While I agree with your assessment of the educational system in "How we confuse symbols and things", I believe that preparing the masses for deep critical thinking might be utopian - not desirable for them nor for the already educated people.

Firstly, thorough education is more expensive than simple fact-feeding (it takes longer, and also takes away time from facts with immediate survival/economic value). Secondly, it tends to awake the lust for the "pure", not "applied", research. However, if we all preferred intellectual inquiry to boring dirty work, then we intellectuals would likely starve to death. A stable society (unfortunately) requires more worker ants than queens. This is a rather trivial observation, so I'm surprised that you didn't consider it at any appreciable length in your article instead of suggesting conspirationally that the miseducated masses are being exploited by the "vested interests" of certain institutions.

In short, intellectual work is a precious luxury for few (as it has always been), not a commodity for all. You have taken an observed fact and described it as though it were the only possibility. If this were a valid position, black people would still be slaves and women would not be allowed to vote ... or speak in public.

Everyone in the west believes they have the right to think and express opinions. This represents a huge change from 1600, the year Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake. Not everyone exercises the right, but the fact that it exists represents a revolution in the making. The next step might be some intellectual preparation for exercising the right.

Rights that aren't exercised tend to wither away, and thinking is not a priesthood.

Let me outline the possibilities as I see them...

First I will translate my reasoning to match your examples more closely:

"Black people must remain slaves because making them free would not leave anyone to do the unwanted slave work." That's not a translation, it's an editorial comment that bears no relation to the original point. It suggests, without saying so, that an underprivileged underclass is necessary for there to be another class free to think and speak. That is a point you want to make, it is not remotely associated with the present topic (education). But of course, you can give the same slave work to a "free" black person who is "just" too poor to delegate it. Is this your "other possibility"? It's your straw man, not mine. This replaces debating with posturing. "Women must not have the right to vote because giving them voting power would not leave anyone willing to do parenting and house chores." Same reply — this is editorializing, not translating. But of course, women may pursue political careers, provided that they leave their less desired work to a "free" baby-sitter/housemaid who is "just" too poor to delegate it. This is orthogonal to the original point, which is that people have the right to think and act on their thoughts, and that the present educational system represents an obstruction in the way of that goal.

Besides, what better assurance of women's rights than a woman actively raising children who is also free to think, speak and protest? Or a blue-collar worker who is educated well enough to articulate the grievances of his class?

Whatever else one cares to say about education, it's cheap — being poor isn't an obstacle to finding an intellectual voice. Harvard isn't cheap, but Harvard doesn't define education. A better definition might be Abraham Lincoln reading by candlelight after a day working in the fields. So it seems that what happened in the "progressing world" is that we substituted "poor people" for "blacks" or "women". The balance was restored again. I doubt that you would suggest substituting "poor people from abroad" for the uneducated Americans? Only if the argument made sense. It doesn't. The only reason American steel workers are out of work is because there is an exploitable, cheaper alternative overseas, not because domestic steel mills couldn't produce steel. Eventually the steel workers in the Third World will recognize their situation for what it is — naked exploitation. They will realize this by way of education, which returns us to the original topic.

In case you think this imagined future too optimistic and without historical precedent, consider the evolving behavior of the west's oil suppliers.

As to the balance being "restored again," your thesis seems to be that society is a beam balanced on a fulcrum, and if the right-hand side becomes heavier, the left-hand side must become heavier to compensate. As it turns out, the point of balance can be independent of the beam's length, e.g. how much distance between the richest and the poorest. That distance can change without upsetting the balance. If this is not the alternative on your mind, what is the better option? Perhaps you deny my premise that intellectuals are discontent with certain types of work that non-intellectuals can find more acceptable? This leaves the topic behind. Both classes would benefit from appropriate preparation for life in modern times. This doesn't deny class distinctions, it recognizes them. And there is no more certain risk to a class system than education. Remember Napoleon's remark: "Religion is the only thing that keeps the poor from killing the rich." No one is likely to confuse religion with education.

Also, as to the somewhat fishy distinction between intellectuals and non-intellectuals, for me the real distinction is between those who expect to be able to make their own informed choices, versus those who feel they must consult experts at every turn.

Another distinction is between those who expect to produce original thoughts, versus those who expect only to absorb and replay the thoughts of others. The latter group can convincingly masquerade as intellectuals as long as the topics under discussion don't leave the collection of ideas typically delivered in a college classroom.

My point is that discussions of society's class structure often fail to accurately identify the classes as an essential first step. Everyone in the west believes they have the right to think and express opinions.

Not so - this is a biased statement of a well-off person who is entitled to such belief. You didn't read it as I wrote it. I didn't say that everyone in the west thinks and expresses opinions. I said they recognize that the right exists. Obviously not everyone is in a position to exercise the right, in public, on a soapbox. This represents a huge change from 1600, the year Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake. Not everyone exercises the right, but the fact that it exists ...

