Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

Sushan

Do you think education is the best solution for many (or any) problems that we face? Or is it just a single factor and there are many other things that have to be accomplished for success?

The greater value of a good attracts the greater evil to correspond with it. Education has devolved into indoctrination. It is the way of the world.

Great question. The answer, unfortunately, is "Yes, but ..."
Yes education is the best solution, but since we can't agree on the nature of 'the problems we face', we cannot know the kind of education which could solve them. Nick A illustrates the dilemma well. The problem, according to Nick A, is that education has 'devolved into indoctrination'. No need to question that statement - 'It is the way of the world'. So for Nick A the solution would be to get people to understand they are just being indoctrinated rather than educated. This is where it gets tricky. How would Nick A get people to understand?

Hi Robert

IYO What is equality and how should it be taught in public education? Should equality be taught to indoctrinate slavery or to inspire freedom? Consider this quote: If we support freedom or statist slavery will determine how public education should be structured.

“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

Democracy and socialism have their pros and cons. But any of these can be used to develop a country as well as ensure equality among humans. But, as I believe, since humans have emotions and greed is one of them, a level of restriction has to be maintained to ensure equality. So I am more in support to socialism.

But none of these will be a matter if we can teach good qualities to children from their early childhood. You can keep a set of children of different races together and see how they play in harmony. If we can maintain that innocent mind of a child till they become adults, equality will be maintained automatically. And education can play a big role in that.

[Sushan]

Sushan

Do you think education is the best solution for many (or any) problems that we face? Or is it just a single factor and there are many other things that have to be accomplished for success?

The greater value of a good attracts the greater evil to correspond with it. Education has devolved into indoctrination. It is the way of the world.

Great question. The answer, unfortunately, is "Yes, but ..."
Yes education is the best solution, but since we can't agree on the nature of 'the problems we face', we cannot know the kind of education which could solve them. Nick A illustrates the dilemma well. The problem, according to Nick A, is that education has 'devolved into indoctrination'. No need to question that statement - 'It is the way of the world'. So for Nick A the solution would be to get people to understand they are just being indoctrinated rather than educated. This is where it gets tricky. How would Nick A get people to understand?

Hi Robert

IYO What is equality and how should it be taught in public education? Should equality be taught to indoctrinate slavery or to inspire freedom? Consider this quote: If we support freedom or statist slavery will determine how public education should be structured.

“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

Democracy and socialism have their pros and cons. But any of these can be used to develop a country as well as ensure equality among humans. But, as I believe, since humans have emotions and greed is one of them, a level of restriction has to be maintained to ensure equality. So I am more in support to socialism.

But none of these will be a matter if we can teach good qualities to children from their early childhood. You can keep a set of children of different races together and see how they play in harmony. If we can maintain that innocent mind of a child till they become adults, equality will be maintained automatically. And education can play a big role in that.

[Sushan]

Hi Robert

IYO What is equality and how should it be taught in public education? Should equality be taught to indoctrinate slavery or to inspire freedom? Consider this quote: If we support freedom or statist slavery will determine how public education should be structured.

“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

None of the above.

Stand up and walk out of the room. Don't turn around but walk back in, backwards. Forget de Tocqueville, equality, freedom, democracy, any other words rendered meaningless by overuse, misuse, and abuse, also forget rabbits counting to ten and anything else you would routinely think about. Now with your brain cogs turning in reverse, freely imagine education as an inspiring force, giving equally the power to think, analyse, and understand whatever life shows us.

I think it is good if we can apply what you suggest. But we are trained to think in various harmful ways as a generation for so many decades and that thinking patterns are transmitted from generation to generation via education. It will be good if we can stop this moving cycle and have a new start. But it is much easily said than done.

[Sushan]

Hi Robert

IYO What is equality and how should it be taught in public education? Should equality be taught to indoctrinate slavery or to inspire freedom? Consider this quote: If we support freedom or statist slavery will determine how public education should be structured.

“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

None of the above.

Stand up and walk out of the room. Don't turn around but walk back in, backwards. Forget de Tocqueville, equality, freedom, democracy, any other words rendered meaningless by overuse, misuse, and abuse, also forget rabbits counting to ten and anything else you would routinely think about. Now with your brain cogs turning in reverse, freely imagine education as an inspiring force, giving equally the power to think, analyse, and understand whatever life shows us.

