You are correct that Christianity is bad for education. But don't you see this is intentional? Smart, logical, and well-educated people, who avoid logical fallacies, would immediately realized the Christian mythic stories are false, would reject the religion to become agnostic, or Taoist or something, or atheist.

All life forms want to survive. Organizations are conscious life forms (see hive mind, see my posts on super-conscious beings). We unite in a common identity and birth a higher order of intelligence that we are linked to, and it wants to grow and survive, and will manipulate its "parts" (the humans that comprise its body, who unite under that identity) to defend itself from death. Christianity -- the organization's consciousness -- is deliberately sabotaging the educational system to keep people dumb enough to still embrace that religion. It must to survive. It dominates our politics (since most politicians identify as Christian) enough to basically have carte blanche over our educational system. — ken2esq

Yes, group identity gives us an immortality and many have died to maintain the conscious life form. For me, that group organization is democracy. Not the US but democracy as a concept coming out of Athens but also observed in tribal units around the world. It is just that Athens gave us a lot of philosophy that shapes our democracy.

Lately, the TV programs I watch have been about group identity and injustices done to the different racial groups. This search for a separate identity is curious to me. In grade school, a teacher told us of our migration from Europe and she told us to ask our parents what country we came from. When I asked my mother what we are she got indignant and said we are Hnienz 57 varieties. That is the melting pot of the US. I have no idea where my family came from and I don't care! I rather define who I am with virtues, morals, and philosophy bonded together with a notion of democracy. If anyone was discriminated against it was women! I remember when if women worked, they did low-paying jobs. Teachers were paid so poorly, my teacher grandmother was put in the welfare part of a nursing home and these people were fed last.

We are so far from a shared history, as each group has its own sad story. :cry: What about human history that includes everyone? When did humans not compete for land and resources? Figuring out how to trade and prosper is also part of that history. I do not mean to be disrespectful but I wonder about a shared consciousness that includes everyone. Is that possible?

It seems to me, in my lifetime, our shared consciousness has changed a lot! I think we are in the resurrection with archeologists, anthropologists, and related sciences bringing the past into the present and it is our task to rethink everything and develop a new consciousness of the New Age.

I find what you said agreeable. I was never out to prove a point. I just thought the subject would be interesting.

I think we can agree HIS STORY gave the impression that one man led and the rest followed. That is just too simple and perhaps not the best explanation of reality. I lean towards sociology and that we all play a part in history. Some leaders bring out the best in us and some bring out the worst in us and some are just ignored.

When it comes to Nietzsche I think he had a few million followers who never read a thing he said. Some of his ideas were picked up and carried completely out of context and this was very much part of the Nazi period with all its violence and finally war.

suspect the end of the metanarrative has led us to an atomized culture of chaotic pluralism and divergent values, eroding the idea of a single unified culture (which was probably always a type of myth) which could be led under a unified vision. You can see how 'Make America Great Again' is an appeal to get back to shared presuppositions of a 'golden era' which many seem to fondly recall or imagine to have existed. Great leaders often search for and develop the great story which will bring everyone together. — Tom Storm

I think the "Great Story" was the strong emotions during a time of war and the end of that war. My mother sang for USO shows and my father served in Germany and their patriotism was very much a part of their lives. My mother was so hurt when people started protesting against the Vietnam war. She asked how these people could turn against our own nation. Whereas, I had a boyfriend who was determined to be a police officer so he could avoid the draft and later when we learned we had been lied to, well, who would not want to return to a time when we thought we were the best nation that ever was. Different generations, different emotional experiences and I can certainly see how powerful it is to talk of being Great again. That is all about emotions, not facts and reasoning.

However, I do think the US had/has some greatness that made it a deserving world leader. That would be a very complicated discussion with ups and downs and changing points of view. I rather put a discussion about that in a thread about "democracy" where everyone understood the subject is "democracy" NOT the US and not a political discussion. Democracy was a new social order and that is a different subject.

When we entered the world wars we believed our defense depended on patriotic citizens and education was the strongest institution for preparing us for war. That national defense education was totally different from education for technology and depending on technology for national defense. I want to talk about Jefferson and education and defending our democracy but that is loosely related to this thread's topic and I am out of time.

[12] Matthew v, 34.

The life of the Saviour was simply a carrying out of this way of life — Nietzsche, The Antichrist

Huh? The world was full of people who thought they were spiritual beings along with all of life being animated by spirit. The Egyptians had a trinity of the soul. When a person died that was part of the soul. The next part was judged and may or may not go into the afterlife and the final part of the soul always returned to the source. This is more in line with Hinduism, from one come the many.

Believing we are separate from the source might be problematic? The bible explanation of this is unbelievable. I like the story of Pandora and the Box better than the story of Adam and Eve, which is a plagiarized Sumerian story of many gods. Zeus was afraid that with the technology of fire, man would discover all the other technologies and turn their backs on the gods. Zeus was right.:grin:

That is a lot of reading. It is very interesting but I am a mother and have a radically different point of view. I think Genghis Khan was a fascinating person too but I would not want to be one of his wives. When I read all of Nietzche's blustering, my opinion of males crashes and I have to work at remembering men can be good for some things and they are not all complete jerks. :lol: One of my favorite professors told me I am castrating bitch, and forgive me, but I do have my reasoning for this. Boudicca was also a bitch to the Romans as she fought for her people.

I am doing my best to own up to how feelings are affecting my reasoning. Neitzche brings out the warrior in me.

In the talk of "The Greatest Utility of Polytheism", I immediately thought of the polytheist Greeks and their ideals. Spartans and Athenians had very different ideals but held one in common- loyalty to their city-state and fellow citizens. To whom is Neitzsche loyal?

On the wall above my computer desk is a list of virtues. I wonder how many of them Nietzsche would value? There was a time when we thought of virtues as strengths, and I have often been accused of being condescending because when I am acting on a virtue I don't question myself. I can be as self-centered and oblivious of the needs of others as Neitzche because I am being virtuous and that is all that matters, not how others feel and what they need does not matter. That may not be a good character trait. Something may be missing?

Maybe I just read Nietzsche all wrong but as a woman who was left alone in a harsh environment with children to keep alive, I question some male values that underestimate the value of putting others first. :lol: When I enter a courtroom or the Social Security Office and the security guard asks me if I have a weapon, I say "only my tongue". But I take no pride in being mouthy. I rather be known for having good reasoning, so if you can argue against my different point of view, that would be pleasing. Why would we value the opinion of a man who appears to have a severe emotional/social problem? How does Neitzche benefit the whole of society?

