So I'd say there is no one thing that characterized the mindset of honesty. It could be anxious, it could be self-interest, and it could be out of a simple desire to be good. — Moliere

Honesty, yes, may be motivated by different influences.
But that's not the same thing as an honest person. The one who is only honest because he's afraid of being found out and punished is fundamentally a dishonest person. If he finds a foolproof way to do it and is sure he can get away with it, he'll be an embezzler or a fence or philanderer. An honest person won't do those things, even if he's quite sure he won't be found be found out.

The devout believer, on the other hand, knows that Someone is always watching and he can't get away with any kind of wrongdoing. He's not particularly honest or charitable or righteous or whatever he's faith demands - he's merely obedient.

If honest is an adj, is it like tall and short, something we are largely born with, or is it like rich, something we can gain and lose? — YiRu Li

Adjectives can describe both of those conditions, plus several others: matters of taste, like sexy or ugly; matters of happenstance, like sick or lucky; ephemeral matters, like rushed or startled; transient matters, like interested and disappointed.

People are born with a genetic predisposition: potentials, capacities and tendencies. Whether they develop into specific character traits depends on many factors in the environment and in the social influences to which the individual is exposed.

Though perhaps it is telling that the root "honest" is an adjective, that is to say a quality. But it is probably an error to read too much into that. — hypericin

How can you read too much into it? That's the whole point: honesty is a quality. "Honest" describes both a facet of someone's character (the way they are) and the way in which they behave.
Honesting is not something one can do: one can tell the truth, give fair measure for the price, refrain from coveting another's ass or ox or manservant or maidservant, be faithful in marriage, keep one's promises, return borrowed tools, give accurate and unbiased testimony, etc.

Sorry, what?

Is 'honest' a noun or a verb? — YiRu Li

Neither. It's an adjective: An honest person is one who can be relied on not to cheat, deceive or mislead others. Honesty is the characteristic such a person displays.
However, being an honest person does not necessarily mean that one never tells a falsehood for any reason, and never withholds information that is requested. Honesty may be tempered with kindness, loyalty, discretion and tact. The mindset is one of social responsibility (no community of humans functions well without a good deal of mutual trust.) and personal integrity (One takes a certain pride in being forthright and upright.)

the condition some of us call unhappiness. — kudos

I may have mentioned that. Yes;

But the more common forms arise from unhappiness, frustration and discontent.

Why make such a song-and-dance about it?

What, like lunch at the club every Tuesday?

I am interested in a self-destructive individual, and how self-destructive tendencies can possibly be a source of spiritual pleasure that overcomes the pleasure of survival and subsistence. — kudos

Survival and subsistence are not necessarily pleasurable - indeed, for many individuals, they are distinctly unpleasant. Also difficult, disappointing and often painful. This accounts for a good deal of self-destructive behaviour, ranging from substance abuse to suicide. I don't see anything particularly spiritual about most forms of self-harm. We might set aside religious or ideological martyrdom as a special form of self-destructiveness that does have a spiritual component. But the more common forms arise from unhappiness, frustration and discontent.

Do you think a human falling apart in mind, spirit, and/or body can itself be a valid social goal, — kudos

No.

in the sense that it is a force of thought directed against the overwhelming wave of subsistence as a goal? — kudos

What would cause such a thought?

Or more generally, is mere existence enough from an objective point of view? — kudos

Mere existence is never "enough". It is the beginning of purposes and goals; the base-line necessity for conscious thought and volition.
Is there an "objective point of view"?

I hope even primates can evolve out of their savage ways, if the way is shown, not by chimpanzees but mountain gorillas like Ishmael ... but then, isn't he the Stranger of the '90's?
The big question is: will there be time enough? I doubt it.

Born in Hungary, lived briefly in Ireland and the US, mostly in Canada.

