Subject: Educational system Re: [HAB:] What makes a difference?
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 20:30:09 +0100



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gary E. Davis" <coherings-AT-yahoo.com>


> Well, self-interest doesn't dominate we who care about
> this kind of issue. And those who thrive through
> ruthlessness aren't appealing to good ethical
> sensibility. 

An ethical sensibiity doesn't come naturally. It goes 
against people's natural instincts.

> So, what happens to human development
> that ruins or retards ethical sensibility? 

Or, what happens to the person, outside the abstract notion 
of "human development".  

Whatever
> the explanation (depending greatly on individual
> differences of life history), good ethical sensibility
> is preferrable to ruthlessness. Ethical sensibility is
> better than ruthlessness. It's not that ruthlessness
> has a good case for itself; rather, it pushes its
> interests without case-making at all. It requires
> oppostional organization. But to those who are
> undecided between living ethically and living
> ruthlessly (e.g., teens formulating their
> preferences), there's lots to be said for living
> ethically. 
>

I don't know if adolescence is a bit early for someone
to decide to live ethically. 

I said it's a decision, but I think that, in part, it comes
out of life experience and might also be seen as not
really a choice. There may not be another way forward,
for that person, at least not one recognised.

 
> > Surely what should make a difference is
> > knowledge - about where the world is headed - 
> > environmentally, and
> > politically/economically/socially.
> 
> Yes, indeed! And clarity of mind about "what should
> make a difference" comes from where? A development
> that has insight which is lacking with those who don't
> care. Of course, the ruthless claim insight, too: a
> *realpolitik* state of nature or some such. So,
> dispute about insight becomes dispute about the nature
> of the world---and what kind of humanity we (the
> undecided, typically youth in culture, education,
> development of preferences, values, interests, etc.)
> have reason to live for. The "discourse" of
> humanity---cacophony of media, options in education,
> etc.---is a competition of options for identity, basic
> values, worldviews, etc. "What should make a
> difference" becomes, for individuals, a diffuse stance
> that one IS (i.e., what matters gets bound up with
> identity and aspiration), out of the endless question
> "What should make a difference?"


I was thinking more in terms of a general academic
education, although maybe that doesn't do it for
everybody. And people can educated themselves. I
agree that the specifics are what people get hung up 
on. It's not suprising, in today's world where there is 
so much choice.  

I was saying to someone the other day, this practice 
they have in England - of having parents choose their
children's schools - is so strange to me, and so
unnecessary.  When I grew up, and when my children
did, in Canada, there was no choice. You went to the 
nearest school that carried your programme. But in
England every parent (and child) goes through the 
anguish of applying for their school of choice (when 
they're born if they can). So these false "concerns"
are there to take people's energy and time when they 
could be concentrating on doing something that could 
really make a difference.

I have to explain what else is so bad about this system 
in England. The tendency will be, under this system, for
certain kinds of students (and parents) to congregate 
together. It's another of those things that increases the 
divide between different cultures and classes, with even 
the teachers vying for the "best" schools.  A bad system.

> 
> Well, yes. But, in light of learning and thinking, we
> get up in the morning with a *sense* of what matters.
> We ask our children to use "good sense" and give that
> as much meaning (through example, teaching, appeals,
> and more teaching) as can be taken to heart, which can
> be taken as far as you please, ultimately to a point
> where philosophical questioning of what is good, if
> not what is The Good, may gain as much complexity as
> "you" can handle; so too for the diffuse rubric "what
> makes sense", which may encompass the entire domain of
> philosophy.
> 
> Given a notion like "lifeworld", as already-always
> background to contextual understanding (opinions,
> perspectives, etc.), you might want to give weight to
> the most ordinary terms of the lifeworld---to demand
> of our stances on "what should make a difference" that
> it's a matter of what most importantly makes sense. 
> 
> After all, life is greatly about Meaning. Those who
> think otherwise 

otherwise? what is other to "meaning"? purposeless?

Like seeking the best school for your child?

Sue McPherson

have a rude awakening in store for
> them when a breakdown of ruthlessness inevitably
> happens, through the opposition it creates, if not the
> heart disease that results (belying a pretense of
> thriving). 
> 
> Gary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---