5 ms·

Or equivalently, state-run schooling successfully alienated you from these important values.

by _dain_ 4y ago

xpe 4y ago
No, these two views are not even close to equivalent. Why? Liberalism and pluralism do not attempt to deny other ways of life or philosophies. (They may criticize them, but they do not claim to have absolute truth.) On the other hand, many dogmatic religions want to protect children from influences they cannot control or understand. Studying many different philosophies leads some to conclude relativism is correct. But I disagree, as do many philosophers and ethicists. Why? There is a simple answer that captures the essence of it: start by letting in all ways of life and worldviews into a pluralistic society. Treat this as an experiment and see which philosophies do not respect the others. It is abundantly clear that some ways of life are incompatible with pluralism -- e.g. some are authoritarian, some are unnecessarily violent, some restrict freedom of thought, etc. P.S. Homeschooling has a demonstrated connection to religious conservatives.
- wyager 4y ago
  > many dogmatic religions want to protect children from influences they cannot control or understand. Yes, for example, the state-secular religion of the US, which is enforced in public schools, wants to protect children from influences it cannot control, such as homeschooling.
  - xpe 4y ago
    > Yes, for example, the state-secular religion of the US, which is enforced in public schools, wants to protect children from influences it cannot control, such as homeschooling. No. This seems like an attempt at a wise phrase unfortunately mechanistically generated from some recursion and word substitution. Please try to support the claim if you actually believe it. Research classical liberalism, the scientific method, liberal arts, music, pedagogy, statistics, almost any field of study; they are not dogmatic in the same way that religion is. You should read about the history of the homeschooling movement especially in the American south such as Georgia. It has been a sustained effort by conservatives to opt out of the educational system. Perhaps you have some interesting angle on how state education is somehow parallel? But I highly doubt it. I see a computer scientist's mind at work trying to find a pattern -- a meta pattern perhaps -- to claim understanding. The problem is that I don't see any evidence that the claim has been examined up close. I don't see awareness of historical or educational context. Tell me if I'm wrong. I see it very often here: Overconfidence without a grounded understanding. Consider a simpler and rational explanation (for the USA at least): State-based education is funded largely because it is in the interest of the state to educate citizens to participate in government and exist in a pluralistic society. An effective education in democracy does not shelter people from the idea of religion but instead puts it in a context so that we can live together even though we may not have the same fundamental beliefs.
    - swatcoder 4y ago
      I think what they’re railing against is an actual truth: an important role of education has always been inducting kids into a common understanding of the society they’ll be navigating as a adults. For modern western nations, that does means encouraging kids to think in terms of specific liberal, secular humanist values like universal human rights, pluralist nation-states, global interdependency, democratic government, capitalist economics, etc — and there are many communities throughout the world and throughout the US who have not actually bought into those values and instead value other, sometimes incompatible things. There is a real and legitimate tension between state education vs homeschooling (regardless of the particular politics/culture at home). I personally think too much such value fragmentation will damn us all and that a common education is necessary to keep a relatively peaceful order in what’s a constitutionally and inescapably diverse nation, but I get the complaint and worry that these other commenters are airing.
      - xpe 4y ago
        > I think what they’re railing against is an actual truth: an important role of education has always been inducting kids into a common understanding of the society they’ll be navigating as a adults. I don't know you mean by they, but I agree that a role of education is a kind of induction. Thank you for your comment. I would like to see more people building bridges of understanding.
    - wyager 4y ago
      Why are you talking about > classical liberalism, the scientific method, liberal arts, music, pedagogy, statistics when our conversation was about > Liberalism and pluralism (your words)? > State-based education is funded largely because it is in the interest of the state to educate citizens to participate in government and exist in a pluralistic society This is not an even approximately correct model for why the state bankrolls public education in the US. Not trying to diss you here, but you very clearly have the fully-indoctrinated understanding of someone who's been inducted into the western state-secular religion and isn't even aware of it (same as most of its adherents). > I don't see awareness of historical or educational context. This is deeply ironic, although I don't expect you to be able to notice why. I suggest reading Albion's Seed and A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations.
- LudwigNagasena 4y ago
  > Liberalism and pluralism do not attempt to deny other ways of life or philosophies. Isn’t that what you just did?
  - xpe 4y ago
    >> Liberalism and pluralism do not attempt to deny other ways of life or philosophies. > Isn’t that what you just did? The key is understanding what I mean by "deny". First, I'll define liberalism and pluralism as I'm using them (from Wikipedia): > Pluralism as a political philosophy is the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a political body, which is seen to permit the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions, and lifestyles. > Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, private property and a market economy. I'm going to abbreviate liberalism as L and pluralism as P from here on. With this said, you can see that both L and P recognize diversity and individual freedoms to a large degree. But this is not an unfettered, unbounded, nor uncritical viewpoint. Some worldviews cannot coexist together. For example, a philosophy claiming that one group is superior and therefore may inflict suffering on others is not showing respect for the ideas of P or L. So, it is clear that neither P nor L are compatible with authoritarian philosophies. If you want to say "P and L deny authoritarian philosophies" I suppose that is fair enough. But I don't think deny captures what is going on very well. P and L go to great length to allow many worldviews -- hopefully to celebrate them if possible and at least tolerate them to whatever extent possible. This is quite different than dogmatic religions, many of whom claim to have absolute truth. If you want to see a more detailed articulation of why one can accept pluralism and liberalism without resorting to moral relativism, read "Through the Moral Maze" by Robert Kane. I'd expect there are other philosophers that hold similar views. His lecture series "The Quest for Meaning" is quite good -- roughly at the level of an introductory philosophy class at the US undergraduate level, more or less.
    - 4y ago

