Posit: the well educated man must be a virtuous man.
Printable View
Posit: the well educated man must be a virtuous man.
Is this educated in Socrates' sense of 'he who knows what is good, will act good' or educated as in learned, scholared?
I never agreed with Socrates' statement, and not with this one either, I believe even the well educated can be bastards.
Have you seen this gem in the News of the Weird thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
In the spirit of True or False (correct the false statement to make it true) that was such a hit for professors in my educational days..Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Posit: The well educated man must should be a virtuous man.
With the benefits of education should come a realization how privileged one's role is and with this, should come gratitude, and a sense of responsibility to contribute back to that society which has acted as benefactor to the educated man. Therefore, the virtuous life, if for no other reason, should be pursued out of a sense of obligation.Unfortunately, there is nothing compulsory regarding this relationship of the educated within society, and many choose to use their education to benefit themselves solely, with or without virtue.
Now this stinks. I can't use the strikethrough text or the spoiler text tags. More basic HTML tags, such as bold and underline seem to work okay. Okay, instead of lining out, I'll just underline.
What are the virtues of a well educated man?
Educated refers to its etymological base: to draw, lead or bring out or up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conradus
So if 'the well educated man must be a virtuous man' is true does this make ignorance a vice?
I think ignorance will be a vice before all educated men are virtuous. A quick scan of history tends to lead to those in power have knowledge above most others and they use that power for self more often then not. Look at the bible...Solomon.. he didn't exactly wine and dine his brothers and his fathers supporters until they let him take the throne, no the wise exterminated all those who opposed him and keptit for himself. :juggle2:
Not completely sure I understand your question.
I'll disagree with the statement though. Very few educated men are virtuous. Most have had to learn to survive in acedamia for quite awhile and become more and more passive agressive. Lawyers and politicians are excellent examples.
I'll agree with this. But so should everyman regardless of education strive to be virtuous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
What context is this "must" in?
Does this "must" equate to the well educated man should strive to be virtuous?
Or is this "must" simply an agreement, i.e. the well educated man is by default virtuous?
I believe bad upbringing is a major cause of antisocial behaviour and crime, or if you prefer, "vice".Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
But even if every child was brought up carefully and responsibly, that still wouldn't eliminate antisocial behaviour. There simply are too many factors beyond parents' control and there's of course, nature besides nurture.
So well educated does not necessarily lead to virtuous behaviour.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Correct. The posit is: to merit the label 'well educated' requires the inculcation of virtue.Quote:
Or is this "must" simply an agreement, i.e. the well educated man is by default virtuous?
If you use the word "well" in a moral sense, then I'll tend to agree. But a man makes his own decisions, and so his education could influence him, but not determine him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
There are no absolutes, however I believe that the simple man is more apt to be virtuous...
I understand 'must' as irresistably compelling, as: breathing.
The posit seemingly sits on the definitions of virtue (prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance), and educate(d) "the lead out", the instructed, informed.
However, the "well" qualifier introduces a qualitative and subjective measure to the position.
Will you yield "well" and let the remainder of the posit stand on its own? Or is "well" necessary?
There are absolutely no absolutes. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
Educate is taken as its base meaning: to lead out and virtue is moral standing.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
I will not yield 'well'. It is essential to the posit. The adverb is being used as: proper or sufficient.Quote:
However, the "well" qualifier introduces a qualitative and subjective measure to the position. Will you yield "well" and let the remainder of the posit stand on its own? Or is "well" necessary?
Whether one has attained this quality may be subjective, but the relation of well educated to virtue can be evaluated independent of a subject.
Oh, a grammar thread.:idea2:
Maybe I voted too early then, I just had the thought of a simple man(despite my good education) that you meant a good education means a man(or woman, don't forget about the women!) will turn out good, but we had quite a lot of bad people from good schools to prove that this is not necessarily the case I think.
So no ruling on what virtues they're supposed to have huh?
Agreed. Well educated implies virtue inculcated.*Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
* Children are born little bastards; their egoism, egocentrism and desire for instant gratification must be beaten out of them
I think you're treading close to circular reasoning now :beam: or do I mean it's a truism? There is a sense in which you can define 'well-educated' as being virtuous (because if virtue is absent, how could the education have been good?) The more pedantic your definitions, and the further removed from common usage, the truer the position becomes. In the common parlance sense of "does learning make people good" -- which was the basis on which I voted -- unequivocally NO. Some will use their learning to foul ends.
In other words, the formulation is its own refutation. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
Lawyers are quite educated, no?
