doesn't mean that the obvious next step is sending out the poison gas vans to despatch everybody who fails to be "better". — Bitter Crank

In the movie Logan's Run the people were elevated or something at 30, basically killed off, because they were considered to have used up their useful years and there was a limit to the amount of resources that could be dedicated to each person.
In the movie "Children of Men", the government offered a chance to the old, sick and invalid folks to leave to better climates and then drowned them.

Would it not be a wonderful world where they tell you at 65 that that you have chance to "move up" instead of sitting around the house all day with nothing to do. And then they kill you because society has no use for you.
Look at the situation in a lot of countries around the world where thousands of people are living non productively until they are a hundred or more. How long do you think it will be before some idiotic politician comes up with these ideas?

ain't nottin atall rong wid it.

Just that I am not so bloody lucky. :cry:

Give me a pencil. :naughty: — Bitter Crank

It asked WHERE, not how. :sad:

I would prefer to be more talented, fit, attractive, intelligent, and motivated, than less so, because higher levels of these features enable one to engage the human and physical world more successfully. — Bitter Crank

The fact that I would prefer does not make it so, that is a dream. You might wish for it but you are what you are.
Imagine yourself on a scale from one to a thousand, taking into account your talents, fitness, emotions intelligence, ESP and all of the other things that make you you. If each part of you has a score, in some areas you might be high while in others low. Where would you be on the scale?
Now tell me, who gets to draw the line where people become better than others? Yes the ones with higher score would seem logically to be better than those with lower scores.
But for instance, a guy with a very low score might have an immune system that has prevented him from ever being sick.
Another with a very low score has a photographic memory and can play a piano concert after hearing it only once.
A guy with a very high score spends his time spending his rich wife's money in fancy restaurants, gyms and fine cloths

IF one would prefer to be more talented, fit, attractive, intelligent, and motivated, apparently one thinks it would be better. — Bitter Crank

Some preferences are not better. Some people prefer to drink than smoke. Which is better.
Some people are quite happy that their educational level does not allow them to get a better job because they don't want responsibilities and might lose the benefits and subsidies the government gives them. They don't think it would be better.

What about the people that suffer Downs syndrome, do they not also think of themselves as talented, fit, attractive, intelligent, and motivated. Would, do they want to be better?

You and Sapientia seem to be in need of couple's therapy. — Bitter Crank

Actually we are not a couple, why would anyone want a partner with such a bad attitude.
Only he is ever right, or you agree with him or you get dismissed as being stupid.

But thanks for the thoughts anyway. :smile:

As I said once before, or maybe several times. It is people that kill, not guns. And if people do not have access to guns they will use something else.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/london-murders-t-halted-york-141410483.html

According to Wikipedia, in The Social Organism, Herbert Spencer compares society to a living organism, and argues that, just as biological organisms evolve through natural selection, society evolves and increases in complexity through analogous processes. — Sapientia

Wonderful bit of research there, well done.
Oh, sorry i had not noticed that you had referenced the idiot's guide to superior wisdom.

At least find a legitimate page to use as a reference. Wiki is about the same level in truth value as the Sun.

No, we're not, and your subsequent statement contradicts this, as worded. You're just not being clear with your meaning. — Sapientia

If you cannot read what it says there, that is your problem not mine.

You mean that we are equal in some respects, and in some respects we should be treated as equals in spite of our differences. — Sapientia

No, I mean quite simple that we are all equal, just different.

How do you justify your use of the word better?
A dead person uses less resources and causes less pollution that a live person, a rich person uses more resources and contaminates more than a poor person. Which is the better person? Logically it would be the dead one.

If I can say it clearly, as I've just demonstrated, then why couldn't - or why didn't - you? Is it because it would ruin your comment? You had it set up so nicely (or so it might seem), but then I come along and pick holes in it. — Sapientia

Piss of. See I am learning from you Socrates. When I don't feel like answering someone's post I will just insult their intelligence.

