Freedom and Education

Sam Martinez9 said:It’s always been this way. It’s really just a matter of time before we see a school that actually focuses on shaping people rather than just processing them.

If you step back and look at schooling through a wider lens, it’s really just a mechanism for passing down essential knowledge from one generation to the next. When you view it that way, it becomes clear that we are simply teaching children the specific skills they need to survive and thrive in their particular environment. A child growing up in a tribe within the Amazon Rainforest is going to learn how to forage for food and steer clear of venomous creatures in the jungle. A kid raised on a farm in rural Nebraska will be taught the nuances of tending crops and managing livestock. Meanwhile, an American child is being conditioned with the specific set of tools required to navigate the modern job market.

I can’t say for certain what the current landscape looks like, but back in the day, there were certain types of high schools that operated under a completely different philosophy. Their primary goal wasn't to churn out workers ready for the job market; instead, they focused on providing a deep, broad-based liberal arts education designed to prepare students for the rigors of university life.

Human knowledge today is incredibly vast, almost overwhelming. But honestly, just having information sitting there in books or tucked away on a hard drive isn't enough to make it useful. For knowledge to actually matter, it needs to be materialized—it has to move from the page into our own minds, becoming part of how we think and act. It’s only when we truly internalize what we've learned and begin implementing it into our daily lives that it gains any real value.

I don't quite follow where you were going with that, Nea. You cut off mid-sentence. If there was something specific on your mind regarding our previous discussion, please feel free to elaborate. I'm listening. kaže:
By the way, illiteracy is also something being cultivated right within our own school systems, where the curricula are dictated from the top down by the federal government. Because these programs shift constantly to suit whatever political winds happen to be blowing at the moment, what we call "education" is essentially just a mechanism for manipulation—it’s more about programming children's brains than providing them with any kind of genuine, meaningful learning.

It’s certainly necessary to take a hard look at how our education system functions today—whether we're talking about the schools here in the States, across the European Union, or anywhere else on the map. But if I'm reading between the lines correctly, it seems our esteemed colleague over there actually wants to abolish schools entirely. Please feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted his position.

You didn't misunderstand him at all. In fact, he aggressively forces his own agenda by circling back to the same tired talking points every single time the conversation tries to go somewhere interesting. This forum isn't a sounding board for that. He literally just finished explaining the exact same thing over on Philosophy. He's even got two threads going about elementary education over on Law, which anyone can easily verify. He loves playing this part where he pretends to be some sort of progressive visionary when, to be blunt, he's just being "controversial" for the sake of it. This isn't even the first time I've had to wade through his incoherent ramblings.

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"?

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?

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"?

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!

Foucault was always super skeptical about the whole education system and big institutions; to him, they were basically just glorified prisons

“Schools serve the exact same social functions as prisons and psychiatric wards—they exist to define, classify, control, and regulate people.”

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.

Eric Newman75 said: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.

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? ☕

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.

Eric Newman75 said: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.

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.

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.

Where on earth did you get the idea that I’m "hanging out on Alternative"?
I don't frequent that site, and frankly, I have no clue what else the guy who started this thread posts outside of his activity here. Since you seem to be so well-informed about his habits, maybe you're actually the one "hanging out" there...? 🙄

On another note: if you actually learn how to read in school, you can figure out everything else you're curious about later on. In most cases, the education system doesn't offer any hints regarding what we're truly interested in; we have to go find that ourselves. For instance, during my own schooling, I spent most of my time just memorizing data that you can now find with a single click—info that didn't even interest me at the time.
Education is essentially just forcing people into a mold. It's designed so that children enter the system healthy and free, only to exit it prepared to step into the capitalist arena—trained for competition, deception, maneuvering, and other such "noble" skills.

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.

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.

ruggedraven36 said:Let's be real—school is basically just a factory designed to churn out future employees.

We really need to reform the system to produce people who won't work...

The school system is essentially a factory designed to churn out both productive employees and societal drains. Who else could claim to "produce" results in such a specific way?
Is there actually any legitimate alternative to formal schooling worth discussing?

By the way, the intention behind this thread was for someone to pose a central question which would then serve as a springboard for a dedicated discussion elsewhere, rather than trying to tackle every single sub-issue right here. 😉
If this forum were more democratic—meaning if the big boss placed more trust in the regular users and less in the moderators—we wouldn't have to call for a moderator over every minor detail, but it is what it is.

If the topic had actually been framed that way from the jump, the opening post would have clearly stated it, but it just didn't. So, we could always suggest—or honestly, just politely ask, whether it’s here or in one of our other dedicated threads—to start a whole new discussion centered specifically on that question; or we could have just asked to update the original post to include that perspective in the first place. Look, we can all hash things out civilly without throwing malicious jabs, because being petty isn't exactly how you build any kind of productive cooperation.

That being said, regarding the last part of what you just said, I’d really suggest you stop pushing those kinds of inconsistencies, whether it’s here or anywhere else.

I’m not looking for advice
And I certainly wouldn't take it if you offered

Threatening people and forcing cooperation isn't just illogical—it's completely irrational. You might find that showing a little more respect and offering less condescension would actually serve you better in the long run.

(See, I’m aware of how this works too 😉
The only real difference between my attitude and yours is that you're allowed to be patronizing, whereas I am not.)

Eric Newman75 said:You didn't misunderstand him at all. In fact, he aggressively forces his own agenda by circling back to the same tired talking points every single time the conversation tries to go somewhere interesting. This forum isn't a sounding board for that. He literally just finished explaining the exact same thing over on Philosophy. He's even got two threads going about elementary education over on Law, which anyone can easily verify. He loves playing this part where he pretends to be some sort of progressive visionary when, to be blunt, he's just being "controversial" for the sake of it. This isn't even the first time I've had to wade through his incoherent ramblings.

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

Do you actually think you're "better"—not in some arrogant way, but maybe just possessing an extra layer of depth or a different kind of mental dimension—than people who couldn't care less about philosophy, or even worse, people who actively hate it? I’m talking about philosophy in the broadest sense... that general inclination to actually sit and think about the world, why we're even here, what our purpose is, the search for truth, and all those other things that fall under that umbrella.

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.