What Does Education Mean to You
-
hello eveyone =D..
i have a few question to ask all our brother and sister
1)and write down your thoughts.?
Here are some questions to guide you:
2)"...that educating a person only in terms of a cognitive mind and not in terms of values and morals is to create new sources of threat and danger to society." Do you agree with this statement? What does it mean?
3)Do you consider yourself an "educated person"? Some people think that one can learn from every experience, encounter, interaction. Do you agree?
4)What are your views on Singapore's education system? What do you think are its merits and demerits? If you could introduce one subject into the secondary school curriculum, what subject would it be and why? ..
can anyone anwer those question thanks
thanks cheers -
Education, correctly defined, means training toward growth and maturity to prepare a person to deal, in a flexible and successful way, with the problems of life and of eternity.
It does not mean, as it increasingly is taken to mean by the educational operationalists who now control our educational bureaucracy, obtaining a ticket of admission to some other bureaucratic structure, however large and rich that may be.
Education in operational terms has no meaning (as all operational definitions have no meaning) because it has no reference outside itself, and all meaning must be based on reference to something outside the object being defined. Until recent centuries, meaning was defined in terms of purpose and goals, but, as teleology fell into disrepute, meaning came to mean context as a whole (a belief which has always been held in most Asiatic countries).Today, over-specialization and the great speed of change have destroyed, or almost destroyed, the context of everything, and we are reduced to purely operational definitions and meanings.
But, since all operational definitions are solipsist, and everything in the world today has become isolated and subjective, any meaning in either teleological or contextual or even functional terms has become impossible and we are faced with the total triumph of the Meaningless and The Absurd. American education has followed this process and is now speeding toward ruination of all education in terms of individual maturity and ability to cope with any whole human experience or meaning.
http://www.carrollquigley.net/Articles/Is-Georgetown-University-Comitting-Suicide.htm
No education is worth much which does not help those who receive it to understand the world in which they live and to feel more at home and more confident in the world.
For many years, the experience of Americans in their academic institutions has not been helping, but rather has hindered, that process.
That experience has tended to be a kind of brainwashing, seeking, in most cases, to establish a bourgeois or (in recent years) a petty bourgeois outlook.
On the higher levels of the system, this has been supplemented by a steadily narrowing of training for a place in the bureaucratic structures which now dominate American life, in business, in government, in education itself, in religion, the law, medicine, and the defense forces. This is reflected in earlier, and in more and more narrow, specialization and in the increasing pedantic nature of so much of the work done in all fields.
On one side, this leaves so-called educated people incapable of understanding the rapidly changing society in which we live and, as the opposite side of the same situation, leaves us facing gigantic problems to whose understanding and solution the existing educational structure has little to contribute (that is why they became gigantic).
This can be seen most clearly by asking ourselves the simple question: "In which of our academic disciplines do these problems fall?" Or more concretely, "From which of the existing academic disciplines would we recruit someone to enlighten us on each of these problems?" However we word these questions, there is no answer, for the simple reason that the great problems of our day do not fall into any one academic discipline, and, indeed, cannot be dealt with by committees made up of persons from different academic specialties.
http://www.carrollquigley.net/Articles/Obsolete-Academic-Disciplines.htm
The cognitive techniques derived from our underlying outlook have included
( a) using analysis rather than synthesis in seeking answers to problems;
(b) isolating problems and studying them in a vacuum instead of using an ecological approach;
(c) using techniques based on quantification rather than on qualification study done in a contextual situation;
(d) proceeding on the assumption of single-factor causation rather than pluralistic, ecological causation; and
(e) basing decisions and actions on needs of the individual rather than needs of the group.
In our society, if we want to know how something functions, we take it apart, cut it up, isolate it from its context; we analyze its factors and assume that only one is an independent variable.We then quantify the changes this independent variable makes in all the other variables that are assumed to be dependent on it. Then we make the independent variable one link in a chain of such independent variables, each surrounded by its system of dependent variables, the whole forming a chain going back to some original cause in the past or extending forward in a similar chain to some ultimate goal in the future.
From such reasoning, given to us from the Greeks through Aristotle, we got the "final" causes ( or goals) and the "Unmoved Mover" (that which is the first cause of all movement and does not itself move) of Aristotelian metaphysics, and, today, we still use this way of thinking, even though we no longer believe in Aristotle's metaphysics.
The now obsolescent mode of thought and cognition just described might be contrasted with a newer method which is, incidentally, closer to the thinking processes of southern and eastern Asia, which were never much influenced by transcendental Hebrew monotheism or by Greek two-valued logic.
