Page 153 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 3-4: Convention on the Rights of the Child: Educational Opportunities and Social Justice, eds. Zdenko Kodelja and Urška Štremfel
P. 153
teršek ■ public universities in post-socialist states could become ‘un-academic’ ...
small, even though important and substantial. In the first year of study,
what can a student expect?! Then you will have a graduate philosopher,
and you will ask him what the truth is like with Aristotle, and he will say:
I do not know. He had never even heard of Aristotle. But if you ‘tune in’
and ask him something about Lacan and Žižek, for that matter, he will say
everything by heart. Žižek and Lacan are not philosophers. This has noth-
ing to do with philosophy. It’s at most something like a cultural patch af-
ter psychoanalysis, or psychoanalytic theorising about culture and possi-
bly philosophy. But that is what we have.
And the result is...?
That we do not have a university. Death to the university. What is
the sign of the death of the university? The sign of the death of the univer-
sity is that when students fantasise about studying, they are actually not
reading anything. Today’s student body is not able to read a basic text, be
it Spinoza or the already mentioned, I love Aristotle! Be it Marx or an-
yone. They are unable to read, or rather they are not so read. And why?
Because the professors did not teach them to read correctly and truthful-
ly. Just as the students see themselves as students, the professors see them-
selves as professors. In fact, they are researchers, craftsmen and earners.
What is the result? What I call the death of the university. The problem is
that when you say it today, it is understood, interpreted and explained in
this way: oh, sorry, it is not entirely so, because your criticism is too harsh,
it’s not so bad, because you are exaggerating. No, that is exactly the point.
It is about the question of whether we are prepared to look at the ‘animal’
we are dealing with, this ‘human animal’, which is called a ‘social being’.
This ‘shoe’. This is what we are dealing with. It is no problem to say this
in technical language and say that we are dealing with technology, with
technical form and so on. The problem is that you have to bring it, as I
have done now, to the level of concrete people. In other words, it is about
my generation of professors, this story is about myself and about us. And
about the student population.
Well, it seems that nobody is really interested in it...
Look at what we are talking about today, but I bet there are not five
students who would stay here just to listen to this discussion. What does
that say? What we are doing, what we are talking about today as a prob-
lem is not a problem of the student generation at all, because the student
generation does not have a problem. And, all in all, it is about, it is not a
problem for them, but for us who are already leaving. In this sense, the fac-
ulty, the university, the academy is dead. There is no other way out than
151
small, even though important and substantial. In the first year of study,
what can a student expect?! Then you will have a graduate philosopher,
and you will ask him what the truth is like with Aristotle, and he will say:
I do not know. He had never even heard of Aristotle. But if you ‘tune in’
and ask him something about Lacan and Žižek, for that matter, he will say
everything by heart. Žižek and Lacan are not philosophers. This has noth-
ing to do with philosophy. It’s at most something like a cultural patch af-
ter psychoanalysis, or psychoanalytic theorising about culture and possi-
bly philosophy. But that is what we have.
And the result is...?
That we do not have a university. Death to the university. What is
the sign of the death of the university? The sign of the death of the univer-
sity is that when students fantasise about studying, they are actually not
reading anything. Today’s student body is not able to read a basic text, be
it Spinoza or the already mentioned, I love Aristotle! Be it Marx or an-
yone. They are unable to read, or rather they are not so read. And why?
Because the professors did not teach them to read correctly and truthful-
ly. Just as the students see themselves as students, the professors see them-
selves as professors. In fact, they are researchers, craftsmen and earners.
What is the result? What I call the death of the university. The problem is
that when you say it today, it is understood, interpreted and explained in
this way: oh, sorry, it is not entirely so, because your criticism is too harsh,
it’s not so bad, because you are exaggerating. No, that is exactly the point.
It is about the question of whether we are prepared to look at the ‘animal’
we are dealing with, this ‘human animal’, which is called a ‘social being’.
This ‘shoe’. This is what we are dealing with. It is no problem to say this
in technical language and say that we are dealing with technology, with
technical form and so on. The problem is that you have to bring it, as I
have done now, to the level of concrete people. In other words, it is about
my generation of professors, this story is about myself and about us. And
about the student population.
Well, it seems that nobody is really interested in it...
Look at what we are talking about today, but I bet there are not five
students who would stay here just to listen to this discussion. What does
that say? What we are doing, what we are talking about today as a prob-
lem is not a problem of the student generation at all, because the student
generation does not have a problem. And, all in all, it is about, it is not a
problem for them, but for us who are already leaving. In this sense, the fac-
ulty, the university, the academy is dead. There is no other way out than
151
