Ivan Illich feels incredibly relevant if you view the internet as the ultimate realization of his networked knowledge concept. Take platforms like Coursera, for instance—they offer an endless stream of lectures, books, and online courses. They’re fantastic for picking up skills our local public schools just don't touch, like specialized computer science tracks. But let's be real: everything costs money, the instruction is almost exclusively in English, and you need a decent setup with a camera, headphones, and a mic... I mean, not everyone has the budget for that kind of tech.
Then there's the other issue, the one Epiphany was asking about. Before we could even get into it, some clumsy quote-bot crashed the party and the whole discussion went off the rails. Especially after this recent pandemic showed us that parents simply can't—and shouldn't—be expected to step in as substitute teachers. Most don't have the specialized expertise to explain complex topics to their kids, nor do they always have the critical thinking skills to filter quality content from whatever junk Google spits out. The internet is a blessing if you know what you're doing, but it's a total curse if you haven't developed those internal guardrails. How are kids supposed to tell high-quality info from garbage when even their much more educated, experienced parents struggle with it? I'm talking about the free stuff, the uncertified videos available to anyone—like those random university clips floating around.
Finally, once the pandemic finally wound down, everyone breathed a massive sigh of relief. You heard parents everywhere saying teachers deserve ten times the salary they currently make. And honestly? That said everything. It showed exactly how little capacity our society actually has to shift its paradigm, even briefly. Illich is fascinating, sure, but he's practically impossible to implement.
And don't even get me started on parents who enroll their kids in, say, a Waldorf school, only to drift away because of work or lack of interest. They seem to think they've fulfilled their parental duties just by making sure the kid gets to garden or do some folk dancing. In America, all of this just falls apart—both the new pedagogies and the new technologies. It scares me to think how Illich would react if we tried to flip the entire system upside down tomorrow. It's unfeasible. I'd say it would take at least twenty years just to prep the ground. Even standard academic reforms feel like a joke here, let alone something as radical as this.
I suppose I should probably say something here, though I’m not entirely sure if anyone is actually listening to these endless, circular debates. It feels like we just keep circling the same drain without ever reaching a point. Maybe I’m being too cynical, or maybe I’m just seeing things clearly while everyone else is caught up in the noise. I guess it doesn't really matter, does it? Everything seems to be moving toward the same inevitable conclusion regardless of what we argue about. kaže: Then who on earth would it be? Instead of the usual suspects running the show in Washington... Who exactly should be responsible for shaping our schools? I mean, seriously, who gets to sit in those high-level meetings and decide what the curriculum looks like, what subjects are actually worth teaching, and—this is the big one—what kind of values we’re forcing onto our kids? It feels like there’s no clear line drawn here. Should it be the federal government? Local school boards? Or maybe just the parents themselves? I guess it's complicated, but honestly, it feels like a mess waiting to happen if we don't get some real oversight in place. Maybe we need more input from actual educators instead of just bureaucrats in D.C., but then again, everyone has an opinion on what children "need" to know, which just makes the whole thing even more chaotic.Can I even speak my mind in a democracy?Does the ruling establishment actually have the right to dictate exactly what our schools should look like? I mean, seriously, where does that authority even come from?
