English Education 101

As I was sitting in my English Education Class, my professor told me her wonderful experiences with head start, a kindergarten/preschool age tutoring service. She told us the games they played, every day objects they talked about, how to properly form lines, and how they taught social etiquette. Then, she concluded, they spent a special time so a councilor could come to each class and have all the children take turns hugging a teddy bear. Woa, woa, woa! Rewind. We are teaching kindergarten and preschool aged children that love and affection can come from an inanimate object by the hands of a psychologist? Wait, it becomes much, much better.

We followed up with reading standards for first through third grade students. My professor thumbed through books such as 'Brown Bear, Brown Bear' and some other book about letters climbing trees. I apologize, but for those parents who are reading this post, have children in first through third grade, and have seen these books as school assignments should not be content with their child's grades. There should not be an echo of happiness. Your children are failing; Your children are being robbed of an education; and your local district councilor who was just hired sees nothing wrong with this.

G.K. Chesterton once said, "Any responsible man will teach his own child." I'm saying this not because I've been homeschooled, but because parents, by and large, will expect greater things from their children, will push their children farther beyond their perceived capacities, and will dedicate more time, money, and love than any teacher with thirty children or any psychologists who has written the lesson plans that are in my hands. I will use college as a case study.

It is widely known that the highest test scores, on average, come from college graduates with physics or philosophy degrees. Why? How is it that a humanities major, philosophy, competes with one of the most prestigious and most rigorous of the natural sciences? How is it that they often share the same seat at a college table? The reason is because of the material philosophy students are expected to understand. When we learn about Aristotle, we read his books (English Translations, of course). When we learn about Plato, we read his books. When we go over Kant, Descartes, Hume, Hegel, Nietzsche, or any other philosopher we are required to go beyond our mental capacity and learn from some of the greatest minds. We do not read someone's summary or another "professor's feelings" upon the matter. I am yet to take an economics class that requires us to understand "Individualism and Economic Order" (A series of essays) by Friedrich Hayek or John Keynes "The General Theory Of Employment Interest And Money". I am yet to take a political science class that requires us to understand Tocqueville, Rousseau, Locke, Marx (We may have read a paragraph about him somewhere in a remote article), or Hobbes. And I'm yet to take a psychology class that requires us to touch a book by Sigmund Freud. If we don't stretch our minds, they'll simply retract into imbecility.

But some will still ask, "What have we lost?" We have lost everything. We've lost the vigor of Marx when he writes, "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win." We've lost the curiosity and obligation of Rousseau when he says, "As I was born a citizen of a free State, and a member of the Sovereign, I feel that, however feeble the influence my voice can have on public affairs, the right of voting on them makes it my duty to study them: and I am happy, when I reflect upon governments, to find my inquiries always furnish me with new reasons for loving that of my own country." And we have even forget Kant and his conclusion, "Thus pure reason presents us with the idea of a transcendental doctrine of the soul (psychologia rationalis), of a transcendental science of the world (cosmologia rationalis), and finally of a transcendental doctrine of God (theologia transcendentalis)." As Ray Bradbury once said, there's more than one way to burn a book; and our English education is doing a wonderful job.

In looking over our study programs, from childhood to college, from professor to student, from parent to parent, I have come to a single conclusion: We are no longer required to understand, we are simply required to repeat - and that alone should scare us.

The Eight Parts of Speech: Nouns

      Nouns are persons, places, things, ideas, or emotions in English. A helpful way to identify them is to place the words “an”, “a”, or “the” before the word. However, articles don't work before Proper Nouns.

There are five types of nouns:

1. Common Nouns
2. Proper Nouns
3. Concrete Nouns
4. Abstract Nouns
5. Collective Nouns
         ** Counting and Non-Counting Nouns

I. A common noun is a word that express run-of-the-mill people, places, things, emotions, and ideas. Word such as happiness, boy, and desk are such.

 

II. A Proper Noun is a word that express special people, places, things, emotions, and ideas. They are designated by capital letters.

What's the difference? Here is another way to look at the differences between common and proper nouns. Common nouns are a set of limited words that define general people, places, things, emotions, and idea. On the other hand, Proper Nouns are virtually limitless. If you can place copyright protection, then it's a Proper Noun.

