+- Deny Ignorance (https://denyignorance.com)
+-- Forum: Main Forums (https://denyignorance.com/Section-Main-Forums)
+--- Forum: Education & Media (https://denyignorance.com/Section-Education-Media)
+--- Thread: Independence of mind requires sustained submission to authority (/Thread-Independence-of-mind-requires-sustained-submission-to-authority)
Independence of mind requires sustained submission to authority - UltraBudgie - 10-16-2024
The Hedgehog Review, which is usually worth reading, has published a non-paywalled version of Matthew Crawford's recent essay from his substack, which is also usually worth reading.
The essay is about the role of conformity in education, and I found it fascinating, although I disagree with much of it; he presents his points well.
Quote:The paradoxical thesis I wish to consider is this: Real independence of mind can be won only by a sustained process of submission to authority. There is a related paradox: A democratic society, precisely because it requires such independence of thought if it is to be something other than mob rule, requires education conducted with an aristocratic ethos.
...
According to the new liberalism that Locke helped to articulate, political freedom requires intellectual independence. This is the anti-authoritarian mindset Tocqueville was struck by as he traveled around America. He said that Americans were Cartesians without having read Descartes. Descartes, like Locke, insisted on a kind of epistemic self-sufficiency, rejecting all established customs and received opinions. I myself should be the source of all my knowledge; otherwise it is not knowledge. This is the positive image of freedom that emerges when you pursue far enough the negative goal of being free from authority.
But this brings with it a certain anxiety: If I have to stand on my own two feet, epistemically, how can I be sure that my knowledge really is knowledge?
Here is the link to the essay in full:
Why Individualism Fails to Create Individuals: Independence of mind requires sustained submission to authority.
I'm of the opinion that the evolved education system actually works in two ways. First, for those with the temperament, it creates either useful conformists or scholars who can build upon and propagate knowledge within the established system. Second, for those it fails, it inspires a rejectionism and desperation that forces the non-conformist to find their own, unique path. These institutions are the fingers squeezing the watermelon seed, so it squirts the hell away from all the established baggage and finds its own arc.
This reminds me of Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra, where he discusses "going up the mountain" of individual communion with truth, and the subsequent act of "coming back down", carrying what was learned back into the realm of everyday life. If we don't have at least some grasp on the vocabulary, semantics, and trends of the current authority, how can what is learned be used to affect change? It would remain merely immiscible mercury.
I am posting this here because I think this is a somewhat unique venue of individuals for whom established educational channels and traditional authority has "failed". What are your experiences with traditional education and pedagogy?
RE: Independence of mind requires sustained submission to authority - Byrd - 10-16-2024
I think that the view is rather short-sighted. Let me give you a different perspective that's slightly imperfect but might be useful:
Think about a modern house... one of those big, luxury types that's just down the road from where we're staying: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4581-NE-Ocean-Blvd-Jensen-Beach-FL-34957/45652905_zpid/
For this analogy, it's going to be your mind and your knowledge.
Now think of the people who are building it -- you need architects, general contractors, electricians, plumbers, window and door installers, insulators, masons (for brickwork), contractors, roofers, and even people to grade and level foundations.
(analogy of Self Taught) You can decide how you want it built. You can build it by yourself. It's going to take a LOT of time, lots of equipment, and if you know what you're doing you might get it together by yourself (depending on time) in ten years or so (some of it will get ruined by weather and will have to be redone, of course.) If you don't know much about structural materials, you're in for all sorts of surprises. It may not be up to code, but you're not in an area with municipal code enforcement. Can you build a good house? Yes, but it's more difficult and even with research there's a lot you will have to go and redo. And then there's the landscape. Can you actually build something like that luxury home all by yourself with no help? Unlikely.
(analogy of public school education) You are building in an area with strong Homeowner's Association Codes. You may not like them, but you get an architect who sets up the specifics of the design that matches the code. The materials may (or may not) be inferior and there may be problems with the work crew (some may not be well licensed and some may be journeymen.) But you can build a house to a code standard in less than half a year. Putting together something like that luxury home? That's going to take much closer to a year by the the time you get the landscaping in.
