Freedom and Education

Nicholas Grant20 said: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.

I really don't. If that were actually how I felt, I’d end up believing that I have absolutely nothing left to learn or exchange with people who aren't interested in philosophy—or worse, those who actively dislike it—and I'd essentially be shutting myself off from all the insights coming from those directions that could feed into my own reflections on the world, our purpose, and our place in it. I’d be robbing myself of that very "extra dimension, depth, and quality of spirit" I’m trying to cultivate, because true growth happens internally rather than by measuring myself against others as somehow superior. For me, even a quick chat with an auntie at a local farmers market or a conversation with someone working hard with dirt under their fingernails can provide so much spiritual nourishment; honestly, everywhere we go and everyone we interact with offers lessons, so if I started viewing myself as "better," it would be like wearing this weirdly selective suit of armor that only lets certain things in, or wearing earplugs that only filter for philosophical discourse, or putting on these specialized intellectual glasses designed specifically for philosophers who look down on everyone else while simultaneously shielding themselves from anyone hostile to the craft. Plus, if I did fall into that trap of thinking I was "better"—which includes the idea of possessing "truth"—it could paradoxically manifest as a hostility toward philosophy itself and the people who care about it, since I'd be looking down on them; I've actually seen this happen on forums like this before, where someone participates in a discussion by belittling almost everyone else or elevating themselves in a way that inherently puts others down.

On the flip side, we can never truly know what other people are thinking in their own private moments or how much (or how little) they philosophize when they're alone; all we ever see is what they choose to present to us, though we might be able to sense more if we're keen readers of the human psyche or if we possess those psychological intuition skills that Friedrich Nietzsche talked about, describing how he could physiologically sense the very core or "gut" of a soul... and if we used that just to feel "better" than others. Your question actually brings to mind Ujević's poem Brotherhood of faces in the universe.

Don't get cocky!

Your thoughts aren't just yours alone

... etc. 🙂

Eric Newman75 said:What exactly is an elementary school here? A restaurant? A swimming pool? No, it’s an educational institution. Period.

Fair point. You didn't actually say "it stifles creativity," or "they won't let them," or "making it conscious," or call anything "ridiculous," or mention "children's rights," etc. And you definitely didn't forget to use punctuation where it belongs—like when I intentionally played around with that inverted sentence structure.

Honestly, every single middle schooler—yeah, even the ones who have to be dragged there kicking and screaming—is more literate and sharper than you are.

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.

🙂

Eric Newman75 said:What exactly is an elementary school here? A restaurant? A swimming pool? No, it’s an educational institution. Period.

Fair point. You didn't actually say "it stifles creativity," or "they won't let them," or "making it conscious," or call anything "ridiculous," or mention "children's rights," etc. And you definitely didn't forget to use punctuation where it belongs—like when I intentionally played around with that inverted sentence structure.

Honestly, every single middle schooler—yeah, even the ones who have to be dragged there kicking and screaming—is more literate and sharper than you are.

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.

☕

Eric Newman75 said:It isn't "disqualifying" someone to tell a person who complains about elementary school—which is fundamental for basic literacy and skills—that they are illiterate. If elementary school is "unnecessary" and "so-called," as explicitly stated, then why was it such a massive struggle for this "brilliant" individual to master the basics that everyone else managed just fine? They did manage them; you only have to read the thread from the beginning to be sure of that. That's point one.

Second, you're being a hypocrite. Almost every philosopher you could possibly bring up in this debate would have been highly educated, and not just in one single field. You can find recommendations on schooling and developing proper systems from a Chinese person five thousand years ago, from a Greek person two thousand years ago, or from Enlightenment thinkers three hundred years ago—this isn't some new fad. It's something that has constantly occupied cultures and civilizations. Why would modern society be the exception?

Third, it’s not a platitude to say that educated people differ from uneducated ones in terms of success and independence. Educated people travel wherever they want and do whatever they want; any country will welcome them with open arms. Uneducated people simply can't (or can to a much lesser extent).

And fourth, our education system is just a tiny fraction of the story; there are much better models out there. I haven't noticed, for instance, Germans complaining because their kids have to go to school. Nor have I seen developing nations in the Third World cutting schools from their long-term plans—it's actually the exact opposite. For everyone, education is the foundation, the lever used to jumpstart the economy, healthcare, social services, science...

