Good teachers get their students interested in the subject. That’s the best time to learn – when you want to. Great teachers can intrigue students who wouldn’t care at all otherwise. But when does the teacher decide to give up on motivating, and move to forcing? Surely not every student will get interested in every subject, even with the greatest teachers. So at what point does the teacher say, “Regardless of whether you want to, you’re learning this because you need it”?
Governments must deal with this too. Ideally there’s no discrepancy between what the people want and what they need, but we don’t always pursue what’s best for us. So how long does government try to convince its people to act a certain way before it coerces them? Parents probably face the same thing. Of course, I’m not accounting for bad teachers, governments, or parents – of which there are many – but that’s a different question.
NECA TMNT Toon “Binky’s Day Out” Slash V2
16 hours ago
1 comment:
I'm not sure about your contention that good teachers get students interested in their subjects. Maybe the best teachers do that, but it is entirely possible to teach well without that. I wasn't the slightest bit interested in Latin, failed it once and mostly got barely passing grades, but I learned a whole lot of it. for which I am grateful today. In my view, good teachers impart knowledge memorably.
You imply that force is not a motivator. It is routinely used as one, and seems to be very effective. It may not be the preferred motivator; we prefer it be the last resort, but policemen and armies are visible symbols of its omnipresence and effectiveness in our civilization.
The government convincing "its" people? In which country do you live? The US government is the People. We are not subjects of our government. We are not a kingdom or communists. We are a Republic of Laws. We yield some rights to our national government, but any right not specifically yielded to them is ours, or at least our state's. We are governed by consensus, not by fiat.
Each state is different in how it is governed, and some are more aligned with paternalistic thinking, specifically those called Commonwealths, and some of the Midwestern and Western States, but most are aligned with the US Constitution on the matter of subject versus citizen.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness does not mean that you must do what is best for you. It means you are free to choose what you want, whether you need it or not, whether it is "good" for you or not. I have seen many things go from good for us to bad for us and back again. I have yet to find a more satisfactory ruler than my own judgment.
Maybe you lived in France too long. When I think of France, I think simply of their legal system of "Guilty until proved innocent." Their thoughts on government are similarly incongruent with freedom, except the freedom to complain. The Zones which your friends called "the ghettoes", have another more interesting angle. The some of laws of France are not enforced there, or are enforced according to "community standards", and the police are constrained in their job by political expediency ("don't upset the neighborhood"). I was surprised that this did not come up when you discussed it with them.
The longer I live, the more I see that there is no one best way to live, and that the best Constitution in this world guarantees us the right to make our own best way.
Post a Comment