Higher education has adopted a business model sometime in the seventies and since the bottom line is now the most important thing, a major concern is retention. — Fooloso4

Indeed. once anything becomes a business, then it seems business rule(s) apply. Seems like that could be a problem if applied to education.

This has contributed to grade inflation. Instructors bear the brunt of the blame from both students and administration if students fail or get poor grades. Students expect to get A's of B's for doing minimal work of poor quality. There is an enormous sense of entitlement. — Fooloso4

True. But businesses also seem to have a huge sense of entitlement to capable employees that they put zero investment into training. And what do you know, these business complain that their few capable employees are easily 'headhunted' by other companies. You are right about entitled students, but they would tell us, "I learned it from watching you!" (well I guess most would say, 'huh?' or maybe spew some buzzwords about equity and collaboration, but the clever ones would point out the older generations are equally 'entitled').

Some years back I read something by a professor whose evaluations by students were always low. The most common complaint was that he was too demanding. And so he decided to treat the class as if it were kindergarten. He even brought cookies for snack time. He praised them for whatever they said or did. He made sure all assignments were easy and if they could not handle even that he still graded them as if they were the exceptional students they thought they were. He quickly became teacher of the year. — Fooloso4

Sadly, this rings a bit too true.

Adjuncts are often as qualified as tenured faculty but are paid very poorly and must teach multiple courses at several schools and take other jobs on top of that if they are to live above the poverty level. The are academic migrant workers. No contracts and no benefits.This is not an exaggeration. No matter how qualified they cannot keep up with the amount of classes they teach. It is one of higher educations dirty little secrets. — Fooloso4

Back to running education like a business. Hasn't the entire economy moved in this direction for the last decade or 2? I don't remember ever hearing of 'gig economy' before that. Don't these adjuncts just have more freedom to pursue their other interests when they are paid on a 'per classes taught' basis? That last sentence was sarcasm if not obvious. It is just an example of the stuff I constantly hear about how uber drivers actually benefit from that business model.

Have a look at this OP https://www.huffpost.com/entry/god-does-not-exist_b_1288671 — Wayfarer

borderline nonsense ("God Does Not Exist" / "Let me be clear: I believe God is.") He could not be more unclear. If semantic games are enough for some people then great, but it does nothing for me.

//ps// also https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/he-who — Wayfarer

A type of strawman: ("Instead, the New Atheists ingeniously deny the existence of a bearded fellow with superpowers who lives in the sky and finds people’s keys for them.") No, they just easily dismiss any god that has been defined (christians defined the bearded fellow who finds keys). Your argument even seems to acknowledge this - hence why you are trying to "undefine" god. I would suggest this idea of an undefined god that 'is' but can't be pointed at (in any way), is a modern theistic response to atheism's clear and simple dismissal of any god that has been defined.

It’s idle to imagine a world in which there could be no suffering. To be born is to be subject to suffering. It’s the most inconvenient of truths, especially for modern man who wishes to banish all inconvenience. — Wayfarer

it's idle to imagine a deity?

In classical philosophical theology, God is not ‘a being’, although I don’t expect that will be understood. — Wayfarer

not understood in the least. And it must be very complicated.

So classical theology doesn't actually look at any specific theology?

So are you trying to discuss god without describing or defining it?

So like suffering, we shouldn't think about god? it just is?

The phrase "in god we trust" on money was first proposed by northerners during the Civil War. There was also an attempt at that time to add "god language" to the preamble of the U. S, Constitution. It didn't fly at that time, and in the years that followed. — Bitter Crank

That makes sense, and I do tend to latch onto 'official dates' and don't always consider the length of the process leading up to the date.

On the P of A issue:

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. — Bitter Crank

Huh, interesting stuff. Who would have thought that AMERICA'S pledge of allegiance began as a socialist call for world unity? An almost dictionary definition example of irony.

But one of the clearly memorable themes of the 1950s -- at least in the small town midwest where I lived -- was a very strong anticommunism. — Bitter Crank

Being educated in the 80s and 90s, I caught the tail end of that (strong anti-communism). But fortunately, by the time I got a degree in history around 2010, most of the professors spoke jokingly of the blind and rabid anti-communist culture. I am happy to see that when I teach today, students are confused by wars fought over ideology. Vietnam and the cold war seems ridiculous to most of them, just like the crusades. I guess they still have a few years to buy into some ideology and then work themselves up until they are willing to kill over it :roll:

And the Communist Party USA was on the right side of the civil rights movement--they contributed manpower and funds to help the movement from early on. — Bitter Crank

Yes. I did read something about the African American author Richard Wright who was influenced by the communist author Berthold Brecht. Wright was interested in communism because it was just about the only racially progressive political organization around at the time (I think it was in the 30s and 40s). (I actually think Wright is fairly famous - 'Native Son' was one of his big hits - unfortunately I do not read much fiction, so I don't know any of his work).

Yeah, there is a difference between religious language about God and political language about god. We expect believers to trust in God. That's sort of their thing. But politicians don't characteristically rely on miraculous beings to win. They rely on a jaded electorates, smoky back rooms, money changing hands, lies, untruths, distortions, etc. — Bitter Crank

Hmmm, I am not sure I what I like better - thinking our government was just running on blind faith and feelings OR being more intentionally manipulated in a specific direction. Maybe with the latter option I can hope that eventually there will be someone manipulating the government in a direction I approve of? I am not holding my breath though.

