Double standards in public life

124»

Comments

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    It could be argued that Boris Johnson is the UK's Themistocles.

    Nah.

    He had curly hair and a beard and he wore weird hats. He was also good looking.

    In his History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides states that “Themistocles was a man who exhibited the most indubitable signs of genius; indeed, in this particular he has a claim on our admiration quite extraordinary and unparalleled.”

    Genius? Boris de Pfeffel - the bumbling, bragging, bluffing blunderer? No way!
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited April 22
    tclune wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    I can't say I see any great contradiction between education benefiting society and education benefiting the educated person. To me it's a fairly obvious opportunity for a win-win situation. Yet various posters seem to think it's very important to declare a victor.

    I guess we know different people. In my experience, about as many people find that they were stifled by education as felt that they were elevated by it. You can invoke some form of the true Scotsman argument here if you like, or you can acknowledge that public education does not serve two masters.

    I'm talking about principle, you're talking about whether we're actually doing education properly in practice. The argument started with what education was "about", which can equally describe it's intended purpose or what it is, in fact, achieving (or failing to achieve).

    I make no claim whatsoever about whether any particular education system is achieving good win-win results, because even my knowledge of the local system is decades out of date. But I'd say it's fairly trite and obvious that we know different people. If this conversation is merely about comparing anecdotes of school experiences around the world, well... it seems a bit pointless really because you can't draw any wider conclusions from those anecdotes about the nature of education. You might just conclude your bit of the world had a good or bad education system relative to the rest of the world.
  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    Not sure how one can be stifled by education as such, rather than stifled by the institutionalised environment that one has to endure in order to gain a formal education.



    Arguably, that's kind of the same thing isn't it? You can't gain an education without enduring the institutionalised environment that exists to deliver it. Eg, I knew by 11 I was thick because I failed my Eleven Plus and was slated to attend the local secondary school. But if I had been exceptionally bright, or privately tutored (which I wasn't in either case) I could've done better in my O Levels and gone on to another school to do A Levels, which was the system at the time.

    I know what you're saying, Russ, but to a greater extent most people's early experience to education IS institutionalised. So it's pretty synonymous.
  • MooMoo Kerygmania Host
    Russ wrote: »
    Not sure how one can be stifled by education as such, rather than stifled by the institutionalised environment that one has to endure in order to gain a formal education.

    An intense interest in a certain topic can be killed by teachers who force their students to concentrate on trivial details and do not present the larger picture.

  • tclunetclune Shipmate
    There was a movement sparked by Paul Goodman and Ivan Illich in the 60s that saw the flowering of the inner genius of each child as the proper goal of education. What these guys failed to appreciate was how elitist this vision was -- it was not the stuff of universal education, but of the elevation of the few at the expense of the many. (In fairness, I should say that I suspect Illich did recognize that and was perfectly comfortable with the Platonic ideal of the few oppressing the many.)
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    tclune wrote: »
    There was a movement (...) in the 60s that saw the flowering of the inner genius of each child as the proper goal of education. What these guys failed to appreciate was how elitist this vision was -- it was not the stuff of universal education, but of the elevation of the few at the expense of the many.
    You're going to have to spell out the logical steps that lead to the second sentence.
    As far as I can see it follows only if you allow the suppressed premise that "the many" do not have anything worth calling "inner genius".
    It may be that the details of the programs of the thinkers you cite, or their specific views on inner genius, are flawed or wrong. I don't know. But that does not justify projecting the flaws of their views onto anybody who disagrees that education is only there to fit the needs of society. It's not as if the view that education is there to fit the needs of society is in practice entirely egalitarian. Often it ends up as a view that the proles should be taught STEM skills to bolster the economy.
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    There was a curious juxtaposition on the BBC R4 programme Today this morning. Thought for the Day with Rhidian Brook looked at the "chumocracy" in Downing Street, and how all of us, it's human, tend to look to people we know to do work for us, but this was immediately preceded by an item of work with dolphins, and how they pick others to work with from others they already know. It was hard to sort out the thoughts, though TftD went on to consider how society should help those without the supportive networks, and how this relates to how God looks at us.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_radio_fourfm
    The dolphins start about 7.45 - at the moment, while the programme is still running. After 9.00, I expect it will be found at 1.45 in.
  • tclunetclune Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    tclune wrote: »
    There was a movement (...) in the 60s that saw the flowering of the inner genius of each child as the proper goal of education. What these guys failed to appreciate was how elitist this vision was -- it was not the stuff of universal education, but of the elevation of the few at the expense of the many.
    You're going to have to spell out the logical steps that lead to the second sentence.
    As far as I can see it follows only if you allow the suppressed premise that "the many" do not have anything worth calling "inner genius".
    It may be that the details of the programs of the thinkers you cite...

