Freedom and Education

Volar said:If you truly believed a philosopher could provide a coherent answer to your inquiries, what questions would you pose to them?

To everyone, particularly those who find themselves drawn to philosophical inquiry, welcome to our subforum.

The concept for this thread was originally suggested by Nee, so we invite you all to participate—Ask the Philosophers.

I find myself wishing to ask why there is such a profound silence regarding the fact that, starting at age six, children are stripped of their autonomy and funneled into an eight-year elementary school system where they undergo daily indoctrination for four to seven hours; a process that effectively stifles creativity, humiliates the individual, and denies them basic human rights, such as freedom of movement, the ability to pursue practical skills over useless trivia, or even the choice of their own social circles.

Why is this inflicted upon children?
If such treatment were applied to an adult, it would undoubtedly be categorized as a crime against humanity.

Is the definition of evil not the intentional infliction of harm upon another?

The standard rebuttals about "education" and similar platitudes strike me as quite absurd; rather, I am searching for a philosopher whose insights possess real-world application—someone who doesn't merely hold these views in a vacuum—so that we might engage in a meaningful debate.

Throughout the United States and across the globe, it seems increasingly difficult to find individuals willing to speak out against this phenomenon; most people remain largely silent or indifferent to the suffering caused by a civilization that perpetuates this without any tangible justification. (It is quite curious how people will express outrage over other forms of abuse, whether psychological or physical, yet when it comes to the rights of children, they seem entirely unconcerned 😢 )

I attempted to start a discussion on this topic here previously, but it has been closed.

Sure, school is a scam, education is useless. You should just stay half-literate like you are and keep making people's brains bleed with this absolute gibberish you call writing. Long live "creativity," right?

The right to an education is fundamental. It’s strange to see someone arguing for the removal of a basic human right while simultaneously labeling such a right evil...

http://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/a...right-to-education

Volar said:If you actually believed philosophers could provide a straight answer to a single question, what would you bother asking them?

Exactly. Honestly, I’m genuinely curious about how anyone plans to stay relevant in the workforce with ChatGPT breathing down their necks. Is everyone just going to pivot careers overnight?
Because look at the situation—poor guys went through trade school to learn manual labor, and now this happens...
I mean, Nvidia drops a GPU that's twice as powerful every two years, and suddenly everything changes. 🍿

Eric Newman75 said:Sure, school is a scam, education is useless. You should just stay half-literate like you are and keep making people's brains bleed with this absolute gibberish you call writing. Long live "creativity," right?

At what point did I actually equate elementary school—that essentially coercive institution—with the concept of true education?
Either you have fundamentally misunderstood the situation, which seems unlikely, or you are simply trolling, which is far more probable.

Eric Newman75 said:Sure, school is a scam, education is useless. You should just stay half-literate like you are and keep making people's brains bleed with this absolute gibberish you call writing. Long live "creativity," right?

Perhaps I am simply being less than articulate; one might even suggest that my cognitive faculties have been somewhat compromised by dealing with individuals lacking both conscience and integrity. It is possible that such constant exposure to bad faith has rendered my brain slightly less operational than it ought to be, yet I still maintain an intellect backed by arguments that can withstand scrutiny. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of providing any substance whatsoever, choosing instead to mask your position by justifying child abuse and engaging in mindless trolling—a pattern of behavior to which, unfortunately, I have become quite accustomed on this forum. ☕

Laura Reyes3 said:The right to an education is fundamental. It’s strange to see someone arguing for the removal of a basic human right while simultaneously labeling such a right evil...

http://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/a...right-to-education

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.

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.

That’s exactly what I was thinking. There’s a massive difference between having the option to do something and being forced into it.

wearyharbor41 said:At what point did I actually equate elementary school—that essentially coercive institution—with the concept of true education?
Either you have fundamentally misunderstood the situation, which seems unlikely, or you are simply trolling, which is far more probable.

Perhaps I am simply being less than articulate; one might even suggest that my cognitive faculties have been somewhat compromised by dealing with individuals lacking both conscience and integrity. It is possible that such constant exposure to bad faith has rendered my brain slightly less operational than it ought to be, yet I still maintain an intellect backed by arguments that can withstand scrutiny. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of providing any substance whatsoever, choosing instead to mask your position by justifying child abuse and engaging in mindless trolling—a pattern of behavior to which, unfortunately, I have become quite accustomed on this forum. ☕

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

wearyharbor41 said:At what point did I actually equate elementary school—that essentially coercive institution—with the concept of true education?
Either you have fundamentally misunderstood the situation, which seems unlikely, or you are simply trolling, which is far more probable.

Perhaps I am simply being less than articulate; one might even suggest that my cognitive faculties have been somewhat compromised by dealing with individuals lacking both conscience and integrity. It is possible that such constant exposure to bad faith has rendered my brain slightly less operational than it ought to be, yet I still maintain an intellect backed by arguments that can withstand scrutiny. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of providing any substance whatsoever, choosing instead to mask your position by justifying child abuse and engaging in mindless trolling—a pattern of behavior to which, unfortunately, I have become quite accustomed on this forum. ☕

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

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

ruggedraven36 said:That’s exactly what I was thinking. There’s a massive difference between having the option to do something and being forced into it.

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

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

Doesn't change the bottom line. Coercion isn't a right—period. Doesn't matter if you think it's justified or not.

ruggedraven36 said:Doesn't change the bottom line. Coercion isn't a right—period. Doesn't matter if you think it's justified or not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

ruggedraven36 said:When it comes to adults, you have to wonder if they’re even capable of judging their own needs. It's the same thing Marcuse talks about in one-dimensional man.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ruggedraven36 said:That just proves my point. A society that refuses to align its schools with the job market is a society destined to fail. And even then, that alignment isn't a magic bullet—you still have to deal with global competition.

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

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

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

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