It is hardly as common as you make it out to be. We are not discussing the exercise of the right, we are discussing its existence. You are confusing an action with a principle, and ironically you quoted my words that make this exact point. In many social contexts, expressing your opinion and right to think can cause direct harm to you. Voicing one's opinion is a world away from exercising the right to think. And anonymous public comment and secret balloting are available for those who cannot afford the luxury of public protest. I'm not talking about academics here, how about low-wage blue collar workers who can be fired on the spot for disagreeing with their boss - because they are replaceable. See above. The right to think and speak has obvious limitations: shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, libel and slander, and the personal cost of arguing with one's employer. But the right remains, and it can be exercised anonymously where necessary. This has been true since colonial times. Everyone in the west believes they have the right to think and express opinions. This represents a huge change from 1600, the year Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake. Not everyone exercises the right, but the fact that it exists represents a revolution in the making. The next step might be some intellectual preparation for exercising the right.

This sounds very optimstic. How can an obviously hypothetical remark about "intellectual preparation" be described as "optimistic"? A fire drill isn't a fire. Rights that aren't exercised tend to wither away, and thinking is not a priesthood.

On this I agree.

My wish was not so much to condone the current sad state of affairs, but to point out that your article seemed a bit too simple. Yes, it is, by design. I wanted to meet the expectations of members of the group for whom the original article was written. I would otherwise be preaching to the choir.

... That is a point you want to make, it is not remotely associated with the present topic (education).

This is my point indeed. It is associated with the topic of education as follows: my thesis is that the improvements in education along the lines you advocate in the article, just like removing slavery or increasing voting rights, would not solve the problem (of exploitation), only shift the burden onto some other people. You're missing the key political point of education. Without education, people have no idea what their rights are. With education, if someone is exploited, it is by choice, not because they have some distorted idea that they deserve to be exploited.

Education leads to volition, choice, informed consent. And I can anticipate your reply — that people will be exploited anyway. And my point is that no one can be resigned to exploitation who understands the system and their position within that system.

Remember that kings insisted on their divine right to rule, and black people were told they deserved their position (and were forbidden to learn how to read). Education cancels out these particular injustices. There will always be injustices, but at least we can identify some of the more egregious ones. It works when there are those "some other people" willing or forced to accept the burden, but you didn't consider who they might be (in the article you didn't even consider that there is a burden to be shifted). That's because it isn't necessarily true. Your thesis is that there will always be an ignorant underclass. My thesis is that education helps everyone and alleviates the kind of injustice that springs from ignorance. Obviously these two points aren't in opposition and we are to some extent talking past each other. Maybe I read too much into your ideas. However, advocating someone's right to something seems only valid if the consequences of them actually obtaining and exercising this right are positive overall. I can't believe you said that. We don't have the right to make that judgment on behalf of other people ("only valid if ..."). All we can do is get out of people's way as they acquire an education, then let the chips fall where they may. The alternative is indistinguishable from fascism. Otherwise it is just politics - one group gains, another loses. It is only in the narrowest sense that politics is a zero-sum game. Big-picture politics, like a free market, can lift all boats. Compare the western system, with all its flaws, to the system in place in the former Soviet Union. Churchill once described democracy as the worst form of government — except all the others. Besides, what better assurance of women's rights than a woman actively raising children who is also free to think, speak and protest? Or a blue-collar worker who is educated well enough to articulate the grievances of his class?

I don't dispute that women and black slaves benefitted in your examples. My point is that it occurred at the expense of another group of people. Certain types of simple, unappealing work must be performed by someone. Your zero-sum game thesis doesn't hold water. It fails to take automation and computers into account, as well as a shrinking of the distance between the richest and poorest (when this happens).

The second trend is obviously not happening right now in the U.S. (quite the reverse), but I'm addressing the principle that a perfectly realistic society can exist without stretch limos driving past chain gangs. Whatever else one cares to say about education, it's cheap — being poor isn't an obstacle to finding an intellectual voice.

Here again I think you are too optimistic. I am only saying education is cheap, nothing else. It's one thing to recognize how efficiently a useful education can be imparted, but quite another to confront those forces that would prefer a large class of uneducated, exploitable underlings. It is neither optimism nor idealism to express a principle. In my view being poor is a great hindrance to any intellectual endeavors. True and irrelevant. The real issue is not difficulty but accessibility. If a particular class of people are prevented from accessing education, whatever difficulties lie down that road become irrelevant. I am not poor and therefore can invest daytime into reading your intriguing pages about calculus and why the sky is dark. I can also rest well at night. However, were I poor, I would not be able to afford any such daytime intellectual adventures, and I would likely be more, not less, disinclined to pursue them after hours. History seems to confirm this: what fraction of renowned scientists/philosophers has managed to rise up from the poor? Guess what? There is scant correlation between scientific achievement on one hand, and social class and privilege on the other. Most scientists through history have been poor, including Newton and Einstein. (Newton rode his scientific reputation to the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer after his most productive years has passed. Einstein was always poor.)