    Those schools that involve the student choosing their own course of education and the school assisting in getting them the necessary contacts and materials to pursue their interests are, either directly or indirectly, built on Illich's ideas. It is an absolutely bog-standard critique to note that the approach is not scalable.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    tclune wrote: »
    Those schools that involve the student choosing their own course of education and the school assisting in getting them the necessary contacts and materials to pursue their interests are, either directly or indirectly, built on Illich's ideas. It is an absolutely bog-standard critique to note that the approach is not scalable.
    As I said in the part of my post that you didn't quote, you do not justify projecting the problems with Illich's ideas onto everyone who argues that education should be for the good of the individual, or who rejects the claim that all education should be solely for the good of the society.
  • tclunetclune Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    As I said in the part of my post that you didn't quote, you do not justify projecting the problems with Illich's ideas onto everyone who argues that education should be for the good of the individual, or who rejects the claim that all education should be solely for the good of the society.

    Part of the problem is that you insist that I respond in a way that is divorced from what I had to say. My assertion originally was that the justification for all of us paying for public education was that it better prepared people to take on the burdens of citizenship. That hardly requires that no other benefit possibly accrue to those receiving an education.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    "The burdens of citizenship"? Jesus, that sounds grim. You've referred to them several times now - what are they, exactly?
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    Voting , jury service, behaving in a sober and orderly manner, queuing, paying ones taxes and generally being decent.... is wot I think is meant

    But don’t mind me, I lost track here Long ago
  • tclunetclune Shipmate
    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    Voting , jury service, behaving in a sober and orderly manner, queuing, paying ones taxes and generally being decent.... is wot I think is meant

    Seems right to me.
  • I'd add into the 'citizenship' the ability to work constructively - that could be directly for social benefit (teacher, nurse, refuse collector ...) or earning a wage and paying taxes to fund those working directly for our benefit - and, earning money and spending it on the goods and services provided by others to create more jobs. We need the people to create the wealth that can be spread around through society.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    tclune wrote: »
    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    Voting , jury service, behaving in a sober and orderly manner, queuing, paying ones taxes and generally being decent.... is wot I think is meant

    Seems right to me.
    If that’s what my education was supposed to be about, I think San Luis Coastal Unified School District got robbed.
  • PendragonPendragon Shipmate
    I'd add into the 'citizenship' the ability to work constructively - that could be directly for social benefit (teacher, nurse, refuse collector ...) or earning a wage and paying taxes to fund those working directly for our benefit - and, earning money and spending it on the goods and services provided by others to create more jobs. We need the people to create the wealth that can be spread around through society.

    And what about those who are earning nothing, or a derisory amount, doing traditionally female roles such as childcare or caring for elderly relatives? Surely that has social benefit too?
  • Yes, include in the ellipsis ...
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    tclune wrote: »
    Part of the problem is that you insist that I respond in a way that is divorced from what I had to say. My assertion originally was that the justification for all of us paying for public education was that it better prepared people to take on the burdens of citizenship. That hardly requires that no other benefit possibly accrue to those receiving an education.
    I had understood you when you said that we
    don't tax ourselves to fulfill the inner yearnings of children -- they can work on fulfilling their heart's desires themselves
    you meant that, while you wouldn't go out of your way to prevent any such benefit, you would be happy to sacrifice any such benefit if you thought that either education would better serve the needs of society thereby, or if you thought it would cost any additional time or resources. Apologies if I misread you.

