Here’s an article that, I think, is on the right track (and a bonus—there is a Titus sighting!). But it it maybe does not quite clinch the argument. I think there’s a good case in here, but it doesn’t quite manifest. It needs to show what is not “in-person” about on-line education, and why that not being “in-person” is educationally inferior. I think the essay relies too much on a shared intuition that it is so.
The author says that each form of education “in its content and method of instruction, implies a philosophical anthropology.” I think that is true. But what might on-line education’s implied anthropology be? I think the beginning of an answer would take examine the senses (both the five external senses of sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste and the four internal senses of imagination, memory, cogitation or estimative, and common sense) that are neglected when learning through a network-connected screen, and which are utilized—or even over-utilized. Papadopoulos is right to focus on the neglect of the teacher and student’s body. More specificity about embodiedness and education would be welcome. But, what do you think?
I should say: I don’t mean to imply that Papadopoulos says nothing about on-line education’s implicit anthropology; he says it is gnostic. That seems like it is moving in the right direction. I would just like him to spell out that thought more!
I think Pavlos manages to make my gossip about gender-bending Marxism sound damned intellectual!
Also, I think people who say "philosophical anthropology" for anthropology protest too much!
Finally, I think you're right, Tom, we need to figure out how the morality & psychology of education can be articulated publicly. It's as badly needed as absent; unlike other cases, the absence of a public teaching here is quite damning, the situation is not taking care of itself, so to speak... One hopes people figure it out here or there, that's what freedom's for. But trouble like 2020 is national, there's no avoiding it, & there's precious little freedom.
My hunch here is that we've privatized morality to the point that it's hard to say publicly how people do & should behave. But also, that there's much in education that is private rather than public, so what would a public defense even be? In the psychological terms you set, how can we say students need to smell or touch each other? I think this is what kids call awkward & what adults call the cops for!