WHAT people believed about communism and communists was pretty heavily flavored by government agencies, business groups, and the police in the person of rabid anti-communist, anti-homosexual (and probably homosexual himself) J. Edgar Hoover, the long-time head of the FBI. — Bitter Crank

And unfortunately, so many bought it, so completely, for so long, that the lies perpetuate themselves. There are still MANY Americans that would think of Stalin as the iconic communist.

You probably haven't heard of it, but the FBI ran a program called COINTELPRO -- COunter INTELligence PROgram. It ran from 1956 to 1971, but people didn't know about it until the 1970s. It was a major effort to surveil, infiltrate, disrupt, and discredit domestic political groups of which the FBI disapproved. That included civil rights groups, leftists (not communists), Communists, women's liberation groups, anti-Vietnam War groups, campus activist groups, etc. They didn't plant bombs or assassinate people, but they interfered in ways that made political activist work less successful, because the various organizations were dealing with organizational problems that COINTELPRO caused. — Bitter Crank

I definitely have not heard of that specifically. But I know MLK Jr. was monitored by the FBI and CIA, was that part of this program? I was going to say that people today would rightly lose their minds if stuff like this occurred today, but if people are spoon fed the information in just the right way (don't worry we just monitor everyone's phone calls to find terrorists), they won't probably won't resist much :groan:

COINTELPRO was closed down after the story came out, but rest assured, the government didn't give up on surveillance and infiltration of domestic political activists. — Bitter Crank

I think Snowden showed this stuff may have changed, but never really stopped.

no sound on this computer
— ZhouBoTong

So much for the digital revolution. — Bitter Crank

Nope this is entirely on my end. Your files worked fine. I will just have to listen at home

I do not know if things have changed recently but last I checked those receiving degrees in education were in general at or near the bottom of their class. — Fooloso4

Still true in the US. And what do you know, highly rated Finland gets their teachers from the top 20% of graduating classes.

Parents tend to take the side of their children when it comes to discipline problems and will blame the teacher if the student is failing. — Fooloso4

I am not sure about Europe, but I know this is an important distinction between the US and Asian educational systems. In Asia, the teacher is generally given the benefit of the doubt, in America it is more like, MY CHILD IS BRILLIANT WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE DAMN TEACHERS!

Some years back I did some reading on the philosophy of education and it was a dismal affair. Schools would change their approach to education often and sometimes radically based on questionable theories of education and research that seemed to be designed to confirm whatever assumptions it intended to prove. — Fooloso4

Well I got a teaching degree about 5-6 years ago and the college was FULL of unproven educational ideas. Multiple Intelligences Theory by Gardener (Harvard) was the big one at the time. Education does not even attempt to assess approaches scientifically. Any time you hear of a new educational approach, know that you can't trust educational journals (even peer reviewed, i think they exist) because the study of education is inherently unscientific in America. Fortunately, you can look up educational theories in Psychology journals and get a more rigorous assessment (in the case of Multiple Intelligences you will find absolutely no evidence - they just made up new definitions for old ideas).

based on questionable theories of education and research that seemed to be designed to confirm whatever assumptions it intended to prove. — Fooloso4

yep. the madness continues. And notice that people near the top of their graduating are more likely catch on to these problems, whereas those at the bottom are just happy to have their assumptions confirmed.

Also "coolness" which can roughly be calculated by multiplying appearance value with wealth value divided by reputation; access to drugs and alcohol and other 'taboo' and infamous experiences being the ultimate deciding factor. — Grre

Seems generally true. However, I think the more ADULTS emphasize that there are a variety of ways to be "cool" the less kids will feel the need to fit that formula (notice the teachers that are 'friends' with students, it tends to be outgoing popular kids who they 'befriend' - shouldn't teachers 'befriend' almost exclusively friendless students?). Unfortunately, I am CONSTANTLY reminded that most adults want to be "cool" the same as they did in high school.

There are a few people, like Elon Musk (who is definitely one of those trying to be cool like it was high school), are at least somewhat valued (cool) for there intelligence.

I don't know. As soon as people start talking about 'cool', I start rambling off nonsense about what I think is cool, but add little to the discussion.

Johann Sebastian Bach would probably object strenuously to "tinny noise". — Bitter Crank

hahaha, I am sure he would.

The strings on their violins were made out of gut -- literally, dried out guts. Nothing wrong with that -- we still make products out of cow gut. Dissolving sutures in that cut you got stitched up? Gut. Plastic and metal strings produce more sound. Quite a few instruments that we consider essential hadn't been invented yet in the baroque period. — Bitter Crank

More interesting info. I hope at least a small percentage of this stuff sticks in my brain :smile:

here's a piece that will sound 'tinny': Vivaldi's Mandolin Concerto in C Major. Here's another 'tinny' piece, — Bitter Crank

Arg, no sound on this computer. I will have to listen to those later. I was able to find one poem by Robert Service ('Decorations'). My brain is usually to literal to get much out of poetry, but most of that seemed to make sense.

It's quite stirring. — Bitter Crank

I have always been fairly unemotional. I think I am becoming more open to "stirring" works as I get older, but i have to fight my instincts that read something like war poetry and just think, "yep, war sucks".

At the end of the 1950s, religion in America crashed. Millions of people -- Catholic and Protestant -- left their churches and did not return. Since the 1960s hemorrhage, membership has continued to bleed away, just not quite as fast.