    Anyway, I disagree with the view that the sole justification for public spending must be public benefit with direct personal benefit to the recipients being at best a side-effect or means to the end. For example, public health spending, in societies with functional health services, is allocated on the basis of the direct personal benefit to the recipient rather than on the possible indirect benefit that the recipient might make to society. One could well justify public funding for education on the basis that education is of direct benefit to each person regardless of any knock-on benefit to other members of society, just as one argues for public funding for health on that basis.

    A good society is one in which conflict between what will benefit society and what will satisfy each individual's inner yearnings and heart's desires is minimised. And in so far as there is a systematic avoidable conflict it is arguably easier and definitely more ethical to alter society to fit the individual than to try to alter the individuals to fit the society. One virtue of a democratic society is that it benefits from individuals who are able to think for themselves, ask questions, deliberate intelligently about their goals, and see through lies and bullshit, all of which I regard as part of the self-actualisation of the individuals concerned.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I have no problem with self-actualization but ultimately we do have to meet the needs of society. The two universities near me were land grant schools with the task of training people for scientific agriculture. Another school a little to the South of me started as a Teacher Training School.

    Recently, after a long emphasis on training students for computer science and engineering and medicine, our country has come to the realization we need more technicians to keep our country running. Thus, more technical schools have risen up. We need people to be able to repair our infrastructure and keep our country running. Some of those jobs are actually paying more for two-year certificates than four-year college graduates.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    I'd add into the 'citizenship' the ability to work constructively - that could be directly for social benefit (teacher, nurse, refuse collector ...) or earning a wage and paying taxes to fund those working directly for our benefit - and, earning money and spending it on the goods and services provided by others to create more jobs. We need the people to create the wealth that can be spread around through society.

    You make it sound like the only purpose of having a job is to be able to pay taxes, and the only purpose of spending money is to enable other people to have jobs so that they can pay taxes as well. What a hideously soulless vision of society.
  • Within the context of social benefit, sure, why not describe work in terms of providing a direct service to society (the aforementioned teachers, unpaid carers etc), the goods and services others want, or put money into society through taxation and spending.

    That doesn't mean that personal benefits of work aren't also present - doing something of personal interest and enrichment (ideally), social interaction with colleagues and clients, salary to buy things you want etc.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    What is the 'self' that needs to be 'actualised' ? Furthermore, what if that 'self' is something very unpleasant, indeed?
  • Dominic Grieve is all over the UK airwaves descrubung Boris Johnson as an integrity vacuum - priceless.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    tclune wrote: »
    ...it was not the stuff of universal education, but of the elevation of the few at the expense of the many...

    I think you've identified the issue. Education is a good thing. But achieving one's own education at the expense of other people's education is a bad thing.

    So the argument here is between those who see attending a private school (which doesn't cater for everyone) as being at the expense of the education of others. And those who can see that trying to improve the state system by banning private schools is attempting to improve the quality of education of some at the expense of the quality of education of others.

    When you think about it, any claim that something is at the expense of others is relative to some baseline. Relative to a baseline in which you pay me £10, any enjoyment or satisfaction you get out of whatever you buy with that £10 is at my expense. Relative to a baseline in which you don't pay me anything and I don't pay you anything, it isn't.



  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    This is where I think that the only way to have everyone 'equal' is to have the straitjacket of a political regime which imposes 'equality' on (almost) everyone.
    Otherwise you will inevitably have some who are (much) better off than others and where mainly people notice and complain about those who are better off than them
    However ,in the end, I rather not have that straitjacket.
  • tclunetclune Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    When you think about it, any claim that something is at the expense of others is relative to some baseline.

    I know what you're saying here, but it's a notion that is ready-made for self-serving.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    This is where I think that the only way to have everyone 'equal' is to have the straitjacket of a political regime which imposes 'equality' on (almost) everyone.
    Otherwise you will inevitably have some who are (much) better off than others and where mainly people notice and complain about those who are better off than them
    However ,in the end, I rather not have that straitjacket.

    Those are two extremes. There is a happy medium, in the U.K. we are nowhere near that happy medium.