I mean, let’s be honest here—we are still miles away from seeing the real deal. We haven't even come close to those truly dedicated, full-blooded types. Democracy... I mean, what even is it anymore? Is it actually a functioning system, or just this hollowed-out shell we all pretend to believe in while the gears grind aimlessly? I guess you could argue that the principles are still there on paper, but when you look at how things are actually running in this country, it feels more like a choreographed performance than a real exercise in self-governance. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but it feels like the whole thing is just spinning its wheels. It's frustrating, honestly. You want to believe in the idea of the people having a say, but then you see the way decisions are made behind closed doors by people who don't seem to care about anyone outside their own little circles. It makes you wonder if the very foundation we're standing on is starting to crack.If we ever want to actually pull this off, we have to start by building actual citizens—real individuals living under a legitimate rule of law. But right now? We’re stuck. We are trapped in this regressive, tribalistic society where everything runs on nepotism, and we don't even have a functioning state to speak of, just a corrupt mess. Honestly, it’s been the same old story for us, even back during that pathetic excuse for "socialism." I’ve been thinking about this lately, and honestly, I think people need to wake up to the reality of the situation. If you look at how things actually play out on the ground, "real socialism" isn't some utopian dream or a way to distribute wealth fairly—it's just a polite euphemism for actual, unadulterated Stalinism. It's all a facade, really. You talk about equality and the common good, but once the gears start turning, it inevitably grinds down into that rigid, top-down authoritarianism we've seen throughout history. It's just one thing by another name.And honestly, it’s going to be exactly the same in this decaying version of capitalism we’re stuck in right now. That’s why I keep holding onto this one hope—that maybe, just maybe, the sheer absurdity of these capitalist extremes, these irreconcilable contradictions that tear everything apart, will finally force a breaking point. Perhaps that collapse will actually lead us toward a new era defined by actual intelligence and wisdom in humanity.
"This verse is garbage—it’s basically me telling Stephen he's just a little punk while he tries to lecture me," which is pretty much how the late American philosopher Guy Petrovic described that classic logical fallacy in his "Logic" textbook. You know the one: when someone fails to actually dismantle an argument, so they just resort to attacking the person making it instead. But let's be clear: you aren't going to succeed. It’s not even because I gave up on logic a long time ago; it’s more because I honestly find it laughable to think you could even grasp what I'm saying. It would be downright hysterical if there were any chance of you understanding me. You’re being absolutely ridiculous, acting like some kind of big-shot mob boss, trying to order me to get off this forum? It’s pure comedy. Want more?
Comprende?☕
Try looking up some entries under 'F' in the dictionary. You might find something interesting. Then move on to 'U'. Study that too. Then 'C'. Then 'K'.
Then hit 'O'. Then go back to 'F'. Actually, stick with 'F' for a bit—I have a feeling a lot of things might still be flying right over your head.
I can't believe we're actually talking about this again. Honestly, where do we even start? It feels like every time someone brings up the "Californian" mindset, half the room starts nodding while the other half rolls their eyes so hard they might see their own brains. It’s that specific kind of energy, isn't it? That relentless, almost exhausting drive to reinvent everything—from how we work to how we perceive reality itself. You see it everywhere from the tech hubs in Silicon Valley to the surf breaks in Malibu. It’s this hyper-focused, slightly manic pursuit of "the next big thing" that borders on a cultish obsession. People act like if you aren't constantly optimizing your life or pivoting your entire career based on some new trend, you're basically standing still. And don't get me started on the social aspect. There's this performative layer to it all. Everyone is a "founder," everyone is an "influencer," everyone has a side hustle that supposedly solves a global crisis. It’s all very... polished. A little too polished. It lacks that gritty, unvarnished authenticity you find in, say, a dive bar in Chicago or a workshop in Detroit. In California, even the grit feels curated for an Instagram feed. I mean, look at the way people talk. Everything is a "disruption." Everything is "scaling." It’s like they’ve swallowed a business textbook and now they can't communicate like normal human beings without using jargon. It’s enough to make your head spin. But then, I catch myself thinking, "Wait, am I being too cynical?" Maybe. There is a certain infectious optimism there, I'll give them that. That "why not?" attitude is what built half the companies currently running the world. But man, the cost of that constant motion... it's heavy. We're all just trying to keep up with a pace that wasn't meant for humans, let alone a whole society. kaže: This whole thing is just ridiculous. It’s uneducated, half-baked, and honestly, just poorly thought out. Do you seriously think Eric Newman75 and the rest of them are actually buying this?HektanohirovićiLook, if every serious, thoughtful, and nuanced writer just decided to post whatever alternative takes they wanted without any oversight or accountability, then the core of their critique would be nothing more than mindless barking while everyone else just walks on by. But hey, I’ve got a little something for you—a vital, lesson-filled quote from a seasoned old pro, V. I. Lenin: The established law of revolutions—something proven by every major uprising, especially that massive Russian upheaval back in the 20th century—boils down to this one thing: it isn’t enough for the working class to just realize they’re being squeezed dry and demand a better life. That’s only half the battle. For a real revolution to actually take hold, you need to reach a point where the people at the top can't physically function or maintain control using the old ways anymore. It's not just about the bottom wanting change; it's about the top losing the ability to stay in charge.
