I haven't written much in awhile, and I do kind of miss it. It's not that I've been too busy. It never is, of course, though I can always hope. :) But I have the past couple weeks had a job that has kept me off the computers, and I'm actually quite grateful about that. It's a little rough to be on my feet as much as I am, but I'm pretty grateful for the opportunity to be subbing again, now in the Prince George's County Public schools. I say again because I did it about 10 years ago in Alpine School District, which is the northern half of Utah Valley, Utah--from Orem to Alpine.
I have to confess I expected some differences in this area, and I've met up with a little bit of that, but there are definitely similarities. Kids are cute and have a lot of the same antics from one side of the country to the next, though it seems they start a little younger with some of the antics over here. There are students who are really bright, really eager for approval, really eager for attention, really eager for doing the right thing, and those who don't care quite as much everywhere you go.
Aside from the stresses of handling different classrooms of kids every day and spending the first half of the day trying to get everyone's name down and the second half writing those names on a a paper or the blackboard for later discipline from their teacher, it's also a little stressful not to know from day to day if I have a job, as well as to know that this is only until the end of the school year, therefore for about three more weeks. But the Lord has provided me with work as I've needed it, well, for the most part. I've had times when I could have used a little more income, but I've learned important lessons from those times as well. In any case, I'm sure things will work out.
Sometimes I'll write about my job, sometimes about my faith, sometimes about my hobbies, talents, miscellaneous interests. You'll see.
30 May 2009
03 May 2009
What does it mean to be Smart?
This is my response to this article that I found through Wilson Quarterly:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=452772
I'm guilty of confessing that I sometimes think I'm smart, even this week. But reading this article and only the first sentence of the first comment at the bottom really made me wonder what people mean when they refer to smart people--particularly when they're surprised or perturbed that supposedly smart people can't figure something out that seems clear to them.
I suppose it got me thinking because I don't like insults. But also because the context made it somewhat clear why supposedly smart people couldn't figure something out--the smarts referred to were quite different. Science smarts vs. artistic smarts. Not a person on this earth knows everything, nor is wise about everything, nor understands everything. Particularly there is no one who has all of these wrapped up together.
In Church, we often look at the verses describing the body of the Church in Corinthians 12, as we talk about the different gifts of the Spirit, and the application is clear that we need each other because of our different talents. Because it's contexted to the Church, it's fairly easy to apply it to our callings, but it seems the lesson should extend beyond the body of the Church. We need scientific minds as we need artistic minds, as well as all other kinds as well. So when we write about our specialties, we should treat the others with respect and understanding rather than with contempt. Right-o?
I think this idea of "smarts" was also on my mind because of last week's Sunday School lesson on the law of consecration. One thing I really like about the law of consecration is that it equalizes everyone. Not just financially, but for value of their talents. I'm not surprised that the United Order failed, not only because of the imperfect people within it and their various levels of pride, but also because it was not entirely independent. Being dependent on an external society with an economic and social system that did not equalize all of the members, kept ideas imbedded in the members of the United Order's minds. Additionally, not having a large enough population nor area so as to account for every needed talent and resource, even had the people had perfect hearts, they could not have thrived. But if they had been independent and had sufficient resources and people, then such a system as would recognize the value of every member's abilities would certainly have thrived such as the one did in the Americas following the reign of Christ, as recorded in 4 Nephi where there were no poor among them.
Presently, however, there is not an economic system in place on the Earth that really treats every member of its governing society equally. In capitalism, with which I am most familiar, and which my society does tend to value, even though men are free to develop their own talents, the pay scale people receive based on the supposed value of their contribution is so unequal as to set up ideas in way too many minds that some talents and skills are more valuable than others.
This is in fact, probably the basis that got these commentors into the line of thinking that certain people were smart and yet not as smart as they should be. They had succeeded in their field, made good money, so they must be intelligent. Right? This is the line of thinking that led Stanley Fish, to whom the writer of the article is responding, to state that the humanities are a useless field because they do not produce valuable commodities as the sciences do. Commodities and progress toward ease of life equals intelligence. Right?
For these reasons, I really liked the author's, Wilfred McClay's, response, particularly her use of Huxley's Brave New World. Very appropriate.
If I would add anything, it would be to respond to the logical fallacy in Fish's thinking that if the humanities were of value then humanities professors or professionals would be the most humane people, and yet they are not. I was actually along this line of thinking myself a few weeks prior to reading this, particularly pondering some English professors who are not nearly as goodly-hearted as I would have hoped their literary studies would have led them to be. Nonetheless, there is error in this thinking.
We face this question often as members of my Church, actually, though on a non-parallel level, which I'll explain in a minute. Some would say that if the Church is the only true Church on the Earth than its members should be better than those of any other Church. But this is not true. And we would never say it was. There are many people outside of the Church, though we would warmly welcome them, as anyone, into the Church, who are better than many of the members.
The test of the Church's truth isn't in the "better"ness of the members than of those in other churches. The idea of such comparison is based on competitive thinking, which has connections to capitalistic thinking, but also tends to be an unfortunate human tendency.
Life is not a competition! We are not on Earth to compete against everyone and be better than everyone. And God does not and will not judge is in relation to other people. The point is to be better than we were.
If the humanities have value, or if parts of the humanities have value, it is because they make the people who ponder them better than they would be without having studied them. If the Church is true, then the people who apply the principles are better than they would be.
Of course, it seems such tests are fairly unproductive. Many churches make people better than they would be, so how can we know if the Church is the only true one? Perhaps the way to judge this isn't through the people but from God. Although the people will definitely help, God will be the one to tell you.