As for the tone, you hang out on Alternative and you know exactly what spam looks like. You know the drill. Beyond that, I don't think I need to explain myself further. Copy-pasting threads on the principle of "if it sticks, it sticks" is endlessly exhausting.

I have written. Here. I am somewhat perplexed by the nature of your recent conduct—specifically, the way you chose to dismiss me so bluntly before pivoting into outright insults. It has become quite transparent why individuals who cling so desperately to the status quo would feel compelled to defend someone of your temperament.

Eric Newman75 said:It isn't "disqualifying" someone to tell a person who complains about elementary school—which is fundamental for basic literacy and skills—that they are illiterate. If elementary school is "unnecessary" and "so-called," as explicitly stated, then why was it such a massive struggle for this "brilliant" individual to master the basics that everyone else managed just fine? They did manage them; you only have to read the thread from the beginning to be sure of that. That's point one.

Second, you're being a hypocrite. Almost every philosopher you could possibly bring up in this debate would have been highly educated, and not just in one single field. You can find recommendations on schooling and developing proper systems from a Chinese person five thousand years ago, from a Greek person two thousand years ago, or from Enlightenment thinkers three hundred years ago—this isn't some new fad. It's something that has constantly occupied cultures and civilizations. Why would modern society be the exception?

Third, it’s not a platitude to say that educated people differ from uneducated ones in terms of success and independence. Educated people travel wherever they want and do whatever they want; any country will welcome them with open arms. Uneducated people simply can't (or can to a much lesser extent).

And fourth, our education system is just a tiny fraction of the story; there are much better models out there. I haven't noticed, for instance, Germans complaining because their kids have to go to school. Nor have I seen developing nations in the Third World cutting schools from their long-term plans—it's actually the exact opposite. For everyone, education is the foundation, the lever used to jumpstart the economy, healthcare, social services, science...

As for the tone, you hang out on Alternative and you know exactly what spam looks like. You know the drill. Beyond that, I don't think I need to explain myself further. Copy-pasting threads on the principle of "if it sticks, it sticks" is endlessly exhausting.

I feel compelled to step in on behalf of my colleague, who clearly possesses both a conscience and a sense of reason. There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about her position; we aren't debating the merits of a liberal arts education here. We are discussing the realities of a concentration camp, which has nothing to do with academic enrichment beyond the most fundamental necessities, such as basic literacy and elementary arithmetic.

It is rather striking how much more one can absorb from two weeks of immersing oneself in documentaries than from four years spent sitting through elementary school history classes. There is a certain freedom in it; you aren't being graded on whether you correctly memorized the exact birth date or death date of some obscure figure who holds no relevance to the modern world.

It is quite obvious to anyone who possesses even a modicum of intellectual honesty, a functioning conscience, or a sense of moral integrity.

The same principle applies to all other items.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the sheer volume of wasted potential lying in our wake—all those individuals who possessed genuine talent and should have been honing their craft during those formative years, only to be thwarted by systemic brainwashing, relentless indoctrination, and the wholesale theft of their most precious resource: time.
Millions of people are being left behind because of such misguided policies and the systemic violence inflicted upon children.

By the time you walk across that stage at high school graduation, it becomes painfully clear that the curriculum has left you almost entirely unprepared for the realities of adulthood. We spend years studying abstract theories, yet we emerge without even a basic grasp of what truly matters—like how to actually maintain one's health, which is arguably the most vital asset any person possesses. We graduate knowing how to solve equations, but we remain blissfully ignorant of the fundamental mechanics behind how our government operates, what our legal rights actually entail, or what kind of practical challenges await us in the real world. It is quite a curious way to educate a generation: providing plenty of data, yet neglecting the essential statistics and life skills that would actually allow someone to navigate society with any degree of competence.

It is an absolute disgrace that we find ourselves in this particular era. Given our unprecedented technological leaps, one might have expected this civilization to finally demonstrate some semblance of genuine humanity or moral virtue. Instead, history will likely record that we are the first society capable of such profound sophistication only to prove ourselves monstrously wicked across every conceivable field, deliberately and with full intent, dismantling the lives of individuals on a global scale. ☕

It is only natural that those of us who possess some understanding of what awaits beyond this life find a certain quiet solace in the thought of accountability. There is a small, perhaps somewhat cynical, comfort in knowing that those who have meticulously engineered society to serve their own ends—those who systematically strip away freedoms and stifle human potential—will eventually face the consequences of their actions in the eternal realm. I suppose my only true satisfaction lies in the belief that there exists an inescapable justice, one that cannot be evaded by any amount of earthly maneuvering. 👋

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?