Partially.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
How people initially responded to the posit was part of the idea being looked at.Quote:
Maybe I voted too early then, I just had the thought of a simple man(despite my good education) that you meant a good education means a man(or woman, don't forget about the women!) will turn out good, but we had quite a lot of bad people from good schools to prove that this is not necessarily the case I think.
There are at least two issues at work. One is the verbiage. Educate as "to lead out" and educated meaning 'to have been led out' entails a moral aspect in and through the relation and assumption of leading. "Well" reinforces the distinction between simply studied and the root meaning of educated. Virtue of course is also a moral designate. Therefore the posit could be taken as tautological.
The second issue is connected to the traditional notion of education that dictated pedagogy. Classically this can be seen not only in say the Greek sense of education "paideia" where moral inculcation was part and parcel of the concept, but can also be illustrated in core philosophical texts. A simple example would be Plato's Alcibiades I. The dialogue occurs between Socrates and Alcibiades* when the later considers himself as ready to enter into political life. The dialogue turns on Socrates stressing that Alcibiades must first know himself and the good before attempting a leaders' role. Alcibiades resists this idea and shows himself to constantly misunderstand core notions. In the dialogue he ultimately relents, but the historical record shows him to turn again to his impulses. Alcibiades is often seen as having been a creature of self interest often switching sides during the coarse of the Peloponnesian War etc.
The responses seem to indicate that the traditional notion of education has passed.
*Alcibiades was a handsome, wealthy, intelligent, aristocrat of Athens.
Alright, but how do people become virtuous if not through education?Quote:
Originally Posted by macsen rufus
No. Particular virtues are not relevant to the idea of whether virtue itself is necessarily tied to being well educated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Now there's a question for ya. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Isn't he currently serving in the US Congress? :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
I think this thread has been more about where we lie on the epistimological scale (traditional, core meaning or modern, generally accepted meaning) and less on our views of morality/virtue among political leaders (or even among educated people in general).
You are referring to education in the classical sense. In many ways, an education back then was an event, not a process. Upon completion of one's time at the academy, one ascended to membership among the ruling class (as opposed to the plebians), correct?
I thought one of the hallmarks of our society was that there was no such litmus test. Theoretically, a ditch-digger could be president in our society. Education in our society is about knowledge, not status, at least not theoretically.
If what you really intended was the use of the term educated in the sense of improved or civilized, then might I suggest you put forth the same posit, but substitute the term 'enlightened' for educated.
Just imagine two people go to the same physics lesson about nuclear devices, one of them then goes home and builds a nuclear reactor for the poor people in Africa and the other one goes home and builds a nuke to nuke the people in Africa...
The deciding factors are likely parents, friends and the general public/culture someone lives in, plus probably some biological/genetical factors.
Education in general has nothing to do with that, however moral education can.
I feel like I'm contradicting myself now, but somewhere deep in my brain I do have a point to make I think.:sweatdrop:
In school we often learned that violence is not an answer and issues should be discussed and not solved with violence but I cannot really say how that influenced me and others.
I do know that I adopted values from my parents but that fits the contradictory interpretation of the initial posit.
I think I have the usual blackout when it comes to such philosophical questions, I can find arguments for almost every thesis and all seem fine on their own but are contradictory as a whole. The answer is dependant on so many circumstances.
For example high-ranking Nazis were rather well educated IIRC but I wouldn't exactly call them virtuous. On the other hand there are thousands of people who are well educated and virtuous. But some of them are not virtuous again, they become arrogant and self-centered because their good education makes them think they are just better than others.:shrug:
The question does not look at economics or social stratification per say, but the meaning of to be educated. The notion of education necessarily entailing and informed by the moral is the traditional model that served until quite recently. This is one reason university (to turn as one)* is the word opted for to describe higher education.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
*This of coarse makes for an interesting notion when one sees the current fad of university diversity.
What I was angling at is demonstrated in the patricide scene in Gladiator. Two men, both educated, with wildly differing virtues. Your posit relies on a lot of relativistic language. What virtues must a man have to be considered well educated? Is there any doubt that both men in that scene are well educated?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
I think it is a double edged sword. You must learn what it means to be virtuous. I believe that virtue is taught in different ways than advanced shcholarship. On the one hand, I believe that an educated person is apt to be MORE virtuous or LESS virtuous than the average due to the (supposed)ability to avoid conflicting concepts. Therefore, the educated man is more like a tempered instrument of Virtue, Vice or callous indifference.
