corrupting the youth

[coberst]

“corrupting the youth”

Science informs us that we are creatures who have evolved over a period of billions of years. Our human nature has many traits, all of which are the products of these years of evolution.

I suspect that every trait we have can prove to be both positive and negative to our welfare depending upon our understanding, personality, character and how we nurture those traits. It seems to me that our task is to learn what these traits of nature are and, as much as possible, “to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative”.

Two characteristic traits of human nature that I would like to dwell upon are our inclination to acquire and to know.

It is easy enough to understand our acquisitive nature, without it we, like the squirrels, would not survive the winter. I find that our desire to know requires a little more effort to comprehend.

The Greek philosopher Socrates admonished his fellows that “the unexamined life is not worth living”. I think that he had discovered a very important aspect of our innate desire to know and wished to inform all of his fellows of that insight. For his efforts his fellows decided he was “corrupting the youth” and he was required to drink a cup of hemlock.

Aristotle, Plato’s pupil, begins one of his books with “all men by nature desire to know”. He went on to express his conclusion that knowledge is an end in itself. He says that not only is knowledge a good in itself but that knowledge is the highest end of human achievement.

I am convinced that virtually every mature adult can learn to understand the meaning of these claims but no individual can be taught to understand their meaning.

I shall repeat my last sentence. I am convinced that virtually every mature adult can learn to understand the meaning of these claims but no individual can be taught to understand their meaning.

What do I mean by such an unseemly statement? I conclude that there is a fundamental difference between being taught something and in being a self-learner of something.

To be taught indicates a relationship between a teacher and a pupil. In such a learning mode the pupil understands that the subject matter is to be learned because the teacher is teaching it. A teacher teaches pupils that which the teacher knows and desires the pupil to know. Only as a self-learner will I seek and find disinterested knowledge.

Understanding the meaning of the words of these two philosophers is a slowly developing reality. The self-learner must assimilate much through self-learning to reach this degree of understanding. I like to use the analogy of creating a work of art using papier-mâché. Not only is the object formed slowly piece by piece but the object is created in every way during the forming process.

When I am doing “self-learning” and when I speak so favorable about self-learning I am speaking of disinterested learning i.e. learning only for the sake of knowing. I self-learn so that I might gain knowledge for the sake of knowing and understanding. Self-learning can produce knowledge that is a value in and of itself. Self-study for the purpose of accomplishing some task does not qualify as disinterested learning.

It seems to me that our culture has corrupted education to be only a means for acquisition to such an extent that it has totally masked the nature and process of disinterested learning. In our quest for more material things we have narrowed the meaning of education to such a point that all education, all learning, is merely a means to an end. We learn so as to become more efficient acquirers. We do not even comprehend why one might seek disinterested knowledge. We do not even comprehend the nature of disinterested knowledge.

[chonsigirl]

"We do not even comprehend why one might seek disinterested knowledge. We do not even comprehend the nature of disinterested knowledge."

I totally disagree, otherwise people would not pursue higher educational goals. If they did not want to learn, they wouldn't be there.

We do understand the nature of "disinterested" knowledge- I assume you mean the other courses required to broaden a students school career, the electives. Those are some of the best classes taken by students, and they show immense interest in them. I assume the majority of my college students will be taking my class next month, History of Science, because they are interested in finding out about it-and learning the scientific principals also. Otherwise, they would have selected another class to take.

Education and learning is not as negative as you portray, cobesrt.

[coberst]

I think that understanding and disinterested knowledge are the two sides of the same coin. I am sure that people on occasion bother to understand a domain of knowledge for reasons other than a desire to understand. Every specialist probably learns to understand his or her specialty and they have been led to do it because it is an instrument serving a career purpose.

I think that a person strives to learn disinterested knowledge because they wish to understand that domain of knowledge. I do not think many people bother to study something that does not have a valuable payoff in money unless it is to understand. I would not learn to “do” calculus except that it is necessary to being an engineer. I would, however, study calculus if it helped me understand mathematics. Every engineer, when asked if s/he could “do” math would respond yes. Every engineer if asked do you understand math would answer quickly, are you kidding me.

It seems that someone always goes into orbit when they see words like ‘all’ and ‘every’ and claim the broad brush fallacy. Please do not bother because I recognize that there are no absolutes even though I write sentences that may contain such words.

Disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term 'disinterested knowledge' as similar to 'pure research', as compared to 'applied research'. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.

I think of the self-learner of disinterested knowledge as driven by curiosity and imagination to understand. The September Scholar seeks to 'see' and then to 'grasp' through intellection directed at understanding the self as well as the world. The knowledge and understanding that is sought by the September Scholar are determined only by personal motivations. It is noteworthy that disinterested knowledge is knowledge I am driven to acquire because it is of dominating interest to me. Because I have such an interest in this disinterested knowledge my adrenaline level rises in anticipation of my voyage of discovery.

We often use the metaphors of 'seeing' for knowing and 'grasping' for understanding. I think these metaphors significantly illuminate the difference between these two forms of intellection. We see much but grasp little. It takes great force to impel us to go beyond seeing to the point of grasping. The force driving us is the strong personal involvement we have to the question that guides our quest. I think it is this inclusion of self-fulfillment, as associated with the question, that makes self-learning so important.

The self-learner of disinterested knowledge is engaged in a single-minded search for understanding. The goal, grasping the 'truth', is generally of insignificant consequence in comparison to the single-minded search. Others must judge the value of the 'truth' discovered by the autodidactic. I suggest that truth, should it be of any universal value, will evolve in a biological fashion when a significant number of pursuers of disinterested knowledge engage in dialogue.

[chonsigirl]

What is truth?

[coberst]

chonsigirl wrote: What is truth?


A good question with which to start your quest!