dpeth information and detail/diagrams/examples than say English or msuic, or art. This causes confusion and an inability to approach problems/excersies in OTHER textbooks
Any thoughts woiuld be interetsing ;D
Post by: TrueTears on August 14, 2009, 06:50:06 pm
Post by: xXNovaxX on August 14, 2009, 06:57:46 pm
Australian maths education does not focus on the basics and fundamentals enough, also they "leap" around too much, they never do anything in order. Look at Chinese maths education, they consolidate the basics of everything and do everything in a specific order.WOW! You read my mind :P, you are very correct! In moving schools i noticed each one taught soo many different strands and types of maths, and im spekaing of in year 7-10! They kept "leaping", and about the basics, you're right as well, i also think its ineffectivness in teaching, like in primary school we spent hours and hours a week doing maths, the basic of shapes etc, and each student was put in a group according to skill and given work appropriate to their needs, we also got given a 10 minute multiplication test, which we did every 2-3 days, and in 1 term, i improved in my speed by about 1/2 how i was before, other schools rely on rote-learning i.e. memorising timetables.
And about the Chinese system, i agree, it is also very common in japanese, European and some middle eastern schools. I remember my cousin in grade 1 or 2 i think it was learning times tables and fractions already, and understanding it.
Thanks for your comments, anyone else?
Post by: TrueTears on August 14, 2009, 06:59:24 pm
Post by: NE2000 on August 14, 2009, 07:19:31 pm
Fun...yes
Stress-free...yes
Encouraging you to embark upon a path of academic excellence and seeing maths as something that is fascinating...not really
Too much repetition as well.
Post by: zzdfa on August 14, 2009, 07:59:51 pm
the teachers dont pick up on the small conceptual misunderstandings each year then you end up with people in year 11 (at mhs even) thinking that sin(x) means sin*x
Post by: xXNovaxX on August 14, 2009, 08:11:49 pm
Maybe it's because maths is very sequential in that you must master the earlier material before you can effectively learn new material.
the teachers dont pick up on the small conceptual misunderstandings each year then you end up with people in year 11 (at mhs even) thinking that sin(x) means sin*x
* embarrassed*, i guess i'm one of those people who think sin (x) is the same as sin*x, hahah, but you are correct about the small misunderstandings which they don't pick up on, and then by the time you're in higehr levels it becomes difficult to grasp concepts which encompass those skills you should have learnt before. This goes back to me saying teachers not checking your exercise book and or marking it like they used to in primary school. ALSO, this means the only time they know you struggle with something is during the SAC, (after you hand it in), by then it's too late and already gone to your SS. Furthermore, i hate it when they don't correct your SACS, that is, they just put big red X's, and crosses, with no explanation. This might encourage students to maybe clarify soemtihng and learn in future.
Post by: kamil9876 on August 14, 2009, 08:28:19 pm
In other countries Calculus is thought of as some crazy uni math topic that you do once acquiring some math skill and before you learn this you learn number theory, geometry, logic, epsilon-delta limits, sums and series, algebra... which all makes sense because by doing so you acquire a taste for mathematical rigour which can then be applied to learning calculus more intelligently(especially when having knowledge of proof, limits and series(which really defines integration, not some mindless algorithms)).
In fact this lack of understanding what integration really means, just to take an example, is currently frustrating lecturers/tutors/students at uni since they[students] have difficulty in areas like physics where they must recognize limits of sums as integrals... but no... they[students] just see integrals as some crap u do with let u=.....
The above happens a lot when moving from one point in education to another, lack of skills in 7-10 affects poor algebra/geometry/reasoning in vce; poor definition of integration, proof, and mathematical ideas in general make it a difficult step into uni for most aspiring engineers.
edit: ambigous with "they" :P
Post by: Fyrefly on August 14, 2009, 11:26:46 pm
* embarrassed*, i guess i'm one of those people who think sin (x) is the same as sin*x, hahah, but you are correct about the small misunderstandings which they don't pick up on, and then by the time you're in higehr levels it becomes difficult to grasp concepts which encompass those skills you should have learnt before.
I remember in year 8... I simply could NOT understand +ves and -ves (like... multiplying and dividing and such)... I just DID NOT get it.
My teacher explained it exactly the same way as the txtbook every time I asked him, and the textbook didn't help me!
Eventually I gave up on asking him.
I don't remember how, but one day it all suddenly made sense to me.
I think one of my classmates may have explained it to me...
I dunno... I'm probably a bit weird in this respect tho... I never really understood the whole 'rise over run' thing that teachers kept repeating, but I got how to find gradient with x and y and such.
Post by: xXNovaxX on August 14, 2009, 11:41:40 pm
It also comes down to how teachers explain. Sometimes i get teachers who just write on the board, or give explanations which are FROM OUR TEXTBOOK, which i could have easily looked at myself, other times they write/give extensive notes with useful annotators and a break down of the process. Ah well, can't be bliss all the time.
Post by: lukeperry91 on August 15, 2009, 12:02:17 am
Post by: TrueTears on August 15, 2009, 12:34:00 am
Competition in China/India is greater than that in Australia. We do not enforce acedemia as such in primary school because an education can lead to other fields such as TAFE and practical studies. If you think your teachers are that bad, change schools; if you think the syllabus is that bad, write a letter to the board of education stating your point. This post is in the further maths thread, and ironically, the specialist buffs are the ones complaining about it being too easy. Before saying China educates its citizens better than Australia does, look at their unemployment rates, and the percent of the populus living under the poverty line in comparison to that of Australia. Evidently, irrespective of the higher standard of mathematics skills in China, the two country's systems have both positive and negative attributes, and saying that opportunities are limited in Australia due to the perceived lower standard is a fallacy as Australia is home to many prized mathematicians and scientists.Who said that?
Australia's prized mathematician Terrence Tao, both parents are both the very first Chinese immigrants, whose mother is a physicist and a mathematician graduate from the university of Hong Kong. Nuff said.
Post by: lukeperry91 on August 15, 2009, 12:42:37 am
"Australia's prized mathematician Terrence Tao, both parents are both the very first Chinese immigrants, whose mother is a physicist and a mathematician graduate from the university of Hong Kong. Nuff said."
I could google white mathematicians whose parents were born in Au as well, doesn't prove anything. BTW, is the implication of your statement that Australia's best are just Chinese immigrants?
Post by: lukeperry91 on August 15, 2009, 12:45:02 am
Post by: TrueTears on August 15, 2009, 12:50:18 am
This doesn't mean that Australia's best are Chinese immigrants, I merely stated a notable pattern.
Post by: kamil9876 on August 15, 2009, 12:51:44 am
And btw, Terry Tao is just a talent and of course Ausrtalia will have these because people of this sort can excell as long as they get access to good libraries, a few competitions and extension programs and I think Australia is very good at these. (just look at IMO gold medalist from Aus). Only the average highschool level has 'problems' really but the big talents can do well in Aus no doubt.
Post by: TrueTears on August 15, 2009, 12:52:27 am
Who the heck said or even implied that?
Opportunities?
Read the thread name please. We are not talking about opportunities.
Post by: kamil9876 on August 15, 2009, 12:55:59 am
True but I am talking about his background. Chinese parents do put more pressure on children then most Australians.
That's not what makes and cannot make superstars like Terry Tao. For that kind of thing you need to be able to motivate and nurture talent and in a lot of ways this comes from the opposite of pressure.
But yes, probably does help in achieving well in highschool
Post by: TrueTears on August 15, 2009, 12:57:07 am
Post by: kamil9876 on August 15, 2009, 01:01:05 am
Quote
True but I am talking about his[Terry Tao] background. Chinese parents do put more pressure on children then most Australians.
