When will a free society take my children from me?

[Donnadogsoth]

Donnadogsoth,

 

I'll start by directly answering your question. I don't know.

 

Based on how you think a free society would operate, what would be your answer to this question, and why?

 

A free society would be to a large degree a free market society, which would be massively psychologically destabilising and productive of addictive behaviours.  The counter to this would be culture, as including all the things which bind people together into an organic whole, a positive whole rather than the negative whole of mere money/use value.  Beyond this, the society would eventually cease to function without the development of the population's creative mentation, so the culture would for long-term success be developing that.  So we have the non-aggression principle, we have the ligamental principle, and the creative principle.  And dozens of other principles would be added into that as part of their unfolding, but those are the main three.

 

Such a society, which proceeds to freedom through beauty, would monitor the upbringing of every child, to see whether that child was being developed mentally or not.  A family that was intentionally retarding its children's progress would be viewed akin to preventing them from learning to read.  The child is not the parents' property, it is its own (human) individual, and so its interests are in part the interests of the society as a whole.  A calculus would have to be developed for determining whether or not a child was in danger of losing its education, its culture, or whether it is merely being exposed to harmless idiosyncrasy (e.g. John Denver music).

 

If I were not educating my child in terms of principle, of understanding principle, of science and art in particular, that would be the equivalent of me not teaching them to read.  That would be a black flag on my social record, because I'm denying my children access to the wider world--denying them the chance to be creative.  As long as I were teaching them that, to read, to discover principle, then anything else I taught them would be secondary and much less likely to incur action (removal) on the part of society as a whole.  Certainly the removal of Christians' children on the grounds they were being taught Christianity would not be valid grounds in a free society as I have just described it.

[Carl Green]

Can you please word that in a way that I can understand? (dumb it way down, plz)

[Donnadogsoth]

Confucius Say...

 

..."Without high culture binding us together, free market society tears us apart."

 

..."Take children away if they're denied high culture and a chance to participate in the creative life of the nation."

 

..."Do not take children away merely if they're raised as Christians."

[Carl Green]

Who gets to determine what is and isn't "high culture"? Is it decided by "the nation"?

[Donnadogsoth]

Who gets to determine what is and isn't "high culture"? Is it decided by "the nation"?

 

Who gets to decide what is and isn't "abuse"?

[Donnadogsoth]

The people who decide whether to do business or voluntarily engage (selling DRO insurance, for example) with the other people in question. That's my take. Don't want to speak for anyone else.

 

What's your take on an autarchic family that is indifferent to being cut off from "the people who decide whether to do business or voluntarily engage" but which is abusing their children?  What I mean is, when do you invade their property and forcibly take their children?

[Carl Green]

Who gets to decide what is and isn't "abuse"?

Again, to directly answer your question, I don't know.

 

My question remains.

[Donnadogsoth]

Again, to directly answer your question, I don't know.

 

My question remains.

 

High culture is maintained by the initiated.  People who understand Keat's "Ode on a Grecian Urn" and kindred examples of classical art, which collectively form high culture.

[Jaeger]

Suppose I'm an all-around good parent, EXCEPT--I am a Christian and am indoctrinating my children into the Christian religion.  Now, given my reputation around here which sources to a general hatred of Christianity, and the equation of Christianity and other religious forms as irrational, evil, etc., and therefore tantamount to child abuse, WHEN will my children be taken away from me by well-meaning, "activist" freedom lovers in our glorious Ancap society?

 

I posted earlier but wanted to add some more.

 

Can you give me some examples where your reputation was downgraded due to you being a christian?

 

Why would a ancap society be controlled by atheists?  I can understand there being a community where most of the people are atheist but I also think there would be a community full of Christians too.  I would assume you would want to live in the latter.

 

I'm a Mormon.  I'm teaching my kids Mormonism.  If I lived near you would you let your kids play with mine?  Would you think I'm abusing my kids because I'm not a "true" Christian?

 

You think you have it rough, try growing up Mormon in a neighborhood full of born again Christians.  You be surprised how many times I was told I will go to Hell since I worship a "different" Jesus.  I wasn't even aloud to play with some kids in the neighborhood because of my faith.