Or equivalently, state-run schooling successfully alienated you from these important values.

by _dain_ 4y ago

Or equivalently, state-run schooling successfully alienated you from these important values.

xpe 4y ago

No, these two views are not even close to equivalent. Why? Liberalism and pluralism do not attempt to deny other ways of life or philosophies. (They may criticize them, but they do not claim to have absolute truth.) On the other hand, many dogmatic religions want to protect children from influences they cannot control or understand. Studying many different philosophies leads some to conclude relativism is correct. But I disagree, as do many philosophers and ethicists. Why? There is a simple answer that captures the essence of it: start by letting in all ways of life and worldviews into a pluralistic society. Treat this as an experiment and see which philosophies do not respect the others. It is abundantly clear that some ways of life are incompatible with pluralism -- e.g. some are authoritarian, some are unnecessarily violent, some restrict freedom of thought, etc. P.S. Homeschooling has a demonstrated connection to religious conservatives.

wyager 4y ago
> many dogmatic religions want to protect children from influences they cannot control or understand. Yes, for example, the state-secular religion of the US, which is enforced in public schools, wants to protect children from influences it cannot control, such as homeschooling.
- xpe 4y ago
  > Yes, for example, the state-secular religion of the US, which is enforced in public schools, wants to protect children from influences it cannot control, such as homeschooling. No. This seems like an attempt at a wise phrase unfortunately mechanistically generated from some recursion and word substitution. Please try to support the claim if you actually believe it. Research classical liberalism, the scientific method, liberal arts, music, pedagogy, statistics, almost any field of study; they are not dogmatic in the same way that religion is. You should read about the history of the homeschooling movement especially in the American south such as Georgia. It has been a sustained effort by conservatives to opt out of the educational system. Perhaps you have some interesting angle on how state education is somehow parallel? But I highly doubt it. I see a computer scientist's mind at work trying to find a pattern -- a meta pattern perhaps -- to claim understanding. The problem is that I don't see any evidence that the claim has been examined up close. I don't see awareness of historical or educational context. Tell me if I'm wrong. I see it very often here: Overconfidence without a grounded understanding. Consider a simpler and rational explanation (for the USA at least): State-based education is funded largely because it is in the interest of the state to educate citizens to participate in government and exist in a pluralistic society. An effective education in democracy does not shelter people from the idea of religion but instead puts it in a context so that we can live together even though we may not have the same fundamental beliefs.
  - swatcoder 4y ago
    I think what they’re railing against is an actual truth: an important role of education has always been inducting kids into a common understanding of the society they’ll be navigating as a adults. For modern western nations, that does means encouraging kids to think in terms of specific liberal, secular humanist values like universal human rights, pluralist nation-states, global interdependency, democratic government, capitalist economics, etc — and there are many communities throughout the world and throughout the US who have not actually bought into those values and instead value other, sometimes incompatible things. There is a real and legitimate tension between state education vs homeschooling (regardless of the particular politics/culture at home). I personally think too much such value fragmentation will damn us all and that a common education is necessary to keep a relatively peaceful order in what’s a constitutionally and inescapably diverse nation, but I get the complaint and worry that these other commenters are airing.
    - xpe 4y ago
      > I think what they’re railing against is an actual truth: an important role of education has always been inducting kids into a common understanding of the society they’ll be navigating as a adults. I don't know you mean by they, but I agree that a role of education is a kind of induction. Thank you for your comment. I would like to see more people building bridges of understanding.
  - wyager 4y ago
    Why are you talking about > classical liberalism, the scientific method, liberal arts, music, pedagogy, statistics when our conversation was about > Liberalism and pluralism (your words)? > State-based education is funded largely because it is in the interest of the state to educate citizens to participate in government and exist in a pluralistic society This is not an even approximately correct model for why the state bankrolls public education in the US. Not trying to diss you here, but you very clearly have the fully-indoctrinated understanding of someone who's been inducted into the western state-secular religion and isn't even aware of it (same as most of its adherents). > I don't see awareness of historical or educational context. This is deeply ironic, although I don't expect you to be able to notice why. I suggest reading Albion's Seed and A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations.
LudwigNagasena 4y ago
> Liberalism and pluralism do not attempt to deny other ways of life or philosophies. Isn’t that what you just did?
- xpe 4y ago
  >> Liberalism and pluralism do not attempt to deny other ways of life or philosophies. > Isn’t that what you just did? The key is understanding what I mean by "deny". First, I'll define liberalism and pluralism as I'm using them (from Wikipedia): > Pluralism as a political philosophy is the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a political body, which is seen to permit the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions, and lifestyles. > Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, private property and a market economy. I'm going to abbreviate liberalism as L and pluralism as P from here on. With this said, you can see that both L and P recognize diversity and individual freedoms to a large degree. But this is not an unfettered, unbounded, nor uncritical viewpoint. Some worldviews cannot coexist together. For example, a philosophy claiming that one group is superior and therefore may inflict suffering on others is not showing respect for the ideas of P or L. So, it is clear that neither P nor L are compatible with authoritarian philosophies. If you want to say "P and L deny authoritarian philosophies" I suppose that is fair enough. But I don't think deny captures what is going on very well. P and L go to great length to allow many worldviews -- hopefully to celebrate them if possible and at least tolerate them to whatever extent possible. This is quite different than dogmatic religions, many of whom claim to have absolute truth. If you want to see a more detailed articulation of why one can accept pluralism and liberalism without resorting to moral relativism, read "Through the Moral Maze" by Robert Kane. I'd expect there are other philosophers that hold similar views. His lecture series "The Quest for Meaning" is quite good -- roughly at the level of an introductory philosophy class at the US undergraduate level, more or less.
  - 4y ago