I also heavily advocate bringing the goose step to public schooling, along with some modern iteration of "seig heil".
I think it would go a LONG way to restoring a sense of duty to and respect for our political structure, as well as a sense of obedience to power. I'm seeing this all mixed in with the Pledge of Allegiance. Children goose-stepping around the courtyard before opening bell, saying the pledge. The bell rings repeatedly, and the principal comes over the intercom, commanding a refrain of Seig Heils!
This is silly. A return to the Middle Ages in the context of education implies a return to the economic modalities of the Middle Ages. The removal of compulsory education would not undo centuries of economic progress.
Children have rights but you have the right to force them into schools?
I certainly believe children are free agents and that they have rights..
Human beings have innate incentives to learn. If I have to aggressively incentivize schools, it means my schools probably have little to do with learning.
Poor families, centuries before, relied on children for income via agriculture or similar activities. The assumption that poor families would do this today, however, is a pretty poor assumption.
Absolutely!!!! But be careful equating education and intellectual pursuits to the insitutions you are forcing children into. In most cases, those institutions reflect the opposite of education and intellectual pursuits, which is in large part why you have to force people to participate in them.
Do you agree with Luther's aims then -- to expose the masses via compulsion to Biblical teachings?
He replaced the dogma of the day with a slightly modified dogma, yes.
Definitely! Can you not see the harm of centrally dictated systems of dogma that everyone, by law, is forced to participate in?
Education is funded, for the most part, by landowners in America. Most of our schools are payed for via property taxes. Corporations represent a large shareholder in that enterprise.
American public schools, like most public schools, stress dogmas of nationalism, economic modalities preferred by the government, history lessons biased towards the state. Certainly American public instruction is largely innocuous in its content, but it's methods and biases are painful strains on American minds.
Please - the return of the Middle Ages was a sarcastic reference as to the effect of eliminating compulsory education, which would become the preserve of a few while the masses remain uneducated. Certainly, not implying that elimination of compulsory education would also bring about feudalism, the political and economic model of the Middle Ages by default! It would take something more, yes, of course.
There is a valid point though about economic incentives for the poor to send their kids to schools. Which are they again?!? History backs me up on this. Why would it be such a poor assumption?
An innate desire to learn is not an incentive for education, especially if the framework is just not there. You may want to learn but if you are not guaranteed the opportunity and time to learn you simply won't be educated. The exception, i.e. only few, would be in this way.
It seems to me you claim that choice should be just with families as to whether to educate their kids or not. Whereas I claim, families should have a choice as to the best way to educate their kids (public school, private school, home schooling, whatever), but education must be provided for kids. Hence the right to universal education, mandatory for kids up to 16, or whatever age the state decides.
If you agree children have rights, do these include rights to education? If so, how do you guarantee those rights? I believe that like any other right, the child right to education must be protected by law and enabled by the state because there might be those families who prefer their kids not to be educated, regardless of their innate desire to learn.
Yes, I agree with Luther's position to dissiminate knowledge as far as possible and give the masses the tools to learn. But, no, I'm not a Lutheran, nor Roman Catholic, if it's of any relevance.
My point is that I strongly disagree that knowledge and education should be the preserve of the few, which would happen - as it has happened throughout history - by eliminating compulsory education.
Finally, schools might teach one dominant school of thought - whatever it may be in time and geography (state schools in China would be different in their teachings, right?) - but as part and parcel of education one learns the less dominant viewpoint too and especially the intellectual framework and tools to research and make your own mind, and not digest whatever dogma is inculcated into your mind, be that at school, church, family, etc.
Do you then simply view schools and public institutions as the instruments to suppress the masses by promulgating whatever dominant dogma?
Is all education, schools, just the means to teach dogma for you then? Don't you think it allows for free-thinking which by definition intellectual pursuit is and that education in schools should provide? The spread of knowledge is a guarantee AGAINST dogma, not a supporter of it.
By the way, historically, the more knowledge has been spread to the masses (via print in local languages) the more the status quo, and its dominant ideology (dogma in a loose sense) has been challenged, politically, economically, etc.
When I refer to Truth, that is independent of going consensual understandings of reality, including accepted academic 'truths'. The Truth is what it is, always, despite different approaches or levels of understandings towards it.
What I'm doing isn't a contradiction. The way you are tying it together may "reveal" a contradiction. By that same token, if your intent is to understand me, you might be looking to connect the dots in a different way.
Disagreement noted.
if one covers the 'within' and the 'without' at one time, that is not a synthesis of different approaches?
I can use 10 different maps to direct you to the same destination. The problem occurs when people think the map is the territory. Or that my chosen words are the energy they describe. They are rather approximations of the energy I describe. Also the words/symbols and teachings of, say, science are also approximations of the energy described as well. Just like the words/symbols etc. used to impart subjective knowing is an approximation. We have an imbalanced bias in our society that places these varying perspectives on an illusory 'objective' scale for worthiness. That is a human bias and endeavor, and not objective Truth.
To answer your question...if I experience and know something from within, and have highly credible validation from without, that presents a pretty whole picture of the issue at hand for me.
So, ok, with holism you are integrating the within and the without. How?
You also claim there is a Truth out there (not to sound too X-Fileish) - is this the without you refer to? Is this only learned by inner revelation? or also by academic teachings? if so which?
How do you learn about this external objective Truth? Especially if - as you claim - humans are biased in their learning? if they're not intellectually equipped to truly grasp it as they can only get to an approximation of the Truth?
I'm afraid, I don't get your analogy of the map and the territory. Even if you're using 10 different maps they should all represent the same territory, so they are not different maps. They might use different colourings to trace lines, etc, but they should all show the same external representation, i.e. the territory.
I'm also saying that many concepts stand, even if the masses don't agree with them. Their inherent validity is what causes them to stand. Validity is what it is, independent of proof, or external validation by individuals or the masses. And often the principles are fine tuned, and distortions are clarified and the original concepts become laser sharp, while inaccuracies are revealed and fall away. The key to this happening is our personal evolutionary stage that is brought to our processing in each moment.
When I talk of knowledge and knowing, I talk of knowing. When you learn about Greece, you take it on faith that what you are told is accurate. You don't know, until you know by connecting the information with experience (experience encomapsses inner processes too).
There are things we "know" intuitively, and again, this is where knowledge begins within, and as you pointed to earlier is the base of education, wherein the external action of educing is about using tools to activate what is already understood and known. Based on this, the "tools" of education used from without, if they elicit knowing from within, do not educate in of themselves. Education is dependent on the inner connection. for example, what you might know about Greece, hinges on knowing what you know on other subjects, that relate to what you are learning on Greece, hence being, again, knowing, and not mere disconnected information taken on faith.
I totally disagree. Knowledge must be validated and proved. Otherwise, it's just your opinion, and sure all opinions are valid but they are not knowledge.
Inner validity of ideas, thoughts, must be proven externally - that's what knowledge is all about, not to mention science.
It has however, nothing to do with appeal to the masses.
Indeed, quite the contrary. When Copernicus and Galileo challenged thousand years of dogma claiming that the earth actually moved, they had to prove their claim. Otherwise, it was just their opinions against the dominant thought that instead it was the centre of universe around which everything revolved.
Also, I don't take anything on faith. Faith is the opposite of knowledge: you believe something because of whatever reason, including the inner validity of certain thoughts. That however is not knowledge - it is opinion, ideas, beliefs.
I only take ideas as valid if they can be proven. To know about Ancient Greece I also went to the primary sources - therefore not just relied on history books, but also on books written by Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle and if no written sources are available I relied on their information and cross-referenced it with other sources. I never take anything for granted not faith.
However, I agree there are things you intuitevely "know".
Then again, while education is extracting this knowledge (the Socratic method) the tools to extract such knowledge are important - they do educate in themselves. They provide the framework needed to extrapolate what is valid or not. I mentioned earlier the deductive and inductive methods of reasonings - those are tools useful to understand the external world and reality.
My whole position is to claim that education is an essential and fundament human right that must be guaranteed by the laws of the state.
How you choose to pursue your education is up to you.
Finally, education should aim to provide the tools to learn and achieve knowledge.
You can still have knowledge without a formal education and being self-taught (like many great thinkers in the past) - the point though is that to be knowledge it must be validated and justified externally. Otherwise, it's just opinions, ideas, etc. (and those great thinkers of the past also tested their new ideas against the old and provided reference points so they could be validated).
Please - the return of the Middle Ages was a sarcastic reference as to the effect of eliminating compulsory education, which would become the preserve of a few while the masses remain uneducated. Certainly, not implying that elimination of compulsory education would also bring about feudalism, the political and economic model of the Middle Ages by default! It would take something more, yes, of course.
There is a valid point though about economic incentives for the poor to send their kids to schools. Which are they again?!? History backs me up on this. Why would it be such a poor assumption?
