What are you currently reading?

[milk]

It's convenient of me to oppose the two thinkers as one really does defend western civilization against the post-modern conclusion that the whole of western civilization is rotten to the core and must be deconstructed. Ellul is not a post-modernist as far as I know but does believe that the technological society is, by its very nature, a threat to freedom. However, Ellul and Rorty probably shared some beliefs coming from the same tradition of learning.

[kishnevi]

Buddhism would say that material prosperity is merely an different type of misery, trapping people in the realm of Hungry Ghosts, to use a term from Buddhist mythos.  But the practice of compassion includes working to end or at least alleviate the physical  misery of others.   The Bible has a similar outlook.  I do shake my head at neocon Catholics who got upset with the Pope for being insufficiently in love with freemarket capitalism.  They forget his job is to channel Moses, not Mises.

[Florestan]

For the sake of argument: what is it that's led to people to being lifted up en masse out of grossly miserable conditions in terms of overall well being? Liberal humanism.

For the sake of argument: between 1870 and 1914, which was the richest, most developed European country, in which the welfare of the workers constantly improved to the point of them being envied by all other workers in Europe and even in the world? Well, exactly: Germany! Not quite liberal and not quite humanist, either.

Perhaps Buddhism or some other "religions" did not seek to inspire fairer, perhaps even less violent, physical conditions of humanity. In any case, they did not succeed generally. Maybe they even opposed it although their is no shortage of people like Thich Nhat Hanh that interpret religion to be applicable to physical well-being presently.

I don't make a case for religions being completely uninterested in the physical well being of people. All I say is that one cannot judge Buddhism by the standards of liberal humanism. They start from different backgrounds and have different goals.

Rorty's pragmatism proposes that people should and can be educated to be engaged in creating their own future. I still think their is something to be recommended in individual development and the pragmatic ideal of each generation creating a new and better future - in democracy generally and humanistic education specifically.

I am not at all convinced that democracy by itself can produce good education. A good education is something that depends on so many factors which are completely outside any political control. There are plenty of well educated people in non-democratic countries and plenty of ignoramuses in democratic ones. 

However, where I live people are put through a mill of de-education propaganda a la Ellul where freedom and a different future are not thought of at all.

Where do you live, actually?[/quote]

Deep propaganda feeds the belief in what spreads the "same," as Ellul says, like fish in water, without much thought to new horizons, to making things better or to the possibility of things being different. Maybe it's just a matter of degree and Europe and the U.S. are also on the way. Rorty thought we should all be more like Sweden. But I'm sure some people here will say how Sweden is not all its cracked up to be. I don't know. I've never been there.     

"The Swedish Way" is the product of some specific, concrete and quite unique historical, social, economical, political and religious conditions which are very hard, impossible actually, to reproduce anywhere else. Rorty repeats the Enlightenment error of thinking that everything can work everywhere given the right education, but he is dead wrong, as were les philosophes before him. 

[Florestan]

Buddhism would say that material prosperity is merely an different type of misery, trapping people in the realm of Hungry Ghosts, to use a term from Buddhist mythos.

One of the earliest critiques of consumerism, indeed, millennia before it actually made its appearance. 

I do shake my head at neocon Catholics who got upset with the Pope for being insufficiently in love with freemarket capitalism.  They forget his job is to channel Moses, not Mises.

[Florestan]

It's convenient of me to oppose the two thinkers as one really does defend western civilization against the post-modern conclusion that the whole of western civilization is rotten to the core and must be deconstructed.

Just for the record: I do not believe that at all.

Ellul is not a post-modernist as far as I know but does believe that the technological society is, by its very nature, a threat to freedom.

That I do believe, though. 

However, Ellul and Rorty probably shared some beliefs coming from the same tradition of learning.

One is a Christian consciously, the other a self-styled liberal humanist, but liberal humanism is the secularized version of Christian humanism, so there. 

[milk]

For the sake of argument: between 1870 and 1914, which was the richest, most developed European country, in which the welfare of the workers constantly improved to the point of them being envied by all other workers in Europe and even in the world? Well, exactly: Germany! Not quite liberal and not quite humanist, either.

So you are questioning whether humanism contributed to a vast improvement in humanity's physical conditions?

I don't make a case for religions being completely uninterested in the physical well being of people. All I say is that one cannot judge Buddhism by the standards of liberal humanism. They start from different backgrounds and have different goals.

But we may still ask, what is it good for?

I am not at all convinced that democracy by itself can produce good education. A good education is something that depends on so many factors which are completely outside any political control. There are plenty of well educated people in non-democratic countries and plenty of ignoramuses in democratic ones. 

