Shameless Self-promotion Sunday #46
Here's a pretty old post from the blog archives of Geekery Today; it was written about 15 years ago, in 2009, on the World Wide Web.
A happy Pascua Florida and a shameless Sunday to you all.
What have you been up to this week? Write anything? Leave a link and a short description for your post in the comments. Or fire away about anything else you might want to talk about.
Nick Manley /#
“By preventing a free market in education, a handful of social engineers – backed by the industries that profit from compulsory schooling: teacher colleges, textbook publishers, materials suppliers, et al. – has ensured that most of our children will not have an education, even though they may be thoroughly schooled.”
~ John Taylor Gatto
“I don’t think we’ll get rid of schools any time soon, certainly not in my lifetime, but if we’re going to change what’s rapidly becoming a disaster of ignorance, we need to realize that the school institution “schools” very well, though it does not “educate”; that’s inherent in the design of the thing. It’s not the fault of bad teachers or too little money spent. It’s just impossible for education and schooling ever to be the same thing.”
~ John Taylor Gatto
http://www.homeschooloasis.com/art_john_taylor_gatto.htm
Discuss! That last claim is very provocative. It’s not that current forms of schooling are bad. It’s that schooling is in opposition to education period.
nicole /#
Since I blog about books, not politics, I never share here, but this week I reviewed/commented on Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology, an essay published a few years ago.
And in re: Nick Manley–provocative, yes, but all I can say is “I agree!!!” Very smart comment, really.
John /#
I explained to liberals that Barack Obama’s philosophy, if you want to call it that, might seem unclear, inconsistent, or overly pragmatic to the average Democrat or Republican, but it is obvious to libertarians: pure, unadulterated Keynesian Statism.
I also criticized Obama for starting to blow up the automotive bubble, predicting that this will only hurt, not help, Detroit automakers in the long run.
Not much philosophy lately, all topical things, but, hey, there is a plethora of hypocrisy and ignorance out there to rail against 24/7.
Jeremy /#
God, I’m inept. Please delete those last two comments, if possible. Sorry. Libety vs. Liberty: The Final Showdown I discussed Berlin’s “Two Concepts of Liberty” and suggested that Obama is reviving positive liberty after years of living under a negative liberty regime. I also suggest that it’s time to escape from these two competing concepts and find a better solution.
Nick Manley /#
Nicole,
I must warn you that compliments from book loving generically libertarian/anarchist inclined women tend to unleash my slutty flirtatious side ( :
Thank you for your interest and kind words! Please feel free to comment further on Gatto’s insights. I have read your blog in the past and will take a look — am very interested in books.
Jeremy,
I would say that negative freedom should be seen as providing the optimal environment for the achievement of positive freedom i.e. material prosperity, spiritual contentment, and so on.
Nick Manley /#
I strongly agree with Rand that the non-aggression principle cannot be detached from a wider philosophic totality. The point of negative freedom is to unleash the power of a self-confident passionate integrated humanity. The mind is the source of all value — including material and spiritual value. When we cannot act on it, then we literally perish. Aster has been right to point out that private concentrations of power can destroy us too — i.e. it really would kill when theocratic medical institutions deny treatment to gay individuals. Those “libertarians” who view negative reedom as license to suppress passion and the open society are statist minded in all but name. They are only for freedom in form — not content.
John /#
Charles,
Did you ever think about getting rid of the markdown syntax requirement? It’s supposed to make things easier for noobs, I guess, but I have to be honest, I think it makes things harder. [a href] tags are one of the easiest aspects of HTML to learn, and I think most people out there know how to wrap a hyperlink around text. I bet Jeremy would agree!
Rad Geek /#
John,
For what it’s worth, there actually isn’t a Markdown reqirement in comments. The syntax is available, but a basic part of the Markdown philosophy is that HTML is always available, too, in order to allow people to do things that Markdown doesn’t do well, or that they don’t know how to do in Markdown but do know how to do in HTML, with minimal thinking about the syntax. As it happens, the HTML that goes through a comment box is filtered, but anything which you can enter in Markdown, you can also enter directly in HTML, if you prefer. Thus, for example, writing
<a href="http://example.com/">this</a>
in a comment box produces this.Jeremy /#
Nick, Indeed, I’ve heard that Tony Blair wrote a letter to Berlin suggesting a similar idea – though I think it was the other way around, that positive liberty could bring about negative liberty. I don’t believe there was a response because Berlin died not long after. Berlin acknowledges that negative liberty “is not incompatible with some kinds of autocracy, or at any rate with the absence of self-government … just as a democracy may, in fact, deprive the individual citizen of a great many liberties which he might have in some other form of society, so it is perfectly conceivable that a liberal-minded despot would allow his subjects a large measure of personal freedom.” In my opinion, the concept of negative freedom allows for the emergence of extreme disparities of wealth, which generate extreme disparities of power. In the end, a few may be prosperous, but most will be poor, and a kind of economic oligarchy or plutocracy will emerge. In any case, it is the metaphorical turn that drove the wedge between the two concepts of liberty, and gave us most of international history between the early Enlightenment and today. I think it’s time to look for new models, and I think those models can best be found through anthropological research and ethnography. Thanks!
Nick Manley /#
I thought I was speaking to Jeremy W here ( :
You’re a different Jeremy! Another interesting Jeremy to talk to. Looks like you’re aiming for a redefinition of terms and new synthesis. I am a bit too fatigued to try engaging in that right this moment. I will return when less tired.
nicole /#
Nick,
Of course, this would all depend on the definitions that Gatto is working with, but the most natural definitions for me would make this almost necessarily the case.
I.e., “schooling” — definitionally would represent, in my mind, at least a certain degree of conformity. Not always bad conformity. Typically, schooling a la American government schools would include what people usually refer to as “socialization” along with teaching a respect for (arbitrary) authority, rules, etc. Cliquish behavior.
Whereas “education,” if it’s going to be worth its salt, had better be teaching some kind of critical thinking. But teaching critical thinking, and questioning of authority, in the context where we’re focused on schooling–making everyone at least a little bit alike, and moldable–is going to be hard to achieve.
At least those were my impressions when I first read the quotes.
John /#
Charles,
Ah! I never actually tried that. Thanks.