 

Why in God's earth would you think anybody would want to take your children away because you are teaching them Christianity?  That would be even more abusive.  I think the worse that would happen is that they would not associate with you.

 

I know you love Jesus Christ,  He is your personal Savior and you want to proclaim him with boldness as Paul the apostle taught. I understand that.  I spent two years as a missionary doing just that.  However you need to know your audience.  While we can teach with boldness we also shouldn't cast our pearls before swine.  I assume Jesus Christ is your pearl of great price and you would want to hold him sacred.

 

My atheist friends I'm not calling you pigs just referencing a scripture in the bible so please don't take offense.  I'm just taking my Christian brother to task here.

[Carl Green]

High culture is maintained by the initiated.  People who understand Keat's "Ode on a Grecian Urn" and kindred examples of classical art, which collectively form high culture.

 

 

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're okay with people that appreciate "high art" being the ones to determine when your children should be taken from you.

 

Is that accurate?

[Donnadogsoth]

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're okay with people that appreciate "high art" being the ones to determine when your children should be taken from you.

 

Is that accurate?

 

Not "appreciate 'high art'" in the sense of merely being afficionados, but people who have grasped and internalised the universal principles contained within classical art, which are akin to the universal physical principles of science.  Such people would constitute the best-educated and most moral of people, and thus the best judges of whether or not a child is being abused.

[Torero]

people who have grasped and internalised the universal principles contained within classical art, which are akin to the universal physical principles of science.  Such people would constitute the best-educated and most moral of people, and thus the best judges of whether or not a child is being abused.

 

Sorry to step into your discussion, Donna, but how on Earth can you put those words in sequence??

 

"universal principles of classical art"? - what "principles"? philosophical principles or what kind of principles do you refer to?

"universal"? - if they'd be universal all people would prefer "classical art" over "non-classical art" (what is that then?), which obviously isn't the case in the world

"people who grasp principles about classical art are the 'best-educated'"? - how do you connect those things? There are many people with science degrees who prefer "non-classical art" to "classical art", so again where's the "universality" here?

 

Then you introduce morality as well yet give no philosophical (or religious) principles to back that up. And you relate "best-educated" with "most moral", also there I don't see the connection; people who are very well educated can still spank and circumcise their children, not seldom are heavy proponents of the -immoral- statist system, even approve wars against innocent people, etc. etc. etc.

 

So if I would be a person with not the best education, don't like "classical art" but am peaceful and try to be as moral as possible, in your opinion I am less of an "authority to judge abuse" than a person who does like classical art, has a good education but spanks, steals and abuses people in far-away countries??

[Donnadogsoth]

I posted earlier but wanted to add some more.

 

Can you give me some examples where your reputation was downgraded due to you being a christian?

 

Some here

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45553-religion-of-peace/?hl=+dsayers%20+donnadogsoth

 

and here

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/44880-why-does-god-need-to-be-outside-of-time/page-3?hl=%20torbald%20%20donnadogsoth

 

in the spirit of Will Torbald's condemnation of Christianity:

 

“You cannot save the world from evil with more evil. You can't free the world with enslaving dogma. You can't enlighten minds with obscurantism. You can't bring reason to ignorants with superstition. Christianity will never save the world. It will only shroud it back to the middle ages. It is pure bigotry and authoritarianism. “

 

Do you agree with that condemnation?

 

Such sentiment can't avoid leading to negative reps, if people vote where their mouths are. In a “free society” majority of such sentiment can lead to your power, water, trade ability etc., being cut off by “free” and “rational” people until you stop teaching your children Christian beliefs. I can't believe you don't smell the implications here.

 

The implicit understanding on this board is that Ancap is not merely a “free society” but a rational one, and that to achieve it a majority of the population would have to be rational enough to become free, which means rational enough to become atheist. “Bigots,” “authoritarians,” and “superstitious” people (e.g., Christians) would lack the moral integrity to become free.

