Learning Methods (2)

Jia L (John) Han

Let us consider some common learning methods. First is rote learning. A classical example of rote learning is schooling in old China. In premodern China (until about 1920), teachers instructed children (as young as 5 years old) to memorize Chinese classics but did not (or rarely did) explain the meaning of the classics. Thus learning is just memorizing the texts. Only years later children began to learn the meanings of these classics. Ancient Chinese classics, Confucious et al., have some value but very little from the viewpoint of pure political philosophy. All of Confucius’s works combined are worth perhaps a small paragraph inside one of Plato’s many books. For the meaning of Chinese political works in the context of political philosophy, you might want to read [1-5]. So ancient Chinese political philosophy has very little to offer and role learning makes sure to kill students’ curiosity and creativity from a very young age.

The second learning method we consider may be explained using natural sciences or engineering fields as an example. Consider a student studying physics. What is required from the student is to comprehend the meanings of definitions and relevant laws and then apply them in practical situations. You probably know this learning method well. Although this method is useful, it does not encourage creativity. Because most physics laws are fixed (well, largely fixed; remember A. Einstein?) and if you try to be creative you almost certainly would be wrong and fail your grades and courses.

After many years of learning (training), you are likely to perform routine scientific and engineering tasks well. You become a good scientific worker but not a scientist because a scientist is expected to make new contributions to science. Einstein was able to make breakthrough discoveries because he was able to keep his curiosity alive and went outside the box that everyone else did not dare to challenge or was not even aware of. Only a very small number can make important, truly original contributions. If you are interested in this topic, I recommend you to read [6] and think carefully.

The third learning method is Socrates’ dialectics. At a glance, Socrates’ dialectics is deceptively simple. However, it is not easy to explain it clearly. And no matter what I try to explain Socrates’ dialectics, there is always a danger that you misinterpret it. Therefore, I suggest you learn through practice with the help of some books. Relatively simple books such as [7,8] might do. Note that Socrates had almost no doctrines. And Socrates’ learning method is OPEN while rote learning is CLOSED and the above scientific learning is LARGELY CLOSED (because you learn what scientists have already discovered earlier). A different way to understand Socrates’ learning method being open is that Socrates proposed no (or almost none) doctrine. Think about this point carefully.

In the real world, students may use some combination of the above three methods.

It should be mentioned that the so-called material dialectics by Karl Marx has no value whatsoever. In other words, material dialectics is not dialectics in the classical sense. You may think this way. Marx’s material dialectics is a doctrine. As a doctrine, it kills off any creative thinking. It seems that Marx himself did not understand Socrates’ dialectics. For if Marx understood it, how could he name his stupid reasoning dialectics? It does not make sense.

Aristotle

Many of you probably do not know much about Aristotle. On the other hand, almost everyone knows Galileo. Remember that Galileo went up to Pisa Tower and proved that Aristotle was wrong? Aristotle claimed that a heavy object would fall faster than a light one. Galileo was a great scientist and made important contributions in experimental physics. Galileo also made great contributions in astronomy. From the above, Aristotle made a mistake. However, Aristotle’s academic contributions are much greater than Galileo’s, perhaps an order of magnitude greater.

1. Aristotle proposed a classification scheme that formed the base for all academic disciplines later. Without this classification scheme, Galileo might not have had the opportunity to focus on physics as a discipline.

2. Aristotle pointed out the social sciences, i.e. those involving humans are harder to study than natural sciences. A conclusion challenged by French 18th century famous philosophers and thinkers. It turned out Aristotle was correct while these French thinkers were wrong.

