The following is a comment from this thread. It makes several important points so I am reposting it.
I don’t understand the American context as I am not there. I do think it is a shame that teaching cannot take place. There is a kind of global infection of self-indulgence nowadays, based on the philosophy of consumerism (an anti-educative doctrine if ever there was one). Apparently this is even afflicting Japan, according to one teacher I spoke to yesterday. The effect in Japan is still less marked that in the West, since students are not yet so assertive that they are impossible to control — however the parents are getting difficult to manage there.
A philosophy of “education” that permits a philosophy of rampant consumerist self-indulgence is destroying the government schools in Australia. The consumerist herd is now on the move, trying to find fresh pastures. “Private schools” seem to be the immediate answer. Why? Because teachers can still enforce discipline in a a private school which is governed by religious doctrines of authority — coming from the Feudalist/pre-capitalist era. A doctrine of capitalist consumerism (prevalent in the government schools) is unviable as a means to enforcing education as a practice.
But this means a return to religious indoctrination and religious authoritarianism, since it is not considered “enlightened” for a secularist to take an approach which does not cater to the meanest and most self-indulgent tendencies of the populace to get what they feel like the minute that they feel like it.
Axé.
coldhearted scientist وداد 
…..which is why I have certain problems with the mechanised systems that are product of the so-called “enlightenment” project.
Actually, however, a deeper secularism — if it were comprehended by the masses (which it generally isn’t and wouldn’t be) — would be the solution to the problem of having to make a false choice between religion and mechanised modes of behaviour.
Because science, ideally, could teach people to be much more cautious about what they really do and more importantly DO NOT know. Instead of rushing in to every situation with an overconfident zest regarding one’s own capacity to accurately ascertain the meaning and context of every situation, one could learn to take a step back and admit that not everything about a situation is immediately visible to one’s eyes and ears, and that there are necessarily aspects of every situation that escape one. Thus, this deeper secularisation of one’s responses to the world would produce a world with greater dignity in it, where everybody was at least treated with cautious respect.
Instead, the opposite happens. False “enlightenment” gives one the notion that I only need to look you up and down to ascertain your worth. Maybe if I get the name of the place you’re from, I can draw the whole picture, too. And it suffices for me to know your gender, to determine whether you are righteously outraged by something or merely hysterical. Thus knowledge is at the tips of everybody’s intuitions, these days.
But is that really more “enlightened” or is it not rather an entrenchment of intellectual and social mysticism, that has us by the collective throat these days?
I would not have distanced myself so radically from the whole machine if I did not believe that it was extremely damaging to human life and dignity.
It is an entrenchment of mysticism.
On mechanization vs. religiosity, have you seen the interesting but also disappointing Fritz Lang film, Metropolis?
Was that the 1920s film?
Yes. To mysticism and the Heart I prefer deeper secularization such as you describe here. I am going to use this description, once again, when I am next asked how I can be ethical without being religious. Which, as I have said before, is often in this religion-driven country I live in.
Hmm..good luck with that. I believe that I derive many of my formulations from Nietzsche — although he does not say them in so many words.
By the way, this mystical epistemology (I call it bourgeois epistemology as I think it relates to the way that human identities are organised schematically for their role in the industrial-capitalist complex) also directly relates to Hattie’s accusation against me (twice!) that I am eminently readable as an individual but that I nonetheless insist on proclaiming (in my perplexing fashion) that something I said here or there hasn’t been understood well enough, and that because of this, it a waste of time for us to talk at cross-purposes.
The attitude (which I am noting here) is “How dare you proclaim that you are not 100 percent understood by me!” And, so (of course!) I am the one who is positioned as being the obscurantist — because I resist mystical reasoning that everything and everyone is immediately understandable!!!
And, you know, this has to really, really suck — because once again I am convinced that westernisation is not far from barbourism.
As we’ve said, to the extent identity politics participates in this epistemology – and also in the 19th century style search for mythical origins – it is problematic.