I wonder if you have ever paused to consider that there are gifted children—even entire generations—who fully develop their intellect by the time they reach middle school? To them, being forced into a rigid academic structure feels much like forcing an adult to endure unnecessary burdens that serve no purpose in their life. Have you truly reflected on the fact that these children are human beings with their own inherent rights, entitled to be free from coercion? One might even ask how much systemic harm this educational model has inflicted upon both students and their parents alike.

Rather amusing, really.

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.

How can you claim this isn't coercion when the fact remains that it is? Am I expected to simply tolerate such blatant falsehoods? And what does a first-grader have to do with a thirteen or fourteen-year-old who is still being forced to remain in that institution without any actual necessity?
That has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of one's education; it is quite fascinating how you attempt to twist and manipulate language without offering a shred of evidence.

The concept of compulsory primary education was actually introduced in Prussia to serve military interests, designed to ensure that people—specifically soldiers—could be more easily controlled and subordinated to superiors for military and other strategic purposes.

Sandra Murphy33 said:"It's stupid to even debate this"—if that isn't a total dictatorship of thought, I don't know what is.

It’s also an unpleasant experience to see someone get disqualified from a discussion ostensibly just because they are deemed "uneducated." Let's be clear: illiteracy is something fostered by our own school systems, where curricula are dictated from the top down by Washington bureaucrats. Because these programs shift whenever the political winds change, education is essentially just manipulation and brainwashing rather than actual learning.
Within such a broken system, you end up with broken people. The way you write, and how you seemingly worship the current educational establishment—which any halfway sensible person would rebel against—is so outdated and divorced from reality that it has moved past being a mere cliché; it’s blatant propaganda.
("...by imparting knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes, you enable children to develop their potential and achieve intellectual, spiritual, and social independence" 🤦 )

Even your tone feels less like that of a philosopher who is a true researcher and more like an authoritarian military commander. 👎

Thank you for participating in a civilized dialogue, 🙂

A forced concentration camp shapes everyone within it; when a person lacks internal virtue or capacity, they eventually become indifferent to their situation. Following such heavy indoctrination, they simply lose the ability to think any differently than how their environment has molded them.

It is much like someone languishing in a prison who, having never known freedom, might actually believe that having a free roof over their head and regular meals is sufficient, simply because they are unaware of their own potential or the very existence of liberty. Or perhaps it is those who possess no higher standards than their surroundings who accept their circumstances without the logical capacity to understand what is happening or why they are imprisoned in the first place. 🍿

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.

The issue is that there is a distinct lack of practical knowledge being imparted here—things like basic health, how the American government functions, or our fundamental rights, for instance.

I don't wish to be repetitive, so if you're interested, feel free to review my previous contributions to this thread or others; I leave that entirely up to you.

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.

Beyond literacy and basic mathematics, one could approach this in a more humane way—the kind of way you might prefer to be treated yourself. Instead of maintaining the status quo, we could provide stimulating presentations that allow for free will. From an economic standpoint, rather than dedicating all those funds to professor salaries, we could utilize audio/video materials and computer programming, then reinvest those savings into legitimate science and education, as well as protecting the legal system and healthcare as fundamental human rights.

It is a topic far too vast and deep to exhaust here. What matters is the underlying principle.

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.

"Thought-provoking topics without dogma"—so, who exactly is imposing anything here, and who is being offensive, aggressive, or twisting the truth? For anyone following this thread, or even those aware of the state of our modern society and how innocent people are treated, the answer should be obvious.

The term "controversial" carries its own weight and doesn't inherently imply something negative, unless, of course, one lacks the ability to back up their 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.

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.

Eric Newman75 said: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."

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.

-------------------

And you think you have some sort of valid point when you attack me personally? Calling my arguments "ad hominem" is just a weak, unprovable deflection on your part.☕

I do respect your points. However, they are manifestly obvious, superficial, and lack depth. Education and upbringing are meant to shape students, and that responsibility falls on authoritative teachers. Robert K. Merton was a renowned author and sociologist who always sought to investigate latent motives. Because those hidden drivers are far more significant when it comes to the institutionalization of any organization or institution—and believe me, they exist here too. So, what are they?