Look, let me just wrap this thought up before I spiral into a total ad hominem fallacy..."So they aren't even offering anything." They’re laying everything bare. Honestly, if you don't believe me, just go pick up some Franco Basaglia and read his work. It's all right there. The negation of an institution... It’s such a heavy concept, isn't it? You start looking at how we tear things down, or rather, how we attempt to deny their very existence when they stop serving us. It's not just about protesting a policy or voting someone out; it’s that deeper, more visceral rejection of the structure itself. When people say they want to negate an institution, they aren't just asking for reform—they’re saying the foundation is rotten beyond repair. They're saying the whole system is built on a logic that simply doesn't hold up anymore. I was thinking about this earlier, and it really hits home when you look at how certain social frameworks in America have become so entrenched that even questioning them feels like an act of madness. But is it? Or is the "madness" actually the refusal to pretend everything is fine? There's a tension there between maintaining order and acknowledging that the order itself might be the problem.Wait, which neighboring country was he talking about when he shut down those "asylums"?
It’s all about that grind: the knowledge, the reading, the hands-on experience, the actual breakthroughs... nothing else matters.☕
What on earth have you done now? Seriously! If you can't even grasp the language you're supposed to be arguing in, then just don't argue. Go find an American forum and go post your nonsense there.
Look, parents can try to shield their kids from certain influences all they want—nobody’s stopping them. But here’s the catch: things like national identity or core civilizational values aren't just tucked away in a single textbook. Between English lit, history, and eventually philosophy and ethics, students are going to run headfirst into certain works and ideas that spark debate. It isn't just about what a teacher says in a lecture. I mean, are you going to tell a kid to never turn on the TV or stop reading the news? Some content exists outside the school walls that serves as a vital pillar of society. Take religion, for example. You can't tell a kid to skip out on religious studies at school while teaching them at home that going to church is just some superstitious nonsense. Religion is part of our culture and civilization; at some point, they’re going to need that context.
As for developing a child based strictly on their "interests," I already mentioned there are various paths you can take. You have to look at the big picture—from elementary school all the way through high school. How exactly do you expect a kid to get into a top-tier university, land a solid career, and actually have a future if they only master the stuff they love and ignore everything else?
I’m genuinely curious, though—what exactly are these people offering who claim to be so worried about "protecting" the kids? My guess is they aren't offering anything at all. They don't seem to have the slightest clue how to actually prepare a student to get into a great high school, let alone an Ivy League university, if they bypass the foundational subjects that they supposedly find "harmful."
velveteagle8 said:I don't think you actually hit the core issue raised in the intro here. If anything, you just reinforced the idea that basic education is mandatory. The fact that there are optional paths or other programs available doesn't change the requirement at all. The heart of the matter isn't about having the freedom to choose one thing; it's about the lack of freedom to reject it entirely. At the end of the day, parents are required to enroll their children in basic schooling. Whether they pick School A or School B is irrelevant to the central argument. I'm also a little lost on your last point about how a parent isn't forced to put a healthy child into a special education program. We could go back and forth on the long-term merits, the practical pros and cons, or the quality of different curricula, but we have to face reality without hiding behind politically correct slogans. You can argue that compulsory basic education is necessary and defend that position if you want, but you can't conflate the right to an education with actual freedom.
It’s not exactly irrelevant, though. You actually have a choice in all of this. Every single decision you make acts like a nudge, steering a kid toward a completely different life based on what you prioritize. It all adds up.
