Re:Deschooling Society (1970)
by dragonwriter on Tuesday July 14, 2020 @01:36AM
(#23828859)
> - to change a diaper
> Ok? What if one never intends to have kids.
Then...one should still have that skill. I mean, I didn't have kids until my 40s and the only decade of my life where I didn't apply that skill was the first.
> -plan an invasion
> For goodness' sake, why is that important outside of the military?
It's not, but Heinlein—and while some of the list might be more Long-the-character than Heinlein though the broad outline is clearly Heinlein, including at least the outline of the military focus of not the particular examples—(hardly uniquely in US history, one might note—this was a common belief among the founders) viewed military service, including leadership, as something one should be prepared to assume at need (whether on behalf of or against one’s government, as dictated by the need) not a profession for a distinct and isolated caste whose skills the rest of society could afford to neglect, and viewed the contrary view as incompatible with liberty. (I imagine that, had our adulthooda overlapped, as they didn't quite, I'd have been pretty far from Heinlein politically. But on this point, we could agree.)
> The Great War should have cured him of this dream.
That someone should be prepared to die gallantly at need does not imply that the Great War (or war generally) is particularly the occasion where such death was most likely to be called for. Certainly while Heinlein clearly believed it was possible that that could occur, one could hardly read his body of work without recognizing that he saw that possibility outside of war and, likewise saw much, if not most, death in war as pointless and unnecessary.
> Anchored in the past and a different priority system.
It may have been written a half century ago by someone whose formative years were a century ago, but I don't see anything particularly dated about it. It may speak to a different set of ideals than you hold, but I don't know why it is surprising or irritating that disagreement on that level exists.
Then...one should still have that skill. I mean, I didn't have kids until my 40s and the only decade of my life where I didn't apply that skill was the first.
> -plan an invasion > For goodness' sake, why is that important outside of the military?
It's not, but Heinlein—and while some of the list might be more Long-the-character than Heinlein though the broad outline is clearly Heinlein, including at least the outline of the military focus of not the particular examples—(hardly uniquely in US history, one might note—this was a common belief among the founders) viewed military service, including leadership, as something one should be prepared to assume at need (whether on behalf of or against one’s government, as dictated by the need) not a profession for a distinct and isolated caste whose skills the rest of society could afford to neglect, and viewed the contrary view as incompatible with liberty. (I imagine that, had our adulthooda overlapped, as they didn't quite, I'd have been pretty far from Heinlein politically. But on this point, we could agree.)
> The Great War should have cured him of this dream.
That someone should be prepared to die gallantly at need does not imply that the Great War (or war generally) is particularly the occasion where such death was most likely to be called for. Certainly while Heinlein clearly believed it was possible that that could occur, one could hardly read his body of work without recognizing that he saw that possibility outside of war and, likewise saw much, if not most, death in war as pointless and unnecessary.
> Anchored in the past and a different priority system.
It may have been written a half century ago by someone whose formative years were a century ago, but I don't see anything particularly dated about it. It may speak to a different set of ideals than you hold, but I don't know why it is surprising or irritating that disagreement on that level exists.