<p>If you were to design your own curriculum threads
There are many ideas. In fact, its entirely possible that some of them will work better than the current system (the current system is really an arbitrary collection of practices). Although we have no proof that some of the alternative educational practices will work better than all the others, its entirely possible that some of them will.
Is this a natural way to express creativity (designing ones own curriculum?) We have to distinguish domain-specific creativity from creativity in thought, and creativity within constraints of generating better systems (creativity with justifiability). A creative scientist creates a system with potential for empirical supportability.
A creative artist creates artwork that is compatible with the scopes of human appreciation. Human appreciation is not discriminate. While artistic relativity may hold for all possible universes with an infinite number of possible rearrangements, it does not hold for human appreciation.
Is the Bible creative? Yes. It is creative in the way that it has a natural appeal to human nature (as compared to other religious/metaphysical systems). We cannot identify what is most creative, of course. Its not just the Bibles creativity, but the combination of the creativity of the Bible and its delivery at the time of its inception (Nietzsche said that that it appealed to the massive numbers of slaves in the Roman Empire). Moreover, it is compatible with human nature in that it does not discourage sex . In fact, the very success of the Catholic Church may lie in its directive for humans to be fruitful and multiply. If we were to live in a totally different world, its possible that another religion would have sprung up, with some alternative changes in specific aspects (it might be forgiving towards homosexuals, for example). But its likely that the new such religion would encourage humans to be fruitful and multiply. (This is hard to say though, as Buddhism and Hinduism do not have such directives). The interpretations of the Bible are also most compatible in human nature in that they are compatible with the intrinsic follies of human nature, in that Man is redeemable through prayer and in that Mans sins are redeemable through a personal relationship with God.
Why support the creator? Because the creator (compared to most others) is most likely to create future works of similar quality. One trusts the author to responsibly use his earnings. When one is poor and rational, you can trust the creator to responsibly use his earnings. I use the word rational since I realize that many homeless are mentally ill. Moreover, many of them are drug addicts. I certainly sympathize with the mentally ill. But it is unfortunate that if I donate to them, they may not use the earnings responsibly. I especially sympathize with those of little willpower or limited time horizons. Its a fault of the system that the systems solutions to the problems are at fault, and that there are no easy ways out of their problems. (in fact, since it is mental illness, its very probable that the problems are genetic. The good news, at least, is that researchers are finally managing to isolate the causes of reduced willpower, and it appears that its related to the DRD2 and DRD4 dopamine receptors). I think that the problems with homelessness could be LARGELY treated if we have an understanding of how we can increase the density of DRD2 and DRD4 receptors .
Donations to people: If I feel that my net happiness is increased by donating to an individual, I will donate. This is especially relevant if I have money to float around and if the person I am donating to is poor (and if there is a good chance that he will produce less creative work if I do not donate especially if the author loses access to things he needs for his creativity namely, food, water, Internet access, and a storage space for his materials). This is compatible with my piracy of books and media. I would like some message to get across, and realize that if the writers are dead or otherwise well-off, spreading the memes through piracy is preferable to supporting the author (who will gain little from such support).
It is possible that spreading the message across may have the unintended consequence of reducing the creativity of the author (if spreading the message across reduces in reduced net profits of the author). I know that this is usually not the case (with most rich authors/companies), but in the case of a poor, starving artist, it is ethical for one to respect natural copyright. The problem with copyright law in the US, of course, is that it is an arbitrary conglomerate of regulations far more catered towards special interests and corporations of an antiquated era than it is to starving artists.
A few drugs can be used to boost creativity, if used RESPONSIBLY. This is a very strong word because there are many irresponsible drug users, including those who have wrote novels (Jack Keroac is an example). Feynman, SJ Gould, and Francis Crick are those who I would call responsible drug users. If I gave to a creative artist known to use drugs, I would most want an assurance that the person is FULLY aware of the risks of tolerance and addiction, and that if he were to use his money on drugs, that I would fully be willing to reduce the scope of such donations if he becomes addicted to them.
Of course, it is possible that the person may create no more creative works with my donations. I dont like it when people die, so I have natural goodwill towards the author who is incapable of further contribution. That I dont want people to die this is one of my ingrained moral sentiments. However, I can only donate to so many people, and so it is true that donations are compatible with a rational egoist interpretation of human nature (which I feel is most realistic).</p>
<p>In a sense, I can trust someone if the person knows what he’s doing. People who fail are disproportionately likely not to know what they’re doing. (but a few among those who fail do know what they’re doing - and are fully aware of the risks)</p>
<p>“disproportionately likely not to know what they’re doing”</p>
<p>not through any fault of theirs - but often due to deficiencies in willpower related to abnormally low concentrations of DRD2/DRD4 dopamine receptors</p>
<p>A social contract comes with the implicit acknowledgment of the opportunity for the student to have privileged access to the course material and help. Some professors distinguish between those who are enrolled and those who are not enrolled. Why do you trust your professional norms, even if not explicitly stated? Because there seems to be a sort of implicit morality that occurs in professional settings (although a few may question themselves to be skeptical of them). The book “Origins of Wealth” (Beinhocker)contains examples of some of those norms (although not in academia). It is implicitly acknowledged that the student has a social responsibility to maximize his effort on his courses. On the other hand, philosophical libertarianism argues that the person is free to do as he wants, and is to suffer the consequences if he does not fulfill his responsibilities (but that his actions care to be judged by the his consequential position in society, rather than the virtue of his character). Within this social framework, combined with implicit academic norms, it is expected that the student follows the traditional route. Those who try to follow alternate routes are seen as outsiders of the system (and are perhaps judged negatively). Is it totally meritocratic? Hard to say. Those who fail due to failures in self-control are often forgiven - in part because failures in self-control do not reflect upon a person’s disposition, so long as he can redeem himself from such failures. But a ratioanl calculation of bypassing social norms - this is seen as particularly arrogant behavior. </p>
<p>==</p>
<p>By the way, I often use the masculine gender to refer to the generic person. I often feel bad about it. Eventually Steven Pinker wrote that there have been attempts to create a neutral generic gender but they have all failed because none of them “make sense” within people’s minds. So I just decided to go along with the flow in that.</p>
<p>==</p>
<p>These are just random thoughts open for discussion. Flame me if you want to, I’m open to that too. 
(although i will defend myself :p) i’ve learned a lot from flames.</p>
<p>Yay I finally found out a dispassionate solution to the “alternatives to coursework as a means of demonstrating knowledge” problem.</p>
<p>there are many possible ways to construct society, many possible ways to construct a grading system. each grading system and each society has its merits and demerits, and each inevitably contain a number of people who happen to ‘fall through the cracks’. While I could conceivably construct a system (that from my impression) would be superior to the current system (as many other people would), the problem is that there is no empirical way to test the validity of such constructions and so I’m unfortunate in that I have to face up to the consequences of my actions and to live with the system (if I have to face in with the laws of probability and realize that the chances of my successfully surpassing the system are very low).</p>
<p>meh, i sometimes wish that stronger state’s rights existed so we’d have more means of comparisons (inevitably more state rights = more net government, as this could result in a different set of standards for each state => it will require an individual person for each state on more levels of position, so even if it results in less “federal government” bothering the states, it still results in more governmental employees. )</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>it’s a natural way to express you have no life.</p>