Posts by ruggedraven36

Sam Martinez9 said:ruggedraven36

Reading through your previous post, I find myself arriving at the exact same conclusion. It’s hard to disagree. But...

Freeman’s critique of M. Mead and her work, *Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies*, isn't really an indictment of Mead herself. It’s more of a strike against Franz Boas—the man who essentially fathered American cultural anthropology—and the entire discipline he built. At the time, Mead was merely his student, and he was the one who dispatched her to Samoa to conduct her fieldwork. Her mission was intended to serve as a validation of his own theories regarding cultural anthropology. Given that she was only twenty-three and lacked any real footing in rigorous scientific research, it seems inevitable that she would eventually settle on conclusions that simply reinforced her esteemed professor's worldview.

You really have to consider the historical context surrounding when *Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies* was written. We’re talking about the 1920s. Why does that matter? Because back then, Darwinian evolutionary theory wasn't the undisputed bedrock of biology that it is today; it still had its fair share of vocal defenders and even more vocal skeptics within the scientific community. In fact, there was a significant contingent of researchers who were deeply resistant to the idea of evolution altogether. It was these specific thinkers who championed the doctrine that culture exists as an entity entirely unto itself—completely insulated from biological order or any kind of evolutionary process.
M. Mead's work regarding Margaret Mead and Samoa remains incredibly significant because it served as a cornerstone for cultural anthropology theory.

The friction between D. Freeman and his contemporaries is essentially the clash between those who champion cultural anthropology and those who attempt to debunk it.

I agree, though one really ought to read Freeman's critique of Mead as well. Personally, I found his arguments in his book *Dilthey's Dream* quite compelling. He meticulously analyzes Mead's time on the islands while she was gathering material for her seminal work. During that period, she wasn't actually speaking the local dialect; she was communicating with those who spoke English. Furthermore, she didn't reside within a traditional village, but rather in a settlement populated by white residents. Freeman, on the other hand, lived there, mastered the local language, and even worked as a teacher. He went so far as to be adopted into a local family. If you look at the biographies of both Mead and Freeman, it becomes clear that Freeman had a much deeper, more authentic connection to the native population than Mead did.

I haven't personally read *Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies*; it's in my library, but I'm not sure if I'll have the time to get to it. My departure from the US is approaching, and my workload is becoming quite heavy. However, keep in mind that the book was written seven years after *Margaret Mead and Samoa*. In those seven years, Mead undoubtedly matured significantly, both as a researcher and as a writer.

Doesn't matter. Just focus on getting ready for the move—then drop a line here once you're settled in so we know how life is treating you over there. There’s always time for books. It’s just a shame you probably won't be able to lug your whole collection with you; I know you prefer actual paperbacks over those digital versions. Same here.

Laura Reyes3 said:

Simple. As follows:
No single specialized science actually studies the world as a whole—they just pick at one specific part or one isolated aspect of it... The moment a scientist starts questioning the very assumptions underpinning their research—if they actually dig deep enough—they inevitably step outside the boundaries of science itself...

I don't get what's being bolded...

As long as his job boils down to nothing more than gathering and processing data according to a pre-set formula—he doesn't need critical thinking. Critical thinking is the exception, not the rule...

That’s just how the tax system works—it isn't exactly a logic science...

Nothing should ever be taken for granted. In philosophical terms, knowledge isn't just something handed to you—everything requires a reason. But this idea that the scientific method demands "continuous" doubt? That’s just nonsense. The whole point of science is to actually acquire knowledge, not to stay stuck in a loop of eternal skepticism... If you question everything indefinitely, you end up knowing absolutely nothing. What kind of science is that—one that never actually discovers anything?

Knowledge doesn't spread like that—not really. You look at Newtonian or Einsteinian physics and you see how different the process actually is...
Just because someone cast doubt on Newtonian physics and shook things up—it doesn't mean we actually know any less...
Science "knows" things with such... absolute certainty.

Philosophy has the potential to elevate science—specifically through something like Hegelian logic science. Within philosophy, a scientist can actually learn what constitutes knowledge, what qualifies as an opinion, or even what defines "the good." These are all non-scientific concepts, sure, but they are absolutely essential if one intends to think critically. Critical thinking relies entirely on being properly educated in terms of these core concepts. If Hegel’s claim holds any weight—that Newton was "a perfectly uneducated man in terms of concepts"—then that reality likely applies to most of the lesser-known scientists out there, too...

