I think you’re right about that.

Education is never impartial; it often represents the beliefs and desires of the people and institutions that provide it. Church education, for instance, never forgot to instil a belief in the church and its religion.

As for public education, my opinion is that the state doesn’t want philosophers and people who can think for themselves. It wants dutiful tax-payers, soldiers, state employees, and dependents. Thus the system trains the population into a state of serf-mindedness and compliance. It teaches us to glorify the very institution that provides for their training.

There's a pro and a con in it: in making oneself apparently invulerable to propaganda, it seems frequently the case that one also makes oneself unavailable to *learn from what previous humans have learned*. So you have the plus of not believing a bunch of lies, but you have the negative of also not believing a bunch of truths. I think we've probably all seen people apply skepticism so deeply that they practically remove themselves from the entire human endeavour of sharing knowledge - if you can't trust what anybody says, then you have to learn everything from scratch yourself! And there's only so much of that any one person can do in their lifetime.

One of humanity's biggest strengths is our ability to pass on knowledge, learn from what people who came before us learned and documented. Shutting oneself off from that seems... counter productive, to me.

Like many things, there ought to be a way to find a healthy middle ground - one where you apply proper skepticism to avoid the most egregious propaganda, but you don't apply it so deeply that you have to start your knowledge journey from scratch.

Pray tell, what is your opinion on the state of global education. For me, the critical thinker is resilient to rhetoric and propaganda, the fact learner is however....not. — Benj96

It does happen that way. But it also happens in the opposite direction.

The power of universal literacy and an informed consensus is the engine of democratic life. What people do with their education, however, is widely various. The academy has given birth to the normative as well as the revolutionary. Those who learned through applied skills can be as closed minded or open minded as those from other backgrounds. The Liberal Arts happen where they are alive and kicking.

Not so sure philosopher and critical thinker are one and the same.

Not so sure philosopher and critical thinker are one and the same. — jgill

That's for sure. I could even say that one of the most nuanced philosophical thinkers of the 20th century (Heidegger) seemed to find the Nazi narrative acceptable. But that might be gauche.

Pray tell, what is your opinion on the state of global education. For me, the critical thinker is resilient to rhetoric and propaganda, the fact learner is however....not. — Benj96

Is anyone on earth an expert on global education? Who would even know 1% of what takes place in the realm of education on the planet?

Even the term 'critical thinking' is contextualised through interpretations and iterations and is always subject to a criterion of value which is itself contingent.

Too many education systems rely heavily on "fact-spouting" and "rote learning" over "debate/discussion/discourse". — Benj96

Really? Rote learning seems to have been out of favour for decades. There are some
vestigial traces of it left, but education in parts of the West seems to have moved on. Even when I was at school, we did not have to learn dates and facts. They were seen as the product of outmoded Victorian era educational practices.

My daughter's generation (she is 27) were very much given a discussion/debate/discourse model of education. But as I hinted above, different countries do different things.

What we probably need to do is cite specific educational approaches as implemented and then subject them to some evidence based scrutiny rather than just present untheorized opinions on 'education'.

That's for sure. I could even say that one of the most nuanced philosophical thinkers of the 20th century (Heidegger) seemed to find the Nazi narrative acceptable. But that might be gauche. — Tom Storm

Yeh, but Derrida and Levinas baptized his thoughts, if not his soul. ;)

Not so sure philosopher and critical thinker are one and the same. — jgill

Keep in mind that the folk hereabouts are not philosophers.

including yourself? Just curious.

Pray tell, what is your opinion on the state of global education. For me, the critical thinker is resilient to rhetoric and propaganda, the fact learner is however....not. — Benj96

While many facts are results of critical thinking, critical thinking without fact-learning is anti-intellectual.

Lots of propaganda masquerades as "critical thinking" where the sole purpose of the "thinking" is to cast suspicion or doubt on the facts, e.g. to undermine the possibility to criticize false or nonsensical claims etc.

including yourself? — Paine

I'm borderline, with a couple of degrees and actually having been paid many years ago to teach philosophy at Uni.