The more this topic goes on the more I see that I voted correctly .
For this....to become agreeable it should change to....the virtuous man must be virtuous .Quote:
Posit: the well educated man must be a virtuous man.
Ahh, a Ridley Scott man. If we follow the form put forward, our film Marcus Aurelius expressly states his son Commodus is not a moral man. Thus, Commodus would be an example of a failed education. It is because of this his father would deny him the purple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
The posit does not rely on a lot of relativistic language. The language is simple and the notion clear: the well educated man must be a virtuous man ( if A then B). The content of B is secondary to the claimed relation between A and B.
The assertion A must be A is certainly the case. But the posit may not be a simple identity correspondence. It may be one is a subset of the other. In other words: to be well educated includes more than virtue, but virtue remains a necessary element.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Try it the other way round Pindar , it works better .Quote:
It may be one is a subset of the other. In other words: to be well educated includes more than virtue, but virtue remains a necessary element.
But it is still flawed .
While the sets-subsets or whatever you wat to call them have a relation it is not exclusively so .
The virtuous man may not be an educated man.
Virtue is the key to the question, not education. Virtue sustains civilization regardless of education. Education absent virtue destroys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
See Divinus's post above.
Yep thats why I voted "disagree"Quote:
See Divinus's post above.
I want to believe in virtue, but my education points out that it may be a false position... the selfish gene will do all it can to spread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
If it is a successful strategy to spread ones genes then it will be done (and repeated). Also it might be a good idea to make ones competitors virtuous first and cuckolds second. :bow: After all, all is fair in love and war.
Then, no. I thought it meant that a well educated man should be virtuous. No, educated people are capable of evil, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
I am failing to see the point of 'educated' in this sense.
Educated evidently comes from duco meaning 'to lead' in Latin.
Now, since this is the Latin and not Greek, and we are referring to Socrates Greek. In this case, I would ask what the heck.
I understand well educated to mean taught by the best in the respective fields. Well educated in the sense that he was lead by a virtuous man, well that is a different kind of educated, and while we all may be Oxford professors, I doubt many of us are. There are connotations attached to educated, and a better word could have been picked. Better wording would have probably changed my vote.
In any case, my rant rolls on.
I think that a well lead man will not always be virtuous.
It depends on the personal history. Their ambition, mercy, aggressiveness, anger, hate, passion, and irritability. There are personal drives and ambitions that could be tamed by society, however, no matter how well lead a man is, the personality will shape his actions.
An educated man may also be mislead by others into performing an action termed 'virtuous' but in reality a gruesome vice. Murder, slaughter, Holocaust. A well educated man may by educated incorrectly (according to our standards) and thus by ill-educated.
:hanged:
Bad thread.
Very well. 'Well' remains. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
A man educated in a well, certainly must have deep thoughts - likely also dark and damp. Virtuous thoughts, possibly, but not necessarily, dependant on circumstance.
The conversation has, of course, moved on since I left it this morning, and intent has been revealed. Leaving me with naught but the Gregoshi gambit. :)
The punctuation-modified statement The well-educated man must be a virtuous man fails as a declarative truth for lack of evidence provided or proved, that a link exists between education and virtue.
But I acknowledge my ignorance of classical/ancient education modes and definitions that might prove otherwise.
Personally, I can't wait to see where this thread leads... 'if modern education does not lead to virtue...' 'can virtue be achieved in ignorance?...'
Don't tell me you never told your kids what's right and wrong and if necessary, um, reinforced the lesson, so to speak.:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
@ Papewaio
- Men aren't genes
- If Dawkins is correct, our genes don't give a ** about our individual survival. In which case we shouldn't give a ** about their survival :smug:
I agree we aren't our genes... hence my signature.
The form of virtuous is important. Whomever is gaining the benefit of this virtuous nature should be the provider of payment for the education. If it is for the sole (soul?) benefit of the person, then they should foot the bill. If it is for the benefit of the whole of society, then the state should be footing the bill.
Education for the person, payed by the person.
Education for the people, payed by the people.
One could hope that this were a truism for all those with advance forms of education. It is not. Or, that a majority of the educated had at least a higher degree of being virtuous than others. In my experience, virtue has less to do with ones education than it does with their personal experiences - family, environment, personality, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
The Liberal Arts are dying, greed is growing. Greed is the new virtue.
:balloon2:
Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
"to lead" in latin is "ducere", "duco" would be "I lead".