An innate desire to learn is not an incentive for education, especially if the framework is just not there. You may want to learn but if you are not guaranteed the opportunity and time to learn you simply won't be educated. The exception, i.e. only few, would be in this way.
It seems to me you claim that choice should be just with families as to whether to educate their kids or not. Whereas I claim, families should have a choice as to the best way to educate their kids (public school, private school, home schooling, whatever), but education must be provided for kids. Hence the right to universal education, mandatory for kids up to 16, or whatever age the state decides.
If you agree children have rights, do these include rights to education? If so, how do you guarantee those rights? I believe that like any other right, the child right to education must be protected by law and enabled by the state because there might be those families who prefer their kids not to be educated, regardless of their innate desire to learn.
Yes, I agree with Luther's position to dissiminate knowledge as far as possible and give the masses the tools to learn. But, no, I'm not a Lutheran, nor Roman Catholic, if it's of any relevance.
My point is that I strongly disagree that knowledge and education should be the preserve of the few, which would happen - as it has happened throughout history - by eliminating compulsory education.
Finally, schools might teach one dominant school of thought - whatever it may be in time and geography (state schools in China would be different in their teachings, right?) - but as part and parcel of education one learns the less dominant viewpoint too and especially the intellectual framework and tools to research and make your own mind, and not digest whatever dogma is inculcated into your mind, be that at school, church, family, etc.
Do you then simply view schools and public institutions as the instruments to suppress the masses by promulgating whatever dominant dogma?
Is all education, schools, just the means to teach dogma for you then? Don't you think it allows for free-thinking which by definition intellectual pursuit is and that education in schools should provide? The spread of knowledge is a guarantee AGAINST dogma, not a supporter of it.
By the way, historically, the more knowledge has been spread to the masses (via print in local languages) the more the status quo, and its dominant ideology (dogma in a loose sense) has been challenged, politically, economically, etc.
lgt, I appreciate your thoughtful responses and your participation in this discussion.
I think our disagreement boils down to three major points. First, you're suggesting that, without the compulsory in compulsory education, many would go uneducated. This is an odd viewpoint to me because with compulsory education, many go uneducated. Every year, schools in this country produce confused, poor thinkers who have a tenuous and soon to be lost grasp on a handful of facts. To defend this system in the name of "universal education" seems, well, a little crazy, given the realities of high drop-out rates, poor student performance, and the paltry amount of knowledge that 12 years of forced education currently imparts upon students.
Secondly, you are invoking a child's "right to education" in your argument. However, what I hear you advocating for is the state's right to compel students into educational modalities and institutions that fit its approval. If we accept education as essentially the process of producing a free thinker, I do not believe coersion to be a good first step down that road.
Finally, you, in my view, keep synonomizing education and the process students are currently being forced in to. This is a connection I simply cannot see. The heart of education, in my opinion, is to instill in a human being the ability and confidence to acquire, process, and apply objective knowledge about their world. Most of our public and private schooling institutions, however, do little to help students acquire knowledge -- they simply foist approved knowledge onto students. Most of our public and private schooling institutions do little to help students process knowledge -- they provide little guidance or opportunity for students on how objective information should be examined and measured. Most of our public and private schooling institutions do little to help students apply knowledge -- they simply ask students to regurgitate, briefly, something that was told to them for the purposes of regurgitation.
It is absolutely and importantly true that when the masses have access to and control of the tools of learning that they challenge the status quo. This is one of the inherent beauties of the medium we are using to have this discussion. I only wish the same were true about the institutions we force so many bright and insouciant students into, only to see them come out confused and jaded towards the process of learning.
Societies are wise to ensure that the children of all its members have access to the tools of intellectual betterment. However, societies are also wise to understand that "intellectual betterment" means many things to many people. Assuming upon others your definition, and doing so via coersion and force, is a crime against not only their minds, but yours as well.
So, ok, with holism you are integrating the within and the without. How?
You also claim there is a Truth out there (not to sound too X-Fileish) - is this the without you refer to? Is this only learned by inner revelation? or also by academic teachings? if so which?
How do you learn about this external objective Truth? Especially if - as you claim - humans are biased in their learning? if they're not intellectually equipped to truly grasp it as they can only get to an approximation of the Truth?
I'm afraid, I don't get your analogy of the map and the territory. Even if you're using 10 different maps they should all represent the same territory, so they are not different maps. They might use different colourings to trace lines, etc, but they should all show the same external representation, i.e. the territory.
The point is, holism refers to having a reference to the whole. When I say "within/without", I refer to subjective knowledge and objective knowledge, that both , when synthesized = holistic knowledge. Another map I use for holistic knowledge is to use logical/intuitive and emotional intelligences together, being whole-brained awareness, which equals holistic awareness, blended with objective feedback. Others (or myself at different times) may define their approach to the whole differently. One can take many paths to the same destination. Ultimately, holism becomes much more than the sum of it's parts, so it must be experienced in order to be understood. The territory is farrrrr more than what it appears on the map.
How do I integrate within/without? First of all, we are so trained towards an objective bias, that it can be complicated for the average person to reach this balanced view.
How do I do it? I do it by balancing my integrated whole-brained subjective awareness with objective feedback. Reality is not either subjective or objective alone. In reality the two are blended. Therefore in order to be realistic, we must be able to bring the two together in an integrated fashion.
And further, as per your earlier definition of education, which I basically agreed with, education itself, when authentic, depends on a holistic process of the inner knowing, tied into objective validation.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I totally disagree. Knowledge must be validated and proved. Otherwise, it's just your opinion, and sure all opinions are valid but they are not knowledge.
If you ate a bowl of cereal this morning, you require a scientist, philosopher or scholar to prove that to you before it is knowledge for you? Same for if you brushed your hair? The "fact" that you brush your hair when you do is merely opinion until someone externally validates you? This 'problem' in our general training and widespread human awareness, when individuals have been taught to deny subjective knowledge is a part of our sweeping imbalance as humans at this time. It is part of our not trusting direct knowing processes inherent in us. It is a human constructed inaccurate bias, internalized by the masses.
For me, knowing is knowing. Proving a happening is proving a happening.
Inner validity of ideas, thoughts, must be proven externally - that's what knowledge is all about, not to mention science.
This is not what knowledge is about, it's what human-made systems, and, yes, the scientific method is about. Again, knowing is knowing, whether it's proven or not.
It has however, nothing to do with appeal to the masses.
Indeed, quite the contrary. When Copernicus and Galileo challenged thousand years of dogma claiming that the earth actually moved, they had to prove their claim. Otherwise, it was just their opinions against the dominant thought that instead it was the centre of universe around which everything revolved. Also, I don't take anything on faith. Faith is the opposite of knowledge: you believe something because of whatever reason, including the inner validity of certain thoughts. That however is not knowledge - it is opinion, ideas, beliefs.
You have faith that what you are taught is the truth, even when you haven't independantly proven that for yourself.
I only take ideas as valid if they can be proven. To know about Ancient Greece I also went to the primary sources - therefore not just relied on history books, but also on books written by Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle and if no written sources are available I relied on their information and cross-referenced it with other sources. I never take anything for granted not faith.
It sounds like you "trust" (as in faith) certain sources/academia, or when others claim they can prove their assertions, even when you don't independantly know by experience.
However, I agree there are things you intuitevely "know".
Cool. Because this is the precursor to scientific advancement...flashes of knowing and inSight that precipitate enactment of processes which prove such inSight as accurate. This is also how the philosophers have come to understand the very schools of thought they created, when there was no one prior to them teaching them.
Then again, while education is extracting this knowledge (the Socratic method) the tools to extract such knowledge are important - they do educate in themselves. They provide the framework needed to extrapolate what is valid or not. I mentioned earlier the deductive and inductive methods of reasonings - those are tools useful to understand the external world and reality.
I'm a great believer in education, which is why I've educated myself to the degree I have.
My whole position is to claim that education is an essential and fundament human right that must be guaranteed by the laws of the state.
fair enough.
How you choose to pursue your education is up to you.
Finally, education should aim to provide the tools to learn and achieve knowledge.
You can still have knowledge without a formal education and being self-taught (like many great thinkers in the past) - the point though is that to be knowledge it must be validated and justified externally. Otherwise, it's just opinions, ideas, etc. (and those great thinkers of the past also tested their new ideas against the old and provided reference points so they could be validated).
In order to be considered knowledge by others, I see that one's inherent knowing must be validated externally. Still, when I get up and brush my hair, I don't need validation in order to know Truth.
Likewise, the philosophical Truths I've known over the past 14 years were Truths and knowings/knowledge, even before they were validated externally with information or the agreement of experts.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
lgt, I appreciate your thoughtful responses and your participation in this discussion.