Newton was actually chasing the philosopher's stone—his physics was just a side project. If he had dared to publish that work publicly back then, he would have lost his head. That’s just how he was... No such thing as a majority.
What does that even have to do with anything—I don't know—but since you brought it up...

It’s pretty straightforward. Look—if a biologist studying the stomach asks whether the stomach has a "purpose," they've already stepped outside the realm of science. Why? Because "purpose" isn't a scientific concept. There are plenty of examples like that.

That's how the tax code works, not science.

So, how does science actually work? If you want to test a hypothesis, you have to gather useful data—whether through observation or experiments—and then process it. Just coming up with a hypothesis is more about guesswork (trying to solve a problem) than actual critical thinking.

Science "knows" things with this specific level of certainty.

You either know something or you don't. There's no middle ground.

I don't see how that's relevant, but since you brought it up...

Clearly, you're missing the point. It’s about how we think. It ties back to your claim that all scientific thought is critical thinking. In theory? Sure. In practice? Not even close. I brought up Hegelian criticism of Newton because, for him, metaphysics was something science needed to stay clear of—an idea most scientists have clung to right up to the present day. The point is, without metaphysics, there is no true thought. That’s why I said in my last post that philosophy is the only thing that can actually improve science. Essentially, science is only as good as the philosophy behind it, and only scientific thought that is also philosophical can truly be considered critical.

Laura Reyes3 said:How can science even begin to study the world if it doesn't approach it critically?
The scientific method demands constant doubt. Nothing is ever taken at face value; everything is scrutinized over and over again. Dogma is useless to science—it offers nothing toward actual progress.

Look, no single scientific discipline studies the whole world—they just pick one slice or one specific angle. The moment a scientist starts questioning the very assumptions their research is built on, they’ve basically stepped outside the bounds of "science" as we define it. As long as their job is just gathering and crunching data using a pre-set method, they don't actually need critical thinking. Critical thinking is the exception, not the rule.

Quincy:

The scientific method demands constant doubt. Nothing is taken for granted; everything is questioned over and over. Dogma isn't seen as something useful for science—it doesn't move the needle.

Sure, nothing should be taken for granted. In philosophical terms, that means knowledge isn't just handed to you—everything has a reason behind it. But this idea that the scientific method requires "constant" doubt? That's nonsense. The point of science is to acquire knowledge, not to stay stuck in an endless loop of skepticism. If you doubt everything, you end up knowing nothing. What kind of science is that—one that never reaches a conclusion?

What actually advances science is philosophy—specifically Hegelian Logic Science. Philosophy can show a scientist what constitutes knowledge, what thought is, what "good" means, and so on. These aren't scientific concepts, obviously, but you need them if you want to think critically. Critical thinking depends on having a solid grasp of these concepts. If Hegel was right when he called Newton "a perfectly uneducated man in terms of concepts," then that applies even more to most of the lesser-known scientists out there today.

Eric Newman75 said:I was talking about the specific genre of the novel.

Fine. Honestly, the theory behind the Bildungsroman doesn't do much for me. I slogged through seven pages of this debate and just had to quit—it’s dry, tedious, and frankly, a snooze fest. None of this stuff they say about the Goethean novel actually matches what I felt when I read it. If anything, I found some of the side characters way more engaging than Wilhelm Meister himself. People claim the whole point is the internal experience rather than the plot, but that's just not true. It's the action—the actual movement of the story—that really brings the hero's spirit to life, not some direct description of their psyche. I don't know how much you remember if you've even read it; for me, it's mostly just a general vibe. It wasn't so much about the protagonist's "growth" as it was about that genuine sense of humanity that runs through all of Goethe's work.

By the way, I've always hated this obsession with classifying novels—searching for these supposed "characteristics" of specific genres and all that nonsense. That's why I'm with Čubelić Corp; in their Literary Lexicon, after listing a bunch of different ways to categorize books, they put it perfectly:

"Any attempt to classify novels is only partially valid, especially when you're looking at the great ones. A truly superior novel is its own universe—you can't force it into a neat little box. You might find a few overlapping traits, but that's about it."

The last book I picked up was Tolstoy’s "Resurrection." It hammers home this whole idea of self-reliance and autonomy. Honestly, it isn't some uniquely German thing.

Eric Newman75 said:And once again, nope. Instead of jumping to conclusions, why don't you actually try opening up a conversation?