This juxtapositioning made me think that you are implying pressure => Tao-like ability. Which I just had to show my disagreement of.
Post by: TrueTears on August 15, 2009, 01:02:56 am
For "his" background I am talking about "Chinese" background, not a single person's background.
Also say Terry Tao's parents didn't immigrate to Australia? He'd be a Chinese genius no?
It's not the country that produces the genius, it's the individual who produces the genius.
Post by: kamil9876 on August 15, 2009, 01:06:39 am
Post by: kamil9876 on August 15, 2009, 01:08:37 am
can't blame me for misinterpreting you with juxtapositioning like that.
Maybe Australia should improve their comprehension skillz too.
Gimme some of that pressure and discipline biatch!
Post by: TrueTears on August 15, 2009, 01:09:21 am
LOLcan't blame me for misinterpreting you with juxtapositioning like that.
Maybe Australia should improve their comprehension skillz too.
Gimme some of that chineese pressure and discipline biatch!
Post by: Toothpaste on August 15, 2009, 01:17:07 am
In a language more suitable for this topic:
development of skills = biological factors + environmental stimulation?
Post by: JuzzLee on August 15, 2009, 01:17:55 am
it is certainly true that a large proportion of Asian parents pay much attention on their children's education, and some parents' high educational background may even further benefit their children's academic success. However, that doesn't mean the top mathematicians in Australia are only limited to asians, there are heaps more other than terrence tao. there are many non-asian family who emphasise education and care about their children's study just as much as asian parents do. My point being that a person's family background, environment, which are irrelevant to their race, can affect his academic status.
Post by: TrueTears on August 15, 2009, 01:18:05 am
So do you reckon skills/higher ability in mathematics are inborn (i.e. genetics); or acquired through experience and certain types of conditioning (i.e. affected by pressure from parents, exposure to maths problems early)? Or the combination of both? Also known as the debate of nature Vs. nurture.That sums up everything. :P
In a language more suitable for this topic:
development of skills = biological factors + environmental stimulation?
Post by: Glockmeister on August 15, 2009, 01:38:36 am
So do you reckon skills/higher ability in mathematics are inborn (i.e. genetics); or acquired through experience and certain types of conditioning (i.e. affected by pressure from parents, exposure to maths problems early)? Or the combination of both? Also known as the debate of nature Vs. nurture.
In a language more suitable for this topic:
development of skills = biological factors + environmental stimulation?
I think for something like academic subjects like these, it's probably more nurture than nature. That said sometimes, parents putting pressure on people to perform can have the opposite effect to what is intended. This is because the possibility of failure could easily reduce the self-efficacy of a person, leading to reduced performance in exams and the ilk. Or to put it more simply, students may lose confidence in their own ability to do maths (or any other subject for that matter).
It may also be the possibility that this Asian=smart stereotype could be exaggerated. Often, we tend to notice the most poignant examples, in this case, Asians with ENTERs (or ATARs) of >99. By doing this, we forget about the possibly larger number of Asians with very low ENTER scores, a bias known as availability bias.
Post by: ninwa on August 15, 2009, 09:10:34 am
Before saying China educates its citizens better than Australia does, look at their unemployment rates, and the percent of the populus living under the poverty line in comparison to that of Australia.You bring that up as if it were conclusive evidence that China's education system is inferior. It is not. You were right the first time:
Competition in China/India is greater than that in Australia.
No matter how educated you are, if there are millions of people who are equally educated, then of course there will be unemployment. When my mother graduated from high school, she was the only one who got a place in university out of her class of ~100, not because the rest of them were incompetent but because there were so many high school graduates trying to get into university. Employment is the same.
Also this thread is now moved to the general maths board because it really had nothing to do with further maths.
Post by: lukeperry91 on August 15, 2009, 11:26:06 am
And to what TT said about opportunities: isn't that the whole point of getting an education? The opportunity to proceed on to excel with further learning, to join the skilled workforce?
Post by: zzdfa on August 15, 2009, 12:32:01 pm
dunno why you keep bringing 'opportunities' into this.
TT merely stated that the standard of education here is way lower than in China.
sure, kids have an easier time getting into uni/job here than in china butthat's because there is less competition, not because australia's education system is any better.
Post by: xXNovaxX on August 15, 2009, 01:16:50 pm
Forgetting about Uni funding, graduates, etc, in China parents are a lot more strict with higher expectations of their children to get into a Uni, to be top of the class, and to get low marks, fails etc i think it's seen as "shameful" or "bad". Whereas here no one cares (a bit of a generalsiation, but the majority of people are happy with C's and D's). In my school, and others surely, i find it surprising when i hear people say "yes!! I passed" instead of "oh, dam i only got a D or a C, i need to improve and get B's and A's". My point being people are HAPPY just to pass, nobody excells themselves to improve. That is the bar is set so low. Look at Japan for example, people attend "cram school" over the weekend, to get extra work, practise and revision. This idea is non existent in Australia (forget tutoring). The Japan example shows how so many people there are intent on doing well.
And please don't get me wrong with my examples, many of them are generalisations, and do to some extent represent fact. Also somebody said sometihng about going to TAFE or sometihng, i think this is also a factor, so many people don't care how they go because they know "oh, ill just go to TAFE" But yeah, keep the comments coming.
Post by: ninwa on August 15, 2009, 07:18:31 pm
If China nurtures education so much, why don't they build and fund more Universities?Stop being defensive and re-read the argument. TT was not arguing that China's education system was any better than Australia's, merely that it was a lot more academically rigorous.
And to what TT said about opportunities: isn't that the whole point of getting an education? The opportunity to proceed on to excel with further learning, to join the skilled workforce?
Post by: Mao on August 15, 2009, 11:15:36 pm
What does his mother have to do with it anyway, once he's a citizen hes an Australian just like the rest of us.
Interesting comment here, if an immigrant with Australian Citizenship committed an act of mass murder, would you still consider this person one of us?
Post by: xXNovaxX on August 15, 2009, 11:25:13 pm
good point.What does his mother have to do with it anyway, once he's a citizen hes an Australian just like the rest of us.
Interesting comment here, if an immigrant with Australian Citizenship committed an act of mass murder, would you still consider this person one of us?
Post by: EvangelionZeta on August 16, 2009, 09:57:34 am
I never said Terry Tao was a genius because of his parents, I just said his background obviously helped him become one.
Not particularly relevant to anything, but genius typically connotates natural talent. Hence, nobody apart from Terrence Tao himself "made" him into a genius.
My only comment on the international education debate thing is that we should all do IB!!!!!!!!!!!!1111+shift.
Post by: AppleXY on August 16, 2009, 10:12:31 am
I never said Terry Tao was a genius because of his parents, I just said his background obviously helped him become one.
Not particularly relevant to anything, but genius typically connotates natural talent. Hence, nobody apart from Terrence Tao himself "made" him into a genius.
My only comment on the international education debate thing is that we should all do IB!!!!!!!!!!!!1111+shift.
Investment Banking? AWESOMEEEE LETS DO IT :D
btw isn't the math education in the US worse than in Australia :S
Post by: xXNovaxX on August 16, 2009, 01:38:27 pm
Post by: /0 on August 16, 2009, 02:22:21 pm
Post by: xXNovaxX on August 16, 2009, 02:54:44 pm
At least less Australians suicide due to academic pressure (and have childhoods).ur correct, but then again, in australia suicide because of depression, drugs etc, is a lot mroe common then in china, japan and otehr countries- it goes both ways i guess.
