The well educated and the virtuous

[Pindar]

Posit: the well educated man must be a virtuous man.

[Conradus]

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.

[Pannonian]

Posit: the well educated man must be a virtuous man.

Have you seen this gem in the News of the Weird thread?

65 million $ for missing pants wants a lawyer from a cleaning company.

[Don Corleone]

Posit: the well educated man must be a virtuous man.

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..

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.

[Vladimir]

What are the virtues of a well educated man?

[Pindar]

Is this educated in Socrates' sense of 'he who knows what is good, will act good' or educated as in learned, scholared?

Educated refers to its etymological base: to draw, lead or bring out or up.

[Papewaio]

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.

[BigTex]

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.

Posit: The well educated man must should be a virtuous man.

I'll agree with this. But so should everyman regardless of education strive to be virtuous.

[AntiochusIII]

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?

[Kralizec]

Educated refers to its etymological base: to draw, lead or bring out or up.

I believe bad upbringing is a major cause of antisocial behaviour and crime, or if you prefer, "vice".
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.

[Pindar]

What context is this "must" in?

Does this "must" equate to the well educated man should strive to be virtuous?

No.

Or is this "must" simply an agreement, i.e. the well educated man is by default virtuous?

Correct. The posit is: to merit the label 'well educated' requires the inculcation of virtue.

[Soulforged]

Posit: the well educated man must be a virtuous man.

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.

[Hosakawa Tito]

There are no absolutes, however I believe that the simple man is more apt to be virtuous...

[KukriKhan]

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?

[Vladimir]

There are no absolutes, however I believe that the simple man is more apt to be virtuous...

There are absolutely no absolutes.

[Pindar]

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.

Educate is taken as its base meaning: to lead out and virtue is moral standing.

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?

I will not yield 'well'. It is essential to the posit. The adverb is being used as: proper or sufficient.

Whether one has attained this quality may be subjective, but the relation of well educated to virtue can be evaluated independent of a subject.

[Husar]

Oh, a grammar thread.
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.

[Vladimir]

So no ruling on what virtues they're supposed to have huh?

[Adrian II]

Posit: the well educated man must be a virtuous man.

Agreed. Well educated implies virtue inculcated.*

* Children are born little bastards; their egoism, egocentrism and desire for instant gratification must be beaten out of them

[macsen rufus]

I think you're treading close to circular reasoning now 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.

[Lemur]

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.

Lawyers are quite educated, no?

[Pindar]

Oh, a grammar thread.

Partially.

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.

How people initially responded to the posit was part of the idea being looked at.

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.

[Adrian II]

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.

Alright, but how do people become virtuous if not through education?

[Pindar]

So no ruling on what virtues they're supposed to have huh?

No. Particular virtues are not relevant to the idea of whether virtue itself is necessarily tied to being well educated.

[Xiahou]

Alright, but how do people become virtuous if not through education?

Now there's a question for ya.

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.

Isn't he currently serving in the US Congress?

[Don Corleone]

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.

[Husar]

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.
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.

[Pindar]

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?

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.

*This of coarse makes for an interesting notion when one sees the current fad of university diversity.

[Vladimir]

No. Particular virtues are not relevant to the idea of whether virtue itself is necessarily tied to being well educated.

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?

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.