Parents have the first and most critical responsibility: psychological, physical and spiritual health. When parents fuck that up, their children are screwed--not invariably, but almost always. Stupid, fucked up people have difficulty delivering healthy children to kindergarten. (There are unfortunate social reasons why some parents are stupid and fucked up; nevertheless, it is a major handicap to the child to have stupid fucked up parents. — Bitter Crank

Yes, no matter what you introduce to them in school they go back to that environment. So should school/education be a way of escaping that? Is it more than teachers can do? Some kids go to school because they can get away from that environment for awhile, but they don’t necessarily engage.

Are we defining education? Or just leaving it undefined for the time. I ask because at age four I stuck my finger in an electric light socket that was on. I learned from that experience, indeed I did! But I doubt if that's anything you had in mind.

Or just in terms of results? Are we distinguishing between education and training? Animals can be trained. But I am not sure that anyone can be taught anything, if by taught you mean just the activities of the teacher.

Good question, but a question that must have its ground prepared before it can be answered. — tim wood

True, true, true. That’s what I like about this forum.

I’m referring to education in schools. We’re defining what form that education should take, and first we have to define the objectives of this education. What is it for?

To me there are two needs that need to be balanced between which I waver: the practical demands of society: maths, english, etc, and then the whole critical thinking thing.

‘Morality plays are interesting vehicles for the solution of both social and intrapsychic conflicts among the uneducated or partially-educated bulk of the population.’
Wertz D. Conflict resolution in the medieval morality plays.

I don't quite see the point to this line of questioning. I think that the "content" of art is very subjective, such that one interpretation might apprehend a completely different content from another. — Metaphysician Undercover

To tell the truth I wondered myself when you said that. But then I remembered why.

When you talk about art being very subjective and that it may be interpreted differently from one person to another I think you’re talking about a modern idea of art, where artists do play games of ambiguity, where theory suggests the art doesn’t exist until it’s observed, that art is produced by artists, and what an artists produces is art because they said so.

But what I’m alluding to in bringing up New Guinea or Australia or the Pacific is that when we use the word art to address objects that have been made, artefacts, we’re referring to objects that carry a particular weight or meaning or even power. By wearing a mask a New Guinea elder becomes a spirit teacher, the Australian Corroboree interacts with the Dreamtime. We lump these things together as art because they have form, colour, repitition, pattern, etc. (The history of modern art could be said to be that of appropriation). These are the originators of art, like the drawings in the caves of Lascaux in France.

These art forms have a real purpose and might be regarded as an integral part of that community or culture. They certainly reinforce cultural ideas and history, as well as ideas on moralism. It’s true that in terms of the community or culture they are subjective. But my suggestion is that the moral aspects are universal, appearing again in far off places.
.

as all acts of the moral being are carried out for some good, and we can produce a more truly objective judgement of morality. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then we see that every human act, to the extent that it is intentional and therefore aims at some "good", is itself good. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then would it be true to say that ‘every human act, to the extent that it is intentional and therefore aims at some ‘good’, is itself good,’ suggests that only those acts that are beneficial to the community would be added to the lexicon of ‘moral’? And that these acts are carried out by a moral being who already carried the idea of a moral act within him.

I think you're somewhat wrong about Plato here. He was quite exposed to foreign cultures, and that he noticed the differences between them is evident in his moral philosophy. — Metaphysician Undercover

But was he exposed to cultures like those of South America, the Pacific, Australia or New Guinea, and if he was would he have perceived the hidden content of sculpture, song or dance, and if he perceived it would he understand?

I do believe one thing about billionaires; no one can make that sort of money and be a moral person. I’ve worked with people in business and done some myself. I wasn’t capable of making business decisions, I tended to falter over what was fair. Those who succeeded, while being some of the best people I’ve met, could make very pragmatic decisions and do what was necessary. The further you go the more extreme those decisions become affecting a lot of people.

