(Original post by Georgecopter)
Children shouldn't be taught anything then, and simply should be allowed to find the ideas for themselves. It worked before
Read my later posts and quit misrepresenting what I'm saying for ****'s sake. Who said anything about children? Or about education? In fact who said anything about this applying to anyone beyond me? Everyone else can do whatever they wish; I personally have had a tendency to end up believing, for a short while until I sort myself out, whatever arguments I've been reading at the time (not anymore, but I put down Utilitarianism a utilitarian, On Liberty a liberal, Exisentialism and Humanism an existentialist, the Rebel a rebel, etc etc. Although I didn't put down the Republic agreeing with any of it, thank God)
As for children's education, children should at most be guided in exploration of ideas rather than "educated" or "taught", notions which are very disciplinarian and restrictive.
(Original post by Time Tourist)
Well your original remark seems to be saying - I don't read (books on anarchy) because I want to be an original thinker and come up with my own ideas - fine original thought is obviously essential if your going to have anything worthwhile to say at all. But since when was self imposed ignorance a pre-requisite for original thought? Or since when was studying a hindrance to it?
Not self-imposed ignorance. Some ideas need to follow on from other intuitive principles to seem "right". It's not like I don't feel the need to
. And it's not about "being an original thinker", it's just that if one is simply inclined
to certain beliefs and then reads a lot of what other people have believed about them then one is in danger of arriving at those beliefs without proper examination and without use of one's own faculties.
Of course you can argue that you can still use your own faculties to engage in consideration and analysis of others' work and I don't disagree. But AFAIC there's something very personal and to a degree intuitive about political persuasions, particularly since they derive directly from moral ones. I'm not arguing that you should never
, and I have every intention of reading a great deal about anarchism. I just think that at first you have to consider yourself, your thoughts and your relation to the world on a basic level and reading theoretical works can take you away from the reality of your own
situation and your own
The argument that they do seems to be embraced because if removes you from the burden of studying the work of 'dead old men' (note the contempt there)
That's what you'd like to think, but that actually has nothing to do with the validity of my position. I read a lot
of political philosophy, most of which I disagree with, and the more I know why
I disagree with it the more I know what it is I actually believe (that is it's probably more useful to read stuff you disagree with than stuff you agree with).
Please quote me if you want a reply.