I'm not quite sure how Nietzsche is lumped into the prior when he himself discusses the latter. — Vaskane

His Superman is not exactly my idea of a good neighbor. I do not agree with Nietzche about other animals not having morality. I do not think other animals contemplate right from wrong, but all social animals must consider others because social animals depend on each other for survival.

Interestingly the Puritans had an interesting notion of God choosing people and those who are chosen seem very much to me like Nietzche's Superman.

But Calvin also taught that God, in his infinite mercy, would spare a small number of "elect" individuals from the fate of eternal hellfire that all mankind, owing to their corrupt natures, justly deserved. That elect group of "saints" would be blessed, at some point in their lives, by a profound sense of inner assurance that they possessed God's "saving grace." This dawning of hope was the experience of conversion, which might come upon individuals suddenly or gradually, in their earliest youth or even in the moments before death. It is important to emphasize to students that, in the Calvinist scheme, God decided who would be saved or damned before the beginning of history--and that this decision would not be affected by how human beings behaved during their lives. The God of Calvin (and the Puritans) did not give "extra credit"--nor, indeed, any credit--for the good works that men and women performed during their lives. — Christine Leigh Heyrman

That does not go well with some people's understanding of social justice.

I am very glad Socrates insisted he did not know because I sure do not know and hope to learn from the discussion. I am seeing different notions of superiority and I question if they are justified.

Perhaps though the question is askew? To many it will make perfect sense to 'cling' to a tribe as that is their notion of a good, and a more powerful one that an abstract 'comprehension'.

In this sense I feel the contrast in the original question is misplaced. If we consider the Scandinavian body politic, for instance, where social democracy remains strong, mutuality is a powerful element in what binds people together. Max Weber is in this respect an interesting figure. He was in one sense a Kantian promulgating the notion of the enlightenment autonomous individual; but his foundational work in establishing sociology as a discipline, and his political beliefs in the benefits of (some kinds of) partisanship place the individual clearly at the nexus of social networks. — mcdoodle

What is happening in the US right now causes me to fear mob psychology and a lack of independent reasoning.

My original question begins with not knowing enough about the Enlightenment and why it would stress the individual separate from relationships with others. Our entrance into the Industrial Age was brutal. Applying Darwinism to humans and justifying the exploitation of the lower class is becoming unacceptable to a growing number of people. I think science is moving us in the direction of better social justice but I have concerns about how this works out economically.

I wish I could experience Scandinavia. I have good stories of how well it is meeting human needs, but I do not enough about how that works. I came across some information that schools are transmitting a culture of neighbors taking care of neighbors. This might be contrasted to the competitive education in the US, leaving some neighbors to throw the other under the train if that is what it takes to get ahead. Culture is always on my mind. How we feel about things and each other is very important to our spirit and our decisions.

I would say the latter. The "world-historical individual" only ever wields their great power through the emergent whole. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So no pharaoh built a pyramid but the masses built it? I have always had a problem with how we tell history. It presents a totally unrealistic understanding of history.

leverage point — Count Timothy von Icarus

There is that word again "leverage". how does it come that people are using that word? I am questioning a consciousness shift. Of what I think is happening is happening, that would be very exciting. What if we saw history as something that includes everyone? Would our moral perspective change?

but they only have this power because that leverage point exists. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Delicious. :heart: What if we had a better understanding of such leverage points? I am coming from LuckyR's quote from Steve Jobs about the "form". There is a very long history behind the development of computers but it was not until recently that our lives are all about computers. It seems like magic how computers have taken over the whole world and might it be helpful if we had a better understanding of leverage points and form better?

How can we govern ourselves wisely when our understanding of reality is so poor?

"I feel incredibly lucky to be at exactly the right place in Silicon Valley, at exactly the right time, historically, where this invention (computers) has taken form." Steve Jobs 1995 — LuckyR

I like Socrates and Plato and Steve Jobs use the word "form". My mother was a keypunch operator long before we had personal computers. That is she used a machine to put holes in a card, that was then used to give the computer information. That was a very old technology and something really magical happened in Silicon Valley. I am not sure what gave our high-tech society its form but it pleases me to wonder about that.

. And the personification of an era is irresistible when we come to telling explanatory narratives. — Tom Storm

OMG you have stimulated so many thoughts in my head. :heart: And this one really leaped out at me. Athens like most ancient civilizations created their gods as they realized the need for them. Athena was changed by the war with Persia so that when the Persians destroyed her temple, it was rebuilt with a completely new understanding of the gods. Apolla came at a time of chaos that demanded a system of reason and this is part of the dramatically changed explanation of all the gods. It is really exciting to think of all this with your comment on the personification of an era. The people of Athens were using human-like gods to give life a new explanation. Does that match what you said or have I misunderstood you?

A simple by-product of human tribalism is the tendency to project upon leaders or innovators all sorts of magic powers or extraordinary attributes of self-creation and individualism and to celebrate them like demigods. Or even as the incarnation of egregious and preternatural malevolence. — Tom Storm

Because of just watching an explanation of Socrates and "the good", your words have me asking "what is the good". The information I am drawn to at this time is how harmful some colleges have become in destroying the notion that we can prove the good as we can prove a triangle is a triangle or define what is beauty. Education in the US has thrown the nation into a period of transition, chaos has taken over and this demands a strong person who can keep us from self-destructing. That underlines your final statement. "Or even as the incarnation of egregious and preternatural malevolence" and plays nicely with your comment about tribalism. We are totally confused and screaming for a great leader who can put an end to this chaos.

I think great leaders ride on a wave that is created by the circumstances of the moment. I think we should be paying more attention to the masses and what is driving them. Why are so many clinging to a tribe, instead of their own comprehension of the good?

Here is a link to a free philosophy course, and the particular lecture that includes a map of reality that is crucial to our understanding of just about everything else. The important explanation is about 10 minutes into the video and takes about 10 minutes to explain. https://online.hillsdale.edu/courses/introduction-to-western-philosophy

Here is a link to making a conceptual map of your life.

https://philosophyasawayoflife.medium.com/concept-map-your-life-to-check-if-you-are-doing-what-is-meaningful-to-you-baebdf6f72b

Yes, there has to be a reason that the US trails the rest of the world in educational excellence (by a significant amount) yet leads the world in profitable patents, copyrights and inventions/corporations. — LuckyR

You pose a very interesting question and I feel compelled to chase it down the rabbit hole.

Someone who dropped out of school in the 8th grade, or a 19-year-old, or an immigrant who comes here with nothing can become a successful business person. What we do not seem to know today is, what character and opportunity have to do with this outcome, rather than being a welfare recipient or worse a homeless person unable to meet the basic needs of survival. Our ability to have so much success today, maybe our history of opening up a frontier and the self-sufficient culture we once had. Or I could be a nut case because I am so passionate about what character has to do with everything, and therefore believe our education for technology and leaving moral training to the church has brought us to a crisis.

I am afraid the US is educating its people to be like a third-world country, dependent on outsiders to provide us with industry. Being a total genius does not equal success if the genius must depend on someone else to provide the jobs. My father worked on Apollo and when that program winded down it was a huge crisis for highly specialized neighbors who had to move to find employment. I think technology has given us totally unrealistic expectations of what it can do for us. Sort of like worshipping a false god and greatly increasing social instability and subsequent social problems.

PS. The smart-ass bankers high on coke, who figured out how to greatly increase bank profits and their kickback, by screwing over trusting people, was a national shame. Education must be about more than technology.

The metaphysics of it all is quite clear: the individual is the basis. The principium individuationis is everything. Each of them occupies her own unique space and time as particular beings that, once they’re gone, will never be seen again. While it may be fruitful to analyze the space between these beings, or to observe how they interact with one another, the loci of our analysis are invariably particular beings and we should never forget it. — NOS4A2

I don't think I agree with what you said but maybe that is my failure to fully understand your point. I don't imagine myself as separate as I think you are saying, we are separate. I believe in cohorts that tend to define us without us being aware of how our history is shaping us. When we come of age we don't know enough about life to make choices with knowledge of how they will affect us. Especially if we do not attempt to know ourselves as Socrates would have us do. I think most people are reactive like a dog, with little awareness of themselves. Especially because we no longer have liberal education to free us from our chains.

You know the cave? We are all sitting in it together. It takes a lot of work to break those chains and be liberated by the light. But loving our pharaoh and helping build his pyramid could be a wonderful experience, unlike the cave, so I don't know if I am in total agreement with Socrates either. I just don't think the individual is the basis of anything important. Can you explain away my confusion?

These are very broad and general categories, but it helps me view how successful a culture can potentially be. — 0 thru 9

I am glad I just watched an explanation of a map of life and an explanation of Socrates's cave because that leads to me seeing so much more in your explanation than I would have seen an hour ago, before the philosophy video I just watched. You did a very good job of picturing the concepts and how they work together.

Both. We need a group replicating sameness in its members, and indivuals breaking away from it and introducing new standards in the group. Much like in evolution, its an interplay between replication and mutation that allows for some kind of progression. — ChatteringMonkey

You just put words to a very difficult concept. Very nice! I love your reference to evolution.

It is a common misunderstanding that those who become outlier-level, extremely influencial or successful are also outlier-level "better" or "smarter" than everyone else. The reality is that while these folks indeed work harder than most, are more intelligent, diligent, driven than most etc, there are large numbers who are also at that level, but what makes these household names over-the-top successful is essentially luck. Thus if by some stroke they would not have existed, someone else (typically unknown to most) would have stepped into that void and history would have progressed in a similar fashion. — LuckyR

That is a good point. I like that, now the TV programming I watch is stressing the truth of what you have said. Again and again, I have watched the stories of scientific discoveries resulting from the unexpected happening, and the experienced scientist realizing the importance of that unexpected information. Often these are people who do not know how to resolve a problem but because they just don't give up, they eventually figure things out. So it is a combination of character, learned knowledge, and good luck!

I am concerned education for technology is not doing enough to nurture the student's character development, relying too much on technological knowledge but minus the important human factors.

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. — Vera Mont

I like the thoughts you expressed. That notion of when we die, whatever effect that we have had on the world continues. That was very important to the original Greek thoughts about education and democracy and the importance of music and always asking "what is the good" and acting on that thought.

That's odd. Others might find it more sensible to consider "the message of the gospel" as you put it as being merely derivative of these systems, which after all had existed for centuries before the gospels were written, or for that matter as derivative of the Western philosophical systems such as Stoicism, which also preceded the gospels by hundreds of years. Establishing that Christianity borrowed heavily from other religions or philosophical traditions wouldn't seem to indicate there's anything unique about it. — Ciceronianus

Plato has been left out and he seems to have been as concerned about the 10 commandments as Moses was but he came to this reasoning without an encounter with the God of Abraham.

Personally, I favor the Eastern gifts of knowledge over the Bible and I don't think it is possible to have a good understanding of Jesus without the Eastern perspective. I think the Eastern perspective is more compatible with democracy than the Bible because of the Eastern explanation of how we become better human beings that is not dependent on superstitious notions of needing to be "saved".

Thank you. I guess I am working on the background information now but this sure is an uphill battle because most people seem to believe what we have today is new and improved and the past has nothing to offer us. :lol: I have to laugh at myself because I feel cursed by what I have learned from old books. But if learn more philosophy and more about the proper form I can only become a better person, even if I fail to save the world for my grandchildren and their children.

And I really am thankful for your words and will enjoy contemplating the best way to work myself as I drift off to sleep. You made me realize that is doable. Perhaps I just need to be more realistic.

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.

I am glad you want information on the subject. When we entered WWII teachers who had taught for many years could no longer teach unless they went to college and got the newly required education to be teachers. My grandmother was one of these women. She began her day with the children by having everyone sing. You might like to know why Plato and Aristotle thought music was perhaps the most important t part of education and you can that information from their books.

The following is taken from the book "America's World Backgrounds" a grade school textbook by George Earl Freeland, copyright 1942.....

"The central purpose of this book is to make citizens better equipped to face realities. At every step the readers are made to see their relationship to everything that surrounds them. The role of people in every historical movement is made prominent so that the reader will understand his place and his importance in modern society, and accept his own personal obligation to be an intelligent and responsible citizen.

We suggest that the teacher remember the fundamental purpose of developing socially minded citizens. The plan is the selection of the subject matter on every page and in the lists of books, problems, and activities at the close of each unit is directed towards what A Charter for the Social Sciences calls the supreme purpose of the Social Sciences; "To create rich and many-sided personalities are informed about a wide range of affairs both immediate and remote. They are aware of personal and social responsibilities; they know that the environment can be changed within limits by individual and social action.