And for the rest I did a simple search for etymology and came up with this, which underlines my point. ~;)
Latinists usually call a verb by the first person present tense ('duco') instead of the infinitive ('ducere'). Bless my classical education.:beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Generally, a fellow with a better education, will be able to make a more informed decision over what choices they make in their life due to their expanded knowledge. It also makes such a character less easy to be manipulated by governmental propaganda and enables such a fellow to see past such campaigns.
In that respect, probably, it could be found that a character could be more virtuous.
However education is a major part of a character's virtues, yet does not make them up completely. For example a charitable fellow does not have to be educated to do that. Neither does an individual have to be educated to have the ability to save an individual's life, or help somebody out of trouble.
BTW, as you will probably noticed I, being the idiot that I am, voted for the first option by mistake.
You agree with this statement: "Education absent virtue destroys."?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
The 'point' of educated was noted in post 6.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
The philosophical framework of Rome was derived from Greece.
I see. Sorry to have failed to meet your standards.Quote:
Bad thread.
I don't know what the Gregoshi gambit is.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
This thread has already been deemed a bad thread, so your expectation would seem to be a mistake.Quote:
Personally, I can't wait to see where this thread leads... 'if modern education does not lead to virtue...' 'can virtue be achieved in ignorance?...'
I'm not a latinist, I just used to learn the language until I failed it completely.~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
And even latinists shouldn't be allowed to use wrong translations.:whip:
Aren't it usually the well educated fellows who produce the government propaganda in the first place? If government propaganda was made by little kids, noone would fall for it, I guess.~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites the Idiot
No this part....Quote:
You agree with this statement: "Education absent virtue destroys."?
Quote:
Virtue is the key to the question
I thought about this more than I ever intended to (which still wasn't a whole helluva lot), but I've come to the conclusion that "well" is the important qualifier here.
Can you be educated and not virtuous? Sure.
But if you're not virtuous, are you well educated? I think not.
Bad thread, shmad thread. It's not for MM to declare a thread bad and end it. If it's a bad thread, nobody posts in it and it dies a whimpering, cravenly though mercifully quick death. As the starter of more than a few of that variety, I should know. :clown:
Thinking about it more, I think Xiahou is correct. Pindar's posit wasn't 'the educated man must be virtuous' or 'the highly educated man must be virtuous'. By using the qualifier 'well', it would appear that Pindar is making a point about the inherent value of education and what it's root purpose is. I don't think this is a question that even comes up anymore. You ask the average university student 'what is the point of your education' and depending on their degree program you'll get:
Undergrad: To have a piece of paper so I can get a good job and make money.
Graduate: I want to own the place I work at one day.
Doctorate: I like university life. I want to be the chief egghead.
Notice that virtue appeared in none of the three responses. I suspect it is this, the modern attitude towards education: It's purpose and it's value, at which Pindar is driving.
In light of that, I'd like to modify my answer. "The well educated man must be virtuous" therefore must be a true statement. Well being an adverb describing the adjective educated, meaning done properly. If an educated is not virtuous, than his education could not have been a successful one.
Agreed. Modern education has lost some essential components of the original or classical notion of all-round schooling: physical, intellectual and moral (not in order of importance). These days there is too much emphasis on emotional education, which is a wishy-washy method to evade the real issues that children are confronted with as well as the proper ways in which adults should react to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Let me give an example from the life of my own kids. A kid's cat has died. In the classroom this event is treated like a major disaster. All other kids are expected to sympathise. Crying (even by other kids) is expected. Endless talk about it is encouraged. All emotions expressed are accepted and treated as equal. Morale of the lesson: loss of an animal is a total disaster, lack of emotional (self)control is a good thing, shared grief tops private grief and talking crap is OK as long as it expresses someone's emotional state.
I hate this. :whip:
My resort to punning (badly) on the word "well". The right honorable Gregoshi puns as a trademark. I'm admittedly in a much more minor league than he. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Point of order: A bad thread would have been closed. This one has not been.
I'm gratified to see the other posters scrutinizing "well". It's the tricky part of the posit, in my opinion. I will stipulate that a classically well-rounded education will most likely result in a virtuous man. But not always, because free will prevails. Exposure does not equal embracement or acceptance.
Unless "well" includes acceptance?
Yes." Well" is essential to the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Just remember: this is a bad thread.
Oh don't be like that Pindar. MM didn't mean any offense, he just seems to have an inherent knack for it (just look at how many toes he stomped on in the Jamestown thread :dizzy2: ).
I think the dawn is peeking through the fog and we're actually starting to get to what you intended for this thread when you conceived it. Don't abandon us now.
