Equality

[Belinda]

Belinda

Empathy is knowing as much as possible what it feels like to be the other.

Yes but does it lead to the temporary freedom from the feelings and justifications of negative emotions that keep us in the cave?

“The capacity to give one's attention to a sufferer is a very rare and difficult thing; it is almost a miracle; it is a miracle. Nearly all those who think they have the capacity do not possess it.” ~ Simone Weil

"Difficult as it is really to listen to someone in affliction, it is just as difficult for him to know that compassion is listening to him." ~ Simone weil

Empathy requires the ability to direct conscious attention free of conditioned pre-conceptions and with detachment. It is far more rare and difficult than we normally recognize

I guess , Nick, you are probably aged over 60, and consequently have been subjected to the sort of teaching that regards children as identical empty pots that need to be filled with whatever knowledge is acceptable to the powers that be. No decent modern teacher has taught in that way since the 1970s and earlier when the newer child-centred educationalists were making their marks.

But what should these empty pots be filled with? Plato taught that our organism is a tripartite soul with mind, spiritedness, and appetites. He taught first that the body should develop and the mind opened up to experience the big picture. It is only later that the student is taught how to reason in the ways which reconcile the contradictions we experience between appetites and spiritedness.

It is the opposite in modern times. There is no big picture opening the student to the idea of our source or the “good” and education is dominated by reason used to justify indoctrination. It is the sign of a devolving society. The question is if public education can ever teach how to reason in a manner which reconciles the contradictions normal for the human condition? IMO It can’t simply because it isn’t wanted

Poor Simone. I have met many empathetic people. I have read many stories by empathetic people. I have listened to lectures by empathetic anthropologists. The most usual way to learn empathy at school is by reading good stories about people the themes of which are how people feel in various circumstances of their lives.

Nick , sorry but you have misunderstood my metaphor of empty pots passively waiting to be filled. This is a metaphor about how notto teach. On the contrary, what a modern teacher aims to do is get the child or student to actively think things out for themselves as much as they are capable of. This is the opposite of indoctrination.

[commonsense]

Belinda

Empathy is knowing as much as possible what it feels like to be the other.

Yes but does it lead to the temporary freedom from the feelings and justifications of negative emotions that keep us in the cave?

“The capacity to give one's attention to a sufferer is a very rare and difficult thing; it is almost a miracle; it is a miracle. Nearly all those who think they have the capacity do not possess it.” ~ Simone Weil

"Difficult as it is really to listen to someone in affliction, it is just as difficult for him to know that compassion is listening to him." ~ Simone weil

Empathy requires the ability to direct conscious attention free of conditioned pre-conceptions and with detachment. It is far more rare and difficult than we normally recognize

I guess , Nick, you are probably aged over 60, and consequently have been subjected to the sort of teaching that regards children as identical empty pots that need to be filled with whatever knowledge is acceptable to the powers that be. No decent modern teacher has taught in that way since the 1970s and earlier when the newer child-centred educationalists were making their marks.

But what should these empty pots be filled with? Plato taught that our organism is a tripartite soul with mind, spiritedness, and appetites. He taught first that the body should develop and the mind opened up to experience the big picture. It is only later that the student is taught how to reason in the ways which reconcile the contradictions we experience between appetites and spiritedness.

It is the opposite in modern times. There is no big picture opening the student to the idea of our source or the “good” and education is dominated by reason used to justify indoctrination. It is the sign of a devolving society. The question is if public education can ever teach how to reason in a manner which reconciles the contradictions normal for the human condition? IMO It can’t simply because it isn’t wanted

Poor Simone. I have met many empathetic people. I have read many stories by empathetic people. I have listened to lectures by empathetic anthropologists. The most usual way to learn empathy at school is by reading good stories about people the themes of which are how people feel in various circumstances of their lives.

Nick , sorry but you have misunderstood my metaphor of empty pots passively waiting to be filled. This is a metaphor about how notto teach. On the contrary, what a modern teacher aims to do is get the child or student to actively think things out for themselves as much as they are capable of. This is the opposite of indoctrination.

Belinda, in adult education we have come to say it is all about being the guide from the side instead of the sage from center stage.