The question is: Are some people better than others? — Purple Pond

We all come into the world in basically the same way.
We all have the same basic needs to live.
We are all going to end up dead.

The day one of these changes I will say yes, some people are better than others. Human beings are all equal, no matter what they look like, what their health is, how intellectual or not they are.

But if we talk about the people as an individuals with sets of traits, as separate entities then I would have to answer that some are different from others.

But who is to say exactly what is better than something else.

Would it be better or worse for a kid to have a sick father or no father?
Would it be better for a couple who have tried for years to have children, to have a disabled son or no son at all?
Which would be the better football team, the ones that did not really have to exert themselves to win a world cup or a team of special needs children winning a match against another equal group?

Better can be a cruel word.

And in the end we all need to take a crap, and you cannot get much more equal than that.

"Are you trying to tell me that common usage has nothing whatsoever to do with the way in which we use words?" — Sapientia

That is bloody stupid. And has nothing at all to do with what I said. Why don't you stop trying so hard to put people down and give an answer to a question that should be easy for you to do.

Research. I actually found a book about the history of Chambers Dictionary which I was able to access online, and it said what I told you: that recent editions abide by the usage principle in their ordering. — Sapientia

Oh dear, and you did not think that I might be interested in having the link to it. Wait, I think I already know your answer, "google it yourself". But I already did that and I failed to find it. So please try to be nice and share.

No, not sensible to whom. Just sensible. — Sapientia

I brought my umbrella to work today, does that seem sensible to you. But then you are probably going to say that it would depend on why I did it. If was it raining then yes it would be sensible, if not then probably not sensible.
So to whom would it be sensible to if not everyone has all of the facts. Things making sense or not do depend on facts don't they?

:lol:

Really? — Sapientia

Sad when all you can do to hide your inadequacies is try to put people down. Someone asks you a serious question and you don't even try to be polite about not answering. But that is part of your style also, so I guess we will have to put up with it as long as you are here.

That isn't something I often say, actually. I don't know where you're getting that from. And please don't waste your time hunting around for quotes. The key word is "often". — Sapientia

I have no need for searching, you just told us that you have used that phrase, just not "often". So you do know that words have more than one meaning, therefore you should take the time to explain which meaning you are using so as to avoid the posibility of misunderstanding.

That's a hilarious misunderstanding. No, I'm not being critical of people asking a bunch of rhetorical questions like those in my opening post in order to make the very point that I'm making. I'm being critical of the asking of those questions, as worded and with sincerity. — Sapientia

So you are critical of people asking those types of questions with that style of wording and you don't consider them worthy of your notice or reply. But you do expect others to pay attention to your admittedly rhetorical questions and give proper answers.

rhetorical questions A statement that is formulated as a question but that is not supposed to be answered

It shouldn't be replaced with that question, because that would be an example of begging the question. — Sapientia

begging the question
Assume the truth of something, especially the very thing to be proved
avoid a difficult point
invite a follow up question or point

Which of these definitions of begging the question are you using, for the sake clarity.

If you are using the first definition then it makes no difference because the post makes it clear that you think philosophy attracts pretense. you would not be influencing anyone with the question.

If you are using the second definition, what is the situation you are trying to avoid.

If you are using the third then you would want to ask the question because that is your stated purpose of the post.

And, although I could have added, "And why?", I'm pretty sure that people already had that idea. Just look at the replies. — Sapientia

Is "pretty sure" the same as being sure. I do not think that they are quite the same, and if it was my OP I would try to be sure that people understood what I was asking and that I do expect answers to my rhetorical questions.

Most people do not respond to rhetorical questions

rhetorical question A statement that is formulated as a question but that is not supposed to be answered

Anyway, can't be bothered with the rest of your post. Sorry, not sorry. — Sapientia

Now why is that not a surprise? Actually I never imagined that you even try to answer the rest of it. It is not your style.

So OK, just answer one more question.