I'm basing this on the books I've read—period. I'll get around to the debate later.

Eric Newman75 said:No. You can actually break down Wilhelm Meister’s development into distinct stages. I won't bore you with the details here, but honestly, just read this discussion; it should clear things up for you. It covers everything from the historical context to the philosophy and literary theory behind it.

Actually, no—it's more about a specific German tradition, a type of novel designed to educate the masses by instilling ideas of self-actualization and autonomy. As you'll see in the linked article, using a trial-and-error approach instead of just handing out ready-made solutions isn't a bad way to educate a society, one individual at a time.

That’s not some special "thing." Every decent novel aims to do that.

Laura Reyes3 said:That isn’t "mine"—it’s a quote. Everything you're saying holds water, except for that one part regarding what you seem to define as an "institution"...
So, we have role typification—which, granted, requires legitimacy—but let's look at the practical side. If you have a school, and there are students and teachers, and those students are actually learning while the teachers are teaching... then you have typification and legitimacy in action. It results in behavior that aligns perfectly with those established roles... simple as that.

We all know how this goes... Google it... We know exactly what you wrote. I’ve already said that... The ultimate purpose of science... it’s a bit of a moving target, isn't it? Some argue it's about pure discovery—peeling back the layers of the universe just to see what's underneath—while others claim it’s purely utilitarian, a tool meant to solve problems and make life easier. But honestly? It feels more like an endless attempt to impose order on a chaotic mess... a way to build a framework where none exists. It’s about more than just providing assistance—it’s about cementing everything she researched and organized into a definitive framework... Public good...Because she’s—metaphorically speaking—pure play and a spontaneous adventure...

So, we have what is generally accepted as fact versus this "ultimate meaning" you’re talking about. The problem is that "ultimate meaning" isn't an operational concept—it lacks precision. It could mean absolutely anything, or nothing at all... it's a catch-all for the entire spectrum of interpretation. Poetry and associative thinking? Fine for art, I suppose—but they aren't methodologies, and they certainly aren't scientific reasoning.

Humans possess the capacity for critical thought—and yet...Read it critically... That ability can only be stripped away if the individual themselves is destroyed—period. The whole point of science... Critical... An opinion isn't an attack—it’s just an attempt at understanding... though people seem to mistake the two far too often. Schumer — "Resisting critical thought..."

In short—critical thinking often masquerades as an attack, but that’s just not the case... 😁

Look, if someone perceives an action as an attack, they might just be wrong—maybe it’s nothing more than well-intentioned feedback or simply a critical perspective...

Listen, California, if we can't even agree on what constitutes an institution, this whole conversation is a dead end. Why? Because you’re just swapping one institution for another. Fine. You offer a general critique of an institution, but if your goal is to overcome that institution (or whatever), then there's no point in just plugging in a different one in its place. Where's the actual critique in that?

Every scientific opinion is, by definition, critical thinking.

So basically, any scientist who isn't actually thinking critically? They aren't even scientists—they're just people using the title.

Reminds me of that Hegelian remark about Newton. His motto was essentially: "Physics, beware of metaphysics—in other words, Science, beware of opinion."

Eric Newman75 said:It sounds like you might be missing the whole point of the Bildungsroman, which was incredibly popular back then. The core focus isn't on schoolwork; it's about the formation of character and spiritual growth. Thomas Mann actually noted somewhere that an educational novel is essentially just an adventure novel relocated to the psyche. The hero moves from one state of being to another, tackling existential crises—not out in the world, but entirely within their own head.

I know the concept—I just don't necessarily buy into it, at least not entirely. I'm not sure how I'd even apply that logic to a Goethean novel. To be honest, I read it ages ago and most of it is a blur now. Sure, spiritual growth and personality shifts show up in plenty of books (even if we wouldn't label them Coming-of-age novels) because protagonists go through stuff that changes them—it leaves a mark on their soul, whether the author spells it out or just shows it through their actions. It's true that William Master travels around, stays in places for a while, and deals with his own existential baggage, but those aren't some "metaphorical stages"—he's dealing with real-world issues, not just playing mental games.
Maybe "learning" used to mean something broader back in the day. Nowadays, people usually just think of learning as picking up a skill or memorizing facts through some specific method.