(analogy of higher education) You get the architect, skilled workers, AND you get some heavy machinery. You are working to a plan that you can modify, but the ones helping you build are not top tradesmen. The building goes up in less time and is structurally more sound (because, yes, in college and beyond, they quit spoon-feeding you facts that will make you comfortable and start challenging you.) They will also show you what to look for in the systems so that if you add something new or get new contractors, you will know if the work they're doing is shoddy or not.
(analogy of post-graduate (Masters', PhD)) You get everything on higher education plus a big work crew - AND you start out with a finished house that's up to someone's code. But if you want to do a house of this type, there are three rules you have to follow: First: it's got to use the basic frame of your original house -- BUT -- you've got to make it two (Masters') or four (PhD) times larger. Second: Everything's got to be up to code, and they're going to have a new set of code inspectors who are very picky people. If the structure doesn't pass, you either have to abandon your design or try again. Third: you have to prove to the Homeowners Association that your building design is unique... that nobody else on the planet has a house that's exactly like yours. If they find another building like yours, they withdraw your permit. You have to prove it by submitting photos of every other house in existence that's the same size or larger AND you have to show what buildings and architects are your influence in this design.
Formal education may be boring (like an apprenticeship) but it gives you a structured path for learning (you learn addition before you learn algebra). It could use revision and modification, yes. It can be better or worse than self-taught/home-taught (and vice-versa.) Research, once you have advanced degrees, is amazing. You learn where some of the details and archives are hiding (things that the ordinary person wouldn't know to ask about or to look for). The trip (getting to that level) is amazing and... (sigh) I wish I could give you the tools to experience it in the same way I do.
We are both standing on the shore of an incalculably large sea of unknown unknowns (that's not a typo). The difference is that you're looking at it with your eyes, and I've got several telescopes and a good pair of binoculars.
RE: Independence of mind requires sustained submission to authority - Anna - 10-16-2024
Scepticism is not the same as self idolatry. It's questioning given information, searching for further details or putting it to the test. It's a refusal to blindly trust authority only because it considers itself authority. Scepticism doesn't mean, or at least it doesn't have to mean, beholding yourself as an ultimate authority to decide what is true or not. A questioning mind questions also itself. Does that lead to conformity? Not if you're fair in your distrust and treat all the sources of knowledge equally.
Doubts stimulate curiosity and encourage further discovery. All the greatest geniuses went against the tide. Seriously, for considerable time all the renowned scientific authorities thought that the Sun goes around the Earth. While the know-it-all attitude should be avoided, the critical thinking should be encouraged at all stages of education, not just when some educational authority decides the student is wise enough to think for himself. By that time it will be too late.
If you're interested in my education, the time spent at the University was much different from the time spent at school. At school it was mostly passing on the knowledge. The teacher preached and we noted it down. The university was more interactive. And yes, we were granted the privilege of choosing our teachers. I see nothing wrong with the idea. Some teachers have no other authority than that of the institution that employs them.
RE: Independence of mind requires sustained submission to authority - Maxmars - 10-16-2024
I offer my understanding, acknowledging that I am uneducated, and only bring my own experiences to the conversation... my, opinion, if you will allow.
The author's thesis:
Real independence of mind can be won only by a sustained process of submission to authority. There is a related paradox: A democratic society, precisely because it requires such independence of thought if it is to be something other than mob rule, requires education conducted with an aristocratic ethos.
I think it merits some dissection.
Independence of mind, is a vague concept. It presupposes that a state of cognitive awareness has a baseline. I am uncertain that such a baseline exists in a definitive state. Like most conceptual things, it can't really be measured. It manifests more as a spectrum spanning capability and will. If it is to be 'won' it is implicit that it is a thing "achieved" not extant. Are humans not all born with independence of thought?
Is it's ultimate state of "operability" in any given individual not a matter of capacity? Is it's ultimate 'use' not a matter of will?
Is "authority" actually 'given' or can it not be 'taken?'