Look, I’m not out here arguing from some standpoint of absolute, unrestrained freedom—because let's be honest, that kind of thing doesn't actually exist in the real world. Our national education laws aren't just some random set of rules we cooked up on a whim; they follow international standards and global conventions. And it’s not even because we necessarily wanted to change things up—it's because we're obligated to. It's just how the system works.
velveteagle8 said:I don't think you actually hit the core issue raised in the intro here. If anything, you just reinforced the idea that basic education is mandatory. The fact that there are optional paths or other programs available doesn't change the requirement at all. The heart of the matter isn't about having the freedom to choose one thing; it's about the lack of freedom to reject it entirely. At the end of the day, parents are required to enroll their children in basic schooling. Whether they pick School A or School B is irrelevant to the central argument. I'm also a little lost on your last point about how a parent isn't forced to put a healthy child into a special education program. We could go back and forth on the long-term merits, the practical pros and cons, or the quality of different curricula, but we have to face reality without hiding behind politically correct slogans. You can argue that compulsory basic education is necessary and defend that position if you want, but you can't conflate the right to an education with actual freedom.
Look, this was all brought up because of the way students with special needs have been treated. If those incidents hadn't happened, we wouldn't even be having this conversation in the first place.
Finally, here you go. The law. Simple as that. Look, you really need to dig into that fourth point—the one covering the goals and principles of education. Those "Paris" guidelines aren't just some random list; they flow directly from the actual school curriculum. The law itself only touches on them briefly. I mean, do you honestly think lawyers get to dictate exactly how pedagogues, psychologists, and specialists handle their business? It doesn't work like that.
velveteagle8 said:I'm not trying to push an agenda for or against the ideas mentioned in the intro; I'm just pointing out some misinterpretations in this post. How can parents be "deciding" on a child's right to an education if it's mandatory and the parent is legally required by U.S. law to enroll them in school? That actually gets to the core criticism raised in the introduction. I'm just trying to keep the debate focused on what the original poster actually meant. As I understand it, the issue is the mandate—the compulsion toward basic education—rather than the "right and choice" to access it, because, frankly, there isn't really a choice.
The law covers mandatory primary and secondary education, sure, but it doesn't bar a student from attending specialized schools that offer arts, sports, international curricula, alternative methods, or minority language programs. It doesn't dictate that they have to attend the specific school assigned to their district either. For instance, if a parent chooses to enroll their child in a standard public school instead of a specialized program for students with disabilities, that’s their call—the government isn't forcing that specific path on them.
Casey Gomez said:Was she actually being helpful, though? The librarian, I mean.
Anyway, I’ve read Justine. I haven't found any specific instance where Nietzsche explicitly references him or attempts to frame him within his own work, but if you consider their shared leanings toward ethical relativism, one could argue de Sade was essentially an early influencer for Nietzsche. By the way, de Sade is almost always framed in a purely negative moral light, which is really just a byproduct of ignorant, prudish hysteria. Personally, I’ve always interpreted that kind of reactionary outrage as nothing more than weak cortical activity resulting from cerebral calcification.
She was an older professor—they always seemed to work the school libraries back then. But honestly, she wasn't a stickler for the rules when it came to the books. You could check out whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted.
Casey Gomez said:I recall being a bit of a degenerate myself... I mean, as a young adult, I was already diving into de Sade... it’s a little kitschy, sure, but honestly, who isn't? ☕ In truth, his logic is actually quite sound. ☕
So, what were you reading— Justin or 120 Days of Sodom? I actually got caught red-handed with the latter once. My middle school English teacher told me that definitely wasn't appropriate reading material for an eighth grader and sent me straight to the library. I brought it back, though I wasn't exactly thrilled about it. When I asked the librarian why they even stock books that kids our age aren't supposed to touch, she didn't have an answer for me. 😳
Laura Reyes3 said:Nobody reaches maturity in elementary school—and calling it "intellectual development" isn't even the right way to put it, since we don't go to school just to develop our "intellect."