I remember being pretty baffled by Goethe's "years of learning Wilhelm Meister" back in the day. Given the title, I went in expecting a deep dive into his formal education—you know, a breakdown of his schooling or at least some commentary on how the books he read actually shaped him. Not even close. The guy basically just "learned" through life itself. You can see him evolving through his various encounters and relationships with different people, but there’s zero explicit focus on any actual "learning" process.

Sam Martinez9 said:I only made it halfway through—right up to the part where she discusses the sexual lives of Samoan girls. She writes about these customs regarding free love, claiming that girls weren't expected to be virgins when they married and could explore relationships quite freely before marriage. It felt fundamentally illogical to me, so I went back to look at Freeman's critique of Mead.

In short, Mead was simply wrong. She was just a young student when she conducted that research, and she basically dedicated a single day to discussing sexual matters with two young girls. Since sex was an embarrassing and awkward topic for them, they essentially just joked around and agreed with whatever Mead wanted to hear.

"Coming of Age in Samoa" is frequently listed among the 50 worst books of the century.

Interesting. I still can't track down her book, but I've read bits and pieces about it and Freeman's rebuttal.
https://www.wikiwand.com/sh/Margaret_Mead
Anyway, anthropologists are split on this. Not everyone buys Freeman's critique. Either way, it’s clearly a massive, influential work.

I'll pull a few quotes from the link provided.

"Margaret Mead conducted her research among a small group of girls in Samoa, an island chain in the South Pacific. The study mostly took place in a village of 600 people on the island of Ta‘ū, where Margaret Mead met, befriended, lived with, researched, and interviewed (via an interpreter) sixty-eight girls ranging from ages 9 to 20. She concluded that on Samoa, the transition from childhood to adulthood is a smooth shift, lacking the psychological or emotional stress, anxiety, or confusion typically seen in the United States."

To me, that conclusion actually holds water.

"After the initial heated debate, most anthropologists concluded that the absolute truth might never be known. On the flip side, many defended Mead against Freeman's critique, arguing that the informants had aged and might have forgotten the specifics of their interviews with Mead, or that they had converted to Christianity and felt ashamed of their past behavior. Others suggested that Samoan culture had changed in the interim, or that Christian missionaries had introduced a Puritanical morality to Samoa, leaving no room for the relaxed sexual standards that so shocked Americans when the book was released. Some even accuse Freeman of suffering from the same ethnocentric sexual puritanism that Boas and Mead once shocked. In 1983, the American Anthropological Association issued a statement labeling Freeman's book, Margaret Mead and Samoa, as 'poorly written, unscientific, irresponsible, and full of distortions.' In the following years, anthropologists debated these issues intensely, ultimately lending broad support to Freeman's criticism."

At the end of the day, you've got to judge for yourself after reading. Given that I found her book Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies to be quite good, I find it hard to swallow the idea that her most famous work is one of the 50 worst books of the century.

Marx argues that all wage labor is basically just a form of prostitution. "Prostitution (in the traditional sense) is merely a specific instance of the universal prostitution of workers".

Sam Martinez9 said:If I were to pose a question to him and his circle of followers, it would be this:

Imagine if society collectively decided that children didn't need schooling and all schools were abolished overnight. What would the world look like thirty years later? Who would maintain our technology, who would understand manufacturing processes, who would manage agriculture or livestock, or know how to repair buildings, bridges, and cars? Who would build new infrastructure, or manage satellites and space travel?

I haven't read that one, but I have read Dilthey's dream regarding Derek Freeman. Freeman critiques *maturation on Samo*, arguing that the book was based on field research that wasn't conducted properly. To put it simply, from what I recall, Mead didn't conduct the fieldwork herself; instead, she sent a young researcher who had a poor grasp of the native language, leading to several flawed conclusions.

You've piqued my interest, so I'll dig out Dilthey's dream again—I have it on my shelf—and I'll try to get through *maturation on Samo* if I find the time. If I stumble upon anything interesting while reading, I'll post an update.

Schools prepare children for life in a society, and in society, hierarchy definitely exists. They aren't going to walk up to their boss at work and say: *Hey, you, I'm heading out to lunch, write this down...*, nor will they speak to the CEO of a major corporation that way.

In any classroom, teachers serve as the primary authority figures, grounded in their expertise—regardless of how deep that knowledge goes, they inherently possess more than the student. Because of this, students ought to learn the value of showing them respect.

From my perspective, however, the reality within our American schools and the broader society is quite the opposite; there is a fundamental lack of respect. Both students and their parents frequently fail to show teachers the deference they deserve.

