Freedom and Education

Sam Martinez9 said:I concur that socialization is a lifelong process, spanning from infancy until death. I also agree with the distinction between primary and secondary socialization, particularly because children differ from adults in their sheer lack of knowledge. Through socialization, children absorb the norms and rules of the society they live in, doing so without much critique simply because they lack the framework required to be critical. Of course, even in early childhood, children occasionally push back—first through crying, then with a defiant "*no*"—but aside from saying "I want" versus "I won't," children aren't really capable of offering a viable alternative.

During adolescence, as knowledge and comprehension expand, we see the rise of teenage rebellion. Kids begin choosing different behaviors, though even this is usually just another form of socialization; the only difference is that they are now attempting to socialize with the social groups they actually care about.

As for institutionalization? I’m not entirely sure if socialization can even exist without it.

It is worth noting that today's social norms are incomparably looser than those of previous generations. They offer more freedom and allow for the expression of individuality while still permitting membership in a social group. In the past, violating social norms could cost a member their standing in the community, or even their life.

Is it possible for social rules to become even more relaxed in the future? I suspect so, though I don't think it truly matters.

What matters is that a member of society adopts its rules through free will—that they understand why those rules are beneficial and, most importantly, that those rules facilitate their full development.

I completely agree with your post. However, I just want to add one thing: it is crucial that one does not succumb to the pressures of the ruling establishment. School is that very instrument (it has been from the start); the mechanism of social control is latent, and its structure for monitoring and restraining young people is so powerful that, in a single moment, you can't even tell if it's being overt or subtle. But, as the author John Anthony Gill writes in his work "How to Conduct Social Research" this latent function isn't the only purpose of school, because we mustn't forget its spirit of discovery and knowledge:

"The importance and weight that these two functions held in relation to one another have shifted; originally, the primary function of school was education, while the other function (the oversight function), though present from the beginning, was less significant and less prominent. And conversely, in the current situation, due to greater pressure coming from the bottom up, the oversight function has increased immensely. But a correct analysis of schooling must not ignore its other function: the function of knowledge." (p. 228)

Eric Newman75 said: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."

This is such an unserious, illiterate, and incomplete post. Do you really think Hekatonhir and the rest of the Hekatonhir family believe that any serious, insightful, and complex author provides an alternative without any scrutiny of their own arguments? That the core of their critique is nothing more than empty barking while the caravans pass by? No. I actually have a very important and instructive quote for you from the old, seasoned author V.I. Lenin:
"The fundamental law of revolution, which all three revolutions confirmed—most notably the Russian Revolution in the 20th century—consists of this: for a revolution to occur, it is not enough that the exploited and oppressed masses realize they cannot live in the old way and demand change; it is necessary that the exploiters can no longer live and govern in the old way."

And, to wrap up this post (otherwise I'll fall into an ad hominem logical fallacy), "they offer nothing"—they offer everything. If you don't believe me, read Francesca Basaglia and her "Negation of the Institution" where he abolished "asylums" in a neighboring country?

It’s all about the knowledge, the reading, the hands-on experience, and that ultimate realization...☕

Sandra Murphy33 said:Just words....
😁

(I'm assuming you aren't implying you would have actually picked French in grade school if given the choice...? 😲🕺 ...English was the standard back then; trying to opt for French at that moment would have been a social suicide mission.)

Anyway, how are things?
🙂

As for me, I chose German over English in middle school, and I missed the mark completely. Why? Because English is the global language; knowing it means you can travel anywhere in the world. That isn't quite the case with German. Back in my day, schools offered a choice of three or four languages (English, German, French, Italian, Russian...) and those who needed more could attend a private language academy. We did have Phillips Academy, where they taught Ancient Greek and Latin. In my opinion—there was more than enough variety.

I made the wrong call, and I don't blame society for my poor decision. I chose based on my own very limited understanding of how the world works at the time.

My parents? My parents were products of their era. They lived in a time when traveling from a small town in the US Midwest to Washington, D.C. meant spending an entire day on the road. By horse and buggy, naturally. You’d head out in the morning, finish your business, and make it back by nightfall. My mother had completed through the fourth grade, and my father was a barber. After World War II, Marshall provided them the opportunity to further their education, allowing them to complete both middle and high school. But they grew up in an age of rigid borders, a time when people rarely ventured far from their hometowns.

Meanwhile, my daughter has spent years living across two different continents.........

Could my parents, as much as they loved me, truly have given their child sound advice?

copperhound12 said:I completely agree with your post. However, I just want to add one thing: it is crucial that one does not succumb to the pressures of the ruling establishment. School is that very instrument (it has been from the start); the mechanism of social control is latent, and its structure for monitoring and restraining young people is so powerful that, in a single moment, you can't even tell if it's being overt or subtle. But, as the author John Anthony Gill writes in his work "How to Conduct Social Research" this latent function isn't the only purpose of school, because we mustn't forget its spirit of discovery and knowledge:

"The importance and weight that these two functions held in relation to one another have shifted; originally, the primary function of school was education, while the other function (the oversight function), though present from the beginning, was less significant and less prominent. And conversely, in the current situation, due to greater pressure coming from the bottom up, the oversight function has increased immensely. But a correct analysis of schooling must not ignore its other function: the function of knowledge." (p. 228)

This is such an unserious, illiterate, and incomplete post. Do you really think Hekatonhir and the rest of the Hekatonhir family believe that any serious, insightful, and complex author provides an alternative without any scrutiny of their own arguments? That the core of their critique is nothing more than empty barking while the caravans pass by? No. I actually have a very important and instructive quote for you from the old, seasoned author V.I. Lenin:
"The fundamental law of revolution, which all three revolutions confirmed—most notably the Russian Revolution in the 20th century—consists of this: for a revolution to occur, it is not enough that the exploited and oppressed masses realize they cannot live in the old way and demand change; it is necessary that the exploiters can no longer live and govern in the old way."

And, to wrap up this post (otherwise I'll fall into an ad hominem logical fallacy), "they offer nothing"—they offer everything. If you don't believe me, read Francesca Basaglia and her "Negation of the Institution" where he abolished "asylums" in a neighboring country?

It’s all about the knowledge, the reading, the hands-on experience, and that ultimate realization...☕

Who, then, should shape the schools if not the ruling establishment? Who should decide what the curricula look like, or what children ought to learn... and haven't we, in a democracy, granted the ruling establishment the right to decide what our schools will be?

Every school is always an instrument of socialization. Catholic schools instill Catholic faith, Islamic schools instill Islam, schools in the former socialist states instilled socialist self-management, and today's schools instill the free market and capitalism....... you won't find a school today that emphasizes the benefits of socialist states. On the contrary, they will only highlight their failures.

copperhound12 said:I completely agree with your post. However, I just want to add one thing: it is crucial that one does not succumb to the pressures of the ruling establishment. School is that very instrument (it has been from the start); the mechanism of social control is latent, and its structure for monitoring and restraining young people is so powerful that, in a single moment, you can't even tell if it's being overt or subtle. But, as the author John Anthony Gill writes in his work "How to Conduct Social Research" this latent function isn't the only purpose of school, because we mustn't forget its spirit of discovery and knowledge:

"The importance and weight that these two functions held in relation to one another have shifted; originally, the primary function of school was education, while the other function (the oversight function), though present from the beginning, was less significant and less prominent. And conversely, in the current situation, due to greater pressure coming from the bottom up, the oversight function has increased immensely. But a correct analysis of schooling must not ignore its other function: the function of knowledge." (p. 228)

This is such an unserious, illiterate, and incomplete post. Do you really think Hekatonhir and the rest of the Hekatonhir family believe that any serious, insightful, and complex author provides an alternative without any scrutiny of their own arguments? That the core of their critique is nothing more than empty barking while the caravans pass by? No. I actually have a very important and instructive quote for you from the old, seasoned author V.I. Lenin:
"The fundamental law of revolution, which all three revolutions confirmed—most notably the Russian Revolution in the 20th century—consists of this: for a revolution to occur, it is not enough that the exploited and oppressed masses realize they cannot live in the old way and demand change; it is necessary that the exploiters can no longer live and govern in the old way."

And, to wrap up this post (otherwise I'll fall into an ad hominem logical fallacy), "they offer nothing"—they offer everything. If you don't believe me, read Francesca Basaglia and her "Negation of the Institution" where he abolished "asylums" in a neighboring country?

It’s all about the knowledge, the reading, the hands-on experience, and that ultimate realization...☕

The fundamental error we make is shifting the entire burden of responsibility onto schools while leaving absolutely nothing to the individual. If our goal is to cultivate strong individuals who aren't entirely dependent on society, then education becomes an individual duty rather than just a societal one.

At their core, schools should be conduits for passing down the collective knowledge of humanity to younger generations. But even there, we run into hurdles; for instance, certain religious groups may object to evolution being taught in the classroom, while atheists might push back against religious studies.