Christianity -- the organization's consciousness -- is deliberately sabotaging the educational system to keep people dumb enough to still embrace that religion. — ken2esq

Does that mean each Christian denomination has a separate consciousness because each has a separate organizational hierarchy? And does that account for all the warfare between Protestants and Catholics for the domination of Europe? And since both Christianity and Islam arose from Judaism, does that make them both patricides and fratricides? Are all organizational entities natural born killers?

It's possible, I suppose, since all these organizations are based on human ideas and consist of human members. A herd of elephants is not naturally murderous toward other elephant herds, nor is a hive of bees inimical to other bees, but chimpanzee troops can be. I guess that is where human begins: with a mob consciousness that craves violent conflict among kin.

Okay.

Who is the proposed standard-setter and arbiter of all these qualifying criteria, child welfare, potential harm, etc? In what sort of environment could such educating, evaluation and licensing take place?

Given the present situation in the US, where only 8 states provide free school lunches, 3,000,000 children have no health insurance, 2,500,000 are homeless, 3,700,000 are home schooled with minimal or no supervision and every state has different laws regarding child care and custody, how could any of these proposals be implemented or funded?

Yes, that, too. But also, these big successes don't happen in a vacuum. There is one star on top of a great heap of thinkers and innovators, in charge of a team of builders and makers. The star gets all the attention and rewards, while all his enablers go unnoticed.

Rather it is evenly distributed (since it is ultimately decided by luck) BUT within the (not small) group that has attained excellence (which is slanted towards the advantaged). — LuckyR

You mean aristocratic generals are more likely to have their statues erected in public squares than the middle-class colonels and captains and lower class corporals and privates who carried out their orders?

I can imagine history being very different if he had had a better primary school art teacher. — unenlightened

Or if he had not served on the Western Front in WWI. Or if the post-war atmosphere in Germany had been less oppressive and resentful. Or, if someone more charismatic stepped up to lead the Nazi party. Or any number of other variables. Arch-villains, like iconic heroes and all those nondescript ordinary people who follow them, are a product of their place, time and circumstance.

I am wondering if there should be some type of thing you would have to complete to be able to have kids. — Lexa

It would improve nothing for most people and add a huge burden - with concomitant increased funding, expansion of powers and invasive practice to law-enforcement - and create a huge new source of discrimination and popular resentment.

A badly organized, badly governed, economically skewed, mutually hostile society will produce too many dysfunctional citizens, no matter how many licenses and punishments it slaps on people. A co-operative, egalitarian, mutually supportive society will produce the right number of healthy, happy, responsible citizens, with very little external control exerted upon them.

Hardly dare intrude on such exalted company. I've been vegging out with my new Britbox subscription on Prime. All the old BBC murder series - several of which I haven't even seen once. What a treat!

The latter, obviously. Nothing begins with the conception of a child; it is simply a new shoot on the evolutionary tree. When a human dies, whatever effect that person had on the world continues regardless. But I'm not up for an argument today.

So... all the sources I cited are wrong, while all your anecdotes are right, and schoolchildren stopped reading nice stories in 1958. People disagree, because we fail to grasp that, if only the US returned to the 1920's, or maybe 400BCE, and began the day with song, all its grade 8 graduates would be prepared to start businesses in the depression, when Americans were peacable, fair, tolerant and co-operative.
Good luck promoting that.

I think William James is a tad out of date. In the 20th century, I guess the US was eager enough to collect as many of those German research morons as they could.

He lost the election to Bush Junior — Athena

Kucinich never got within ballistic missile distance of losing to Bush. He didn't carry a single state in the Democratic primaries for 2004 and dropped out of the race for the 2008 candidacy. Unelectable.

We used to use the Conceptual Method of teaching children how to think. — Athena

This one? When was it used? Where? How?

Schools in the 1950s had a strict curriculum and teaching methods, with little room for creativity or deviation from the norm. The focus was on traditional subjects such as math, science, and literature, and most instruction was done through lectures and rote memorization. In contrast, today's schools are more flexible and teachers have more autonomy to use different teaching methods and approaches that best fit their students' needs. This includes the use of project-based learning, group work, and other modern teaching methods that are designed to engage students and promote critical thinking skills.

