I think it's a good bet, though, if you finish it. Also, while the above points out the democratic and financial reason for education, for me I'd say it's because you gain knowledge, it widens your perspective, you learn better ways to think, and these are valuable unto themselves as well as to society if you are willing and able so that's why I went and don't regret it (though I did have an eye on a career when I did go, too). — Moliere

Thanks for posting. What I would like to politely point out is the focus on IT in this century. The people who built Google, were really awesome people for democratizing knowledge. This isn't my first discussion on this forum about the merits of a higher education and in previous threads there was some thematic discussion of online education, like MOOCs. Nowadays, some articles of Google's "The Economist", state that the next journey for education is with Artificial Intelligence. So, what are your thoughts about education that even someone in poverty can afford by simply going through an online course or possibly in the future looking into AI providing some quality courses by some venture capitalist or entrepreneur via the internet?

I understand Le Rochefoucauld to be saying that a narrative and a motive for acting for oneself is shaped by education. So, there is a "paying of dues" associated with both environments. And that sense of expenditure does play a part in self-image as well as defending one's place in the world. — Paine

So, when does socialization and individualization start and end?

Another intersection of the different processes relates to Le Rochefoucauld saying: "Education is a second self-love."

The welding together of pleasure and pain etches a deep mark into the wax in both cases. — Paine

Could you elaborate on this intersection of processes? I'm not sure if I understand.

I wanted to follow up on something that I thought about. Again, most of my posts are in a 'ask and tell' manner for everyone's enjoyment. I also moderate myself instead of nit-picking posts.

So, this topic began in a specific way. I had thought about starting a thread about the purpose of psychology in society; but, the same topic could have been generalized to physics or even engineering or the humanities. So, I thought the point was about pedagogy, and then again realized that the topic could just zoom out in scope to the meaning of education to society and the individual.

Due to these deliberations, I would like to rephrase the OP in terms of your ideas or conceptions about the meaning of education on a personal level and in terms of society?

Now, to present my own take on the matter of the meaning of education is that education is something which, until the right age is found to make a child or teenager happy. Yet, when adolescents transition (and this is the key part) towards adulthood, there seems to be a lot of friction in the expectations and thoughts about studying the right field at college. In Europe this process is smoothened out by the abundance of technical schools and apprenticeships if the student is a poor learner or just cannot get decent grades. Also, in Europe the amount of preparation for adult life is much easier to transition towards due to the role of the government in assisting financial needs and lack of payments, in terms of loans, for universities. In the US, Dewey really had a profound influence on pedagogy and faculty policies at the Ivy league universities. Then there's competition in the US educational system that seems to be much higher than anywhere else in the world. Yet, having studied both in Europe and the US, it really is harder to do well in a high ranking European university than in an Ivy league school. Which means what?

I'd appreciate any further thoughts on this matter, regarding the differences of EU and US university system and along with why do US students find it harder to find fulfillment and happiness in the US educational system rather than the EU system, which is much more technical than the US system? Does it really boil down to burdening a person with loans in the US, whereas Europe just spots the bill for you?

In a sense, it's an act of validation that the struggles and great suffering of those before us was not in vain. A form of immortality achieved by those who brought us the facts and findings we now take for granted in our everyday lives. — Outlander

What a way of putting it. Yet, the association that you led me to make was almost with 'vanity' and 'prestige'. Am I associating this correctly?

Shared values are fundamental to harmonious societies, hence we see that not all homogenous societies are peaceful, but all societies that are peaceful are homogenous, and all heterogenous societies are chaotic. — Lionino

Seems true; but, definitely disagree that 'all heterogenous societies are chaotic.'...

It only occured to me right now, based on what you said, that the highest good for you must be appreciation and with that, axiology? Am I right on this?

All I can say is that I doubt it's happening here. Servers located in the US for forums can do this as much as they want...

I tried reading the terms of service (TOS) at the left hand side of the site, and from what I understand PlushForums and the location of this server is located in Ireland. So, from what I understand Irish laws are pretty strict about the content of this forum.