Despite the similarity in wording, pretentiousness - which is synonymous with ostentatiousness - does in fact have a different meaning to what I was getting at - which is more like self-deception. — Sapientia

How did you ever manage to get pretence to mean self deception?

I started a thread on this same subject at the old place about 8 years ago. But I was honest enough to actually say what I thought.
It was called "A big, long winded rant on "The Pretentiousness of Philosophers". I think that the OP was about 1000 words. There was quite a bit of serious discussion contained in the thread. Unfortunately I am blocked from viewing it so I cannot make a copy.

I think that you see yourself as some sort of modern Socrates, Always trying to provoke people into thinking and reasoning. I cannot remember the source, I think it was from Plato, where Socrates described himself as a fly continually irritating a half dead horse or something like that. The horse was ancient Athens and he considered it his god given job to provoke the people into thought. He too was well known for never giving answers to the questions he posed. And he only got invited to one drink for his services to the state even though he thought that he deserved a free meal every day for life.

Someone, please tell a joke or something.

We cannot let the last word be a sad one.

:party:

Stop it. You want to behave like kids, go somewhere else. — jamalrob

Sorry, it is just that I was having so much with with the cuddly little guy I forgot to be serious. Maybe it was the influence the thread had on me. :pray: Forgiveness please. :smile:

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel to make your point. Just type it into google. You have to look harder to find your meaning. It's typically further down the list - if it's even there at all, which it isn't in some cases - and these lists are typically ordered in terms of most-to-least common usage - and recent editions of The Chambers Dictionary are no exception, as I have discovered. In your own definition of "pretence", "pretentiousness" is fifth down. And in your definition of "pretentious", there was only a single word which backs up your meaning, namely "phoney", amongst all of the other words, which back up my meaning. That should tell you something. — Sapientia

Are you trying to tell me that the meaning of words is based up the position on the scale of common usage. That sounds silly.
A word that means something still means the same no matter where it is in a dictionary. And how did you figure out that they are placed in order of common usage?

It would have been more sensible for you to have picked definition number one for each word. That would have been more likely to be a correct interpretation, and, funnily enough, that's what I meant, as I've made clear. But instead, you jumped in with your own interpretation, stubbornly stuck by it, and even went so far as to cherry-pick out of less common usage to back it up. — Sapientia

Sensible to whom? You. Just because that fits your way of thinking does not make the only way of thinking.

But all of this is beside the point, since my meaning is what matters, not yours, since I asked the question. And my meaning has been clarified, so there should be no further misunderstanding from you about what is meant from that point onwards. — Sapientia

And here we get to the point. How is one supposed to know your meaning? How is one supposed to know what you expect for an answer? As you so often say, words have many meanings, how does anyone know which meaning you are using? Or should we go by the top ten chart?

All you did in your post was to do what you are bitching about in it. Stack up a bunch of questions. You later claim that you would expect people to post questions that required some thinking, that would be of interest to you.

I understand the asking of a question like, "What are the strengths and weaknesses of faith?", more than I understand the asking of a question like, "What is faith?". I don't think that they're equivalent in meaning, and if they were, why not express it as the former, so as to avoid the kind of misunderstandings you'd get with the latter? — Sapientia

"Don't question", just "Question wisely". — Sapientia

"What is Google?" — Sapientia

Is a no no.

"What is Google at the most basic or fundamental level?" — Sapientia

Is the correct way.

So do you think a question, like the one below, that solicits a yes or no answer falls into the first or second category?

Is there something about philosophy which invites or attracts a sort of pretence? — Sapientia

Should your question not be something like;

What is it about philosophy that invites or attracts a sort of pretence?

That at least gives people the idea that you want more than a yes or no.
But because as you say, words have many meanings, would it not also have been requires of you to give a reasonable insight to what exactly you are think so that people would know what to respond to? And so as to avoid the kind of misunderstandings you'd get with the original question?