If someone actually wants to offer a coherent critique of the American education system, they’re welcome to try—but they need to provide a viable alternative. Illiteracy isn't an alternative to education.
Yeah, obviously. Elementary school is there to give you the foundation, to open the doors for you. But the actual path to knowledge? That’s on you. It's a lifelong process. No educational institution on the planet can hand you everything, but they can spark the interests and build the skills you need for whatever comes next.
Laura Reyes3 said:Nobody reaches maturity in elementary school—and calling it "intellectual development" isn't even the right way to put it, since we don't go to school just to develop our "intellect."
If someone actually wants to offer a coherent critique of the American education system, they’re welcome to try—but they need to provide a viable alternative. Illiteracy isn't an alternative to education.
I'm with you there. Look, schooling, just like anything else, has its flaws. But the Sumerians, the Chinese, the Greeks, the Romans... they all figured out the benefits of organized, group learning in one central place a long time ago. If the alternative is just individual self-study, it won't come close to matching those results in terms of quality or efficiency. Society would fall apart way too fast if that were the case.
copperhound12 said:And I'm not being "concrete"? Look, I obviously respect (are you even listening to me: I RESPECT) your points. But they just aren't sufficient for me. Period. Why? Because they are merely manifest symptoms. I am looking for the latent causes (or if you prefer, the "generic" drivers behind everything happening), because that is the only thing that actually matters in sociology or anthropology.
And all this while, you're debating upbringing and education based on a quote from the 13th century (!) that you slapped at the beginning ("We do our best to fix them. We beat them from morning till night. But it achieves nothing.").
Now you're clinging to that colorful little anecdote, which is really just a paraphrase or a metaphor for psychological consequences. Why is it just a metaphor? Because it reflects the mechanism of social control. It used to be physical punishment, but now it has seemingly been replaced by—brainwashing. And why the shift? Because it was determined that physical force isn't enough anymore, even if it was cheap. All these intense arguments claiming children aren't suitable for "physical discipline" because of their "personalities"—well, those arguments fit perfectly within the current framework of social control.
How exactly do you plan on maintaining any kind of system without some level of social control? Every single part of society functions by following established norms. Civilization itself is built on passing down knowledge, skills, customs, and intellectual or spiritual insights from one generation to the next. Naturally, this leads to a certain standardization of the individual (using a metaphor there, since I hate the term "molding"). School is a vital gear in that mechanism, but that doesn't mean it's some kind of concentration camp, despite how much people here keep trying to claim it is.
Just because we aren’t even talking about the same thing—and by that, I mean if I’m talking about the forest and you’re talking about the highway—doesn't mean I'm launching an ad hominem attack. It’s really just a fundamental disagreement on where the weight should be placed in education and upbringing. I’m focusing on the actual purpose of the system itself, while you’re stuck discussing some massive, generic phenomenon that could apply to literally any institution, from the U.S. Army to the Department of State. And honestly? You're trying to debate modern education using a quote from the 13th century (!) that you dropped at the start ("We do our best to improve them. We beat them from morning till night. But there is no use in it."). So, please, spare me the lecture on whether or not I'm accepting your arguments.
wearyharbor41 said:It is coercion without any necessity; it is nothing short of abuse directed at gifted children. I have already attempted to clarify this on numerous occasions across several different topics here on the forum.
With the caveat that I haven't sufficiently detailed the "developmental" nature of an institution where certain children are bullied by others, where students are publicly humiliated or mocked, where they encounter vices, where individuals are judged for physical traits they cannot change, and where their talents and intellect are systematically suppressed.
🙂
Naturally, I included that explanation in my previous response, which you so rudely chose to ignore: "Where am I semi-literate? Perhaps I was suffering from some brain inflammation due to people lacking conscience and having malicious intentions, leaving my mind less than optimal, yet I still possess an intellect capable of defending my arguments, whereas you can offer nothing but the defense of violence against children and online trolling, something I have grown accustomed to on this forum."