A Charter for the Social Sciences then enumerates very specifically the elements that make a good citizen, with a "rich and many-sided personality". In addition to a body of information about the modern world and the elements that form its background, the "Charter" suggests certain skills that must be acquired to give power; habits that should be formed such as cleanness, industry, courtesy, accuracy, and effective co-operation; attitudes, such as tolerance, open-mindedness, social-mindedness, and loyalty to America's domestic ideals that must be set up; courage and will power that should be developed by citation of noble examples of leadership in the struggle of mankind towards a richer and better life for all; constructive imagination that should be fostered; and finally, aesthetic appreciation that can inspire the pupils' minds with zeal for the finest products of genius."
There is more but I want to provide another source as well.

This next book is dated 1924 Reading and Living by Howard Copeland Hill and Rollo LaVerne Lyman

"Whether at home or at school, at work or at play, we spend most of our waking time with other people. Our pleasures and achievements depend largely upon our success in getting along with our companions; our problems and difficulties usually come from human associations. Indeed, a successful and happy life is chiefly the result of living well with other folk.

Great writers have been fascinated by human relationships. The poem, stories, essays, and novels usually deal with people living and working together. Literature is a mirror of life, reflecting those human interests and problems that grow out of our contact with one another; one of its chief values is to enable us to understand and to to appreciate life.

Selections have been chosen because they illustrate or illumine the art of living and working together...."

Maybe in the morning, I can find the book advising teachers to not fuss over whether a child remembers names and dates but pay attention to the child's understanding of the concepts. I have a lot of books to pull from but understanding why this education is important and what it has to do with democracy, is better understood by knowing what Plato and Aristotle thought of education. We are not the united and cooperative nation we were and coincidentally that domestic education was replaced with education for technology in 1958. Hum, I should quote the math book as well, as it explains the value of being math literate, in solving everyday problems and the book I have about math literacy explains how that can make us better voters. The past conceptual and domestic education did not leave people ignorant but 8th grade dropouts were capable of starting their own businesses. We were prepared to be independent and not have to rely on authority or the government. We prepared our young for life. Plato and Aristotle would approve as democracy is about each of us self-actualizing and developing the good. That is a cultural difference.

Thank you for replying. I am sincere about wanting to improve my communication skills. Tonight I listened to an explanation of Aristotle that made me aware of where my crazy ideas come from. You know, when you think your ideas are your own, but then you come across the original thought and you realize you had forgotten the book that gave you that idea? That goes with the question you asked but I want to be sure I understand you correctly.

Yes, I can think of another way to begin the discussion but I am too discouraged. It is like I am coming from Mars with such a different point of view, no one can relate to what I am saying. I am criticized for not explaining myself but I have worked hours on those explanations only to have them rejected. I don't mean anyone is arguing against what I have said. That would require having an understanding of what I said, and there is no understanding of the information I have provided. So now what?

So what is the correct form for opening a discussion and what is the best way to keep a thread on topic?

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 a good president, but he can never be elected to that office: short, intelligent and vegan are a deadly combination in the USA. — Vera Mont

He lost the election to Bush Junior and if he had won, the neocons would not have been able to take us to war as they were intent on doing at least since Bill Clinton was in office. His response to 911 and Bush invading Iraq on trumped-up charges, was that we missed a golden moment to grieve and to be supported by the world that saw us as victims and not the victimized. The global reality would be totally different than it is today. I think your opinion of the US would be totally different if Kucinich had won that election.

I will try another question. Kucinich mentioned being motivated by principals. What principals? How do people learn about principals?

Something that drives my thinking is this explanation of fast and slow thinking.

We used to use the Conceptual Method of teaching children how to think. This was replaced with the Behaviorist Method which is also used for training dogs. Dogs do not vote but humans who may know a lot about one thing like how to get to the moon, may be no better prepared for thinking than a dog. As William James said "The German universities are proud of the number of young specialists whom they turn out every year,- not necessarily men of any original force of intellect, but men so trained to research that when their professor gives them an historical or philoogical thesis to prepare, or a bit of laboratory work to do, with a general indication as to the best method, they can go off by themselves and use apparatus and consult sources in such a way as to grind out in the requisite number of months some little pepper-corn of new truth worthy of being added to the store of extant human information on that subject. Little else is recognized in Germany as a man's title to academic advancement than his ability thus to show himself an efficient instrument of research."

What do you think he thought of how a German was prepared to think?

What might be the ramifications of changing how we teach children how to think? What is the moral of evolution or getting a spaceship to the moon that will help us be better voters?

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. — Vera Mont

:lol: Lets see if I can do as well as Socrates. He gave his life for democracy even though he thought poorly of the decisions that were made. What did Socrates believe people needed to know to make good decisions? How were they to gain that knowledge?

What does this quote mean?
“Unless we’re motivated by principle in our voting, we walk into a mirrored echo chamber, where there’s no coherence,” Kucinich

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. — Vera Mont

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! Children who do not have good character development are going to fail no matter what. Demanding they know New Math when their parents can not help them and there is no one to tutor a struggling child, only harms the child with the constant failure the child can not avoid. Especially if the child has bad parents and/or has a life of constant adversity, this can consume the child's awareness making it impossible for the child to learn. But there is a cure- anyone can be a good citizen with good forefathers and strong mothers if the schools teach this.

These are the characteristics that describe the ideals and procedures of democracy....

1. Respect for the dignity and worth of the individual human personality.

2. Open opportunity for the individual.

3. Economic and social security.

4. The search for truth.

5. Universal education.

6. The rule of the majority; the rights of the minority; the honest ballot.

8. Justice for the common man; trial by jury; and arbitration of disputes; orderly legal processes; freedom from search and seizure right to petition.

There are 4 more but I have to run. I would give anything including my life if this would be taught in all schools along with learning the virtues that make it possible for us to engage courageously with life and our fellow human beings. Then maybe the young people who go into debt to pay for college, will succeed in having the career they were educated to have. That education for technology is no good without the character to take advantage of it.

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. — Vera Mont

I was rushed earlier and I missed saying how glad I am that we no longer beat the devil out of our children. I think some serious changes have followed such as knowing old ways were abusive and lead to social problems. We now know a strong and loving family results in children having better health physically and mentally. This seems to be bleeding over to workers demanding better treatment along with higher wages. I am not sure how this is going to work out but the positives and very encouraging. However, I am not sure that a failure to have a sense of family duty is a good thing? Research has indicated children with single parents are more at risk.