This newer (or older) way of looking at experience tries to find how anything functions by seeing its relationships to a larger system and, ultimately, to the whole cosmos. To do so, it uses an ecological and qualitative approach, seeking to grasp the whole contextual situation of innumerable factors, all of which are changing at once, not only by quantitative changes within a fixed identity (such as Western logic can handle) but with constant shifts of identity and quality.
This more intuitive and less logical point of view is now sweeping the West as is evidenced by the fact that our traditional Western categories and cognitive assumptions were rejected not only by youthful hippies but also by those hardheaded, analytical people on whom the survival of the West depends.
The stumbling block, of course, is that our whole institutional setup is based on the old method of thought. For example, our educational system is based on the methods of categorization, specialization, and quantification, which must be replaced. This old method of thought is seen on the lower levels, where objective tests assume such things as two-valued logic (True, False), the principle of contradiction (Yes, No), and the principle of retained identity, just as, on the highest levels, the great increase in the use of computers assumes the possibility of objective analysis and quantification of life experiences.
It is difficult to reform our old methods of thinking no matter how bankrupt they may be. Standing in the way of change are the pressures exerted by institutionalized establishments, the profits of powerful groups producing equipment based on old ways of thinking, and the need which the large bureaucratized organizations have for persons with narrow technical training in the older cognitive patterns.http://www.carrollquigley.net/Articles/Needed-A-Revolution-in-Thinking.htm
-
wow sister i really salute to your best answer
Originally posted by angel3070:Education, correctly defined, means training toward growth and maturity to prepare a person to deal, in a flexible and successful way, with the problems of life and of eternity.
It does not mean, as it increasingly is taken to mean by the educational operationalists who now control our educational bureaucracy, obtaining a ticket of admission to some other bureaucratic structure, however large and rich that may be.
Education in operational terms has no meaning (as all operational definitions have no meaning) because it has no reference outside itself, and all meaning must be based on reference to something outside the object being defined. Until recent centuries, meaning was defined in terms of purpose and goals, but, as teleology fell into disrepute, meaning came to mean context as a whole (a belief which has always been held in most Asiatic countries).Today, over-specialization and the great speed of change have destroyed, or almost destroyed, the context of everything, and we are reduced to purely operational definitions and meanings.
But, since all operational definitions are solipsist, and everything in the world today has become isolated and subjective, any meaning in either teleological or contextual or even functional terms has become impossible and we are faced with the total triumph of the Meaningless and The Absurd. American education has followed this process and is now speeding toward ruination of all education in terms of individual maturity and ability to cope with any whole human experience or meaning.
http://www.carrollquigley.net/Articles/Is-Georgetown-University-Comitting-Suicide.htm
No education is worth much which does not help those who receive it to understand the world in which they live and to feel more at home and more confident in the world.
For many years, the experience of Americans in their academic institutions has not been helping, but rather has hindered, that process.
That experience has tended to be a kind of brainwashing, seeking, in most cases, to establish a bourgeois or (in recent years) a petty bourgeois outlook.
On the higher levels of the system, this has been supplemented by a steadily narrowing of training for a place in the bureaucratic structures which now dominate American life, in business, in government, in education itself, in religion, the law, medicine, and the defense forces. This is reflected in earlier, and in more and more narrow, specialization and in the increasing pedantic nature of so much of the work done in all fields.
On one side, this leaves so-called educated people incapable of understanding the rapidly changing society in which we live and, as the opposite side of the same situation, leaves us facing gigantic problems to whose understanding and solution the existing educational structure has little to contribute (that is why they became gigantic).
This can be seen most clearly by asking ourselves the simple question: "In which of our academic disciplines do these problems fall?" Or more concretely, "From which of the existing academic disciplines would we recruit someone to enlighten us on each of these problems?" However we word these questions, there is no answer, for the simple reason that the great problems of our day do not fall into any one academic discipline, and, indeed, cannot be dealt with by committees made up of persons from different academic specialties.
http://www.carrollquigley.net/Articles/Obsolete-Academic-Disciplines.htm
The cognitive techniques derived from our underlying outlook have included
( a) using analysis rather than synthesis in seeking answers to problems;
(b) isolating problems and studying them in a vacuum instead of using an ecological approach;
(c) using techniques based on quantification rather than on qualification study done in a contextual situation;
(d) proceeding on the assumption of single-factor causation rather than pluralistic, ecological causation; and
(e) basing decisions and actions on needs of the individual rather than needs of the group.
