Quote:
|
second, sakky views the world through his own lens. for him, education is a means to an end, and money is the only end that "really matters in the real world".
|
Again, wrong. Please point to the quote where I said that money is the "only end" or the only thing that "matters in the real world". Oh, can't do it, can you?
What I said is that money is
one thing that matters. Obviously plenty of other things matter too, and I never claimed that they didn't.
Ben, in the future, if you want to debate me, I have a word of simple advice to you. Debate what I
actually said. Not what you apparently want me to say, but what I
actually say.
Quote:
|
i think the general response to this is, you can feel free to live in your own little real world where all that is true. it's not a real world that's particularly relevant to most of us. and the fact that you keep repeating that "most people this" and "most people that" isn't fooling anyone, as Laura said. nobody thinks you have privileged epistemic access to other people's values and desires.
|
Interesting that you would make such a statement when both of you have attempted to claim that I made statements that I never actually said. Ben, by all means, feel free to live in your little world where you think I made statements that I never actually did, and where you apparently think you have epistemic access to what I actually believe.
Quote:
|
but for saying that the emphasis on intellectual rigor throughout the rest of MIT is a practically meaningless social fad.
|
Again, I never said it was 'meaningless'.
But to the notion of it being a 'social fad', why that so controversial, except for the verbiage that is being used? Look, the fact is, rigorous intellectualism is a cultural trait just like any other social characteristic. That hardly makes it 'bad', it just means that it is subject to the same social pressures that other characteristics are. To say otherwise - that it is not subject to any social pressures at all - now
that would be a deeply controversial statement.
But I think you have not addressed the key point, which has to do with the
boundaries of rigor. Sure, rigor is great for those who can handle it. But what about those who can't? It is precisely for those who can't handle the rigor is why having safety nets around is a great thing. Sure, if you don't need the safety net, then you don't care. But what if you do need it?