I hadn't heard that, but I'll probably pick it up when I get a chance. I read her book *sex and temperament in three primitive societies* a long time ago and actually found it pretty interesting—figured this one might be just as engaging.

Regarding teaching methods—since I see people are actually debating that too—I’ve got a perfect little example. My wife is a teacher, so I know enough to be dangerous. Once, right after winter break, she gave her class a math quiz—not for a grade, just to see what stuck. This one kid, who had always been bottom-of-the-barrel when it came to math, absolutely crushed it. Not a single mistake. She was stunned and gave him a huge shout-out in front of everyone. He just calmly tells her he owes it all to his older brother. "How's that?" she asks. "Well," he says, "every time I didn't know an answer, he'd give me a slap." The brother didn't force him into it—the kid figured out his own way to make sure he learned.

Eric Newman75 said:No, you missed my point entirely. I wasn't saying I actually want us to go back to being hunter-gatherers. That was a hyperbole—I used extremes just to highlight my stance on modern achievements. Look, modern life isn't perfect; you've got planet-wide pollution and climate change to deal with. But we've wiped out countless diseases, leveled up our quality of life, extended our lifespans, and fought for human rights like equality and access to education... none of that existed in primal communities. That alone proves our world can be considered progressive.

As for education, sure, the system is far from flawless, but it’s a massive leap forward compared to when schooling was reserved for a tiny elite. If you take the government out of the equation—since they're the ones footing the bill—it's not just about laws and mandates; without them, you'd never achieve that level of mass participation and equality. Compulsory schooling exists because there's a desire for everyone to reach a baseline level of knowledge. Without regulations pushing parents to send their kids to school, those kids would probably still be out working fields or in the woods.

Sure, I could call him progressive—if I chose to ignore everything I actually know about him. The way you’re idealizing this makes me feel like I’m listening to some politician defending their party platform. It isn't just "not perfect." Let's be real: we've absolutely trashed the planet, pushed countless species to the brink of extinction, and allowed wealth and power to gap into something grotesque. We exploit one another, we sit on nuclear arsenals, and people are more disconnected from each other now than at any point in history. We’ve lost our shared ideals entirely, leaving nothing but money as the sole metric for value. I could go on until tomorrow. These aren't minor hiccups—these are massive, existential crises that should be deeply unsettling to anyone with a pulse. Using a soft, euphemistic phrase like "it's not all perfect" feels cheap to me. We used to have actual giants—philosophers and writers who truly understood what "quality of life" meant in this modern era. Where did they go? Honestly, has anything even remotely significant happened in the realm of the human spirit in the last fifty years?

Eric Newman75 said:I haven't read it. What's it about?

Look, if you haven't even cracked the book, then just answer me—strictly for the sake of the argument—on a few things. Would you even be thinking about Margaret Mead if you weren't educated? Would you even be pondering those other books you've picked up, from Karl Marx to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel? And if you did, would you actually grasp what they’re saying? Would you even be able to write replies about things like values, progress, or freedom?

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't. You wouldn't even realize where your own limits are, let alone look for ways to push them. Sure, as a kid, you were forced to go to school; you had to deal with it even when you didn't want to. But that didn't turn you into a slave. It was actually the exact opposite—it set you free. You aren't who you are *despite* being educated; it's precisely *because* you are educated. And as you are now—imperfect as that may be—the system broadened your horizons. It helped you become a thinking being in every sense of the word. Can you honestly deny that?

We’re talking about education on Samo. Just kidding. I haven't actually read it—but my gut tells me it might be worth a shot, which is why I asked.

Eric Newman75 said:I haven't read it. What's it about?

Look, if you haven't even cracked the book, then just answer me—strictly for the sake of the argument—on a few things. Would you even be thinking about Margaret Mead if you weren't educated? Would you even be pondering those other books you've picked up, from Karl Marx to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel? And if you did, would you actually grasp what they’re saying? Would you even be able to write replies about things like values, progress, or freedom?

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't. You wouldn't even realize where your own limits are, let alone look for ways to push them. Sure, as a kid, you were forced to go to school; you had to deal with it even when you didn't want to. But that didn't turn you into a slave. It was actually the exact opposite—it set you free. You aren't who you are *despite* being educated; it's precisely *because* you are educated. And as you are now—imperfect as that may be—the system broadened your horizons. It helped you become a thinking being in every sense of the word. Can you honestly deny that?