In our society, if we want to know how something functions, we take it apart, cut it up, isolate it from its context; we analyze its factors and assume that only one is an independent variable.We then quantify the changes this independent variable makes in all the other variables that are assumed to be dependent on it. Then we make the independent variable one link in a chain of such independent variables, each surrounded by its system of dependent variables, the whole forming a chain going back to some original cause in the past or extending forward in a similar chain to some ultimate goal in the future.
From such reasoning, given to us from the Greeks through Aristotle, we got the "final" causes ( or goals) and the "Unmoved Mover" (that which is the first cause of all movement and does not itself move) of Aristotelian metaphysics, and, today, we still use this way of thinking, even though we no longer believe in Aristotle's metaphysics.
The now obsolescent mode of thought and cognition just described might be contrasted with a newer method which is, incidentally, closer to the thinking processes of southern and eastern Asia, which were never much influenced by transcendental Hebrew monotheism or by Greek two-valued logic.
This newer (or older) way of looking at experience tries to find how anything functions by seeing its relationships to a larger system and, ultimately, to the whole cosmos. To do so, it uses an ecological and qualitative approach, seeking to grasp the whole contextual situation of innumerable factors, all of which are changing at once, not only by quantitative changes within a fixed identity (such as Western logic can handle) but with constant shifts of identity and quality.
This more intuitive and less logical point of view is now sweeping the West as is evidenced by the fact that our traditional Western categories and cognitive assumptions were rejected not only by youthful hippies but also by those hardheaded, analytical people on whom the survival of the West depends.
The stumbling block, of course, is that our whole institutional setup is based on the old method of thought. For example, our educational system is based on the methods of categorization, specialization, and quantification, which must be replaced. This old method of thought is seen on the lower levels, where objective tests assume such things as two-valued logic (True, False), the principle of contradiction (Yes, No), and the principle of retained identity, just as, on the highest levels, the great increase in the use of computers assumes the possibility of objective analysis and quantification of life experiences.
It is difficult to reform our old methods of thinking no matter how bankrupt they may be. Standing in the way of change are the pressures exerted by institutionalized establishments, the profits of powerful groups producing equipment based on old ways of thinking, and the need which the large bureaucratized organizations have for persons with narrow technical training in the older cognitive patterns.http://www.carrollquigley.net/Articles/Needed-A-Revolution-in-Thinking.htm
-
education is a Scam .
-
Originally posted by yiha093:
education is a Scam .
true.
fcuk education. it only makes you slaves to other people. haha
-
I'd really like to write a huge wall of text about this but it wouldn't be very coherent since I'm complete shit at putting my thoughts to paper (or the keyboard, as the case may be). I'll have to exclude the majority of whatever I'm thinking of, because everything around us is linked to each other and I'll eventually go off-topic. If only one could read minds.
"educating a person only in terms of a cognitive mind"
There is a difference between intelligence and knowledge. Education in this case seems to mean knowledge. You can't teach a person to be intelligent.
"values and morals"
Are completely subjective. Every "bad guy" in history thought they were doing the right thing.
"threat and danger to society"
Any form of drastic change can be seen as a threat to the status quo. What if the society in question was Nazi Germany? It would be ideal to threaten it then, yes?
I guess my point here is that the statement doesn't even make sense to me (it does in the conventional sense though). Moving on...
"one can learn from every experience, encounter, interaction"
Strongly agree with this. It's basically what I live for. In fact, I don't see how anybody could not agree with it. What kind of an idiot ever stops learning?
"Singapore's education system"
It's excellent. That is, if you want to see the human race continue down its current path.
"introduce one subject into the secondary school curriculum"
It's going to take way more than that to fix the situation. The only thing that needs to be changed is ourselves. You can change everything else and it wouldn't make a difference. Our technology has progressed by leaps and bounds, yet we're still trying to figure out how to live with each other.
-
Originally posted by S.H.:
I'd really like to write a huge wall of text about this but it wouldn't be very coherent since I'm complete shit at putting my thoughts to paper (or the keyboard, as the case may be). I'll have to exclude the majority of whatever I'm thinking of, because everything around us is linked to each other and I'll eventually go off-topic. If only one could read minds.
"educating a person only in terms of a cognitive mind"
There is a difference between intelligence and knowledge. Education in this case seems to mean knowledge. You can't teach a person to be intelligent.