 

The problem with Mormonism, down to brass tacks, is its ignorance of high culture. I won't say it's incompatible with high culture, but it doesn't lead anyone to it. It's just “a religion” that exists in its dimension of religiosity, like any other religion. So it has to be judged based on whether it leads to, or ignores, or leads away from high culture, classical culture. If your kids were a bad influence on my kids in terms of encouraging them to deny any principle of art or science, then I wouldn't let them play with mine. If they're playing Romeo and Juliet together or doubling the cube or what have you then that's great. If they're denying the Crucifixion then there's a problem.

 

I appreciate your interest, but ask you: do you separate your Christianity from classical culture? Do you see the need for a Christianity that is reconciled with classical culture rather than being hermetically sealed from it in a bubble? The danger is that we view our religion as an otherworldly enterprise that has nothing to do with the political situation of today. Christ's Crucifixion is intimately related with the Glass-Steagall Act, if we know how to look. This entire complex is the only place the maximum freedom for mankind will emerge from, not from atheistic, bigotted, sterile NAP worship.

[Carl Green]

Can you switch back to Confucious mode with that? I need clarification on grasping universal principles of science and how the people that would 'grasp' such principles would be identified, and how they would go about the taking of the abused children.

[inquirius]

Why would a person refuse to do business with another person because the latter person is a bad parent?  

[shirgall]

Why would a person refuse to do business with another person because the latter person is a bad parent?  

 

That bad parent is creating a higher potential of crime and violence in his or her wake. Why would you support that?

[inquirius]

That bad parent is creating a higher potential of crime and violence in his or her wake. Why would you support that?

 

Ok, I can understand that argument if you're an arms dealership and you're aware that a potential customer is a bad parent; that transaction carries a risk of violence that is largely assuaged through a good reputation.

 

I do not agree with that argument outside of deals that have a risk of violence, however.  Selling someone a candy bar does not carry the same moral consideration as selling someone a gun.  

[Donnadogsoth]

Can you switch back to Confucious mode with that? I need clarification on grasping universal principles of science and how the people that would 'grasp' such principles would be identified, and how they would go about the taking of the abused children.

 

Confucius say...

 

..."Grasp one principle, and one grasps the Idea of Principle."

 

..."Science or art, no matter, what matters is one grasps the Idea."

 

..."The wise know the wise as the loving know the loving--words and deeds."

 

..."The wisest will find a way that is authoritative and practical."

Sorry to step into your discussion, Donna, but how on Earth can you put those words in sequence??

 

"universal principles of classical art"? - what "principles"? philosophical principles or what kind of principles do you refer to?

"universal"? - if they'd be universal all people would prefer "classical art" over "non-classical art" (what is that then?), which obviously isn't the case in the world

"people who grasp principles about classical art are the 'best-educated'"? - how do you connect those things? There are many people with science degrees who prefer "non-classical art" to "classical art", so again where's the "universality" here?

 

Then you introduce morality as well yet give no philosophical (or religious) principles to back that up. And you relate "best-educated" with "most moral", also there I don't see the connection; people who are very well educated can still spank and circumcise their children, not seldom are heavy proponents of the -immoral- statist system, even approve wars against innocent people, etc. etc. etc.

 

So if I would be a person with not the best education, don't like "classical art" but am peaceful and try to be as moral as possible, in your opinion I am less of an "authority to judge abuse" than a person who does like classical art, has a good education but spanks, steals and abuses people in far-away countries??

 

If I knew art as I should I would be able to lead you through an understanding of such works as “Ode on a Grecian Urn” but I know very little.  I know of such principles, is all.  Consider the following article addressing “Urn,” more Keats and Shakespeare.  Read it and tell me what you get from it.

 

An Evening in the 'Simultaneity of Eternity'

with Shakespeare, Keats, and William Warfield

by Dan Leach

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/013_poetry.html

 

Men may prefer narcotics to lived life; so they may prefer non-classical arts to classical ones. That most people don't prefer it doesn't make it inferior.  We have had massive infusions of non-classical, highly refined music—refined like coca leaves are refined--pushed on the populace, to ensure they don't prefer what is best.

 

However, that someone prefers classical music over non doesn't prove anything.  One may like the right things for the wrong reasons, and such a fan may be simply addicted to it without “getting” what it means.  So one may like the wrong things, or like the right things for the wrong reasons.  Do I like classical music, for example?  Somewhat, but I recognise that I should like it, and so I listen to it more than I otherwise am inclined to.