Despite the similarity in wording, pretentiousness - which is synonymous with ostentatiousness - does in fact have a different meaning to what I was getting at - which is more like self-deception. — Sapientia

Funny how when I use a certain interpretation of a sentence you quickly say that I have it wrong. That you do not mean the word as pretentious, but when others interpret it the same way

If what you say is true, you have been as pretentious as the rest of us. — T Clark

Yes, I think it's more of the case that pretentious people can invite themselves to do philosophy, or art, or write poetry, or compose music, or.... — Janus

you laugh it off

T Clark It's called disillusionment. — Sapientia

or ignore it.

My question was not about whether philosophy attracts pompous, self-important, foolishly grandiose, affected, showy or ostentatious people. — Sapientia

That is a shame, it might have made for an interesting discussion.

If you claim that that'd be an unintended consequence of an affirmative answer to what I am asking, then okay, but even if you're right, that wasn't the focus of my question. — Sapientia

Nice side step there. But the fact still remains that you did not specify your focus. You just did a question dump.

I've elaborated on the meaning of my question — Sapientia

After the fact, I would have thought you did not approve of people doing things like that.

But it seems that on page 5 some people still don't know what you are talking about.

I wonder what sort of pretence, exactly, you think philosophy might invite. Like, that we are just pretending that we do not know something, maybe? — Moliere

But with you, it seems to be a problem. Why is that, I wonder? — Sapientia

Could it possibly be because I am not up to the level of your high and mighty attitude.

I have some interest in finding things out, but I lack interest in allowing you to set the agenda if that's the best you can come up with. More specificity, and I might bite. — Sapientia

How far down the rabbit hole are you? — Sapientia

I do try to shake some sense into those who seem to be lost and struggling to find their way back to reality. — Sapientia

Stop asking me time-wasting loaded questions, please. — Sapientia

That's a pretty good reply, in contrast to some pretty awful replies that this discussion has attracted. You know who you are, so take note. — Sapientia

Anyone who can read and has half a brain will be able to compare the two and note the difference, — Sapientia

Yes, it is, if you find that kind of thing interesting. Of course, that wasn't a genuine example, but an example of my smartasrsery. — Sapientia

↪Bitter Crank No, no, you just need to look a little deeper. Try again in another ten years. — Sapientia

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel to make your point. — Sapientia

It's not so hard when you're as wise as me. — Sapientia

:wink:

Interesting fantasy. Have you spoken to your therapist about it? — CuddlyHedgehog

Yes, he told me to go to court and get a restriction order against you before you do something regrettable.
I'm gonna work on that tomorrow. So you had better stay away from now on.

No matter how many baths I take, you still stink, dear. — CuddlyHedgehog

Maybe it is the fact that you have your nose sticking in my ass crack so much that you are getting a bad impression of my bodily odors.

Well take a bloody bath before you come them. That should get rid of it.

Can’t stand the smell of sweaty peasants working for me, dear. — CuddlyHedgehog

Totally pretentious and all aren't we dear. Would you like to come over to the peasants place and have a cup of tea with biscuits, or sandwiches?

Please don’t. The odour is unbearable. — CuddlyHedgehog

So that is why you don't use a dictionary, you can't stand the smell of yourself after doing some work.

No and it’s quite obvious that neither did you. — CuddlyHedgehog

Oh but I did. In seventh grade it was part of a story we read. Let me do the sweaty work for you though.

Snake oil,
(medicine) any of various liquids sold as medicine (as by a travelling medicine show) but medically worthless
Communication (written or spoken) intended to deceive

I am sure you will understand now. Deary.

Anyone who can read and has half a brain will be able to compare the two and note the difference, — Sapientia

So pretend you have a whole one and compare the definitions in the dictionary.