"values and morals"
Are completely subjective. Every "bad guy" in history thought they were doing the right thing.
"threat and danger to society"
Any form of drastic change can be seen as a threat to the status quo. What if the society in question was Nazi Germany? It would be ideal to threaten it then, yes?
I guess my point here is that the statement doesn't even make sense to me (it does in the conventional sense though). Moving on...
"one can learn from every experience, encounter, interaction"
Strongly agree with this. It's basically what I live for. In fact, I don't see how anybody could not agree with it. What kind of an idiot ever stops learning?
"Singapore's education system"
It's excellent. That is, if you want to see the human race continue down its current path.
"introduce one subject into the secondary school curriculum"
It's going to take way more than that to fix the situation.
wow... well thought of!
i love the part about bad guys think what they did was right.
-
The only reason people are going to school/work now is because they're afraid of the consequences if they didn't. Fear runs the society. People don't actually give a shit about whatever they're doing. As long as they get rewarded, everything is "fine". Here, have this stack of cash, it's good for you.
Terrible way to live.
-
Originally posted by S.H.:
The only reason people are going to school/work now is because they're afraid of the consequences if they didn't. Fear runs the society. People don't actually give a shit about whatever they're doing. As long as they get rewarded, everything is "fine". Here, have this stack of cash, it's good for you.
Terrible way to live.
OMG. that is soooooooooooooooo true. that is what i have been trying to tell people.they just feel scared if they dun get a job.
at least that was what i thought of few months ago.
i quit my scholarship. haha people say it was a huge mistake.
i say, fuck what other people expects us to be in the future. i say study wat ur interested in. dont study just for the sake of doing it. it is a waste of time and effort.
but that idea backfired. i'm jobless now.hahaha so i plan to study accountacny. if i had the choice, i'd like to open a mushroom farm. haha simple life. but then , i would need exsperience, which i donot have right now. why mushroom? duno coz it seems peaceful and i lthink mushroom is healthy.
or if possible, a vertical farm. i'd love to those kind of stuff.
shit man, ur post really hit me hard in the core coz that was what i used to believe. i still do but i somehow gave in to the tyrany of society where people need a qualification to get a job. sad
nice meeting you by the way SH. it's rare to meet people who has different opinion about life.
-
ya education is a scam. In sg thats true it is.
-
Originally posted by Farid_:
hello eveyone =D..
i have a few question to ask all our brother and sister
1)and write down your thoughts.?
Here are some questions to guide you:
2)"...that educating a person only in terms of a cognitive mind and not in terms of values and morals is to create new sources of threat and danger to society." Do you agree with this statement? What does it mean?
3)Do you consider yourself an "educated person"? Some people think that one can learn from every experience, encounter, interaction. Do you agree?
4)What are your views on Singapore's education system? What do you think are its merits and demerits? If you could introduce one subject into the secondary school curriculum, what subject would it be and why? ..
can anyone anwer those question thanks
thanks cheers1. Education is important to train a person in his thinking and skills to do a particular job/career.
2. a person should be educated with both cognitive thoughts and "values and morals", so that he can be a complete person.
3. Yes , I am highly educated. Informal education is just as important as formal education.
4. Singapore education system need to emphasize more on learning, less on academic results. Learning does not only cover academic subjects, human relationship, socializing, physical education, thinking skills are also important. We have overdone the point about having good academic results will meant you are going to be a successful person. I think there are already too many subjects at "O" level. School should really cut down the number of subjects.
-
Education is the best, I finally learned that... If not, how to have a good life next time when your grown up ?
-
Originally posted by Lokey:
1. Education is important to train a person in his thinking and skills to do a particular job/career.
2. a person should be educated with both cognitive thoughts and "values and morals", so that he can be a complete person.
3. Yes , I am highly educated. Informal education is just as important as formal education.
4. Singapore education system need to emphasize more on learning, less on academic results. Learning does not only cover academic subjects, human relationship, socializing, physical education, thinking skills are also important. We have overdone the point about having good academic results will meant you are going to be a successful person. I think there are already too many subjects at "O" level. School should really cut down the number of subjects.
Should tell MOE, that they are making and has been making a big mistake for the past decades.
-
if singapore's education is really that excellent, why shoud we attract more foreign talents?
-
Originally posted by S.pink:
if singapore's education is really that excellent, why shoud we attract more foreign talents?
simply having an "excellent" education system dosent mean that singapore is able to produce a steady stream of top talent. whilst many people are "good", little can be truly considered as talents.