[Lacewing]

what a modern teacher aims to do is get the child or student to actively think things out for themselves as much as they are capable of. This is the opposite of indoctrination.

Belinda, in adult education we have come to say it is all about being the guide from the side instead of the sage from center stage.

These are beautiful and wise comments. I think that human beings of all ages and walks of life are amazing souls with boundless potential -- and to support and inspire them such that they bring forth their own unique magnificence is a glory far beyond anything an imposed doctrine or philosophy results in.

[Immanuel Can]

what a modern teacher aims to do is get the child or student to actively think things out for themselves as much as they are capable of. This is the opposite of indoctrination.

Belinda, in adult education we have come to say it is all about being the guide from the side instead of the sage from center stage.

These are beautiful and wise comments.

Alas, they are not even close to the truth about what's going on with public education.

What's really happening is that public educators have become so sanctimonious, so un-self-aware, that they imagine they are not indoctrinating, even while they work like fury to indoctrinate. They think they're not, because they are utterly convinced their own ideology is liberal and true, and that promulgating it makes them "good" people. But the reality is that they are horrible propagandists, unrelenting in their advocacy of their own pet causes.

Want to see? Just try being a student in their class and expressing reservations about any of their pet causes. Like just try questioning abortion, or secularism, or sexual deviancy, or internationalism, or equality of outcomes, and see what happens. Out goes the "guide from the side," and in comes the sanctimonious preacher, or even the flaming harpy. Look for confrontation, derision, censure, silencing, marginalizing, abuse, pillorying, exclusion and eventually, if you persist, vilification and expulsion.

And when it's done, they won't even notice they did it. Because they think they're always fair. They mean to be.

That's the reality of public education.

[Nick_A]

Belinda

Nick , sorry but you have misunderstood my metaphor of empty pots passively waiting to be filled. This is a metaphor about how notto teach. On the contrary, what a modern teacher aims to do is get the child or student to actively think things out for themselves as much as they are capable of. This is the opposite of indoctrination.

Be logical. If a student has never learned to sit up straight and never experienced the quality of art which promotes the experience of awe and wonder, how can they think things out for themselves? They can't reason with the purpose of reconciling appetites and spiritedness but are taught instead to justify them.. They cannot experience their contradictions

[Belinda]

Belinda, in adult education we have come to say it is all about being the guide from the side instead of the sage from center stage.

These are beautiful and wise comments.

Alas, they are not even close to the truth about what's going on with public education.

What's really happening is that public educators have become so sanctimonious, so un-self-aware, that they imagine they are not indoctrinating, even while they work like fury to indoctrinate. They think they're not, because they are utterly convinced their own ideology is liberal and true, and that promulgating it makes them "good" people. But the reality is that they are horrible propagandists, unrelenting in their advocacy of their own pet causes.

Want to see? Just try being a student in their class and expressing reservations about any of their pet causes. Like just try questioning abortion, or secularism, or sexual deviancy, or internationalism, or equality of outcomes, and see what happens. Out goes the "guide from the side," and in comes the sanctimonious preacher, or even the flaming harpy. Look for confrontation, derision, censure, silencing, marginalizing, abuse, pillorying, exclusion and eventually, if you persist, vilification and expulsion.

And when it's done, they won't even notice they did it. Because they think they're always fair. They mean to be.

That's the reality of public education.

I too would find those infuriating if they happened in any classroom I was in as an adult. Some universities have banned speakers who support ideas that are put about by bigots, people who deny others right to sexual orientation of their choice, people who are often old men who deny women rights over their bodies, and people who denigrate immigrants. The problem is, Immanuel, students are often impressionable and need to be protected from dangerously misleading ideas.

[Nick_A]

commonsense

Belinda, in adult education we have come to say it is all about being the guide from the side instead of the sage from center stage.

Quite true. A teacher worthy of the name first of all understands the human condition and able to teach from afar so the student can develop "understanding" as opposed to knowing

"If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows." ― Plato, Phaedrus

[Belinda]

Belinda

Nick , sorry but you have misunderstood my metaphor of empty pots passively waiting to be filled. This is a metaphor about how notto teach. On the contrary, what a modern teacher aims to do is get the child or student to actively think things out for themselves as much as they are capable of. This is the opposite of indoctrination.