I think our disagreement boils down to three major points. First, you're suggesting that, without the compulsory in compulsory education, many would go uneducated. This is an odd viewpoint to me because with compulsory education, many go uneducated. Every year, schools in this country produce confused, poor thinkers who have a tenuous and soon to be lost grasp on a handful of facts. To defend this system in the name of "universal education" seems, well, a little crazy, given the realities of high drop-out rates, poor student performance, and the paltry amount of knowledge that 12 years of forced education currently imparts upon students.
Secondly, you are invoking a child's "right to education" in your argument. However, what I hear you advocating for is the state's right to compel students into educational modalities and institutions that fit its approval. If we accept education as essentially the process of producing a free thinker, I do not believe coersion to be a good first step down that road.
Finally, you, in my view, keep synonomizing education and the process students are currently being forced in to. This is a connection I simply cannot see. The heart of education, in my opinion, is to instill in a human being the ability and confidence to acquire, process, and apply objective knowledge about their world. Most of our public and private schooling institutions, however, do little to help students acquire knowledge -- they simply foist approved knowledge onto students. Most of our public and private schooling institutions do little to help students process knowledge -- they provide little guidance or opportunity for students on how objective information should be examined and measured. Most of our public and private schooling institutions do little to help students apply knowledge -- they simply ask students to regurgitate, briefly, something that was told to them for the purposes of regurgitation.
It is absolutely and importantly true that when the masses have access to and control of the tools of learning that they challenge the status quo. This is one of the inherent beauties of the medium we are using to have this discussion. I only wish the same were true about the institutions we force so many bright and insouciant students into, only to see them come out confused and jaded towards the process of learning.
Societies are wise to ensure that the children of all its members have access to the tools of intellectual betterment. However, societies are also wise to understand that "intellectual betterment" means many things to many people. Assuming upon others your definition, and doing so via coersion and force, is a crime against not only their minds, but yours as well.
i think this is one of the most gently crafted sublime truths you have ever put to "paper", FFG. Have you ever thought about becoming an author?
-Yours Truly-
Mr. Ego Maniac
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
lgt, I appreciate your thoughtful responses and your participation in this discussion.
I think our disagreement boils down to three major points. First, you're suggesting that, without the compulsory in compulsory education, many would go uneducated. This is an odd viewpoint to me because with compulsory education, many go uneducated. Every year, schools in this country produce confused, poor thinkers who have a tenuous and soon to be lost grasp on a handful of facts. To defend this system in the name of "universal education" seems, well, a little crazy, given the realities of high drop-out rates, poor student performance, and the paltry amount of knowledge that 12 years of forced education currently imparts upon students.
Secondly, you are invoking a child's "right to education" in your argument. However, what I hear you advocating for is the state's right to compel students into educational modalities and institutions that fit its approval. If we accept education as essentially the process of producing a free thinker, I do not believe coersion to be a good first step down that road.
Finally, you, in my view, keep synonomizing education and the process students are currently being forced in to. This is a connection I simply cannot see. The heart of education, in my opinion, is to instill in a human being the ability and confidence to acquire, process, and apply objective knowledge about their world. Most of our public and private schooling institutions, however, do little to help students acquire knowledge -- they simply foist approved knowledge onto students. Most of our public and private schooling institutions do little to help students process knowledge -- they provide little guidance or opportunity for students on how objective information should be examined and measured. Most of our public and private schooling institutions do little to help students apply knowledge -- they simply ask students to regurgitate, briefly, something that was told to them for the purposes of regurgitation.
It is absolutely and importantly true that when the masses have access to and control of the tools of learning that they challenge the status quo. This is one of the inherent beauties of the medium we are using to have this discussion. I only wish the same were true about the institutions we force so many bright and insouciant students into, only to see them come out confused and jaded towards the process of learning.
Societies are wise to ensure that the children of all its members have access to the tools of intellectual betterment. However, societies are also wise to understand that "intellectual betterment" means many things to many people. Assuming upon others your definition, and doing so via coersion and force, is a crime against not only their minds, but yours as well.
Likewise
I think the root of our disagreement, if you will, is the opposing view of the state and its role in society: you appear to be more individualistic whereas I - as a true European - are more in favour of an interventionist role to guarantee basic rights (I won't even enter into a debate into universal healthcare, for instance )
While you equate the right of education with coercion I instead equate it with enablement, if such a word exists, by the state.
I can see why you would consider it coercion - one individual must be free to do what s/he pleases even if it means shunning education, etc. But one lives in a society, with not just rights but also duties to our fellow human beings.
I agree, there is already quite high truancy especially in inner cities, but can you imagine how much more truancy there would be and why it would be a disadvantage for all, including the individual in question?
The situation would be much worse if you eliminate compulsory education.
While now there are local government-sponsored outreach groups trying to get those truant young people off the streets and out of trouble, if you eliminate the right to compulsory education this will no longer happen, and it will be much worse for all.
Education in schools - as far as I have personally experienced - should foster critical thinking and hone your thinking skills as it were. Learning by regurgitating facts can be viewed as improving memory skills; arguing and debating as improving your reasoning skills, which will allow you also to dismiss what you've learned at school or embrace new ideas, etc. This is what should happen in schools, especially when you go to college; and true, this is an ideal scenario, but then the argument would veer towards how to improve education.... provided we agree that it should be a fundamental and compulsory human right
The point is, holism refers to having a reference to the whole. When I say "within/without", I refer to subjective knowledge and objective knowledge, that both , when synthesized = holistic knowledge. Another map I use for holistic knowledge is to use logical/intuitive and emotional intelligences together, being whole-brained awareness, which equals holistic awareness, blended with objective feedback. Others (or myself at different times) may define their approach to the whole differently. One can take many paths to the same destination. Ultimately, holism becomes much more than the sum of it's parts, so it must be experienced in order to be understood. The territory is farrrrr more than what it appears on the map.
How do I integrate within/without? First of all, we are so trained towards an objective bias, that it can be complicated for the average person to reach this balanced view.
How do I do it? I do it by balancing my integrated whole-brained subjective awareness with objective feedback. Reality is not either subjective or objective alone. In reality the two are blended. Therefore in order to be realistic, we must be able to bring the two together in an integrated fashion.
And further, as per your earlier definition of education, which I basically agreed with, education itself, when authentic, depends on a holistic process of the inner knowing, tied into objective validation.
Ok, I see your point - the use of emotional intelligence as the link between internal, innate ideas, thoughts and external reality, validation, etc.
FYI, Hegel also used the concept of synthesis as combination of contrasting ideas (thesis and anti-thesis) in his dialectic. You should check him out, although he's not one of the easiest philosophers to "digest" as it were.
so the schools will have the responsibility to integrate this into their current education program and work with the students, during school hours to achieve this?
you invest in america and america invests in you.....
i don't have a problem with it.
Finally, we need to integrate service into education, so that young Americans are called upon and prepared to be active citizens.
Just as we teach math and writing, arts and athletics, we need to teach young Americans to take citizenship seriously. Study after study shows that students who serve do better in school, are more likely to go to college, and more likely to maintain that service as adults. So when I'm President, I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year. This means that by the time you graduate college, you'll have done 17 weeks of service.
We'll reach this goal in several ways. At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities. At the community level, we'll develop public-private partnerships so students can serve more outside the classroom.
For college students, I have proposed an annual American Opportunity Tax Credit of $4,000. To receive this credit, we'll require 100 hours of public service. You invest in America, and America invests in you - that's how we're going to make sure that college is affordable for every single American, while preparing our nation to compete in the 21st century.
It's called conditioning and brainwashing. Which is exactly what they will attempt to do. Get 'em while they're young, condition them to be "patriotic" and support all acts of war and aggression.
This is an idiotic, intrusive, manipulative and oppressive agenda.
The term itself is an oxymoron and deceptive by nature.
How many of you folks in this thread, who are all for this and like this idea; have kids?
How many of you are at the high school or college age?
This is utter nonsense. Just more erosion our freedoms and rights.
Watch, if this happens there will be a stipulation that any kid who "voluteered to serve his/her hours " will be locked in to immediately be dragged into the military, the minute these jerk-offs go and start another war. They will have no choices. And that's what they want. They want every teenager and young adult to be shackled to their every whim and agenda. Legally obligated to fight all of their wars.
I can't understand how anyone can support this crap, when you consider the war we are currently involved in (Iraq) and the war they are just itching to start with Iran.
Isn't it interesting that they have recently stepped up their "War On Home Schooling" ? Hmmm.....wonder if there's a connection:rolleyes:
My kids will NOT go risk their lives or give up their lives for their " Corporations For Christ Wars " !!!!!!