There might be a half-dozen folk on the forums who have some idea of how to do philosophy. Most of them only post very occasionally.

Overwhelmingly, the forum is populated by folk who read a book once, and so think they know how to do fil-o-so-fee...

And it shows.

In the 1950s we were expected to memorize some things like the multiplication table. It remains a useful bit of rote learning, I before E except after C" is a useful rule, but is neither weird nor foreign nor the height of forfeiture--something to explain to a caffeine-addled heifer on codeine at one's leisure while one seizes the day.

But yes, information presented without a cohesive narrative, or historical contextualization ends up being only potentially useful. Learning how big a frog's genome is, by itself is a big SO WHAT? Learning the names of each gyrus and sulcus in a brain is not very useful unless one learns what they do and how these various parts relate to an animal's actual life.

Juvenile students generally can not supply a narrative or context themselves, at least one that is appropriate. An educated middle-aged adult can receive new information and devise a mental structure which makes sense of it. High school students have long complained about having to study literature. "What is the point of reading this stuff? What is the point of learning history? I don't care what happened 200 years ago or what a poem really means."

I'm not sure to what extent English Lit and History teachers themselves have a solid narrative in the heads which enable them to deliver facts in a meaningful (and interesting) context. College literature and history classes are offered as big chunks which may be studied completely out of sequence. The students are assigned big blocks of material to read (or skim) through; the lecturer will add information about say, Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy (1621). How much understanding about depression, or melancholy, a student will depart with is doubtful -- because in several days the class will move on to another big chunk of text. Who influenced Burton and who did Burton influence? Who claimed to have benefitted from reading the Anatomy of Melancholy, back in 1621?

What is the over-arching story of the American Experience, 1620 to 2024? at 77 I feel like I have some idea, and it isn't what I was taught in high school. It isn't that what was taught was just a pack of lies. Rather, a lot of topics were left out. The Erie Canal opened in 1825. What were the political, social, and economic consequences? What was traveling on early railroads (or even ones in the early 1900s) like? How did the more sparsely settled South become so politically powerful, and stay that way into the mid-20th century?

It might be worth pointing out how parochial that post is.

It might be. but I'm sure you Australians, even you, have your own parochial views you will want to air.

Oh, yes, indeed. Parochialism one of the things education is supposed to guard against - education, and travel.

I doubtless need to get out more.

Overwhelmingly, the forum is populated by folk who read a book once, and so think they know how to do fil-o-so-fee... — Banno

As opposed to someone who jumped straight to the very last relevant philosopher and thinks he has the answer to all discussions posed on this website. But yet no answer is ever posted, just dumb rhetorical questions that seem to have skipped Plato.

...the very last relevant philosopher... — Lionino

Meh. The stuff I study is fifty years out of date.

If you were this genius with the answers to everything, you would be touring the world, something that much less impressive people like JBP and SH already do, instead of enlightening us poor idiots with your rhetorical questions. Rhetorical questions which through repetition often seem to be a veil for a request to have the topic's material summarised for you.

There are people here who have actual qualifications in philosophy, I personally know many in real life, none of them say the things you do. So is your attitude a result of your grand knowledge or is it a result of your own personality?

The fact you think philosophy boils down to words suggests you can't summon an apple in your head and spin it around. As to critical thinking, the statement "there are no philosophers here" doesn't show lots of it.

The stuff I study is fifty years out of date. — Banno

In philosophy, new doesn't equal better, the opposite is true. Back to Plato.

Pray tell, what is your opinion on the state of global education — Benj96

Not good. But many (not close to all) youths don't care about education and only want to skip classes to hang out and do drugs. So education isn't the issue here, otherwise everybody would be getting 10s everywhere — environmental or genetic, I think both, but emphasis on the latter.