This was replaced with the Behaviorist Method which is also used for training dogs. — Athena

I assume you mean positive reinforcement: praising them when they figure out the right answer, instead of hitting them across the knuckles with a ruler if they don't. I'm actually okay with this change.

What might be the ramifications of changing how we teach children how to think? — Athena

They already know how to think; they come complete with all the necessary equipment. The trouble begins when parents and community, government, church and school all compete for the right to decide what they should think.

What is the moral of evolution or getting a spaceship to the moon that will help us be better voters? — Athena

OTOH, why do you think not knowing those things makes a good voter or a moral person? As Texas and Florida illustrate, restricting what students may hear and learn, limiting the children's scope to the parents', makes them more compliant to authority - I thought you didn't approve of that! - but it sure doesn't make them more responsible citizens!

“Unless we’re motivated by principle in our voting, we walk into a mirrored echo chamber, where there’s no coherence,” Kucinich — Athena

It's about the partisanship of US politics, I assume. He has a degree in communication, which is fine for a career politician. Seems like a nice guy, might make a good president - with a Dem-dominated Congress - but he can never be elected to that office: short, intelligent and vegan are a deadly combination in the USA.
And yet once more again: Why do you think someone who understands evolution and electricity can't have principles?

Love is present when you can never need to say you’re sorry. — Bella fekete

So, you've never been in a relationship?

That may be so as infatuation, but I've never known it to be true in a lasting relationship.

I suspect most philosophers wouldn't touch the subject, because it's so closely associated with *pth! pth!* icky girls. Beyond sexual attraction, one of the strongest human bonds is between mated pairs, and one of the fiercest kinds of love is maternal. I think they just didn't want to sully their grand theories with the feelings of and toward women.

Thank you for representing the million of people who do not see the importance of education for democracy and pulling out my thoughts about why a liberal education is so important! — Athena

Nonsense! You have made no case whatever - in all these pages - for why sound knowledge and useful skills are incompatible with virtuous character and good citizenship.

I have some issues - or rather, did have, when I was more directly interested in the process - with how certain subjects are taught, and how classrooms and testing are organized, but I see no reason - no reason whatsoever - why a person can't have a good education as well as good values.

I've been trying and trying to tell you: You don't have to choose! A well organized, well staffed, well conducted system of public education can achieve all of those objectives: well-rounded, confident, literate, numerate, logical people who take control of their own governance, economy and jurisprudence.
Don't believe me; compare the democracy index with the academic standings.

But the political entities and their special-interest supporters don't desire a knowledgeable, sensible populace: they desire a rabble that's easily swayed and buys all the merchandising.
And now, I'm weary of repeating it.

My concern is the education of small children, — Athena

If they don't learn to read and count in the early grades, higher education is off the table before they can even think about whether they want it. Self-governing adults are not necessarily innumerate, hero-worshipping science-deniers.

Education for technology is more concerned with test scores and international ratings, not the individual child. — Athena

At 20 or fewer students per class, there is no reason you can't have both.
Just where did you get the idea that a rigorous academic program is inimical to individual development or good citizenship?

If we want our liberty and avoid the conditions of a police state and possibly another civil war, there are elements of culture that should not change. — Athena

Too late. They already have. Not that the old culture was set up to prevent civil war - it didn't. The police state is not a result of K-8 classroom practices.

The US is what we defended our democracy against, — Athena

I still don't think so. But you do, so that's that.

Some things got better over time, some things got worse; some things that had gotten better are getting worse again, and there are factions that want things back the way they were before the civil war, and some that want single-party rule unfettered by a constitution, and some that want to exile, imprison or shoot all the factions and ethnicities and occupations and religions and opinions they don't like. All these crises will have passed, one way of another, long before the primary school students of today have any say in the matter - though some of them already own their own guns.