Correct. The massive disparity in the voting illustrates the change. This educational shift can be seen within the general curricula and stress of most universities in the States and elsewhere. Many of the comments seem to conflate studied with education and the qualifier 'well' wasn't mentioned/noticed in most replies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Just remember: this is a bad thread.
The comment was amazing enough it deserves to pointed out again and again and again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Of course I'm always happy to opt for:
"A light shineth in the dark and the darkness comprehended it not"
:sneaky: Interesting. Should I take this at face value or try to read between the, er, line?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Except for spoiler tags...
I see said the blind man.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
That was the intent.Quote:
I'm gratified to see the other posters scrutinizing "well". It's the tricky part of the posit, in my opinion.
"Well" is qualitative, informed by an eidos.Quote:
Unless "well" includes acceptance?
Nope , and the flaw in the postit (I invented those) has little to do with what you and Pindar seem to be focusing on in those last posts .Quote:
In light of that, I'd like to modify my answer. "The well educated man must be virtuous" therefore must be a true statement. Well being an adverb describing the adjective educated, meaning done properly. If an educated is not virtuous, than his education could not have been a successful one.
Ask yourself a question , a simple question ....
where would you find well educated men ?
I'm not sure I follow, Tribesman, but hopefully, one would find well educated men (and women for that matter) in all walks of life.
That is clear from this bit ....... in all walks of life.Quote:
I'm not sure I follow, Tribesman,
Remember a virtuous man must be open minded ~;)
So forget the academic side .
Where do you learn ?
when do you finish your education ?
Until you have finished your education you are not well educated , you are just on the road to it .
So ......where would you find well educated men ?
In the grave of course. Old Irish joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I see. I actually thought that's where you were headed, then thought, nah, couldn't be that.
What point could you be making with that, that the only virtuous people are dead people? I never had you pegged as a nihilist.
Actually its a little bit Buddhist don't ya think:laugh4:Quote:
I never had you pegged as a nihilist.
That's Gaelic Zen for ya, Don; it is practiced only in obscure masonic lodges in Galway. ~;)
Aw come on Adrian , I did say "little bit":laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Though if we want to explore Pindars "well" as the key then that can be quite deep , it can often be rounded and well developed bringing sustenance and nourishment to the people .Quote:
That's Gaelic Zen for ya, Don; it is practiced only in obscure masonic lodges in Galway.
Though when I read the inevitableMe thinketh whateth doeth that Pindareth be oneth , Yeah verily it shalleth be writteneth .....yum yum James Browns music is so fulfillingeth .Quote:
A light shineth in the dark and the darkness comprehended it not
So it doth leadeth to a philosophical supposit .
Simple question pindar , a Very simple question , relative to the subject .
.....(edited)
Now that would be a bad thread. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Don't drop your fox hat, Arthur. The point of this thread was to see if education and virtue had gone separate ways. Like Pindar I am quite surprised they have become so thoroughly dissociated in peoples' understanding.
Why are you so surprised ?Quote:
The point of this thread was to see if education and virtue had gone separate ways. Like Pindar I am quite surprised they have become so thoroughly dissociated in peoples' understanding.
The thing is, realistically, was it ever?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
I mean, look at all those nobles; I'm pretty sure they were taught by the Great Philosophers who created the Great Philosophical Works of the world and they weren't turning up as virtuous men in any abundance. Not unless you define virtue through The Prince or something. I'd rather consider the disconnect to be natural as higher education is less and less "classical" and more professionally oriented than it used to be "back in the day."
I'm curious, though, what does the "well" in "well educated" mean?
It's irrelevant anyway. The questions wasn't whether virtuous people are alive or not- it was whether well educated people are virtuous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I think this shift in understanding is really fascinating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Define education. Define virtue..and go. Being a good man is doing whats right you need not be educated. I would go so far as to say being educated leads people more to currption becuase they lose that little voice that tells them whats "right"
The meaning of education was explained: "Educated refers to its etymological base: to draw, lead or bring out or up". Virtue refers to the moral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Pindar, you used "coarse" instead of "course" twice in two different posts. Surely this was intentional. Or are you feeling a little rough around the edges?
I answered the question based on the pedagogical sense of the word, an immediately wondered if that was right. It is an interesting issue you raise. In Spanish, "educado" and "educacion" are direct references to a person's manners.
To answer the question directly, your statement in its absolute sense must be false, because good guidance does not always lead to virtue. But a good upbringing certainly increases the odds-- it would be hard to disagree with that.