The well educated and the virtuous

[Tribesman]

The more this topic goes on the more I see that I voted correctly .
For this....

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

to become agreeable it should change to....the virtuous man must be virtuous .

[Pindar]

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?

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.

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.

[Pindar]

The more this topic goes on the more I see that I voted correctly .
For this....Posit: the well educated man must be a virtuous man.
to become agreeable it should change to....the virtuous man must be virtuous .

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.

[Tribesman]

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.

Try it the other way round Pindar , it works better .
But it is still flawed .
While the sets-subsets or whatever you wat to call them have a relation it is not exclusively so .

[Divinus Arma]

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.

[Pindar]

Try it the other way round Pindar , it works better .
But it is still flawed .
While the sets-subsets or whatever you wat to call them have a relation it is not exclusively so .

See Divinus's post above.

[Tribesman]

See Divinus's post above.

Yep thats why I voted "disagree"

[Papewaio]

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

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.

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. After all, all is fair in love and war.

[IrishArmenian]

No.



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

Then, no. I thought it meant that a well educated man should be virtuous. No, educated people are capable of evil, too.

[Marshal Murat]

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.



Bad thread.

[KukriKhan]

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



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.

Very well. 'Well' remains.

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?...'

[Adrian II]

Very well. 'Well' remains.

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.

Don't tell me you never told your kids what's right and wrong and if necessary, um, reinforced the lesson, so to speak.


@ Papewaio

1. Men aren't genes
2. 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

[Papewaio]

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.

[KafirChobee]

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

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.

The Liberal Arts are dying, greed is growing. Greed is the new virtue.

[Husar]

Educated evidently comes from duco meaning 'to lead' in Latin.

Wrong.

"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.

[Adrian II]

Wrong.

"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.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

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.

[Pindar]

Yep thats why I voted "disagree"

You agree with this statement: "Education absent virtue destroys."?

[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.

The 'point' of educated was noted in post 6.

The philosophical framework of Rome was derived from Greece.

Bad thread.

I see. Sorry to have failed to meet your standards.

[Pindar]

Very well. 'Well' remains.

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. :)

I don't know what the Gregoshi gambit is.

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?...'

This thread has already been deemed a bad thread, so your expectation would seem to be a mistake.

[Husar]

Latinists usually call a verb by the first person present tense ('duco') instead of the infinitive ('ducere'). Bless my classical education.

I'm not a latinist, I just used to learn the language until I failed it completely.
And even latinists shouldn't be allowed to use wrong translations.

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.

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.

[Tribesman]

You agree with this statement: "Education absent virtue destroys."?

No this part....

Virtue is the key to the question

[Xiahou]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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.

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.

[Adrian II]

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.

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.

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.

[KukriKhan]

I don't know what the Gregoshi gambit is.

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. :)

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?

[Pindar]

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.

Yes." Well" is essential to the point.

Just remember: this is a bad thread.

[Don Corleone]

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 ).

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.

[Pindar]

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.

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.

Just remember: this is a bad thread.

[Pindar]

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 ).

The comment was amazing enough it deserves to pointed out again and again and again.

Of course I'm always happy to opt for:

"A light shineth in the dark and the darkness comprehended it not"