The only reason I bring this up is because there's another forum that harvests posts of users for profit (which I wont identify). Forum content on a database can be worth a lot.

Sorry for the hassle for asking this.

Simply injecting money into a certain strata doesn't work, for the same reason a state cannot just print money to magically elevate people out of poverty. Prices adjust over time, and before long you are stuck in the same situation with the only differences being that the price of basic needs is elevated and everyone is paying more taxes, which actually puts more people below the poverty line. — Tzeentch

Well, supply and demand would adjust over time; but you have a point if its about inflation. Inflation would rise; but, with an adjustment (or lag as they call it) to supply, then maybe prices would return to normal or slightly elevated over time.

But even if it did work, how is "pacifying" the poor even remotely relevant? — Tzeentch

Well, during Nixon's term, communism was at it height and quite possibly conservatives in the US were trying to outdo whatever promises of supplies for the poor in socialist countries to be countered with UBI by Nixon's own team of advisers. In this strategic aspect (from the point of view of any capitalist socioeconomic system), then this strategic aspect would seem to be relevant at the time of Nixon's presidency.

Nowadays, there are other reasons for some talk about UBI especially by CEO's from Silicon Valley like Elon Musk, regarding Artificial Intelligence and job losses due to it.

Just a random question. Had someone sold the database of all posts of a forum (not this one, in my mind), would that be considered theft or public information?

Normally in society such things don't happen very often, and if they do we have people who deal with such affairs such as police officers and the legal system. So, don't take it upon yourself or overgeneralize such situations.

In a sense to state this in stronger terms, Universal Basic Income would in essence pacify the poor and disenfranchised.

I don't believe that a UBI distributed within a capitalist economy is the same thing as socialism, not even close. It would be a good thing, but socialism requires much, much broader and deeper changes in the operation of society. — BC

Yes, well UBI is not socialism according to what others have said. Yet, it seems to be an economic tool that helps the disenfranchised and poor from unhappiness and rebellions in seeking political change, and I think that was the original purpose of UBI (in accordance with the OP).

So I do not think policies such as UBI makes socialism moot; it makes socialism a reality. — NOS4A2

I'm not sure if you're following here; but, socialism goes quite a bit farther than just redistribution of wealth. According to what others said; it seems that UBI is just a band-aid to an ill of capitalism's influence on inequities due to the very nature of the socioeconomics. Nevertheless, UBI addresses these inequities and distortions in perception of wealth being managed by the state, in a quite positive manner.

Right?

It's like Social Security or a safety net program; but, for everyone!

Yes, well how else are we to decide about who we are without knowledge of our ancestors and how we evolved from then until now?

Not sure, I think that throughout history or if one wants to process historicism, that homo sapiens sapiens has been able to construct certain laws that promote these inherent feelings (such as Hume's hurray and boo value judgements) into practice.

I had rather thought that discerning the good was the role traditionally assigned to conscience, and that those who do not do good have a deficiency in that respect. And also that while this is something that might be shaped by experience, it is still essentially innate, rather than acquired - in that, someone who lacks all conscience, such as a sociopath, is not going to acquire one through experience. — Wayfarer

Yes, well if you really drill this down to the very DNA or evolutionary psychology and group behaviors, then what more can be said? Then again, much more can be said...

"UBI" doesn't even begin to address (neoliberalism's) structural imbalances and social injustices which "socialists" critique and oppose with alternative (speculative) socioeconomic arrangements — 180 Proof

Most intellectuals and academics agree on neoliberalism causing inequality. So, if UBI doesn't address this aspect of neoliberalism, then what socioeconomic arrangements would?

But of course there is no equivalence between the law and the good — Banno

But, specifically, what about natural laws? Maybe they can be derived from some ethical consideration of the good...

I won't list all the tidbits of how vested interests can make money from UBI; but I can give a hint... Namely the very nature of banking can allow tremendous profits for large conglomerates to make money from UBI. Think fractional reserve lending and multipliers in the banking system.

The economics is sound and a rising tide lifts all boats.