Post by: Fyrefly on August 16, 2009, 04:00:45 pm
This thread has taken a very strange and off-topic turn...
Maths => Chinese people => Investment banking => Australians suiciding.
Post by: xXNovaxX on August 16, 2009, 04:18:08 pm
Post by: ninwa on August 16, 2009, 04:35:45 pm
LOL, maybe this belongs in General Discussion ...
This thread has taken a very strange and off-topic turn...
Maths => Chinese people => Investment banking => Australians suiciding.
Post by: NE2000 on August 16, 2009, 04:42:07 pm
So do you reckon skills/higher ability in mathematics are inborn (i.e. genetics); or acquired through experience and certain types of conditioning (i.e. affected by pressure from parents, exposure to maths problems early)? Or the combination of both? Also known as the debate of nature Vs. nurture.
In a language more suitable for this topic:
development of skills = biological factors + environmental stimulation?
I think for something like academic subjects like these, it's probably more nurture than nature. That said sometimes, parents putting pressure on people to perform can have the opposite effect to what is intended. This is because the possibility of failure could easily reduce the self-efficacy of a person, leading to reduced performance in exams and the ilk. Or to put it more simply, students may lose confidence in their own ability to do maths (or any other subject for that matter).
It may also be the possibility that this Asian=smart stereotype could be exaggerated. Often, we tend to notice the most poignant examples, in this case, Asians with ENTERs (or ATARs) of >99. By doing this, we forget about the possibly larger number of Asians with very low ENTER scores, a bias known as availability bias.
I agree the Asian = smart stereotype may ignore the other end of the scale. But I think the idea is more related to the idea that at the top end of the scale you would find a greater percentage of Asians than you would at the bottom end of the scale. Before I start anything, I'm not trying to create any sort of argument, but just clarifying what I perceive the Asian stereotype to be borne out of. What creates this? I think the 99+ ATARs may have something to do with it...but I think this is built by schools like James Ruse Agricultural High School, with its school cohort something like 90% Asian, with a median ATAR of 99.50 or something like that.
In the other topics this thread has evolved into. I believe academic ability in subjects like mathematics is for most of us more about nurture than nature. It is my belief that if you begin teaching any ordinary child in a pressureless but academically stimulating and supportive environment mathematics from the age of three and rather than repetition of similar concepts you go from basic concepts to application based maths before moving onto something more difficult, that child would be able to develop into someone of strong mathematical ability regardless of their genetic makeup. Of course no such experiment has been performed, so it is merely a conviction at this stage. However, this is not to become a Terence Tao like genius. This is not to be capable of being a professor at UCLA at age 25. This is to be strong at mathematics, let's say to be able to complete specialist maths and achieve a 45+ score. I honestly believe that given nurture from a young age anyone can achieve that and what is often said to be a natural gift (implying some sort of genetic influence) may in fact simply be development of talent at a younger age. To be a Terence Tao like genius, I think you need something to click and that may indeed be genetic.
Post by: Fyrefly on August 16, 2009, 04:54:01 pm
You know what? I miss The Random Thread... I have difficulty channeling my randomness these days...
And I wouldn't bother Nina... give it another couple of days... someone will say something particularly racist, everyone will have a go at them, they'll defend themselves, somehow economics will be brought up, this thread will explode, then it will be locked.
I think the 99+ ATARs may have something to do with it...
Lol... you said ATAR...
Post by: Eriny on August 16, 2009, 05:04:51 pm
I think this system has a lot of benefits, and I think I would have found school considerably more difficult if the environment was any less friendly. I also think that students can really thrive in this environment because they feel as though they can try out new ideas, particularly in terms of their creativity and in developing and expressing their own ideas an opinions and being analytical and critical, particularly in regard to authority. And I think these skills are fairly invaluable, especially once one leaves high school. I remember from a show I watched about people coming to Australia from Asia to do Masters degrees really struggled with the level of critical thinking involved.
However, there is a cost. And perhaps maths is the area that highlights the cost a lot. Lots of Australian students are 'afraid' of maths and maths being as rigorous as it is (as in, you can't experiment with your ideas in maths - you're either right or wrong) a lack of discipline in this area and an unwillingness to accept authority will get you nowhere. Adding to that, Australian students aren't taught the basics of logic or proofs at all in high school so even if they were in an environment which was highly black and white and disciplined, it is kind of difficult to see how everything fits together. That said, many students do very well in maths, and it's hardly fair to say that because a bunch of students in one class scored badly on a SAC that 'so many people are bad at maths'. And I think also that once someone has majored in maths at an Australian university, the discrepancies in maths ability across continents wouldn't be nearly as pronounced. But then again, I guess there you aren't dealing with the 'average' student, you're dealing with people who like and are interested in maths.
Post by: xXNovaxX on August 16, 2009, 07:03:48 pm
And your spot on with how ur teacher becomes like a "friend", i had a teacher for most of my high school years who was quiet young, and sort of, not "acted like us", but had the same mode of thinkning, or that they are able to sympathise/empathise with us? It sort of made those classes feel like ur at home kind of lol, and at the same time ur getting something out of education.
Post by: lukeperry91 on August 16, 2009, 07:12:40 pm
That being said, I don't think its in the Aussie spirit to associate ourselves with mass murderers, so while he would still be a citizen (until he's punished?) I doubt anyone in the community would consider him their own.
@Ninwa: YOU stop being defensive and refute my arguments despite alleged irrelevancy.. you totally overlooked the fact that I pointed out the correlation between education and opportunities.
Post by: /0 on August 16, 2009, 07:56:12 pm
Post by: xXNovaxX on August 16, 2009, 08:03:10 pm
Post by: ninwa on August 16, 2009, 09:21:26 pm
From what I've heard (and I would like confirmation of this) many teachers in different countries don't act as this egalitarian extra support resource. They are seen as largely unapproachable and disciplinarian.Yep, you're right. I'm really glad my parents brought me to Australia; I would've been miserable under an Asian system.
@Ninwa: YOU stop being defensive and refute my arguments despite alleged irrelevancy.. you totally overlooked the fact that I pointed out the correlation between education and opportunities.Nobody ever said there was no correlation between education and opportunities. When did I even attempt to refute that? I agree with that contention :\
You are being over-defensive and thereby jumping to conclusions - you took TT's statement that Chinese education is more academically rigorous to mean that it is superior to the Australian system, and sought to back that up with arguments that there are more opportunities in Australia. Of course there are - there is a lot less competition, like you yourself mentioned. But your entire opportunities argument is irrelevant considering nobody ever denied that was the case, explicitly or implicitly. That's all we've been trying to say.
Post by: Mao on August 16, 2009, 11:18:45 pm
"Interesting comment here, if an immigrant with Australian Citizenship committed an act of mass murder, would you still consider this person one of us?" Yes and no: for him to become a citizen he has to live in Australia for years without committing crime in the process. If he commits mass murder we had no way of foreseeing it, and if we deny him/her the right to a fair trial as a citizen, then where would we draw the line at denying unnatural citizens rights?
That being said, I don't think its in the Aussie spirit to associate ourselves with mass murderers, so while he would still be a citizen (until he's punished?) I doubt anyone in the community would consider him their own.
I like the way the Aussie Spirit picks and chooses whoever it wants. You are willing to embrace Terrence Tao because he is a citizen, but you aren't willing to accept a nationalized terrorist as part of the community.