III. A Concrete Noun is a word that express anything that can be communicated through the five senses: sight, sound, touch, taste, and scent.

IV. An Abstract Noun is a word that express anything that can't be communicated through the five senses. These nouns covey ideas and emotion.


What's the difference between Concrete and Abstract Nouns? The difference is the nature of the thing being conveyed. For example the word cloud is a concrete noun because it is conveying something that can be seen. However, Abstract nouns have the uncanny ability to convey anything that can't be communicable through the senses. When was the last time you touched happiness or saw Buddism? These are emotions and ideas – they can't be conveyed through sensational avenues.

[Writing Advice – Concrete {vs. Common} vs. Abstract Nouns] – Concrete Nouns lend support to English's ability to be precise in conversation and writing. Where an individual may tell us about the truck he drove to go shopping, we may instead tell the same story about a how a young boy drove his father's ford pick-up to the store so that he may purchase slippers for his mother. We may talk about the sweeping generalities, but it is often better to choose a concrete noun. And perhaps when we read, “Jesus wept.” we find more fascination than any author who wrote about the tears of clouds. Not only are concrete nouns more expressive and more vivid, but are able to capture the ideas moment better than abstract and common nouns.

V. A Collective Noun is a word that represent a collection of people, places, things, ideas, or emotions without being plural. These words include family, herd, flock, audience, orchestra, and so forth. However, unlike other nouns, collective nouns can be subdivided into counting and non-Counting nouns.

[A note on Collective Nouns] – Collective Nouns are special for one reason: they are singular unless you reference the internal members. What this means is unless you use a pronoun that references back to the noun (called a reflexive pronoun because it is reflecting) then a collective noun is always singular. For example, we can say, “Our family[singular] loves your cookies.” because the noun family is referencing a single unit. However, when we say, “Our family[plural] are arguing amongst themselves to determine if the cookies were popular.” we are using a reflexive pronoun (themselves) to draw attention to the members inside the unit. Most writers prefer to make this more obvious by writing, “Our family members are arguing amongst themselves to determine if the cookies were popular.”

[A note on Counting and Non-Counting Nouns] – The English language has special nouns called counting and non-counting nouns. The difference between counting and non-counting is that counting nouns must have “a” or “an” placed before them. This designates that the following noun is either “one among many” or “any one” and emphasizes that the noun is unknown to the reader (contrary to the word the which signifies that the noun is known to the reader).

A helpful reminder is that non-counting nouns – such as steel, knowledge, or jewelry – do not have plural forms. For example, saying, “Did your mother purchase a jewelry,” doesn't make sense. Neither saying, “Can you pass a sugar.” Passing a sugar cube? Perhaps. But passing a sugar? That's the sign you're working with a non-counting noun. If you're talking about one piece of jewelry or cupboards full of sugar, there exist no plural form.

Please note that, as with all eight parts of speech, a single word, depending on placement, can be located in multiple categories. For example, the word happiness is both a common and an abstract noun, or the word family is a concrete, common, collective noun.

Helpful Reminders:

• Nouns can be made plural or possessive.
• Can assume the following endings: player, justice, happiness, division, guidance, reference, pavement, childhood, kingdom, agency, tourist, sincerity, censorship.

Nouns can be used to modify other nouns; they are called noun adjectives.


And that is everything you will ever need to know about nouns.

** You can click on the image below for a larger picture.

The Eight Parts of Speech: A Continued Adventure

    To my fellow class mates and to my friends and to my companions on this dark road, I reach out to you. English writing was never invented for the feint of heart, but the heart that goes on without bursting. English grammar was never invented for the mathematician or the logicians, but for those who wish step away from the rigidity of science and embark on the meaning of sound. I reach out to you to offer simple gestures that will make the road a bit more straight.
   For every stage performance we are given the actor; for every movie we are shown the face; but who may own the credence of well written prose? Where do we look when we find ourselves lost in time with our favorite book? Or, perhaps, when we begin to understand a new concept, who can we thank? I'm most sorry to inform you that there is only one word - one, single, unpolished, unloved, unforgotten word. Grammar.
     What I hope to accomplish in a series of articles on the eight parts of speech is nothing less than what a small flicker of candlelight means to a lone traveler. By breaking the world's lingua franca into eight simple parts, I intend to do what many will miss in a college class room. I hope to give understanding to an otherwise frustrating art. I hope to reduce hours of tedious work to minutes of reading. I hope to reduce the late night diagraming into a perfect luncheon memorization activity. I hope to give the twinkling of a single candlelight along a vast, empty road.