Education can teach facts. It can teach how to read, write, and math. But who has the responsibility of teaching meaning? What good are facts without meaning and who has the obligation to protect against meaning devolving into indoctrination?

That is the problem. We don't agree on what supplies meaning so it devolves into indoctrination. Is there a way out of this problem that would reveal objective meaning?

I am not certain of what you mean by 'meaning'. Languages have a meaning. Mathematics and science are languages. So they have their own meaning and they are being used to express mathematical and scientific ideas. I do not think they have two meanings, one subjective and the other objective. There are agreed facts in these subjects, and when they are taught as it is it can be seen as indoctrination. But you have to learn what is there to either think about or produce new facts and theories.

[Sushan]

Education can teach facts.

It can do a lot more than that.

But who has the responsibility of teaching meaning?

Parents and teachers.

What good are facts without meaning and who has the obligation to protect against meaning devolving into indoctrination?
That is the problem. We don't agree on what supplies meaning so it devolves into indoctrination. Is there a way out of this problem that would reveal objective meaning?

Facts are useful. They help with objectivity.
We should all be on guard against indoctrination.

Going against indoctrination is a good thing. But first the children should be taught what is indoctrination. And also it is the responsibility of the teachers as well as parents to teach them to think rather than to by-heart facts.

First they should be taught the correct things, then to think over them and then question. Otherwise they will go against indoctrination by learning or thinking false matters and it will devolve their own personal development.

[Sushan]

Education can teach facts.

It can do a lot more than that.

But who has the responsibility of teaching meaning?

Parents and teachers.

What good are facts without meaning and who has the obligation to protect against meaning devolving into indoctrination?
That is the problem. We don't agree on what supplies meaning so it devolves into indoctrination. Is there a way out of this problem that would reveal objective meaning?

Facts are useful. They help with objectivity.
We should all be on guard against indoctrination.

We know that the young now are starved for meaning. Some are even committing suicide. If we need meaning and don't know what it is we invite indoctrination. We invite the cult mindset to supply what is needed.

“The secret of the demagogue is to make himself as stupid as his audience so they believe they are clever as he.” Karl Kraus

Frankly I think it is sad that so many have become empty of meaning that they openly invite the demagogue. But this is what happens.

Simone Weil describes the cult mind in politics:

"When a man joins a political party, he submissively adopts a mental attitude which he will express later on with words such as, ‘As a monarchist, as a Socialist, I think that …’ It is so comfortable! It amounts to having no thoughts at all. Nothing is more comfortable than not having to think." Simone Weil

Do you think that those rioting in BLM or Antifa are doing it for logical reasons? No, rioting. killing, and destroying serves the need for meaning.

Rather than guarding against indoctrination, wouldn't it be more sensible to study what the human essence needs and how they acquire it? What provides meaning for the hole in the heart?

Since you have mentioned about political parties, riots and boycotts, such things are mainly done because many follow the band wagon without going for reasoning or the meaning. A clever speaker simply bend the mind of the ordinary and then manipulate them. And I agree, that is indoctrination and demagoguery. But sometimes even the people who see the meaning too join this sort of irrational things. That is simply because they cannot resist the common flow, the indoctrination and the demagoguery. So one should be knowledgeable to see the meaning and also should be strong enough to defend one's self against indoctrination.

[Sushan]

Education can teach facts.

It can do a lot more than that.

But who has the responsibility of teaching meaning?

Parents and teachers.

What good are facts without meaning and who has the obligation to protect against meaning devolving into indoctrination?
That is the problem. We don't agree on what supplies meaning so it devolves into indoctrination. Is there a way out of this problem that would reveal objective meaning?

Facts are useful. They help with objectivity.
We should all be on guard against indoctrination.

We know that the young now are starved for meaning. Some are even committing suicide. If we need meaning and don't know what it is we invite indoctrination. We invite the cult mindset to supply what is needed.

“The secret of the demagogue is to make himself as stupid as his audience so they believe they are clever as he.” Karl Kraus

Frankly I think it is sad that so many have become empty of meaning that they openly invite the demagogue. But this is what happens.

Simone Weil describes the cult mind in politics:

"When a man joins a political party, he submissively adopts a mental attitude which he will express later on with words such as, ‘As a monarchist, as a Socialist, I think that …’ It is so comfortable! It amounts to having no thoughts at all. Nothing is more comfortable than not having to think." Simone Weil

Do you think that those rioting in BLM or Antifa are doing it for logical reasons? No, rioting. killing, and destroying serves the need for meaning.