On a different note, I would like to point out that opportunities and education has a correlation, but not necessarily causation. There are 200-million school-goers in China, more than 10 million students graduate from higher education each year. China sure has the capacity to build many many more universities, but the world's skilled workforce does not have a high enough demand for it, as it is already, skilled graduates cannot find jobs because there simply isn't enough jobs. This is the cause of unemployment, because the economy is not big enough to support it, not because education level is not high enough.
So that pretty much invalidates your entire argument, the reason why there are less opportunities in China is because an average Chinese person is poorer than an average Australian person, not because an average Chinese person has worse education.
Post by: dcc on August 17, 2009, 08:02:55 pm
Perhaps the reason why not as many Aussies pursue math is due to negative cultural stereotypes. In our culture, it is the norm to think that sports is cool and maths is nerdy. Maths is non-conformist!
Obviously you don't talk to the right people. Everyone I know thinks maths is king-god-man of the earth.
I like the way the Aussie Spirit picks and chooses whoever it wants. You are willing to embrace Terrence Tao because he is a citizen, but you aren't willing to accept a nationalized terrorist as part of the community.
I like how the chinese spirit basically revolves around stifling freedom (and denying history, for that matter).
Post by: Mao on August 17, 2009, 09:28:07 pm
I like the way the Aussie Spirit picks and chooses whoever it wants. You are willing to embrace Terrence Tao because he is a citizen, but you aren't willing to accept a nationalized terrorist as part of the community.
I like how the chinese spirit basically revolves around stifling freedom (and denying history, for that matter).
I'm assuming that statement criticizes the 'chinese spirit', provided that freedom is a 'good' thing. Morality is relative. Maybe stifling freedom turn us on?
Post by: /0 on August 17, 2009, 10:01:15 pm
Free market sucks.
What we need is a utilitarian computer to govern the world.
Post by: EvangelionZeta on August 17, 2009, 10:26:16 pm
Perhaps the reason why not as many Aussies pursue math is due to negative cultural stereotypes. In our culture, it is the norm to think that sports is cool and maths is nerdy. Maths is non-conformist!
Obviously you don't talk to the right people. Everyone I know thinks maths is king-god-man of the earth.I like the way the Aussie Spirit picks and chooses whoever it wants. You are willing to embrace Terrence Tao because he is a citizen, but you aren't willing to accept a nationalized terrorist as part of the community.
I like how the chinese spirit basically revolves around stifling freedom (and denying history, for that matter).
Interestingly enough, Plato's ideal state in The Republic involves information control and people being assigned to specific roles depending on their capabilities - regardless of what they want personally.
Post by: dcc on August 18, 2009, 02:31:30 pm
I'm assuming that statement criticizes the 'chinese spirit', provided that freedom is a 'good' thing. Morality is relative. Maybe stifling freedom turn us on?
I think you misunderstand. Freedom (which I characterise as property rights) is devoid of morality. China lacks these rights (indeed, actively opposes them).
Post by: methodsboy on August 18, 2009, 02:37:17 pm
Post by: ninwa on August 18, 2009, 03:14:12 pm
(and denying history, for that matter).I don't think Australia is in a position to criticise other countries' denial of history just yet.
Post by: Toothpaste on August 18, 2009, 03:21:43 pm
Post by: dcc on August 18, 2009, 03:50:12 pm
I don't think Australia is in a position to criticise other countries' denial of history just yet.
That's fortunate, as I do not represent Australia in any capacity. I am not a nationalist.
Are we playing dress-up as a country? Can I play too?
Spot on.
Post by: ninwa on August 18, 2009, 04:23:31 pm
But you were replying to what appears to be an insult to the "Aussie Spirit". And I don't see Mao representing China in any capacity.I don't think Australia is in a position to criticise other countries' denial of history just yet.
That's fortunate, as I do not represent Australia in any capacity. I am not a nationalist.
Post by: dcc on August 18, 2009, 06:21:14 pm
But you were replying to what appears to be an insult to the "Aussie Spirit". And I don't see Mao representing China in any capacity.
Infer what you will, my point still stands. Just because you THINK I have a certain position does not necessarily entail that I do.
Post by: Mao on August 19, 2009, 12:07:11 am
I'm assuming that statement criticizes the 'chinese spirit', provided that freedom is a 'good' thing. Morality is relative. Maybe stifling freedom turn us on?
I think you misunderstand. Freedom (which I characterise as property rights) is devoid of morality. China lacks these rights (indeed, actively opposes them).
Then similarly, 'rights' is also relative. Vegetarians do not see meat as essential. Chinese people may not view freedom as an essential right to have, then whose place is it to say this is such a bad thing?
Post by: Glockmeister on August 19, 2009, 12:37:36 am
I'm assuming that statement criticizes the 'chinese spirit', provided that freedom is a 'good' thing. Morality is relative. Maybe stifling freedom turn us on?
I think you misunderstand. Freedom (which I characterise as property rights) is devoid of morality. China lacks these rights (indeed, actively opposes them).
Then similarly, 'rights' is also relative. Vegetarians do not see meat as essential. Chinese people may not view freedom as an essential right to have, then whose place is it to say this is such a bad thing?
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. - Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Just because a certain set of people view something as bad, or not essential, does not mean that it is bad, or not essential. I do not believe for a second that 'rights' are inherently relative to a particular social set.
Another thing is that the analogy between Vegetarians and Chinese people is a false analogy. Vegetarians, by definition would find meat as unessential. Chinese people, on the other hand are not defined by their lack of recognition of the rights to freedom.
Post by: tim2541 on August 19, 2009, 07:17:26 pm
Post by: xXNovaxX on August 19, 2009, 07:39:14 pm
Post by: lukeperry91 on August 19, 2009, 08:54:08 pm
Also, abstaining from eating meat doesn't hurt/impose on anyone, whereas not have freedom does.
Post by: xXNovaxX on August 19, 2009, 09:40:34 pm
Post by: dcc on August 19, 2009, 09:47:06 pm
@xXNovaxX:
You shouldn't lock a thread just because you think that it's not going in the direction you wanted it to. If you have an issue about relevance with any individual posts, report them so that moderators can take action upon them.
Post by: EvangelionZeta on August 19, 2009, 10:42:35 pm
Another reason why Mao's analogy is false is that it has been proven that meat is not essential (at least to human health), whereas freedom cannot be proved to be inessential.
Also, abstaining from eating meat doesn't hurt/impose on anyone, whereas not have freedom does.
Your argument is fallacious. You've acknowledged that freedom cannot be proved to be inessential - why does this necessarily mean it can be proved to be essential as well? If something is either A or B, and we can't prove it to be A, it doesn't necessarily mean it is B.
And the hurt/impose argument isn't even an argument - it's a statement. Give evidence of your claim, or it doesn't amount to anything other than you posting your emotional response to a certain line of thought. You have failed to actually address anything, and furthermore it's not as if the Chinese people are oppressed slaves in the first place. They are allowed to work in the field they want, choose who they want to marry, wear what they want, travel wherever they want - etc.
Quote
I do not believe for a second that 'rights' are inherently relative to a particular social set.
Justify this. Why do we need rights? What are the negative effects of not having the rights Chinese people don't have?
Post by: lukeperry91 on August 19, 2009, 10:58:32 pm
Sum of probabilities equals one.
"travel wherever they want" LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"doesn't amount to anything other than you posting your emotional response to a certain line of thought." LOL!!!! You better not be Chinese!
Post by: lukeperry91 on August 19, 2009, 11:03:31 pm
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tiananmen+square
Post by: ninwa on August 19, 2009, 11:12:35 pm
"travel wherever they want" LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Just a question: what have your experiences of living in China been like?