Why don't you look it up in your Chambers English Dictionary (1998 edition)? — Sapientia

Let's try the new online one instead, although the definition is exactly the same.

pretence or (US) pretense noun 1 the act of pretending. 2 make-believe. 3 an act someone puts on deliberately to mislead. 4 a claim, especially an unjustified one • make no pretence to expert knowledge. 5 show, affectation or ostentation; pretentiousness. 6 (usually pretences) a misleading declaration of intention • won their support under false pretences. 7 show or semblance • abandoned all pretence of fair play.

When is a person who uses "pretence" as you suggest not going to be ostentatious and phony?

pretentious adj 1 pompous, self-important or foolishly grandiose. 2 phoney or affected. 3 showy; ostentatious. pretentiously adverb. pretentiousness noun.

If the people are pretending, they are pretentious. — Sir2u

The second quote above seems to indicate that you do not understand what it means to be pretentious, and are misusing the word when you want to express the meaning, "someone who pretends" — Sapientia

According to the dictionary pretense is the act of pretending, and pretentious. And a pretentious person is obviously a phony or a person pretending to be something he is not.

So if you insist that you are right show the definitions that you are using and how they differ from the ones I use. Or you could concede that you are wrong.

So anyway, go look that up in your Funk and Wagnall.

Very cute! Original? Or source? — Janus

It just popped into my head as I was getting ready to leave so I wrote it down thinking that it might make sense to someone.
It is open to interpretation to one and all, even if it is not exactly philosophical content. Or is it?

Bloody charming. — CuddlyHedgehog

Did you look up the meaning of snake oil? :cool:

Most of us understood, dear. — CuddlyHedgehog

Congratulations, here is a :clap: :clap: :clap: or 2 for you. But I doubt that you have considered everything about what was said.

Is there something about philosophy which invites or attracts a sort of pretence? — Sapientia

Was the first question, to which I eventually replied.

But to answer your original question and avoid further miss understanding, yes I think some people become pretentious. — Sir2u

The reply I received was

And here we have the pretence that my question was, "Do some people become pretentious?". — Sapientia

What I do not understand was why he was saying that there was pretence about what his question was.

If there is something about philosophy that attracts pretence, then the question must be about the people pretending. The forum cannot pretend, neither can the words in the posts.

If the people are pretending, they are pretentious.

There is nothing complicated about that.

How does his reply make sense?

People that have some philosophical knowledge might want to learn more and ask questions to do so, I would not call them pretentious.

People that have little knowledge but think they know a lot might find an opportunity here to show off, they would be the ones that are averse to answering straight forward questions and often don't ask their own questions for fear of look ridiculous. They would definitely be pretentious in my book.

Not people. You. — Sapientia

So you do not consider me to be in the category of people? Bloody charming.

I am confident that there are others with the ability to see what you do not. — Sapientia

Do a poll to find out if anyone understood what you meant.
The only thing I got from what you said is that you used the wrong word "pretence" when you should have used "self-deception".
And as I said, I did not see the point of it. Was it supposed to have been in some way explanatory of something?

Now there's a surprise. — Sapientia

I don't see how you could possibly be surprised that people don't understand what you mean.

Oh, I wouldn’t wanna come out in a rash conclusion. — CuddlyHedgehog

Put some snake oil on it then.

And here we have the pretence that my question was, "Do some people become pretentious?". Or perhaps it's just a misunderstanding. Despite the similarity in wording, pretentiousness - which is synonymous with ostentatiousness - does in fact have a different meaning to what I was getting at - which is more like self-deception. — Sapientia

I don't see the point to this.
Pretentiousness, noun, The quality of being pretentious (behaving or speaking in such a manner as to create a false appearance of great importance or worth). Syn. ostentatiousness

Pretentious, adjective, Making claim to or creating an appearance of (often undeserved) importance or distinction. Syn. ostentatious

It's curious that some responders have chosen to answer their own questions instead of my own. — Sapientia

Nothing strange about that, especially on a philosophy forum. It is like talking to yourself, you should always get the answers you want to hear.

Does anyone remember the thread at the old place that asked about the last post.

Not sure about the exact words but it went something like this I think.