 

Universal principles akin to doubling the square—principles that hold everywhere and at all times.  Artistic principles must be those which apply to all people's minds, though we must grant that some people are too damaged to participate in them.

 

The essential point is ideas.  As Schiller put it, we seek to educate the emotions, such that men cease to become beasts and become proper men.  Merely knowing about science or about art isn't enough, one must be changed by it.  Whether or not you slap a “I love classical music” button on your sweater makes no difference.  A society could conceivably laud classical music and be rankly immoral.

 

[MrCapitalism]

Selling someone a candy bar does not carry the same moral consideration as selling someone a gun.  

Would you sell an candy bar to to a serial murderer? Specifically, one that has faced no sanctions for their actions. You're just gonna sell that person a candy bar, no problem?

[shirgall]

Ok, I can understand that argument if you're an arms dealership and you're aware that a potential customer is a bad parent; that transaction carries a risk of violence that is largely assuaged through a good reputation.

 

I do not agree with that argument outside of deals that have a risk of violence, however.  Selling someone a candy bar does not carry the same moral consideration as selling someone a gun.  

 

It may seem trivial to you, bu when the difference means perpetuating peaceful parenting instead of perpetuating abuse you may reconsider your priorities. We've already seen what trauma produces. Let's try something better.

[inquirius]

Stef goes through this in detail. It would be a DRO who insures the family against claims that they have harmed others. And abused children are much more likely to harm others, so the DRO has an interest in them raising their children peacefully. Then it may also be a school that educates them along with other children. And it might be a landlord, who sees that their DRO has dropped them and they have refused help to remedy their parenting. And they refuse to rent to them. And on, and on...until, as dogsoth says, the family has no choice (or simply doesn't want) other than to retreat from society completely.

 

Alright, so here we come to the crux of my issue with ostracism; when you take ostracism to the extreme, such as a whole society banding together to deny rent to a bad parent, you come to a choice of moral sacrifice:

 

1. You can push the bad parent out of civilized society completely and risk them dying due to starvation, exposure, etc.   

 

or

 

2. You can accept the bad parent into society and risk the progeny posing a violent risk in the future, becoming a bad parent themself and the cycle continues

 

Historically, society has chosen a gray area between these two choices, and I would defer to that choice. You can't guarantee that the child is going to be a certain way, and while a child might statistically be at risk of being violent, if you take away the moral agency of the child by forcing that child into a no shelter, no food, etc situation, aren't you a tyrant?  Aren't you saying that the bad parent and its child has no right to live? Wouldn't that kind of desperation produce an even greater risk of violence?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

I can understand denying a bad parent the purchase of a weapon which serves no common non-violent purpose, but I would not want to live in a society in which you deny even bad parents the basic ability to survive.

[shirgall]

I can understand denying a bad parent the purchase of a weapon which serves no common non-violent purpose, but I would not want to live in a society in which you deny even bad parents the basic ability to survive.

 

If all it takes to get what you want is providing evidence of sustained virtue, how is that not a noble incentive?

 

People respond to incentives. It's when we lose touch with one another and ignore these things that society becomes inhumane.

[Koroviev]

Alright, so here we come to the crux of my issue with ostracism; when you take ostracism to the extreme, such as a whole society banding together to deny rent to a bad parent, you come to a choice of moral sacrifice:

 

1. You can push the bad parent out of civilized society completely and risk them dying due to starvation, exposure, etc.   

 

or

 

2. You can accept the bad parent into society and risk the progeny posing a violent risk in the future, becoming a bad parent themself and the cycle continues

 

Historically, society has chosen a gray area between these two choices, and I would defer to that choice. You can't guarantee that the child is going to be a certain way, and while a child might statistically be at risk of being violent, if you take away the moral agency of the child by forcing that child into a no shelter, no food, etc situation, aren't you a tyrant?  Aren't you saying that the bad parent and its child has no right to live? Wouldn't that kind of desperation produce an even greater risk of violence?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

I can understand denying a bad parent the purchase of a weapon which serves no common non-violent purpose, but I would not want to live in a society in which you deny even bad parents the basic ability to survive.

