Someone begins a paper like this?
Punch, vividly fantasize about your demise, what’s the difference. I don’t have students anyway–unless you want to do a role-playing scenario, in which case I’d be perfectly fine. You’re lucky I don’t precisely go into details about that- lucky, unlucky.
Anyway, for Dewey education and philosophy are nearly synonymous, and that sounds pretty right. It depends on what kind of mask you want to wear, because education is about masks. That’s because certain levels of people are more apt to want to punch you rather than learn if you do adjust to them. I don’t do that at all, for better or worse. I just try to be a normal person who is talking to an equal – I know that sounds odd from me. Philosophers are similar to Talmudists in being extreme unequalists (and hiding it well). How can I talk about them without talking about this quality of theirs? They’re crypto-snobs, actors. Philosophy can be characterized as art in this sense. They give you a “beautiful image” of education, and that will of necessity involve a distortion of the Idea. The problem is, in many cases, if you give them the Idea without an admixture of beauty, they’ll want to punch you. Slander you, scapegoat you, etc. That’s why I don’t really consider myself as addressing that level of learner at all. In order not to lose self-consciousness you need to have a subdiscipline within philosophy that does not contain an admixture of beauty at all. Am I an ugly monster? Yeah maybe I am, and that’s fine with me, because it’s necessary. We’re talking about the pinnacle of all the systems of knowledge – that is something sacred that I try to guard. Seeming like an evil, vile person is just part of the job that I’m willing to accept. (Like usual) you’re not going to see this in a philosophy of education book, because it itself is pedagogical. Due to the professional philosopher’s boundedness to the demos, there is a certain necessary blindness that culture will have, and I’m not content with that. Go ahead, punch me, I don’t settle for culture being blind. And the people who’ve fantasized about my death over the years must really cherish their blindness. This is the kind of thing Badiou would say in his book on this subject if he weren’t such a system-man. What is Philosophy? might as well be titled What is Art? in his case, whether knowingly or not – an admixture of beauty due to the demos being sewn to him. His soul is fused with them probably. You can’t truly answer that question if those are your conditions. Speaking of rigor, one must begin not from the principles of the Revolution. Yes, they had that revolution, and yet the reality of the opposite of its principles remained.