If you have the last post on a thread, does it mean that you have said something so profound that none can refute you or that no one feels like answering anymore bloody stupid questions?

Oh what blankets on our bed
when we use a can of worms for thread.

I'm not saying, "Don't question", just "Question wisely". — Sapientia

What would you consider a well thought out, wise question? Is there any that you would like to ask?

Stay in the shade Tiff. Keep cool about the way life moves on, cus there ain't a damn thing you nor anyone else can do about it. Have a smiley. :smile:

Interested in agreement or disagreement, and why. — Sapientia

What could I possibly disagree with or agree with, you did not make a statement but asked a question. Oh, the question mark is missing.

You appear to have mistaken a question for an assertion, and you haven't attempted to answer it, or any of my questions for that matter. — Sapientia

No, I did not confuse a question for a statement, that seems to be unique to you. Your question contains the phrase "that which we already know" which itself is a statement.

Is there something about it which opens up for debate that which we already know — Sapientia

Don't change the subject. I asked that question because I'm interested in what others think. — Sapientia

I have not changed the subject. I too asked that question because I'm interested in what others think.

But to answer your original question and avoid further miss understanding, yes I think some people become pretentious. These people are usually the ones that post things like "Yes, I think you have that about right", "Oh you beat me to it, I was just going to post the same thing", " I could not have expressed that better myself" or sometimes just refuse to give a straight answer. I am sure you have noticed those people.

I read some book a while ago about a guy who went to an ivy league school who said that there was competition among the students to constantly ask questions and gain recognition. The point was that it put the Asian students at a disadvantage because their culture demanded that the teachers be respected and listened to, and that it was also disrespectful to the other students to force them to listen to you when there was a more learned professor in the room. — Hanover

I am sure that Plato would disagree with the orientals. I do too, even my avatar does.

Is there something about philosophy which invites or attracts a sort of pretence? — Sapientia

Is that a philosophical question, an ironical question or do you really want to know? It seems to me that if you think that we would know the answer then you also should know it. We all have dictionaries and google so why are you asking us?

Is there something about it which opens up for debate that which we already know? — Sapientia

How do you know that everyone knows this? Is it just because you say you know it that it has to be true?

Is everything really a matter of personal opinion? — Sapientia

What do you think?

An educational establishment is also a social institution. — unenlightened

And in this sense the purpose of education is to change their behavior to suit the society. Behavior as in the way they live their lives, not as in discipline.

Children do not in general approach teachers to ask them to teach; rather more so, teachers approach children and ask them to learn. This changes everything. It makes a joy into a duty. — unenlightened

Ain't that the truth. So few students nowadays want to ask questions because the fear being shown up for a dunce in front of the other dunces. And to make it worse, now we have to worry about them laughing at each other on the internet.

You've self-identified as someone who teaches various subjects - without qualifying yourself as a person in possession of knowledge about these subjects — tim wood

Does it not stand to reason, even by your own definition, that one must be in possession of knowledge to be able to impart it to others? I impart some of my knowledge to the students, it is then their job to learn it.

but that what you teach is "basic knowledge." — tim wood

As I explained before, teachers would not be able to impart all of the knowledge they possess to their students. Much as one might try to do so, not many students would be capable of learning it.

For example, a math teacher should be capable of high level equation solving, working out prime numbers to the thousandth, working out square roots . He might try to teach everything he knows but it is doubtful that he will get past the basics of math. University level math might include things like the square root of 2. A high school teacher would be able to teach about square roots but it is not really likely that the students would grasp the concepts of the square root of 2. So he teaches the basics and prepares the kids to go to university as best he can.