As to philosophers, well, as a class they are even less well-to-do than scientists, for the reason that what they do is spectacularly unproductive. Harvard isn't cheap, but Harvard doesn't define education. A better definition might be Abraham Lincoln reading by candlelight after a day working in the fields.

I am not talking about spending money on prestigious degrees - here I agree with you heartily. In today's networked world self-education is more viable than ever, except when you cannot find a minute for it because you have to work really hard to earn a living. To look at this in a slightly different way, it shouldn't be too easy. There are plenty of wealthy kids occupying desks in universities who have no aptitude for study, and others who would jump at the chance to acquire an education but who are barred at the door. As to the balance being "restored again," your thesis seems to be that society is a beam balanced on a fulcrum, and if the right-hand side becomes heavier, the left-hand side must become heavier to compensate. As it turns out, the point of balance can be independent of the beam's length, e.g. how much distance between the richest and the poorest. That distance can change without upsetting the balance.

Ok, so you are basically proposing to shift the rich to compensate for the poor's advances. Not at all. That's your straw-man tendency again, not remotely my position. Don't you realize that everyone benefits from an educated population, that it isn't a zero-sum game? Look around. The increased productivity of educated workers produces a net societal gain with no downside. To bring the topic back into the original context, you'd advocate that today's intellectuals take over some of the non-intellectual jobs (or simply pay for them more) to compensate for the non-intellectuals joining their ranks. You really need to try to stop constructing straw men. You just tried to assign a position to me that I have never taken. This addresses my "not everyone can sit around thinking about the dark sky" objection. It's not an objection, because it's orthogonal to the topic. It's not an argument either for or against a renewed emphasis on education. Even so, several points remain: 1) do the non-intellectuals want this advance? 2) are they capable of making the leap? Again, we don't have the right to make any kind of conclusion on behalf of other people. If we build the water trough and the horses can't be bothered to come over and take a drink, at least we tried. We certainly don't have the right to make assumptions. I think that the first point is not completely the same as asking "do the poor want to become rich?" As we realize, being unreasonable and intellectually lazy can make people happy (or at least content), unlike being poor. Providing them with true education might paradoxically mean taking away some of their freadom (the freedom not to think). That's a perverse twist that I personally would have been embarrassed to render. It fails any close examination. Besides, very intelligent people often shut down their brains as a survival strategy. So I think this one is moot. The second point concerns biological diversity. It is undisputable that not everyone is equally capable of becoming a professional athlete. The same is true for intellectual achievement (even in the sense of "rational thinking"). Yes, but the availability of education doesn't meddle in nature's business, because on a level playing field the more qualified will achieve more. We can call "evolution-neutral" any system that offers the same opportunities to all. Opportunity should be equal, and the rest is up to nature.

Your basic thesis, expressed in a number of different ways, is that the intellectuals should decide for the rest what their possibilities are. Now that really does meddle with nature. Both of the above points combine in my mind to a cliche of a good-hearted aristocrat whose idea is to help the poor masses by sharing with them some of his learned thoughts and some of his possessions, only to become ridiculed by his peers and mugged by his benefactors. To do the right thing, your hypothetical aristocrat only needs to stop blocking the road. You act as though the rich have to put themselves out to allow the poor access to education. You very clearly don't know the history of higher education — it was until recently a privilege of the ruling class and unavailable to anyone else. That history has distinct echoes in the present. Both classes would benefit from appropriate preparation for life in modern times. This doesn't deny class distinctions, it recognizes them. And there is no more certain risk to a class system than education. Remember Napoleon's remark: "Religion is the only thing that keeps the poor from killing the rich." No one is likely to confuse religion with education.

Do you wish, in metaphorical sense, that the rich be killed? Remember that Napoleon had no exposure to democracy. In a democracy, people figure out that the only difference between themselves and Bill Gates is a series of chance occurrences. On that basis, the poor won't kill the rich, because the only thing separating them is a few throws of the dice. My point is that discussions of society's class structure often fail to accurately identify the classes as an essential first step.

I agree with the way you make these distinctions, but also insist that intellectuals are interested in a wider range of exotic, unpractical topics than non-intellectuals. Practicality can't be established in the present, and until some decades have passed, pure research always looks like a waste of time. The black-or-white categorization into two classes is of course oversimplifying, but I think that it aids rather than hinders our present discussion. I think the opposite. I think a discussion that hinges on the existence of social classes conceals more than it reveals, especially in a western democracy where, in a manner of speaking, the borders aren't patrolled.