3. Aristotle proposed formal logic for reasoning. A well known form is syllogism.

There are many stories concerning 3). Every early generation Mainland Chinese should know the nationwide discussion starting from 1978 about TRUTH (实践是检验真理的唯一标准). This logic statement is so wrong that any student who has studied the entry level logic course should be able to point out the errors, not just one but several of them. Please refer [9] for details. It is astonishing that all scholars and professors in Mainland China have no basic logic training! (It is possible that a few did but did not dare to speak out.) Entry level logic is required for discrete math, theoretical computer science, and philosophy. Furthermore, math to Mainland Chinese is almost exclusively calculus. However, calculus is useful mainly in physics and various engineering fields. For many other fields logic is much more important.

Aristotle was the person who introduced logic. Reasoning and logic in Socrates and Plato’s work are hidden. Not only Aristotle’s works were important for many to understand Plato’s work. Logic was instrumental to establish the rule of the law in Western Europe. Pope Gregorian V II started far reaching reformation/revolution in 1075. In order to achieve this, the first modern universities were established in Europe [10,11]. One cannot emphasize enough the importance of the rule of the law. Without the rule of the law, liberal democracy is not possible. Initially half of these university textbooks were either Aristotle’s books or based on them. The importance of Aristotle’s contributions should be clear. China is well behind the West in development of political order, probably 2500 years behind [4,5]. On the rule of the law, China is even further behind [12]. Another note: Russia failed the democratic transition after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I think part of the reason is that Russia never had the rule of the law.

Now turn to the quotation before:

“Plato is regarded by many as the greatest philosopher of all time; it has been said that all philosophy is merely a footnote to his work.” [13,p22]

You may wonder that Aristotle’s work is still a footnote to Plato’s work, considering that Aristotle is so great? To a certain extent, yes. For example, I have read Aristotle’s Politics, a classic even today. I can see why it is notes from Plato’s work. Perhaps clearer is the early universities used Aristotle’s works not Plato’s. This was that it was much easier to work with Aristotle’s works rather than Plato’s. However, Plato’s works contained almost all ideas in Aristotle’s works.

References:

1. 韩家亮：中西政治哲学之辩 http://hx.cnd.org/?p=145481

2. 韩家亮: 从四方面看马克思主义的反动（4）http://beijingspring.com/bj2/2010/280/44201944334.htm

3. 韩家亮: 比较马克思主义与儒教（5） http://beijingspring.com/bj2/2010/280/410201954706.htm

4. 韩家亮：政治哲学发展一览 http://hx.cnd.org/?p=186764

5. Steven B. Smith, "Political Philosophy," Yale University Press, 2012.

6. Thomas S. Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," University Of Chicago Press; 3rd ed. 1996.

7. Bryan Magee, "The Great Philosophers: An Introduction to Western Philosophy," Oxford Paperbacks; 2nd edition, 2001.

8. Ted Honderich, “The Philosophers: Introducing Great Western Thinkers,” Oxford University Press, 1999.

9. 韩家亮：真理、真理的检验与数理逻辑的关系 http://my.cnd.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=37884

10. 韩家亮：欧洲大学创建与法学起源 http://hx.cnd.org/?p=175797

11. 韩家亮：浅谈现代法治的起源 http://hx.cnd.org/?p=176151

12. 韩家亮：法治的思考和探索：西方、中国 http://hx.cnd.org/?p=176571

13. John Perry, Michael Bratman, John Martin Fisher, “Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings,” Oxford University Press, 7 edition, 2015.

Links:

1. 韩家亮: 俯瞰法治的发展：法制的起源

2. 韩家亮: 俯瞰法治的发展：雅典

http://www.chinainperspective.com/ArtShow.aspx?AID=191855

1. 韩家亮：俯瞰法治的发展：复兴 http://chinainperspective.com/ArtShow.aspx?AID=194037

2. 韩家亮: 俯瞰法治的发展：宗教（一）http://chinainperspective.com/ArtShow.aspx?AID=194132

3. 韩家亮：俯瞰法治的发展：西方与伊斯兰 http://chinainperspective.com/ArtShow.aspx?AID=194331

4. 韩家亮: 马克思哲学的错误（6) http://beijingspring.com/bj2/2010/280/417201944723.htm