Suppose your living required you row your dory off the beach into the ocean to catch fish to sell and to eat. Suppose someone approached you to teach them how to fish. They might ask you what you know, and could you impart that knowledge, teach it. You might answer, "I know how to fish, and I can teach someone how to fish." — tim wood

But does the fisherman teach the person everything he knows? Would he be able, in a short time, to show the person how the tides, shore lines, water temperature, time of day, type of bait, the depth of the the water, the depth of the bait in the water, the size of the hook and line, the type of boat needed and a lot of other factors that affect the catching of different type of fish? And that is not taking into account which fish to keep and which to throw back for some reason.
Unless he was being paid very well, had plenty of time to dedicate to teaching it and that the person was really, I mean really interested in learning I doubt that his teachings would go beyond the basics. He would try to teach what the person would need to know to catch fish.

What do you know, that you can teach? — tim wood

That would be a long list.
Let's see if I can make a short list of things that are taught both in and out of school.
I am a heavy goods vehicle, heavy machine driver/operator and mechanic. I have taught, although informally, both.
I am a qualified, certified welder, gas and electric. I have trained people to do both.
I have training in technical drawing and have taught that.
I can plot multiple boat's or ship's courses on a chart using radar and GPS. Never had the chance to teach it but I am confident that I could do.
I have a Microsoft certificate that means I can give computer classes, which I am presently going. I am not going to try to teach the kids everything I know because it would be a waste of time. So I teach them the basics of computer literacy that they need to do assignment and that will be useful in university or most of the jobs they get.
I have plenty of knowledge of the English language, grammatical, written and spoken and try to teach it. Some kids just don't get the idea of being bilingual.
I have a certain amount of knowledge about sociology and psychology, not enough to say that it is university level but more than enough for a high school curriculum. I teach what is in the curriculum in a way that applies to peoples lives.

There is a lot of other stuff that I sometimes apply in short practical courses as well but time is short today.

It'll just take a bit of time for a Catholic candidate to muster a reactionary mouvement that will bury Munoz. — Akanthinos

I live in Central America, the Catholics are losing ground every day to the Evangelicals. But most of the candidates are catholic, they just don't use it as a political statement.

My understanding of a teacher is that he or she possesses knowledge.... You try to give your students basic knowledge. Is that your body of knowledge? What of Eng. Lit., grammar, writing, psych., sociology, cultural history? — tim wood

It would be impossible for most teachers to go beyond giving students anything more than the basics of their knowledge. How could a teacher that has a university level of education be expected to pass on all of that knowledge to school kids.
Being able to write a proper essay, perform math at a reasonable level, understand that people around the world do not all live the same kinds of life, know that laws exist for reasons, are all necessities, basic knowledge that is needed for students to succeed in university. This is what most teachers try to pass on.
How many kids do you know that have left high school without the basic knowledge that they are going to need to survive?

So it's up to you to say: do you make your students better in some sense with Englsh, Psych., Soc., History? Or in basic knowledge? — tim wood

What did you learn in high school? Was there anything earthshaking about it? Or was it just a basic look at the different areas of human knowledge to give you an opportunity to get a feel for what you are good at?
After leaving high school, were you prepared to go out into the real world and fend for yourself. Most people that don't want jobs at Walmart want to go to university, did you go? Were you prepared for learning at the university. If you were then you probably had good teachers that gave you the basic skills and knowledge that were necessary.
As you said too many teachers don't do a good job, but it is not always their fault. And as universities all over the world are finding out, a lot of the students are not being properly prepared to learn and study at their level.

I have, at least I believe I have, made a difference to the lives of some of my students. I doubt any teacher can claim they made a difference to all of their students. I have presently an ex student at Harvard(on a full scholarship), 2 at the university of Munich, and quiet a few at other good universities around the world including Japan and Korea. Several others have graduated from universities in France, the UK, Switzerland.
I cannot nor will not claim responsibility for any of my ex students being where they are, they got there because that was what they wanted to do. But the first person they look for when they come to visit the school is me. No, I am not bragging. Even the owner and principal are left waiting.

Not a Catholic, so won't matter. — Akanthinos

Your not a catholic so it does not matter to you?
or
This discussion is about Catholics so it does not matter?

They are taking over.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/article207342744.html