Be logical. If a student has never learned to sit up straight and never experienced the quality of art which promotes the experience of awe and wonder, how can they think things out for themselves? They can't reason with the purpose of reconciling appetites and spiritedness but are taught instead to justify them.. They cannot experience their contradictions

It is true that some students have problems vis a vis any authority who aims to help them. Teachers certainly have a hard job to get some students to work. But there is nothing for it but for the teacher to begin from where the student is at. However lazy, stupid, biased,rebellious and so forth the student may be the teacher has to address the person as they are, try to find some strength of character in them, and try to build on that personality.

[Immanuel Can]

These are beautiful and wise comments.

Alas, they are not even close to the truth about what's going on with public education.

What's really happening is that public educators have become so sanctimonious, so un-self-aware, that they imagine they are not indoctrinating, even while they work like fury to indoctrinate. They think they're not, because they are utterly convinced their own ideology is liberal and true, and that promulgating it makes them "good" people. But the reality is that they are horrible propagandists, unrelenting in their advocacy of their own pet causes.

Want to see? Just try being a student in their class and expressing reservations about any of their pet causes. Like just try questioning abortion, or secularism, or sexual deviancy, or internationalism, or equality of outcomes, and see what happens. Out goes the "guide from the side," and in comes the sanctimonious preacher, or even the flaming harpy. Look for confrontation, derision, censure, silencing, marginalizing, abuse, pillorying, exclusion and eventually, if you persist, vilification and expulsion.

And when it's done, they won't even notice they did it. Because they think they're always fair. They mean to be.

That's the reality of public education.

I too would find those infuriating if they happened in any classroom I was in as an adult.

Well, the truth is that most adults are not in the public education classroom. And most adults have no idea what's really being done there.

Some universities have banned speakers who support ideas that are put about by bigots, people who deny others right to sexual orientation of their choice, people who are often old men who deny women rights over their bodies, and people who denigrate immigrants.

I know. And comedians as well. The problem is that the university administrators are making themselves the judge and jury of who gets to speak. The mere allegation from any group that says X or Y is a "hateful" speaker is enough to get them banned.

I don't want some university administrator deciding what I get to think. Do you?

The problem is, Immanuel, students are often impressionable and need to be protected from dangerously misleading ideas.

Not in universities.

There, students are supposed to be developing their own critical faculties through exposure to all kinds of ideas. To treat them as overgrown children, and to arbitrate in such a way as to "protect" them against frightening concepts -- as if the poor little dears can't handle a difficult thought or an upsetting philosophy -- is actually unbelievably patronizing, smug and anti-educative.

However, I agree with protections for young students, until a suitable age. I suggest strong protections from early grades, with some withdrawal until around 14 years, and then more rapid, successive, controlled withdrawal of protection and new exposure to challenge and controversy, culminating in pretty much total free speech in university....the only exceptions being agitation of active hatred and immediate harm, which have no place at all.

That it the best way to give each child good "immunities" to bad ideas: develop their own critical faculties progressively, through gradual means.

[Nick_A]

Belinda

Nick , sorry but you have misunderstood my metaphor of empty pots passively waiting to be filled. This is a metaphor about how notto teach. On the contrary, what a modern teacher aims to do is get the child or student to actively think things out for themselves as much as they are capable of. This is the opposite of indoctrination.

Be logical. If a student has never learned to sit up straight and never experienced the quality of art which promotes the experience of awe and wonder, how can they think things out for themselves? They can't reason with the purpose of reconciling appetites and spiritedness but are taught instead to justify them.. They cannot experience their contradictions

It is true that some students have problems vis a vis any authority who aims to help them. Teachers certainly have a hard job to get some students to work. But there is nothing for it but for the teacher to begin from where the student is at. However lazy, stupid, biased,rebellious and so forth the student may be the teacher has to address the person as they are, try to find some strength of character in them, and try to build on that personality.

students are often impressionable and need to be protected from dangerously misleading ideas.

Is God a dangerously misleading idea?

[Belinda]

Alas, they are not even close to the truth about what's going on with public education.

