3 ms·

> The point you're missing is that the "vague free-range schooling" promotes self-reliance, which is exactly what you need to escape a toxic background. Self-r

> The point you're missing is that the "vague free-range schooling" promotes self-reliance, which is exactly what you need to escape a toxic background. Self-reliance does not make a person civilized. Self-reliance does not make a person fit to coexist peacefully and productively with persons outside of their own familial or tribal group. > I understand the lack of standardised testing is scary to those who want to measure everything... I have no beef with the academic angle. From a cost-benefit perspective, it would be hard to do any worse than we already do. My beef is that we have a lot of people who need to be civilized, and that walks in the forest are not up to the task.

ZenoArrow 10y ago
> "Self-reliance does not make a person civilized." Sure it does, because self-directed learning means you are less divorced from the consequences of your mistakes. You become better at interacting with others by doing so, rather than being told what to do without fully appreciating why. > "My beef is that we have a lot of people who need to be civilized, and that walks in the forest are not up to the task." That really depends on your definition of civilised. Some behaviour of 'civilised' people is abhorrent compared to the 'noble savages' that the article occasionally alludes to. If our only goal is emotionally-stunted automatons then perhaps you'd have a point, but I'd rather take a walk through a forest with someone who can appreciate the wildness of nature than someone who sees it as unruly chaos that should be straightened out. As an aside, our notion of what's socially acceptable has shifted over time, it's not a single ideal we have to live up to. I enjoy the contrast Nietzsche made between Apollo and Dionysus in Greek society, I do think there's still room for what they both represented. http://youtu.be/ldj0RX3CqXA http://youtu.be/ldj0RX3CqXA
- jstewartmobile 10y ago
  My definition would be people working together constructively (like townspeople) instead of people working together destructively (like brigands, battalions, thugs, cannibalistic tribesmen, or packs of wild dogs).
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    Interesting that you use the term 'cannibalistic tribesmen'. Generally 'uncivilised' tribes have a much more cohesive, collaborative society than the townspeople you hold up as your ideal. Perhaps that suggests there are lessons we can learn from them about how to live with others.
    - cicero 10y ago
      I read "cannibalistic" as a qualifier. Destructive tribesmen are those that are cannibalistic. A collaborative tribal society like you describe is not cannibalistic or destructive and would not be included in his list.

ZenoArrow 10y ago

> "Self-reliance does not make a person civilized." Sure it does, because self-directed learning means you are less divorced from the consequences of your mistakes. You become better at interacting with others by doing so, rather than being told what to do without fully appreciating why. > "My beef is that we have a lot of people who need to be civilized, and that walks in the forest are not up to the task." That really depends on your definition of civilised. Some behaviour of 'civilised' people is abhorrent compared to the 'noble savages' that the article occasionally alludes to. If our only goal is emotionally-stunted automatons then perhaps you'd have a point, but I'd rather take a walk through a forest with someone who can appreciate the wildness of nature than someone who sees it as unruly chaos that should be straightened out. As an aside, our notion of what's socially acceptable has shifted over time, it's not a single ideal we have to live up to. I enjoy the contrast Nietzsche made between Apollo and Dionysus in Greek society, I do think there's still room for what they both represented. http://youtu.be/ldj0RX3CqXA http://youtu.be/ldj0RX3CqXA

jstewartmobile 10y ago
My definition would be people working together constructively (like townspeople) instead of people working together destructively (like brigands, battalions, thugs, cannibalistic tribesmen, or packs of wild dogs).
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  Interesting that you use the term 'cannibalistic tribesmen'. Generally 'uncivilised' tribes have a much more cohesive, collaborative society than the townspeople you hold up as your ideal. Perhaps that suggests there are lessons we can learn from them about how to live with others.
  - cicero 10y ago
    I read "cannibalistic" as a qualifier. Destructive tribesmen are those that are cannibalistic. A collaborative tribal society like you describe is not cannibalistic or destructive and would not be included in his list.