I do remember when the Pledge of Allegiance was changed -- I think I was in 3rd grade, so... 1954 or '55. I remember learning the "under god" bit. There was that conflicting drive -- to add god to the pledge of allegiance, and Madeleine Murray O'Hare's drive to get "In God We Trust" off the money, and to ban school prayer. Official prayer got banned. I think the drive to put "under god" in the pledge of allegiance may have been more an anti-communist angle than a "religious" angle. But I'm projecting backwards. I certainly wasn't thinking about that at the time. — Bitter Crank

First, and you lived it, so what you remember is as important as exact order of events, but I think "in god we trust" was added to money a year or two after "under god" was added to pledge of allegiance. It is not hugely important to our discussion...yeah I googled Murray O'Hare and her push was in the 1960s (and while I was at it looked up - "in god we trust" was added 7/30/1956).

As I entirely trust your remaining assessment of religiosity in America, do you think maybe these two changes (adding "under god" and "in god we trust"), were one of those backlashes as religious people felt their cultural dominance slipping?

I think the drive to put "under god" in the pledge of allegiance may have been more an anti-communist angle than a "religious" angle. — Bitter Crank

I had never considered this connection, nor ever read anything like that. It seems obviously correct once you mention it though.

Well, this has been very interesting. — Bitter Crank

Your posts typically are. I sometimes think my goal is just to keep you interested and sharing for as long as possible, haha.

But nowhere in the Bible is it said that the world ought to be free of suffering. It is always understood that, as the Buddhists put it, to live is to suffer. The whole point about redemption or salvation is that you once and for all rise above that suffering, or it is no longer all-consuming, or you enter a place or plane of being where all suffering is ended for once and for all (Heaven, in the popular imagination). — Wayfarer

Whereas nowadays there are a lot of people who seem to have no conception of that sense of commitment, and then wonder why everything seems so broken. — Wayfarer

Why does a god that creates a world with suffering to test our commitment deserve our commitment? What is the point of the test? Did I need redemption/salvation before I was born? Notice buddhists do not believe in a "creator", otherwise they would have to blame 'it' for all of the suffering.

What is the difference between a god and a more advanced being? Power? That would make humans gods relative to animals. Moral perfection + complete power? This seems closer. If humans are incapable of understanding moral perfection (a common christian argument), then we can only respond to power, "Worship or die!" There can be no explanation or justification that we could understand. And we can never know if we are worshiping 'god' or 'a being named steve with access to power'. The whole endeavor becomes a "pascal's wager", but surely we can't pretend to believe (if I don't 'believe' in god can I decide to believe just in case it exists?); so the situations just becomes what one is emotionally predisposed to believe. No evidence. No reasoning. It just "feels right". And for those who get a good feeling - enjoy it! But don't act like it is more significant than my enjoyment of soccer or bbq.

And if the answer turns out to be that someone didn't want to eat broccoli but was forced to, didn't want to go to school or church but was forced to, etc., the vast majority of people would say, "Give me a break" — Terrapin Station

For sure.

and see someone suggesting that as "suffering" that's still affecting them as indicative that they need counseling, because there's something wrong with them that isn't wrong with most people. — Terrapin Station

It feels like an ad hom, but I would be lying if I said I never thought something along those lines.

Well, cradle atheists and ardent believers alike both like and need their emotions and intellects soothed regularly--by some balm or other. — Bitter Crank

indeed. I certainly was not trying to suggest that atheists are unemotional, just that "your spirit never dies" fulfills an emotional need, while "you become worm food" fulfills an informational need (I guess any "needs" in this context are emotional, so maybe I need to put some more thought into this).

A connection? Probably. Of course, there are other reasons too -- the American church (broadly speaking) has experienced regular renewal over the last two centuries -- up until the 1960s. — Bitter Crank

Do you think in America that maybe patriotism merged with religion around the 1950s (ie the pledge of allegiance), resulting in part of the difference between Europe and America?

Time for the 3rd Great Awakening? If Transcendentalism emerged out of the 2nd Great Awakening (I get that Transcendentalism is typically seen as a response to intellectualism rather than a product of religion, but the timing seems awfully coincidental), maybe a new type of spiritualism could emerge in the US in the near future? Maybe as the left-leaning christians look to distance themselves from the Trump supporters?

China's religious population seems to have grown while the country was becoming better off. But then, China isn't like Europe or North America. — Bitter Crank

That's for sure. China has several factors that make comparisons difficult. Besides the huge disparity between rich city folk and poor country folk, they also have cultural factors...like the way Confucianism can be blended with everything. How similar are the beliefs of Christians in China to those of Christians in the US? (rhetorical question...unless of course you happen to know the answer :smile: )

Baroque music is one of my favorite comforts, Vivaldi, et al. That and folk. Folk and Baroque. That and good books. My current top read is THE GENIUS OF BIRDS by Jennifer Ackerman. Go Birds! — Bitter Crank

Is this a reminder that all of this stuff is mostly just personal preference? Can't argue much with that.

If I recall from my one music class in college, Baroque is the one with the tinny noise? Harpsichord I believe? I think I know Vivaldi is the wedding song and maybe graduations...he had those songs named after seasons or something. As you probably can tell, and my "art highlights elitism..." thread confirmed, my art tastes are a bit neanderthal-ish.

I am never sure on Folk; is that like Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Hank Williams? I like some of that stuff...but is that Folk or just old country?

Had to look up "Genius of Birds", but it sounds cool. I have watched some TV shows about the crows that can use tools. Anytime I view animals using seemingly higher level intelligence it makes me think about the line or threshold where intelligence changes from "useful for survival" to "what's the point of survival"?

