Learning without a teacher

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?