The more educated a population is and, especially, the higher its moral standards, the more difficult it is to govern it with means of...
... Those means we know. I won't even extend on that.
By moral education I mean : philosophy. And by philosophy I don't mean Kant, I mean Aristotle. Simple stuff. Virtues. Temperance, justice, courage, intelligence.
A citizen needs an education. A moral education gives a citizen the means to make choices for himself.
This is what education is for. Not training you for a job. If you want a job, an entreprise can train you.
Education gives you means to develop as a human being.
There are structures. There is inertia.
When we come to this world as human beings, the world is already organized.
Some things are natural, some others are constructed.
Without an education, it is difficult to distinguish between the natural and the constructed.
None of the constructed is necessary. Alternatives are myriads.
Choosing between alternatives, as an individual or a community, requires some amount of clarity, insight.
Generations. People live and die. Babies are born.
The way we do things (integral will), we prepare a place, function, situation for the new born.
They do not need a memory or a knowledge of history, they are given a set of skills and a position in the machinery.
The way things ought to be (education, ideal), elders would recognize they know no better than a new born.
They would give the new born an understanding of their human nature, of the complexity of the world, and means to shape said world according to their own understanding.
That's not gonna happen that drastically.
But it does happen constantly. Our understanding of the world / human nature is constantly in motion.
There are tensions. On the one hand, we are subjected to that integral will, conditioned, organized ; on the other hand, we live our lives.
Stepping aside. Is a big thing.
It doesn't mean leaving the community of men. (I'm not an English speaker, so the confusion doesn't surprise me.)
It means doing something else than what you've been prepared to do. And not fueling the machinery so much.
A journalist becomes photographer, then an oriental dancer ; another starts growing bio vegetables ; an informatician a nurse ; a business auditer becomes an elementary school teacher.
All (real) examples of highly educated individuals stepping aside and making it work.
They reconsidered what they were trained for, weighted it against what they wished for and made a choice.
Along the way, they made friends, found lovers, had children.
Stepping aside and making it work.
To me, this has infinitely more value than opposing the "system" head on.
These people did exert their power to shape the world surrounding them. Which is what we do as individuals.
"There is no alternative" is a common political catch phrase.
"We want an alternative" is a common popular demand.
"Just do it" is Nike's motto.
We can recognize the limits of our power as individuals. We're not gonna change the world in its entirety.
But we can also recognize the reality of our power as individuals. We can choose to exert it if so we will.
There is no necessity.
Along the way, you step aside and make it work.
And your neighbour starts thinking to himself : Could I make it work, too ? Should I ? Do I want to ?
This is how it works and how it spreads. It starts with a very simple thing. Just a step aside. Not even a revolution. A mere rotation. A pivot.
You don't even need to forego the technique, technology and all the modern comfort, wealth, etc.
And the billionaire in all that ?
Perhaps he becomes jealous of yourself, your happiness and quality of life, and perhaps he starts growing bio vegetables, too.
Or perhaps a new generation is born which has higher expectations than we do and evil super vilain masterminds are kept under control.
Or perhaps we stop fueling the machinery so much and act like fully grown citizens.
It's a collective thing. People do not amass obscene amounts of money / power without the support, be it conscious or not, of the largest amount of people.
Good post !
On that education:
you start at school.... from the Latin word schola... where you "learned" originally quite other things than knowledge for the job in the system.
Much of that original scope is (still) there when you are very young:
learning developing you to socialise, bargain, play, find out who you are and can be. And when you are lucky with your teachers so much more, of the moral kind, is added later on. But the latter is not measured, no KPI, not in the benchmakings between schools, not in Korea leading the pack measured in education KPI's.
You get what you reward.
Here the etymology of schola and over the centuries and changing civilisations that change from ancient Greeks to industrial era (and now Korea)
"place of instruction," Old English scol, from Latin
schola "intermission of work, leisure for learning; learned conversation, debate; lecture; meeting place for teachers and students, place of instruction; disciples of a teacher, body of followers, sect," from Greek skhole
"spare time, leisure, rest, ease; idleness; that in which leisure is employed; learned discussion;" also "a place for lectures, school;" originally "a holding back, a keeping clear," from skhein "to get" (from PIE root
*segh- "to hold") + -ole by analogy with bole "a throw," stole "outfit," etc.
The original notion is "leisure," which passed to "otiose discussion" (in Athens or Rome the favorite or proper use for free time), then "place for such discussion." The Latin word was widely borrowed (Old French escole, French école, Spanish escuela, Italian scuola, Old High German scuola, German Schule, Swedish skola, Gaelic sgiol, Welsh ysgol, Russian shkola). Translated in Old English as larhus, literally "lore house," but this seems to have been a glossary word only.
Meaning "students attending a school" in English is attested from c. 1300; sense of "school building" is first recorded 1590s. Sense of "people united by a general similarity of principles and methods" is from 1610s; hence school of thought (1864). School of hard knocks "rough experience in life" is recorded from 1912 (in George Ade); to tell tales out of school "betray damaging secrets" is from 1540s. School bus is from 1908. School days is from 1590s. School board from 1870.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/school
On Covey: simplified the circle of influence and the circle of concern
We can recognize the limits of our power as individuals. We're not gonna change the world in its entirety.
But we can also recognize the reality of our power as individuals. We can choose to exert it if so we will.
There is no necessity.
A mother with a new-born baby is inclined to make her world very small: a nest for her baby and herself. Natural and overruling everything else except bare essentials.
Covey, a kind of management guru, recognised that people in their job, especially managers from low to high, are inclined to attach too much value and to spend too much time and energy on the world above and around them that they cannot really influence.
It is good to look around for what comes or may come. Every animal does that. ready for fight or run. Or for us: you better be prepared for risks or opportunities (your job or career).
What in reality happens is that being busy in your core activity, where you have much influence (power) fuels and nurtures you: your circle of influence.
And being too much looking around to better anticipate and defend your core, is sucking you dry, it costs energy. Too much expectations delivering disappointments from lack of influence.
=> Spend ample time IN your circle of influence to have the energy and self-strenght to spend "good enough" time on your concerns of the outside world that could affect, threaten your core circle.
Going sideways in your career a way to get out of the default stream where you are lived by the outside.
You can also decide not to make that promotional step higher in your career, or to go more direction expert or assistant than the manager. And many of us will have more power and influence, less stress, in their self chosen circle of influence.
Key is, whether schooling at young age, socialising for social status, or careering in your job... is that you put the human being,
being a human, central,
and not (your insignificance in) the system.
I see in that respect not much difference between a manager getting overstressed and not only burning himself but also more inclined to use other people as objects, getting more self-centered...
and a world improver getting overstressed and burning out from disappointments from too much of himself making dependent on things to far away to influence much.
What other problems? Does it not interest you what funding is cut or why - because 40-50% should be as far as you should go? Says who btw? Laffer? Makes you wonder if it's forbidden or just not advised to produce a personal cognitive effort I the field of economics?
