3 ms·
> university is a place where people should go to learn about things that interest them and inspire them in the company of other like-minded people whilst simul
by karma_vaccum123 10y ago
> university is a place where people should go to learn about things that interest them and inspire them in the company of other like-minded people whilst simultaneously growing as an individual
As long as we continue to believe this, nothing will change.
Universities indoctrinate, lets not be naive. Most schools have little interest in widening the perspectives of students. They are on a mission to unify perspectives. Indeed I would say that universities are more responsible for our Idiocracy than television - graduates really believe they have become enlightened when in fact they have been programmed.
- cmurf 10y agoOK well there are all sorts of programming, and DNA is one of those, so is culture, so is family. We're programmed to say pledges to flags, desire an education, get married, buy houses, go into debt, have children, have more debt, etc. It's all programming. But what you're doing is putting a very broad value judgment on a particular variety of programming. I don't think it's terribly interesting to only criticize university doctrination without exploring the opportunity costs. Let's say all the kids want to go to Costa Rica and retire instead of going to college, oops, small problem. So I'm unclear on what your scalable alternative is.
- jazzyk 10y agoLooking at my daughter's textbook at a top-20 college in the US, I was stunned. She took a (core) class in philosophy/psychology. Very little time was spent on classics (ancient philosophers, Kant, Hegel, Freud, etc.) They were replaced by contemporary researchers (often from the same university), often with a VERY extreme, one-sided, politicized agenda (feminist, etc.). Pretty sad.
- duaneb 10y agoCan you think of a core class that would include Aristotle and Freud? It'd be a shitty survey class where people came out half-educated, using phrases like "begs the question" instead of "raises the question", which is ideally part of the problem philosophy core classes should solve. I don't think a survey of modern philosophers is any worse than this. Philosophy half-understood isn't very meaningful. Also, modern philosophers have a lot to say. I still recommend de Beauvoir and Wittgenstein to anyone who cares to read.
- gm-conspiracy 10y agoHow much did the textbook cost?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- vkou 10y agoIt's a shame that a well rounded education doesn't solely consist of studying entirely apolitical, classic European thinkers. It's almost as if there is more to the world than Central and Mediterranean Europe. And heaven forbid, students get exposed to radical ideas in their philosophy classes. We can't have any of that, here.
- FT_intern 10y agoThe author's criticism was about replacement of old ideas, not addition of new ideas
- vkou 10y agoThose old ideas provide a very occicentric, and, by extension, biased framework for understanding the world. There are plenty of old ideas that are excluded by what most universities define to be classical education - yet the complaints are about lack of coverage for Kant and Plato, rather then, say Confuscius, or Cornel West. (For examples both less, and more relevant to modern thought.) The complaint was directed at a Philosophy education, not at a Western Philosophy education. If said top-20 college promised the latter, and ignored the classics, that would be reason to complain. Otherwise, it's like complaining that your History class didn't solely focus on America. The other assumption that I call into question is that Freud, Kant, etc are 'apolitical' figures - whereas a feminist writer is 'political.' This is, quite plainly, nonsense.
- marris 10y agoWhat are the politics of Kant and Plato?
- vkou 10y agoWhat are the politics of Karl Marx? Plato's views on government, and condemnation of democracy are quite clearly laid out in the Republic. Kant writings have plenty to say about freedom vis-a-vis government, state power, rights of property, revolutions, warfare. None of these great minds existed in an apolitical, unbiased vacuum, where they could devote themselves to nothing but free thought. When it comes to education, my impression is that people use the term 'apolitical' to describe political opinions that happen to align with their own. Hence, Hobbes and Locke are apolitical - whereas feminist philosophy so frequently is. Adam Smith? Apolitical. Karl Marx? Political.