In short, you are mocking people with physical disabilities.
Even if my brain were functioning at the peak performance an intellect ought to possess, it would be absurd for you to use that as a metric to judge a person's character or mental capacity.😵
There is a distinction between merely being perceived as "someone" (as the forum rules protect you, based on my experience with how criteria are applied here) and actually speaking up to dispel all doubt.
Of course, you proceed to block me, hoping that you might also block me so that I no longer feel the need to take anti-nausea medication.
☕
Look, if you hadn't gone through a serious brain illness, you might have realized that saying "maybe I had brain inflammation because of people without a conscience..." (sic!) isn't an explanation. It’s just stating a possibility. It's like saying "maybe I'm an alien"—it's a hypothesis, not a fact. If you actually wanted to explain why your writing is so messy, you should have just said, "I had brain inflammation." Period. Then I would've said I was sorry to hear that.
I'm not even going to touch your other claims. But hey, I totally get why middle school might have been a traumatic experience for you.
I wouldn't go that far. I’d say just selling out covers it—it's right there in the dictionary definition. It's an umbrella term for every sin you could possibly commit, from stripping away your dignity and ideals to straight-up betrayal.
People do all sorts of crazy things for a paycheck. You aren't exactly breaking new ground by realizing that capitalism was practically engineered to exploit that impulse.
Nah, once you actually sit down and put everything on paper, it becomes pretty obvious that you don't even really know your own language. Tell me exactly what you were doing, and I'll have no trouble at all finding you a term that’s more accurate, precise, and denotative. 🙂
Robin Fox4 said:If you look at the actual impact on society, sexual prostitution in both its narrow and broader sense is honestly a much smaller evil than the other various forms of exploitation out there...
Look, I wasn't just talking about things being metaphorical here—it’s really about the total lack of clear criteria. To put it more bluntly, it doesn't matter what you personally decide counts as prostitution. It’s a purely subjective take that, in 99% of cases, someone who doesn't even recognize the phenomenon as prostitution will just flat-out deny. All you've done is prove the term itself is flawed and that you're basically pulling it out of thin air.
Robin Fox4 said:I don't think it really accounts for that massive of a percentage, at least if you're looking strictly at links... But if we're talking about prostitution, I suspect that 98% figure might actually be closer to the truth. Just to clarify my point here: prostitution shows up in almost every facet of human activity, not just when it comes to the literal sale of bodies. Of course, it's heavily intertwined with porn, but they aren't exactly the same thing. Visual and audio content meant to satisfy sexual urges has existed since long before modern civilization ever began. I remember reading somewhere that back in the days of early humans, it wasn't unusual for sexual encounters to happen right by the fire, almost like a public performance. You'd have a couple together, and their friends or family would gather around to watch. It was how the younger generation learned, and it certainly made it pretty obvious who the father was later on... quite efficient, in its own way 😍
You're really stretching the definition of prostitution there.
copperhound12 said:One of the fundamental premises in the doctoral dissertation by Isidor Grahorac (since he actually sent me a copy of his dissertation) is the well-known fact that students address their teachers using formal pronouns—using "Sir" or "Ma'am"—instead of being casual. This concept is found at the very beginning of every study on Black pedagogy. By vocation, the student is positioned "below" the teacher, but he advocates for the thesis that this relationship should be reversible—meaning, equal. Friendship is available to everyone: both to the teachers and to the students.
They have issues here, but they aren't quite what you imagine them to be.
"Hidden" curriculum is a core component of every public school. One of the central tenets is that competition is permitted and encouraged for everyone. Students raise two fingers when they know an answer, effectively nullifying those who don't.
And this idea that "they-aren't-what-you-think-they-are" is actually a hidden code. Because the "rulers"—those in control—want it exactly that way. Simply because it's cheap.