 

The great thing about a free society is no one is forced to do things they do not agree with. Anyone can choose to, or not to, sell whatever they want to whoever they want, and if you disagree with the entire society on something you are not forced to. Although, I find it highly unlikely that any society would essentially murder and entire family because they disagree with the parenting style, I suppose theoretically can happen (as can a lot of things).

 

If a free society where the majority of people were raised peacefully (the only path to a free society) for some reason did attempt this they would first have to convince pretty much everyone in the community, and all the businesses, and all the utilities, and all the DROs, that what these parents was doing was egregious to be on par with murder, rape, etc. A pretty big hurdle to jump. Next ostracism is not just suddenly not liking someone or something someone does and suddenly forcing them into the wilderness. The whole point is to "enforce" social rules without the use of force. You have to assume that in a free society those social norms are centered around freedom and peaceful parenting and the ostracism, more often than not, will simply entail people viewing the things you are doing negatively (Note: this happens every single day everywhere all the time in the society we live in just ask any stay at home mom or dad, breastfeeding mom, or homeschool family). They may get criticized but most people don't want to be responsible for much more than that. If the social norms are centered around freedom then you have to assume (barring extreme circumstances) that the desire to not infringe on those freedoms would weigh pretty heavily against banishing an entire family to the wilderness.

 

Back to your question about selling to people you don't agree with, my question is why wouldn't you want people to discriminate who they sell things to? It opens up a market for you to sell to and if they discriminate to much they won't be around to discriminate anyone. It's their property and they can sell to whoever they want. If you don't want to sell me a candy bar because I smell bad, I'd better find another way to get my candy bar or go take a shower. 

[Koroviev]

this is all explained in the last call from FDR3162 https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46046-podcast-fdr3162-space-alien-from-planet-happiness-call-in-show-december-23rd-2015/

[inquirius]

Upon further consideration of what actually constitutes a bad parent, I'll revise my position; I would accept complete social rejection of a bad parent, because a bad parent would have to be pretty heinous to be met with complete ostracism.

 

This idea is a borderline tautology without elaboration, though, so I guess my real problem would be in the setting and implementation of a given standard of behavior.  Standards already exist with regard to government CPS (child protection services) to a certain extent, but "soft" abuse like neglect and emotional abuse is often much harder to prove in court, especially given corruption (the UK in particular has this problem IIRC).  Yes, experts agree on certain indicators of abuse, such as how certain drawings a child makes can indicate sexual abuse, but the field of child psychology is still rather new and arguably as much science as art in difficult cases.

 

Stefan and the experts he interviews provide a good foundation, I just don't know how a non-statist system of child protection would exactly work, and I think we're too deep into the statist rabbit hole to make an effective transition until it collapses.

[Koroviev]

Again, I will point you to the above call it show, but in a nutshell it no one knows but I agree with Stef in that it would likely would be a combination between education and insurance. People thinking about having a vaby would be encouraged to get insurance. That insurance company doesn't want to pay a claim so they have a vested interest in making sure that baby is raised well. The insurance company would likely end up doing reseaech in to parenting hiring experts etc and come up with an incentive program for new parents. If those parents opt out or do the opposite there may be consequences in higher rates but no problem. Unless, the child starts to become a nuisance or show signs of abuse. These signs are a LOT more obvious than what you alluded to above just ask any teacher not to mention with all of the research that we already spoke about there would be increasingly more ways to tell. It's not like there are rules set in stone enforced by some secret society but simple reason and evidence that some people would follow and some would not.

 

Also, notice how the christians are all for banishment and torture for all eternity simply for not believing in something that is illogical and has no evidence, but ostracism for abusing your children is the worst thing ever.

[Torero]

If I knew art as I should I would be able to lead you through an understanding of such works as “Ode on a Grecian Urn” but I know very little.  I know of such principles, is all.  Consider the following article addressing “Urn,” more Keats and Shakespeare.  Read it and tell me what you get from it.

An Evening in the 'Simultaneity of Eternity'

with Shakespeare, Keats, and William Warfield

by Dan Leach

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/013_poetry.html

Men may prefer narcotics to lived life; so they may prefer non-classical arts to classical ones. That most people don't prefer it doesn't make it inferior.  We have had massive infusions of non-classical, highly refined music—refined like coca leaves are refined--pushed on the populace, to ensure they don't prefer what is best.

However, that someone prefers classical music over non doesn't prove anything.  One may like the right things for the wrong reasons, and such a fan may be simply addicted to it without “getting” what it means.  So one may like the wrong things, or like the right things for the wrong reasons.  Do I like classical music, for example?  Somewhat, but I recognise that I should like it, and so I listen to it more than I otherwise am inclined to.

Universal principles akin to doubling the square—principles that hold everywhere and at all times.  Artistic principles must be those which apply to all people's minds, though we must grant that some people are too damaged to participate in them.

The essential point is ideas.  As Schiller put it, we seek to educate the emotions, such that men cease to become beasts and become proper men.  Merely knowing about science or about art isn't enough, one must be changed by it.  Whether or not you slap a “I love classical music” button on your sweater makes no difference.  A society could conceivably laud classical music and be rankly immoral.

 

 

You keep saying "what is best", "people must/should", "right things", "wrong reasons"... I am still puzzled how you can connect those moral or ethical words to something which is very much a matter of taste.

 

There's no logic in that.

 

For instance; I don't like (actually 'hate' it): jazz. And whisk(e)y. Funnily enough those things combine very well. Yet at the same time I can and do recognize that both those things are actually high quality (or probably in your world falling under "classical art"). But according to your statement, I must be "damaged" in some way for not liking it?

 

Same for Shakespeare, some classical music (I like quite some pieces), etc.

 

Someones taste is not related to the quality of something. It may be, but not necessarily.

 

And you bring "narcotics" into the discussion; a lot of art (if not the majority) has been produced under the influence of various types of drugs (alcohol; e.g. absinth, LSD, marihuana, mushrooms, etc.). So if you consider narcotics "wrong", it still helped to produce "right" art and other things.

[Donnadogsoth]

 

You keep saying "what is best", "people must/should", "right things", "wrong reasons"... I am still puzzled how you can connect those moral or ethical words to something which is very much a matter of taste.

 

There's no logic in that.

 

For instance; I don't like (actually 'hate' it): jazz. And whisk(e)y. Funnily enough those things combine very well. Yet at the same time I can and do recognize that both those things are actually high quality (or probably in your world falling under "classical art"). But according to your statement, I must be "damaged" in some way for not liking it?

 

Same for Shakespeare, some classical music (I like quite some pieces), etc.

 

Someones taste is not related to the quality of something. It may be, but not necessarily.

 

And you bring "narcotics" into the discussion; a lot of art (if not the majority) has been produced under the influence of various types of drugs (alcohol; e.g. absinth, LSD, marihuana, mushrooms, etc.). So if you consider narcotics "wrong", it still helped to produce "right" art and other things.

 

The notion that narcotics helped produce classical art is, we might say, highly dubious.

 

Classical art is intended to better humanity.  Jazz is intended to entertain and supplant high culture.  (That was one of its original names, "The art of destruction".  For more information about jazz music, see http://www.wlym.com/archive/campaigner/8009.pdf)

 

IF we want a rational society, THEN we should promote those forms of art that reshape the mind to be more rational.

[Torero]

The notion that narcotics helped produce classical art is, we might say, highly dubious.

 

Classical art is intended to better humanity.  Jazz is intended to entertain and supplant high culture.  (That was one of its original names, "The art of destruction".  For more information about jazz music, see http://www.wlym.com/archive/campaigner/8009.pdf)

 

IF we want a rational society, THEN we should promote those forms of art that reshape the mind to be more rational.

 

Is it dubious because you don't like narcotics or is it dubious because you doubt the confessions of the artists themselves (Van Gogh as an example)?

 

The former would be cognitive dissonance, the latter a case of skepticism (which I can always applaud). And yes, I realise I've done a claim so should back it up, but I think it's pretty common knowledge that drugs and art are related.

 

And how do you know how "classical art" is "intended"? Have you spoken to Mozart, Rembrandt, Shakespeare? And what about non-classical artists who actually said they intended to "better humanity"? Are they lying?