Post by: enwiabe on August 19, 2009, 11:16:05 pm
Post by: xXNovaxX on August 19, 2009, 11:31:47 pm
Post by: TrueTears on August 19, 2009, 11:42:43 pm
I am interested in hearing luke's response as well for this :P"travel wherever they want" LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Just a question: what have your experiences of living in China been like?
Post by: QuantumJG on August 19, 2009, 11:57:14 pm
Just a thought :smiley6600:. You hear so many times, whether in the news, real life experience, newspapers etc that we are falling behind in maths. You only have to look at schools! I've moved schools several times, and in each school (public/though not limited to), sooo many people achieve C's and D's. In our recent tests we had 1/3 yes 33% of year 12 maths students FAIL a SAC, and the highest in the class was a 65% i think it was, and also those that passed got like 40% or around 45%I believe that english is a subject that isn't taught that well. Year 12 english is more like doing a very basic arts degree than actually learning english.
In other schools we experienced 2-3 math teacher changes a year, some students balmed the teachers inabilty to speak english clearly (though surely this cannot be the main issue), others citing "not qualified", and some blaming "unable to teach". Its difficult to ssay that "people are bad at maths because they dont study", this cant be true for Maths isn't the only subject where people don't complete homeowkr. :crazy2: What i think the issue is...
- students doing poor at maths now, and grow up to teach maths as teachers at a poor level
- teachers not giving any homework in maths and checking (in every subejct we get homeowkr, and have it marked, in maths everyone bludges and doesn't do it knowing it wont be looked at)
Maths and science in Australia is a growing, but, small area and its not considered that important. For example I bet that 60% of the population doesn't know what physics or calculus means. The people who end up loving maths don't become teachers for many reasons such as: High school maths is basic and high school teaching would be annoying. The people who are good at maths will become engineers, physicists, mathematicians, actuaries, etc.
I am personally considering a maths major (I'm also considering physics, mathematical physics or electrical engineering) and at the end of the day I would be much more interested in writing a paper with my own original research (and becoming a professor to give detailed lectures in an area that interests me) than trying to teach someone the basics (Teaching someone the basics of maths is sort of like trying to explain why an apple is an apple).
- some textbooks use very poor/limited examples, maths is a subject which needs a lot more in dpeth information and detail/diagrams/examples than say English or msuic, or art. This causes confusion and an inability to approach problems/excersies in OTHER textbooks
Any thoughts woiuld be interetsing ;D
The thing with maths is that to become good at it you must do heaps of problems to be able to understand what you are doing and why. The thing I love with maths is that its not rote memory, its developing skills to solve problems.
Post by: Mao on August 19, 2009, 11:58:41 pm
The right to freedom is self-evident and universal.
I agree to this opinion, but I cannot accept it as a fact. That statement I believe is strongly related to the way society works. A person who does not know what freedom is probably wouldn't desire it.
Also,
"If something is either A or B, and we can't prove it to be A, it doesn't necessarily mean it is B."You are misunderstanding. Just because you cannot prove it to be A, doesn't mean it is not A.
Sum of probabilities equals one.
Just because you cannot prove God's existence, doesn't mean God does not exist.
Post by: EvangelionZeta on August 20, 2009, 12:08:12 am
"If something is either A or B, and we can't prove it to be A, it doesn't necessarily mean it is B."
Sum of probabilities equals one.
"travel wherever they want" LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"doesn't amount to anything other than you posting your emotional response to a certain line of thought." LOL!!!! You better not be Chinese!
This is logic and rationality, not maths. Learn to (lolol) differentiate.
Quote
"What are the negative effects of not having the rights Chinese people don't have?"
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tiananmen+square
Because modern China is still ruled by a dictatorship mentality. There's a difference between not having an unlimited amount of freedom and having an oppressive government - again, refer to Plato's Republic.
Quote
The right to freedom is self-evident and universal.
I agree intuitively, but unless you can justify WHY you think so, I don't think it's a valid point in what amounts to a rational argument. Intuitively, you might also think that you have free will, whereas to justify that you actually have free will is actually very hard, and hence using "we are free" in an argument (that for whatever reason) involves human beings being free is dismissable.
Post by: QuantumJG on August 20, 2009, 12:09:49 am
...Australia is home to many prized mathematicians and scientists.
Umm yes...
That is why its 2009 and Australia has no nuclear power plants, thats why Australian physicists go over to Europe to do some real physics and thats why Australia has just put up its first synchrotron.
Trust me if you want to do some real cool maths or physics you need to be in the US, Japan or Europe
Post by: Mao on August 20, 2009, 12:10:46 am
- some textbooks use very poor/limited examples, maths is a subject which needs a lot more in dpeth information and detail/diagrams/examples than say English or msuic, or art. This causes confusion and an inability to approach problems/excersies in OTHER textbooks
Any thoughts woiuld be interetsing ;D
The thing with maths is that to become good at it you must do heaps of problems to be able to understand what you are doing and why. The thing I love with maths is that its not rote memory, its developing skills to solve problems.
I'm not too keen to agree with 'must do heaps of problems', but more so 'to be able to understand what you are doing and why'. The prior build up ROUTINE, the latter build up UNDERSTANDING.
The ability to understand the logic behind proofs, corollaries and theorems and be able to understand their implications and solve problem with it, that is the real indication of whether someone is 'good' at maths. But not everyone is capable of dealing with [mostly] abstract logic like this, or rather, most people aren't trained to interpret abstract logic (due to limited exposure at young age).
The key to success in mathematics, I believe, is early exposure to reason and logic, so that it has already become a mental framework for the child when it's time to learn maths. But how can you expect young children to actively pursue 'reason and logic'? You cannot, and that is where the success of the typical Asian child comes from, choices made for the child, discipline right from the start, which is basically a deprivation of freedom. As for how well that works, it is up to much debate. Though the quality of this debate and equal representation cannot be guarenteed, as an intellectual discussion on this topic requires reason and logic.
On another note,
I am starting to get a feeling that it is part of the Chinese culture to dictate and control others.Quote"What are the negative effects of not having the rights Chinese people don't have?"
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tiananmen+square
Because modern China is still ruled by a dictatorship mentality. There's a difference between not having an unlimited amount of freedom and having an oppressive government - again, refer to Plato's Republic.
Post by: xXNovaxX on August 20, 2009, 12:12:14 am
Since I love maths I want to have a indepth discussion about this.Just a thought :smiley6600:. You hear so many times, whether in the news, real life experience, newspapers etc that we are falling behind in maths. You only have to look at schools! I've moved schools several times, and in each school (public/though not limited to), sooo many people achieve C's and D's. In our recent tests we had 1/3 yes 33% of year 12 maths students FAIL a SAC, and the highest in the class was a 65% i think it was, and also those that passed got like 40% or around 45%I believe that english is a subject that isn't taught that well. Year 12 english is more like doing a very basic arts degree than actually learning english.
In other schools we experienced 2-3 math teacher changes a year, some students balmed the teachers inabilty to speak english clearly (though surely this cannot be the main issue), others citing "not qualified", and some blaming "unable to teach". Its difficult to ssay that "people are bad at maths because they dont study", this cant be true for Maths isn't the only subject where people don't complete homeowkr. :crazy2: What i think the issue is...
