Karl Popper / Allen Bloom Why indeed would scholars, teachers, journalists, parents and other close observers of society be surprised that many young people are, as Bloom says, given to go along "day by day ... gratifying the desire" that occurs to them in serendipitous moments? The list of possible answers to the question of why many students are not "furnished persons" would be a long and complex one. Clearly there are a multitude of distractions and digital device addictions that today's young people are caught up in, and that is just one answer to the question posed in the sentence above. But moreover, this paper delves into the subjects raised by Karl Popper and Allan Bloom -- and how those messages relate to the way Plato approached teaching the young.

Allen Bloom's Approach to Young People and Democracy

Before delving into Bloom's ranting about education and students, in answer the first question posed in this assignment -- should the government, or teachers, or the culture, take responsibility for guiding students to be "furnished students"? An old fashioned response would take the position that families have the responsibility to lead students; not the government, not teachers, not local church leaders or politicians. But on the other hand, should government leaders just sit idly by and let young people find their own way through the maze and mistakes of youths' formidable years? If government spends taxpayer money on educational services of any kind for young people that should be considered a positive action -- if the educational services make common sense and reach the underserved as well as the students from affluent families.

Meanwhile, one of Bloom's salient arguments is that there has been a decline in the "intellectual foundations of Western civilization" (Edington, 1990). And according to Edington's scholarly critique of Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, Bloom says the decline of Western civilization is not due just to "simple neglect" nor is the decline due to the "inevitable evolution of historical world cultures" (Edington, p. 2). Rather, the decline comes from philosophical issues; that is, the Socratic tradition has been eroded, Bloom contends. The Socratic Method relates to the close examination of ethical and moral issues that may be challenges and discussed in serious tones. In the Socratic Method, problems are broken down into a serious of pertinent questions to be approached and answered.

What Bloom explains is both esoteric and somewhat mysterious. He claims the erosion of culture resulted from " ... deliberate attack upon the idea that the highest life consists in the pursuit of truth" (Edington, p. 2). Hence, Bloom asserts, the universities aren't doing their jobs, and though the students are victims of the fact that universities won't give them the right of free inquiry, "We are all the ultimate victims" because universities are not guaranteeing "an atmosphere of free and vigorous inquiry," Bloom insists.

Given that Bloom died in 1992, how valid are his points about universities and students? He claimed in the 1987 that liberal democracy is "in danger" in the U.S., but if he were alive today he would witness far more evidence that democracy is in danger. The "Citizens United" decision by the U.S. Supreme Court -- which has allowed millions upon millions of dollars to be funneled into political campaigns with absolutely no accountability of where the money (called appropriately "dark money") came from -- seems a far more brutal attack on democracy than Bloom's perceived notion about universities.

Students are Preoccupied with Themselves

Of course it is easy to take issue with boldly radical philosophical pronouncements made 30 years ago, especially when assertions like Bloom's seem nearly outrageous today. But there is truth to the argument that a sizable number of today's students -- whether it is the university's fault or the fault of families and society -- are self-absorbed to the point of being out of touch with history and society.

Plato references Socrates' discussion of the two different types of young people, and it is worthy to raise at this point in the paper. One student is brought up in total leisure and freedom and studies philosophy to enhance his character and his ability to see society and history as clearly as possible. However, bright as that first student might be, he can't make a bed or speak with articulation. The other character in this Socratic picture can do all the menial things, like make a bed and get chores done competently,...

" (Rozema, 1998).
Which of these two individuals would / could make the greatest contribution to society in 2016? The answer has two parts: a) in order to develop the technologies to make life better for society -- and even find cures for cancer and other horrible diseases -- the first person would appear to be able to make worthwhile contributions to society. So what if he doesn't wear the best clothes or bathe as often as he should -- or can't keep his car clean or freshly maintained? If he has the innovative talent and the has done well in relevant class work at the university, and can roll up his sleeves after graduation and apply himself thoroughly, he has a greater chance to succeed and benefit the society than the person who has talent at basic skills such as making a bed and cleaning a house or car.

Today's College Student: Self-centered yet Competitive

Let's say that Bloom were alive and in touch with his senses and his intellect at an old age; what would he see in today's student population? He would see what any objective observer can see, that today university student have " ... forty percent less empathy than people their age did two to three decades ago" (Huffpost College, 2011). The 40% figure came from a University of Michigan research study that found today's student is " ... far less likely to make an effort to understand their friends' perspectives or to feel tenderness or concern for the less fortunate" (Huffpost College).

Of course Bloom might suggest that the reason today's student is so self-absorbed is due to the failure of the university's failure to install the Socratic Method in class work and courses. The objective response to what Bloom might say is that he is way out in left field. The problem isn't a lack of serious questioning in philosophy classes; the problem goes a lot deeper than that. According to that University of Michigan research project, the problem relating to a lack of empathy can be traced to "increased media exposure and more competitive social environments" (HuffPost).

The bottom line for today's student and how students are seen is explained in the title of this group (prior to the millennials) -- "Generation Me." This is one of the most " ... self-centered, narcissistic, competitive, confident and individualistic [generations] in recent history" (HuffPost).

A key ingredient in today's self-centered student is what the report called "increased media exposure"; which apparently boils down to the enormous power of social media, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and email, and the power of smartphones. Stand outside a university classroom when students are departing and count how many students instantly pull out their smartphones to see what someone has texted them, or what is outrageously being shared on Twitter. A sizeable majority of students at some point between classes will in fact consult with their smartphones in some fashion, or actually make a phone call to another person.

It isn't what Bloom thought -- ignorance and avoidance of Socratic thought or the Socratic Method -- but rather it comes down to the psychology of social status.

The Psychology of Social Status

In a way, Karl Popper had it right when he uses the idea that knowledge grows through a process of "conjectures and refutations," and a social setting must be present that allows the free flow of ideas in any open society (Lam, 2013). Students today certainly have that social setting, but conjectures and refutations may not be of great concern to them.

In the case of today's university student, the social setting is often found through social media. That's not what Popper had in mind when he said that an open society does create political and social demands on people (in this case, students); and education "has a key role to play in its maintenance and development" (Lam, 845). Popper said that "... teachers are duty bound to educate young people to think critically, so they can make a contribution to the Open Society in the future" (Lam, 845).

Those student filing out of class looking down at their smartphones are not thinking critically; rather, they are experiencing freedom from rules and learning they can do without. Their "open society" is social media's lure and gossip and ultimately power, which resembles what they perceive as a free society. Popper said a liberal is a man " ... who values individual…