Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (17586)	4/26/2000 12:11:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Cultural Anchor: The Education system is and always has been a form of indoctrination. I see your point about having a common platform of culture as a referent. That is why we have a system of accreditation. I fully support the notion to a point. When we speak of academic achievement I want to know what the achiever has. I want to know that the high achiever is endowed with greater skills and affluence that have an application in society. With a standardized curriculum we have a basis to measure what "achievement" means. You have now lumped philosophy and history with literature in your model for building a cultural anchor. Along this same line I would like to add civics, art, music, sociology and psychology. I don't dispute the benefits of having a general knowledge base that is common to the members of society. I challenged your position on requiring a particular set of 20 or 30 texts of literature for everyone. I knew some Tiwanese students who were required to memorize Confusious in the 1950's. As a result of this requirement they described it to me as part of the package, along with Budism that made up their "religion." Actually Confusism is philosophy with no religious reference that I am aware of. I would consider people who have memorized all of the required texts and who have found ways to operationalize the meanings to be wise people. Do I agree that everyone should be required to memorize these texts? Not even for a second. Would I have the texts banned because some people(s) have misapplied it? No way. Bottom line for me is that a literature course should be required in an accredited curriculum and it should have standards that are measurable. Requiring specific books for the whole culture as a part of it is very dangerous and exclusive. The opportunity to study Sartre, as you suggested, would almost certainly be denied and some other required literature would be in its place. Now the obvious conclusion that the members of the society would draw is that Sartre is not as good as what ever we chose before it. If you are going to require one piece of literature or body of literature for the whole culture, your selection has to be above criticism. I don't think you can do it without a community of believers and that doesn't fit your scenario in any event.

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (17586)	4/26/2000 12:37:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Cultural Anchor: Let me use your words and "try this from another angle." <<It's when they're told to pray, or to read a certain poster, or required to fall into line for a "moment of silence" that the skinny end of the wedge is in. Jmo>> You would forbid the posting of "Thou shalt not steal," but require the study of other specific literature that teaches maybe, "to thine own self be true" or "those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it." I can justify the requirement to study the constitution of the United States because we are bound to it as citizens. What basis do I have for requiring your children to study Hamlet or Huckleberry Finn?