It's a problem of risking severe harm and pleasure without being asked to do so vs leave them alone. And I cannot think of a situation where people would rather risk severe harm and pleasure onto someone else without being asked to do so or see it as moral if someone else does — khaled

I think this highlights the divisions and varying perspectives that cause us all not view this issue (anti-natalism) in the same way. Wouldn't EVERY situation where someone says or implies an "ought" be a situation where people are willing to "risk severe harm and pleasure onto someone else without being asked"? Kids should go to school. But kids hates school. They suffer there. And this "suffering" is separate from the increased "suffering" caused by a mass shooting. Maybe they shouldn't go to school because it is full of suffering?

Most of us view life like school. Sure it includes suffering. But it is better than no school. I think the antinatalists defend their position by suggesting that any suffering is real, whereas the pleasure NOT experienced by the unborn is a non issue. But wouldn't it be hypocritical for me to say that "I am glad I was born, but I can't be sure others will be, so I should promote the idea that all new birth is wrong"?

I plan NOT to have children. But I do not see a compelling argument in anti-natalism that would convince people of this position. Surely, few (ZERO?) humans would ever be able to get past their own subjective, "well 'I' am glad that 'I' was born" or vice versa.

Is it the case that ONLY RELIGIONS can do what religions do? Probably. Religious work, like civil engineering, is specialized -- requiring a preference for such work, training, practice, support, supervision, and so forth. — Bitter Crank

Interesting thought. I think I agree, but I also think it meets a need that not everyone has.

Religions are the organization most ready to answer people's "existential questions" Philosophy might also be able to answer those questions, but philosophy isn't organized to go forth and comfort the world's existential fears. — Bitter Crank

I am starting to see many people and interactions as emotional vs reasoned or, more typically, some combination of the two. Does it seem plausible that those who tend to prefer religious solutions/explanations maybe relate to the world MORE emotionally while those who prefer philosophical explanations interpret the world using reason (more so)? I am NOT trying to call religious people unreasonable, just that they prefer an answer that soothes their emotions vs an answer that soothes their intellect (what happens when people/things die vs. what happens when "I" die).

I think we are almost done with this discussion, but this post got a little long and seems full of questions. As I am not sure I am furthering the discussion, I will not expect much of a response. Thanks for the info so far.

I'm willing to say some religions are just plain bad. Westboro Baptist Church Christians are bad. The Aztec religion was bad. Heretic burning Christians were bad. The Islamic State lunatics are bad. Bad, not merely wrong. — Bitter Crank

That all seems fair to me. I might try to use "harmful" instead of "bad", but that is just me pretending that I avoid emotionally loaded language and then going overboard on semantics :grimace:

Maybe the best versions of atheist Buddhism manage to be both good and right — Bitter Crank

Once I saw that some of them interpret "reincarnate" as simply "things die, and new things arise", I could see more how they could be "right". But that seems so different from reincarnation that it seems some study of the original texts would eliminate one of those interpretations. But as you mentioned, even some Buddhists have been acting crazy (which seems like a crazy misunderstanding of Buddhism - wouldn't a fully enlightened monk {in theory} seemingly not give 2 shits about the world as they have released such burdens? - I guess rich and/or violent Christians are equally in opposition to the major teachings of their religion).

Most people in the world do, and probably always have, lived sort of parallel lives, believing in this or that religion on the one hand. On the other hand they have followed the otherwise secular rules of society. One either barters at the market for dried fish, or one just pays the asking price. One doesn't throw one's garbage on the neighbors lawn whether one is Hindu, Zoroastrian, or Animist. — Bitter Crank

So I feel I somewhat understand this last paragraph, but may be missing something. Here's what I took from it:

Secular society can include a variety of disagreeing religions and beliefs that all follow common rules. From the religious viewpoint, this is the "give to god what is god's and give to caesar what is caesar's" stuff...right? Your final two sentences work literally, but I can't help but feel I am missing a metaphor.

As a whole is the paragraph sort of saying, "common decency should be, and typically has been, common"...?

Or, if I think more literally, maybe you are just saying that many religions have functioned pleasantly within society and there is no reason some of them cannot continue to do so...?

I sometimes come off as an oddball Christian because I don't believe in the religion I am discussing, even though I have some positive feelings toward it. — Bitter Crank

Thanks for that whole post. That explains my confusion in sometimes thinking you identify as christian, sometimes not.

I am sure I am probably guilty of some amount of religion bashing, but I try to focus on it being "wrong" (or nonsense) not "bad" - it seems very debatable whether religion has harmed or helped humanity overall...there are certainly some positives that we should try to learn from.

Why do you think philosophy majors are so enamored with socialism? — Wallows

There seems to be very little consideration that people pick their majors based on personality tendencies they already have. Why are most teachers in America left-leaning politically? Because a free market capitalist would never become a low paid government lackey. They got entrepreneuring to get to. Notice the least supportive were the majors related to business. I don't think we should say "philosophy departments crank out socialists", we should say, "most people who choose to major in philosophy are already sympathetic to socialist ideas."

oops, I just saw that @Relativist beat me to this point...but I already typed it so...post.

Whiny Israelites, whinging Romans, bitching Greeks, sniveling Christians, peculiar pagans -- to hell with the lot of them. — Bitter Crank

haha, indeed. Don't forget those grousing atheist philosophy amateurs with vaguely Chinese sounding user-names.