I call it November weather. Ah, but we have beautiful Aprils!

Okay and who decides what the Educators know and value? — Athena

They each decide what they themselves value. The DoE imposes some conditions on the allocation of federal funds, but individual institutions of higher learning, administered by state agencies, have their curricula dictated by state policy and local boards of education choose and reject textbooks. This is what causes the disaster of teaching creationist doctrine in science class, climate change denial and high rates of illiteracy in the worst governed states. (I assume California is near the bottom because of its large immigrant population, but I haven't followed that up.)

What part does culture play in our understanding of how to parent, and how to behave, and our values? — Athena

A big one. And it changes over time.

Coming from your arguments I will ask is there such a thing as a national culture and then subculturals? — Athena

At any moment, regarding some nations, you can say so. As I already pointed out, that applies more to monoethnic societies than to diverse ones. Of course, with globalization, instant communication and large-scale migration, all cultures are increasingly influenced by other cultures. (I could swear this, too, has been mentioned before.) There are no static cultures, and haven't been any for a considerable time now, no matter how yearningly some people in just about every culture hark back to an earlier period they imagine to have been better.

Who determines the purpose of Education? — Athena

That seems to be a contentious question in the United States . Secretaries of Education have a lot to say in the matter. Some political appointees like Betsy DeVos clearly don't believe in public education at all and make every effort to tear it down, while others, like Ron DeSantis have their own ideological crusade , while some, like Miguel Cardona, have an optimistic vision

In the year ahead, the Department will be focused on achieving academic excellence and accelerating learning for all students; delivering a comprehensive and rigorous education for every student; eliminating the educator shortage for every school; investing in every student's mental health and well-being; providing every student with a pathway to multilingualism; and ensuring every student has pathways to college and a career.

Teachers are dependent on manufacturers for learning supplies. — Athena

No; textbook publishers depend on sales to school boards and libraries for their living.

Who determines what they say in the text and provide on the Internet? — Athena

State and local Boards decide what material will be supplied to classrooms.

In our case, tall pine trees. In late September sometimes, that enormous harvest moon rises up out of the forest, quite slowly at first, majestically, then recedes as it ascends the sky. That year, it was a dark orange-red, and bigger than usual. I've never seen another one like it.
Once in a while, when conditions are favourable, we get a glimpse of the Northern Lights sometime in October.
From now till March, though, it's just brief restrained sunsets and no sunrise at all - by the time I wake up, there is a diffuse cold grey light with no character at all. Today, it seem to be persisting all day. Beats freezing rain, I guess, but the solar panels are hungry.

:starstruck:
Mind you, some parts of rural Ontario are none too shabby, either. There is a little observatory north of Wiarton, where some great summer skies are to be seen ... if you don't mind being eaten alive by mosquitoes.
We live on the east side of a highway, facing the sunset over fields - not bad - with thickly wooded low hills behind us. Not much for sunrises, but I saw a moonrise once (c1999) that almost had me calling out the fire department, it looked so much like the start of a forest fire.

Just as I certainly will never see Cumbria. Or Oceania, where some of my last novel took place. The satellite images are priceless!

Are you studying pathology?
The sky is never the same on a small photograph. On a cinema screen, not bad.
You kind of reminded me to give more play to sunsets in the novel I've just started. Before, I was a little preoccupied with sunrise; this one takes place in the north-west of England - lots of hills and water, and no city lights. I wish I could go there to see what the light is actually like, but will have to settle for pictures. Don't we just love Google?

Any question that requires you to put yourself in another person's situation and decide what you would you do in their place. This is a game we sometimes play with movies: If you were the protagonist... If you were the perpetrator... If you were the wronged wife... If you were the best friend... how would you handle this?