If you ate a bowl of cereal this morning, you require a scientist, philosopher or scholar to prove that to you before it is knowledge for you? Same for if you brushed your hair? The "fact" that you brush your hair when you do is merely opinion until someone externally validates you? This 'problem' in our general training and widespread human awareness, when individuals have been taught to deny subjective knowledge is a part of our sweeping imbalance as humans at this time. It is part of our not trusting direct knowing processes inherent in us. It is a human constructed inaccurate bias, internalized by the masses.
For me, knowing is knowing. Proving a happening is proving a happening.
This is not what knowledge is about, it's what human-made systems, and, yes, the scientific method is about. Again, knowing is knowing, whether it's proven or not.
You have faith that what you are taught is the truth, even when you haven't independantly proven that for yourself.
It sounds like you "trust" (as in faith) certain sources/academia, or when others claim they can prove their assertions, even when you don't independantly know by experience.
Cool. Because this is the precursor to scientific advancement...flashes of knowing and inSight that precipitate enactment of processes which prove such inSight as accurate. This is also how the philosophers have come to understand the very schools of thought they created, when there was no one prior to them teaching them.
I'm a great believer in education, which is why I've educated myself to the degree I have.
fair enough.
In order to be considered knowledge by others, I see that one's inherent knowing must be validated externally. Still, when I get up and brush my hair, I don't need validation in order to know Truth.
Likewise, the philosophical Truths I've known over the past 14 years were Truths and knowings/knowledge, even before they were validated externally with information or the agreement of experts.
That's not what I am saying, angelica.
No one is denying subjective knowledge or intuition - the issue is to make it acceptable to others, and you can only do that by providing evidence and proof. Otherwise it's just your own ideas and opinions.
I can claim that I've brushed my hair. But for another person to accept this has happened, I also need to present evidence if I want to claim it as a fact. Otherwise they can claim it's not true. And why not? Everyone has a right to their own ideas and opinions. The point is establishing which one is valid and accurate. This is what knowledge and intellectual reasoning is about - providing a framework to understanding and learning.
So it's not enough to say, I've said this so it must be true (or the church has said that, or again to go back to my favourite topic the Middle Ages Aristotle said that - this is actually what happened those days. It was enough to say "Ipse dixit", that is "he said it" - meaning Aristotle - and whatever claim was considered to be valid just on moral authority.
Also, I do not have faith that what I have been taught is the Truth, because I do not blindingly believe everything I read - I use critical reasoning. Indeed, I strongly abhor the use of the term. One can never claim to know the truth, but as close an approximation as possible.
One famous philosopher once said... actually let me google the exact words
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."
Socrates
Sure, I can trust more claims rather than others - that's my prerogative and the test for me is whether such claims can be proven but that's not faith, because I am willing to modify my ideas if new ideas disproving mine come up and are proven to be valid.
Again, this is not faith, but reason and intelligence, including emotional and intuitive intelligence.
Furthermore, this does not mean that I only trust academic sources - I am open to all sort of knowledge. As I said, the issue is whether whatever claim can be resonably proven.
Besides, the absolute certainty, faith in one's belief to be the Truth is the path towards many problems - as history's proved time and time again.
Faith as a term really should be confined to religion. You believe something regardless of whether it exists in actual fact or not (e.g. God - many tried to prove rationally its existence but many also still believe in it whether such an entity has been proven to exist or not, because it is a matter of faith, not reason).
No one is denying subjective knowledge or intuition - the issue is to make it acceptable to others, and you can only do that by providing evidence and proof. Otherwise it's just your own ideas and opinions.
I can claim that I've brushed my hair. But for another person to accept this has happened, I also need to present evidence if I want to claim it as a fact. Otherwise they can claim it's not true. And why not? Everyone has a right to their own ideas and opinions. The point is establishing which one is valid and accurate. This is what knowledge and intellectual reasoning is about - providing a framework to understanding and learning.
Ultimately, knowing something is, by definition knowing something. You are talking beyond that. I am not. Knowing is knowing besides any extensions added, such as communicating that knowing to others. Also, when you put limits on knowing, based on the context of the moment, I am still speaking about something more fundamental to your added constructs: what I speak to remains knowing.
So it's not enough to say, I've said this so it must be true (or the church has said that, or again to go back to my favourite topic the Middle Ages Aristotle said that - this is actually what happened those days. It was enough to say "Ipse dixit", that is "he said it" - meaning Aristotle - and whatever claim was considered to be valid just on moral authority.
Again, you are speaking to an objective standard of knowing. I'm speaking about knowing, itself.
Also, I do not have faith that what I have been taught is the Truth, because I do not blindingly believe everything I read - I use critical reasoning. Indeed, I strongly abhor the use of the term. One can never claim to know the truth, but as close an approximation as possible.
One famous philosopher once said... actually let me google the exact words
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."
Socrates
Sure, I can trust more claims rather than others - that's my prerogative and the test for me is whether such claims can be proven but that's not faith, because I am willing to modify my ideas if new ideas disproving mine come up and are proven to be valid.
Again, this is not faith, but reason and intelligence, including emotional and intuitive intelligence.
Furthermore, this does not mean that I only trust academic sources - I am open to all sort of knowledge. As I said, the issue is whether whatever claim can be resonably proven.
Besides, the absolute certainty, faith in one's belief to be the Truth is the path towards many problems - as history's proved time and time again.
I merely differentiate between knowing and believing.
Faith as a term really should be confined to religion. You believe something regardless of whether it exists in actual fact or not (e.g. God - many tried to prove rationally its existence but many also still believe in it whether such an entity has been proven to exist or not, because it is a matter of faith, not reason).
Faith, as a human function, enters into all avenues of life, and cannot be confined to certain contexts, except intellectually, which would then be removed from being realistic.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I think the root of our disagreement, if you will, is the opposing view of the state and its role in society: you appear to be more individualistic whereas I - as a true European - are more in favour of an interventionist role to guarantee basic rights (I won't even enter into a debate into universal healthcare, for instance )
This is absolutely correct. I do have more of a classically liberal (America) perspective that I do a progressive (European) perspective. However, in the context of this discussion, what I'm proposing is not mutually exclusive to government playing a role in education.
While you equate the right of education with coercion I instead equate it with enablement, if such a word exists, by the state.
That's fine, but you cannot erase coercion by simply assigning a nicer name to it. Certainly public education and even compulsory attendence do, in many cases, "enable" people to get whatever the state decides is an education. But that doesn't make it less coercive or even necessarily good. Even a "just war" is still a war.
I can see why you would consider it coercion - one individual must be free to do what s/he pleases even if it means shunning education, etc. But one lives in a society, with not just rights but also duties to our fellow human beings.
This is fine. However, to suggest that receiving an education in and of itself is a "duty to our fellow human beings" is frightful. What would you think if I proposed conscripted labor as a "duty to our fellow human beings"?
Our primary duty to our fellow human beings is to respect their existence as free agents with basic rights that prohibit us from aggressing against them. You're violating both of those via compulsory education, even if its done in the name of preventing potential violence (as education does accomplish, on a large scale) or other admirable goals.
I agree, there is already quite high truancy especially in inner cities, but can you imagine how much more truancy there would be and why it would be a disadvantage for all, including the individual in question?
The situation would be much worse if you eliminate compulsory education.
I can certainly see how there could be more truancy and how it could be a disadvantage for all, but this again does not justify your means. Using your logic, there are entire populations of adults in many locations that could be justifiable imprisoned solely because you can identify the higher potential of crime and violence stemming from those populations.
While now there are local government-sponsored outreach groups trying to get those truant young people off the streets and out of trouble, if you eliminate the right to compulsory education this will no longer happen, and it will be much worse for all.
I find that to be specious reasoning. One can certainly have advocacy and outreach groups in the absence of compulsory education.
As I indicated earlier, people will flock to value. The definition of value is a subjective one, determined by each person to whom you make a proposal. I would much rather have an educational system that must convince the population of its value as opposed to an educational system whose value stands as an irrelevancy as it can simply command its customers.
Education in schools - as far as I have personally experienced - should foster critical thinking and hone your thinking skills as it were. Learning by regurgitating facts can be viewed as improving memory skills; arguing and debating as improving your reasoning skills, which will allow you also to dismiss what you've learned at school or embrace new ideas, etc. This is what should happen in schools, especially when you go to college; and true, this is an ideal scenario, but then the argument would veer towards how to improve education.... provided we agree that it should be a fundamental and compulsory human right
Absolutely -- we are certainly getting into a "how do we improve education" discussion. However, as I indicated above, compulsory education plays into this concept. Why on earth would you expect these institutions to improve when they have little motivation to do anything other than to continue to exist? When the system may simply command its utilization, what incentive have you actually provided the system to serve the value judgments of its users?
