Related Posts
What's next after healthcare for you all?
More Posts
Additional Posts in Antiracist Educators
Go Amy! 👏👏

When you’re not Anti-Racist…

This is the crux

Hello! I am looking for two new Texas teachers (0-5 years) who would be interested in participating in a study I am doing as a Doctoral Candidate at Baylor. The study looks to understand the experiences women working in the field of education have had that triggered shame and explore their resilience. If you are interested, click the link below to get started: bit.ly/ShameResilienceStudy
If you have any questions feel free to email me at stephanie_asselin1@baylor.edu.
Best,
Stephanie Asselin

New to Fishbowl?
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.





There are no objective truths and to subordinate to them is to surrender our humanity and conform to the wants of the society that doesn't necessarily know what is best for us. Our individuality would be in question, and that is what makes us human. I am not like anyone else, and therefore, if I just give up and take what society gives me as a truth, then I am simply giving up.
Teaching students to ignore that part of themselves is simply malpractice.
Enthusiast
Did anyone ever view the movie “What the Bleep Do We Know”?. - dated, yet insightful regarding elite science we may not be aware of.
Rupert Sheldrake is another scientist with interesting information- one of his most popular broadcast was once banned in the US (the British laughed at US ignorance in a Twitter feed during this time). Labeled a heretic by one of my sciences coworkers.
Sheldrake says that he is a real scientist (truth seeker)and not a technician (a scientist by credentials, yet unable to finance ones own research and carries out the agenda of those with money and power).
Bowl Leader
“Humbly subordinate to an objective truth.” Who would decide what’s the objective “truth”?
Would the “truth” be determined by the existing power structure?
What is the “truth” regarding the inequities that exist in the US?
Who determines what is “objective”?
Let’s talk about it!
I got time today 😎.
Enthusiast
The questions that you pose are valuable from my perspective; yet, this is the perspective of one labeled as an existentialist!
I find those questions inspiring, not terrifying. If you are afraid of asking and answering those questions, maybe you need to rethink your perspective.
I am not terrified at the question, I am terrified that the person posing the question is so stuck in his/her own perspective that they don’t realize that they are disproving their own point.
I stumbled upon this one while poking around outside my usual circles. I wish I could say that I was shocked by what I've seen, but I'm not. Saddened, maybe, but not shocked.
There are *no* objective truths? Isn't gravity an objective truth? Objectively speaking, don't our bodies need oxygen to stay alive? Do I need "society" to tell me that stepping in front of a bus is a bad idea?
Of course there are objective truths. Objective truths can sometimes make us feel uncomfortable, but that doesn't make them less true. We often make new discoveries that change our understanding of the truth. This simply speaks to the fallibility of man, not the absence of truth.
Without any truth, how do we survive as a species? How do we maintain even the most basic understanding of our world? How can we possibly communicate with each other? Without the pursuit of truth, how do we improve ourselves and our societies? Without the pursuit of truth, how are teachers relevant? What are we teaching, if not the truth?
Some truths are easier to spot than others. When I book a room on the 15th floor of a hotel, I have a choice to make. I could either take the fastest way down and plummet to my death, or I could submit to the truth and wait for the elevator. Some moral truths can be harder to spot than others, yet I think there are a few that we'd all agree upon, and it is a worthy debate to seek out the others.
I think that denying the existence of truth is nothing more than a cop out used to shield oneself from from criticism over moral issues. Yet, when we look back at history, the pursuit of moral truth has advanced our culture, has it not? Wouldn't we agree that enslaving other humans is objectively immoral, or is that one open to interpretation as well? Imagine a world without any objective truth and the chaos that would ensue, and tell me if that's a place you'd like to live.
But still true nonetheless.
Bowl Leader
Maybe it exemplifies the subjective nature of “truth” due to the limited way we humans interact with the world around us.
Looks like my reply went to the main thread. Eh, you'll figure it out.
Ok, so go back to my last reply. You're on the 15th floor. You taking the elevator, or are you jumping off the balcony? Think hard. Your answer is important. (And laughing me off doesn't count.)
I wasn't searching for it so much as I was expecting it.
Enthusiast
https://www.facebook.com/groups/167472906597811/permalink/5258706694141048/
Bowl Leader
“The only language to express the truth is silence”. I heard that!