Interesting. I personally agree that way too many people go to university and that many attain degrees and remain impervious to both knowledge and wisdom.

allowing for (more) nepotism and cronyism — baker

Not sure i understand how that helps. Trump University?

The emergence and spread of postmodernism is an indicator of how the world of academia exists primarily for its own sake, catering to its own needs, interests, and concerns. It's also a cautionary tale of what happens when academia is opened to plebeians, ie. people who don't belong there. — baker

Thinking that having everybody going to tertiary education would improve the economy and the society is the error. Yes, a lot of people opt for easy subjects which don't have actual demand on the private sector, just a few openings to teach the subject. Yet university level education ought to simply show that you are quite capable of learning new things and working in various jobs that demand complex thinking. But when that bar is lowered too low, then you have a problem.

Of course if the attitude in the university is to a) party, b) somehow manage through the exams and c) forget everything later, then naturally that doesn't help in the long run. It should be about life long learning, as the philosopher John Dewey put it.

That people are educated is a really important issue. Just to give one example, having a functioning democracy needs people to be educated and aware of political issues.

↪baker Interesting. I personally agree that way too many people go to university and that many attain degrees and remain impervious to both knowledge and wisdom. — Tom Storm

Not simply impervious to knowledge and wisdom. But in order for knowledge to have a chance to become wisdom, the person has to meet the socio-economic requirements for such a process. The poor usually can't meet those requirements. There is a kind of misery that only the educated poor know.

This is not to say that the poor cannot be wise about anything; it's just that they cannot be wise about fancy academic topics.

allowing for (more) nepotism and cronyism
— baker
Not sure i understand how that helps. Trump University?

Democarcy and egalitarianism are harmful, counterproductive for academia, which is by its nature elitist and competitive.

That people are educated is a really important issue. — ssu

The question is, educated in what? "Educated" as in being a member of the socio-economic elite, or as in vocational training?

But in order for knowledge to have a chance to become wisdom, the person has to meet the socio-economic requirements for such a process. The poor usually can't meet those requirements. — baker

I think you lost me here. What socio-economic requirements are needed and how does that process work?

I'll put it that way: If you find yourself calculating how many hours you need to work in order to be able to pay for a theater play ticket or a book of philosophy, then you're too poor for art and philosophy.

But if University is free then perhaps that part won't matter? I'm trying to establish if you think there is something about poor or 'not rich' people intrinsic to education other than access to resource or potential connections.

But if University is free then perhaps that part won't matter? — Tom Storm

It always matters. Even if university education is free, one would still need considerable resources in order to be able to keep up with those who could readily afford the tuition, so that one could still viably compete for internships, network, etc..

This is esp. pronounced in the humanities and esp. in the arts when students are aiming to graduate from knowledge of a culture to which they cannot afford to belong.

I'm trying to establish if you think there is something about poor or 'not rich' people intrinsic to education other than access to resource or potential connections.

I don't think poverty mentality is intrinsic to poor people, as long as they stay within the bounds of what is realistically possible for them. But it rears its head when a person tries to live far above what they can afford.

Like in the above example of finding yourself calculating how many hours you need to work in order to be able to pay for a theater play ticket: sure, you might still go ahead and buy it and go see that play. But your experience of it will be marred with the knowledge that you had to make sacrifices; you will not be able to "enjoy" the play. Eventually, you'll end up resenting the theater, or idolizing it. Either way, you won't be able to establish a critical attitude toward it, the way you're supposed to according to art theory. It'll be too personal for you.

Thanks for clarifying your views.

The question is, educated in what? "Educated" as in being a member of the socio-economic elite, or as in vocational training? — baker

Starting from the basics, educated as being able to read. Then having basic education. It is not only that people can work in more technical jobs, but also have an understanding of things like math, biology, history and so on. It is very useful for a society to function.

To argue this point, here is an anecdote: I remember a friend that served in Afghanistan and worked in CIMIC (Civil-Military-Cooperation), which in reality stood for military intelligence that even leftist politicians accepted. Then there were going to be elections in Afghanistan and her team had to gather intel on how the population was feeling about the elections. In this work going to small hamlets she could see what being in war for decades means for the education level of the people. Many didn't know there was an election and few didn't know just what elections are. Things like what a "kilometer" is were not known to many. After coming back from the country, she had large doubts of the progress been made there.