- students doing poor at maths now, and grow up to teach maths as teachers at a poor level
- teachers not giving any homework in maths and checking (in every subejct we get homeowkr, and have it marked, in maths everyone bludges and doesn't do it knowing it wont be looked at)
Maths and science in Australia is a growing, but, small area and its not considered that important. For example I bet that 60% of the population doesn't know what physics or calculus means. The people who end up loving maths don't become teachers for many reasons such as: High school maths is basic and high school teaching would be annoying. The people who are good at maths will become engineers, physicists, mathematicians, actuaries, etc.
I am personally considering a maths major (I'm also considering physics, mathematical physics or electrical engineering) and at the end of the day I would be much more interested in writing a paper with my own original research (and becoming a professor to give detailed lectures in an area that interests me) than trying to teach someone the basics (Teaching someone the basics of maths is sort of like trying to explain why an apple is an apple).
- some textbooks use very poor/limited examples, maths is a subject which needs a lot more in dpeth information and detail/diagrams/examples than say English or msuic, or art. This causes confusion and an inability to approach problems/excersies in OTHER textbooks
Any thoughts woiuld be interetsing ;D
The thing with maths is that to become good at it you must do heaps of problems to be able to understand what you are doing and why. The thing I love with maths is that its not rote memory, its developing skills to solve problems.
ur spot on :). One of my old maths teachers used to be a physicist i think she said, and she did masters etc etc, so i found it strange she became a teacher. But she said she is considering going back to working in her field. Ur correct in saying u would rather do ur own research papers etc then teach basic maths. But is a vicious cycle--->complicate basic maths anymore would see more people fail-->make it too simplified-->students become teachers who only understand simplified maths.
And just in regard to ur English topic, ur right!! I am an apt student in english, but i find it strange why we spend time learning how to rite a speech on an issue, or idenifty the VOICE of a writer in language analysis etc, when so many students fail to proeprly use basic grammar, sophisticated language etc. I am not saying language anyslis etc is useless, but you would think, more emphasis was placed on grammar etc. In English i feel that those who are ABLE to go further, are restrained by those who don';t read the set texts, don't do the h/w, etc etc. But linking it back to maths (otherwise i'd be a hypocrite xD), it all comes down to the student i guess sometimes, thoguh teachers do play a big part (hahaha, is that a good way of linking english to maths :P)[/list]
Post by: xXNovaxX on August 20, 2009, 12:16:04 am
----Ur right, i think tahst where some people who are arguing have misunderstood. Whereas many of the chinese, etc people on here (correct me if im wrong), think its THESE methods which have helped make them who they are, others see it as "dictatorship" or a lack of freedom. However i really do think we have a lot to learn from many otehr countries, including China, India, the middle east in some instances, as well as Europe, to how they approach learning and education.
Post by: xXNovaxX on August 20, 2009, 12:20:55 am
LOLLLLLLLLLL, check mate? xD. All these points are valid, and its true, my former teacher went to Europe to do physics, and she explained how over there science is broken up into branches e.g. bio, chem etc, form like year 7, not like here where its "Science" until year 11 where it breaks up. And Japan, phow, they're the technology guru's. A nation with minimal natural resources, has been able to become the 2nd largest economy in the world, with a population who is hard working, intelligent, and wonderful. On the other hand, @lukeperry- i think once these projects "kick off", more interest will evolve in science here, and eventually maybe education outcomes would imrpove etc. It's just in japan etc they focused on technology and development very early on, and have grown to become what they are now. In Australia, we are a relatively new country, and have for a longgggg time been mainly agriculturally based. So time!...Australia is home to many prized mathematicians and scientists.
Umm yes...
That is why its 2009 and Australia has no nuclear power plants, thats why Australian physicists go over to Europe to do some real physics and that's why Australia has just put up its first synchrotron.
Trust me if you want to do some real cool maths or physics you need to be in the US, Japan or Europe
Post by: enwiabe on August 20, 2009, 12:24:24 am
1) Every agent must regard freedom and well-being as necessary goods, as without them we cannot act – cannot be an agent – at all.
Logically, every agent then either
(2) must regard freedom and wellbeing as rights or
(3) must accept that others can curtail his or her freedom and wellbeing.
However, (3) would contradict (1) so therefore every agent must accept (2) to avoid a contradiction. Therefore consistency requires all agents to act to claim their own rights. But to claim rights necessarily entails accepting duties, so the agent must recognize rights for other people. Therefore, it must be concluded that to violate somebody’s rights to freedom and well-being involves the agent in selfcontradiction.
Post by: anconeous on August 20, 2009, 12:28:35 am
It would seems that many beleive Australia is in need in the mathematics area
Post by: QuantumJG on August 20, 2009, 12:38:04 am
I never said Terry Tao was a genius because of his parents, I just said his background obviously helped him become one.btw isn't the math education in the US worse than in Australia :S
Yes I have heard all kinds of stories such as US students having a really bad knowledge about where countries are.
In the US though if you were to pursue academia as a mathematician or physicist you have a lot more cool things to sink your teeth into than with Australia.
Post by: Glockmeister on August 20, 2009, 12:48:14 am
Wasn't maths declared a national priority, i.e. lower HECS band
It would seems that many beleive Australia is in need in the mathematics area
ALL sciences have been put into the National Priority band (Band 0)
Post by: QuantumJG on August 20, 2009, 12:51:02 am
Perhaps the reason why not as many Aussies pursue math is due to negative cultural stereotypes. In our culture, it is the norm to think that sports is cool and maths is nerdy. Maths is non-conformist!
Obviously you don't talk to the right people. Everyone I know thinks maths is king-god-man of the earth.
Maths is cool.
I miss the days when the news paper would have "do you know what an x-ray is (shown to me by my physics teacher this was printed much earlier than when I was born)?"
What was sad was there was a news paper printed with a small section about Einstein getting the Nobel prize.
Where as pages are taken up by AFL politics, so I guess /O has a point.
Post by: enwiabe on August 20, 2009, 01:01:28 am
Wasn't maths declared a national priority, i.e. lower HECS band
It would seems that many beleive Australia is in need in the mathematics area
ALL sciences have been put into the National Priority band (Band 0)
BWAHHAHAHA GLOCKY JUST ADMITTED THAT PSYCHOLOGY ISN'T A SCIENCE (it's still band 1).
Post by: Glockmeister on August 20, 2009, 01:05:10 am
Wasn't maths declared a national priority, i.e. lower HECS band
It would seems that many beleive Australia is in need in the mathematics area
ALL sciences have been put into the National Priority band (Band 0)
BWAHHAHAHA GLOCKY JUST ADMITTED THAT PSYCHOLOGY ISN'T A SCIENCE (it's still band 1).
I knew someone would say that :P
that said BMS1021 is in Band 3 as well, and im pretty sure that's a science :P
Post by: enwiabe on August 20, 2009, 01:06:22 am
Post by: Glockmeister on August 20, 2009, 01:13:43 am
umm... according to this thing psychology is classified under 'behavioural sciences' (I'm guessing) which didn't move bands with science, hence it stayed in Band 1.
Vet Science is still in Band 3 though...
Post by: enwiabe on August 20, 2009, 01:16:48 am
Post by: lukeperry91 on August 20, 2009, 12:31:48 pm
I've never lived in England but I can say knowingly that murder is illegal there.
Post by: lukeperry91 on August 20, 2009, 12:35:23 pm
Learn to (lolol) speak English. If something is either black or white, and it isn't (implicit in your choosing of the word 'can't') black, then how is there any possible outcome where it is not white.