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. — Vera Mont

:grin: We are back on track. This is a mind-provoking comment "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." I can think of a few things that divided us. Cattle ranchers didn't like sheep herders, slave and none slave states, of course, Industry versus agriculture, living in the city or the country, living by a seaport or far from the oceans. However, education should unite us with a fundamental understanding of democracy and what it means to be a good citizen because we can not defend our democracy without that knowledge. It is fine to be a Hippy :starstruck: or Asian or Native American or a person of color who wants to identify with people in a particular region, but as Americans we need some agreements about what means to live in a democracy.

Thanks to you, and looking for more information, and finding the explanation of California and Texas having different history textbooks, I am :broken: brokenhearted to know these states are controlled by politics and not the determination to know the truth and to be honest. We can not be united if we do not share the history and fundamental values.

Your explanation of who decides what children will learn is excellent! A professor who sits in the hot tub where I go, said I have the best chance of affecting policy if I personally know someone and if we continue this discussion, I may give up being a Senior Companion so I have the time and energy to focus on education. I am wondering if a hundred-dollar donation would encourage our Governor to have lunch with me and talk about the need for Oregon to law that we have civics education!

These arguments lead to finding important information that my old books don't have :lol: and also increase my awareness of what is important to bridge with others. Being alone with my books does not develop my thinking as I must do if I am going to be effective. :worry: If I had a teaching career I would naturally be more informed about what is happening today and who it is important for me to have lunch with. Even if I had a child in school that would help, but being an outsider and coming in with different ideas DOES NOT GO SO WELL!

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.) — Vera Mont

My concern is the education of small children, not higher education. My argument is the priority for education was preparing the children to become self-governing adults. That is what liberal education. Education for technology is more concerned with test scores and international ratings, not the individual child. In the past teachers help a child discover his/her individual talents and interests. Today I think most of the children are denied the education they need as we focus on those going to college because that is what the federal government funds.

Preparing the young to be self-governing adults, is the first line of defense against social problems reducing crime and the need for public assistance, and this why I write. There are two ways to have social order, culture or authority over the people- a police state and people controlled by fear of losing of their jobs. Culture is vital to our liberty and this does not mean the freedom to dye one's hair green or put a stud in one's nose.

OMG Oregon, where I live, is at the bottom of academic achievement! I just looked that up. California is close to the top and above Texas. Texas teachers took Texas to the Supreme Court to end forcing them to teach creationism as science, and the Supreme Court ruled creationism is not science. For political reasons, book manufacturers write different accounts of history for Texas than they write for California. That difference in education is the fuel for civil war. So yes, we do have a serious problem.

About the part culture plays you said.

A big one. And it changes over time. — Vera Mont

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. Do you want to argue against that? I am in agreement that we have culture change. The US is what we defended our democracy against, but is this a good thing? We have progressed in reducing racial of gender discrimination but I think some things have gotten worse, like reliance on authority.

I don't see this as anything but me. — Patterner

Ah, a brain in a vat would not get essential information without a body. What are you without a body? What is your body without a brain? People with Alzheimer's Disease have a sense of who they are but they may not remember anyone around them. They are not exactly in the here and now, but often in the past.

So, it would just be a different you, not in the sense of function, but in the sense of experiences, where one you would think one way going through one set of experiences, and the other would think in the exact same way (functionally not content wise), but having began to lead a different life with different experiences.
what do you all think of this? — Lexa

I think we need our bodies to experience life and that every cell in our body is part of our consciousness, so if our consciousness were transferred to a different body we would have a problem identifying that different body as who we are.

There are several fun movies about people whiching bodies. In one such movie a grandfather and grandson trade bodies. In another a mother and daughter trade bodies. I think there are a couple where and man and woman trade bodies. However, my reply also comes from what I have read and experience. We know who we are by checking in with our bodies that hold our memories.

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. — Vera Mont

What part does culture play in our understanding of how to parent, and how to behave, and our values?
Coming from your arguments I will ask is there such a thing as a national culture and then subculturals? Is there anything Educators can do to influence the culture and subcultures?

How do we get our ideas of what we want to be and what we should be? This goes with what is the purpose of education.

Educators, not politicians, and not clergy. — Vera Mont

Okay and who decides what the Educators know and value?

Who determines the purpose of Education?

Teachers are dependent on manufacturers for learning supplies. Who determines what they say in the text and provide on the Internet?

States rights in education do students a grave disservice! — Vera Mont

Who should determine what a child learns?

I can avoid the man who has 8 children and never married.
— Athena
I would take him for a few beers and see if I could help him and his wife (married or not makes absolutely no difference at all, imo.) directly with his 8 children, or give him the info he needs to get all the state help he is due, or I would help those who were campaigning to get his like more help and support and try to make sure his children have more opportunities and support than he ever had. I reckon you would also try to help such a family in such ways. In fact I think you would be compelled to help them, if they needed it, even more than I would. — universeness

Not that long ago, an adult was judged by certain behaviors. We held different expectations for men and women and their status in the community depended on their character and signs of being responsible. When a man married and had a child he had a better chance of getting jobs and advancement. His wife could be an equally important part of these status judgments. You know, the man whose wife sat on civic committees and the couple limited the number of children they had. I am not in favor of destroying this system of organizing society. That is what I mean by being aristocratic.

I do not expect things to improve until we replace the autocratic model of Industry with a democratic model. I do not question the importance of education for democracy and the importance of putting democracy into practice economically as well as politically. Teaching the principles of democracy and then living autocratically creates a problem.

People who hang out in the pub will be pleased with a free beer but why would we think this person would appreciate our advice on how to live? The wife waiting at home with children may not appreciate his time in the bar. His pursuit of happiness is not accumulating knowledge. I think we can work on social and economic matters but not personal matters. Education can work almost miracles in a person's life but what will motivate a person to desire education?

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. — Vera Mont

I did not achieve world domination and my fellow citizens are completely ignorant of the reality of a Military Industrial Complex. If there were not so much ignorance we would have a different reality. Public public education with mass media and the internet can certainly manifest a better reality. It was not the intent of the US to have world domination. We were strong isolationists wanting to stay out of Europe's wars. I hope everyone will find the following link interesting and that the discussion of military technology and the New World Order/ Military Industrial Complex will improve.