Hint, hint: they did -- all of it. Presumably. Unless YHWH was actually dictating the text. — Bitter Crank

I respect your reasoning/knowledge/thought process (in general, not just this thread), but I don't quite understand your Christianity. You almost seem to be culturally christian, but less so on the supernatural (but not entirely absent?). Are your beliefs anything like Thomas Jefferson who took all the miracles out of his bible? That does not seem quite right.

If this does not seem overly personal, I am interested...but as I can't say for sure what I will learn and how it will help me going forward...I will understand being ignored :smile:

So what happened? Hosea's wife behaved badly, like a whore -- pretty much what was expected. Why did God want Hosea to marry a whore? So Hosea could understand what it was like being the God of Israel. — Bitter Crank

Nice. I have learned a lot of different Bible verses and stories, but that one is new to me, thanks. However, that sounds much more like a human analogy than an attempt at divine justice. Unless divinity hides itself behind irony for some reason (does a being of infinite power actually believe us lowly ants understand them from some funny analogy? Isn't it the infinite power that I struggle to relate to, more than whiny Israelites?). To me, this almost feels like a moment where biblical authors are saying, "hint, hint, we made this stuff up."

- kids here are popular in class with their mates if they are good in athletics or can beat others up. At home, the kids are popular if they are smart, get good grades, and are funny. Good sense of humour carries you the farthest. — god must be atheist

Well you should have seen us 20 years ago :grimace: I am in US, not Canada, but my experience suggests the "popular jock" thing is somewhat changing. Intelligence is not suddenly being valued but being charming and good looking has certainly overtaken physical power. The new version of 21 Jump Street captures this change fairly well.

Maybe I'm being ungrateful. — Grre

Your attitude seems fine to me. I think you are just analyzing education from what would be ideal, then wondering why everyone does not have the ideal (or even seem to be trying to work toward it) situation. As you went through your education system, you noticed many problems. Now, if I grab some analysis that says Canada is actually a highly rated education system, does that mean you were wrong about the problems? Of course not. It should just make us all disappointed that even the "best" systems are heavily flawed. But as long as everyone (I will be happy for a few more) thinks like you and acknowledges that no education system is perfect and we should all be making efforts to improve the systems that we are a part of (or at least whine about it on philosophy sites until there seems to be some level of consensus...my method of choice), maybe we will make some progress.

Now my middle school was an arts "speciality" school, meaning it was publicly funded, but I had to audition when I was about nine years old. I have no idea what criteria they selected applicants, but race had a lot to do with it. 90% of the grade was white, skinny (there were two-three token "chubby" girls), blonde (literally), beautiful little girls (a pedophiles dream)-all "artistic" while the other 10% consisted of eight boys (also all white, save one) one token Black girl, three asians, and (if I recall) one brown/Indian girl. There were 120 children in my year. I'm unsure if its different now-but make no mistake, these children were 'handpicked' out of hundreds auditioning, it was no accident. We also had more $$$ than one would think possible, I mean, every year we had a huge concert to put on, we had a full Mac lab (more than my university does haha!) equipped with another full Mac lab x2 of MacBooks + the latest in graphic design software, photo developing, and SMARTBOARDS-They also, for no reason whatsoever, decided to create an "outdoor classroom" in my last year there, 10k on about a dozen large rocks set in a circle out front of the school. Again, this is a public school, where right down the street, there was another public school so old that its basement had fallen in twice... — Grre

I think this highlights one of the biggest problems with education systems. People can't help but want the best for "me and mine". If the school down the road can't afford smartboards, maybe they need to work a little harder :roll: You have noticed a significant problem, but unfortunately, places like the US, Singapore, and Hong Kong are even MORE unequal. So, yeah, the world seems screwed, but on a high note, overall, more people are receiving more education, than ever in history (just based on literacy rates).

I have very strong critiques but for now, they are too strong, the memory is fresh seeing as I just graduated high school two years ago. If anyone cares though, I suggest starting with John Dewey-he writes a bit on Marxist critiques of the education system and actually championed anarchistic tenets with his Free Schools concept, same with Emma Goldman among others. — Grre

Well you are way ahead of me :smile: I didn't really pay attention to "the system" while I was in school. It wasn't until I started looking at things from the teaching/administrative side that all of the problems you are pointing out became more clear (I quickly gave up on the administrative side as things are too much of a mess at that level...within a single classroom I feel I can at least have a minimal impact with a few students). And while I have definitely read a little Dewey, I should probably take another look (I also find Marxist interpretations interesting so a good reason to check it out). I have heard of Goldman, but don't know why, so I will need to look at that one.

I have very strong critiques but for now — Grre

As someone who is far better at complaining about the world's problems than I am at solving them, I am happy to hear them. As this post shows though, it may take a few days to respond.

Thanks @Wayfarer. I will try to look into those links and see if I can make some sense out of it..

Socrates was a skeptic. Knowing that he and everyone else does not know the truth of such matters poses a threat. If the truth is not known then everything and nothing can fill the gap. So Plato provides a salutary teaching in place of the unknown and perhaps unknowable truth. But in order for this teaching to be accepted it must appear to be the truth itself.