From what I would call a common sense point of view the idea that one could completely “understand” someone else is nonsensical. People spend entire long marriages getting to know each other and still do not. This fact is well known, I had thought.
And a Reeducator once told me that my refusal to claim that I “knew” what someone else thought bespoke a lack of empathy. I think exactly the opposite is true. It would be disrespectful, even violent, to claim such knowledge.
It would be disrespectful, even violent, to claim such knowledge.
This violence is something that I am acutely sensitive to. It seems to me a cultural difference between myself and others, that I do not presume to know somebody’s motivation unless they either tell me what it is or else clearly indicate that it could not be something else from what I’m guessing. Apart from that, I do not know their motivation and will not assert that I know what it is.
Now when I tried to teach (high school) I found that it was expected that I should presume to know people’s motivations. This I could not do because any particular student would not tell me. Nonetheless I was expected to enforce a classification process based on a few behavioural distinctions — without closer investigation. To me this was like cannibalising people’s minds. I thought of myself at the time as a strong person, but I was somehow too weak for this. It was like I would go to the school in the mornings, and actually feel as if I could taste blood in my mouth. It made me think of giving birth and refusing to let the child go free — and other bloody connections. Anyway, I’m way too sensitive to “educate” people in that way.
As for Hattie, I believe that her assertion was somehow that she thought I wanted to be understood on a personal level, and that by asserting that the particular content of my writing had not been understood, I was really actually just lamenting that others were not exercising enough sensitivity regarding me — despite the fact that the particular piece of writing she was objecting to was about how I had become stoical.
So, I guess that if your thoughts are guided or indeed dominated by apriori categories of identity, it is a null move for someone like myself, being female, to acknowledge that in some ways I had learned to adapt to the world in a stoical manner. For, to assert stoicism somehow makes me irrationally feminine, and is really a cover for my demand to be treated more gently.
I am always quite irritated when people think I just want to be “understood” on a personal level. A man they will let make a point, but a woman…
“Anyway, I’m way too sensitive to ‘educate’ people in that way.”
Too sensitive for it, that’s a good insight. And sensitivity in my view is not a weakness. And it leads to (more real) knowledge.
Yeah, Hattie’s implication was that I wanted to be understood on that level, I think. Since she is not able to affect my ability to earn a living by her assertion, it is meaningless. But if she was in a position to influence my success or failure in that field (as many like her are), then it would be quite deplorable that she would take that line. A lot of the time I am no longer irritated, though — as I have really lowered my expectations entirely. Here is something I just got in an email after I wrote suggesting that we could do a slight redesign this week of the secular party advert, for increased visual impact:
“I agree. I would also have liked to have seen our face on the ads, as a lot of people, especially men are visual and need to associate a face to a name (or in this case, a group letter). Maybe next time. Thoughts for next time.”
So, you can see why my expectations are rock bottom — really, rock bottom.
—
Yeah, and the sensitivity thing is odd, too. I can be quite tough on behalf of my sensitivity. I dig my heels in. I believe that I could be tortured on behalf of it — if I haven’t been already. There’s nothing I wouldn’t do to preserve it — including go through hell and high water. It’s a paradoxical thing like that.
“Men are visual.” AARGH. But in the U.S. at least it would be smart to put a face on the ads. Otherwise people think you’re hiding something. Silly, I know, but I think it is true.
In Australia, people would be inclined to think you were narcissistic if you put your face on to something, without some reason.
If I saw an ad for a new political party with somebody’s face on it, I would think that they were trying to start a cult.
That’s great! I wish people here were less fixated on looks. A great predictor of victory in presidential elections appears to be height.
Yes. It would be great if somehow, also this particular party I’m representing this time — the Secular Party — could inject a strong quality of intellectualism and social criticism into politics. If it does, it will be worth my time and efforts way into the future.
“could inject a strong quality of intellectualism and social criticism into politics”
This sure would be great, and it would be worth it.
All I want to do, babe.