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Ultimately, knowing something is, by definition knowing something. You are talking beyond that. I am not. Knowing is knowing besides any extensions added, such as communicating that knowing to others. Also, when you put limits on knowing, based on the context of the moment, I am still speaking about something more fundamental to your added constructs: what I speak to remains knowing.
Again, you are speaking to an objective standard of knowing. I'm speaking about knowing, itself.
I merely differentiate between knowing and believing.
Faith, as a human function, enters into all avenues of life, and cannot be confined to certain contexts, except intellectually, which would then be removed from being realistic.
I disagree, to know something is to prove what you think. That's what knowledge is and it is a process that intrinsically involves something external to the individual - whether the outside world, other people ideas. Otherwise, it's solipsism - only ideas that come into one's mind can be known and therefore exist. And in this context one can say and think whatever they want, and still only make it real for them.
Unless... what do you consider knowing then? I'm not sure I understand it.
I also don't understand your last point - if faith enters all areas of life but then you agree not the intellectual area, first that's a contradiction in itself, then what does it mean faith is removed from being realistic in the intellectual context? that it is not real, that it doesn't exist?
This is absolutely correct. I do have more of a classically liberal (America) perspective that I do a progressive (European) perspective. However, in the context of this discussion, what I'm proposing is not mutually exclusive to government playing a role in education.
What role for the government in education then? The same as now but without imposing compulsion?
That's fine, but you cannot erase coercion by simply assigning a nicer name to it. Certainly public education and even compulsory attendence do, in many cases, "enable" people to get whatever the state decides is an education. But that doesn't make it less coercive or even necessarily good. Even a "just war" is still a war.
But the state by definition is an imposition, coercion and limitation of individual right to do as one pleases regardless of anyone else. That's the point I was making before of rights and duties - the state actually guarantees some rights (e.g. justice is administered impartially by the state institutions not by individuals as in a lawless state) but also duties (e.g. payment of taxes)
So, the state forces kids to go to schools until whatever age. Yes, there is indeed coercion because there are legal consequences if you don't; but there is also enablement because there are advantage to foster education not just for the individual concerned but for society as a whole; and secondly, enablement because it guarantees the right to an individual intellectual development that might not be guaranteed if such right were not enforced by the state.
This is fine. However, to suggest that receiving an education in and of itself is a "duty to our fellow human beings" is frightful. What would you think if I proposed conscripted labor as a "duty to our fellow human beings"?
Our primary duty to our fellow human beings is to respect their existence as free agents with basic rights that prohibit us from aggressing against them. You're violating both of those via compulsory education, even if its done in the name of preventing potential violence (as education does accomplish, on a large scale) or other admirable goals.
Maybe I wasn't clear - when I meant duty was in more general term as duties pertaining to all members of society.
I believe education foster - or should - better understanding between people and teach them to respect opposing views even when disagreeing with them. Education will also help all become better citizen and members of societies, that is teach not just the rights of citizens but duties towards the rest of societies (e.g. it is your duty to pay the taxes which are used to pay for a series of public services)
I can certainly see how there could be more truancy and how it could be a disadvantage for all, but this again does not justify your means. Using your logic, there are entire populations of adults in many locations that could be justifiable imprisoned solely because you can identify the higher potential of crime and violence stemming from those populations.
Sorry but I don't see the logical link in your example. I'm not saying that you should imprison adults on the chance they might be likely to commit crime!! That's quite terrifying - and dictatorial. And I really don't see how it follows from my example.
Compulsory education is for kids and if you eliminate it you have a likely consequence of more kids on the streets with more potential for crime (it's already happening now with truancy and so quite a feasible hypothesis to make)
I find that to be specious reasoning. One can certainly have advocacy and outreach groups in the absence of compulsory education.
As I indicated earlier, people will flock to value. The definition of value is a subjective one, determined by each person to whom you make a proposal. I would much rather have an educational system that must convince the population of its value as opposed to an educational system whose value stands as an irrelevancy as it can simply command its customers.
If you eliminate compulsion you will leave it up to families and their kids to decide whether they should go to school - where is the incentive for them?
As history proved chances are more kids will be sent to work, indeed many may choose so themselves instead of studying, which in itself requires intellectual discipline and sacrifice. Whereas going to have a job and earn a few bucks to pay for whatever trendy gadget would be more appealing.
I don't get where the value and incentive for family would be. My priority is to guarantee the opportunity to study for all, especially those kids that otherwise would not have a chance - economically because too expensive, personal because of family interference, etc. And I believe compulsory education is the best solution.
The more education the more the benefits for all - that's my view. As I said, it will foster better understanding and progress not just material benefits such as technological inventions, scientific discoveries, etc.
Is your position then - make the education system a better proposition and families will send their kids to schools even if there is no compulsion?
Absolutely -- we are certainly getting into a "how do we improve education" discussion. However, as I indicated above, compulsory education plays into this concept. Why on earth would you expect these institutions to improve when they have little motivation to do anything other than to continue to exist? When the system may simply command its utilization, what incentive have you actually provided the system to serve the value judgments of its users?
So, the value is linked to the quality of service provided by the educational institution, and that's what provides incentive for people to attend schools?
I disagree, to know something is to prove what you think. That's what knowledge is and it is a process that intrinsically involves something external to the individual - whether the outside world, other people ideas. Otherwise, it's solipsism - only ideas that come into one's mind can be known and therefore exist. And in this context one can say and think whatever they want, and still only make it real for them.
Unless... what do you consider knowing then? I'm not sure I understand it.
I also don't understand your last point - if faith enters all areas of life but then you agree not the intellectual area, first that's a contradiction in itself, then what does it mean faith is removed from being realistic in the intellectual context? that it is not real, that it doesn't exist?
You yourself said this earlier when defining education: "Knowledge is considered to be inside the human being (e.g Socrates) but you need tools to bring it out"
Your own definition of education includes the fact that the knowledge is already considered to be within the individual. And that education extracts what is already there. (as you said: "Etimologically education is from Latin "educare" which means to extract from within, bring out from within")
Remember my view is holistic -- within and without. When I had philosophical knowledge emerge within myself, it certainly coincided with my interactions outside myself, and with my experiences. That's why I say "knowledge is experience, all the rest is just information" (I heard this quote attributed to Einstein, many years ago). For example, when you brush your hair, you know it's a fact that you did brush your hair. This includes inner understanding integrated with external circumstances. However, proof is not necessary at all in order to know you brush your hair. Knowing, itself, is enough. As with my inner philosophical understandings. When I experienced certain principles and had a knowing of them, I had a knowing of them. Later when I found validation from numerous philosophical schools of thought, that was mere validation. The knowing was immediate and came much earlier.
That is what intuitive and emotional intelligences are based on. They are of direct knowing type of perception. Direct knowing processes are direct and immediate. They are not linear processes hinging on proof. They are instant understandings.
You ask what I consider knowing. I cannot define it. Words cannot define it. Dictionarys cannot definitively define the principle that the words direct us to. Knowing is what it is.
knowledge: 1. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
2. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience or report: a knowledge of human nature.
3. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
4. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
5. The state or fact of knowing.
6. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
7. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
What I meant about faith is that faith enters ALL areas of life that humans are involved in. The only way we can separate faith from human endeavors in any way, is by using logic to create an artificial separation that does not actually exist. Like all energy, we cannot contain faith, and hold it merely in the religious realm.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You yourself said this earlier when defining education: "Knowledge is considered to be inside the human being (e.g Socrates) but you need tools to bring it out"
Your own definition of education includes the fact that the knowledge is already considered to be within the individual. And that education extracts what is already there. (as you said: "Etimologically education is from Latin "educare" which means to extract from within, bring out from within")
Remember my view is holistic -- within and without. When I had philosophical knowledge emerge within myself, it certainly coincided with my interactions outside myself, and with my experiences. That's why I say "knowledge is experience, all the rest is just information" (I heard this quote attributed to Einstein, many years ago). For example, when you brush your hair, you know it's a fact that you did brush your hair. This includes inner understanding integrated with external circumstances. However, proof is not necessary at all in order to know you brush your hair. Knowing, itself, is enough. As with my inner philosophical understandings. When I experienced certain principles and had a knowing of them, I had a knowing of them. Later when I found validation from numerous philosophical schools of thought, that was mere validation. The knowing was immediate and came much earlier.
That is what intuitive and emotional intelligences are based on. They are of direct knowing type of perception. Direct knowing processes are direct and immediate. They are not linear processes hinging on proof. They are instant understandings.
You ask what I consider knowing. I cannot define it. Words cannot define it. Dictionarys cannot definitively define the principle that the words direct us to. Knowing is what it is.
knowledge: 1. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
2. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience or report: a knowledge of human nature.
3. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
4. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
5. The state or fact of knowing.
6. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
7. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
What I meant about faith is that faith enters ALL areas of life that humans are involved in. The only way we can separate faith from human endeavors in any way, is by using logic to create an artificial separation that does not actually exist. Like all energy, we cannot contain faith, and hold it merely in the religious realm.
Indeed. Education brings the knowledge within an individual out and it is this confrontation with the outside reality (other people's idea, the surrounding world) that provides the foundation for any thought or idea that comes to mind to be true, valid knowledge in the epistemological sense.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies what knowledge is. Quite interesting but I won't digress
The definition you've quoted are the common language uses of the word.
It then looks as though we are saying the same thing but just using different words (within and without), whereas I thought your position was different as you initially referred to self-education, which did not make any sense to me and I now see you probably just meant self-teaching and self-learning.
However, on the issue of faith we disagree. I guess I am more skeptical.
Based on what can you claim that faith is all pervasive in all areas of human interactions? Because is it some sort of energy?
By faith I mean irrational belief, that is belief that is not proven or actually disproven by reason and logic but still accepted anyway "on faith".
And sure, we cannot know and understand everything - I accept there are momentary limitations to reason and science and also that there are things that you just intuitevely know but I'd rather leave faith in the religious sphere.
Indeed. Education brings the knowledge within an individual out and it is this confrontation with the outside reality (other people's idea, the surrounding world) that provides the foundation for any thought or idea that comes to mind to be true, valid knowledge in the epistemological sense.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies what knowledge is. Quite interesting but I won't digress
The definition you've quoted are the common language uses of the word.
It then looks as though we are saying the same thing but just using different words (within and without), whereas I thought your position was different as you initially referred to self-education, which did not make any sense to me and I now see you probably just meant self-teaching and self-learning.
However, on the issue of faith we disagree. I guess I am more skeptical.
Based on what can you claim that faith is all pervasive in all areas of human interactions? Because is it some sort of energy?
By faith I mean irrational belief, that is belief that is not proven or actually disproven by reason and logic but still accepted anyway "on faith".
And sure, we cannot know and understand everything - I accept there are momentary limitations to reason and science and also that there are things that you just intuitevely know but I'd rather leave faith in the religious sphere.
Cheers
I'm glad we are mostly in understanding of one another. I appreciate the reasoned discussion.
All knowledge is valid, including the inner knowledge that's not yet been proven to others, or validated. Because all knowledge it's based on knowing, which means one knows. I understand if that cannot be quantified or assessed without outside...assessment. And yet, as I said earlier, knowing is by definition knowing. It's knowing whether it's been validated by a scholar, a scientist, an "expert" or what have you.
Jung, when looking for scientific validation for his principle of "synchronicity", was said to say he knows it exists, having had personal experience with the principle he referred to. He was looking for ways to explain or rationalize what he knew.
By faith, I mean arational belief. This means it is a belief that goes beyond rationale or logic. Many of our brain functions operate in such a manner (intuition, emotions). Irrational means it is faulty in reasoning. Given matters of faith cannot be disproven, because they are of a dimension beyond reasoning, and where reason/logic cannot comprehend or fathom, arational or alogical are the terms that apply, and which do not diminish the validity of the faith.
When one tries to logically disprove that which cannot be proven/disproven, one is starting from a flawed premise.
Peace.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
6 pages in, and has anyone really provided more information on if indeed this possible program idea would actually be 'forced'...or would it be as it seems from reading in the first post, that it actually would encourage volunteering, voluntarily? and incentives for volunteering, such as getting access to additional federal educational aide, to me, is still nothing even remotely close to force. merely curious.....
Ok, so I have someone that is trying to get me to support Obama...not that I don't like him, but I was a Hillary girl.
Reading this has really caught my attention.
Slavery??? lol....let's all relax
Anyone that attempts to regain the enthusiasm for public service the way JFK did when he first challenged students to volunteer, is good for me.
Cause I'm broken when I'm lonesome
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
I'm glad we are mostly in understanding of one another. I appreciate the reasoned discussion.
All knowledge is valid, including the inner knowledge that's not yet been proven to others, or validated. Because all knowledge it's based on knowing, which means one knows. I understand if that cannot be quantified or assessed without outside...assessment. And yet, as I said earlier, knowing is by definition knowing. It's knowing whether it's been validated by a scholar, a scientist, an "expert" or what have you.
Jung, when looking for scientific validation for his principle of "synchronicity", was said to say he knows it exists, having had personal experience with the principle he referred to. He was looking for ways to explain or rationalize what he knew.
By faith, I mean arational belief. This means it is a belief that goes beyond rationale or logic. Many of our brain functions operate in such a manner (intuition, emotions). Irrational means it is faulty in reasoning. Given matters of faith cannot be disproven, because they are of a dimension beyond reasoning, and where reason/logic cannot comprehend or fathom, arational or alogical are the terms that apply, and which do not diminish the validity of the faith.
When one tries to logically disprove that which cannot be proven/disproven, one is starting from a flawed premise.
Peace.
Cool, I see now what you mean
And I'll check out Jung and his thoughts on synchronicity (I only know the Police album! )
Comments
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Please - the return of the Middle Ages was a sarcastic reference as to the effect of eliminating compulsory education, which would become the preserve of a few while the masses remain uneducated. Certainly, not implying that elimination of compulsory education would also bring about feudalism, the political and economic model of the Middle Ages by default! It would take something more, yes, of course.
There is a valid point though about economic incentives for the poor to send their kids to schools. Which are they again?!? History backs me up on this. Why would it be such a poor assumption?
An innate desire to learn is not an incentive for education, especially if the framework is just not there. You may want to learn but if you are not guaranteed the opportunity and time to learn you simply won't be educated. The exception, i.e. only few, would be in this way.
It seems to me you claim that choice should be just with families as to whether to educate their kids or not. Whereas I claim, families should have a choice as to the best way to educate their kids (public school, private school, home schooling, whatever), but education must be provided for kids. Hence the right to universal education, mandatory for kids up to 16, or whatever age the state decides.
If you agree children have rights, do these include rights to education? If so, how do you guarantee those rights? I believe that like any other right, the child right to education must be protected by law and enabled by the state because there might be those families who prefer their kids not to be educated, regardless of their innate desire to learn.
Yes, I agree with Luther's position to dissiminate knowledge as far as possible and give the masses the tools to learn. But, no, I'm not a Lutheran, nor Roman Catholic, if it's of any relevance.
My point is that I strongly disagree that knowledge and education should be the preserve of the few, which would happen - as it has happened throughout history - by eliminating compulsory education.
Finally, schools might teach one dominant school of thought - whatever it may be in time and geography (state schools in China would be different in their teachings, right?) - but as part and parcel of education one learns the less dominant viewpoint too and especially the intellectual framework and tools to research and make your own mind, and not digest whatever dogma is inculcated into your mind, be that at school, church, family, etc.
Do you then simply view schools and public institutions as the instruments to suppress the masses by promulgating whatever dominant dogma?
Is all education, schools, just the means to teach dogma for you then? Don't you think it allows for free-thinking which by definition intellectual pursuit is and that education in schools should provide? The spread of knowledge is a guarantee AGAINST dogma, not a supporter of it.
By the way, historically, the more knowledge has been spread to the masses (via print in local languages) the more the status quo, and its dominant ideology (dogma in a loose sense) has been challenged, politically, economically, etc.
So, ok, with holism you are integrating the within and the without. How?
You also claim there is a Truth out there (not to sound too X-Fileish) - is this the without you refer to? Is this only learned by inner revelation? or also by academic teachings? if so which?
How do you learn about this external objective Truth? Especially if - as you claim - humans are biased in their learning? if they're not intellectually equipped to truly grasp it as they can only get to an approximation of the Truth?
I'm afraid, I don't get your analogy of the map and the territory. Even if you're using 10 different maps they should all represent the same territory, so they are not different maps. They might use different colourings to trace lines, etc, but they should all show the same external representation, i.e. the territory.
I totally disagree. Knowledge must be validated and proved. Otherwise, it's just your opinion, and sure all opinions are valid but they are not knowledge.
Inner validity of ideas, thoughts, must be proven externally - that's what knowledge is all about, not to mention science.
It has however, nothing to do with appeal to the masses.
Indeed, quite the contrary. When Copernicus and Galileo challenged thousand years of dogma claiming that the earth actually moved, they had to prove their claim. Otherwise, it was just their opinions against the dominant thought that instead it was the centre of universe around which everything revolved.
Also, I don't take anything on faith. Faith is the opposite of knowledge: you believe something because of whatever reason, including the inner validity of certain thoughts. That however is not knowledge - it is opinion, ideas, beliefs.
I only take ideas as valid if they can be proven. To know about Ancient Greece I also went to the primary sources - therefore not just relied on history books, but also on books written by Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle and if no written sources are available I relied on their information and cross-referenced it with other sources. I never take anything for granted not faith.