In the dialogue Phaedo, which takes place when Socrates is about to die, the discussion turns to the fate of the soul. Although he is not afraid to die, some of his friends are fearful of death and so he attempts, as he says, to "charm away their childish fears". Someone objects that what he want is the truth. He offers various proofs and stories about the immortality of the soul, and while the careful reader is led to see that all of them fail, to this day some still believe that here we find the truth of the soul's immortality. But no one knows the truth of what happens to the soul at death or even what the soul is. This leads to what is called "misologic". Socrates says that there are some who fall in love with philosophy because they believe it will make them wise, but when it becomes clear to them that philosophy is unable to answer such questions they come to despise it for what they see as its failure. Socrates did not, so to speak, want philosophy to die with him. Those who are to philosophize must eschew childish stories but must not expect philosophy to do what it cannot do. — Fooloso4

Thanks @Fooloso4,

So the secret is that there is no secret? Regular people are just incapable of living with "I don't know"?

Seems reasonable, but I think this idea is more explicitly stated in eastern philosophies (even the horrifically indirect Tao te Ching seems to be more explicit, "the way that can be told is not the true way"). Why are there such high levels of respect for Plato's vague hints? Is it just because it had a big impact on western culture? Kind of like how Columbus was a jerk that did not discover anything, but he certainly triggered the exploration of, and spread to, the "New World"?

Can't help you, I'm afraid. I was educated in a religious cult (Roman Catholicism), and all other colours of religion - including atheism - were collected together and identified by the term "non-Catholic". I was offered no education at all on any other religion, including other flavours of Christianity. I stopped attending church as soon as I was old enough to shoulder the responsibility of damning my soul for all eternity (by denying Catholicism). Hmm. :meh: — Pattern-chaser

Hahahaha. I will see you in super-hell. I was also raised Catholic. No purgatory for us who were exposed to the "Truth".

Thanks to them, I'm not an atheist, but an agnostic. Nope, they didn't convert me to a true Christian believer, but they did show how shallow and empty atheism is. — ssu

And we will see you in hell also :smile: (or eternal death if your version of Christianity has no hell).

@Fooloso4 and @Wayfarer

Please read these comments as those of a novice who is trying to understand (everything I say or write seems to come across as being critical). I have never got much from Plato and have always felt I was missing something (I guess at least I am not one of those who thinks they "have discovered some wonderful secret").

In the Phaedrus Socrates explains why he never wrote:

[E]very [written] speech rolls around everywhere, both among those who understand and among those for whom it is not fitting, and it does not know to whom it ought to speak and to whom not. (275d-e)

Plato's writing must be read in light of this problem. In other words, it must conceal itself from those for whom it is not fitting who read the book. The wily Plato does this by leading the reader to believe that he, the reader, has discovered some wondrous secret known only to those few who have ascended from the darkness of our ignorance to the light of truth. — Fooloso4

So "it" can't be written or shouldn't be written?

I am sure I am one of those for "whom it is not fitting", but what would be the danger in writing it?

This reminds me of people who defend the science of the bible by saying that god explained it in a way that people who lived back then would understand. Why wouldn't he (god) or they (socrates, plato, etc) just write the truth and when people are capable of grasping it, they will know it is correct? I can't see the danger?

Speaking of which, do you know the etymology of the Hindu word ‘Upaniṣad’? It means ‘sitting up close’, referring to the relationship between guru and chela (disciple), which is taken to imply that the teaching of the Upaniṣads was transmitted directly from one to the other. I think that’s exactly the principle that is being expressed by this ‘concealment’ - lest these matters of high philosophical import be seized upon by the hoi pollloi, to create something awful (like modern Western ‘culture’. ;-) ) — Wayfarer

This seems evidence that they might as well let the "truth" out, as the world just gets messed up anyway? Or is the modern world a mess due to mis-reading philosophy?

Dammit, the one thing I say that was entirely based on anecdotal evidence, haha. — ZhouBoTong

And I meant one thing in this thread. I am sure I have offered plenty of barely justified opinions on this site (hell, probably more than once in this thread).

That's good news! What countries do this? My country, the UK, doesn't. — Pattern-chaser

Dammit, the one thing I say that was entirely based on anecdotal evidence, haha. Yes, I got this from someone who went through the school system in France. They said they did some introductory philosophy at the secondary level (high school level US).

I just tried to research it (a little), and it looks like they (France) have the option to do some philosophy at the upper secondary level (15-18 years old), but it does not look like there is any sort of required philosophy.

And I always forget that the UK standards have required religion (I get you can opt out, but if the default is you are in then most will do it)...Is the "required" material all about the Church of England or is it more of an exposure to all major religions? How much freedom do the teachers have when teaching religion classes? With a little freedom I think one could teach some philosophy in a religion course (Plato seems obvious)? I get that this belittles philosophy a little (or elevates it from the religious perspective I suppose), but it is an opening, and if "we" want philosophy to be more pervasive in society (do we?), maybe it is on "us"(those who want it to be more pervasive) to make it happen within the parameters laid out by our wealthy overlords (that last bit may not apply to you at all, but is just a leftover point from my discussion with BitterCrank).

At no time in secondary school did I ever hear anything about such a thing as "the working class", class conflict -- god forbid -- Karl Marx, the IWW, Trotsky, et al. — Bitter Crank

Well you will be happy to know that they now teach about as much Marx as Adam Smith (which is very little, but it is introduced). Also, many World History classes spend 1-3 weeks on the Russian Revolution (yes it mostly conveys "you see what happens when people try communism...stalin", but for the critical thinkers it is an introduction).

