Learning without a teacher

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Learning without a teacher

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 it. 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.

[Questions for discussion]

Do you think serious self-learning after schooling is complete is important?

Why is learning “disinterested knowledge” important?

Do our schools teach students to understand or just to know?

Can a person learn serious domains of knowledge without a teacher?

2

Very important post. Good on you!
I think that if one introduces the metaphysical equation into this discourse, what you are driving at may become a bit clearer

Consciousness exists. Humans are just one expression of it.

Nature is always the teacher. We learn by trespass (mistake). Non-trespass is Nature’s primal law. One intuitively senses trespass - even as young as three years old. Keeping the right side of the brain exercised and learning to trust the subtle “hunches” of the intuitive half of the psyche is what self-learning and self-awareness is all about.

From this perspective what you are talking about is intuitive knowing as appposed to purely analytical deductions. Unfortunately our school system concentrates almost entirely on left brain indoctrination and rote memory.

Precisely! Let us examine those traits,
Let us say we accept 2.5 million years as the start of a distinctly human consciousness and twenty five years as a generation span. Then human consciousness has been evolving for some 100,000 generations. So added to all three billion years of genetically-imprinted previous experience is the on-going meta-normal evolution of human consciousness. During that time we have experienced four distinct Age changes of the collective consciousness - both in social cooperation and metaphsyical understanding.
99,000 generations were invested in the Stone Age as hunter/gatherers/animists, with our intuitive powers remaining more or less as distinct as an animal’s. The trait that distiquishes humans from animals and which forms the root cause of our rising consciousness, is the sharing ethic. Learning and understanding the advantages of meticulous sharing within the family group (beyond the basic mother/infant stage) is what separated us from the rest of the primates and made us self-conscious. All our basic mechanical ingenuity was laid down in that first Age, devising tools. weapons, traps, snares, poisons, the use of fire etc.

The Bronze Age of agricultural disciplines changesd the basis of the survival paradigm. A quantum leap in intelligence was required to transcend the relative nature of time and space - leave the here-and-now immediacy of the animal/hunter and become a farmer, able to look expectantly into the future and see the potential harvest of collective effort. The 600 generations we invested in the Bronze Age succeeded in imprinting a chore-based work ethic in our common gene pool. Dealing with the liions imprinted our courage.

A hundred and sixty generations of Iron Age national industrialization imprinted all of us with an ethic of concientious craftsmanship - with our honesty towards the self and the collective as we labored at the grind-stone, rigidly administered by the servants of an omnicient God who was capable of sever punishment for any and all transgressions. Learning to love God, showed us how to love man. This emotion inspired artistic expression to greater heights - and thus man embellshed his creations. Love then was the dominant ethic of that religiously scripted Age and thousand of martyrs died for it on principle…

The last hundred generations of scientific enquiry has sharpened our analytical faculties and allowed us to question unsubstantiated religious dogma.

So these are the basic vital traits that make us human and such a successful specie, with a brief explanation of how and when they came about:
Sharing. Chore-based Work. Courage. Conscientious Cafstmanship. Love. Artistic vision. Intellectual enquiry.

There is no escaping it - it is merely a matter of degree. The more consciously one takes on the task the more vital one becomes.

Without it, instead of becoming a sage as one ages, one slips into Alsheimers.

Its mainly left brain teaching. All the arts that inspire right brain activity are either secondry or removed from school altogether. Religoius training which encourage spiritual awareness is banned entirely.

Not if one wants to remain a wolf boy. Its not that we have to teach an ape from birth with every new-born child, Learning is a process of re-minding the child just who he or she really is - of evoking social and spiritual knowledge that was imprinted via trial and error during our entire evolution. In this respect, next to Mother Nature, parents and siblings are vital. Then comes experiences in relationship with: clan, nation, international mixing and globalization. The death bed teaches the final lesson.

3

I think it is perfectly possible to be taught and be interested in learning for learnings sake. And I think it is perfectly possible to self-learn and not be learning for the sake of learning. What is important is your reasons for learning a particular thing - if you are doing it for some other end, then you don’t need to be taught to do this.

Obviously, the value of teaching is dependent upon the value of the teacher - but I suggest that the best way to learn is a combination of the 2. A (good) teacher is valuable in that they can steer you in new directions better than you maybe can yourself, they can clear up misunderstandings and, most importantly, they are somebody you can bounce ideas off. Of course, you’ll get further if you learn on your own as well as be taught, hence why the combination is the best.

I think what our schools and colleges teach us is completely dependent upon what we want to be taught. If we desire to understand we will, speaking as a current university student I know plenty of lecturers who want students to understand. If we just want to know stuff to get jobs or whatever we’ll do that instead.