Rather than guarding against indoctrination, wouldn't it be more sensible to study what the human essence needs and how they acquire it? What provides meaning for the hole in the heart?

I disagree with you Nick A. I think about my kids, both adults now, and how learned and mature they are compared to me at their ages. They learnt so much more at school, and I don't just mean facts but real understanding, critical analysis, meaning. When I was at (Catholic) school we were indoctrinated in all sorts of ways, not only religion, but versions of history, the relative importance of different subjects, what was allowed or disallowed, on and on it went.

I don't hear people beginning a sentence with 'As a socialist...' People usually have a lot of parts making up their identities. As for presuming that people have no thoughts at all, having already presumed they are one-dimensional, that is wrong and arrogant.

If I were black and in the US I would probably be rioting. It seems logical to riot when all else has failed and black lives continue to be taken without reason and seemingly without remorse.

If you think you are able to say 'what the human essence needs' go ahead, but don't be surprised if many disagree with you. If we were all part of the one flock we would be as sheep.

Educational systems have been evolved throughout the history. What began with reciting what the teacher said has converted into a student based learning system. Students are allowed to involve more in the learning prprocess rather than just listening to what the teacher says. And the advancement of technology has done a lot. Those days we had to go to a library to find additional knowledge. But today the children (as well as adults) have everything at their finger tips. So the one who has the need can find a way to have good education.

But we do not have to forget about the children who are being deprived of these facilities and the right for education.

Some people actually have reasons to riot. But many just follow the band wagon and end up fulfilling the needs of the riot leaders, but not finding solutions for the actual problems.

[Sushan]

The purpose of educations is not to prepare one for adulthood, but to teach one how to learn and research. Once one can draw on the work of others and learn new topics for themselves, then they will be ready for life. My school does not know what jobs will be available twenty years from now, but they can teach me how to learn. If one is diligent and works hard, then they will succeed in adult life outside of school. We can't blame the schools when people are unsuccessful. People are responsible for their actions too.

You are correct. Schools are not to be fully blamed when people become unsuccessful. But when students end up with degrees but end up being jobless because simply the job market does not accept them, then the schools and the educational ssystems are also to be blamed.

It is true that students have to be taught how to think and also how to learn new things and get adopted. But schools too should have a vision how the job market will be in the coming future, and they too have the responsibility to produce students who are suitable to that job market. The requirement and the production result should be matching.

[Sushan]

The purpose of educations is not to prepare one for adulthood, but to teach one how to learn and research. Once one can draw on the work of others and learn new topics for themselves, then they will be ready for life. My school does not know what jobs will be available twenty years from now, but they can teach me how to learn. If one is diligent and works hard, then they will succeed in adult life outside of school. We can't blame the schools when people are unsuccessful. People are responsible for their actions too.

The recent change in the way information is handled now has created interesting relative situations.

In my generation (old), facts were difficult to come by, so they were presented in school and had to be memorized. Thus why I have a huge amount of quasi-useful information in my memory. The beauty of the situation is that I know a lot of info and what I don't know is easy to look up now.

OTOH, kids nowadays live when there is little interest in memorizing information because 1) there is too much of it and 2) it is very easy to look it up instantly. Yet how to manage information is not universally understood, thus I assume isn't universally taught, which if true is a crime.

I agree. Those days we had to memorize things and vomit them out in our exams. In the university that changed with research and stuff and it took some time for me to get adopted to the new system.

Today with the technical advancements you do not have to memorize things but just to google when you need something. But the need to learn the basics has not been changed and will never be. If you do not know the numbers or the letters then you cannot progress further.

Among all the good aspects of the new technology in relation to education, the bad thing is it is quite easy to loose concentration. The internet contains many things and all are accessible by just a simple click. So children are attracted to these stuff rather than their educational material, and I see that distraction can do a big harm to the modern education and the modern children.

[LuckyR]

The purpose of educations is not to prepare one for adulthood, but to teach one how to learn and research. Once one can draw on the work of others and learn new topics for themselves, then they will be ready for life. My school does not know what jobs will be available twenty years from now, but they can teach me how to learn. If one is diligent and works hard, then they will succeed in adult life outside of school. We can't blame the schools when people are unsuccessful. People are responsible for their actions too.

The recent change in the way information is handled now has created interesting relative situations.