Sincerely,
ShadowTitan9997

P.S. But remember, there are two times in your life that you will be impelled to take a moment of silence. In the first case it is in those times when someone has died. In the second case, it is in those times when one is about to die. And English grammar is one of those exceptional things which has slain the living and quicken the dead.



-------------------------------------------------
Part One: Nouns
Part Two: Adjectives
Part Three: Pronouns
Part Four: Interjections
Part Five: Prepositions
Part Six: Conjunctions

The King's Speech - A Response Essay

        Like an evening star, every sport, every hobby, and every profession has mined wisdom from the phrase, “practice makes perfect.” It doesn't make a difference if you're a football player, a chess fanatic, or a poker player, if you don't practice, you'll be as wanted as a leather chair on a hot summer day. But for some unbeknownst reason we forget to make that connection with public speaking. Public Speaking is a fine art that requires just as much practice to make perfect. After watching the King's Speech and attending my Communication 301 class at Sacramento City College, I've learned three important aspects of public speaking: Rehearsal, Weakness, and Communicating.

        One of the first things that are thrown out with the baby is rehearsal. Often we'll visualize our audience, organize a fluent outline, and, in the best of nights, have a wonderful PowerPoint presentation. All of these things are the bare minimum for a successful presentation. However, I learned that vocalizing your practice speeches, instead of memorizing it in your mind, gives you that cutting edge for a fluent speech. Time and again, in the King's speech, the Duke of York was required to rehearse out loud not only his speeches but also his intonations, enunciation, and other verbal ques. It's not enough to have a well-ordered mind, but also a well-ordered mouth. In my Communication class we were given the opportunity to recited our speeches at least four times before small groups. Of course, this is in addition to the practice sessions that my siblings and parents are dragged into. However, this was a perfect opportunity to practice how my speech would sound, where the blood clots were, potentially fatal pauses, and places were we may want to stress a bit more “umpf”. In other words, when we practice our speech, we need to practice in situations as if we were delivering the real thing.
         The second aspect that I learned is probably the most overlooked aspect of any sport or art: weakness. Many a night, we are drilled with the notion of perfecting our strength, strength, and strength. However, if we fail to identify what stops our clocks, what really makes the audience squirm in their seats, then no matter how well spoken we may be, our weaknesses will glare our audiences into submission. In the King's Speech, the Duke of York understood that despite his earnest sincerity to do well for his country. If he couldn't control his stammer his, country would look right past him. So he took steps to control his stammer. In my Communication 301 class, I learned that failing to delivery important points in the context that you're given isn't only an opportunity to perfect an art, but also a weakness that I desperately needed to address. To become an effective speaker, I need to learn how to cut down the oak and plant the acorn. Simplify, Simplify, Simplify.

        And lastly, Communication. When people think of communication they tend to fly for two stereotypes: a formal speech given at Victorian dinner, accented with Austinian calibre language, or a down to earth “homie-buddy-buddy” style that attacks every notion of good form. What we forget is that the art of communication is communicating. In the final scene of the King's Speech, the Duke of York is required to give a global military address. They've been practicing, practicing, and practicing, but the speech isn't coming out quiet right. It's time to give his speech. They're escorted to the speaking room. The door is close. The light is blinking. And just before the light signals to commence his speech, Lionel, the Duke of York's speech therapist, standing on the other side of the Duke's microphone, says, “Speak, speak like you're talking to me.” I learned in my public speaking class that the art of communication is learning how to speak to your audience as if you were friends, as if you were talking to them.