More reason for hope:

Those in favor of Laissez-Faire economics (or even your average American Republican) are not going to seek out a low paying career as a government lacky (teachers), so the vast majority of teachers in America are left-leaning (that doesn't mean they know the difference between communism and socialism or shit from shinola), but they are sympathetic (they particularly love the sound of "equity", and stuff like "from each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need" certainly strikes that chord).

Still, I don't think much is being said in schools about Marx, class conflict, or anything along those lines. It obviously isn't in the interests of the ruling class to encourage the masses to think about over-throwing them. — Bitter Crank

I can't disagree with any of that (in teaching the Russian Revolution I occasionally must mention that Lenin intended for the world to follow their lead, but there is certainly little emphasis on class warfare and zero direct comparison to the modern world, unless the students bring it up) . Teachers do have a decent amount of autonomy. I can't teach students that they should revolt, but I can certainly teach about every revolt in history and what caused them (including living conditions and political philosophies). Surely, the thinkers will see the parallels.

In the same way I can't preach religion (in a public school history class), but I can teach the history of every religion and their impact/role in their given societies.

I have seen some fairly new government and economics textbooks being used that were strongly biased against socialism (sometimes just plain ignorant like saying all socialism is a type of command economy), so I get what you are saying. But personally, nothing convinced me of Marxism more than my knowledge of capitalism (once I learned more about Marx, I realized I do not entirely agree with his solutions, but his critique of capitalism seemed dead on).

I guess I am arguing that a "bad" education beats no education…but I am sure I have limits on how bad.

Meritocracy divides still people into classes. — ssu

For sure. I want the system that can identify the geniuses in any "class". (even in a perfectly equal economic system {a fantasy for sure}, there will be "classes" - good looking, athletic, intelligent, doctors, trash men, etc).

And have to say that Finland is far less multicultural than the US state of Maine — ssu

yes, and this is a rather large advantage for the Fins and the Chinese. Unfortunately, there is no good solution for this problem (please correct me if I am wrong :smile:).

First, the teachers and the educators responsible for the system were left alone without a politically motivated agenda and just tried to create "a very good educational system". — ssu

I do not doubt this, but I do question the feasibility of something like that happening in the USA. A few years back when I was researching this topic, most Finnish teachers came from the top 20% of their graduating classes in college, while most American teachers are from the bottom third of their graduating class. I thought this might be significant.

And btw Finnish system isn't so top of the notch anymore. — ssu

This entity (http://ncee.org/what-we-do/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/) still has Finland at number 2, with Canada rising to number 1 (@Grre must be shocked and appalled - if that is the "best" we can imagine how awful the "worst" must be). A few years back, the NCEE and the PISA exams were well respected for international comparisons...perhaps things have changed. I guess the fact that they dropped to number 2 implies things are getting worse, and that may be your point.

You may find that Finland and Canada were closer to 10th in pure PISA scores, but the NCEE drops outliers based on certain factors (like if a school scores very high, but has zero low income or learning disabled students - like, singapore, who was still ranked 9th, but I think they are #1, or close to it, on reading, math, and science for the PISA exams).

if you would just take the capital area (which has the best funding), the system would be still as good as in Singapore. With all of the country taken into account, not so. — ssu

Hmmmm, so even the "ideal" model still struggles with this issue. I guess the wealthy (or otherwise powerful) will find a way to get "theirs", and then wonder what is holding everyone else back.

Fake news has both components of the agreement as well as disagreement, and it does not express merely someone’s private opinion. — Number2018

Hmmmm, that sounds right. But I may need to see examples. Almost every time I hear "fake news", it just means the speaker disagrees. Surely every time Trump uses the phrase is an example of my point.

I am just pointing to usage...kind of like how "literally" now means "figuratively" more often than its actual dictionary definition.

And I am NOT suggesting it is simply "opinion", but that it is typically just "opinion".

And you are certainly right that there is A LOT of room for academic study.

Once all opinions are equal, then facts are irrelevant. So what counts as "news"?

Doesn't "fake news" just mean "I disagree"?

If education is worthwhile for its own sake, (the "life of the mind" and all that) then it is always worthwhile. As a ticket to upward mobility, it has less utility. Less utility because family background is a critical factor. — Bitter Crank

Huh, I haven't spent much time thinking about education from that view (economic mobility). It always just seemed a given that of course everyone should have equal access to education, and then those that choose to do bigger things (and have the drive and talent), at least are not held back by their education.

But if I really think about, that (equal education alone) will have very little effect on societal economic equality. And when I use phrases like "equal access to education" what do I even mean? If my parents (guardians) are well educated I have an un-equal advantage. If my parents (guardians) care (or not), it matters.

But isn't education a good starting point (well "starting" is probably not quite the right word)? How else do the workers of the world know they are supposed to unite? Isn't education a good place to hopefully create a tipping point at some time in the future? I am certainly being WAY too optimistic...but you do not seem perpetually pessimistic. You seem to have some hope that your somewhat communist view can come true. Where does the revolution begin if not through education? Or should we copy previous successful models (monarchy, capitalism, etc) and just hope that a few of the "best" of us can convince the rabble with nothing but rhetoric and a little sophistry?

And apologies, as I am not sure I entirely understand your position. I don't think you are devaluing education, but you seem to be hinting at a better way to accomplish the goal of economic equality?

