Search Ideas
1938 ideas match your query.:
This is an example of version control for ideas. As I revise this idea, new versions are created and automatically diffed. Click the arrows below to cycle through the version history.
I fixed the typo that was here previously!
This is a comment on version 4, but it applies to subsequent versions as well.
This is a comment on version 4, but it applies to version 5 as well.
This is an example of version control for ideas. As I revise this idea, new versions are created and automatically diffed. Click the arrows below to cycle through the version history.
This is an example of version control for ideas. As I revise this idea, new versions are created and automatically diffed.
Children are constantly being bossed around at school. So they can't become independent at school.
It's one thing if you don't share my idea of freedom. But the contradiction above should be enough to dissuade you from your original position: if your goal is for the child to think independently, but it chronically fails to do so at school, then school is no good even by your own logic.
That's right, which is why the teacher's freedom ends where the child's freedom begins.
Speaking of 'enabling' here makes no sense when young people are actually forced to do what you describe.
Maybe a given young person has no interest in the digital age. Maybe he is more interested in castles and outer space. But teachers prevent him from learning more about those by forcing him to learn "programming, mathematics, philosophy and biology" or whatever else instead.
And the fact remains that it's impossible to teach independent or critical thinking by paternalizing someone for years and telling them what they can do and think, when they may use the bathroom, when they may eat, etc. How could this possibly "emancipate children in the enlightenment sense"? How absurd!
You are a chemist. Doesn't the same criticism apply to you?
We should judge ideas by their content, not by their source.
Here you are suddenly using a different criterion for coercion.
Compulsion could lie either in the raising a child to become a consumer or in the lack of intellectual maturity, but presumably not in both. (It actually lies in forcing anything onto the child, be that becoming a consumer or something else.)
School violates several enlightenment values, including freedom of association and the right to bodily autonomy.
Advocating compulsory schooling for the sake of enlightenment makes no sense.
Whether school is compulsory does not depend on whether you as a teacher dislike the curriculum, but on whether the student is forced to go to school.
Exams are not an example of freedom of choice. On the contrary: they are an instrument of oppression.
That's not a real choice. For example, I had to choose between French and Latin, but I didn't have the choice to do neither and create a new alternative.
Compulsory schooling itself violates freedom of choice, as the student does not have the choice to stay at home and do something else with his time instead.
Although you can't force someone to think, you can create the conditions for them to force themselves to think.
That's exactly what school does.
So children already have freedom of thought? You originally said (#34) that children only have freedom of thought when their minds have reached a certain level of maturity; that this was the purpose of school in the first place. That doesn't fit together.
Expecting a child to keep his freedom of thought in the face of all that pressure is not realistic.
If freedom of choice is sufficiently restricted, freedom of thought is also restricted.
Anyone who is forced to spend hours every day dealing with topics they would otherwise not deal with has neither freedom of choice nor freedom of thought.
In order for a military and police to be valid, it would need the consent of the governed […], but a hidden qualification is MOST of the governed, which is an exception to individual right of association.
And:
[Rand’s] conclusion, in essence, is that an individuals [sic] right to choose who defends them should be ignored for the sake of a collective good, which seems to me an exception to one of our shared principles.
It doesn’t. Not any more than it creates man’s rights. Whether an interaction is consensual is derived from the nature of the interaction itself.
Taken to its logical conclusion, Rand’s argument necessitates a single world government, which doesn’t fit with the objectivist notion that government should be limited.