The literacy rate in Afghanistan is now 43% and over 10 million Afghanis are illiterate.

Now with this kind of voter population, you think a functioning democracy can be created with voters following politics and choosing better candidates from others?

Since, let's say, 1900 (the period in which the vast share of humanities, knowledge and technologies have been created and accumulated), I wonder what the percentage of intellectual leaders (i.e. confirmed & influential geniuses) from across all academic disciplines are/were elite-born and raised. I'll bet my last two bit(coin)s that even a cursory survey shows it's less than 10%, thereby refuting @baker's notion, if I understand her/him correctly, that tertiary education is best left only to the elite-born & raised since working class and middle class aspirants only dumb it – civilization & culture – down and are good for nothing more than "vocational training". :chin:

The literacy rate in Afghanistan is now 43% and over 10 million Afghanis [sic] are illiterate.

Now with this kind of voter population, you think a functioning democracy can be created with voters following politics and choosing better candidates from others? — ssu

The problem with Afghans is not their education level. One issue is that democracy is totally foreign to them, who tend to decide things by consensus (among males). Another is the religious mindset spread by education, as most people with an education in Afghanistan got it from a madrassa, ie a coranic school. As a result, they see political leaders as being either from God or from the Devil; their political world is still "enchanted". Yet another issue is tribal law and tribal politics that trump any national sentiment.

most people with an education in Afghanistan got it from a madrassa, ie a coranic school. — Olivier5

Let me add that many of these madrassas are funded by one Islamic party or another, and are often used as ideological training grounds, as PoMo would predict. Textbooks such as this are not uncommon:



Afghanistan's brush up with modernity happened in the 70's with the Daoud regime and the early days of the communist regime. The tribes revolted Jehad-type against the whole thing circa 79/80.

So perhaps you don't need to be modern first in order to become postmodern, since the Afghans have skipped the modernity phase almost entirely, and yet display postmodern tendencies re the malleability of truth.

Now with this kind of voter population, you think a functioning democracy can be created with voters following politics and choosing better candidates from others? — ssu

Why should the Afghans have democracy? Can you justify?

We have democracy, and what good has it done us?

Since, let's say, 1900 (the period in which the vast share of human fine arts, knowledge and technologies have been created and accumulated), I wonder what the percentage of intellectual leaders (i.e. confirmed & influential geniuses) from across all academic disciplines are/were elite-born and raised. I'll bet my last two bit(coin)s that even a cursory survey shows it's less than 10%, thereby refuting baker's notion, if I understand her/him correctly, that tertiary education is best left only to the elite-born & raised since working class and middle class aspirants only dumb it – civilization & culture – down and are good for nothing more than "vocational training". — 180 Proof

Please remind us how global warming and global pollution have come about!

Why should the Afghans have democracy? Can you justify?

We have democracy, and what good has it done us? — baker

You're serious? ? ?

Democracy is what brought us a police state and cutthroat capitalism.

Democracy is what brought us a police state and cutthroat capitalism. — baker

Yes, it is exactly the same in any Western country as it is in Afghanistan.

Democracy is what brought us a police state and cutthroat capitalism. — baker

I assume you refer to the US or to some Western democracy (if not, please correct).

You then truly to compare your "plight" to a country where since 1978 from 1,4 million to over 2 million people have died in a continuing war from a population of 32 million? In a country where it all started with a Communist revolution that killed instantly thousands? Guess they don't need democracy, basic rights or working institutions.

The simple fact is that the alternatives to democracy are pretty ugly indeed. They are only so many Monacos, Bruneis or Gulf States, you know. The problems in the US or West are not in any way in the same ballpark as in non-democratic Third World countries. One should remember that.

Sadly, I'm pretty sure it's easier for the avergae Afghan to earn a living and to know how to behave in order to escape calumny than it is for a Westerner.

The problems in the US or West are not in any way in the same ballpark as in non-democratic Third World countries. One should remember that. — ssu

For the poor in first world countries, it's not much different.