To "submit" is to act; we only act out of choice or compulsion.
The authority implied in the thesis is 'authoritarian' - meaning that "will" has little function in the equation expressed.
Isn't any action without will only 'obedience?'
The notion that - from a civic perspective - There is a need that all participants truly understand the social or political questions they confront, if they are to create a harmonious state of affairs, contextually speaking speaks to ideals... an etherical thing.
However, attributing an aristocratic ethos to anything is only imagery, an attribution of class. Most aristocrats failed to live up to the standard they labored so hard to cultivate, giving proof of it's uncertainty.
The author closes with the phrase "must rely upon rank and authority if they are to do the work of creating citizens capable of self-government."
I suggest that the very idea that "citizens capable of self-government" requires a standard which cannot be "set."
Such citizens are as they exist, and it is explicitly NOT the job of any government or authority to 'change' them in any way.
Any such posture that the government has an existential "will" of its own.
Once any government manifests 'governmental will' is has broken the connection between itself and the people for whom it exists.
Authority of government presupposes validation... a distinctly personal thing, depending on perception, experience, and will...
Learning needn't be "forced" to happen. Exercising "authority" makes no sense when being 'invited' to learn something.
I think this argument was apples v. oranges, in my humble opinion. Suppositions layered over presumptions.
But he is an excellent writer.
RE: Independence of mind requires sustained submission to authority - IdeomotorPrisoner - 10-16-2024
What about...
"Independence of mind requires getting really really over that sustained authority."
That's actually a valid thought. Like how teaching open-mindedness seems to close it. Bringing up Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a great add because trying to teach independent thinking gives you nothing but Zarathustra's apes.
You actually see it with the "goth" kids.
![[Image: Screenshot_20241016_194606_Google.jpg]](https://denyignorance.com/uploader/images/Screenshot_20241016_194606_Google.jpg)
It backfires and every one gets in an "unholier than thou" contest of who does against the grain the right way.
Yet the most independent thinkers are like the escaped LDS kids or defectors of overbearing Irish or Italian Catholics. Who gain free thought via nuns and shame.
RE: Independence of mind requires sustained submission to authority - sahgwa - 10-17-2024
Free thought has nothing to do with authority from the outside.
Free thought is overcoming your personal 'what if's' and boxes/boundaries and trying things just because you are curious and unafraid.
Free thought is extreme play?
RE: Independence of mind requires sustained submission to authority - UltraBudgie - 10-18-2024
(10-16-2024, 05:07 PM)Byrd Wrote: ... Think about a modern house... For this analogy, it's going to be your mind and your knowledge.
...
I very much like this analogy! It extends very usefully: building codes, neighbourhoods, zoning, the gated communities of the MBA, the tickytack of the BFA; excellent!
I do wonder about its basis, however -- it seems to me that it might be more applicable not to "mind" in its entirety, but more to the public and professional persona that is the mind's expression in society and the world. Role in society. Modern manifestation.
I'm reminded also of George Carlin's excellent rant about "stuff". In a materialist society, we collect stuff, and more stuff, and we need a place for the stuff, then we need stuff for the place, then we need a bigger place... a cycle of materialist pursuit. I guess some people treat knowledge the same way -- need to degree for the job, want to work with this, so I need that, need the clout to be published, etc. Education as facts, facts as useful tools, the mind as their storehouse -- it's a very "STEM" way of thinking. Is that what your degree is in?
I'm also reminded of the "stages in life" mentioned in the Upanishads. First, as a student, subject to societal authority. Then, as a householder, plying trade and family. Then, as renunciant, seeking solitude in the woods. Building the house, filling it with stuff, then moving beyond its confines. Sleeping under the stars. Who needs houses, anyway? But the earlier stages are absolutely necessary to get to the latter.
Great telescope analogy, too, although better for the known unknowns than the unknown unknowns, wolfie, but that's perhaps the point: BS learn about tools, MS learn to use tools, PhD learn to make tools. Ideally, anyway. Then, in STEM anyway, the final form seem to be leaving that all behind and growing artisanal pears by hand, or something.