    Here is an example (Finland) - https://tinyurl.com/4txdve7p

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    What is the 'self' that needs to be 'actualised' ? Furthermore, what if that 'self' is something very unpleasant, indeed?
    I take it that the self is the human being and all the capacities that contribute to human flourishing.
    The idea that human nature is intrinsically very unpleasant is I think a manichaean distortion of Platonism or Christianity or Kant. It also raises the question of quite where the good society and laws that keep unpleasant human nature in check are supposed to come from.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    What is the 'self' that needs to be 'actualised' ? Furthermore, what if that 'self' is something very unpleasant, indeed?
    I take it that the self is the human being and all the capacities that contribute to human flourishing.
    The idea that human nature is intrinsically very unpleasant is I think a manichaean distortion of Platonism or Christianity or Kant. It also raises the question of quite where the good society and laws that keep unpleasant human nature in check are supposed to come from.

    I think you're reading more into Kwesi's post than is there - I'm not sure I'm convinced by the idea of an intrinsic nature but if one is posited why should we assume that all humans tend the same way? Surely some, absent other influences, could tend towards evil, and others good>
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Isn't the truth somewhere between the two ?

    That the natural self is neither good (full of innocent creativity which just needs to be given the opportunity for expression) nor evil, but with the potential for both ?

    So that education is partly socialisation, teaching control of anti-social impulses. And partly teaching those attitudes, skills and knowledge which will enable people to become productive members of society, i.e. to create things that other people value.

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Arethosemyfeet I think you're reading more into Kwesi's post than is there

    The point I think I was trying to make is that the notion of 'self-actualisation' is based on several debatable assumptions: there is a 'self', that there is a definable process by which this self is 'actualised", that actualisation is a good thing and should, therefore, be a major aim of education.

    Just to take an example, why is Boris Johnson the way he is? To what extent is his mendacious, narcissistic and insecure behaviour innate, the consequence of Eton, and his socialisation? Did his education bring out his natural talents and realise his nature or did it mould it?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited April 26
    What matters is the law and the conduct guidelines. If Boris is to be held accountable, those are the standards which apply.

    The general assessment was well stated by Sir Humphrey. A general characteristic of politicians is that they are noted for moral malleability.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    The problem of being a congenital liar like Johnson is that few believe him when he tells what might be the truth. The art of lying requires one tells the truth most of the time.
  • Narcissists always lose track of the fibs eventually.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    It doesn't matter to Johnson whether he keeps track of the fibs or not: he's not trying to get anyone to believe him. His strategy is to stick to his lies hard enough that it's more trouble to refute his lies than it is for him to tell them, and therefore anyone arguing with him either gives up or looks pedantic.
  • What is wierd about the flat scandal, is that it was in the news at the time, in 2020
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    It confuses me that they simply will not reveal who initially paid for the lavish works.

    Which makes me think that, when revealed, it will be very harmful to Johnson and the party. Johnson wouldn’t usually care about such revelations, would he? Somebody (apart from Starmer) has rattled him, I think.

    I suppose he promised utmost secrecy to the donor. But that confuses me too. When did he ever care about breaking promises?


  • Military accommodation rules should apply.

    Flat decorated in neutral/white at taxpayer expense every 5 years. If occupier wants something different they can redecorate at their own expense but before moving out decorations must be returned to original state.

    Kitchen and bathrooms should be re-done as necessary at taxpayer expense.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Double standards -

    (A comment in the Guardian)

    “Dear Agony Aunty

    I am the leaseholder of a flat. I didn't build it and I don't own it. It is unsafe to live in because it has an exterior cladding cover which is a fire hazard even though when we took out of the lease the contract told us that the development fulfilled all fire hazard standards. I am now confronted with a £40,000 for repairs, money which I simply don't have. What should I do?

    Dear Reader

    Well its your own fault. Take some personal responsibility. Call The Samaritans. Or take out a personal loan.


    Dear Agony Aunty

    I am the leaseholder of a flat in central London. Although it was decorated five years ago, my latest partner and I don't like the decor or the furniture, what should we do.

    Dear Reader

    I fully understand. This is an awful position for you to find yourself in. I suggest that you get a tax payer funded non-refundable £30,000 grant. If that isn't enough just ask one of your business contacts to pay the rest. Keep it all hush hush. I share your pain.”
Sign In or Register to comment.