CL>Part 2 continued from previous message
CL>In focussing attention on the "educated person", Peters
CL>rightly identified it  as a concept which is laden with
CL>positive value, and that the value is intrinsic. In this
CL>sense of "education", we do not attempt to become educated
CL>as a means to something else, such as a job, but because the
CL>qualities of the truly educated person are just those that
CL>are desirable for a person to have.
"In this sense" is the operative phrase.  In
practice, this may NOT be the primary motive..
CL>For this reason, education doesn't have an aim, or extrinisic, or
CL>instrumental  purpose, and this distinguishes it from training,
CL>which always does.
Based solely, however, on the limiting nature
of the "in this sense" phrase, and not upon the
reality of education....
CL> As a result of making comparisons between the "educated
CL>person" and the "trained person", Peters concluded that the
CL>following three conditions were  necessary to the correct
CL>application of the most central meanings of the word
CL>"education":
I always become concerned when someone else makes
an attempt to tell me what is "correct"...  ;-)
CL>that "education" implies the transmission of what is
CL>worthwhile to those who become committed to it;
Only partially.. Often it is the transmission of
what someone ELSE thinks is worthwhile to those
who become committed to it...
CL> that "education" must involve knowledge and understanding
CL>and some kind of cognitive perspective, which are not inert;
"Inert"?  Definition in context required...
CL> that "education" at least rules out some procedures of
CL>transmission, on the grounds that they lack wittingness and
CL>voluntariness on the part of the learner.
Huh?  Where does THIS come from?  I don't get all
the ramifications of this, but it seems clear 
that this means that the learner must accede to
every piece of knowledge conveyed to him or her,
and I don't think that is either necessary OR
traditionally true...  Many of the "lessons"
conveyed are additudinal, or non-obvious at the
time of transmission, and may not be "understood"
until later...
CL> Some interpretation of these conditions is necessary. In
CL>the first condition, for example, "the transmission of what
CL>is worthwhile" is not just a transmission of whatever those
CL>in power might like to think worthwhile, it is  the
CL>transmission of a commitment to the pursuit of truth, and to
CL>the quest for  the best standards of reason for seeking the
CL>truth. This, in turn, is to be  interpreted in terms of
CL>traditional ways in which the truth has been pursued,
CL>which comes out as something like the traditional academic
CL>disciplines.
"Not just"... Non-exclusive phrasing..
CL>Truth is of value for its own sake.
Value judgement.. While I agree with it, there is
no reason why EVERYONE would, or does...
CL>This knowledge and understanding must make a difference to 
CL>the person.  They must be transformed as a result of 
CL>acquiring it -- be different for it, and act differently 
CL>because of it.
This bites off a great deal... "Make a difference"
is pretty vague... "Transformed" is also....
"Act differently", as a requirement, is not a
realistic expectation, though it MAY happen.  For
this to occur, the individual has to understand the
information, accept it fully, and become convinced
that the application is worthwhile to him/her...
I don't think that is a necessary condition.  It
may be sufficient for the individual to consider
an idea or set of ideas; to discuss them, to look
at how they relate to his/her own situation.
There is no requirement that the knowledge become
affective, or manifest itself overtly, imo..

.
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------