I'm not going to sit here and list every single narrative for you, but basically, most of what I've read can be found in the works published here in America, such as "The Negation of Institution" by Franc Basaglia, and "The Social Construction of Reality" by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann.

To put it bluntly, the conceptual machinery of society demands a social reality that is acceptable and suitable to itself. It then INSTITUTIONALIZES that reality. Every phenomenon and every specific arrangement falls under the umbrella of social control. To me, that is the only legitimate, serious argument that truly touches upon anthropology, sociology, and philosophy.

"A child does not internalize the world of significant others as one of many possible worlds; they internalize it as the only existing and only understandable world. This is precisely why the world internalized during primary socialization is embedded much more deeply than the worlds internalized during secondary socialization. (Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, p. 161, "The Social Construction of Reality")"

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.

Eric Newman75 said: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.

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.

wearyharbor41 said:I wonder if you have ever paused to consider that there are gifted children—even entire generations—who fully develop their intellect by the time they reach middle school? To them, being forced into a rigid academic structure feels much like forcing an adult to endure unnecessary burdens that serve no purpose in their life. Have you truly reflected on the fact that these children are human beings with their own inherent rights, entitled to be free from coercion? One might even ask how much systemic harm this educational model has inflicted upon both students and their parents alike.

Rather amusing, really.

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.

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.

copperhound12 said:-------------------

And you think you have some sort of valid point when you attack me personally? Calling my arguments "ad hominem" is just a weak, unprovable deflection on your part.☕

I do respect your points. However, they are manifestly obvious, superficial, and lack depth. Education and upbringing are meant to shape students, and that responsibility falls on authoritative teachers. Robert K. Merton was a renowned author and sociologist who always sought to investigate latent motives. Because those hidden drivers are far more significant when it comes to the institutionalization of any organization or institution—and believe me, they exist here too. So, what are they?

I'm not going to sit here and list every single narrative for you, but basically, most of what I've read can be found in the works published here in America, such as "The Negation of Institution" by Franc Basaglia, and "The Social Construction of Reality" by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann.

To put it bluntly, the conceptual machinery of society demands a social reality that is acceptable and suitable to itself. It then INSTITUTIONALIZES that reality. Every phenomenon and every specific arrangement falls under the umbrella of social control. To me, that is the only legitimate, serious argument that truly touches upon anthropology, sociology, and philosophy.

"A child does not internalize the world of significant others as one of many possible worlds; they internalize it as the only existing and only understandable world. This is precisely why the world internalized during primary socialization is embedded much more deeply than the worlds internalized during secondary socialization. (Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, p. 161, "The Social Construction of Reality")"

You're mashing together functionalist theories with interactionist ones. It makes zero sense how you claim they support each other—and frankly, I don't see the connection between your point about primary socialization at the end and your opening remark about latent motives.

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.

steelridge58 said:I really don't. If that were actually how I felt, I’d end up believing that I have absolutely nothing left to learn or exchange with people who aren't interested in philosophy—or worse, those who actively dislike it—and I'd essentially be shutting myself off from all the insights coming from those directions that could feed into my own reflections on the world, our purpose, and our place in it. I’d be robbing myself of that very "extra dimension, depth, and quality of spirit" I’m trying to cultivate, because true growth happens internally rather than by measuring myself against others as somehow superior. For me, even a quick chat with an auntie at a local farmers market or a conversation with someone working hard with dirt under their fingernails can provide so much spiritual nourishment; honestly, everywhere we go and everyone we interact with offers lessons, so if I started viewing myself as "better," it would be like wearing this weirdly selective suit of armor that only lets certain things in, or wearing earplugs that only filter for philosophical discourse, or putting on these specialized intellectual glasses designed specifically for philosophers who look down on everyone else while simultaneously shielding themselves from anyone hostile to the craft. Plus, if I did fall into that trap of thinking I was "better"—which includes the idea of possessing "truth"—it could paradoxically manifest as a hostility toward philosophy itself and the people who care about it, since I'd be looking down on them; I've actually seen this happen on forums like this before, where someone participates in a discussion by belittling almost everyone else or elevating themselves in a way that inherently puts others down.