Equality has always been purely formal. Even at a university, students are called "colleagues," which creates this illusion of being equals. But that "colleague" relationship doesn't exist in how they actually speak to one another, because a professor is never just a "colleague"—they are always "Professor."
copperhound12 said:One of the fundamental premises in the doctoral dissertation by Isidor Grahorac (since he actually sent me a copy of his dissertation) is the well-known fact that students address their teachers using formal pronouns—using "Sir" or "Ma'am"—instead of being casual. This concept is found at the very beginning of every study on Black pedagogy. By vocation, the student is positioned "below" the teacher, but he advocates for the thesis that this relationship should be reversible—meaning, equal. Friendship is available to everyone: both to the teachers and to the students.
They have issues here, but they aren't quite what you imagine them to be.
"Hidden" curriculum is a core component of every public school. One of the central tenets is that competition is permitted and encouraged for everyone. Students raise two fingers when they know an answer, effectively nullifying those who don't.
And this idea that "they-aren't-what-you-think-they-are" is actually a hidden code. Because the "rulers"—those in control—want it exactly that way. Simply because it's cheap.
The moment you introduce grading, you introduce competition. That's just how it works. You keep spinning the same old mantra regardless of what I say here. And what I am saying is that students experience modern education very differently today; there is significantly more respect and tolerance compared to previous eras. Everything is taken into account now, from physical traits to mental characteristics. Trying to judge the entire American education system through the lens of what it was like when you were a kid is fundamentally flawed.
copperhound12 said:Oh, if only physical discipline were still an option—if it even existed! But (and it hasn't for ages!) it’s been completely abandoned and stripped of its power. What we're actually seeing is psychological punishment, which has basically been sublimated into the "hidden" curriculum of every single elementary and high school student in the country.
Out of all the concepts out there, I'll just focus on one or two: competition and rituals. Do you honestly believe that when teachers walk through those classroom doors, students stand up from their desks because they're following some ritualistic rule of childhood? Or do they stand up because they actually respect their instructors? ☕
And even that's a thing of the past. The rules have shifted so much lately. You aren't even allowed to send a kid out of class or interrupt their learning process in any meaningful way. I know a few teachers—even those teaching elementary school grades—where the kids just stay slumped in their seats when they walk in. They tell me they aren't the only ones dealing with this, either; it carries right over into middle school. Want to send a student to talk to the guidance counselor or the principal? Forget about it. That gets pinned on you as a personal failure. The expectation is that *you* handle it, that *you* sit them down and talk it out. Which, in theory, is fine. But let’s be real: how are you supposed to find the time for all that while also trying to finish the lesson plan for the period?
There are definitely issues here, but they aren't quite what you might imagine.
copperhound12 said:Well, I have. And I've also delved into these specific works (back when I was starting my Master's degree, which I never quite finished): https://www.scribd.com/document/2683...A-SUMMERHILLA# A. S. Neill: Free to Learn at Summerhill
Dr. Vuk Stambolović: The University Seal https://www.abrakadabra.com/hr-HR/Ka...ac-/p/7008I5O# Childhood, Spirituality, Nihilism - Education and Society (Ed.), Isidor Graorac
Why? Because back then, I was intensely preoccupied with the psychological state and spiritual essence of a child, especially once I uncovered the "dark" side inherent in every pedagogy (it's actually explicitly termed as "Black Pedagogy"). From all of this, I'll provide a quote (from V. Stambolović, who sent me his doctoral dissertation): "We do our absolute best to fix them. We beat them from dawn until dusk. But it serves no purpose whatsoever. (A monastic teacher from the 13th Century, Father Anselmo)"—which exposes the reality of that era, and I firmly believe, even today!
Are you kidding me? Nobody's "beating" anyone anymore; physical punishment is a thing of the past. Nowadays, if you even lay a finger on a kid, you’re looking at getting fired and facing criminal charges. Even if you just raise your voice, someone will turn around and ask if that was really appropriate—basically questioning if you could have handled it better.
ruggedraven36 said: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"?
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?