        I believe that if we take the time to rehearse our speeches exactly as we are to give them – out loud and clear – learn to identify our weaknesses and account for them in our speaking opportunities, and learn how to simply communicate, like friends, to your audience then we are one step closer to achieving our goals. But too often we find ourselves shouting the same words as King George V. “Just do it!” We're frustrate because we're not seeing our actions align with our perception: public speaking appears to be leaps and bounds easier than it we often give credit. I'm thankful for the opportunity to analyze this movie and to participate in a class that explores the fine art of public speaking.

4th of July - A Late Repost from Facebook

"Today we celebrate our 236th year anniversary of America's Declaration of Independence. Fifty-six men bravely pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their honor against a government which claimed the right to "bind us in all cases whatsoever." A government that pulled down our legislative authority; a government that deprived us our right to a fair and speedy trial; and a government that subjected us to foreign laws. Fifty-six men believed that no government, no matter how large their armies nor how powerful their lawyers, has no right to take away that which God has given. Today we remember America's pledge that it is better to commit High Treason than watch a Tyrant strip us our rights.

- To High Treason."

The Night of a Birthday

To conclude this night, and to put a close to this event, I have one thing to add concerning the great debate between quality and quantity. One may concede that quality has taken the day when we see the vast superficiality of our acts and the momentary delights fall to the wayside. However, another may be taken by force when no feint number has lifted a heavy burden and supplied a vast chimera who comes to brilliant end. But to both I must concede they are wrong.

By God's mercies one may have both quantity and quality. To those who came, I thank you for a lively night full of enjoyable games, embarrassing moments, and comedic injuries. The memories will haunt your paths and provide too many antagonistic comments to keep your lives peaceful. To those who could not attend, I thank you for being by my side for another year and for providing moments to stunt my pride, boost my humility, and grant the gift of a good conversation. And yet, to a few I know that time and distance has kept our conversations short and far between, you have continued to be in my thoughts, prayers, and conversations. I hope and pray that another year will bring greater understanding and greater insight that God provides both quality and quantity, and that one must simply look around to see His blessings.

The Problem of Evil: A Facebook Response

Hello Nealroed (name altered for privacy). I'm not sure how this picture responds to the previous points that I brought up, so I'll count them dropped and "crack on."

There are several things wrong with this picture, and I'll point them out one by one.

First, the conclusion of this image is "Then why is there evil?" This conclusion misrepresents the scope and depth of the problem of evil's proposed claims. The Problem of Evil isn't attempting to ask the Christian "Why is there evil?" it is attempting to draw a logical contradiction between the notion of a OOO God and Evil co-existing. If it were trying to ask, "Then why is there evil?" any answer that has enough explanatory power and explanatory scope would suffice the problem. So, my first point is that this image misrepresents the conclusion found in the Problem of Evil (the version we are speaking of. Granted there are different one depending on the scope, depth, and condition. Our argument concerns the category we call evil.) by exchanging the argument from a logical contradiction with a question concerning the fact.

Second, this image ignores the implications of God's Omni-attributes. I'll begin by listing each attribute, detail the improper implication that the image draws, and then argue why the correct view of that concerned attribute holds and disproves the contradiction.

- God is All Powerful or Omnipotent. The image asks a simple question," Can God stop Evil?" However, this simple question has a hidden facet - namely, the exclusion of 'all'. The question isn't about, "Can God stop some evil," or "Can God stop a evil," or "Can God stop evil once it has begun to act," but really asks, "Can God stop 'all' Evil 'from existing'?" This latter form of the question misses two important qualifications for omnipotence: logical implications and qualifications of other attributes. Here, I'll explain the logical implications, afterwards, I'll explain, along with the other attributes, the collective qualification of the attributes.

As I have argued in prior posts, omnipotence means that God is all-powerful but doesn't necessarily mean that God can to anything and everything. This is because there exists linguistic and logical paradoxes that cannot make sense (notice I don't say, "wouldn't" because can implies ability rather than preference.). Thus, it wouldn't follow that if God is Omnipotent then God could create a square-circle (Unless it's the Triangle Square in Southern California ^_^). So the point here is that omnipotence is qualified by logic. In a little bit, I'll come back and argue how it is qualified by other attributes.