On the flip side, we can never truly know what other people are thinking in their own private moments or how much (or how little) they philosophize when they're alone; all we ever see is what they choose to present to us, though we might be able to sense more if we're keen readers of the human psyche or if we possess those psychological intuition skills that Friedrich Nietzsche talked about, describing how he could physiologically sense the very core or "gut" of a soul... and if we used that just to feel "better" than others. Your question actually brings to mind Ujević's poem Brotherhood of faces in the universe.

Don't get cocky!

Your thoughts aren't just yours alone

... etc. 🙂

Good point. Maybe the bigger danger is actually practicing philosophy itself; the risk of getting lost in someone else's logic or swallowing their philosophy as dogma—so that the very thing meant to serve the freedom of the spirit ends up becoming just another trap for it.

Eric Newman75 said: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.

To build out an entire system—specifically a non-institutionalized form of education—you have to introduce one thing: desire. That whole hidden, subtle concept is actually the foundation of V. Stambolović's entire doctoral thesis in "Higher Education Manual."

"...it would be wise to embark on a long march, not just through higher ed structures, but by liberating desire." (VS, "Higher Education Manual," p. 143), or to put it in the words of Margaret Mead: "My grandmother wanted me to get a proper upbringing and education, so she pulled me out of school."

School is a vital cog in that machine, but that doesn't mean we're talking about concentration camps, which seems to be the recurring theme here.

I never once mentioned concentration camps! But, I suppose I shouldn't have to prove or argue that schools, as institutions, play a role in social control at a latent level, right? Besides, there are plenty of narratives from prominent thinkers that demonstrate this—and no, that isn't a logical fallacy of appealing to authority; it's simply a provable fact for any worthwhile reader.

Laura Reyes3 said:You're mashing together functionalist theories with interactionist ones. It makes zero sense how you claim they support each other—and frankly, I don't see the connection between your point about primary socialization at the end and your opening remark about latent motives.

I just assumed you might have actually read "The Social Construction of Reality" by Berger / Luckman—where they explain how society's conceptual machinery works to ensure that current (primary) participants stay within institutional definitions of... well, any reality. That is precisely what the latent function is; those are the internal arrangements, that is that convoluted social control, those are the "rituals."

Anyway, since when is it forbidden to combine different theories to build a valid argument?

wearyharbor41 said:The issue is that there is a distinct lack of practical knowledge being imparted here—things like basic health, how the American government functions, or our fundamental rights, for instance.

I don't wish to be repetitive, so if you're interested, feel free to review my previous contributions to this thread or others; I leave that entirely up to you.

Beyond literacy and basic mathematics, one could approach this in a more humane way—the kind of way you might prefer to be treated yourself. Instead of maintaining the status quo, we could provide stimulating presentations that allow for free will. From an economic standpoint, rather than dedicating all those funds to professor salaries, we could utilize audio/video materials and computer programming, then reinvest those savings into legitimate science and education, as well as protecting the legal system and healthcare as fundamental human rights.

It is a topic far too vast and deep to exhaust here. What matters is the underlying principle.

I disagree. Every bit of knowledge has value; there is no such thing as "useless" information. I personally have always loved learning, and I don't view it as a form of coercion. True coercion is something else entirely. It’s when the opportunity to learn is stripped away—like girls being barred from going to school in certain Islamic states, or children in parts of Africa who simply can't access classrooms because they can't afford them. That is what real coercion looks like.

wearyharbor41 said:The issue is that there is a distinct lack of practical knowledge being imparted here—things like basic health, how the American government functions, or our fundamental rights, for instance.

I don't wish to be repetitive, so if you're interested, feel free to review my previous contributions to this thread or others; I leave that entirely up to you.

Beyond literacy and basic mathematics, one could approach this in a more humane way—the kind of way you might prefer to be treated yourself. Instead of maintaining the status quo, we could provide stimulating presentations that allow for free will. From an economic standpoint, rather than dedicating all those funds to professor salaries, we could utilize audio/video materials and computer programming, then reinvest those savings into legitimate science and education, as well as protecting the legal system and healthcare as fundamental human rights.

It is a topic far too vast and deep to exhaust here. What matters is the underlying principle.

A "humane" approach? In my experience, schools have always attempted to act humanely, and universities certainly aim for respect.

You mentioned health and medicine. To become a doctor, watching a few documentaries isn't nearly enough. It requires systematic, daily, years-long study—the absorption and memorization of vast amounts of data across various scientific disciplines: geology, geography, biology... even sociology and psychology.

