10-16-2024, 08:41 PM
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.
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.