Do democratic norms and political culture play a greater role than structural determinants
in realizing a democratic peace? Alexis de Tocqueville, a hitherto unappreciated theorist
of international politics, offered such a view 175 years ago. This article examines
Tocqueville's perspective on civil-military relations and the connection between democracy
and peace. Tocqueville concludes that the key to the pacifism of a democracy is the equality
of conditions it enjoys and the education that its soldiers receive prior to entering the military.
Thus, in Tocqueville's estimation, the democratic peace has little to do with the practice of
democracy, and everything to do with the economic well-being and political virtue of its
citizens.

Democratic states do not go to war with one another. That is the central tenet of
democratic peace theory.1
Although it has been clarified and slightly altered since it
originated with Emmanuel Kant's notion of a perpetual peace, it is, perhaps more than any
other theory in international relations, widely accepted among scholars. As Levy notes,
"the absence of war between democracies comes as close to anything we have to an empirical
law.":
Similarly, Diehl has called the democratic peace "axiomatic."1 — Steve n Michels

You may of course jump on the fact that the US was divided and fought a Civil War that was far from civil and we can talk about why this happened.

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! — Vera Mont

Thank you for this argument. 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. Once the Europeans brought in their horses the Comanche established an empire. Winning wars is very much about technology.

The Comanche and other native peoples adapt the horse as a powerful ally in the fight to protect their land and way of life. The Comanche consider the horse a relative and a gift from the Creator.Aug 15, 2018

Native America | The Comanche and the Horse | PBS — PBS

I do not think the US was paranoid when the first world war began. But it was alarmed by the amazing success of Germany's invading forces. Here we need to understand how radically different this military achievement was. After the end of the Second World War, Eisenhower wrote a letter praising Germany for its contributions to democracy and a good understanding of why Eisenhower thought Germany made a contribution to democracy would be helpful.

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 given the fact that the Germans were doing better in manifesting overall well-being than Britain. I don't think the British have an admirable history.

And yes, the US was totally unprepared for World War one and two. It was that first war that was perhaps the most vital because that is the war that woke the US up to the importance of education for technology to national defense. 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.

You may notice it took the US at least a year to mobilize for those wars. Public schools were essential to the mobilization for war and for keeping the US running while our men were fighting overseas. Amusingly, not until WWII did the US fully commit to the Military Industrial Complex. Before the military technology of WWII, the priority of public education in the US was preparing our young to be good citizens who understood democracy and why it must be defended.

The German mind is certainly one to be admired. But a liberal education is essential to democracy. What I am arguing for, is a better balance of preparation for democracy and education for a technological society. I think since WWII Germany has leaped ahead in the advancement of a civil civilization. As they have filled their cities with reminders of what was done to Jews, the US needs to fill its cities with reminders of its wrongs. This is essential to completing the transition to the New Age.

:lol: AA, owning up to our wrongs and increasing our awareness of rights and the higher power.

Thanks for your reply! :smile:
But sorry… I’m not much of an expert in the very important subject of world arms trading.
I started to watch a video recently, but stopped after 5 minutes because the combination of greed, heartlessness, and inevitable violence was nauseating.
Amazing how all these weapons can be used purely for the noble purpose of national and self-defense.

Thanks though for your discussion about the 1958 shift in education in the USA, which had enormous implications. — 0 thru 9

We share a lot of agreement regarding the weapons Industry and having a president tell countries they have to build up their own weapon supply because we are not going to carry the responsibility of defending them. I would love to cut the US free of the responsibility of defending other nations, but escalating the devastation of war by increasing the stock of weapons around the world does not impress me as a good idea.

I do not believe humans kill each other because Adam and Eve ate the wrong fruit, nor that war is inevitable. The characteristics of democracy are opposed to war and all modern nations practice a form of democracy. War is not good for anyone's economy.

The Iroquois or more correctly the Haudenosaunee Confederacy have a story of a man coming and teaching the way of peace. This became the foundation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. They inspired our movement from warring kingdoms and populations divided as into masters and servants, to a democracy. However, the masses never got the information that is being made available to us today.

I believe the New Age is a period of high-tech, and peace, and the end of tranny. I believe we are entering that now but this period of transition is very difficult.

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. — Vera Mont

:lol: I do not know why you say I am so proud of winning a war. Especially when we fought those wars for nothing because we are now what we defended our democracy against.

Also, I am not so sure we should have entered the First World War. Germans had a higher standard of living and the poor children in Britain were horribly abused! I am not sure if universeness's feelings towards aristocrats is because of a very ugly history? But when it comes to war I like what Professor Harnack had to say, "A permanent peace can only be achieved by hard intellectual effort and intellectual honesty".

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. — Vera Mont

Why would they need to know about Hitler in 1917? Charles Sarolea's 1915 book "The Anglo-German Problem" provides all the information we need. William James wrote of Germany's education in 1899.
In 1916 Scott Nearing, Ph. D. wrote "Poverty and Riches A Study of the Industrial Regime" which is information on Britain, Germany, and the US. There was information for those who wanted it. And yes in 1939 Germany was comparatively doing very well despite the hardships put on it following the First World War. Maybe because I am tired but you seem a little antagonistic to me.

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

I am not so sure the US did not feel threatened by the fact it was totally unprepared for modern warfare. I do know I am very tired and it is not a good idea for me to continue. I am thinking you have a bone to pick with the US and I should not take what you say personally. Hopefully, things will go better when I am rested.

Yet we still have billions of believers in woo woo, many of whom use this foundation as a guide to their actions and who they vote for. Do you assign no part responsibility for this to Ancient Greek, Spartan 'storytellers' and/or Prussian theists , who also peddled these same lies as facts? — universeness

That appears a very interesting subject but I am not sure what you are talking about. To me the term "woo woo" is insulting like name calling and has no intellectual value. On the other hand, a better understanding of Athens and Sparta's military thinking is exciting to me. We can follow this under the subject of culture because truly Athens and Sparta had extremely different cultures. Thanks to the Prussians who united and protected Germany, Germany was the modern Sparta and the US was the modern Athens. If you can advance this argument I will give it my best shot.