Sorry if anyone wanted me to address their posts individually; but, as some may understand, I usually start threads in an "ask and tell" manner.

Regarding socialism in the US, I don't think it would ever fly. However, I do have to say that when the core practical-not ideological, as some of you describe or mention-aspect of socialism is the redistribution of wealth, then what's to desire about socialism with such a bad reputation economically that have been demonstrated historically. It would seem as though that someone analyzed socialism, and cherry picked the only possible thing that people would be able to benefit from it without any change in the ideological landscape between the two party system in the US.

Politics aside, I was discussing this topic with several people who said that with a crushing defeat to totalitarian states, along with aspiring socialists around the world, UBI would prove to be a very soft power maneuver around the world towards promoting capitalism with some redistributive characteristics.

Yes, the meaning of "good" is shown, not said; found in use, not in analysis. — Banno

Yet, take the example of good being defined, not by an individual; but, by the very values people or groups enshrine into laws. How do values get inoculated into an individual?

The thing about good and evil, is that the plebs have no idea what or how they emanate.

The people who have experienced good or evil really know how this inescapable dichotomy exists.

Sure, I think I was wrong regarding threads that are about physics even though very little of them are actually scientific or conducted according to what academia might require.

I read a lot of the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus so I shouldn't bother; yet, at every step of the way one would have to avoid the valence of suffering (suffering itself being 'bad') with negating core features of suffering such as loss of a loved one, death, and pain itself that physics couldn't hope to ever do or even care to do ...

I don't think suffering can be encompassed by physics or toy worlds. What makes you believe that is so?

It's good that you realize these things, as they do happen to cause s lot of turmoil for those who never had the abilities to be Wolfgang Mozart's or Beethoven's. Having said that, I don't think that any circumstance warrants abandoning hope or as you call it 'optimism and positivity'. One can always look forward to seeing the sun come up for another day.

Keep on trying, and your English is great!

An interesting issue that arises is if it is possible to make such content showing a different side of sex which does not always reduce people (specifically women) to objects. — Manuel

It seems that Japan is quite ahead of this in their own way. They utilize animated women or manga to this end. Just some knowledge I gained as a teenager. :brow:

So, since the parallels with pornography and advertising is so strong, do you think this potential habit leads to unhappy or rather unsatisfied people?

The appetite for pornography seems insatiable.

I'm not sure if it's a gateway activity... What makes you say that?

I wanted to point out that the greatest danger, whether apparent or not, of pornography is seen through the eyes of the religious and conservative types.

Interesting, huh? :chin:

While I was in college I talked with a guy who knew a few in the adult industry. He said they all smoke dope or snort cocaine.

I'm sure you can find pornography associated in some way with most vices.

Is there a philosophy of porn? If there isn't one, I'd be happy to collaborate with anyone who wants to socratically examine the subject. — Agent Smith

Sure. So, ethically what do you think about pornography? I mean, for a Kantian it seems like a totally bad thing with the whole means to an end thing, while for a utilitarian it can be a hedonistic boon for the population. I'm pretty sure Plato would abhor it with the whole degrading nature of it. So, what says you? Do you enjoy it from time to time?

I just wanted to point out that your post took the cake. Well done, Sir.

Shawn: I supposed Peterson was against it, yes? — BC

Yes, he's very vocal about it. See: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Jordan+Peterson+and+pornography

That statement reveals an interesting perspective, which is that the availability of women for sexual arousal purposes is a commodity and it historically was only affordable by the wealthy. From a capitalistic perspective, it should therefore be no surprise that someone has figured out how to bring this to the regular masses, which then begs the question of whether it's worse now that the vices of yesterday's kings are available to today's pauper. — Hanover

It's pretty much a commodity. Just that the amount of it produced is astonishing. There's quite a lot of it awash on the Internet.

I feel for younger generations exposed to this shit early. It’s a much more rampant issue than I thought. — Mikie

Yeah, as I said to Wayfarer, I practically have no idea to what degree is it a negative. It's commonly assumed it's a negative but not many people know by how much...

Interesting. I believe you are right about that.