I think that it is mainly to situate you for particular occupations and employment. — All sight

Just keep in mind that what you are doing here is no more than setting out your own preference.

You don't really say much that is conducive to reply. Quips, and winning and losing.

Perhaps you are not saying as much as you think you are.

We might consider this:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/freedom-learn/201309/schools-are-good-showing-not-learning

"Just keep in mind that what you are doing here is no more than setting out your own preference."

I promise you that it is not. Inferring that I'm in support of it, because I say it is so...? Not everyone works like that.

Ok?

So

I think that it is mainly to situate you for particular occupations and employment. — All sight

is supposed to be descriptive?

It's not. Most stuff taught in high schools and universities is never used at work.

Yeah, and they tend to tell you that when you get the job, or even during the education process. That you don't actually start learning until you get the jobs. The fact is still that occupations have educational requirements.

Just a side question.

Aristotle implied that education should provide happiness based on a hierarchy of importance. To him, mathematics stood above politics or writing. Is this view still embraced to this day, as treating happiness by the intellectual rigor of the field of study?

This is the more nuanced view of education presented by Aristotle. Eudaimonia is the second more popular view promoted by him. However, I can't get the Platonic elitist view out of my head, which Aristotle rehashed with treating happiness as an intellectual activity. This same line of reasoning is presented by utilitarianism and Mill, even Bertrand Russell held this view of education.

The fact is still that occupations have educational requirements. — All sight

Sure. Organisations have to look as if they are acting rationally. But they are not. They will choose someone with a degree over someone who pulled out just before graduation, but with higher marks. it's called the Sheepskin effect.

Then we agree.

Is this view still embraced to this day, as treating happiness by the intellectual rigor of the field of study? — Posty McPostface

By whom?

Do we? What about?

By whom? — Banno

By the common folk, I suppose. You can find it in those ivory towers also. The whole idea of 'competitiveness' hinges on this fact.

Somewhat illusory; I suppose.

I don't think that is true. Aristotle thought that education was for "exercising the mind" or our capacity for reason (he also thought that you should exercise the body, and then the mind), which played directly into his ideas of eudaimonia, and the development of character, which doesn't lead to "happiness" like a feeling one has, but one's manifest well being, and prosperity. Health, and wealth. Not a feeling.

Then back to my first observation. The common folk don't agree. Nor is it obvious that even if they dod, they would be right.

Hence, back to my original observation - why only one, or even some, aim?

What is more important, the aim or the process?

Why must education have a teleology?

"Do we? What about?"

Everything you happen to be right about.

Ok, then I am right that education should not serve any particular purpose.

Surely you're playing devil's advocate. There is a difference between child-rearing in a jungle and no education compared to a child brought up in a society.

I don't think that is true. Aristotle thought that education was for "exercising the mind" or our capacity for reason (he also thought that you should exercise the body, and then the mind), which played directly into his ideas of eudaimonia, and the development of character, which doesn't lead to "happiness" like a feeling one has, but one's manifest well being, and prosperity. Health, and wealth. Not a feeling. — All sight

So, under this understanding education only serves a utility-function? How crass.

So education is useless? Or just ultimately not tied down to any particular purpose necessarily? Like you won't discover the purpose of education, hiding behind the nucleus of an atom?

Just saw some similar comments, but since I’m feeling a bit cranky myself:

Uhum. To hell with happiness. You want to be happy go to Disney town until you’re sick and tired of it, then, after your fed up with being happy, go back to class where the teachers teach you (and not “facilitate”) about the world.

Problem is that too many teachers today have their heads stuck up their donkey, have no good education themselves, and don’t give a hoot about children’s welfare—which doesn’t consist in being happy, but in being well-informed. Why do we not all get lobotomized just right so as always be happy till the moment we perish? Whatever your personal answer happens to be, it demonstrates that there’s a lot more to life than constantly feeling oneself to be on cloud nine.

And as compared to today—a time that correlates nicely with economic theories which illustrate that it’s in the interest of profit to have an uninformed/dumb electorate/populace—the 50s and 60s in America (at the very least) was one golden age of education. Because those folk were vastly more informed than we presently are. It only led to things such as increased equality between people of different stripes being institutionalized—activities which did not make the respective practitioners persistently happy, like when being bit by police dogs.

Ok, just wanted to throw that in.

I think I get what others are saying though, happiness in the sense of eudemonia … in which case, never mind all of this.

So both of you figure that education shouldn't be for any purpose? How decadent.

Whatever your personal answer happens to be, it demonstrates that there’s a lot more to life than constantly feeling oneself to be on cloud nine. — javra

This is the modern day conception of happiness. To be 'high' all the time. I'm advocating for contentment and satisfaction through education. As to how to attain or implement that is the performative function of this thread.

So both of you figure that education shouldn't be for any purpose? How decadent. — All sight

See my previous comment.

Yea :smile: . Thought I'd help out a bit by doing my part to keep the thread on topic.

Why must education have a teleology? — Banno

I wonder about this too. It started with Plato, then Aristotle, and now we continue in their footsteps. Is that a bad thing? I don't entirely know myself. It seems like on the whole of it education is beneficial to society rather than detrimental.

IS there? A concrete Jungle?

So education is useless? — All sight

See how this does not follow from what I said?

Anyone seen this?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-be-awesome/