My "attitude" is entirely down to me. I'm pleased that others are not saying the same stuff I do; I might therefore claim some small originality, although I suspect it has more to do with my being unfashionable. I'm sorry that you don't think this forum is part of your real life, with which it seems you are quite annoyed.

Nice of you to make this thread all about me. Cheers. Keep it up.

Facts are not skills. Which is why I support philosophy as a fundamental pillar of education. And yet many nations or education systems do not offer philosophy as a primary or secondary level module. If it were up to me it would be mandatory and fostered from an early age.

I think the issue is that many assessments are based on an objective points based system. If "Fact X,Y or Z" is mentioned then assign 1, 2 or 3 points to said exam response.

This is not learning, it's a memory test. — Benj96

I do think the U.S. is too opposed to philosophy, but the problem with your proposal is that "philosophy" is an incredibly elusive term. I would follow Lloyd Gerson in defining it in terms of Plato's wake, but many would disagree with me. So perhaps philosophy is a prophylaxis against propaganda; it's just that we will never be able to agree on what "philosophy" should mean.

So perhaps philosophy is a prophylaxis against propaganda; it's just that we will never be able to agree on what "philosophy" should mean. — Leontiskos

Moreover, it's not so clear what "propaganda" is, either. But we would not want to make this a discussion about the use of "words..."

...global education... — Benj96

Am I right in thinking of you, Ben, as an Englishman?

Here's some data that might be reassuring. More folk are better educated than ever before.

Critical thinking is more of a middle-class concern, perhaps, on the global scale.

Moreover, it's not so clear what "propaganda" is, either. But we would not want to make this a discussion about the use of "words..." — Banno

1) yes I was going to make the same point and 2) clever bugger.

Keep in mind that the folk hereabouts are not philosophers. — Banno

Thank goodness. Do you think the emerging romantics who want to go back to the Greeks count as philosophy or is this just a romantic nostalgia project?

Do you think the emerging romantics who want to go back to the Greeks count as philosophy or is this just a romantic nostalgia project? — Tom Storm

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment. :wink:

Philosophy is crucial to self-control and yes it helps us to understand things. No, education is not perfect, it is in fact unfairly filtering youth, and working towards tinkering madly with our broken society machine. There is lots that needs to change; philosophy lessons in primary and secondary schools would be a good start. However, any philosophy lesson should be about self-control, rather than positions on past topics, or interpretations of past people's thinking.

many nations or education systems do not offer philosophy as a primary or secondary level module — Benj96

Good. A quick look into political discussions shows how philosophy is likely deleterious. Besides, the term “philosophy” is basically meaningless anyway.

Be a decent human being and teach basic stuff and kids will be fine.

Thank goodness. Do you think the emerging romantics who want to go back to the Greeks count as philosophy or is this just a romantic nostalgia project? — Tom Storm

I was not aware of such a movement. Does that category include those who have read a lot of Greek texts?

Asking for a friend.

Not sure it is a movement as such and I haven't made a survey of this, but it seems to be an emerging view here in some of the posts and orientations of members (and various people I know personally) and you can count thinkers like Canadian academic John Vervaeke, David Bentley Hart, even Jordan Peterson likes to potter about in this space.

I was first conscious of a contra-enlightenment school when sociologist John Carroll wrote a polemical text called Humanism 1993. The argument (and I am simplifying) generally points to the consumerism and toxic relativism of contemporary culture, pins this 'loss of meaning' on enlightenment thinking (death of God) and recommends we return to Aristotle (and, if Christian, Aquinas).

Take a look at these ngrams.

There does appear to be a significant increase in mention.

That is interesting. Cheers.

Some of the actual scholars of the texts do promote such views. Others do not. A concerted engagement with the texts is needed if one is to decide for oneself.

A concerted engagement with the texts is needed if one is to decide for oneself. — Paine

That's just what they want you tho think...
:wink: