Many if not most Israelis are not religious, and traditionally, religious Jews (especially the Orthodox; an extreme case is Neturei Karta) oppose Zionism and the State of Israel as a secular ersatz, believing that they must wait for the Messiah to restore Israel.

Of course, in the last few decades, a faction of Zionists have commandeered the messianic for political purposes, but this is not the origin.

Few people have a clue about what education is actually for. How can you possibly educate students well if you don't know the destination? And how can you know the destination if you don't know what it means to be human? To be human entails a destination that is definitive for the species.

Overwhelmingly, education today is a shaped by the logic of consumerism. Consumerism begins with a false anthropology, that of the hedonistic homo economicus.

1. Schools send a strong message, whether explicitly or implicitly, that education is about "getting a job". It's about being able to secure a career. At the very least, it is sold primarily as a ticket out of poverty and a means of moving up the social ladder. In a competitive, hyperindividualistic, and consumerist society, status is measured by consumption, so education is a means to increase your power to consume.

2. How many times have we heard teachers say "knowledge is power"? That's a Baconian turn of phrase that represents a turn in scientific history where understanding and knowledge are subordinated to technical power and control. Understanding nature is here dethroned to make way for dominating nature. "Know-how" for us is more important that knowing the "what" and the "why".

3. The coverage of topics and how they're addressed is often jumbled and incoherent. There is some ordering, sure, but it is usually superficial and sloppy. Its practice is like that of some mysterious and obsolete ritual. Many pedagogues are simply bad.

4. Understanding is not rewarded as much as producing supposedly measurable results. In schools, the ultimate result is the grade. The grading system is inherently competitive and designed to rank people first and foremost in a technocratic fashion under the pretense of objectivity. This has "management science" written all over it.

5. Education fads and attempts to artificially infuse technology into education is motivated by profit and abetted by ignorance. Indeed, education in general is big business. Forget tablets and computers. It suffices to note the rapacious practices of the textbook industry, made worse by the fact that these textbooks are almost invariably terrible from a pedagogical standpoint.

Given the soullessness and mechanical nature of modern education, why should we be surprised by what we observe? (I'm not proposing some kind of squishy curriculum. Much of the "reform" of the last few decades that has received just derision is just as misguided, or even worse.) Just as we can talk about factory farming, we may talk about factory education. Students are numbers. But education occurs through relationships. This must begin with parents, but parents are too busy making ends meet or chasing the next promotion. When families were large, older siblings would pick up the slack.

The primary purpose of education is intellectual and moral freedom. Not hyperindividualist freedom, which is about the satisfaction of appetite and the ability to do whatever you happen to feel like doing. The classical view of freedom, which is the ability to do what is objectively good and the ability to be more fully human. Since human beings are essentially intellectual beings and moral beings, it follows that our greatest and most essential expression of freedom is found in the intellectual and the moral.

Indeed. If we peel back the rationalizations, it is patently obvious that code has no meaning apart from the domain it exists in. Its entire meaning is derived from the domain and from the purpose to which it is put and for the sake of which it is written. There is no such thing as code, or broadly technology, in isolation. It does not exist for its own sake. Where such things are concerned, all meaning is in the observer.

So, if a dev has a poor grasp of the domain, then he must inevitably depend on someone else to supplement his deficits, like a product manager, which is a role that in practice often results in a formal distinction between the domain expert and the technician.

And that's what a dev without domain knowledge is: a technician.

This is also why people with solid[0] philosophical/liberal arts backgrounds often function very well in the software industry. They are better able to cultivate context which puts them in the best position to make prudent judgements at both product and technical levels.

This is not a dismissal of technical skill, but skill is always downstream from meaning, purpose, and context. It's a tool, perhaps a glove. Without the hand, there is no glove.

(Some may say this is obvious, but sadly, the obvious is what people seem to have the most trouble with.)

[0] Emphasis on "solid". I'm not talking about the ideological puff you might see in some places. I'm talking about something intellectual rigorous like the classical liberal arts.

A return to the classical understanding of the person, society, and the common good is indispensable.

A presupposition of confession is that you have contrition and the resolve not to sin and wish to receive absolution (which doesn't remove the need for temporal justice btw). Premeditation and without remorse turns that confession into an empty act, and indeed, another sin.

Calvinists also believe in confession. Indeed, it doesn't even require the uncomfortable encounter with a priest. You can just do it privately in their view.

This touches on the purpose of sacraments in the Catholic Church. They are meant to be visible signs that give assurance and certainty that something has taken place. If a human being were to show perfect contrition (very rare), then there is no need for the confessional (and ultimately, God is not bound by the sacraments). But for the penitent, the confessional gives assurance of absolution, provided there is some measure of requisite contrition. You don't have to wonder about your eternal fate after leaving the confessional.

The idea that Catholic societies are corrupt or and Calvinist societies are tidy and ordered is a stereotype, and it is silly and ahistorical to claim that you need authoritarianism to bring order to Catholic countries. Catholic societies have a greater tolerance for the messiness of human life. It views itself like a field hospital ready to provide people with means to get back up and to heal. Calvinists, on the other hand, are strangled by their constant anxiety about whether they are part of the elect or not. That can translate into rigidity, rigorism, scrupulosity, and OCD. These, in turn, can resort in a backlash of moral laxity.

(Another stereotype is the Protestant work ethic. Apparently, no one ever heard of the Benedictines and their influence on Europe. There is also a healthy attitude toward work and an unhealthy one.)

This is just the logical conclusion of consumerism.

Consumerism produces careerism. Careerism produces the two income household. A two income household cannot devote the needed time to raising children during their early years. Day care and school and after school activities has been used to keep children busy while parents were hunting for that next promotion and the bigger paycheck to get the better car to get the better "status" in the eyes of their neighbors.

The zombie is the perfect symbol for consumerism, because it involves a mindless, indiscriminate, beastly, and insatiable hunger that would sell his own grandmother for that next disposable morsel.

I think we really need to reshape things to conform to biological and human reality instead of working against it. In the case of women, our culture as well as our political and economic structures must support the ability of women to have children earlier and to be able to raise them themselves during their early years. Many women do actually want this, but the culture pressures them to do otherwise or convinces them that the consumerist lifestyle is more attractive, causing them to defer having children (constraining their fertile years) and to pursue careers that increasingly make it difficult to choose to relinquish for at least some time as they raise their children.

The owl of Minerva only takes flight at dusk.

It is indeed interesting to observe how attitudes in tech seem to be changing, especially with the specter of AI. I think some of it is just the lament of the keypunch operator or some kind of parochial and domestic grumbling concealed behind the appearance of something greater, but some of it does seem like its rooted in at least an intuition about where everything is headed...and has been heading.

What the author is describing is consumerism. Consumerism devours everything and soon enough becomes a way of life. But as a society, we are enslaved to consumerism. We cannot let it go. We don't even know that we should. Status in consumerist societies is tied to consuming power! You don't want to be left behind, do you? So, unfortunately, the only corrective for an obstinate people is reality itself, which will come for its pound of flesh sooner or later. And we're seeing it. The drowning man must let go of his satchel full of fool's gold, but he is unable to and the satchel takes him to the dark depths until perhaps he is can no longer hold his breath. Reality has to pry his fingers from that satchel.

Conservatism favors community life, not hyper-individualist atomism. New Urbanism and similar architectural movements[0] are heavily conservative in substance. This is actually an area where I suspect some of the Left and some of the Right can cooperate, and should, because there is enough agreement, at least where the need for sane urban planning is concerned. There is nothing conservative about sprawl and suburbs.

"15 minute city" is just a synonym for neighborhood, effectively. If you can't get most daily things done within a 15 min radius, then guess what? You don't have a neighborhood. You have an internment camp. Hyper-individualism has no need for neighborhoods or polities, because it conceives of human beings as atomized consumers.

[0] https://cdnc.heyzine.com/flip-book/pdf/44640c2c786250e3a426d...

A lot of corporate "metrics" are pseudoscientific. They have a superficial veneer of being "scientific", because there's, like, math and numbers and stuff, man. The world continues to function despite this foolishness, not because of it.

Part of why this is so popular in the US is because the US is a hyper-individualistic culture. In other countries, relations are more important. This irks Americans who think this necessarily entails nepotism (it can), but I would say that 1) this overestimates the relative effectiveness and objectivity of low-info hiring practices, and 2) ignores the fact that all knowledge of another person occurs only through relationships. We're inherently social animals and organizations are inherently social phenomena. (2) is partly why many companies pay referral bonuses. They're relying on the knowledge of someone you have of someone you know. This makes sense. If I've worked with someone, I am in a much better position to evaluate their qualifications in a meaningful way than some HR person or some random whoever. A sane company doesn't care about satisfying some weird, arbitrary ideological benchmark. They care about assembling a team that can work effectively.

There's a mindset that freaks out over the mere potential for something to be abused or suboptimal or whatever, and categorically decides that it's better not to have that thing at all. (Gov't is a great example. Yes, gov'ts can become abusive, but they're also the only force that can stand between you and, say, abusive corporate power.)

Abusus non tollit usum.