I think when it comes to areas such as physics its a lot harder to learn on your own, as an example nobody who isn’t willing to learn a lot of maths will be able to understand quantum physics properly. I remember reading a book about Schrodingers cat and proudly telling my dad (Phd in related area) I understood it only to be told I didn’t at all and wouldn’t without all the maths! And these academic maths books tend to be prohibitively expensive and utterly dry.

Summing up, my basic point is that whether you are self-learning or being taught doesn’t really mean much with regards to why you are learning - obviously its your own intentions that decide.

4

Irving says–“Summing up, my basic point is that whether you are self-learning or being taught doesn’t really mean much with regards to why you are learning - obviously its your own intentions that decide.”

Children are not able to make such decisions. I suspect we may have to leave to the schools the preperation for a career and that after schooling is over then the adult must begin the process of self-actualizing self-learning.

Disinterested Knowledge: Mixing bowl of creativity

Instrumental knowledge is interested knowledge. Instrumental knowledge is the life blood of a value system that places the maximizing of production and consumption as “Number One”.

Disinterested knowledge is the un-knowledge, it is the non-instrumental knowledge. Disinterested knowledge is an alien and clumsy word in a society that places maximum value on production and consumption. Disinterested knowledge is not a catalyst of production and consumption but it is the catalyst of creativity. Disinterested knowledge is the mixing bowl of creativity.

Creativity is the synthesis of the known into a model of the unknown. The value of the unknown is yet to be determined. Creativity requires a comfort with the unknown.

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.

In our consumer society, disinterested knowledge is seldom a matter upon which institutional education will waste time. Disinterested knowledge is the province of the self-learner. I think of the self-learner of disinterested knowledge as driven by curiosity and imagination to understand.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.

“When God wanted to create the world, the conservative angels, with tears in their eyes, shouted to Him, ‘Lord, do not destroy chaos.”—Mark Van Doran

5

=D> Excellent post.

It’s more than important. It’s human nature to be curious but our schooling system and culture kills that curiousity. So by the time we’ve finished schooling most people have lost it completely.

For the self-satisfaction. Teaching yourself something and really learning it is one of the best feelings a human can feel. Plus, it’s what human evolution is really about; learning knowledge that is not neccessarily important to our survival. But on the other hand, it helps us in time of distress when our basic survival skills are useless.

I think they have the intention to teach us to understand but it ultimately comes down to the motivation of the student. But they way the go about doing it, gives the student no motiviation…it has to be self-motivation. The schooling system conditions us at such a young age that there’s no need to teach ourselves. That the answer is always right there in front of us (ie the teacher). So we’ve been brought up to believe that there’s no need to teach ourselves anything because the answer will be at our disposal.

That’s the only true way to learn.

6

spw

The goal of an intellectual life is similar to the goal of the artist. Understanding is the goal of the intellectual and understanding happens when “you pass from playing the piano to playing music”.

Bloch observed “the artist chooses the media and the goal of every artist is to become fluent enough with the media to transcend it. At some point you pass from playing the piano to playing music.”

7

The goal of the body is to produce an intellect.
The goal of the intellect is to realize it is soul.
The goal of the soul is to become undifferentiated.
When body, mind and soul are One
This is Enlightenment

So spake the Buddha. (with contribution from Darwin)

8

True, but I assumed you were more talking about adult learning, i.e. the kind of stuff you learn at university, which can be useful for jobs but need not be, whereas if you don’t go through the childhood education process then any kind of adult life will be difficult for you.

So, my basic point is just that when you are learning more advanced stuff I don’t think there is anything particularly special about self-learning. You can self-learn for ‘interested knowledge’ i.e. learning because the knowledge is useful, for example in your job you would perform better if you knew a programming language so you learn it, with the goal of doing your job better.
You can, of course, also self-learn just for the sake of learning.
You can go to university or wherever, and be taught, with the aim of learning because it will be useful to you, bu you can also go with the aim of learning for learning’s sake.

My point was that the best way to learn for the sake of learning is a combination of the two i.e. making teaching an interactive process. Teaching need not be passive being lectured at, it should be an interaction between the teacher and the student. Obviously for teaching to work at its best a bit of self-learning is required, but then you can work with a teacher and come to a better understanding than you did on your own.

So, to summarise: the best way to learn for the sake of learning is not alone with a book but to, yes, read alone and think about things for yourself (self-learning) AND THEN consult a teacher (by teacher I don’t necessarily mean a teacher in the strict, paid sense, more an expert) and, by a process of interactive discussion (teaching), you can begin to understand more than you did alone.

9

Self-actualizing self-learning is ultimately an idiosyncratic activity. It is its subjective nature wherein its value lay. It is a means to exercise the self in a free and random way determined only by a free intellect pursuing an inner voice. Self-actualizing self-learning is a work of art, it is a work of understanding. Understanding is the creation of meaning and like all such activities it is somewhat play-like and therein lays its beauty and its creative potential.