However, I agree there are things you intuitevely "know".
Then again, while education is extracting this knowledge (the Socratic method) the tools to extract such knowledge are important - they do educate in themselves. They provide the framework needed to extrapolate what is valid or not. I mentioned earlier the deductive and inductive methods of reasonings - those are tools useful to understand the external world and reality.
My whole position is to claim that education is an essential and fundament human right that must be guaranteed by the laws of the state.
How you choose to pursue your education is up to you.
Finally, education should aim to provide the tools to learn and achieve knowledge.
You can still have knowledge without a formal education and being self-taught (like many great thinkers in the past) - the point though is that to be knowledge it must be validated and justified externally. Otherwise, it's just opinions, ideas, etc. (and those great thinkers of the past also tested their new ideas against the old and provided reference points so they could be validated).
lgt, I appreciate your thoughtful responses and your participation in this discussion.
I think our disagreement boils down to three major points. First, you're suggesting that, without the compulsory in compulsory education, many would go uneducated. This is an odd viewpoint to me because with compulsory education, many go uneducated. Every year, schools in this country produce confused, poor thinkers who have a tenuous and soon to be lost grasp on a handful of facts. To defend this system in the name of "universal education" seems, well, a little crazy, given the realities of high drop-out rates, poor student performance, and the paltry amount of knowledge that 12 years of forced education currently imparts upon students.
Secondly, you are invoking a child's "right to education" in your argument. However, what I hear you advocating for is the state's right to compel students into educational modalities and institutions that fit its approval. If we accept education as essentially the process of producing a free thinker, I do not believe coersion to be a good first step down that road.
Finally, you, in my view, keep synonomizing education and the process students are currently being forced in to. This is a connection I simply cannot see. The heart of education, in my opinion, is to instill in a human being the ability and confidence to acquire, process, and apply objective knowledge about their world. Most of our public and private schooling institutions, however, do little to help students acquire knowledge -- they simply foist approved knowledge onto students. Most of our public and private schooling institutions do little to help students process knowledge -- they provide little guidance or opportunity for students on how objective information should be examined and measured. Most of our public and private schooling institutions do little to help students apply knowledge -- they simply ask students to regurgitate, briefly, something that was told to them for the purposes of regurgitation.
It is absolutely and importantly true that when the masses have access to and control of the tools of learning that they challenge the status quo. This is one of the inherent beauties of the medium we are using to have this discussion. I only wish the same were true about the institutions we force so many bright and insouciant students into, only to see them come out confused and jaded towards the process of learning.
Societies are wise to ensure that the children of all its members have access to the tools of intellectual betterment. However, societies are also wise to understand that "intellectual betterment" means many things to many people. Assuming upon others your definition, and doing so via coersion and force, is a crime against not only their minds, but yours as well.
How do I integrate within/without? First of all, we are so trained towards an objective bias, that it can be complicated for the average person to reach this balanced view.
How do I do it? I do it by balancing my integrated whole-brained subjective awareness with objective feedback. Reality is not either subjective or objective alone. In reality the two are blended. Therefore in order to be realistic, we must be able to bring the two together in an integrated fashion.
And further, as per your earlier definition of education, which I basically agreed with, education itself, when authentic, depends on a holistic process of the inner knowing, tied into objective validation.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
For me, knowing is knowing. Proving a happening is proving a happening.
This is not what knowledge is about, it's what human-made systems, and, yes, the scientific method is about. Again, knowing is knowing, whether it's proven or not.
You have faith that what you are taught is the truth, even when you haven't independantly proven that for yourself.
It sounds like you "trust" (as in faith) certain sources/academia, or when others claim they can prove their assertions, even when you don't independantly know by experience.
Cool. Because this is the precursor to scientific advancement...flashes of knowing and inSight that precipitate enactment of processes which prove such inSight as accurate. This is also how the philosophers have come to understand the very schools of thought they created, when there was no one prior to them teaching them.
I'm a great believer in education, which is why I've educated myself to the degree I have.
fair enough.
In order to be considered knowledge by others, I see that one's inherent knowing must be validated externally. Still, when I get up and brush my hair, I don't need validation in order to know Truth.
Likewise, the philosophical Truths I've known over the past 14 years were Truths and knowings/knowledge, even before they were validated externally with information or the agreement of experts.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i think this is one of the most gently crafted sublime truths you have ever put to "paper", FFG. Have you ever thought about becoming an author?
-Yours Truly-
Mr. Ego Maniac
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Likewise
I think the root of our disagreement, if you will, is the opposing view of the state and its role in society: you appear to be more individualistic whereas I - as a true European
While you equate the right of education with coercion I instead equate it with enablement, if such a word exists, by the state.
I can see why you would consider it coercion - one individual must be free to do what s/he pleases even if it means shunning education, etc. But one lives in a society, with not just rights but also duties to our fellow human beings.
I agree, there is already quite high truancy especially in inner cities, but can you imagine how much more truancy there would be and why it would be a disadvantage for all, including the individual in question?
The situation would be much worse if you eliminate compulsory education.
While now there are local government-sponsored outreach groups trying to get those truant young people off the streets and out of trouble, if you eliminate the right to compulsory education this will no longer happen, and it will be much worse for all.
Education in schools - as far as I have personally experienced - should foster critical thinking and hone your thinking skills as it were. Learning by regurgitating facts can be viewed as improving memory skills; arguing and debating as improving your reasoning skills, which will allow you also to dismiss what you've learned at school or embrace new ideas, etc. This is what should happen in schools, especially when you go to college; and true, this is an ideal scenario, but then the argument would veer towards how to improve education.... provided we agree that it should be a fundamental and compulsory human right
Ok, I see your point - the use of emotional intelligence as the link between internal, innate ideas, thoughts and external reality, validation, etc.
FYI, Hegel also used the concept of synthesis as combination of contrasting ideas (thesis and anti-thesis) in his dialectic. You should check him out, although he's not one of the easiest philosophers to "digest" as it were.
It's called conditioning and brainwashing. Which is exactly what they will attempt to do. Get 'em while they're young, condition them to be "patriotic" and support all acts of war and aggression.
This is an idiotic, intrusive, manipulative and oppressive agenda.
The term itself is an oxymoron and deceptive by nature.
How many of you folks in this thread, who are all for this and like this idea; have kids?
How many of you are at the high school or college age?
This is utter nonsense. Just more erosion our freedoms and rights.
Watch, if this happens there will be a stipulation that any kid who "voluteered to serve his/her hours " will be locked in to immediately be dragged into the military, the minute these jerk-offs go and start another war. They will have no choices. And that's what they want. They want every teenager and young adult to be shackled to their every whim and agenda. Legally obligated to fight all of their wars.
I can't understand how anyone can support this crap, when you consider the war we are currently involved in (Iraq) and the war they are just itching to start with Iran.
Isn't it interesting that they have recently stepped up their "War On Home Schooling" ? Hmmm.....wonder if there's a connection:rolleyes:
My kids will NOT go risk their lives or give up their lives for their " Corporations For Christ Wars " !!!!!!
That's not what I am saying, angelica.
No one is denying subjective knowledge or intuition - the issue is to make it acceptable to others, and you can only do that by providing evidence and proof. Otherwise it's just your own ideas and opinions.
I can claim that I've brushed my hair. But for another person to accept this has happened, I also need to present evidence if I want to claim it as a fact. Otherwise they can claim it's not true. And why not? Everyone has a right to their own ideas and opinions. The point is establishing which one is valid and accurate. This is what knowledge and intellectual reasoning is about - providing a framework to understanding and learning.
So it's not enough to say, I've said this so it must be true (or the church has said that, or again to go back to my favourite topic the Middle Ages
Also, I do not have faith that what I have been taught is the Truth, because I do not blindingly believe everything I read - I use critical reasoning. Indeed, I strongly abhor the use of the term. One can never claim to know the truth, but as close an approximation as possible.
One famous philosopher once said... actually let me google the exact words
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."
Socrates
Sure, I can trust more claims rather than others - that's my prerogative and the test for me is whether such claims can be proven but that's not faith, because I am willing to modify my ideas if new ideas disproving mine come up and are proven to be valid.
Again, this is not faith, but reason and intelligence, including emotional and intuitive intelligence.
Furthermore, this does not mean that I only trust academic sources - I am open to all sort of knowledge. As I said, the issue is whether whatever claim can be resonably proven.
Besides, the absolute certainty, faith in one's belief to be the Truth is the path towards many problems - as history's proved time and time again.
Faith as a term really should be confined to religion. You believe something regardless of whether it exists in actual fact or not (e.g. God - many tried to prove rationally its existence but many also still believe in it whether such an entity has been proven to exist or not, because it is a matter of faith, not reason).