 

Rationality stems from principles, philosophy. It is not rooted in art. Well, a lot or art can be even considered "irrational". Actually two or my favourite artists do show a lot of irrational shapes and sculptures; Salvador Dalì and Maurits C. Escher.

 

But the topic is "why take children away", and we digressed quite a bit here.

 

To somehow connect the dots; children making a "non-classical" or "irrational" drawing or sculpture, they should be punished or re-educated for that?

[Donnadogsoth]

Is it dubious because you don't like narcotics or is it dubious because you doubt the confessions of the artists themselves (Van Gogh as an example)?

 

The former would be cognitive dissonance, the latter a case of skepticism (which I can always applaud). And yes, I realise I've done a claim so should back it up, but I think it's pretty common knowledge that drugs and art are related.

 

And how do you know how "classical art" is "intended"? Have you spoken to Mozart, Rembrandt, Shakespeare? And what about non-classical artists who actually said they intended to "better humanity"? Are they lying?

 

Rationality stems from principles, philosophy. It is not rooted in art. Well, a lot or art can be even considered "irrational". Actually two or my favourite artists do show a lot of irrational shapes and sculptures; Salvador Dalì and Maurits C. Escher.

 

But the topic is "why take children away", and we digressed quite a bit here.

 

To somehow connect the dots; children making a "non-classical" or "irrational" drawing or sculpture, they should be punished or re-educated for that?

 

Van Gogh, Dali, and Escher are not classical artists.

 

Drugs and non-classical art(ists) may be related, but was Shakespeare high?  Was Mozart high?  I doubt it.  High on beauty maybe, not hashish or heroin.

 

I take the views of those who have dedicated their lives to the cause of classical art:  the Schiller Institute.

 

Non-classical artists may have the best of intentions in bettering humanity, but their art (shit on canvas or whatever's in vogue now) is at cross-purposes with their aim.  Noise is not harmony.

 

My best guess is the education of children is a huge effort that spans decades and chiefly involves immersing them in beauty and teaching them to hate ugliness.  The development of the genius personality is not replicated by censoring every line or colour choice, but by guiding them towards echoing Nature, towards understanding principle, and towards developing love toward their fellows.  A child obsessing over anti-classical violence would be an example of a case of concern, yes.

[Torero]

Just a short (mobile) reaction now:

 

You're talking about "shitting on a canvas" (horrible and nonsense/non-art) and putting Van Gogh, Dalì and Escher in the same category; "non-classical art". If you really think that way, you're downgrading those hardworking artists with innovative, original and to many people interesting styles, themes and combinations and give those empty canvas shitters FAR too much credit.

 

But feel free to live according to guidelines established by some (Schiller) institute; your life and choice. Just don't confuse those guidelines with principles/philosophy.

[Donnadogsoth]

Just a short (mobile) reaction now:

 

You're talking about "shitting on a canvas" (horrible and nonsense/non-art) and putting Van Gogh, Dalì and Escher in the same category; "non-classical art". If you really think that way, you're downgrading those hardworking artists with innovative, original and to many people interesting styles, themes and combinations and give those empty canvas shitters FAR too much credit.

 

But feel free to live according to guidelines established by some (Schiller) institute; your life and choice. Just don't confuse those guidelines with principles/philosophy.

 

Outside of classical art, the eventual standard is what we have now:  anything goes.

 

If you know of principles, I'm all ears.  I am always eager to learn new principles.  Are they akin to the principles the Schiller Institute talks about, art (Shakespeare) and science (Gauss), or are they more akin to faux principles like the oligarchal principle or the second law of thermodynamics?

[rosencrantz]

 or the second law of thermodynamics?

 

What's wrong with it? 

[Donnadogsoth]

What's wrong with it? 

 

It is presented as a universal physical principle when it is not universal.  The universe itself is not entropic, but negentropic.  The universe is not "winding down" into entropic disorder, a conclusion Newton admitted was due to his choice of mathematics, and not accurate about the universe as a whole.

[rosencrantz]

a conclusion Newton admitted was due to his choice of mathematics

 

Newton's universe was eternal. He knew nothing about entropy which came up in the 19th century. I fail to see how Carnot engines work when entropy is wrong.