The sum of human knowledge is vast, far too large to be mastered in a single lifetime. Therefore, the school's role should be to foster—or at least not stifle—that innate hunger for learning and discovery.

Schools ought to aim at developing a whole person, not merely a worker. They should provide a broad foundation across all disciplines rather than focusing solely on vocational training.

From a social standpoint, the school’s job is to mold young people into productive members of the community, essentially preparing them for the workforce. Without that, society would collapse like a house of cards. It falls to children, working alongside their parents, to navigate the curriculum and extract what is most useful to them, helping them grow into both resilient individuals and valuable citizens. After all, you can only truly be a strong individual within the framework of a strong society.

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.

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.

Eric Newman75 said:

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.

"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?☕

copperhound12 said:

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.

copperhound12 said:

I suppose I should probably start by saying that I might be wrong about this, but I honestly can't help how I feel when I see things like this happening. It’s just... it's frustrating. I mean, I guess there's no other way to put it: we are looking at a complete breakdown of the standards we used to hold dear. Maybe I'm being too harsh, maybe, but I can't shake the feeling that everything is just sliding into chaos. It feels like nobody is actually paying attention to the consequences anymore, and frankly, it makes me want to scream. I don't know. It's all just incredibly overwhelming. kaže:
For Berger and Luckmann, institutionalization is essentially just a pattern of human behavior—it’s all about typification. People decide that something actually matters, and once they assign that significance, it becomes an objective reality. During the process of externalization, people start developing these routine patterns of action and interaction based on their past experiences. In a strictly sociological sense, institutions are... They essentially exert control over human behavior by forcing everyone to follow these pre-set, rigid patterns of conduct. It’s all about dictating exactly how one should act.So, Merton talks about this whole idea of manifest versus latent functions. If you look at how slavery functioned back in the old days, the manifest function was supposed to be economic growth—that was the stated goal. But the latent function? That was actually about reinforcing the social status of white people. To put it simply: manifest functions are what's intended, while latent ones are the unintended side effects that happen anyway. Now, there’s a fundamental split here in how they view things. For Merton, society is essentially a system, and education is just one functional part of that machine. But for Berger and Luckmann, it's different—they see society as something we perceive through our own subjective experience and consciousness. It's all about how we sense it.

I guess this is just a passing thought.a.

Thanks for the bracelets, I guess, but there’s actually something else on my mind...☕
If you’ve actually sat down and read "The Social Construction of Reality," then maybe we can have a serious conversation about this. I mean, honestly, if you haven't grasped the core arguments laid out by Berger and Luckmann, I don't even know where to begin with you. It's all right there on the page! I guess what I'm trying to get at—though I'm not sure if anyone is actually listening—is that the way we perceive our environment isn't just some random occurrence. It's constructed. It's built. It's social! If you follow the logic of Berger and Luckmann, you realize that the institutions we take for granted are essentially shared hallucinations that we've all agreed to treat as objective truth. It sounds crazy, I know, but that's exactly the point they are making! Maybe I'm being too intense, but it feels like people just skim the surface and think they understand the sociological implications. They don't. They really don't. You can't just ignore the dialectical process between the individual and society. It’s fundamental! If you aren't looking at how socialization creates these layers of reality, then you aren't actually reading the book; you're just looking at ink on paper. I'm just saying... if you want to engage in this debate, you need to do the work first.The social construction of reality... honestly, where do we even begin with this? I mean, if you really sit down and think about it—and I do, I spend way too much time thinking about this stuff—it’s all just one massive, collective agreement, isn't it? It’s almost overwhelming when you realize how much of what we call "truth" is actually just something we've all collectively decided to pretend is real. I guess what I’m trying to get at is that our entire perception of the world isn't some objective, hard-coded thing sitting out there waiting to be discovered. It's built. We build it through our interactions, our institutions, and the way we talk to one another every single day. It’s like we're all participating in this giant, ongoing project of manufacturing "facts." Maybe it sounds a bit cynical, or maybe I'm just being overly pedantic, but it’s hard not to feel a sense of vertigo when you consider it. If society decides today that a certain value is paramount, then suddenly, it *is* paramount. It becomes part of the fabric. It’s wild, really. We aren't just living in a world; we are actively, constantly, and quite often unconsciously, constructing the very ground we stand on. It's a heavy thought, and frankly, it makes you question everything you thought was set in stone. If you actually think you’ve mastered Berger and Luckmann—assuming, of course, that you’ve even managed to wrap your head around R. K. Merton—then maybe you've read it. But let's be honest: you clearly haven't! „Visokoškolski Regarding Stambolović’s “zapt”—if you’ve actually managed to wrap your head around Law 180 in Frank Basaglia’s “Negation of the Institution” (along with all those other sociological deep dives on institutionalization)—I have to wonder: has that actually shifted your perspective on how institutions function? Or is your worldview already pretty much set in stone, deeply buried within the layers of your primary socialization?

Let’s start by diving into F. Basaglia’s “The Negation of the Institution.”

„Asylums, prisons, schools—all these institutions tasked with controlling social deviance are nothing more than a direct reflection of the specific type of repression that defines our current stage of socio-economic development. It’s all fundamentally connected to how power operates within our system. I suppose we’re really doing this now—diving headfirst into the implications of this whole new technological vernacular. It feels like we're constantly being forced to adapt to some shifting linguistic landscape that moves faster than anyone can actually process. I mean, maybe I'm just being cynical, but it honestly feels like we're losing the ability to communicate clearly because we're too busy trying to master the latest digital jargon. It’s all becoming so incredibly fragmented, isn't it? One day you're speaking one way, and the next, if you haven't updated your mental software to include the newest tech-speak, you're practically illiterate in modern discourse. It’s exhausting, frankly. We're essentially being coerced into adopting this new way of speaking just to stay relevant in a world that seems obsessed with novelty over actual substance. I guess it's inevitable, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating to watch the nuance of real language get swallowed up by this relentless, rapid-fire technical slang. "The whole concept of labor is essentially an ideological import. By formally adapting these new technologies, they’re basically just clearing the path for a new breed of control—something that becomes absolutely necessary once our economic reality is fully reshaped to follow the cold logic of capital." (p. 67)

So, here’s the thing: we’re all essentially "trapped" within this outdated culture because we are fundamental components of it. We’ve basically absorbed its ideology the very moment we decided to stop trying to dismantle that same oppressive structure. I mean, what's the actual endgame here? Are we actually going to transform this culture, or are we just going to pass some new "law"—much like how Frank Basaglia stepped up to abolish those insane asylums back in Italy—to kickstart real change? Or, despite all these exhaustive, academic, and frankly pedantic debates we have going on here in this forum, is it all just going to end exactly how the system dictates? Is there any chance that, in reality, absolutely nothing actually changes?

Is this really a reality we ought to be contemplating?

Just one more "observation" for the road: a few years back, I actually switched up the academic culture I was working in. I chose to transition within the same institutional framework because, honestly, I felt like I was already part of that specific culture. I figured it would be much easier to navigate those changes if you’re already embedded in the system. Why did I do it? Well, that is the real question, isn't it?

Let’s take a hard look at this world we live in—a world defined by terror, constant violence, and systematic exclusion. If we refuse to admit that we are actually part of that very same world, then what are we even doing? I suppose I should probably start by saying that I might be wrong about this—I really could be—but there’s just something about how people are reacting to this situation that feels completely off. It’s like nobody is actually looking at the core issue, you know? Everything is just being swept under the rug, or maybe I'm just being too cynical, but it feels that way. I mean, seriously, if we don't address the underlying tension here, we're just spinning our wheels. It's frustrating, honestly. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I can't shake the feeling that we're missing the forest for the trees. "Since we are essentially defined by our institutions, our rules, our principles, our norms, and our very organizational structures—if we refuse to admit that we are actually part of that larger world of threats and deceptions currently destroying the patient, then we’ll never truly grasp the reality: this crisis facing the patient is, at its core, our own identity crisis." (p. 60)

That last quote is problematic for me.

Regarding schooling (and let's be clear, I mean schooling, not education)—I believe it is essential to respect and study our traditions. Our tradition includes the university system (which spans about a millennium). Without those universities—the school system—Western civilization wouldn't even know what Rome was, and literacy would have been restricted to the clergy. That isn't an ideal I support.
Furthermore, as much as I might dislike my own views on institutions, I have an even deeper disdain for anti-intellectualism or the dismissal of knowledge and science.
Someone who hasn't even looked at a book's bibliography—especially if they haven't been guided by someone who actually knows how to read such texts—shouldn't be attempting to interpret scientific problems or content. It isn't socially responsible.

Also, I don't see why you aren't bringing Ivan Illich’s arguments into this. He’s a solid author, and he wrote "deschooling," if my memory serves.

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.

Eric Newman75 said: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.