Post by: ninwa on August 20, 2009, 01:26:42 pm
"Just a question: what have your experiences of living in China been like?"An established law dating back hundreds of years, a simple fact which you can check with a single Google search, is completely different to "LOLOLOL YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING IN CHINA I KNOW THIS EVEN THOUGH I'VE NEVER LIVED THERE AND HAVE NO ACTUAL EXPERIENCE OF IT"
I've never lived in England but I can say knowingly that murder is illegal there.
Post by: zzdfa on August 20, 2009, 01:53:07 pm
""If something is either A or B, and we can't prove it to be A, it doesn't necessarily mean it is B.""
Learn to (lolol) speak English. If something is either black or white, and it isn't (implicit in your choosing of the word 'can't') black, then how is there any possible outcome where it is not white.
learn to read.
And just in regard to ur English topic, ur right!! I am an apt student in english, but i find it strange why we spend time learning how to rite a speech on an issue, or idenifty the VOICE of a writer in language analysis etc, when so many students fail to proeprly use basic grammar, sophisticated language etc. I am not saying language anyslis etc is useless, but you would think, more emphasis was placed on grammar etc.
we do that in primary school, putting emphasis on grammar in vce would be like practising times tables in vce maths
Post by: xXNovaxX on August 20, 2009, 06:30:22 pm
""If something is either A or B, and we can't prove it to be A, it doesn't necessarily mean it is B.""@ luke eprry, yes murder is illegal in china and australia, BUT IT STILL HAPPENS TO A LARGE SCALE relative to our population. Over the last 2 years havent u heard alll the accounts of TEENAGERS of 12- 14 years old being STABBED by knives? Even a harry potter star was stabbed a few months ago!!Not to sure about China's laws, btu surely murder is illegal there, and also, they don;t exactly have a culture of booze, drugs etc etc which tends to lead to murder, and violence as in many of our cites here. Culture plays a part as well.
Learn to (lolol) speak English. If something is either black or white, and it isn't (implicit in your choosing of the word 'can't') black, then how is there any possible outcome where it is not white.
Post by: Toothpaste on August 20, 2009, 06:35:04 pm
Post by: shinny on August 20, 2009, 07:02:31 pm
""If something is either A or B, and we can't prove it to be A, it doesn't necessarily mean it is B.""
Learn to (lolol) speak English. If something is either black or white, and it isn't (implicit in your choosing of the word 'can't') black, then how is there any possible outcome where it is not white.
The key word there is PROVE. Just because we can't prove something doesn't mean it can't be true.
Post by: NE2000 on August 20, 2009, 07:17:32 pm
Post by: EvangelionZeta on August 20, 2009, 09:13:11 pm
To people saying "justify freedom being self-evident", I direct you to Alan Gewirth's logical argument which proceeds as follows:
1) Every agent must regard freedom and well-being as necessary goods, as without them we cannot act – cannot be an agent – at all.
Logically, every agent then either
(2) must regard freedom and wellbeing as rights or
(3) must accept that others can curtail his or her freedom and wellbeing.
However, (3) would contradict (1) so therefore every agent must accept (2) to avoid a contradiction. Therefore consistency requires all agents to act to claim their own rights. But to claim rights necessarily entails accepting duties, so the agent must recognize rights for other people. Therefore, it must be concluded that to violate somebody’s rights to freedom and well-being involves the agent in selfcontradiction.
I think Gewirth's reasoning is incompatible with our current situation in that his definition of "freedom" - that is, the will to act independently - doesn't necessarily equate to laws in society. Rather, I think it's only applicable to an individual level.
Perhaps it makes sense in terms of people. Surely, we have the right to think for ourselves and to move in accordance to what our minds dictate.
However, on a social scale, the analogy simply doesn't make sense. The key here is that it says both "freedom" AND "wellbeing". Whilst it may be possible to equate rights to freedom, the logic doesn't entail that rights similarly are equivalent to well-being.
If we were to have absolute freedom, we would be allowed to have murder, stealing, etc., without any sort of repercussions. Hence Gewirth's "well-being" conclusion would in fact be a "stopper" of sorts - we need to find the level where there is a maximal point of both freedom and well being, without one interfering with another. Too much freedom and not enough well-being, and possibly vice-versa (if we were to all be kept in jars but eternally fed and kept happy through drugs, we would have maximum well-being but minimal freedom?).
Hence at a political level, what has to be proved is that the rights China does not approve of are necessary - that is, with them we achieve a higher level of "well-being".
Post by: ninwa on August 20, 2009, 09:23:29 pm
To people saying "justify freedom being self-evident", I direct you to Alan Gewirth's logical argument which proceeds as follows:I disagree with that. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. My freedom is being curtailed every day by these things called laws that don't give me the freedom to steal, to kill, to marry several people at once. Gewirth's (implied) definition of freedom is unrealistically simplistic.
1) Every agent must regard freedom and well-being as necessary goods, as without them we cannot act – cannot be an agent – at all.
Logically, every agent then either
(2) must regard freedom and wellbeing as rights or
(3) must accept that others can curtail his or her freedom and wellbeing.
However, (3) would contradict (1) so therefore every agent must accept (2) to avoid a contradiction.
EDIT: sorry EvangelionZeta I think I just replicated your argument in summarised form lol
Post by: lukeperry91 on August 20, 2009, 09:34:40 pm
actually the key word was 'can't' which implies it is impossible
Post by: ninwa on August 20, 2009, 09:38:36 pm
Post by: EvangelionZeta on August 20, 2009, 09:39:08 pm
To people saying "justify freedom being self-evident", I direct you to Alan Gewirth's logical argument which proceeds as follows:I disagree with that. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. My freedom is being curtailed every day by these things called laws that don't give me the freedom to steal, to kill, to marry several people at once. Gewirth's (implied) definition of freedom is unrealistically simplistic.
1) Every agent must regard freedom and well-being as necessary goods, as without them we cannot act – cannot be an agent – at all.
Logically, every agent then either
(2) must regard freedom and wellbeing as rights or
(3) must accept that others can curtail his or her freedom and wellbeing.
However, (3) would contradict (1) so therefore every agent must accept (2) to avoid a contradiction.
EDIT: sorry EvangelionZeta I think I just replicated your argument in summarised form lol
That's alright. ^^
"The key word there is PROVE. Just because we can't prove something doesn't mean it can't be true."
actually the key word was 'can't' which implies it is impossible
I can't prove that aliens haven't landed on Earth before. Therefore aliens have landed on Earth.
See your logic?
Edit: Now I'm the one copying you, Ninwa. :p
Post by: dcc on August 20, 2009, 10:07:13 pm
I disagree with that. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. My freedom is being curtailed every day by these things called laws that don't give me the freedom to steal, to kill, to marry several people at once. Gewirth's (implied) definition of freedom is unrealistically simplistic.
You are right in saying that our law system destroys freedom, albeit for the wrong reason. The tax system is a legislated system for depriving people of their right to own property, indeed, the tax system basically boils down to stealing 'for the common good' (whatever that is).
In a free-market based society (which basically holds personal freedom and liberty as it's key ideal), we have naturally enshrined property rights. We can sell the product of our body's work (labour) to other's in mutually beneficial trade. We can own property, and we can decide how we wish to allocate our own resources.
However we have no ability to interact with other people's property (unless they agree to it). Killing someone (against their will) is infringing upon their freedom to live, and is patently unacceptable in such a society.
The key thing to understand is that freedom is not anarchy. There is an important distinction between 'do whatever you want to' and 'do whatever you want to do with your property'. This is the basis of a free society, and I hope you give this some thought.
Post by: Over9000 on August 20, 2009, 10:12:53 pm
Post by: xXNovaxX on August 20, 2009, 10:15:38 pm
maybe i should change the name of this thread to "random rants" LOL.