I know it's been going around in circles. I know that Athena has an idee fixe, which is not exactly wrong, but neither is it fact based. I don't really expect it to change. But the exercise has made me learn details of American history about which I'd only a hazy idea before, so from my personal POV, the effort is not wasted. (Maybe I'll even live long enough to use this stuff in a novel....)

Educators, not politicians, and not clergy.

It was not the intent of the US to have world domination. — Athena

Really? Then why did it conquer everything in sight?

We were strong isolationists wanting to stay out of Europe's wars. — Athena

Indeed - some of them. That didn't stop forays into Latin America and the Pacific.

There is some question if the invading Europeans would have walked across the northern continent if the native population had not been devastated by disease. — Athena

European disease, whether accidentally or deliberately introduced. Of-bloody-course they would have, with more and more developed weaponry and lots of it. The Natives acquired some of that weaponry to fight back, or they would have been depopulated much faster.

Winning wars is very much about technology. — Athena

Yes, and the Americans were always at the forefront of killing technology. In 1914, their standing army was relatively small - and half the troops were off someplace, guarding US interests abroad, but in 1917-18, it mustered 4 million men. Pretty fast preparation! But we've been around this mulberry bush! There was nothing backward or peaceable about America's military capability. Though Congress was reluctant to allocate funds in peacetime, that changed very quickly and the ranks were swelled in a short time.

.

I wish I had a better understanding of why the US took the British side in this war because that does not make sense to me — Athena

British and French. They were allies and trading partners and shared a cultural heritage. Plus, it was Germany that invaded other European countries, not Britain - that time. Plus, the Ottoman Empire was looking to expand its dominions, threatening British and French colonies. It couldn't be allowed to take over the southern coast of the Mediterranean.

For the first time, the US schools added more technology to education than the 3 R's. The rush to advance technology was a radical change in education. — Athena

Hardly! Reform has been on-going in response to the requirements of industry, public health and global competition.

There have been several recognizable periods of sciencecurriculum reform in the United States since the middle of the 19th century. The first were the efforts by mid- to late 19th-century scientists to increase the intellectual rigor of
science study by placing students in direct contact with natural phenomena and having them reason through the patterns and relationships they observed instead of learning by book study alone, often through rote memorization of what they read. These efforts culminated in the 1893
report of the Committee of Ten of the National Educational Association, chaired by chemist and Harvard President Charles Eliot. That was followed by a long period of Progressive-Era reforms, which lasted most of the first half of the 20th century. Then came the period of National
Science Foundation (NSF) funded curriculum projects of the 1950s and 1960s, which lasted a much shorter time but whose effects are still being felt today.*
Then, in reaction to the highly discipline-focused and intellectually rigorous curriculum materials of the 1950s and 1960s, there was a wave of more socially responsive materials focused
on environmental awareness, personal relevance, and the relationship between science and society. And then, beginning in the early 1980s, a report by the Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk, stimulated an era of standards-based reform, which we are in the midst of today.

** presumably the wave you keep complaining about.
If you mean by education-for-technology something different from rigorous science courses, I've not been able to figure out what that is. Nor do I see - even though I've asked this a number of times - why science cannot be taught alongside history and civics.

The German mind is certainly one to be admired. — Athena

Germans have human minds. No infant comes out of the womb with a brain of any particular nationality. They're potentially clever or slow, verbal or visual, have a facility for numbers or abstract ideas or arts. What happens next depends on the child's circumstances.
Whether a nation adopts the better or worse ideas of its clever citizens depends on the national aspirations at any given period.

What I am arguing for, is a better balance of preparation for democracy and education for a technological society. — Athena

Sure. But I don't see US education doing all that famously on the math/science front, either.
Unless something's changed since 2015 ... when it stood 24th in science and reading, 40th in math at age 15. Of course, this an average, including both New Jersey and Mississippi. States rights in education do students a grave disservice!