Achieving that level of mastery is impossible without a degree of coercion or self-discipline. This rule doesn't just apply to medicine; it applies to every field of science.

copperhound12 said:-------------------

And you think you have some sort of valid point when you attack me personally? Calling my arguments "ad hominem" is just a weak, unprovable deflection on your part.☕

I do respect your points. However, they are manifestly obvious, superficial, and lack depth. Education and upbringing are meant to shape students, and that responsibility falls on authoritative teachers. Robert K. Merton was a renowned author and sociologist who always sought to investigate latent motives. Because those hidden drivers are far more significant when it comes to the institutionalization of any organization or institution—and believe me, they exist here too. So, what are they?

I'm not going to sit here and list every single narrative for you, but basically, most of what I've read can be found in the works published here in America, such as "The Negation of Institution" by Franc Basaglia, and "The Social Construction of Reality" by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann.

To put it bluntly, the conceptual machinery of society demands a social reality that is acceptable and suitable to itself. It then INSTITUTIONALIZES that reality. Every phenomenon and every specific arrangement falls under the umbrella of social control. To me, that is the only legitimate, serious argument that truly touches upon anthropology, sociology, and philosophy.

"A child does not internalize the world of significant others as one of many possible worlds; they internalize it as the only existing and only understandable world. This is precisely why the world internalized during primary socialization is embedded much more deeply than the worlds internalized during secondary socialization. (Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, p. 161, "The Social Construction of Reality")"

I agree, though I would argue that this is a fundamental characteristic of any society—that without it, a society cannot even exist.

ruggedraven36 said: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.

*Coming of Age in Samoa* was what I picked up at the library this past Saturday. I've managed to get through about a third of it, and honestly, I'm not entirely sold yet. She describes how boys and girls are raised in Samoan society, but it doesn't feel very systematic; it feels more like a laundry list of behaviors and rules for each gender. That said, there might be a proper synthesis toward the end, so I’ll withhold my final verdict until I finish the whole thing. Once I'm done, I plan to revisit Freeman and his critique of M. Mead. I've always found Freeman to be an excellent writer, but you really need to hear both sides of the argument before forming a solid conclusion.

What struck me most was the way childcare works in Samoa. Mothers entrust their young children to slightly older girls—meaning five-year-olds look after toddlers, seven-year-olds watch the younger ones, and so on. Compared to modern American society... I simply can't wrap my head around the idea of leaving a one-year-old in the care of a five-year-old. Yet, there, it's just a standard part of daily life.

"A school that isn't a playground is a failure of a school. Sadly, teacherly dignity often ends up killing any sense of fun. I once had a teacher take offense just because a student called him a damn fool.
'Look,' I told him, 'I’ve had five or six kids trailing behind me all morning shouting, "Neil, Neil crocodile!" Do you really think I should be clinging to my dignity and taking offense at that?'"

(S. Neill, founder of Summerhill, a progressive school where play comes first and academics are optional)

The whole concept of authority is debatable.
You can't force authority or "respect," just like you can't force love. When schools demand respect based on someone's "knowledge" or "experience," what they usually get is
an imitation of respect. Instead, they foster hypocrisy and pretension in children—a fundamental split between what they think and feel versus how they speak and act. This process produces hypocritical adults who are terrified of facing consequences if they dare to be authentic rather than socially compliant. They learn to choose social conformity over integrity, which is the alignment of emotion, thought, and action, simply to serve some vague notion of the "common good"—a term used to justify whatever imaginary standard this particular society deems necessary.

As for pure factual knowledge—which is arguably the least interesting part of education—it is readily available to any tech-literate individual in our current technological society. The need to rote-memorize data has essentially vanished. Yet, despite having access to advanced technology and artificial intelligence, modern schools remain obsessed with data memorization and drilling students with socially desirable lessons and behavioral instructions. It is hardly surprising, then, that the very children produced by this system invented artificial intelligence, which many now view with hope as the "future of humanity." After all, AI perfectly mirrors the exact qualities rewarded in our education system: the faithful imitation of data and unwavering obedience to programmed inputs. The core of domestic schooling is the worship of others' egos, the submission to others' thoughts and emotions, and the systematic suppression of one's own identity and authenticity. It is a process of severing oneself from one's own soul—at least, that's my observation. I haven't looked into other places, though I hear things might be different in Scandinavia.