My children attended school remotely via Zoom here in the States—though I suppose I shouldn't assume everyone else’s experience was the same. They participated in various other activities through Zoom as well; it wasn't an endless ordeal, lasting perhaps one semester, if not slightly less, though my memory isn't perfectly sharp on the exact duration. At one point, I found myself speaking quite candidly to some of these instructors. I asked them, somewhat bluntly, why they hadn't taken the initiative to educate themselves on how to actually utilize Zoom effectively or how to conduct digital lessons properly. This wasn't coming from a place of mere arrogance; years ago, I worked remotely in America for several years. It wasn't some hobbyist endeavor; I was working professionally in content creation and social media management. Through that work, I learned a great deal—most notably that presenting knowledge in a physical classroom is fundamentally different from doing so over the internet, even if many people mistakenly believe the two are interchangeable. The teachers I spoke to didn't take my critique particularly well at first. However, the tone shifted when I told them that I actually felt a sense of pity for them personally. It truly is a struggle; they are clearly suffering because they are attempting to force traditional, analog teaching methods into a digital space where they simply don't fit.

I feel compelled to share a few thoughts on this matter. To be perfectly honest, I sometimes worry that my tendency toward sincerity might come across as overly earnest, but I believe certain topics demand nothing less than a direct and heartfelt approach. It is my sincere hope that we can navigate these discussions with the gravity they deserve. kaže:
Furthermore, as much as I may harbor deep skepticism toward our institutions, my disdain for anti-intellectualism—or more specifically, this pervasive tendency to dismiss expertise and scientific rigor—is even greater.

Instead of focusing on education, we should shift our attention toward healthcare, law enforcement, the military, religious institutions, and sports.

wearyharbor41 said:I fail to see how the existence of a right relates to the concept of coercion. Having a right to work is one thing, but forcing someone into agricultural labor when their talents lie elsewhere—or worse, conscripting them into mining operations under the guise of exercising a "right to work"—is quite another matter entirely. We are discussing unnecessary compulsion here, rather than the merits of educational rights; if I am being repetitive, I suggest revisiting my previous posts on other subforums regarding this specific topic.

It is frankly astonishing that these concepts are being conflated, particularly within a philosophy forum, and even more so when coming from a moderator.

P.S. I remain hopeful that a philosopher with a functioning conscience—someone who genuinely wishes no harm upon others, especially vulnerable children who cannot defend themselves—might join this discussion, provided they approach it with intellectual honesty and arguments that actually hold weight.

I cannot speak for everyone else here, but as a parent of two, I find myself wondering about the scope of this discussion. Is our focus strictly limited to the American school system and formal education, or can we broaden the conversation to encompass more? Furthermore, I am curious about which age groups we should be addressing—are we strictly discussing elementary and high school, or should we also include the college years?

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 could certainly argue that being uneducated isn't the issue, but as you've already pointed out, it isn't quite the same thing. To illustrate my point, I know a few people who arrived here with very high levels of education. For instance, there is an acquaintance of mine from back home who works as a software engineer at Amazon. When he first started, his salary was two or three times higher than what the average skilled worker earns in a role that doesn't require any advanced credentials—jobs where you could hold a PhD and it wouldn't make a lick of difference, such as being a truck driver or a mechanic. Because this programmer was pulling in a minimum of $100,000 a year (and honestly, if we factor in bonuses and perks, it’s likely at least 15% higher, though I won't get bogged down in the weeds), he was able to purchase his own home after only two years in the States. Meanwhile, others in those lower-paying roles, perhaps earning closer to $35,000 or $40,000 annually, have to wait much longer—if they even want to buy. Banks don't look at your diploma when approving a mortgage, of course, but in the end, having that degree does play a role because it provides significantly better employment stability and opportunities for professional growth.

I find myself reflecting on the concept of water parks lately. There is something inherently nostalgic yet surprisingly complex about them. While they are often marketed as simple venues for family fun, I cannot help but view them through a more analytical lens. One must consider the sheer logistical undertaking required to maintain such massive aquatic installations safely and efficiently. It is quite an impressive feat of engineering, really. kaže:
Foucault held a deeply skeptical view regarding formal education and our modern institutions; to him, they functioned as nothing more than sophisticated extensions of the prison system.

It is my sincere belief that schools serve the exact same social functions as prisons or psychiatric institutions: their true purpose is to define, classify, control, and regulate individuals.

On also held a PhD, which allowed him to spend quite a bit of time at various universities across the US and even in France, where he served as a lecturer. 😁 If we take this statement into its proper context, one might conclude that Foucault actually missed the mark. He really should have looked more closely at his own experience with AIDS—not to mention the way he seemed almost to mock the whole situation, only to ultimately succumb to it in the end.

wearyharbor41 said: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.

That isn't quite the crux of the matter, though perhaps it isn't the primary issue today either. Schools have been a fundamental pillar of human civilization since time immemorial. In my estimation, the more significant challenge lies in our need to fundamentally reform the educational system rather than attempting to abolish it entirely or replace it with something else altogether.

Steven Clark2 said:My children attended school remotely via Zoom here in the States—though I suppose I shouldn't assume everyone else’s experience was the same. They participated in various other activities through Zoom as well; it wasn't an endless ordeal, lasting perhaps one semester, if not slightly less, though my memory isn't perfectly sharp on the exact duration. At one point, I found myself speaking quite candidly to some of these instructors. I asked them, somewhat bluntly, why they hadn't taken the initiative to educate themselves on how to actually utilize Zoom effectively or how to conduct digital lessons properly. This wasn't coming from a place of mere arrogance; years ago, I worked remotely in America for several years. It wasn't some hobbyist endeavor; I was working professionally in content creation and social media management. Through that work, I learned a great deal—most notably that presenting knowledge in a physical classroom is fundamentally different from doing so over the internet, even if many people mistakenly believe the two are interchangeable. The teachers I spoke to didn't take my critique particularly well at first. However, the tone shifted when I told them that I actually felt a sense of pity for them personally. It truly is a struggle; they are clearly suffering because they are attempting to force traditional, analog teaching methods into a digital space where they simply don't fit.

I feel compelled to share a few thoughts on this matter. To be perfectly honest, I sometimes worry that my tendency toward sincerity might come across as overly earnest, but I believe certain topics demand nothing less than a direct and heartfelt approach. It is my sincere hope that we can navigate these discussions with the gravity they deserve. kaže:
Furthermore, as much as I may harbor deep skepticism toward our institutions, my disdain for anti-intellectualism—or more specifically, this pervasive tendency to dismiss expertise and scientific rigor—is even greater.

Instead of focusing on education, we should shift our attention toward healthcare, law enforcement, the military, religious institutions, and sports.

I cannot speak for everyone else here, but as a parent of two, I find myself wondering about the scope of this discussion. Is our focus strictly limited to the American school system and formal education, or can we broaden the conversation to encompass more? Furthermore, I am curious about which age groups we should be addressing—are we strictly discussing elementary and high school, or should we also include the college years?

I could certainly argue that being uneducated isn't the issue, but as you've already pointed out, it isn't quite the same thing. To illustrate my point, I know a few people who arrived here with very high levels of education. For instance, there is an acquaintance of mine from back home who works as a software engineer at Amazon. When he first started, his salary was two or three times higher than what the average skilled worker earns in a role that doesn't require any advanced credentials—jobs where you could hold a PhD and it wouldn't make a lick of difference, such as being a truck driver or a mechanic. Because this programmer was pulling in a minimum of $100,000 a year (and honestly, if we factor in bonuses and perks, it’s likely at least 15% higher, though I won't get bogged down in the weeds), he was able to purchase his own home after only two years in the States. Meanwhile, others in those lower-paying roles, perhaps earning closer to $35,000 or $40,000 annually, have to wait much longer—if they even want to buy. Banks don't look at your diploma when approving a mortgage, of course, but in the end, having that degree does play a role because it provides significantly better employment stability and opportunities for professional growth.

I find myself reflecting on the concept of water parks lately. There is something inherently nostalgic yet surprisingly complex about them. While they are often marketed as simple venues for family fun, I cannot help but view them through a more analytical lens. One must consider the sheer logistical undertaking required to maintain such massive aquatic installations safely and efficiently. It is quite an impressive feat of engineering, really. kaže:
Foucault held a deeply skeptical view regarding formal education and our modern institutions; to him, they functioned as nothing more than sophisticated extensions of the prison system.

It is my sincere belief that schools serve the exact same social functions as prisons or psychiatric institutions: their true purpose is to define, classify, control, and regulate individuals.

On also held a PhD, which allowed him to spend quite a bit of time at various universities across the US and even in France, where he served as a lecturer. 😁 If we take this statement into its proper context, one might conclude that Foucault actually missed the mark. He really should have looked more closely at his own experience with AIDS—not to mention the way he seemed almost to mock the whole situation, only to ultimately succumb to it in the end.

That isn't quite the crux of the matter, though perhaps it isn't the primary issue today either. Schools have been a fundamental pillar of human civilization since time immemorial. In my estimation, the more significant challenge lies in our need to fundamentally reform the educational system rather than attempting to abolish it entirely or replace it with something else altogether.

What did you learn? If you're up for it, give me some examples or lay out the core principles. I'm curious.

Steven Clark2 said:My children attended school remotely via Zoom here in the States—though I suppose I shouldn't assume everyone else’s experience was the same. They participated in various other activities through Zoom as well; it wasn't an endless ordeal, lasting perhaps one semester, if not slightly less, though my memory isn't perfectly sharp on the exact duration. At one point, I found myself speaking quite candidly to some of these instructors. I asked them, somewhat bluntly, why they hadn't taken the initiative to educate themselves on how to actually utilize Zoom effectively or how to conduct digital lessons properly. This wasn't coming from a place of mere arrogance; years ago, I worked remotely in America for several years. It wasn't some hobbyist endeavor; I was working professionally in content creation and social media management. Through that work, I learned a great deal—most notably that presenting knowledge in a physical classroom is fundamentally different from doing so over the internet, even if many people mistakenly believe the two are interchangeable. The teachers I spoke to didn't take my critique particularly well at first. However, the tone shifted when I told them that I actually felt a sense of pity for them personally. It truly is a struggle; they are clearly suffering because they are attempting to force traditional, analog teaching methods into a digital space where they simply don't fit.

I feel compelled to share a few thoughts on this matter. To be perfectly honest, I sometimes worry that my tendency toward sincerity might come across as overly earnest, but I believe certain topics demand nothing less than a direct and heartfelt approach. It is my sincere hope that we can navigate these discussions with the gravity they deserve. kaže:
Furthermore, as much as I may harbor deep skepticism toward our institutions, my disdain for anti-intellectualism—or more specifically, this pervasive tendency to dismiss expertise and scientific rigor—is even greater.

Instead of focusing on education, we should shift our attention toward healthcare, law enforcement, the military, religious institutions, and sports.

I cannot speak for everyone else here, but as a parent of two, I find myself wondering about the scope of this discussion. Is our focus strictly limited to the American school system and formal education, or can we broaden the conversation to encompass more? Furthermore, I am curious about which age groups we should be addressing—are we strictly discussing elementary and high school, or should we also include the college years?

I could certainly argue that being uneducated isn't the issue, but as you've already pointed out, it isn't quite the same thing. To illustrate my point, I know a few people who arrived here with very high levels of education. For instance, there is an acquaintance of mine from back home who works as a software engineer at Amazon. When he first started, his salary was two or three times higher than what the average skilled worker earns in a role that doesn't require any advanced credentials—jobs where you could hold a PhD and it wouldn't make a lick of difference, such as being a truck driver or a mechanic. Because this programmer was pulling in a minimum of $100,000 a year (and honestly, if we factor in bonuses and perks, it’s likely at least 15% higher, though I won't get bogged down in the weeds), he was able to purchase his own home after only two years in the States. Meanwhile, others in those lower-paying roles, perhaps earning closer to $35,000 or $40,000 annually, have to wait much longer—if they even want to buy. Banks don't look at your diploma when approving a mortgage, of course, but in the end, having that degree does play a role because it provides significantly better employment stability and opportunities for professional growth.

I find myself reflecting on the concept of water parks lately. There is something inherently nostalgic yet surprisingly complex about them. While they are often marketed as simple venues for family fun, I cannot help but view them through a more analytical lens. One must consider the sheer logistical undertaking required to maintain such massive aquatic installations safely and efficiently. It is quite an impressive feat of engineering, really. kaže:
Foucault held a deeply skeptical view regarding formal education and our modern institutions; to him, they functioned as nothing more than sophisticated extensions of the prison system.

It is my sincere belief that schools serve the exact same social functions as prisons or psychiatric institutions: their true purpose is to define, classify, control, and regulate individuals.

On also held a PhD, which allowed him to spend quite a bit of time at various universities across the US and even in France, where he served as a lecturer. 😁 If we take this statement into its proper context, one might conclude that Foucault actually missed the mark. He really should have looked more closely at his own experience with AIDS—not to mention the way he seemed almost to mock the whole situation, only to ultimately succumb to it in the end.

That isn't quite the crux of the matter, though perhaps it isn't the primary issue today either. Schools have been a fundamental pillar of human civilization since time immemorial. In my estimation, the more significant challenge lies in our need to fundamentally reform the educational system rather than attempting to abolish it entirely or replace it with something else altogether.

It started with getting rid of elementary schools, and God only knows where this is headed.

Steven Clark2 said:My children attended school remotely via Zoom here in the States—though I suppose I shouldn't assume everyone else’s experience was the same. They participated in various other activities through Zoom as well; it wasn't an endless ordeal, lasting perhaps one semester, if not slightly less, though my memory isn't perfectly sharp on the exact duration. At one point, I found myself speaking quite candidly to some of these instructors. I asked them, somewhat bluntly, why they hadn't taken the initiative to educate themselves on how to actually utilize Zoom effectively or how to conduct digital lessons properly. This wasn't coming from a place of mere arrogance; years ago, I worked remotely in America for several years. It wasn't some hobbyist endeavor; I was working professionally in content creation and social media management. Through that work, I learned a great deal—most notably that presenting knowledge in a physical classroom is fundamentally different from doing so over the internet, even if many people mistakenly believe the two are interchangeable. The teachers I spoke to didn't take my critique particularly well at first. However, the tone shifted when I told them that I actually felt a sense of pity for them personally. It truly is a struggle; they are clearly suffering because they are attempting to force traditional, analog teaching methods into a digital space where they simply don't fit.

I feel compelled to share a few thoughts on this matter. To be perfectly honest, I sometimes worry that my tendency toward sincerity might come across as overly earnest, but I believe certain topics demand nothing less than a direct and heartfelt approach. It is my sincere hope that we can navigate these discussions with the gravity they deserve. kaže:
Furthermore, as much as I may harbor deep skepticism toward our institutions, my disdain for anti-intellectualism—or more specifically, this pervasive tendency to dismiss expertise and scientific rigor—is even greater.

Instead of focusing on education, we should shift our attention toward healthcare, law enforcement, the military, religious institutions, and sports.

I cannot speak for everyone else here, but as a parent of two, I find myself wondering about the scope of this discussion. Is our focus strictly limited to the American school system and formal education, or can we broaden the conversation to encompass more? Furthermore, I am curious about which age groups we should be addressing—are we strictly discussing elementary and high school, or should we also include the college years?

I could certainly argue that being uneducated isn't the issue, but as you've already pointed out, it isn't quite the same thing. To illustrate my point, I know a few people who arrived here with very high levels of education. For instance, there is an acquaintance of mine from back home who works as a software engineer at Amazon. When he first started, his salary was two or three times higher than what the average skilled worker earns in a role that doesn't require any advanced credentials—jobs where you could hold a PhD and it wouldn't make a lick of difference, such as being a truck driver or a mechanic. Because this programmer was pulling in a minimum of $100,000 a year (and honestly, if we factor in bonuses and perks, it’s likely at least 15% higher, though I won't get bogged down in the weeds), he was able to purchase his own home after only two years in the States. Meanwhile, others in those lower-paying roles, perhaps earning closer to $35,000 or $40,000 annually, have to wait much longer—if they even want to buy. Banks don't look at your diploma when approving a mortgage, of course, but in the end, having that degree does play a role because it provides significantly better employment stability and opportunities for professional growth.

I find myself reflecting on the concept of water parks lately. There is something inherently nostalgic yet surprisingly complex about them. While they are often marketed as simple venues for family fun, I cannot help but view them through a more analytical lens. One must consider the sheer logistical undertaking required to maintain such massive aquatic installations safely and efficiently. It is quite an impressive feat of engineering, really. kaže:
Foucault held a deeply skeptical view regarding formal education and our modern institutions; to him, they functioned as nothing more than sophisticated extensions of the prison system.

It is my sincere belief that schools serve the exact same social functions as prisons or psychiatric institutions: their true purpose is to define, classify, control, and regulate individuals.

On also held a PhD, which allowed him to spend quite a bit of time at various universities across the US and even in France, where he served as a lecturer. 😁 If we take this statement into its proper context, one might conclude that Foucault actually missed the mark. He really should have looked more closely at his own experience with AIDS—not to mention the way he seemed almost to mock the whole situation, only to ultimately succumb to it in the end.

That isn't quite the crux of the matter, though perhaps it isn't the primary issue today either. Schools have been a fundamental pillar of human civilization since time immemorial. In my estimation, the more significant challenge lies in our need to fundamentally reform the educational system rather than attempting to abolish it entirely or replace it with something else altogether.

Reform, yes. Abolishing it, no. Though, I am absolutely in favor of putting every problematic element of the system that deals with children under a microscope, starting from foster care and moving upward. It might seem unrelated to schooling, but it actually creates these mechanisms of control and dehumanization. Once the state starts "looking after" you from the time you're tiny, you won't end up well—you'll just be moved from one institution to another. Juvenile detention centers are another option; society will basically play ping-pong with you. You might even end up in a psych ward.

I'm exaggerating, but you get my point. I truly believe the educational system does a much better job caring for vulnerable kids; look at us, we weren't raised all bad despite being taught the old-fashioned way, especially when you see how much better it is when there's actual inquiry-based learning instead of just lectures.Look, strictly speaking, once you see teachers actually utilizing digital tools and shifting the focus onto the students—making them take ownership of their own learning process—you realize things are changing, even if it’s happening at a snail's pace. This isn't some overnight revolution in other parts of the world, either; plenty of countries are way ahead of us in terms of modernization and resources.

Steven Clark2 said:My children attended school remotely via Zoom here in the States—though I suppose I shouldn't assume everyone else’s experience was the same. They participated in various other activities through Zoom as well; it wasn't an endless ordeal, lasting perhaps one semester, if not slightly less, though my memory isn't perfectly sharp on the exact duration. At one point, I found myself speaking quite candidly to some of these instructors. I asked them, somewhat bluntly, why they hadn't taken the initiative to educate themselves on how to actually utilize Zoom effectively or how to conduct digital lessons properly. This wasn't coming from a place of mere arrogance; years ago, I worked remotely in America for several years. It wasn't some hobbyist endeavor; I was working professionally in content creation and social media management. Through that work, I learned a great deal—most notably that presenting knowledge in a physical classroom is fundamentally different from doing so over the internet, even if many people mistakenly believe the two are interchangeable. The teachers I spoke to didn't take my critique particularly well at first. However, the tone shifted when I told them that I actually felt a sense of pity for them personally. It truly is a struggle; they are clearly suffering because they are attempting to force traditional, analog teaching methods into a digital space where they simply don't fit.

I feel compelled to share a few thoughts on this matter. To be perfectly honest, I sometimes worry that my tendency toward sincerity might come across as overly earnest, but I believe certain topics demand nothing less than a direct and heartfelt approach. It is my sincere hope that we can navigate these discussions with the gravity they deserve. kaže:
Furthermore, as much as I may harbor deep skepticism toward our institutions, my disdain for anti-intellectualism—or more specifically, this pervasive tendency to dismiss expertise and scientific rigor—is even greater.

Instead of focusing on education, we should shift our attention toward healthcare, law enforcement, the military, religious institutions, and sports.

I cannot speak for everyone else here, but as a parent of two, I find myself wondering about the scope of this discussion. Is our focus strictly limited to the American school system and formal education, or can we broaden the conversation to encompass more? Furthermore, I am curious about which age groups we should be addressing—are we strictly discussing elementary and high school, or should we also include the college years?

I could certainly argue that being uneducated isn't the issue, but as you've already pointed out, it isn't quite the same thing. To illustrate my point, I know a few people who arrived here with very high levels of education. For instance, there is an acquaintance of mine from back home who works as a software engineer at Amazon. When he first started, his salary was two or three times higher than what the average skilled worker earns in a role that doesn't require any advanced credentials—jobs where you could hold a PhD and it wouldn't make a lick of difference, such as being a truck driver or a mechanic. Because this programmer was pulling in a minimum of $100,000 a year (and honestly, if we factor in bonuses and perks, it’s likely at least 15% higher, though I won't get bogged down in the weeds), he was able to purchase his own home after only two years in the States. Meanwhile, others in those lower-paying roles, perhaps earning closer to $35,000 or $40,000 annually, have to wait much longer—if they even want to buy. Banks don't look at your diploma when approving a mortgage, of course, but in the end, having that degree does play a role because it provides significantly better employment stability and opportunities for professional growth.

I find myself reflecting on the concept of water parks lately. There is something inherently nostalgic yet surprisingly complex about them. While they are often marketed as simple venues for family fun, I cannot help but view them through a more analytical lens. One must consider the sheer logistical undertaking required to maintain such massive aquatic installations safely and efficiently. It is quite an impressive feat of engineering, really. kaže:
Foucault held a deeply skeptical view regarding formal education and our modern institutions; to him, they functioned as nothing more than sophisticated extensions of the prison system.

It is my sincere belief that schools serve the exact same social functions as prisons or psychiatric institutions: their true purpose is to define, classify, control, and regulate individuals.

On also held a PhD, which allowed him to spend quite a bit of time at various universities across the US and even in France, where he served as a lecturer. 😁 If we take this statement into its proper context, one might conclude that Foucault actually missed the mark. He really should have looked more closely at his own experience with AIDS—not to mention the way he seemed almost to mock the whole situation, only to ultimately succumb to it in the end.

That isn't quite the crux of the matter, though perhaps it isn't the primary issue today either. Schools have been a fundamental pillar of human civilization since time immemorial. In my estimation, the more significant challenge lies in our need to fundamentally reform the educational system rather than attempting to abolish it entirely or replace it with something else altogether.

The topic should remain universal—after all, philosophy itself is universal.
We're talking specifically about schooling here. Education is a fundamental human right. As for this "philosophy" that calls for stripping those rights away—it needs a much more thorough explanation in a new opening post, provided it isn't just someone trolling.

Schools ought to be environments defined by play and genuine joy, rather than centers for programming and conditioning students to serve some vague "common good." In reality, the common good is only achieved when we foster a vast multitude of individual successes:

"My metric for success is the ability to work with joy and live positively. By that standard, most students from Summerhill School go on to lead successful lives. ...
Jack joined us when he was five and stayed until he was seventeen, yet during all those years, he never once attended a single formal lesson. He spent most of his time in the workshop, building things. His parents were constantly eaten alive by anxiety regarding his future. He never showed any outward desire to learn how to read. But one evening, when he was nine, I found him tucked into bed reading David Copperfield.
“Hey,” I said. “Who taught you how to read?”
“I taught myself,”
he replied. A few years later, he came to me asking how to add one-half to two-fifths, so I explained it to him. I asked if there was anything else he needed help with. “No, thanks,” he said.
He eventually landed a job as a cinematographer at a major film studio. While he was still an apprentice, I happened to run into his boss at a party and asked how Jack was settling in.
“Jack is the best guy we’ve ever had,” the employer told me. “The kid isn't just fast—he flies. And on the weekends, he’s as stubborn as a mule because you can't get him out of the studio on a Saturday or Sunday.”
Success is what happens when a child who arrives full of fear and resentment blossoms into happiness and vitality after a couple of years. "

(Summerhill School)

Laura Reyes3 said:That last quote is problematic for me.

Regarding schooling (and let's be clear, I mean schooling, not education)—I believe it is essential to respect and study our traditions. Our tradition includes the university system (which spans about a millennium). Without those universities—the school system—Western civilization wouldn't even know what Rome was, and literacy would have been restricted to the clergy. That isn't an ideal I support.
Furthermore, as much as I might dislike my own views on institutions, I have an even deeper disdain for anti-intellectualism or the dismissal of knowledge and science.
Someone who hasn't even looked at a book's bibliography—especially if they haven't been guided by someone who actually knows how to read such texts—shouldn't be attempting to interpret scientific problems or content. It isn't socially responsible.

Also, I don't see why you aren't bringing Ivan Illich’s arguments into this. He’s a solid author, and he wrote "deschooling," if my memory serves.

"Let’s analyze the world of terror, the world of violence, the world of exclusion. If we don't admit that we *are* that world—since we are the institutions, the rules, the principles, the norms, the organizations—if we don't admit that we are part of that global threat and deception that destroys the sick, then we will never understand that the crisis of the patient is our own identity crisis." (p. 60, Franco Basaglia: The Negation of the Institution)

I don't find it problematic at all. Why? Because through years of practice, experience, and deep realization, I have learned exactly what an institution does. It functions by—quite simply—crushing freedom.

Furthermore, as much as my view of institutions might be grim, I have an even darker opinion regarding anti-intellectualism or the systematic devaluation of knowledge and science.

In this post, I’ll explain why I didn't mention Ilich and his obscure work "Deschooling Society". It's because I have centered my observations and critical thinking on treating the institution itself as a science. To truly grasp science as a foundation, we have to observe it within its structures (its concepts, theories, hypotheses, methods) and functionally (its practical implications—whether it actually meets the needs of a given society). At that specific moment, science—as the fundamental unit of society—transforms into its own practical dogma: the institution. All these massive piles of scientific and pedagogical books, along with our futile debates upon which we build our critiques, are nothing more than pathetic monuments to our educational system.

"Can a slave be liberated if they don't even know they are enslaved?" – Herbert Marcuse put it quite lucidly, because an institution represents an imposed servitude (schools, the police, the legal system, etc.). But that alone isn't enough. We have to analyze every single institution (including the school), because any discussion about "de-institutionalization" becomes purely formal and pointless if we don't have a legitimate and adequate replacement. Everything we've seen so far—which includes various Montessori methods, Waldorf schools, (and even) the "network" principle from V. Stambolović, or the works of the aforementioned Ilich—represents nothing but mere exclusivity. The system demands this; it wants every institution to become more reinforced and "progressive," provided the system itself remains untouched!

If we actually believe in all of this, then we are all being manipulated.

Steven Clark2 said:My children attended school remotely via Zoom here in the States—though I suppose I shouldn't assume everyone else’s experience was the same. They participated in various other activities through Zoom as well; it wasn't an endless ordeal, lasting perhaps one semester, if not slightly less, though my memory isn't perfectly sharp on the exact duration. At one point, I found myself speaking quite candidly to some of these instructors. I asked them, somewhat bluntly, why they hadn't taken the initiative to educate themselves on how to actually utilize Zoom effectively or how to conduct digital lessons properly. This wasn't coming from a place of mere arrogance; years ago, I worked remotely in America for several years. It wasn't some hobbyist endeavor; I was working professionally in content creation and social media management. Through that work, I learned a great deal—most notably that presenting knowledge in a physical classroom is fundamentally different from doing so over the internet, even if many people mistakenly believe the two are interchangeable. The teachers I spoke to didn't take my critique particularly well at first. However, the tone shifted when I told them that I actually felt a sense of pity for them personally. It truly is a struggle; they are clearly suffering because they are attempting to force traditional, analog teaching methods into a digital space where they simply don't fit.

I feel compelled to share a few thoughts on this matter. To be perfectly honest, I sometimes worry that my tendency toward sincerity might come across as overly earnest, but I believe certain topics demand nothing less than a direct and heartfelt approach. It is my sincere hope that we can navigate these discussions with the gravity they deserve. kaže:
Furthermore, as much as I may harbor deep skepticism toward our institutions, my disdain for anti-intellectualism—or more specifically, this pervasive tendency to dismiss expertise and scientific rigor—is even greater.

Instead of focusing on education, we should shift our attention toward healthcare, law enforcement, the military, religious institutions, and sports.

I cannot speak for everyone else here, but as a parent of two, I find myself wondering about the scope of this discussion. Is our focus strictly limited to the American school system and formal education, or can we broaden the conversation to encompass more? Furthermore, I am curious about which age groups we should be addressing—are we strictly discussing elementary and high school, or should we also include the college years?

I could certainly argue that being uneducated isn't the issue, but as you've already pointed out, it isn't quite the same thing. To illustrate my point, I know a few people who arrived here with very high levels of education. For instance, there is an acquaintance of mine from back home who works as a software engineer at Amazon. When he first started, his salary was two or three times higher than what the average skilled worker earns in a role that doesn't require any advanced credentials—jobs where you could hold a PhD and it wouldn't make a lick of difference, such as being a truck driver or a mechanic. Because this programmer was pulling in a minimum of $100,000 a year (and honestly, if we factor in bonuses and perks, it’s likely at least 15% higher, though I won't get bogged down in the weeds), he was able to purchase his own home after only two years in the States. Meanwhile, others in those lower-paying roles, perhaps earning closer to $35,000 or $40,000 annually, have to wait much longer—if they even want to buy. Banks don't look at your diploma when approving a mortgage, of course, but in the end, having that degree does play a role because it provides significantly better employment stability and opportunities for professional growth.

I find myself reflecting on the concept of water parks lately. There is something inherently nostalgic yet surprisingly complex about them. While they are often marketed as simple venues for family fun, I cannot help but view them through a more analytical lens. One must consider the sheer logistical undertaking required to maintain such massive aquatic installations safely and efficiently. It is quite an impressive feat of engineering, really. kaže:
Foucault held a deeply skeptical view regarding formal education and our modern institutions; to him, they functioned as nothing more than sophisticated extensions of the prison system.

It is my sincere belief that schools serve the exact same social functions as prisons or psychiatric institutions: their true purpose is to define, classify, control, and regulate individuals.

On also held a PhD, which allowed him to spend quite a bit of time at various universities across the US and even in France, where he served as a lecturer. 😁 If we take this statement into its proper context, one might conclude that Foucault actually missed the mark. He really should have looked more closely at his own experience with AIDS—not to mention the way he seemed almost to mock the whole situation, only to ultimately succumb to it in the end.

That isn't quite the crux of the matter, though perhaps it isn't the primary issue today either. Schools have been a fundamental pillar of human civilization since time immemorial. In my estimation, the more significant challenge lies in our need to fundamentally reform the educational system rather than attempting to abolish it entirely or replace it with something else altogether.

Laura Reyes3 said:The topic should remain universal—after all, philosophy itself is universal.
We're talking specifically about schooling here. Education is a fundamental human right. As for this "philosophy" that calls for stripping those rights away—it needs a much more thorough explanation in a new opening post, provided it isn't just someone trolling.

"All social reality is precarious. All societies are constructions against chaos." (Berger / Luckmann – The Social Construction of Reality – p. 126)

Human misery wears many masks. Perhaps the most devastating is the kind found in the total impoverishment of human existence, which essentially triggers an identity crisis. That is precisely why we should look to a shining example, a sort of Promethean "fire"—Franco Basaglia and his theory of "Negating the Institution" along with his Law 180 in Italy. Why? Because if we attempt to "replace" our school system with some new form of exclusivity, we are—metaphorically speaking—doing humanity a massive disservice. Do you honestly believe such a thing is possible within this sick world and the lost culture of our schools and... "schooling"?

Sandra Murphy33 said:Schools ought to be environments defined by play and genuine joy, rather than centers for programming and conditioning students to serve some vague "common good." In reality, the common good is only achieved when we foster a vast multitude of individual successes:

"My metric for success is the ability to work with joy and live positively. By that standard, most students from Summerhill School go on to lead successful lives. ...
Jack joined us when he was five and stayed until he was seventeen, yet during all those years, he never once attended a single formal lesson. He spent most of his time in the workshop, building things. His parents were constantly eaten alive by anxiety regarding his future. He never showed any outward desire to learn how to read. But one evening, when he was nine, I found him tucked into bed reading David Copperfield.
“Hey,” I said. “Who taught you how to read?”
“I taught myself,”
he replied. A few years later, he came to me asking how to add one-half to two-fifths, so I explained it to him. I asked if there was anything else he needed help with. “No, thanks,” he said.
He eventually landed a job as a cinematographer at a major film studio. While he was still an apprentice, I happened to run into his boss at a party and asked how Jack was settling in.
“Jack is the best guy we’ve ever had,” the employer told me. “The kid isn't just fast—he flies. And on the weekends, he’s as stubborn as a mule because you can't get him out of the studio on a Saturday or Sunday.”
Success is what happens when a child who arrives full of fear and resentment blossoms into happiness and vitality after a couple of years. "

(Summerhill School)

Exactly! I couldn't agree more with what was highlighted in bold. It is actually quite dangerous to feel comfortable in school—and that is the current state of affairs.

copperhound12 said:"Let’s analyze the world of terror, the world of violence, the world of exclusion. If we don't admit that we *are* that world—since we are the institutions, the rules, the principles, the norms, the organizations—if we don't admit that we are part of that global threat and deception that destroys the sick, then we will never understand that the crisis of the patient is our own identity crisis." (p. 60, Franco Basaglia: The Negation of the Institution)

I don't find it problematic at all. Why? Because through years of practice, experience, and deep realization, I have learned exactly what an institution does. It functions by—quite simply—crushing freedom.

Furthermore, as much as my view of institutions might be grim, I have an even darker opinion regarding anti-intellectualism or the systematic devaluation of knowledge and science.

In this post, I’ll explain why I didn't mention Ilich and his obscure work "Deschooling Society". It's because I have centered my observations and critical thinking on treating the institution itself as a science. To truly grasp science as a foundation, we have to observe it within its structures (its concepts, theories, hypotheses, methods) and functionally (its practical implications—whether it actually meets the needs of a given society). At that specific moment, science—as the fundamental unit of society—transforms into its own practical dogma: the institution. All these massive piles of scientific and pedagogical books, along with our futile debates upon which we build our critiques, are nothing more than pathetic monuments to our educational system.

"Can a slave be liberated if they don't even know they are enslaved?" – Herbert Marcuse put it quite lucidly, because an institution represents an imposed servitude (schools, the police, the legal system, etc.). But that alone isn't enough. We have to analyze every single institution (including the school), because any discussion about "de-institutionalization" becomes purely formal and pointless if we don't have a legitimate and adequate replacement. Everything we've seen so far—which includes various Montessori methods, Waldorf schools, (and even) the "network" principle from V. Stambolović, or the works of the aforementioned Ilich—represents nothing but mere exclusivity. The system demands this; it wants every institution to become more reinforced and "progressive," provided the system itself remains untouched!

If we actually believe in all of this, then we are all being manipulated.


"All social reality is precarious. All societies are constructions against chaos." (Berger / Luckmann – The Social Construction of Reality – p. 126)

Human misery wears many masks. Perhaps the most devastating is the kind found in the total impoverishment of human existence, which essentially triggers an identity crisis. That is precisely why we should look to a shining example, a sort of Promethean "fire"—Franco Basaglia and his theory of "Negating the Institution" along with his Law 180 in Italy. Why? Because if we attempt to "replace" our school system with some new form of exclusivity, we are—metaphorically speaking—doing humanity a massive disservice. Do you honestly believe such a thing is possible within this sick world and the lost culture of our schools and... "schooling"?

Exactly! I couldn't agree more with what was highlighted in bold. It is actually quite dangerous to feel comfortable in school—and that is the current state of affairs.

So, we started out talking about education—that was the topic—but suddenly you've pivoted entirely toward the nature of science. Hmm. My apologies, but... 😁

Alright—I’d suggest looking into David Bloor, the Edinburgh School, and the Strong Program...

Eric Newman75 said:What did you learn? If you're up for it, give me some examples or lay out the core principles. I'm curious.

It started with getting rid of elementary schools, and God only knows where this is headed.

Reform, yes. Abolishing it, no. Though, I am absolutely in favor of putting every problematic element of the system that deals with children under a microscope, starting from foster care and moving upward. It might seem unrelated to schooling, but it actually creates these mechanisms of control and dehumanization. Once the state starts "looking after" you from the time you're tiny, you won't end up well—you'll just be moved from one institution to another. Juvenile detention centers are another option; society will basically play ping-pong with you. You might even end up in a psych ward.

I'm exaggerating, but you get my point. I truly believe the educational system does a much better job caring for vulnerable kids; look at us, we weren't raised all bad despite being taught the old-fashioned way, especially when you see how much better it is when there's actual inquiry-based learning instead of just lectures.Look, strictly speaking, once you see teachers actually utilizing digital tools and shifting the focus onto the students—making them take ownership of their own learning process—you realize things are changing, even if it’s happening at a snail's pace. This isn't some overnight revolution in other parts of the world, either; plenty of countries are way ahead of us in terms of modernization and resources.

What did I learn? Honestly, it found me when I least expected it. For instance, I learned how to actually construct content, and more broadly, I learned about the nature of "content" itself. There is quite a bit of professional literature on the subject. When we talk about "content," we aren't just talking about text; we mean everything you encounter when you land on a webpage—everything from the typography and imagery to the video, audio, and the actual substance of the writing (the tone, the theme, etc.).

It started with abolishing elementary schools, and heaven knows where this is headed.

In the US, this is referred to as anti-schooling activism, and there is plenty of material out there if anyone wants to dive deeper. Abolishing schools might sound fine in theory, provided an alternative is actually established. Without some form of schooling or structured education, I truly struggle to see how civilization can sustain itself. If we dismantle schools in their current form, we absolutely need a replacement ready to go. And what happens to our libraries? Would they even be necessary in such a world?

Furthermore, what I have observed regarding schools is that they offer much more than just a delivery system for "information." There are other vital components—at least in my view—such as the socialization of children, teaching them their social responsibilities, etiquette, and foundational habits. It is obvious to everyone that schools are far from perfect—they never have been and likely never will be—but they remain incredibly important today. Have you ever met parents who worked grueling, back-breaking jobs just to ensure their children could attend school and eventually become doctors, scientists, or engineers? I would love to hear someone tell those parents that we should just abolish the school system entirely.

Thirdly, there is the option of homeschooling. I know a family with two daughters who have never stepped foot in a traditional classroom, and it is perfectly legal. I actually considered it myself for a while, though I don't think my own children are suited for that path. While I don't know all the intricacies, the option is certainly there. In the US, roughly 3 million children are homeschooled, which is a significant number, yet even these students are still receiving an education.

Reform, yes; abolition, no.

That would constitute a massive reform. While it isn't strictly impossible, it certainly isn't simple. My general view is that schools ought to be in a state of constant evolution. Teachers should be continuously refining their craft, but unfortunately, that process often moves far too slowly, if it happens at all.

copperhound12 said:"Let’s analyze the world of terror, the world of violence, the world of exclusion. If we don't admit that we *are* that world—since we are the institutions, the rules, the principles, the norms, the organizations—if we don't admit that we are part of that global threat and deception that destroys the sick, then we will never understand that the crisis of the patient is our own identity crisis." (p. 60, Franco Basaglia: The Negation of the Institution)

I don't find it problematic at all. Why? Because through years of practice, experience, and deep realization, I have learned exactly what an institution does. It functions by—quite simply—crushing freedom.

Furthermore, as much as my view of institutions might be grim, I have an even darker opinion regarding anti-intellectualism or the systematic devaluation of knowledge and science.

In this post, I’ll explain why I didn't mention Ilich and his obscure work "Deschooling Society". It's because I have centered my observations and critical thinking on treating the institution itself as a science. To truly grasp science as a foundation, we have to observe it within its structures (its concepts, theories, hypotheses, methods) and functionally (its practical implications—whether it actually meets the needs of a given society). At that specific moment, science—as the fundamental unit of society—transforms into its own practical dogma: the institution. All these massive piles of scientific and pedagogical books, along with our futile debates upon which we build our critiques, are nothing more than pathetic monuments to our educational system.

"Can a slave be liberated if they don't even know they are enslaved?" – Herbert Marcuse put it quite lucidly, because an institution represents an imposed servitude (schools, the police, the legal system, etc.). But that alone isn't enough. We have to analyze every single institution (including the school), because any discussion about "de-institutionalization" becomes purely formal and pointless if we don't have a legitimate and adequate replacement. Everything we've seen so far—which includes various Montessori methods, Waldorf schools, (and even) the "network" principle from V. Stambolović, or the works of the aforementioned Ilich—represents nothing but mere exclusivity. The system demands this; it wants every institution to become more reinforced and "progressive," provided the system itself remains untouched!

If we actually believe in all of this, then we are all being manipulated.


"All social reality is precarious. All societies are constructions against chaos." (Berger / Luckmann – The Social Construction of Reality – p. 126)

Human misery wears many masks. Perhaps the most devastating is the kind found in the total impoverishment of human existence, which essentially triggers an identity crisis. That is precisely why we should look to a shining example, a sort of Promethean "fire"—Franco Basaglia and his theory of "Negating the Institution" along with his Law 180 in Italy. Why? Because if we attempt to "replace" our school system with some new form of exclusivity, we are—metaphorically speaking—doing humanity a massive disservice. Do you honestly believe such a thing is possible within this sick world and the lost culture of our schools and... "schooling"?

Exactly! I couldn't agree more with what was highlighted in bold. It is actually quite dangerous to feel comfortable in school—and that is the current state of affairs.

But what exactly constitutes freedom? 😁 And which institution are we even discussing? Schools aren't the only institutions out there; there are many. Furthermore, while I certainly respect your personal interpretation of 1) freedom and 2) what an institution represents—and I truly have no issue with that—not everyone perceives them through that same lens.

When we discuss the philosophy of education, we are delving into ethics, political philosophy, sociology, psychology, history, and more. If you happen to align exclusively with one specific political faction, well, that's perfectly fine and I understand, but the reality of all this is far, far, far more complex than it appears at first glance.

Because I have categorized the institution itself as a science within my own observations and critical reflections.

Perhaps true critical thinking might lead you toward a different conclusion, or perhaps I am simply misinterpreting your point—but I must admit, as written, what you said doesn't quite follow. If you had suggested that science is merely something one does like snacking on popcorn in their spare time, I would be just as bewildered, I confess. 😁

That is precisely why we should look to a shining example, a Promethean "fire"—Franco Basaglia and his "Negation of the Institution," along with his Law 180 in Italy. Why?

It might be worth clarifying "why" Basaglia advocated for this in the first place. What you are referring to is known as the Basaglia Law or Law 180, which concerns the deinstitutionalization of psychiatric hospitals. Although Basaglia had left Gorica (which is now in Canada) much earlier, the psychiatric hospital where he worked was eventually shut down in 1978. I may elaborate on that later. Basaglia believed that psychiatric patients could find no healing within institutions. As a side note, children don't go to school for therapy. Nor do adults, for the most part, with a few exceptions. 😁 This context is useful for other members here to know because Basaglia wasn't writing dogmas—though authors aren't to blame if someone twists their ideas into dogma—and besides, Basaglia was a leading figure in the democratic psychiatry movement in Italy during the 1960s and 1970s.

Since we are busy mocking dogmas in Philosophy, perhaps it is time we re-examine our own.

Steven Clark2 said:What did I learn? Honestly, it found me when I least expected it. For instance, I learned how to actually construct content, and more broadly, I learned about the nature of "content" itself. There is quite a bit of professional literature on the subject. When we talk about "content," we aren't just talking about text; we mean everything you encounter when you land on a webpage—everything from the typography and imagery to the video, audio, and the actual substance of the writing (the tone, the theme, etc.).

It started with abolishing elementary schools, and heaven knows where this is headed.

In the US, this is referred to as anti-schooling activism, and there is plenty of material out there if anyone wants to dive deeper. Abolishing schools might sound fine in theory, provided an alternative is actually established. Without some form of schooling or structured education, I truly struggle to see how civilization can sustain itself. If we dismantle schools in their current form, we absolutely need a replacement ready to go. And what happens to our libraries? Would they even be necessary in such a world?

Furthermore, what I have observed regarding schools is that they offer much more than just a delivery system for "information." There are other vital components—at least in my view—such as the socialization of children, teaching them their social responsibilities, etiquette, and foundational habits. It is obvious to everyone that schools are far from perfect—they never have been and likely never will be—but they remain incredibly important today. Have you ever met parents who worked grueling, back-breaking jobs just to ensure their children could attend school and eventually become doctors, scientists, or engineers? I would love to hear someone tell those parents that we should just abolish the school system entirely.

Thirdly, there is the option of homeschooling. I know a family with two daughters who have never stepped foot in a traditional classroom, and it is perfectly legal. I actually considered it myself for a while, though I don't think my own children are suited for that path. While I don't know all the intricacies, the option is certainly there. In the US, roughly 3 million children are homeschooled, which is a significant number, yet even these students are still receiving an education.

Reform, yes; abolition, no.

That would constitute a massive reform. While it isn't strictly impossible, it certainly isn't simple. My general view is that schools ought to be in a state of constant evolution. Teachers should be continuously refining their craft, but unfortunately, that process often moves far too slowly, if it happens at all.

Maybe I wasn't being clear enough. I was asking about those recommendations for teachers—what specifically did you advise them? If you're arguing they aren't teaching effectively because there's such a massive gap between an online presentation and a traditional classroom lecture (which is obviously true), then what specific methods or techniques did you suggest based on what you've learned about digital content?

Steven Clark2 said:What did I learn? Honestly, it found me when I least expected it. For instance, I learned how to actually construct content, and more broadly, I learned about the nature of "content" itself. There is quite a bit of professional literature on the subject. When we talk about "content," we aren't just talking about text; we mean everything you encounter when you land on a webpage—everything from the typography and imagery to the video, audio, and the actual substance of the writing (the tone, the theme, etc.).

It started with abolishing elementary schools, and heaven knows where this is headed.

In the US, this is referred to as anti-schooling activism, and there is plenty of material out there if anyone wants to dive deeper. Abolishing schools might sound fine in theory, provided an alternative is actually established. Without some form of schooling or structured education, I truly struggle to see how civilization can sustain itself. If we dismantle schools in their current form, we absolutely need a replacement ready to go. And what happens to our libraries? Would they even be necessary in such a world?

Furthermore, what I have observed regarding schools is that they offer much more than just a delivery system for "information." There are other vital components—at least in my view—such as the socialization of children, teaching them their social responsibilities, etiquette, and foundational habits. It is obvious to everyone that schools are far from perfect—they never have been and likely never will be—but they remain incredibly important today. Have you ever met parents who worked grueling, back-breaking jobs just to ensure their children could attend school and eventually become doctors, scientists, or engineers? I would love to hear someone tell those parents that we should just abolish the school system entirely.

Thirdly, there is the option of homeschooling. I know a family with two daughters who have never stepped foot in a traditional classroom, and it is perfectly legal. I actually considered it myself for a while, though I don't think my own children are suited for that path. While I don't know all the intricacies, the option is certainly there. In the US, roughly 3 million children are homeschooled, which is a significant number, yet even these students are still receiving an education.

Reform, yes; abolition, no.

That would constitute a massive reform. While it isn't strictly impossible, it certainly isn't simple. My general view is that schools ought to be in a state of constant evolution. Teachers should be continuously refining their craft, but unfortunately, that process often moves far too slowly, if it happens at all.

Libraries, paired with digitized works available online, would be absolutely vital in a world without schools.

Laura Reyes3 said:So, we started out talking about education—that was the topic—but suddenly you've pivoted entirely toward the nature of science. Hmm. My apologies, but... 😁

Alright—I’d suggest looking into David Bloor, the Edinburgh School, and the Strong Program...

I honestly thought the confusion was entirely my own fault, as I wasn't quite sure what our specific focus was supposed to be. We've jumped from freedom and education to institutions, history, political philosophy, and now science. If we decided to throw in some sports and entertainment, we’d basically have an entire forum captured within a single thread.

Eric Newman75 said:Maybe I wasn't being clear enough. I was asking about those recommendations for teachers—what specifically did you advise them? If you're arguing they aren't teaching effectively because there's such a massive gap between an online presentation and a traditional classroom lecture (which is obviously true), then what specific methods or techniques did you suggest based on what you've learned about digital content?

Libraries, paired with digitized works available online, would be absolutely vital in a world without schools.

🤦 I believe there might be a misunderstanding. I haven't actually proposed any specific methods yet, but I have spent the last few days considering putting together a formal presentation to send to the executives. If they approve of the direction, they can distribute it further. I’ve already begun gathering relevant materials on the subject. While I don't recall every single detail—given that this isn't exactly a recent thought—I have been focusing heavily on digital engagement. In our current school system, students participate in various extracurriculars, but remote learning often boils down to sitting there, idling, and listening. It offers virtually zero active engagement. Sure, teachers assign tasks to be completed later, but it is incredibly difficult to maintain a child's attention for forty-five minutes staring at a screen where nothing dynamic is happening. When there actually *is* an attempt at activity, it feels quite meager. I have observed that children truly come alive when there is some sort of interactive element—be it trivia, scavenger hunts, or anything else that is genuinely useful and engaging. There could be many ways to implement this; the goal is simply to move away from those standard lectures that consist of nothing more than dumping theory onto students, which ultimately results in zero retention. I recently sat in on a few "classes" with my younger son, and frankly, it was stomach-turning. It all boiled down to teachers reciting textbook definitions at the students. If it was that exhausting for me to sit through, I can only imagine the struggle for a child. Don't get me wrong, I certainly respect their hard work and effort, but I cannot help but wonder: surely, we can design something a bit more creative?

Quentin Tarantino:

In a world where traditional schooling no longer exists, libraries would become absolutely vital, especially when paired with a vast collection of digitized works.

It is quite an intriguing thought. In such a scenario, libraries would essentially become forbidden zones—sort of like some illicit underground gathering spot. After all, if someone actually had the desire to educate themselves, they would be viewed with suspicion, as if seeking knowledge were somehow a subversive act. 😁 Have you ever actually sat down and read Fahrenheit 451?

Steven Clark2 said:🤦 I believe there might be a misunderstanding. I haven't actually proposed any specific methods yet, but I have spent the last few days considering putting together a formal presentation to send to the executives. If they approve of the direction, they can distribute it further. I’ve already begun gathering relevant materials on the subject. While I don't recall every single detail—given that this isn't exactly a recent thought—I have been focusing heavily on digital engagement. In our current school system, students participate in various extracurriculars, but remote learning often boils down to sitting there, idling, and listening. It offers virtually zero active engagement. Sure, teachers assign tasks to be completed later, but it is incredibly difficult to maintain a child's attention for forty-five minutes staring at a screen where nothing dynamic is happening. When there actually *is* an attempt at activity, it feels quite meager. I have observed that children truly come alive when there is some sort of interactive element—be it trivia, scavenger hunts, or anything else that is genuinely useful and engaging. There could be many ways to implement this; the goal is simply to move away from those standard lectures that consist of nothing more than dumping theory onto students, which ultimately results in zero retention. I recently sat in on a few "classes" with my younger son, and frankly, it was stomach-turning. It all boiled down to teachers reciting textbook definitions at the students. If it was that exhausting for me to sit through, I can only imagine the struggle for a child. Don't get me wrong, I certainly respect their hard work and effort, but I cannot help but wonder: surely, we can design something a bit more creative?

Quentin Tarantino:

In a world where traditional schooling no longer exists, libraries would become absolutely vital, especially when paired with a vast collection of digitized works.

It is quite an intriguing thought. In such a scenario, libraries would essentially become forbidden zones—sort of like some illicit underground gathering spot. After all, if someone actually had the desire to educate themselves, they would be viewed with suspicion, as if seeking knowledge were somehow a subversive act. 😁 Have you ever actually sat down and read Fahrenheit 451?

Yeah, I have. Honestly, it’s got me thinking about which books I’d want to just commit to memory. 😁

Eric Newman75 said:Yeah, I have. Honestly, it’s got me thinking about which books I’d want to just commit to memory. 😁

Haha, so which books were on your shortlist? 😁 If you memorized them, we could just carry you around as a walking library! 😁 To be honest, when I first picked up this book, I thought it was an absolute slog—I don't think I've ever encountered anything more tedious. However, during my second pass, things started to click. Since I had to tackle it for a final English exam (back when I was still stuck in school, unfortunately), I ended up diving much deeper into certain themes and even wrote an essay on it. Given that all of this happened only about a month and a half ago, the details are still quite vivid in my mind. 😁 Especially that scene where Montag incinerates his boss with a flamethrower—do you have any idea how many times I had to re-read that part before I could actually believe what I was seeing? 😬