I agree. But certainly the carrying out of the idea that education is a right has had advantages over the idea that only a tiny elite ought to be educated. I am skeptical also though of where we are heading with the way education is now.

Where do you live, actually?

Japan. Higher education here is rightly considered to be second kindergarten. The best universities here are far inferior to what I got at ye olde generic state university in the States. One may complain but having been a student at several American universities and now being able to compare it to Japanese universities I can say that American universities are pretty darn great (in many ways) by comparison.  This is indisputable. They are getting to be much too expensive though. 

"The Swedish Way" is the product of some specific, concrete and quite unique historical, social, economical, political and religious conditions which are very hard, impossible actually, to reproduce anywhere else. Rorty repeats the Enlightenment error of thinking that everything can work everywhere given the right education, but he is dead wrong, as were les philosophes before him. 

Perhaps this is my fault but I doubt we are being very fair to Mr. Rorty. I very much doubt he believed that everything can work everywhere. I accept, and he may have as well, that Sweden and other Northern European countries have unique situations such as perhaps a high degree of trust in the societies. I think Rorty probably meant moving toward higher taxes guaranteeing free healthcare and low-cost university education (and how about longer vacations!). Stuff like that. Perhaps it would be a disaster. I know many people here will think so. But we can't rule it out on the basis of not having the specific conditions of Sweden. 

[milk]

Buddhism would say that material prosperity is merely an different type of misery, trapping people in the realm of Hungry Ghosts, to use a term from Buddhist mythos.  But the practice of compassion includes working to end or at least alleviate the physical  misery of others.   The Bible has a similar outlook.  I do shake my head at neocon Catholics who got upset with the Pope for being insufficiently in love with freemarket capitalism.  They forget his job is to channel Moses, not Mises.

I'm a fan of Buddhism so I don't mean to take cheap shots at it. But I think if we do believe that Buddhism is attuned towards alleviating physical suffering then Rorty's contention is fair game and that it just didn't work out anywhere near as well as humanism. Having said that, I think some forms of Buddhism could be helpful in countering selfish materialism. I'm a fan of Hanh these days. 

[milk]

Just for the record: I do not believe that at all.

That I do believe, though. 

One is a Christian consciously, the other a self-styled liberal humanist, but liberal humanism is the secularized version of Christian humanism, so there. 

Yeah, at the same time I share your belief that the technological society is a threat to freedom. It has to be countered by something. Ellul's take on the relationship between the technological society and propaganda convinces me. It often takes the form of nationalism as well - I think - in its Ellulian propaganda. I see that in Japan where the word "culture" is constantly spoken and the spread of propaganda is so literal and unsophisticated. It is no exaggeration to say that you can watch, as entertainment, people eating udon and cooing "delicious" on TV in Japan several times a day, everyday.     

[Florestan]

So you are questioning whether humanism contributed to a vast improvement in humanity's physical conditions?

Not at all. I question humanism's threefold failure:

1. It started out as an individualistic movement and it ended in a mass society.
2. It started out as a naturalistic movement and it ended in a mechanistic, technological society.
3. It started out as a humanist movement and it ended in a dehumanized society.

But we may still ask, what is it good for?

I'm not sure what "it" you mean.

I agree. But certainly the carrying out of the idea that education is a right has had advantages over the idea that only a tiny elite ought to be educated.

The right to be educated amounts to nothing and it is even pernicious if education means indoctrination and propaganda. Between an illiterate and a product of the contemporary mass education I prefer the former --- at least he uses his own brain.

I am skeptical also though of where we are heading with the way education is now.

I too.

Japan. Higher education here is rightly considered to be second kindergarten. The best universities here are far inferior to what I got at ye olde generic state university in the States. One may complain but having been a student at several American universities and now being able to compare it to Japanese universities I can say that American universities are pretty darn great (in many ways) by comparison.  This is indisputable. They are getting to be much too expensive though.

I see.

Perhaps this is my fault but I doubt we are being very fair to Mr. Rorty. I very much doubt he believed that everything can work everywhere. I accept, and he may have as well, that Sweden and other Northern European countries have unique situations such as perhaps a high degree of trust in the societies. I think Rorty probably meant moving toward higher taxes guaranteeing free healthcare and low-cost university education (and how about longer vacations!). Stuff like that. Perhaps it would be a disaster. I know many people here will think so. But we can't rule it out on the basis of not having the specific conditions of Sweden.

Our friend Todd can spend hours talking, data and graphs in hand,  about how higher taxes and higher educational spending did nothing to improve education. 

IF you ask me "who killed genuine education?" I answer unhesitatingly: liberal humanism and democracy. 

