How would people like to define for me the differences between indoctrination and education? Religion seemed a good place to base such a thread.
As a basic starting point ... As basic starting points, I submit: • Objectivity: Indoctrination has no objective basis, it is purely subjective. Education tends toward the objective. • Functionality: Education generally lends toward broader function. Indoctrination shows a more consistent result of restricting function. • Contiguity: Education should be contiguous; disciplines should contribute toward each other and thus a greater whole. Indoctrination does not require consistency between its aspects; indoctrination may contradict itself. And here's a specific bone I'll throw out: • To Kill A Mockingbird, Catcher in the Rye, et al v. The Bible: Even the subjective-seeming portions of education, insofar as we observe the above criterion, attain a certain objective validation. Literature is a great example. First off, who says the great novels are the great novels? Follow any literary award, whether it be the Hugo, Stoker, Nebula, WFA, Iowa, Nobel, or Pulitzer, ad nauseam, and you'll find that it's all just someone's opinion. For instance I would teach Joyce Carol Oates, Jack Cady, and Ray Bradbury were I a lit professor; let someone else teach Hemingway and Twain and William Dean Howells. But who says Joyce Carol Oates, Jack Cady, or Ray Bradbury are good? It's subjective, right? Well, I could point out Cady's winning of the most prestigious short-fiction award in the nation (Iowa Award '72), or that Joyce Carol Oates is a professor at Princeton who also happens to blow most writers' and professors' minds, and Bradbury ... do I have to explain? It's that these writers--specifically, their stories--achieve a certain objective validation by their appeal. What, then, does that say of the prowess of a Stephen King, or a Judith Krantz? What does that say of the validity of the Bible? On the one hand, I would say that people are, generally, stupid. What passes for opinion these days is recycled hack. Like I lamented the other night, one of the brightest people I know, with a prestigious degree, has in this Afghani Bush War become a freaking robot. Not an opinion coming out of him that isn't borrowed, bought, or begged. That speaks for Stephen King and Judith Krantz. How many people here have read Jack Cady or Joyce Carol Oates? On the other hand, how many have read Bradbury? I'm not sure that the entire book sales of Cady and Oates put together would equal, say ... King's The Stand. That is, their entire catalogs against one book. People are stupid; thank God there's a Bradbury or Barker who can bridge the gap between ideas and pop-culture; in that sense, there is great appeal. It's a "family story" if it's Bradbury, but at the same time it's a lesson in how to write a story. It's perverse and horny if it's Barker, but at the same time nobody can weave the way Clive does. Period. But what of the Bible? Here's the relevant question. In the sense of education and indoctrination, what I would point out is that education, being objective and diverse, grants liberty. I'm sure that if I treated Charles Dickens like the Bible, I could give you a child that kills himself at 19. If I treated Judith Krantz like the Bible, I could give you a slutty, stupid daughter who winds up pregnant at 16 and dead by twenty. Is it education if you're taught to not explore it? Reflecting on faith is not the same as reflecting on education. Reflecting on faith is often mere affirmations of the existing unit. Reflecting on education allows for growth of knowledge. That the Bible can affect as many people as it has does not objectively validate it the way such popularity objectively validates literature, cinema, or other arts. Literature is to be explored. The Bible is to be believed, or else. Indoctrination makes the decision for you. Education helps you understand there is a decision to be made. Two cents or so. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
ah, spring break... I think I'll post to a topic that hasn't been flogging a dead horse for a while. The difference between indoctrination and education is that indoctrination's goal is to promote loyalty for a person or cause. Education's goal is to promote a person's own abilities. Note that these two goals are not mutually exclusive. Usually they both give out information, and in either case the information may or may not be true. The intent is the primary difference. To bring this back to religion, indoctrination needs to be involved to some extent in all religions. Promoting a loyal following is not necessarily a bad thing. People associate indoctrination with brainwashing, or otherwise deceiving someone to believe that a corrupt cause or person is actually a good one. However, there can be some extent of education in religion as well, particularly in the history and culture of a people or region. Religion as well, may promote or hinder the pursuit of education depending on what the status of humans is in reference to the world and its god(s), and what the religion demands of its followers. For instance, if a religion demands a follower to never use anything that is powered by electricity, then advances will probably be poor. If on the other hand the religion commands its followers to "subdue the earth", then it promotes scientific experimentation and exploration and hence, education. (I think that's enough to spark a thread)
Oh, both very nice responses. Very nice. Keep up the good thinking. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
quote First off, who says the great novels are the great novels? ---------------------------------------- Oh I agree as I find some of the so called great novels boring and have my own selections. Deep thread smiles let me think it over before adding my humble opinion
Re: As a basic starting point ... *Originally posted by tiassa I'm sure that if I treated Charles Dickens like the Bible, I could give you a child that kills himself at 19. If I treated Judith Krantz like the Bible, I could give you a slutty, stupid daughter who winds up pregnant at 16 and dead by twenty.* Given your opinion of the Bible, you'd be lucky if either made it to the age of two. *Originally posted by justagirl "All religions based on the Bible ignore the parts they don't like and accept the parts they do like.. Then claim the Bible is the word of God" Justagirl * What parts are the ignored parts in the case of, say, Christianity?