Likewise, I would add, that if the humanities are of value, then one should ask God. He does know all, unlike any human, and can tell you what is of value and what is not.
However, as to the question about the humanities vs. the sciences, the rationale isn't on a parallel to comparing churches to churches. Churches to churches may be apples to apples, but humanities to sciences is apples to oranges. Both the sciences and the humanities can make people better than they would be without them, and yet we can and should have them both.
So how can we know if the humanities are valuable? While I will not interrupt your prayers about the subject, I will add that the Lord usually tells us to study things out in our minds before we ask, so I'll give you a little to think about--the body.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
It would seem to me that everyone needs both the sciences and the humanities.
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=452772
I'm guilty of confessing that I sometimes think I'm smart, even this week. But reading this article and only the first sentence of the first comment at the bottom really made me wonder what people mean when they refer to smart people--particularly when they're surprised or perturbed that supposedly smart people can't figure something out that seems clear to them.
I suppose it got me thinking because I don't like insults. But also because the context made it somewhat clear why supposedly smart people couldn't figure something out--the smarts referred to were quite different. Science smarts vs. artistic smarts. Not a person on this earth knows everything, nor is wise about everything, nor understands everything. Particularly there is no one who has all of these wrapped up together.
In Church, we often look at the verses describing the body of the Church in Corinthians 12, as we talk about the different gifts of the Spirit, and the application is clear that we need each other because of our different talents. Because it's contexted to the Church, it's fairly easy to apply it to our callings, but it seems the lesson should extend beyond the body of the Church. We need scientific minds as we need artistic minds, as well as all other kinds as well. So when we write about our specialties, we should treat the others with respect and understanding rather than with contempt. Right-o?
I think this idea of "smarts" was also on my mind because of last week's Sunday School lesson on the law of consecration. One thing I really like about the law of consecration is that it equalizes everyone. Not just financially, but for value of their talents. I'm not surprised that the United Order failed, not only because of the imperfect people within it and their various levels of pride, but also because it was not entirely independent. Being dependent on an external society with an economic and social system that did not equalize all of the members, kept ideas imbedded in the members of the United Order's minds. Additionally, not having a large enough population nor area so as to account for every needed talent and resource, even had the people had perfect hearts, they could not have thrived. But if they had been independent and had sufficient resources and people, then such a system as would recognize the value of every member's abilities would certainly have thrived such as the one did in the Americas following the reign of Christ, as recorded in 4 Nephi where there were no poor among them.
Presently, however, there is not an economic system in place on the Earth that really treats every member of its governing society equally. In capitalism, with which I am most familiar, and which my society does tend to value, even though men are free to develop their own talents, the pay scale people receive based on the supposed value of their contribution is so unequal as to set up ideas in way too many minds that some talents and skills are more valuable than others.
This is in fact, probably the basis that got these commentors into the line of thinking that certain people were smart and yet not as smart as they should be. They had succeeded in their field, made good money, so they must be intelligent. Right? This is the line of thinking that led Stanley Fish, to whom the writer of the article is responding, to state that the humanities are a useless field because they do not produce valuable commodities as the sciences do. Commodities and progress toward ease of life equals intelligence. Right?
For these reasons, I really liked the author's, Wilfred McClay's, response, particularly her use of Huxley's Brave New World. Very appropriate.
If I would add anything, it would be to respond to the logical fallacy in Fish's thinking that if the humanities were of value then humanities professors or professionals would be the most humane people, and yet they are not. I was actually along this line of thinking myself a few weeks prior to reading this, particularly pondering some English professors who are not nearly as goodly-hearted as I would have hoped their literary studies would have led them to be. Nonetheless, there is error in this thinking.
We face this question often as members of my Church, actually, though on a non-parallel level, which I'll explain in a minute. Some would say that if the Church is the only true Church on the Earth than its members should be better than those of any other Church. But this is not true. And we would never say it was. There are many people outside of the Church, though we would warmly welcome them, as anyone, into the Church, who are better than many of the members.
The test of the Church's truth isn't in the "better"ness of the members than of those in other churches. The idea of such comparison is based on competitive thinking, which has connections to capitalistic thinking, but also tends to be an unfortunate human tendency.
Life is not a competition! We are not on Earth to compete against everyone and be better than everyone. And God does not and will not judge is in relation to other people. The point is to be better than we were.
If the humanities have value, or if parts of the humanities have value, it is because they make the people who ponder them better than they would be without having studied them. If the Church is true, then the people who apply the principles are better than they would be.
Of course, it seems such tests are fairly unproductive. Many churches make people better than they would be, so how can we know if the Church is the only true one? Perhaps the way to judge this isn't through the people but from God. Although the people will definitely help, God will be the one to tell you.
Likewise, I would add, that if the humanities are of value, then one should ask God. He does know all, unlike any human, and can tell you what is of value and what is not.
However, as to the question about the humanities vs. the sciences, the rationale isn't on a parallel to comparing churches to churches. Churches to churches may be apples to apples, but humanities to sciences is apples to oranges. Both the sciences and the humanities can make people better than they would be without them, and yet we can and should have them both.
So how can we know if the humanities are valuable? While I will not interrupt your prayers about the subject, I will add that the Lord usually tells us to study things out in our minds before we ask, so I'll give you a little to think about--the body.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the ahead to the feet, I have no need of you.
22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be amore feeble, are necessary:
23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same acare one for another.
It would seem to me that everyone needs both the sciences and the humanities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)