And regular classes and education forms are like the rest of the world? There's nothing in education that is like the real world so there's no form to actually shape them for it.
— Christoffer

Basically all the learning will be done wherever is comfortable and convinient for the student. No one will have to struggle with the burden of being punctual for classes or the tediousness and awkwardness of being in class sitting in those uncomfortable chairs. Deadlines are only for assignments, projects and exams. — Susu

The world, especially the workplace, does not wait for your comfort, your convenience, punctuality is a pretty basic expectation. Tediousness and awkwardness?; welcome to life, and deadlines; someone’s paying you to do something in a timeframe. That’s what you’re paid for.

Teachers do know how kids learn. Most teachers are good at what they do. They also teach the curriculum, which they do not chose. They do more than go through pedagogy classes. It takes more than charisma to teach. The problem is that we’re never sure what purpose education should serve.

Basically all the learning will be done wherever is comfortable and convinient for the student. No one will have to struggle with the burden of being punctual for classes or the tediousness and awkwardness of being in class sitting in those uncomfortable chairs. Deadlines are only for assignments, projects and exams. — Susu

And then when you graduate you go out into a world that is absolutely nothing like that. What you have is a formula for failure.

So back to your quote above, what morality gives us is the inspiration to act well. Therefore a) is a misrepresentation of morality, as it describes more of a statement of ethics (rules for behaviour), whereas morality involves the inspiration to act properly. And your question seems to be whether or not art can give us that inspiration to act. Referring back to the distinction between "beauty" and "good", art seems to give us beauty, but it may not give us the inspiration to act, which is the good. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I agree that morality gives us the inspiration to act well, not a set of rules for behaviour. It can do that because the sense of morality is already inherent in people. The ‘art’ I talk about might be considered a meditation on morality and everything it covers, a story for each dilemma. So by using ‘explain’ I’m being a bit careless.

Just on beauty in art, which I’m not talking about at all; Greek philosophy and as a consequence art was when beauty became a subject, I imagine Plato would not have considered anything other than Greek art actually art, nor would he have known very little about other far flung cultures and their ‘art’. So the distinction between ‘beauty’ and ‘good’ is really a Greek dilemma. For those far flung cultures art is not about beauty, but purpose and inspiration.

Music is not really my field. But I don’t know if music would be as old as carving. However singing, chanting, the human voice would be. Which is of course how stories, morals, are passed on down to the next generation.

[

So back to your quote above, what morality gives us is the inspiration to act well. Therefore a) is a misrepresentation of morality, as it describes more of a statement of ethics (rules for behaviour), whereas morality involves the inspiration to act properly. And your question seems to be whether or not art can give us that inspiration to act. Referring back to the distinction between "beauty" and "good", art seems to give us beauty, but it may not give us the inspiration to act, which is the good. — Metaphysician Undercover

I need to think about this for a bit.

The question is ‘Should billionaires be banned?’

you said ‘It's about the level of subsistance those jobs provide and the dignity that ought to go with it.,

Just how would banning billionaires achieve this? If you hold billionaires responsible for this state of affairs just how are they responsible for it? How would removing them achieve this?

I’m saying that I don’t think you’re proposal would work. I’m not saying what’s right or wrong, I’m just saying I don’t think it would happen.

As usual with these discussions things start firing of in all directions. What also happens is that I can be drawn away from my original thoughts, which is fine because it helps clarify things for me.

Using the word art is a bit unhelpful, because we generally turn to current or more recent forms of art, which is not what it once was. When I talk about art I’m talking about what was used to communicate with people throughout time and different cultures: myths, legends, rituals, plays, writing, sculpture, the spoken word.

These ‘art’ forms explained, replayed, or reinforced contemporary ideas on morality, among other things. There is no doubt they were entertainment as well. They held things together and aided in addressing contemporary conflicts or doubts. Those morals are consistent throughout our own history. Not much has really changed.