[Jaakko Keskinen]

I'm currently rereading Meistersinger's libretto and while it has it's faults I think that Wagner used many innovative ways here and is mostly free from turgid, pompous prose in his writings outside opera. Like deryck cooke said from ring's libretto that although he has tendency to overuse superlatives it has some 'raw' style of poetry in it and IMO the worlds that he creates (even though taken from before wagner existing mythologies but hey, even Shakespeare wasn't completely original) are really convincing and interesting. I think the part in Meistersinger's libretto that I most like is when Beckmesser asks from Sachs whether "Morgendlich leuchtend im rosigen Schein" is from him. The clever play with words in it is that Beckmesser asks: "Ist das eure Hand?", which could mean both whether he wrote the song or whether it is his handwriting. And since Sachs wrote the song down while Walther was singing Sachs isn't really lying when he responds in affirmative.

[Florestan]

Yeah, at the same time I share your belief that the technological society is a threat to freedom. It has to be countered by something. Ellul's take on the relationship between the technological society and propaganda convinces me.

Excellent! 

It often takes the form of nationalism as well - I think - in its Ellulian propaganda. I see that in Japan where the word "culture" is constantly spoken and the spread of propaganda is so literal and unsophisticated. It is no exaggeration to say that you can watch, as entertainment, people eating udon and cooing "delicious" on TV in Japan several times a day, everyday.   

Well, nationalism is precisely a byproduct of liberal humanism. 

[mahler10th]

The Complete Diaries of Samuel Pepys

Tither to the bookshop, where I did see a greate booke, handsome in binding, and I did haggle with the bookseller to pay 2s for it.  Then by oars to GMG, where Sir Milk and Sir Florestan were giving high with words, to which I resolved to play no part.  And so home and to bed....        I love Sammy Peyps, he was a top fellow.   

[Florestan]

The Complete Diaries of Samuel Pepys

Tither to the bookshop, where I did see a greate booke, handsome in binding, and I did haggle with the bookseller to pay 2s for it.  Then by oars to GMG, where Sir Milk and Sir Florestan were giving high with words, to which I resolved to play no part.  And so home and to bed....        I love Sammy Peyps, he was a top fellow.   

How's it going with the independence, John? 

[bwv 1080]

Worth mentioning that

- Swedish socialism, unlike English or other democratic socialist models, did not nationalize entire industries, rather it focused on providing a generous social safety net and protections

- Sweden's cultural homogeneity gave it an advantage in avoiding freeloading problems

- Racist eugenics, not far removed from the Nazi variety, was a foundational principle of Swedish socialism.  As late as the 1970s the state was still inflicting forced sterilizations on those it thought were unfit to reproduce

[Florestan]

Worth mentioning that

- Swedish socialism, unlike English or other democratic socialist models, did not nationalize entire industries, rather it focused on providing a generous social safety net and protections

Entirely in line with "We don't nationalize industries, we nationalize souls!". I can't remember who said that, though. 

- Sweden's cultural homogeneity gave it an advantage in avoiding freeloading problems

Exactly.

- Racist eugenics, not far removed from the Nazi variety, was a foundational principle of Swedish socialism.  As late as the 1970s the state was still inflicting forced sterilizations on those it thought were unfit to reproduce

Entirely in line with other Socialists. I can't remember which ones, though. 

[Todd]

I think Rorty probably meant moving toward higher taxes guaranteeing free healthcare and low-cost university education (and how about longer vacations!).

Problem is, such healthcare is not "free," and such tuition is not "low-cost."  They are paid for by taxpayers, only some of whom use the services at any given time.

Our friend Todd can spend hours talking, data and graphs in hand,  about how higher taxes and higher educational spending did nothing to improve education.

High levels of spending on education has led to a well educated population throughout the developed world, including the US, with roughly 40% of the US adult population having two and four year college degrees.  Whether the quality of education has improved is another matter. 

Such a glut of highly educated people, many of whom acquire degrees in interesting sounding but ultimately not very useful disciplines (eg, sociology), has led, and will continue to lead, to so-called underemployment among the educated.  Hey, I'm all for college education, but people should come to the realization that an ever higher number of graduates has and will increase the supply of educated workers, driving down the price for their labor.  The comparative advantage associated with a college degree has eroded and will continue to erode.  (And who sends their kids to college in hopes of them earning a median salary?)  At least in the US, a college degree still results in significantly higher lifetime earnings - and therefore socially useful taxes paid to the state - but bang for the education buck has diminished, and this overall fact masks significant disparities among degrees.

As to the notion I read earlier in this thread about the benefits of liberal humanism, and how it lifts people out of gross misery better than anything else, well, that can be debated.  Economic reforms in China, initiated under Deng Xiaoping, have lifted hundreds of millions of people out of dire poverty in only one generation.  One could argue that authoritarian capitalism is the best way to improve the economic lot of people in a short period of time.  Of course, the results in China could not have been achieved without an increasingly globalized capitalist system that China benefited and benefits from, and this system is, broadly speaking, liberal in nature and has been dominated by a liberal country, but I'm not so sure that the system has humanist aims at its core.

[milk]

The right to be educated amounts to nothing and it is even pernicious if education means indoctrination and propaganda. Between an illiterate and a product of the contemporary mass education I prefer the former --- at least he uses his own brain.

Yes. I see this exactly where I live: socialization to remove ones ability to be creative, to express individual emotions and desires, and to develop empathy. No education at all would be better than that!

Well, nationalism is precisely a byproduct of liberal humanism. 

Pernicious to the core! Still, if we could only throw out the bathwater of nationalism and keep the baby of individual freedoms and rights. Maybe another nobel prize for the EU will do the trick.

[milk]

Problem is, such healthcare is not "free," and such tuition is not "low-cost."  They are paid for by taxpayers, only some of whom use the services at any given time.






High levels of spending on education has led to a well educated population throughout the developed world, including the US, with roughly 40% of the US adult population having two and four year college degrees.  Whether the quality of education has improved is another matter. 

Such a glut of highly educated people, many of whom acquire degrees in interesting sounding but ultimately not very useful disciplines (eg, sociology), has led, and will continue to lead, to so-called underemployment among the educated.  Hey, I'm all for college education, but people should come to the realization that an ever higher number of graduates has and will increase the supply of educated workers, driving down the price for their labor.  The comparative advantage associated with a college degree has eroded and will continue to erode.  (And who sends their kids to college in hopes of them earning a median salary?)  At least in the US, a college degree still results in significantly higher lifetime earnings - and therefore socially useful taxes paid to the state - but bang for the education buck has diminished, and this overall fact masks significant disparities among degrees.

As to the notion I read earlier in this thread about the benefits of liberal humanism, and how it lifts people out of gross misery better than anything else, well, that can be debated.  Economic reforms in China, initiated under Deng Xiaoping, have lifted hundreds of millions of people out of dire poverty in only one generation.  One could argue that authoritarian capitalism is the best way to improve the economic lot of people in a short period of time.  Of course, the results in China could not have been achieved without an increasingly globalized capitalist system that China benefited and benefits from, and this system is, broadly speaking, liberal in nature and has been dominated by a liberal country, but I'm not so sure that the system has humanist aims at its core.

I share a certain skepticism here in that I don't think the education system (primary and secondary) in a supposed democracy like Japan is necessarily more humanist than China's. I can't even say I enjoyed or would want my (imaginary) kids to experience the kind of pre-university education I had in the States, either. Although, I recommend the higher U.S. education I received because I think it did encourage critical thinking, self-development, etc. I became a much richer person as a result. I can't imagine being able to afford it in the future though. But I can't say anything bad about it in substance. Primary and secondary education is where I think the real tragedy is.   

[milk]

Problem is, such healthcare is not "free," and such tuition is not "low-cost."  They are paid for by taxpayers, only some of whom use the services at any given time.

Healthcare costs either way. Only some use the services, but I think the argument is that many benefit and that it should be within reach of many. 

[Todd]

Although, I recommend the higher U.S. education I received because I think it did encourage critical thinking, self-development, etc.

US higher education, taken as a whole, is probably the best in the world qualitatively, though obviously there are many fine universities elsewhere.  That written, a lot of US universities focus too much energy on non-academic pursuits (ie, sports), and many have developed organizational bloat, and to fund such bloat rely on cries for public support and higher tuition for out of state residents, with out of country students especially welcome since they always pay cash and always on time. 

I'm getting to see the effects of some of the bloat right now.  My son is entering university this fall, and he is attending the same university I did (and my father before me, at that).  Student enrollment is marginally larger than it was when I attended (less than 10% or so higher), yet tuition has tripled - which is well ahead of the CPI during the same time - but the college has added at least four new buildings and has at least five additional senior administrative positions, all of which have support staff.  Perhaps these people and these buildings add a lot to the educational experience, and will render my son's education significantly superior to mine - and I hope that is the case - but I have my doubts.  I know my experience is anecdotal, but I also know similar things are happening at many universities. 

A college education is certainly a fine thing if it helps an individual to learn to think critically, and so on, but even more public funding needs more tangible benefits, ones that can be measured, and ones that benefit society as whole.  Just giving educational institutions more money because education is a good thing is not enough.