02-13-2023, 07:15 PM
I think if conventional schooling can not be avoided altogether, it should at least be supplemented by tutoring by the parents, capable friends or relatives. The argument that one can not be as proficient in the various subjects as full time teachers is a lazy excuse, considering the average quality of teachers in public schools today. In the same category falls the time-argument: If the average normgroid has time to watch 4 hours of Netflix or Youtube per day, he has also the time to tutor his children. Tutoring for me does also entail practical activities such as building something or doing playful experiments together.
More rural-like upringing in a house is obviously vastly superior to urban upbringing, at least in today's context and if the parents are not multimillionaires. The city is polluted, crowded and expensive and leaves the child with barely any possibility to explore his own territory, as every inch is owned by some entity. The average citizen has to dwell in a crowded apartment, which leaves little space for personal development and the ability to experience many formative activities. No interaction with lifestock in the garden of your grandpa, no workshop in the backyard to build a tool with your father, no basement with space for a small library, lab or hobby room, etc. .
In my opinion, the low-hanging fruit explanation is mainly used as an excuse by those, who don't want to admit that something might be wrong in our times and that we are in decline. Why did it take over a millennium for the Renaissance to occur, if the fruits were hanging so low? Why does it just so happen, that this ebb in scientific breakthrough coincides with our biological and cultural degeneration? I don't buy it. But more to this maybe in a dedicated thread.
I do agree however, that in todays world, artistic works of high quality seem to not be marketable as they were in the past, because there is no aristocratic audience. Or maybe they are not produced in the first place, because the individuals who would normally produce them, can not reach maturity and flourish in todays culture?
More rural-like upringing in a house is obviously vastly superior to urban upbringing, at least in today's context and if the parents are not multimillionaires. The city is polluted, crowded and expensive and leaves the child with barely any possibility to explore his own territory, as every inch is owned by some entity. The average citizen has to dwell in a crowded apartment, which leaves little space for personal development and the ability to experience many formative activities. No interaction with lifestock in the garden of your grandpa, no workshop in the backyard to build a tool with your father, no basement with space for a small library, lab or hobby room, etc. .
(02-13-2023, 02:04 PM)Hamamelis Wrote: [ -> ]Re: Genius, and the lack thereof:I know this thread is not about this topic, but I have to respond to this, because it is a question I think about quite often.
This seems to be mostly a discussion about what makes a genius, and thus not extremely important for our discussion. What I would add is that Hoel (like others) prematurely dismisses the low-hanging fruit explanation for the ebb in scientific breakthrough. This is not our topic here, but I think it is truly underappreciated how different the landscape of knowledge has become over the last hundred years. It's not that there is nothing left to discover. Rather, what can be discovered now (often at high expenses) rarely brings about a new understanding of the field. This is means most discoveries now expand owned space, rather than conquer unowned space. This changes the nature of a scientist from that of an explorer to that of a labourer. Is somebody like that ever considered a "genius"?
In my opinion, the low-hanging fruit explanation is mainly used as an excuse by those, who don't want to admit that something might be wrong in our times and that we are in decline. Why did it take over a millennium for the Renaissance to occur, if the fruits were hanging so low? Why does it just so happen, that this ebb in scientific breakthrough coincides with our biological and cultural degeneration? I don't buy it. But more to this maybe in a dedicated thread.
(02-13-2023, 02:04 PM)Hamamelis Wrote: [ -> ]Further, I think Hoel (like others) doesn't calculate how important reverence is to the status of genius. One reason why we don't have a Mozart right now is that there is no way for him to attain a comparable status by achievement. He can't be court composer of a beloved or feared king, and any way to achieve success is routed through economic institutions that make a commodity out of fame, such that the achievement is forever diminished.I don't necessarily agree that reverence is essential to the existance of genius since there are far to many examples to the contrary. One might even argue, that it is the watermark of true genius, to be so obsessed and consumed by the felt importance of his work, that he does not care about the admiration and encouragement of others.
I do agree however, that in todays world, artistic works of high quality seem to not be marketable as they were in the past, because there is no aristocratic audience. Or maybe they are not produced in the first place, because the individuals who would normally produce them, can not reach maturity and flourish in todays culture?