If a demographic groups has, for example, a culture that encourages overconfidence in relation to actual qualifications, then it is reasonable to expect that that demographic group will be relatively over-represented in the application pool relative to its aggregate qualifications.

Similarly, a culture that instills under-confidence relative to actual qualifications can be reasonably expected to be under-represented relative to its aggregate qualification.

This has virtually always been the case and it is only "social media" is an Orwellian sense. It is an antisocial consumerist machine.

In consumerism, everything is for sale.

This agrees with studies that show that memory retention is better among students when using physical books rather than ebooks. That's because we're embodied. The book is a physical object with physical features. These intelligible physical features create associations (spatial anchoring, sensory engagement) that reinforce memory. You also get a sense of progress as you read. For instance, when I read something, I better remember at what depth certain content is, and given the depth, I know more or less what is in that part of the book. You could think of it in terms of spatial indexing or in terms of data locality.

People think the medium doesn't matter. They think that it's just a matter of encoding. But the medium very much matters, because the senses are involved in memory formation in all sorts of ways. It's also why handwriting leads to better retention of information than typing.

I wouldn't say we're hedonistic creatures by nature. It isn't good for us to be hedonists. I would say that hedonism is simply the nature and logic of consumerism, and consumerism—and indeed, hedonism—derails healthy human virtues, tastes, and habits like a drug and deranges one's ability to reason about reality and the good.

Consumerism is intrinsically market-oriented and thus all about satisfying the desires of the market. In a hyperliberal culture that privatizes and relativizes morality and makes "freedom" from all restraint the ultimate end of human existence—full stop—that means the market is effectively god and that no desire can be wrong (in practice, this is complicated by the unfeasibility of ultimately attaining such a state of affairs).

Naturally, hedonism doesn't sit still. Once it slakes its appetite for something, like a vampire, it wants to move onto something else. Its appetite only grows. Hedonism is a death spiral of indulgence of ever increasing depravity. In an amoral environment that produces people lacking proper moral and intellectual formation (apparently moral formation is "fascist"), and without at least the guardrails provided by law rightly understood, it is an easy death spiral to enter into.

If life is seen as objectively without meaning, then all that remains is hedonism. Our age is full of nihilist thinly papered over with hedonistic distractions.

So we're nihilists. We live in a nihilistic consumerist culture. Nihilism leads to nothingness and death.

1. The desire for a "royal road" to understanding. This is a bad motivation, because while there are more or less effective ways to learn, there is no royal road. You will spend your entire life trying to squirm out of doing what learning requires.

2. A utilitarian view of education. This is a tragedy of our times. People insist that their learning be "useful". Calculus is useless, because chances are that most people who learn it will never employ it for practical work. But this totally degrades what education is. It turns human beings into mere machines for proximately practical work. There is no theoretical desire for understanding things to understand reality better. This is false education, because knowing and understanding the truth are central purposes of a true education.

3. An "agnostic" view of the purpose of education. Without a destination, there can be no discussion of strategy or tactics, no discussion of progress or what is good education. The classical liberal arts had an answer. Sadly, much of modern education does not, at least not a clear, coherent, or healthy one. It is often an incoherent assortment of disconnected and disorganized material with no organizing principle. This is disrespectful to the student. Also, where motivation is concerned, classical education places a great deal of emphasis on acquiring the virtues that should always be cultivated in parallel with learning.

4. Bad execution in practice. Not all teachers are great. When you press people on why they hate a particular subject, how often is it the case that the subject itself wasn't the problem, but how bad the teacher was, either as a pedagogue specifically or as a person?

5. A failure to distinguish between pedagogical problems and the influence of the home environment. Parents are the first and primary teachers of their children. Students enter schools as products of their moral and social education at home. When the home is deficient, students may lack the appropriate dispositions needed for formal education. Sometimes a good mentor can help counteract some of these deficiencies, but the bulk of the responsibility rests on parents. With the disintegration of traditional community life into which family life is embedded, things become even more difficult.

We also mustn't ignore that learning occurs within human relations. That is why a good pedagogue is so valuable. His goodness is first goodness as a person. Pedagogical skill becomes intelligible, human, and more effective when the pedagogue is like a benevolent parental figure who acts as a guide, neither dominating the student nor spoiling him. A parental figure also responds to the particular needs of the student, because there is a relationship there. The students doesn't just become an alienated number in the classroom.

But we know what consciousness is, even if you don't know how to explain it in materialistic[0] terms. Intentionality is what makes consciousness consciousness. We know that LLMs - and computers in general - do not possess intentionality, not even sensory intentionality. There is no "aboutness" and no semantics to the content within a machine, never mind that the processes within LLMs are not reasoning or inferential processes. It is a sophisticated behavioral simulation that may be syntactically defined, nothing more. It is purely a matter of transeunt causes and not the immanent causality needed for something like consciousness.

(There's also the more general problem that we cannot say that physical computing machines are objectively computing. There is nothing about the physical processes - which completely define what a computing device is doing - that could be identified with computation in any objective sense. Rather, we human observers assign a computational interpretation to the machine's operations, just as we assign them to the ink blobs in a book or the liquid crystals you are reading on your screen now. Computation is something we do, and we have built machines to simulate it. We formalized computation - which is a process of desemantification and syntactic codification - and build machines guided by these formalisms. Formalization is what makes mechanization possible.

> Decomposing the complex activity into simple steps like 'predicting the next word' and claiming that surely can't have consciousness. A similar argument would be -- there is no way that movements of electrons by tiny distance would produce consciousness.

The movement of electrons as such cannot produce consciousness. The reductionist paints himself into a corner by strapping reality into a Procrustean mechanistic and materialistic metaphysics that redefines reality according to some dedicated schema, and then strains endlessly to find how some phenomenon can arise or emerge from the paltry remains. (Either that, or he embraces insanity completely and becomes an eliminativist.) It is magical thinking. I suspect this fallacious line of thinking is what causes people to believe piling more syntactic operations will somehow magically fuse into semantics and intentionality.

[0] "Materialism" here is the metaphysical theory. I am not claiming that consciousness - at least not all consciousness - cannot be a physical phenomenon. I am only claiming that the materialistic view of matter cannot account for consciousness.

[0] https://gleam.run/

Your distinction between the practical and the theoretical is important. Practicality is important - everything we do is a matter of practicality of means or method, even how we pursue theoretical ends - but two points.

First, there is more to life than the practical. Some truths are known for their own sake, even if they also tell us about still more profound truths (also known for their own sake) or may have incidental practical relevance and consequences in some other context.

Second, while the theoretical terminus is the truth for its own sake, the practical terminus is always something other than itself. Well, what is that "something else"? You can't have an infinite regress of practicality. The meaning of a proximate, practical end is always other than itself. The practical requires an end beyond itself to justify it.

I agree that most people don't seem to inquire much about such ultimate ends. Their thoughts are confined to the proximate. Of course, how have they determined what the proximate should be? Something for people to contemplate.

Where science is concerned, it depends. On the one hand, there are fields that are certainly more theoretically oriented. It's not "the game" that motivates theory - that would make it mere recreation, with the truth taking a backseat - but the truth. (For this reason, I hesitate to call Erdos theoretically motivated. AFAICT, he was motivated by the challenge of problem solving and not the truth, insight, and understanding to be gained which would have been merely incidental and instrumental for him.)

However, I would also say a good chunk of science is motivated by a background motivation of technology production and the mastery of nature. Think Francis Bacon who viewed science as an instrument of power and showed a preference for the "how" over the "what" (τόδε τι) or the "why" (τὸ διότι). This set the tone for a great deal of modern science. A great deal does less explaining and more predictive modeling, because predictive modeling can be sufficient for control. Indeed, a truly theoretical causal account and understanding of a thing's nature can be less useful as a practical instrument than a merely predictive model.

Now, AI is a practical tool. I think they can be enormously useful as research aids, even in theoretical contexts, provided that one

1. understands their nature;

2. understands the purpose of the theoretical activity undertaken.

What is their nature? Well, they're statistical models that can unearth interesting and useful correlations and patterns. But they are not reasoning and knowing things. Their results are generated mechanically and mindlessly. Knowing this means taking their results with a healthy skepticism and a critical eye.

What about the purpose of theory? By analogy, think of a student in school who uses AI to complete all his assignments. Has he satisfied the purpose of those assignments? No, because the purpose of the assignments isn't to produce the effect - the solutions - per se, but to learn something. Theoretical work is like that; it's purpose is to understand and to grasp some truth. An AI can be used to assist this process, just as a calculator or a search engine can, but if you use it in a manner that circumvents that purpose instead of supporting it, then you're not achieve that purpose and wasting your time. What's the point?

Imperialism gets a bad rap—and it can be bad—but it wasn't black and white as the rash and motivated slogans in the street would have you believe. Empires can have a beneficial and civilizing effect on peoples who are unable or unwilling to address certain issues themselves. The British Empire was a huge force in halting the slave trade. The Spanish—allied with surrounding tribes—put an end to the murderous and psychotic Aztec elite; the Mayans experienced a similar fate. Sati in the Indian subcontinent is another example. Rome's civilizing influence on Europe's barbarians is also well-known.