- God is All Knowing or Omniscience. The image asks a straightforward question that has a very straightforward answer. Does God know about evil? Yes. However, this image errs in the aspect of how God's knowledge is understood to be applied. Most often people assume that what God knows is what God does and what God does is what he knows. This image seems to advocate this position because of how it connects this idea of a "test" to the question "why is there evil?" There are several responses to this and I'll delineate them below:

First, this is false because if God knows what he does and does what he knows, then Omniscience is simply a reformation of Omnipotence. But this cannot be the case because it is fairly reasonable to assume that the power to execute an action is not a prerequisite to any knowledge concerning that act. For example, it would be perfectly reasonable to say that I have an epistemological justification that if I throw a baseball at you that you will catch it. However, it seems irrational to respond, after you caught the ball, "You don't have any justification for your belief because you didn't make it happen."

Second, we must understand the knowledge of God in reference to space and time. Now this image is odd because it poses an argument that most people wouldn't even think about arguing because it is so abstract (I applaud the image). What the image is stating is that God knows not only the actualities but also the potentialities of all acts. And if God knows the potentiality of all acts then they would count for the actuality of those acts. Now the problem with what the image states is two part, the first part is what will be addressed here - the problem of an actual act by looking at the nature of God's knowledge in connection with an act - and the second - evil being a test - which will be addressed next.

When we speak about what God knows, in reference to space and time, we are saying that what God knows is what we have freely chosen and that God knows this because he is outside time. So, to exemplify what I mean, the question may be asked, "If God knows that I will steal something tomorrow, then do I really have a choice that I will steal something tomorrow?" The answer is yes because God is outside time. We can further ask, "If, hypothetically, I would not have stolen anything tomorrow would God know it?" The answer is yes, because God is outside time. This notion, without getting too complicated, is derived from the notion that if God is outside of time, he is not bound by the limited scope that time offers to us. We could some this point in one sentence, "What God knows will happen has happened."

Third, the argument that evil is a test fails to understand the nature of evil and free-will. Now, this isn't necessarily a problem with omniscience, but since the connection was made in the image I'll respond to it here. Evil is a moral judgment concerning an act. But the question that necessarily follows is, "Which acts are moral and which acts are not?" And this is where we find the logical necessity for free-will and the principle that "ought implies can."

For a moral universe to exist, the individual must not only be responsible for their own actions but also be capable of acting out those acts. We can find this to be true by rationalizing the concepts of a act that one is not responsible for (how could we say that since Bob stole a car, that Jim did an evil act) or rationalizing the concept of an act being driven, necessarily, by a prior cause (If Bob pushed Jim into the street, then Jim is responsible for committing suicide). So I think it is mistaken to say that evil is simply a "test". More properly, evil is a by-product, necessarily, of a moral universe which necessitates free-will.

- God is All Loving or Omnibenevolent. This attribute ought to be more simple to capture because being all-loving is a common human strife. However, taken in a vacuum, this isn't a Christian concept at all. The image argues that an all-loving God will do anything to demonstrate his love. But this isn't the case. God isn't simply all-loving, but also just.

This is where Islam and Christianity drastically diverge, among other things. The islamic god, Allah, is either just or loving; But when he is just he is unloving and when he is loving he is unjust. Contrarily, the Christian God suffices both love and justice in the substitutionary sacrifice of the cross. This is what makes Christianity insanely unique - that while God is all-loving, evil must be severely punished. And that is what we find in the concept of the cross: an act of severe love but also an act of severe punishment. So you cannot take omnibenevolence outside the context of God's justice.

Third, in wrapping all these attributes together, we are left with one final question, "Could God have created a universe without free-will?" I would say it depends on what you mean. If you mean to say, "Could God create a universe without free-will but contain moral properties?" I would say no. But if you meant, "Could God simply have created an amoral universe without free-will?" I don't see why not.

In concluding this response, I would like to say one more thing. The Problem of Evil seems to be a problem derived from either a misrepresentation of the omni-attributes and the concept of good and evil or it is derived from the seemingly unfair idea that human do bad things. However, as the above testifies, I do not believe that either give us a good reason to deny that the OOO God exists, let alone attempt to call it a logical contradiction.