The only way it would be the case that you tend to go to the school in your neighborhood (poor neighborhood/"poor school" etc.) is if busing isn't a big thing any longer. I don't know if that's the case. Is it? — Terrapin Station

I am not sure if this will help your discussion, but no, busing is no longer common. Brown vs Board over-ruled segregation in 1954, and then, throughout America, nothing changed aside from a few highly televised cases. In 1971 the supreme court suggested busing might be a useful way to enforce segregation. By 1974 busing was so unpopular that new laws reduced the implementation of busing. It continued through the 1980s but "white flight" made busing largely pointless (busing was used to integrate schools that were 15-30 minutes apart). If all the white people live in Orange County, then no amount of busing will integrate Los Angeles County. So, busing has largely faded away.

Canada is the same way (I went through the Canadian public school system) though we are funded provincially which is a bit more equal. Our adult education schools are deplorable though, and our universities are meh... — Grre

Darn, I guess I can't just move to Canada if I get tired of the American system of education :smile:

I'm going to a British university in the fall so then I will be able to make a more adequate comparison. — Grre

Should be an interesting comparison. Certainly let me know of any stark differences.

One main tenet of Conficianism is that the son should do what the father does. — Ilya B Shambat

Confucianism was one of the first philosophical systems to emphasize merit-based advancement in education or professional/government environments. If he advocated merit-based he could not possibly be arguing that "all children should have the same job as their father" (opposite of merit-based). I know he spent a lot of time on filial piety, but I thought that is more respect for father/emperor than "I must become the same person". Why would he have argued for universal education if everyone was just going to do the same job as their dad? I think you may have taken something out of context.

Marxism was credible in China. It was credible in China because Conficianism created a rigidly stratified society in which people were born into classes — Ilya B Shambat

Hmmm, America has almost zero knowledge of Confucianism and yet many in America also find Marxism to be credible. There must be more to it than Confucianism's influence on societies' structure.

I’m curious to hear what members perceive as differences in our educational systems. — halo

I am American, but have spent went too much time comparing educational systems. The MAJOR difference between highly rated systems like say, Finland, and the USA, is consistency. Our best schools (at all levels of education) are just as good as any country's (often better). However, our worst schools seem to be from another planet, whereas Finland's worst schools are almost as good as their best.

When we read that America is 24th in the world in Math (possibly worse by now), it does not mean that we don't train some of the best mathematicians on earth. We just let most get by with crap.

Your question on philosophy may be on to something though. It is normal to learn philosophy in Europe at lower grade levels. As someone else in this thread mentioned, our general ed in college, has a lot of material that they are introduced to at an earlier age. We are starting to see the IB curriculum (an international program similar to AP classes in the US) becoming more popular at high performing schools in the US, but don't expect changes to happen too quickly in our current environment of STEM at all costs.

you also omit the relevance of undeserved inherited wealth and status from your considerations. — Erik

Thanks. Saved me from having to mention that.

An ethic that celebrates success and achievement should see elites in a positive light. — Ilya B Shambat

What if I don't respect or care about the thing they got really good at? Isn't that the real issue of this thread? Which elites should be respected? Elite pickers and flickers? Why are elite footballers very well compensated while elite hop-scotch players get no respect? So you are really discussing an ethic that celebrates a very specific type of "success and achievement". - which @Erik already mentioned, so it appears I am not needed here.

Why do you care? Sounds like duty to me. — tim wood

sounds like semantics to me.

Because by accepting it as a duty you can expect others to accept some reasonable version of that duty to you. — tim wood

I don't accept it as duty, nor expect others to. Hence the need for laws.

Question: assuming you drive, do you drive on the correct side of the road? Why, exactly (assuming you do)? — tim wood

So I don't die. So I don't kill anyone. So I don't get hurt or hurt anyone. Because I don't want to get a ticket. Which of those defines my driving on the right side of the road as a duty? They all sound like "desire for intended consequence", which, although my philosophy knowledge sucks, I think Kant used as a counter/opposite for duty.

Oh, and what was the answer to this:

Your view destroys (in a Kantian sense) law.
— tim wood

And yet we (he) still go to jail if we break the law. So what was destroyed? — ZhouBoTong

In my mind, all that is destroyed is the sense of duty. The law is still 100% intact.

Your view destroys (in a Kantian sense) law. — tim wood

And yet we (he) still go to jail if we break the law. So what was destroyed? It seems you are attributing much more to "law" than it typically entails. I have no more "duty" to obey the law than I have a "duty" to use proper grammar.

If buying a Tesla Model 3 is within the means of the proletarian, then I can't imagine a better product a bourgeoisie could purchase that would increase satisfaction. — Wallows

I tend to agree. But that is why I used a more obvious example. And since 99%+ of the planet today cannot afford a Model 3, it suggests we have a long way to go.

If the purchasing power of my money increases to the point of being able to afford the same goods as my bourgeoise counterpart, then that would seem to imply that instead of the rift between the two growing apart, they are actually converging. — Wallows

If the purchasing powers are close to equal, that sounds correct. But they have to be close to equal, at the same time. If I can suddenly buy a Ferrari and a mansion, but the bourgeoisie is now buying spaceships and planets, then I am still reaching for the pitchfork and torches. Will the majority of people ever be satisfied as the "under" class?

:up: — Brett

I agree too.

Sadly, it looks like you may not be able to get a debate on this point. — andrewk

This looks more like fishing for extremists. Will be interesting to see if anyone is radicalized enough to take the bait — I like sushi

Thanks all. Never have I been so happy to NOT get a debate. I really felt this was a non-issue. But when I did some googling, it seemed 90% of responses were in favor of the women suing. And most articles, just treat it like it is obvious.

Just making sure I wasn't missing something.