Afghanistan's brush up with modernity happened in the 70's with the Daoud regime and the early days of the communist regime. The tribes revolted Jehad-type against the whole thing circa 79/80. — Olivier5

There is a pattern in Afghanistan of rulers trying to install modernity and not being successful with it. After Daud the Saur revolution led to a lot of people being killed...and a forty year war.

For the poor in first world countries, it's not much different. — baker

Actually, it is.

People who are poor in the US (or Finland) would be quite rich in the Democratic republic of Congo. You see, from the global perspective you have to look at absolute povetry. Nearly all of the statistics about povetry in the First World are of poverty compared to the median/average income.

Starting from people that earn less than 1$ a day or 365$ a year. Huge difference to those who are poor in the US.

The relevant type of poverty is the relative poverty. It does not help the poor in first world countries that they would be rich in some banana republic. Because they don't live there. No, they have to make do where they are, in the first world country.

The relevant type of poverty is the relative poverty. It does not help the poor in first world countries that they would be rich in some banana republic. Because they don't live there. No, they have to make do where they are, in the first world country. — baker

It's pretty outrageous to even consider that being poor in a rich western country is the same as being poor in Third World country. So no: absolute poverty is the real issue. Relative povetry doesn't mean anything globally as there are such huge differences between countries. Just imagine if you would just consider the richest place in the US where the average household income is half a million dollars. How poor really is relatively poor household that only would get only 200 000$ or less?

Your government considers poor being a family of four earning annually 25 000$ or less. The global median family income is less than 10 000$. Hence basically the majority of all the people in the World live in povetry...compared to the US. And it doesn't change so much when you count the cost of living to change this: prices of a car or apartment are still quite comparable.

Living in a small hut without electricity and running water is something different to having an income of 40% of the median income in the US or having that 25 000$ or so annual income for a family. And the homeless people in the US? There's half a million of them in a country with 320 million people. In the Democratic Republic of Congo there are about 90 million people who call DRC home do not consistently have a home. Not surprising in a country where 72% of the people live in extreme poverty.

I rest my case.

Yes. To be historically complete, there was a first brush up with modernity during the reign of Amanullah Khan in the 1920's. It also led to a popular revolt. The recent attempts by the Americans were equally unsuccessful.

It's pretty outrageous to even consider that being poor in a rich western country is the same as being poor in Third World country. — ssu

An actual person can only look at and experience things from their own perspective, from their own experience, from their own life as it is, right on the spot.

To an actual person, the abstract perspective of a government statistical institution is irrelevant.

Is this really so hard to understand? What does it help you if you are rich by the standards of some banana republic, when you live in a first world country and struggle to make ends meet, constantly living on the edge of exhaustion?

Is this really so hard to understand? — baker

Is it really hard to understand that extreme povetry, that you really don't have anything, is different from relative poverty, that you have less than your wealthy counterparts?

What does it help you if you are rich by the standards of some banana republic, when you live in a first world country and struggle to make ends meet, constantly living on the edge of exhaustion? — baker

Keep on bitching about despair of people in the wealthiest country where people don't starve to death, where institutions work, where poor do get assistance, unlike in other parts of this World and then insist that it doesn't matter at all just where we draw the line when we talk about poverty.

The simple truth: in which country you are poor does matter. No way to refute it.

Is it really hard to understand that extreme povetry, that you really don't have anything, is different from relative poverty, that you have less than your wealthy counterparts? — ssu

In a first world country, a poor person has to have many things just to be able to live up to the demands of earning a living. One doesn't have them for one's own luxury. For example, having a car and a smart phone is a must, or one could be unemployable.

Keep on bitching about despair of people in the wealthiest country where people don't starve to death, where institutions work, where poor do get assistance, unlike in other parts of this World and then insist that it doesn't matter at all just where we draw the line when we talk about poverty.

The simple truth: in which country you are poor does matter. No way to refute it.

Perhaps there are first world countries where what you say happens, but I'm not living in one. If I don't manage to take care of myself, it's death in the gutter for me.

If I don't manage to take care of myself, it's death in the gutter for me. — baker

That's the first dividing line with well to do countries and others. There is no so cohesion, nobody will help a stranger.

Seeing abandoned children in the gutter made me understand why people would fall for such crazy ideas as marxism-leninism. Then it makes sense to send the rich to hell. Unfortunately many other things go to hell then also.