The school system didn't open my eyes. Honestly? It was the people tearing the system apart that actually showed me the world—those who lived by Karl Marx's principle of relentless criticism of everything existing. Look, I wouldn't even be touching Hegel or Marx, let alone posting here, if I hadn't learned how to read and write first. Sure, I picked up the basics in the classroom, but at least 90% of what I actually care about and need to know? I taught myself. I did it outside the classroom. In fact, my peers were the ones pushing me forward, not some institutional curriculum. Don't get me wrong—it’s not that I’m anti-school, but schools are just reflections of the global mess and the societies they exist in. It’s simple: you get the school you deserve based on the society you live in.

By the way, since we’re already on the subject of upbringing and education—has anyone actually read Margaret Mead's "coming of age in Samoa"?

Eric Newman75 said:If that were actually true, we wouldn't have all these unemployed philologists and art historians floating around America. We wouldn't have legions of economists and lawyers looking for work either—fields everyone's been chasing forever. Yet, we still insist on this perfect distribution of liberal arts majors and social scientists, even though our economy has basically fallen apart.

Fair point, but schooling and education aren't really about "opinion" anymore. It's more like we view them as self-evident necessities because science and tech are moving at such a breakneck pace. In the modern world, you simply have to keep up, because sliding back into a hunter-gatherer lifestyle isn't exactly an option unless we're talking about total global nuclear war.

That just proves my point. A society that refuses to align its schools with the job market is a society destined to fail. And even then, that alignment isn't a magic bullet—you still have to deal with global competition.

Fine, but education isn't even up for debate anymore. It’s becoming a self-evident necessity because science and technology are constantly sprinting ahead. In the modern world, you simply have to keep pace—otherwise, reverting to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle becomes inevitable, unless you want a global nuclear war.

Philosophy's whole job is to question those exact "self-evident values." Even if we agree they exist, we still have to ask: do they actually live up to their names in this "modern world"? What is the actual purpose of education? What is the real goal of science and tech? That's the only way to tell if they’re actually "moving forward." See, "progress" is defined by its purpose. You say we "simply have to keep pace," but keeping pace and actually progressing aren't the same thing. Especially when you use the word "must"—because if freedom is the metric for progress, then this forced adaptation isn't progress at all. It’s easy to agree on certain abstract values, but when it comes to their meaning, purpose, and implementation, people don't just disagree—they hold diametrically opposed views.
By the way, I have no idea why you've decided I'm advocating for a "return to a hunter-gatherer society." Every time someone questions the "obvious" values of the modern era, I get hit with that tired old counter-argument. It totally ignores the simple reality that an entire history has unfolded between ancient tribes and the 21st century.

Eric Newman75 said:And did it ever cross your mind that kids just aren't mature enough to decide whether they actually need school or not?

When it comes to adults, you have to wonder if they’re even capable of judging their own needs. It's the same thing Marcuse talks about in one-dimensional man.

"Ultimately, individuals have to decide for themselves which needs are genuine and which are false. But that only counts if—and when—they are actually free to give that answer. As long as people are prevented from being autonomous, as long as views are forced upon them and they remain objects of manipulation (even down to their own instincts), their answer to that question can't be considered their own."

Let's be real—school is basically just a factory designed to churn out future employees.

Eric Newman75 said:Look, this isn't "coercion." If you can't wrap your head around the fact that passing down knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes is how we actually give kids the tools to develop their potential and gain intellectual, spiritual, and social independence, then honestly, there’s no helping you. High-quality upbringing and education aren't just perks; they are absolute prerequisites for developing an individual and exercising almost every other human right, like the right to work. That’s why most democratic nations, including here in the US, bake the right to education right into the Constitution—the highest legal authority we have. And until kids reach adulthood, the responsibility falls on the parents to make those calls. That's perfectly normal, actually desirable. A first-grader isn't exactly capable of weighing the life-altering implications of enrolling in school to learn how to read, write, do math, and navigate social dynamics within a community. It's frankly idiotic to even be debating this.

I hear you, but it’s still coercion for the kid. It’s nonsense to claim they "have a right" to go to school when the whole point of education is supposed to be making them free individuals (ideally, anyway). If a child isn't mature enough to decide whether they need schooling, then they sure aren't mature enough to view that schooling as the fulfillment of a "right." The right to education is really the right of adults to educate their children, not a right held by the children themselves. For the kid? It’s an obligation.