What's really happening is that public educators have become so sanctimonious, so un-self-aware, that they imagine they are not indoctrinating, even while they work like fury to indoctrinate. They think they're not, because they are utterly convinced their own ideology is liberal and true, and that promulgating it makes them "good" people. But the reality is that they are horrible propagandists, unrelenting in their advocacy of their own pet causes.

Want to see? Just try being a student in their class and expressing reservations about any of their pet causes. Like just try questioning abortion, or secularism, or sexual deviancy, or internationalism, or equality of outcomes, and see what happens. Out goes the "guide from the side," and in comes the sanctimonious preacher, or even the flaming harpy. Look for confrontation, derision, censure, silencing, marginalizing, abuse, pillorying, exclusion and eventually, if you persist, vilification and expulsion.

And when it's done, they won't even notice they did it. Because they think they're always fair. They mean to be.

That's the reality of public education.

I too would find those infuriating if they happened in any classroom I was in as an adult.

Well, the truth is that most adults are not in the public education classroom. And most adults have no idea what's really being done there.

Some universities have banned speakers who support ideas that are put about by bigots, people who deny others right to sexual orientation of their choice, people who are often old men who deny women rights over their bodies, and people who denigrate immigrants.

I know. And comedians as well. The problem is that the university administrators are making themselves the judge and jury of who gets to speak. The mere allegation from any group that says X or Y is a "hateful" speaker is enough to get them banned.

I don't want some university administrator deciding what I get to think. Do you?

The problem is, Immanuel, students are often impressionable and need to be protected from dangerously misleading ideas.

Not in universities.

There, students are supposed to be developing their own critical faculties through exposure to all kinds of ideas. To treat them as overgrown children, and to arbitrate in such a way as to "protect" them against frightening concepts -- as if the poor little dears can't handle a difficult thought or an upsetting philosophy -- is actually unbelievably patronizing, smug and anti-educative.

However, I agree with protections for young students, until a suitable age. I suggest strong protections from early grades, with some withdrawal until around 14 years, and then more rapid, successive, controlled withdrawal of protection and new exposure to challenge and controversy, culminating in pretty much total free speech in university....the only exceptions being agitation of active hatred and immediate harm, which have no place at all.

That it the best way to give each child good "immunities" to bad ideas: develop their own critical faculties progressively, through gradual means.

There is a lot of truth in what you say here. It's striking the right balance between being protective and being permissive. Also some students at universities are remarkably naive. Some cannot even spell!

Actually that "flaming harpy" thing happened to me by my own student grandson who misapprehended what I had said.

[RCSaunders]

I too would find those infuriating if they happened in any classroom I was in as an adult. Some universities have banned speakers who support ideas that are put about by bigots, people who deny others right to sexual orientation of their choice, people who are often old men who deny women rights over their bodies, and people who denigrate immigrants. The problem is, ... students are often impressionable and need to be protected from dangerously misleading ideas.

Adults have to be protected from ideas, just because some educationist deems them, "dangerously misleading?" How do the educational authorities know about these, "dangerously misleading," ideas, if they were never exposed to them. What mystical powers did they have that protected them from those ideas that other adults do not have so must be protected from them by their educational high priests?

The hubris of academics and educationists is absolutely breathtaking. They are the only ones who know what ideas others should be allowed to hear and think about for themselves. Censorship is wrong, -- unless a socialist or educator is the censor. The academy is the new Rome.

[RCSaunders]

Also some students at universities are remarkably naive. Some cannot even spell!

The products of good government progressive education.

[commonsense]

On some level, don’t parents shape public education?

[Immanuel Can]

There is a lot of truth in what you say here. It's striking the right balance between being protective and being permissive.

Well, that and gradual withdrawal of protections, so students can grow up.

If they are never trusted to process ideas for themselves, they remain stunted and foolish. In fact, the naivete you mention among some students at universities is often a product of having been protected and coddled too long. They're not used to difficult ideas, so they fear them and become disoriented when faced with them.

That's bad parenting and bad education.

The goal of good parenting is independence...adulthood...responsibility...personal achievement...strength, and eventually, wisdom. That requires that young people be gradually inducted into all the difficulties of the world, just as we were. And the sooner it can be done well, the better for them.