Post by: Toothpaste on August 20, 2009, 10:21:49 pm
haha, some1 went back on topic! LOL. good one :)STOP DEVIATING FROM THE TOPIC. Yes you.
maybe i should change the name of this thread to "random rants" LOL.
Post by: enwiabe on August 20, 2009, 10:32:28 pm
To people saying "justify freedom being self-evident", I direct you to Alan Gewirth's logical argument which proceeds as follows:I disagree with that. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. My freedom is being curtailed every day by these things called laws that don't give me the freedom to steal, to kill, to marry several people at once. Gewirth's (implied) definition of freedom is unrealistically simplistic.
1) Every agent must regard freedom and well-being as necessary goods, as without them we cannot act – cannot be an agent – at all.
Logically, every agent then either
(2) must regard freedom and wellbeing as rights or
(3) must accept that others can curtail his or her freedom and wellbeing.
However, (3) would contradict (1) so therefore every agent must accept (2) to avoid a contradiction.
Which is where I then point you to robbo's arguments that this freedom is freedom in the context of one's own property. And then you need to think of another argument :P
Post by: minilunchbox on August 20, 2009, 10:47:25 pm
Anyway, massive generalisations ahoy.
Australian society doesn't stress "get 100% because that's the only way you can go to Uni and lead a worthwhile life" as much compared to countries with very high-achieving students. Uni isn't seen as crucial to everyone and there's plenty of people who are aiming for apprenticeships and TAFE and generally they're the ones who don't do too well in maths because they don't 'need' it. On the other hand, the people who do want to go to Uni would generally 'need' maths, which would mean they're more motivated to do well.
Also maths is pretty broad and some concepts are harder to grasp than others. Just because someone fails a SAC on one topic doesn't necessarily mean they're bad at maths.
Post by: Glockmeister on August 20, 2009, 10:56:41 pm
"The key word there is PROVE. Just because we can't prove something doesn't mean it can't be true."
actually the key word was 'can't' which implies it is impossible
Actually the key word is prove, because from there we can deduce that it is a inductive argument, and not a deductive argument. The easiest example of this is scientific claims. We can't prove that gravity exists. We can't prove that evolution is how we came to be. But it does not mean that gravity doesn't exist, or evolution doesn't happen.
Post by: Glockmeister on August 20, 2009, 11:18:46 pm
To people saying "justify freedom being self-evident", I direct you to Alan Gewirth's logical argument which proceeds as follows:I disagree with that. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. My freedom is being curtailed every day by these things called laws that don't give me the freedom to steal, to kill, to marry several people at once. Gewirth's (implied) definition of freedom is unrealistically simplistic.
1) Every agent must regard freedom and well-being as necessary goods, as without them we cannot act – cannot be an agent – at all.
Logically, every agent then either
(2) must regard freedom and wellbeing as rights or
(3) must accept that others can curtail his or her freedom and wellbeing.
However, (3) would contradict (1) so therefore every agent must accept (2) to avoid a contradiction.
EDIT: sorry EvangelionZeta I think I just replicated your argument in summarised form lol
The problem you're having is the is what David Hume would call the Is-ought problem. Just because something at the moment is so, doesn't imply that it is the why things should be.
Post by: xXNovaxX on August 21, 2009, 01:51:55 pm
deviating form the topic? its MY THREAD which i posted, it's you guys talking about philosophy, china, FREEDOM (WTH?), and other stuff. I find it interesting, but i just thought i should point out to the otehr poster, thanks for going back to the point. Don't know why u would say stop opposing/avoiding topic. *sigh* I have contributed to many of the arguments put forward.haha, some1 went back on topic! LOL. good one :)STOP DEVIATING FROM THE TOPIC. Yes you.
maybe i should change the name of this thread to "random rants" LOL.
Post by: dcc on August 21, 2009, 02:09:59 pm
As I said previously, if you have an issue with the relevance of any of the posts in this thread, report it so that the global moderators can determine if this is the case. Clearly it would not be appropriate for me to judge that.
Post by: xXNovaxX on August 21, 2009, 02:13:38 pm
Post by: Mao on August 21, 2009, 05:08:39 pm
deviating form the topic? its MY THREAD which i posted, it's you guys talking about philosophy, china, FREEDOM (WTH?), and other stuff. I find it interesting, but i just thought i should point out to the otehr poster, thanks for going back to the point. Don't know why u would say stop opposing/avoiding topic. *sigh* I have contributed to many of the arguments put forward.haha, some1 went back on topic! LOL. good one :)STOP DEVIATING FROM THE TOPIC. Yes you.
maybe i should change the name of this thread to "random rants" LOL.
Toothpaste/pick/brush is synonymous with sarcasmpaste/pick/brush. Lighten up :)
Post by: Eriny on August 21, 2009, 05:49:52 pm
To people saying "justify freedom being self-evident", I direct you to Alan Gewirth's logical argument which proceeds as follows:I disagree with that. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. My freedom is being curtailed every day by these things called laws that don't give me the freedom to steal, to kill, to marry several people at once. Gewirth's (implied) definition of freedom is unrealistically simplistic.
1) Every agent must regard freedom and well-being as necessary goods, as without them we cannot act – cannot be an agent – at all.
Logically, every agent then either
(2) must regard freedom and wellbeing as rights or
(3) must accept that others can curtail his or her freedom and wellbeing.
However, (3) would contradict (1) so therefore every agent must accept (2) to avoid a contradiction.
I don't think the deductions are flawed, really. It's an interesting 'proof'.
BUT I would argue with the premise of that argument. It's true that agents must view themselves as agents, but there are many people in the world that assume that their lives have already been determined. They don't view themselves as having agency in the first place. It seems to be that freedom can only be considered to be a 'right' for those who already see themselves as being free to begin with.
There is also nothing universal about concepts like 'freedom' and 'agency' or even a word for 'right'. Seriously. In languages other than English, rough translations may exist but they don't actually quite mean the same things. Most significantly is a concept like 'right' (on which lots of international treaties are based) which is not at all easily translatable. Also, many languages don't capture the duality 'freedom' has in English - namely it entails both 'freedom from' as well as 'freedom to'. The West - especially English speakers - value personal autonomy a lot, we are even use 'whimperitives' (could you do this?) as opposed to imperatives (do this!), which is seen unnecessary and even odd in other cultures.
This isn't to say that freedom and rights aren't important. When people are tortured, when they are imprisoned or killed because they express how they feel about it, when prisoners involuntarily get organs taken out of them while they're still alive, and etc. something is very wrong. But they aren't wrong because they restrict freedom or because they go against human rights, they go against something more fundamental and universal than that - namely the concept of good and bad (which all languages share).
Post by: Ahmad on August 21, 2009, 06:09:37 pm
Post by: xXNovaxX on August 21, 2009, 06:45:25 pm
oooo, thx Mao, im still new here, so i haven't been here long enough to understand the characteristics of people. thanks for clearing it updeviating form the topic? its MY THREAD which i posted, it's you guys talking about philosophy, china, FREEDOM (WTH?), and other stuff. I find it interesting, but i just thought i should point out to the otehr poster, thanks for going back to the point. Don't know why u would say stop opposing/avoiding topic. *sigh* I have contributed to many of the arguments put forward.haha, some1 went back on topic! LOL. good one :)STOP DEVIATING FROM THE TOPIC. Yes you.
maybe i should change the name of this thread to "random rants" LOL.
Toothpaste/pick/brush is synonymous with sarcasmpaste/pick/brush. Lighten up :)