Again, you are speaking to an objective standard of knowing. I'm speaking about knowing, itself.
I merely differentiate between knowing and believing.
Faith, as a human function, enters into all avenues of life, and cannot be confined to certain contexts, except intellectually, which would then be removed from being realistic.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
This is absolutely correct. I do have more of a classically liberal (America) perspective that I do a progressive (European) perspective. However, in the context of this discussion, what I'm proposing is not mutually exclusive to government playing a role in education.
That's fine, but you cannot erase coercion by simply assigning a nicer name to it. Certainly public education and even compulsory attendence do, in many cases, "enable" people to get whatever the state decides is an education. But that doesn't make it less coercive or even necessarily good. Even a "just war" is still a war.
This is fine. However, to suggest that receiving an education in and of itself is a "duty to our fellow human beings" is frightful. What would you think if I proposed conscripted labor as a "duty to our fellow human beings"?
Our primary duty to our fellow human beings is to respect their existence as free agents with basic rights that prohibit us from aggressing against them. You're violating both of those via compulsory education, even if its done in the name of preventing potential violence (as education does accomplish, on a large scale) or other admirable goals.
I can certainly see how there could be more truancy and how it could be a disadvantage for all, but this again does not justify your means. Using your logic, there are entire populations of adults in many locations that could be justifiable imprisoned solely because you can identify the higher potential of crime and violence stemming from those populations.
I find that to be specious reasoning. One can certainly have advocacy and outreach groups in the absence of compulsory education.
As I indicated earlier, people will flock to value. The definition of value is a subjective one, determined by each person to whom you make a proposal. I would much rather have an educational system that must convince the population of its value as opposed to an educational system whose value stands as an irrelevancy as it can simply command its customers.
Absolutely -- we are certainly getting into a "how do we improve education" discussion. However, as I indicated above, compulsory education plays into this concept. Why on earth would you expect these institutions to improve when they have little motivation to do anything other than to continue to exist? When the system may simply command its utilization, what incentive have you actually provided the system to serve the value judgments of its users?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121623686919059307.html?mod=yhoofront
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I remember talking about this very topic and getting called a nutcase; three years ago. LOL!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I disagree, to know something is to prove what you think. That's what knowledge is and it is a process that intrinsically involves something external to the individual - whether the outside world, other people ideas. Otherwise, it's solipsism - only ideas that come into one's mind can be known and therefore exist. And in this context one can say and think whatever they want, and still only make it real for them.
Unless... what do you consider knowing then? I'm not sure I understand it.
I also don't understand your last point - if faith enters all areas of life but then you agree not the intellectual area, first that's a contradiction in itself, then what does it mean faith is removed from being realistic in the intellectual context? that it is not real, that it doesn't exist?
What role for the government in education then? The same as now but without imposing compulsion?
But the state by definition is an imposition, coercion and limitation of individual right to do as one pleases regardless of anyone else. That's the point I was making before of rights and duties - the state actually guarantees some rights (e.g. justice is administered impartially by the state institutions not by individuals as in a lawless state) but also duties (e.g. payment of taxes)
So, the state forces kids to go to schools until whatever age. Yes, there is indeed coercion because there are legal consequences if you don't; but there is also enablement because there are advantage to foster education not just for the individual concerned but for society as a whole; and secondly, enablement because it guarantees the right to an individual intellectual development that might not be guaranteed if such right were not enforced by the state.
Maybe I wasn't clear - when I meant duty was in more general term as duties pertaining to all members of society.
I believe education foster - or should
Sorry but I don't see the logical link in your example. I'm not saying that you should imprison adults on the chance they might be likely to commit crime!! That's quite terrifying - and dictatorial. And I really don't see how it follows from my example.
Compulsory education is for kids and if you eliminate it you have a likely consequence of more kids on the streets with more potential for crime (it's already happening now with truancy and so quite a feasible hypothesis to make)
If you eliminate compulsion you will leave it up to families and their kids to decide whether they should go to school - where is the incentive for them?
As history proved chances are more kids will be sent to work, indeed many may choose so themselves instead of studying, which in itself requires intellectual discipline and sacrifice. Whereas going to have a job and earn a few bucks to pay for whatever trendy gadget would be more appealing.
I don't get where the value and incentive for family would be. My priority is to guarantee the opportunity to study for all, especially those kids that otherwise would not have a chance - economically because too expensive, personal because of family interference, etc. And I believe compulsory education is the best solution.
The more education the more the benefits for all - that's my view. As I said, it will foster better understanding and progress not just material benefits such as technological inventions, scientific discoveries, etc.
Is your position then - make the education system a better proposition and families will send their kids to schools even if there is no compulsion?
What about the costs?
Will you stil have state-funded schools?
So, the value is linked to the quality of service provided by the educational institution, and that's what provides incentive for people to attend schools?
Cheers
Your own definition of education includes the fact that the knowledge is already considered to be within the individual. And that education extracts what is already there. (as you said: "Etimologically education is from Latin "educare" which means to extract from within, bring out from within")
Remember my view is holistic -- within and without. When I had philosophical knowledge emerge within myself, it certainly coincided with my interactions outside myself, and with my experiences. That's why I say "knowledge is experience, all the rest is just information" (I heard this quote attributed to Einstein, many years ago). For example, when you brush your hair, you know it's a fact that you did brush your hair. This includes inner understanding integrated with external circumstances. However, proof is not necessary at all in order to know you brush your hair. Knowing, itself, is enough. As with my inner philosophical understandings. When I experienced certain principles and had a knowing of them, I had a knowing of them. Later when I found validation from numerous philosophical schools of thought, that was mere validation. The knowing was immediate and came much earlier.
That is what intuitive and emotional intelligences are based on. They are of direct knowing type of perception. Direct knowing processes are direct and immediate. They are not linear processes hinging on proof. They are instant understandings.
You ask what I consider knowing. I cannot define it. Words cannot define it. Dictionarys cannot definitively define the principle that the words direct us to. Knowing is what it is.
That said, there are many dictionary definitions of knowledge that are independent of proof ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledge ):
knowledge: 1. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
2. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience or report: a knowledge of human nature.
3. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
4. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
5. The state or fact of knowing.
6. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
7. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
What I meant about faith is that faith enters ALL areas of life that humans are involved in. The only way we can separate faith from human endeavors in any way, is by using logic to create an artificial separation that does not actually exist. Like all energy, we cannot contain faith, and hold it merely in the religious realm.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Indeed. Education brings the knowledge within an individual out and it is this confrontation with the outside reality (other people's idea, the surrounding world) that provides the foundation for any thought or idea that comes to mind to be true, valid knowledge in the epistemological sense.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies what knowledge is. Quite interesting but I won't digress
If you're interested though, check out:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
(especially sections 2.3 and 4)
http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/P059
The definition you've quoted are the common language uses of the word.
It then looks as though we are saying the same thing but just using different words (within and without), whereas I thought your position was different as you initially referred to self-education, which did not make any sense to me and I now see you probably just meant self-teaching and self-learning.
However, on the issue of faith we disagree. I guess I am more skeptical.
Based on what can you claim that faith is all pervasive in all areas of human interactions? Because is it some sort of energy?
By faith I mean irrational belief, that is belief that is not proven or actually disproven by reason and logic but still accepted anyway "on faith".
And sure, we cannot know and understand everything - I accept there are momentary limitations to reason and science and also that there are things that you just intuitevely know but I'd rather leave faith in the religious sphere.
Cheers
All knowledge is valid, including the inner knowledge that's not yet been proven to others, or validated. Because all knowledge it's based on knowing, which means one knows. I understand if that cannot be quantified or assessed without outside...assessment. And yet, as I said earlier, knowing is by definition knowing. It's knowing whether it's been validated by a scholar, a scientist, an "expert" or what have you.
Jung, when looking for scientific validation for his principle of "synchronicity", was said to say he knows it exists, having had personal experience with the principle he referred to. He was looking for ways to explain or rationalize what he knew.
By faith, I mean arational belief. This means it is a belief that goes beyond rationale or logic. Many of our brain functions operate in such a manner (intuition, emotions). Irrational means it is faulty in reasoning. Given matters of faith cannot be disproven, because they are of a dimension beyond reasoning, and where reason/logic cannot comprehend or fathom, arational or alogical are the terms that apply, and which do not diminish the validity of the faith.
When one tries to logically disprove that which cannot be proven/disproven, one is starting from a flawed premise.
Peace.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Reading this has really caught my attention.
Slavery??? lol....let's all relax
Anyone that attempts to regain the enthusiasm for public service the way JFK did when he first challenged students to volunteer, is good for me.
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
Cool, I see now what you mean
And I'll check out Jung and his thoughts on synchronicity (I only know the Police album!