Dear Marion,

You asked for an explanation of my statement:

"Paideia is the specifically Greek interpretation
of all those pedagogical efforts with which an intellectual
and spiritual culture of a people is propagated from
generation to generation. Paideia has nothing to do with
punishment or violence."

The Wikipedia article about Paideia to which I sent you the link
should clarify the issue. If it doesn't, ask more questions.
It's my impression that the Wikipedia article largely reflects
Jaeger's thesis. Whether Jaeger introduced a new interpretation
or merely restated prevalent ideas with impressive scholarly
thoroughness, I don't know.

Obviously Jaeger's account of Paideia is inconsistent with the
Paideia mentioned the Septuagint version of Isaiah. Unfortunately
I'm ignorant of Hebrew, and can't have an opinion as to whether
the Septuagint is an adequate translation of the original.
But here is an English translation of the Masoretic text.

Isaiah Chapter 53 
1 'Who would have believed our report?
And to whom hath the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 For he shot up right forth as a sapling,
and as a root out of a dry ground;
he had no form nor comeliness, that we should look upon him,
nor beauty that we should delight in him.
3 He was despised, and forsaken of men,
a man of pains, and acquainted with disease,
and as one from whom men hide their face:
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried;
whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded because of our transgressions,
he was crushed because of our iniquities:
the chastisement of our welfare was upon him,
and with his stripes we were healed.
6 All we like sheep did go astray,
we turned every one to his own way;
and the LORD hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all. 

I believe these verses speak for themselves. The Christian
interpretation that Jesus was "the man of sorrows" whose fate
Isaiah prophesies is misleading and obscures the meaning
of the text, as I understand it. Isaiah is describing a social
and psychological phenomenon: Societies must control the actions
of their members. They do so by enacting laws. Compliance with
the laws is virtue, violation of the laws is evil. Because
humans are spontaneous creatures, total compliance with the laws
is ultimately impossible. It is unavoidable that laws should be
broken, and that lawful conduct then becomes to an extent greater
or less, an illusion. To maintain the illusion of legality,
societies require scapegoats on which to cast their fear and
their guilt.  The criminal is punished to set an example for
others. He or she is punished because each member of the jury
understands subconsciously that he or she might have committed
the same wrong.  Indeed, it is impossible for one person to
"understand" a crime unless he felt himself capable of committing
the crime himself.  That is why "punishment" is a moral incongruity.
It is in recognition of this spritual impossibility that Isaiah,
in subsequent verses of this chapter, relates how the LORD
rehabilitates the stricken one on whom was laid "the iniquity of
us all." That's what Albert was trying to explain to Doehring in
Chapter Seven of Die Andere. At the same time in describing this
scene, I was trying to point out that Jaeger's Paideia is
inconsistent with the Paideia, the "chastisement" to which Isaiah
refers.

======================

As for free will, or voluntary action, we must define what we mean
if we wish to avoid going around in circles. I define a voluntary
action as an action which may be done pursuant to or in conformity
with a verbal prescription. If I say explicitly or implicitly,
"I will take the bus to Harvard Square," and thereupon
take the bus to Harvard Square I do so pursuant to "free will."
Since animals cannot speak, at least not to me,
I am unable to determine whether or not they act voluntarily.

When I drive an automobile, I make every effort to keep the
car on the road. If by mistake I hit a tree, it's not because
I "want" to hit a tree. It's not an expression of "freedom of the
will." The logic breaks down because so much of my activity 
proceeds inadvertently and unconsciously. I do many things from
habit, without being aware of my action. I do not believe that
an action of which I am unaware can be done according to "free
will."

Can you give a definition of what you mean by "free will"?

Jochen