Philosophy may explain morals, but art is how they are transmitted to the people. And it is not there to instruct, (rules for behaviour as someone has said), but to help address and overcome the dilemma they are faced with, instead of starting from scratch every time a problem arises. Otherwise we would not have evolved so successfully and so rapidly.

Nor am I saying art must serve a function. It has no desire to do so because this ‘art’ springs from the people. It does not instruct them, it aids in solving problems and dilemmas, which as I said, saves a lot of time instead of addressing a problem from scratch every time it arises.

Writers like Homer, Shakespeare and Dostoevsky are relevant to their time. I’m not suggesting that we should have people who write like them. But the morality in their stories is not that much different from where we stand today.

When I refer to Homer I'm referring to The Odyssey, which is a tale of morality, so was King Lear. The Brothers Karamazov is a complex story about faith and doubt in God and a world without a God and consequently without God’s moral order, a world of moral freedom; everything is permitted. I’m not an expert on these writers, I’ve chosen them because of their different periods and despite that the stories about morality are not dissimilar. How could they be?

I imagine that if a country carried out such a program then they would suddenly find themselves without billionaires. Putting aside the bad billionaires, how many jobs would be created by good billionaires? You would lose them.

can you go into that a bit more?

If, as I’m suggesting, we have traditionally turned to these artists for understanding and interpretation, and we have done it instinctively, and still turn to artist for explanation instinctively, then we are digesting without realising it an idea of morality which is not really there, but we think it is and take it on as real. The dross then carries the influence and explanation, which is no explanation.

I think she was making a destination between the dross that is always there and the work that is created by people serious about what they do. Those who wrote Mony Python are serious about what they do, and you’re right that comedy is a high art form. But my interest is in the work that explains our sense of morality, the difficulty living it, and the consequences of it being ignored.

I guess I’m trying to focus on two things:

a: that morality exists as an objective set of guides on our behaviour (I await the howls).

b: that art, primarily writing, explains it: Homer, Shakespeare, Doestoevsky.

By art I mean that which carries a weight that has cultural significance. Artists as we think of them now have not always existed. Myths, rituals, ceremonies, legends, those are the sort of thing I’m referring to. Do we have writers like Homer, Shakespeare or Doestoevsky? I don’t think so. And if there was would they be read by many?

This sort of writing is not what people are reading, even if the number of books sold is increasing. Film can tell these sorts of stories, but they rarely do.

I’d be interested if some of these readers could jump over to my discussion “Art and Morality” on General Philisophy.

but it’s also true that Plato believed opinions should come from a particular part of society, presumably those who supposedly know what is best for everyone. I’m also reminded of the erasure of the past by The Khmer Rouge and others.

yes, I agree, the artists do repeat old principles, and is that not always morality do you think? Morality is not the same as law, though, is it?

yes I agree, it’s an explainer.

Unless we want to be something different than what we are.

This is part of my interest; are morals that malleable? Some morals have never changed: the universal taboo in incest, the complicated issue of killing. These morals have made us what we are in that they enabled us to deal with complications. Starting again from scratch is not only questionable but dangerous. It makes morality relative.

I imagine that morality wasn’t explained, or justified, but demonstrated through those ancient art forms. Dance told a story, it explained and instructed. Sometimes these things were kept from youths or the sexes. They carried a special weight in that culture. But these dances weren’t how we perceive dance today.

What I was looking at primarily was the idea that art once explained and contained an understanding and reinforcement of morality. Very early art was not there for meaningless decoration or entertainment. The bible is an instance of this, the Old Testement anyway. All the myths and legends of different cultures perform the same act. Body decoration, sculpture, stories, all had a purpose. When art became entertainment then its content changed, it become meaningless. It reflected the lose direction of contemporary culture. But because of our way of turning to these art forms for moral sustenance we ingest what is meaningless or shallow and in ignorance take it for the real thing. What is there to replace the real thing, to serve it’s purpose once it was gone? Current art is essentially a wolf in sheep’s clothing.