As a school teacher and a Labour Party/young socialist party member, yes, and even as a union shop steward for a while, I have served on many committees, but mostly as talking shops and any resulting decisions made, did not affect 'millions of people.' A ship can easily be run perfectly well by a cooperative rather than a dictatorial captain (captain Bligh perhaps). A single leader can be useful at times but any wise members of a collective can 'play that role,' if and when such is needed. — universeness

I like that last point. Democracy means everyone is prepared for leadership because we are all responsible. But we also respect the person in the seat of authority and do not compete with him. Today there is a lot of lusting for power, and there is no respect for the person in the seat of power. That is in part because the persons taking the seats of power do not have the necessary virtues, but hell, the voters don't understand what virtues and morality have to do with anything away. We do not have the CULTURE that is essential to good relationships.

I agree with 'emergency defence powers,' kicking in, if a community is under 'live' attack or imminent attack but I would not allow any elected body to unilaterally declare war, without a public majority mandate to do so. I would change your 'as soon as possible,' to 'with as much wisdom as possible.' — universeness

I am not finding the right words. We need some agreements to work together well.

Most teams will function better and more fluidly with a team captain working in tandem with the coach to ensure there’s properly respected leadership on and off the field. — Hustle

Oh yeah, and that is why our forefathers made it very hard to go to war. Congress holds the purse strings so supposedly we can not engage in war without the citizens agreeing to pay for the war. However, Bush and Hitler were able to engage in war without war budgets. Without a good education, we no longer understand the wisdom of our forefathers. And you moved me to google for information and I found something I love and this needs to be a discussion of the Military Industrial Complex and how it is not the democracy we defended in two world wars.

How the US Public was Defrauded by the Hidden Costs of the Iraq War
Print
The tenth anniversary of the US-led military intervention in Iraq has been met with a number of retrospective analyses examining various aspects of the war. This article argues that the Bush administration intentionally hid the costs of war by publically underestimating its costs, recording significant expenses outside of the Pentagons annual budget, and relying on private military contractors rather than traditional military forces. While none of these measures actually reduced the monetary costs of war, they obscured expenses and minimized the potential for public concern. Private military contractors were not only costly, but their involvement in numerous infamous incidents may have had a destabilizing effect, exacerbating the conflict and its costs. Ultimately, the Iraq war demonstrates that, despite the reassurances or subterfuge of political leaders, war is an inevitably costly endeavor. — Michael Boyle

:lol: I have gone from discouraged to joy. There is so much to say about war. Christianity got a lot of converts because it was believed the people with the most powerful god won wars, and Romans with their superior armies won a lot of wars and brought Christianity to conquered people. However, the Athenians did not like their war god who brought chaos.

Was Ares popular in Athens?
Ares, in Greek religion, god of war or, more properly, the spirit of battle. Unlike his Roman counterpart, Mars, he was never very popular, and his worship was not extensive in Greece. He represented the distasteful aspects of brutal warfare and slaughter.Oct 1, 2023

Ares | God, Myths, Siblings, Family, & Facts | Britannica — Britannica

I have already stated, many times, how vital, effective, robust, ingrained, checks and balances against any abuse of authority are. Any proposals for a fully representative democratic socialist system, with global, international, national and local tiers, will fail, without them. — universeness

Do you have a chart of that organization? Sometimes it is easier for me to understand if I am looking at a picture. I wish I had more time and energy because I would like a separate thread to handle the subject of how governments are organized. This is a very important and complex story crucial to the subject of culture. Your citizens can do only as well as they learn to do. They must be educated and that is the subject of this thread. It is a twin to the subject of organization because if the government is too strong it disenfranchises citizens and becomes the enemy of democracy.

Would you consider Hitler or any such butcher or someone like a pedophile/rapist/theistic suicide bomber, a scumbag? and if you did, would you consider such a statement, a statement that also means that you feel superior to such people? I certainly would not play such conceptual games. I think you are fully able to understand the different mind states between these two quotes of mine below, and find both statements valid in the way I intend them to be received. — universeness

I do not think a suicide bomber is a scumbag. I do not know if Hitler brutalized anyone. I think he delegated responsibility and did not pay attention to what others were doing. I don't think any of the war criminals saw themselves as evil wrongdoers. There is a danger of mob mentality or being caught up in the drama of the moment. This is where the subject of the importance of learning virtues and culture comes in. The Ku Klux Klan was a horrible racist organization and very nice Christian women were very much of this racist culture. We sure do not have clean hands and maybe sociology has something valuable to teach us?

I do not about me being superior to others, but I know there is a higher self and I strive to be a better person. I am so much wiser than I once was and it is just good luck that my life came out pretty well. I am extremely grateful to those who helped me do better.

I spit on all notions of aristocracy, no matter how you try to dress such a category up, to make such seem clean and attractive. — universeness

Well, I will do my laundry tomorrow and wash away the spit. And I will dress nicely and behave civilly and indulge myself in some intellectual pursuit. that gives me pleasure and I am very grateful for the very good life I have even though I have always been monetarily very poor. So I will keep saying we can all be aristocratic and I think this is a good thing about democracy. I can avoid the man who has 8 children and never married.

he USofA has been at war with somebody though pretty much its entire existence. And its thriving industry has always been a great supporter (and supplier) of those wars; reciprocally, the army (and black ops) was always available to safeguard American enterprise in foreign lands. Friends with benefits, as it were. Even if it meant overthrowing a democratic government or any kind, really, when they threatened US business interests. — Vera Mont

The subject is not the morality of war, but a change in military technology that led to a change in education. 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. Trump is not our Hitler because of who he is, but because he is being what half our nation wants our president to be, and that is not the democracy we defended in world wars. We are no longer the democracy we were. The citizens of the US are their own worst enemy and this is why I write.

Perhaps another quote from a book about Germany written as Germany prepared for the First World War would help, but I am tired and very discouraged. A Prussian explained the change in the military organization that was essential to modern warfare. The new army includes a nation's Industrial leaders taking over the tasks of supplying the army's needs. Now Government and Industry are linked together as they never were before. This is very much an economic challenge because the modern military force requires the very best technology and that is very expensive, so the government must take control of the economy as it never did before. If Russia and China are smart they will encourage wars that involve the US and strictly avoid engaging the US in war. All they need to do is bleed our economy by creating conditions that demand the US come to someone's defense. A bankrupt nation can not afford war, if our credit is destroyed and we have to pay more to borrow money, we are dog meat! Today's war is not the war of the past where the men can walk to the battle with their own rifles and possibly be on the winning side. Our military superiority has been our economy and military technology, not the brave or stupid men who fought in the past. Take out our satellites and we are in deep shit. Money and technology.

We seriously need to expand the discussion of fascism as an economic organization that can improve our lives.
— Athena

Not here, I think. Only let me observe that taking good ideas from other developed or developing nations does not logically require that you also follow their political regime.

I have to say what a pleasure it is to discuss things with a person who is so well-informed.
— Athena
I can't really accept the compliment, since I didn't know many of those facts - or only the broad outlines - until I looked them up. I do a lot of research for my work, so I've developed a nose for good sources. — Vera Mont

For many years, no one else has cared enough to do any research based on what I say. No one else has come as close as you to grasping the subject. Understanding German history and fascism is important but we can focus on education and make progress.

Do we agree education and culture go together? Perhaps I should have begun with the following quotes but I hate copying them out of books. The following is from an 1899 book "TALKS TO TEACHERS ON PSYCHOLOGY; AND TO STUDENTS ON SOME OF LIFE'S IDEALS".

"If we reflect upon the various ideals of education that are prevalent in the different countries, we see that what they all aim at is to organize capacities for conduct. This is most immediately obvious in Germany, where the explicitly avowed aim of higher education is to turn the student into an instrument for advancing scientific discovery. The German universities are proud of the number of young specialists whom they turn out every year,- not necessarily men of any original force of intellect, but men so trained to research that when their professor gives them an historical or philoogical thesis to prepare, or a bit of laboratory work to do, with a general indication as to the best method, they can go off by themselves and use apparatus and consult sources in such a way as to grind out in the requisite number of months some little pepper-corn of new truth worthy of being added to the store of extant human information on that subject. Little else is recognized in Germany as a man's title to academic advancement than his ability thus to show himself an efficient instrument of research.

In England, it might seem at first as if the higher education of the universities aimed at the production of certain static types of character rather than at the development of what one may call this dynamic scientific efficiency. Professor Jowett, when asked what Oxford could do for its students, is said to have replied, "Oxford can teach an English gentleman how to be an English gentleman. But, if you ask what it means to 'be' an Englishman, the only reply is in terms of conduct and behavior. An English gentleman is a bundle of specifically qualified reactions, a creature who for all the emergencies of life has his line of behavior distinctly marked out for him in advance. Here, as elsewhere, England expects every man to do his duty. — William James

William goes on to explain "The Neccissity of Reactions" and that, of course, is about culture. It goes with Thomas Jefferson's concern. This link is worth reading if an understanding of how to protect democracy. Jewet is speaking of Thomas Jefferson.

He placed education as the foundation of democracy. Ignorance and sound self-government could not exist to- gether; the one destroyed the other. A des- potic government could restrain its citizens and deprive the people of their liberties only if they were ignorant.

Thomas Jefferson and the Purposes of Education — Dr. Thomas O. Jewett

Now we need awareness about what war and military technology have to do with education and culture change. The following quote comes from the 1917 National Education Association Conference. Sinclair was one of the speakers. The Prussians united Germany and centralized education and focused it on education for technology for military and industrial purposes. That is the education that results in Sinclair's admiration of Germany.

The German military organization is the world's model, at least from the standpoint of immediate accomplishment of results, and therefore we can hardly do better than to emulate it in its perfect working. It was effected in its minutest detail by the very essence of scientific thought and application. In that organization every tongue fitted its groove, every tooth its socket. We have seen how the Kaiser's marvelous soldiers carried their banner to the very outskirts of Paris in August and September,1914. It is the Great God efficiency, to which the Germans were required by their commanders to pay the homage of worship- and it behooves us either to effect a thing that will operate as well or to copy theirs. The fact of the world at war has silenct the erring lips that declared against the necessity for preparation against disaster, like that of Belgium and Servia.

They had developed in Europe and in America, among those active in the cause of universal peace, a trend to discredit the military service of their countries in their armies and their navies. In America this was particularly true, in spite of the fact that no one can look carefully into the work of our Army or Navy without concluding that either branch offers a career of which any parent may be proud, and which any son may enter with the fullest devotion and the highest ideals. ... — J. A. B. Sinclair, Surgeon, United States Navy,

At the same conference, Sara H. Fahey and an English teacher spoke about Americanizing immigrants who had no understanding of our democratic institutions and prepared all children for good citizenship. This education was a literary one that transmitted a culture, not education for technology. We did not count on parents to teach their children good citizenship because their parents were not prepared to do this. At the time parents were mostly illiterate and/or immigrants. Jobs depended on healthy bodies not book learning. A healthy body without the necessary education can serve Hitler or anyone else just by following orders. And we may have our own Hitler resulting from education for technology trumping liberal education for good moral judgment and good citizenship.

An effective civil service is vital to a nation's well-being and with big, diverse populations, it had better be well organized to be any use at all. If Germany got its act together sooner, their example was worth following. However, the US civil service was reformed in 1978 and again 20 years later, with more changes and cutbacks introduced in the present century, so it's a long way from the post-war model by now. Political appointments to the directorships of departments are huge drawback in policy-making and employee participation, as well as risk management - which is presumably why its effectiveness is waning. Of course, if the Trumpites take over, it'll just be torn down anyway. — Vera Mont

Oh boy, I love that statement!:heart: If Germany got its act together sooner, their example was worth following. Oh, oh are you aware of the Steam Punk movement?

Steampunk is a subgenre of science fiction that incorporates retrofuturistic technology and aesthetics inspired by, but not limited to, 19th-century industrial steam-powered machinery.[1][2][3] Steampunk works are often set in an alternative history of the Victorian era or the American "Wild West", where steam power remains in mainstream use, or in a fantasy world that similarly employs steam power. — wikipedia

That might not be the best explanation as steampunk is so tied to our higher human potential and how capitalism wasted away the higher potential of technological development. Artistically and poetically it is tied to our struggles and capitalist exploitation that left the masses out in the cold. Whereas Germany was the first to have universal medical coverage, workers' compensation, and a national pension plan. The book Poverty and Riches written at the beginning of WWI argued against the British and US exploitation of humans and against taking the British side considering how much better Germany was doing. It provided a higher standard of living and like it or not, many thought fascism was the best way to avoid economic crashes. We seriously need to expand the discussion of fascism as an economic organization that can improve our lives.

I have to run, but once again I have to say what a pleasure it is to discuss things with a person who is so well-informed. Yes, the German bureaucratic model and education for technology make achieving a high standard of living for all, possible. Unfortunately, we have been focused on the national defense side of the German model. THANK YOU FOR KNOWING ENOUGH TO ADVANCE OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THESE MATTERS. :heart: