purpose of education

[Athena]

I am really enjoying the thread about what is the best school curriculum, but through the history of education, the purpose of education has changed many times, and the purpose of education is not being addressed in the thread about curriculum. Why spend the money to educated anyone?

Edited May 1, 2011 by Athena

[lemur]

I am really enjoying the thread about what is the best school curriculum, but through the history of education, the purpose of education has changed many times, and the purpose of education is not being addressed in the thread about curriculum. Why spend the money to educated anyone?

Imo, the problem with mixing money and education is that the money becomes the primary purpose for many people involved. I actually had someone tell me recently that teaching physics to young people is important because they need to understand how the gadgets work that they spend so much time and money on. The mentality is that if something doesn't involve money, it's not worth thinking about, and if it is producing money and jobs, it is important to study. The irony of this is that money causes people to ignore the reality of economic processes for the most part, even though the only real purpose of money is to facilitate and regulate exchanges between economic actors. The purpose of education is to inform people not only how to make money but how to do everything else as well.

 

This doesn't mean that money has to be spent on education, though. People could be educated directly, on the job, provided this was a less expensive route for employers than paying for schools. What's more, government could simply mandate successful producers to assist less successful people about how to become more productive with their labor. This, of course, assumes that people can get access to the basic resources and equipment needed to harness their labor productively. It also assumes an economy of direct material productivity instead of the current one, which generally seems to involve corporate bureaucratic social-interaction to regulates flows of money, goods, and services from distant suppliers to distant consumers. What's the purpose of education for such jobs since their only real purpose is to distribute the means of consumption?

 

 

[keelanz]

I am really enjoying the thread about what is the best school curriculum, but through the history of education, the purpose of education has changed many times, and the purpose of education is not being addressed in the thread about curriculum. Why spend the money to educated anyone?

 

so humanity can be civilized to itself rather than barbaric

 

also i think time is the important investment not money

Edited May 2, 2011 by keelanz

[lemur]

so humanity can be civilized to itself rather than barbaric

 

also i think time is the important investment not money

Yes, but some people will say that being civilized instead of barbaric means sufficiently subduing the workers to serving the established distribution of privilege. I would not like it if the purpose of education was to generate acceptance of a particular distribution of labor or other social structure. I want people to question authority, institutions, and innovate alternatives that increase their freedom.

[keelanz]

Yes, but some people will say that being civilized instead of barbaric means sufficiently subduing the workers to serving the established distribution of privilege. I would not like it if the purpose of education was to generate acceptance of a particular distribution of labor or other social structure. I want people to question authority, institutions, and innovate alternatives that increase their freedom.

 

by human nature we question things, being civilized simply means resolving problems by any means other than violence.

[lemur]

by human nature we question things, being civilized simply means resolving problems by any means other than violence.

Humans have developed the ability to exploit the desire to avoid violence in the interest of pursuits that would otherwise incur it. Humans too often defer conflict instead of seeking civilized means of addressing it.

[keelanz]

Humans have developed the ability to exploit the desire to avoid violence in the interest of pursuits that would otherwise incur it. Humans too often defer conflict instead of seeking civilized means of addressing it.

 

Honestly what point are you trying to make? i can deduct what your trying to say but it doesnt seem to hold a point? humans exploit civilization? really? do they?......

 

the purpose of education is not to meaninglessly argue, but to come to some mutual understanding both entities can agree upon and in most cases one entity will hold a higher capacity than the latter but the latter cant let go of some understanding that it already holds therefor will not conform and in which case education has no purpose.

 

 

deferring violence is the civilized way even if no compromise is found....

 

as my profile picture shows(the chess boards revolution not falkes), sometimes being educated alone isnt enough for the right cause and letting go of whats civilized for what could be seen as politically incorrect is what has too happen, how else can society evolve? we have to be seen as well has heard....

Edited May 2, 2011 by keelanz

[lemur]

Honestly what point are you trying to make? i can deduct what your trying to say but it doesnt seem to hold a point? humans exploit civilization? really? do they?…...

My language was hard to follow. Sorry. What I meant was this: If someone knows that you want to avoid a fight, they may pursue something that you would fight over, using your pacifism as a shield to their advantage. So my point is that pacifism isn't more civilized because it promotes greater domination/authoritarianism. If you look at western culture since WWII, it has developed increasing cultures of deference and conflict containment/avoidance, which has promoted greater exploitation. In other words, it's not as if conscience-less people suddenly start behaving responsibly because culture has gotten more civilized. Instead, they feel that much more secure in pursuing their interests by unethical means. These people are certainly resolving their problems by non-violent means, but those means may involve deceit, manipulation, and sugar-coating of otherwise corrupt moral/ethical reason. They reason that as long as peace and quiet is maintained, anything goes.

Edited May 2, 2011 by lemur

[Athena]

by human nature we question things, being civilized simply means resolving problems by any means other than violence.

 

Not many people in history would define civilized as you have. All the men we labeled as "so in so the Great", were men who lead armies such as Alexander the Great. In the US, every time a president commits an act of war, his popularity goes up in the polls. This is not true of all cultures, so we should not assume this is just human nature. However it certainly is true of cultures when the dominant belief about god is one of a fearsome, jealous, revengeful, war god, who promotes killing and taking land as something god fearing and god loving people do. Never forget, war is good for religion and religions is good for war, because this is a dominating fact our lives, and in 1958 the National Defense Education Act focused education on the rapid development of technology for military and industrial needs, because people who worship this god have a history of war, and they can not trust each other to not engage in war. With ability to fly across oceans and drop atom bombs, the US has to take military preparation seriously, and it did so by imitating German bureaucracy and Germany education.

 

Education since 1958 is far from the education that John Dewey had influenced. John Dewey was a leader in education for indpendent thinking and many older Christians absolutely hate him and what he did to public education. From reading what people have said in the post about education, I think most of you would be in favor of what John Dewey achieved. However, let us talk about the 1958 change, because this is what has most of your opinions of what schools should teach. More math, more physics, more foreign language. Do you realize this is the military preference, and there are other choices? I would bet those who suggested other choices in the other thread were older people, whose ideas of what is best were shaped before the 1958 Act dominated education in their area. I was in school the day teachers were informed their purpose of education had been changed. They were dazed as if in a state shock. Please get, this is a change in the purpose of education, not just an adjustment is subjects taught.

 

We might consider the economic troubles of Germany and Greenspan's "error" that lead to our own economic collapse, because our reality today is the Military Industrial Complex, and this was first explained by a Prussian General before WWI. Modern warfare is about defending a nation's economic interest, and it requires education for rapid technological development for military purpose. Also, it requires technological development for the economic growth that is essential to having the most expensive military force on earth. We have been on the path Germany followed, and we are getting to learn the history of Germany through our own experience of walking down that path.

 

We might not be overly concerned with the change in public education if were not for the social and cultural ramifications. We are no longer the democracy we defended in two world wars, so when you say education should civilize us, what kind of civilization do you want?

 

Humans have developed the ability to exploit the desire to avoid violence in the interest of pursuits that would otherwise incur it. Humans too often defer conflict instead of seeking civilized means of addressing it.

 

What does this have to do with the subject of the purpose of education? Earlier you express concern that people learn to think for themselves and this is in line with John Dewey's influence on education, so you could be on topic if you had better informed about the history of education.

 

Like the Greeks we were focused on well rounded individual growth, until 1958, when we became focused on specialization, and this is devastating to our democracy. Specialist do not have the breadth of knowledge to be well informed voters, nor to be elected officials. Education for technology, prepares everyone to rely on authority, instead of being the authority. Our previous education for good moral judgment, assumed each would be his/her own authority. You have a point to make. It just isn't supported by what you know about education.

 

Perhaps this discussion should have begun by contrasting Sparta's education with Athens? Then there might be a clearer understanding of the relationship between education and culture, the relationship between US and what it defended its democracy against?

 

Honestly what point are you trying to make? i can deduct what your trying to say but it doesnt seem to hold a point? humans exploit civilization? really? do they?......

 

the purpose of education is not to meaninglessly argue, but to come to some mutual understanding both entities can agree upon and in most cases one entity will hold a higher capacity than the latter but the latter cant let go of some understanding that it already holds therefor will not conform and in which case education has no purpose.

 

 

deferring violence is the civilized way even if no compromise is found....

 

as my profile picture shows(the chess boards revolution not falkes), sometimes being educated alone isnt enough for the right cause and letting go of whats civilized for what could be seen as politically incorrect is what has too happen, how else can society evolve? we have to be seen as well has heard....

 

Absolutely Keelanz. It is not just a good purpose of education for people to learn how to achieve mutual understanding. It is also the purpose of democracy! Either your parents, or your school, or your independent research, has done a good job with your education. I sincerely would like to know how you know what you know, so it can be replicated.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Athena

[Realitycheck]

I think the biggest and foremost problem in america is that youth are not concerned enough about their education. Any education has its merits. Everywhere you look, we are paying people good money to devise meaningful, well-rounded curriculums. Its just that many American youth are too concerned with exercising their freedoms than taking on the responsibilities necessary to advance their education.