Especially when we fought those wars for nothing because we are now what we defended our democracy against. — Athena

You achieved world domination, miltarily, politically and economically. That's not nothing: that's wealth and power and exceptionality. And no, you didn't become anything like the nations you fought against, both of which became well organized, well-run modern industrial nations, while the USA grew increasingly corrupt and divided since WWII. That has nothing to do with the model of education or tech culture, and everything to do with the sway of moneyed interests, (harnessing religious ones) which had been playing a decisive role in American politics from the very beginning.

I am not so sure the US did not feel threatened by the fact it was totally unprepared for modern warfare. — Athena

Paranoia is not synonymous with actual threat. And it couldn't have been "totally unprepared" if it kept winning all those wars - mostly for expansion of territory. In most countries where it exported and imposed "American democracy", the US succeeded only in setting up a dictatorship (or chaos) The only successful conversions were Germany, Japan and Italy - presumably because those nations already had the social infrastructure to support democratic governance. That learning of useful skills isn't all one way!

I am thinking you have a bone to pick with the US and I should not take what you say personally. — Athena

I prefer truth to jingo, but that's not exclusive to the US. I, do, however, grow weary of repetition.

Do we agree education and culture go together? — Athena

Yes.

William goes on to explain "The Neccissity of Reactions" and that, of course, is about culture. — Athena

William James has rather harsh and simplistic opinions about other cultures.
As for the Jefferson thing... Sure, he wanted educated white middle-class men to carry on his traditions.
I take it Sinclair would have preferred an effective armed forces, such as the one that eventually defeated Germany, rather than one Germany would have defeated. You're so proud of winning, but seem to wish it could have been done without a winning strategy. It can't.

A healthy body without the necessary education can serve Hitler or anyone else just by following orders. — Athena

Most generals of any nationality would rather recruit/conscript healthy young men who follow orders than smartasses who question the military routine.
Did they already know about Hitler in 1917? And did Germany have a healthy, illiterate population in 1939? Actually, no: the literacy rate was 90% or better. And they had stories, too, of their heroic ancestors and glorious deeds. Everybody does. That doesn't mean you have to neglect maths and science.

The subject is not the morality of war, but a change in military technology that led to a change in education. — Athena

I didn't mention the morality (or otherwise) of war. Only that the USofA has always had armies and always waged wars - with the newest and best technology available at any given moment, in any chosen conflict. I use the word 'chosen' advisedly: The USofA was never forced into a conflict or confrontation; was never under serious external threat. All of its wars were wars of aggression.
They bombed two whole countries to ratshit because somebody (who came from neither of those countries) broke two of their overgrown office towers.

This change in education made the US, the Military Industrial Complex, which it defended its democracy against in two world wars, and Trump is our Hitler. — Athena

(Yet again: your democracy was never under any threat in either of those wars.)

The change in education has nothing to do with electing a dumb sociopathic egomaniac for president. That's down to crappy political organization and electoral procedure, large-scale corruption and regional disaffection, and general stupidity. The yahoos that carry guns for Trump didn't get a technical education. They just want to be top dogs again.

We are no longer the democracy we were. — Athena

When, exactly? What date, in your opinion, was the high point of American democracy?

All they need to do is bleed our economy by creating conditions that demand the US come to someone's defense. — Athena

Sure, by threatening a strategic military position or economic interest. Do they know how greedy your arms dealers are, and how wasteful your military budgets are? Of course they do: everybody spies on everyone. What wars are mostly about are "the national interest". And, yes, they require money and technology, as well as brave, stupid men who buy into the patriotic hype. This is not new. Every war in the history of the world has been fought with the latest, most expensive weapons, by the most modern methods, with the most popular slogans on the banners or both/all sides. The next one will probably do away with most of us.

Yes, but it's a bittersweet suffering. I've lived in many places and had many different lives, so I have lots of colourful memories for my old age. You don't want to deprive yourself of varied experiences and environments. They make staying put for the last 25+years acceptable - otherwise, I'd feel I missed out on everything.