In my generation (old), facts were difficult to come by, so they were presented in school and had to be memorized. Thus why I have a huge amount of quasi-useful information in my memory. The beauty of the situation is that I know a lot of info and what I don't know is easy to look up now.

OTOH, kids nowadays live when there is little interest in memorizing information because 1) there is too much of it and 2) it is very easy to look it up instantly. Yet how to manage information is not universally understood, thus I assume isn't universally taught, which if true is a crime.

I agree. Those days we had to memorize things and vomit them out in our exams. In the university that changed with research and stuff and it took some time for me to get adopted to the new system.

Today with the technical advancements you do not have to memorize things but just to google when you need something. But the need to learn the basics has not been changed and will never be. If you do not know the numbers or the letters then you cannot progress further.

Among all the good aspects of the new technology in relation to education, the bad thing is it is quite easy to loose concentration. The internet contains many things and all are accessible by just a simple click. So children are attracted to these stuff rather than their educational material, and I see that distraction can do a big harm to the modern education and the modern children.

Less is more. It is more efficient to memorize data if it is hand written in a notebook than typed in a laptop.

[Sushan]

The purpose of educations is not to prepare one for adulthood, but to teach one how to learn and research. Once one can draw on the work of others and learn new topics for themselves, then they will be ready for life. My school does not know what jobs will be available twenty years from now, but they can teach me how to learn. If one is diligent and works hard, then they will succeed in adult life outside of school. We can't blame the schools when people are unsuccessful. People are responsible for their actions too.

The recent change in the way information is handled now has created interesting relative situations.

In my generation (old), facts were difficult to come by, so they were presented in school and had to be memorized. Thus why I have a huge amount of quasi-useful information in my memory. The beauty of the situation is that I know a lot of info and what I don't know is easy to look up now.

OTOH, kids nowadays live when there is little interest in memorizing information because 1) there is too much of it and 2) it is very easy to look it up instantly. Yet how to manage information is not universally understood, thus I assume isn't universally taught, which if true is a crime.

I agree. Those days we had to memorize things and vomit them out in our exams. In the university that changed with research and stuff and it took some time for me to get adopted to the new system.

Today with the technical advancements you do not have to memorize things but just to google when you need something. But the need to learn the basics has not been changed and will never be. If you do not know the numbers or the letters then you cannot progress further.

Among all the good aspects of the new technology in relation to education, the bad thing is it is quite easy to loose concentration. The internet contains many things and all are accessible by just a simple click. So children are attracted to these stuff rather than their educational material, and I see that distraction can do a big harm to the modern education and the modern children.

Less is more. It is more efficient to memorize data if it is hand written in a notebook than typed in a laptop.

I personally agree with you. After many years still I find it difficult to learn from a laptop or a mobile phone compared to studying a book. But that may be because of how we used to do it from the beginning. We started with books and now it is difficult for us to get adopted to new technology and new ways.

The kid who get used to laptops and phones may not experience such a problem. He will face the same problem if he had to convert into studying books.

[Tegularius]

A plethora of educated idiots forces one to say NO!

[Sushan]

A plethora of educated idiots forces one to say NO!

Going against everything is not productive. But education will teach a man to understand what is correct and what is not. And anyone should have the courage to say 'NO' to what is wrong. This is really important in politics in a country. If the majority of the voters are less educated the political parties will easily get their votes for anything wrong. Only the educated ones with a good backbone will go against that (if they do not have any personal political agendas)

[Tegularius]

A plethora of educated idiots forces one to say NO!

Going against everything is not productive. But education will teach a man to understand what is correct and what is not. And anyone should have the courage to say 'NO' to what is wrong. This is really important in politics in a country. If the majority of the voters are less educated the political parties will easily get their votes for anything wrong. Only the educated ones with a good backbone will go against that (if they do not have any personal political agendas)

Generally speaking, you're right, but clearly education doesn't work on everyone; many are immune to it in spite of having received the necessary quantum.

Who would have believed that so many among the educated, still regard Trump, for instance - a bona fide criminal and near demented low-life, among other things - so highly as a great President unfairly cheated out of a second term? Does scumbag still have any meaning; does one even require an education to acknowledge what is overtly detrimental? There are many whom education helps to think logically, but there are also near as many who seem incapable of incorporating any of its methods into their own functional thinking.

Education has never been a complete panacea to human idiocy, which clearly still has free-range.

[LuckyR]

A plethora of educated idiots forces one to say NO!

If you think educated idiots are dumb, you should see uneducated idiots.