The Limitations of Learning

30 posts / 0 new
Last post
The Limitations of Learning

I'm currently reading a book on Buddhist philosophy, in which there's a discussion about the limitations of learning.

It argues that the first limitation is that learning is basically self-centred. A person's goal, through education, is self-betterment, perhaps even enlightenment ' but this is largely for his or her own sake. As such, learning has a strong tendency to deteriorate into the world of Anger (one of the Ten Worlds identified in Buddhist thinking) ' "of separating oneself from other people and looking down on them.

The second limitation is that those who have attained a high level of learning often find it extremely difficult to accept that the conclusions they have come to may not be wholly correct, so differences of opinion may need to be settled by reference to agreed and accepted norms. But¦

"In the non-scientific world, there is a lack of agreement on the framework of reference itself. A communist and a capitalist, or an atheist and a Muslim, have immense difficulty even in recognising each other's vision of the world, no matter how learned or erudite they may be.

The quote concludes:

"One characteristic of the TRULY wise man is that he can recognise the wisdom in others and is more concerned in discovering the truth of any situation than in simply defending his own opinion.

In the light of some pretty lively recent discussion threads, I wondered what people thought about this...

“One characteristic of the TRULY wise man is that he can recognise the wisdom in others and is more concerned in discovering the truth of any situation than in simply defending his own opinion.” Are you taking note, Mr. Cade? :) There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~

Emma2004: And not the good Doctor, too?
Yan2: I’m struck by the number of times that threads start off reasonably enough, with opinions expressed and argued in a civilised manner, only to gradually degenerate into varying degrees of personal insult. In my very humble opinion, when it gets to that level, the argument is already lost. I guess there’s a very good reason for this behaviour: the factor of distance. You’ve got a space to say exactly what you want to say, without the interruptions that would normally go with either face-to-face or telephone contact – AND you don’t carry the associated risk of a receiving a punch in the mouth or a kick in the nuts. Sometimes I read these threads and think “For the sake of fuck, these are intelligent, educated people – people who purport to be writers, no less.” Communicators, in other words. And this is how they communicate. Constant misunderstanding or misinterpretation of points - or inability to deliver those points clearly and cogently, without resorting to insult. I sometimes see more civilised communication going on between the special needs adults I work with, most of whom can’t write and a large majority of whom can’t speak properly. And before anyone comes up with the old thing of “This is an adult forum, so you should expect…” etc. Well, bollocks to a factor of a hundred. ‘Adult’ sometimes don’t come anywhere near it. As if hammering that opinion home and getting the final word in is so goddamn important. I mean, there are reputations at stake here! Fragile egos to support! I can almost sense the contempt and insults whizzing their way along the phone lines towards me as I sign off.
I used to be on our 6th form college debating team and the threads on these forums often strongly remind me of those days; the flexing of one's communication, rhetoric, argument and persuasion skills (often latched onto a fairly good knowledge base) to convince others your opinion is right, the pleasure being in the excercise and demonstration of these skills rather than the one-up-man-ship in the argument itself. In fact the argument and proving your opinion correct is secondary. It is rather like an intellectual equivalent of Mr Universe. And there is a place for that here if that's what rocks your boat. I don't think many would claim that the debate's and discussions that take place here are supposed to have anything to do with true wisdom. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

 

I found the initial post very interesting. The point about education having the potential to encourage separation and elitism is related to various threads we've had recently. It is a shame that the Buddhist philosophy on formal education seems as pessimistic as some of the posters on here have been. The ideal situation is that education encourages us to find ways of living together better, innit? Not that I think learning only occurs within education, obviously. But then, I think some people will argue that there is no such thing as 'truth of any situation'; that most situations (even war and famine), despite having obvious material effects, are perceived differently (and represented differently) depending on all sorts of ideological, spiritual, psychic, and economic formations. One person's truth is usually another person's fantasy/defence/ opinion. However wise one person feels, with her/his perception of truth, someone else (who also feels they are wise) will perceive this 'truth' as an opinion. I don't know how (or if) we can find a way out of this pickle. I feel comforted by the idea that there is the possibility of a 'truth' in each situation, though. What is the truth of THIS situation (discussing this on a website) for example? Can we agree on it? (Does 'truth' depend upon a group of humans agreeing on it?). I just found this quotation from Foucault: "Truth isn't outside power … Truth is a thing of this world; it is produced only by virtue of multiple forms of constraint…And it induces regular effects of power. Each society has its regime of truth, its 'general politics' of truth; that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true" [Quoted in Stuart Hall & Bram Gieben (Editors), Formations of Modernity (Cambridge, 1992) p. 295]. What do you reckon?
Speaking for myself (because who else, ultimately, can I speak for?), I always endeavour to seek the truth, rather than defend my position, whenever the opportunity to do so presents itself. Which is why I find it immensely frustrating when I am reduced to defending myself against the errant mudslingers who I (for some reason!) seem to attract. “Knowledge” and “Truth” are endlessly fascinating concepts, which can be debated ad infinitum. But while the acquisition of knowledge can be an interesting and worthwhile pursuit, what I feel is more likely to improve the quality of our world is being mindful of how one expresses one’s knowledge. I’m not talking about grammar and diction. I’m talking about the feelings and intentions behind one’s words… open-mindedness, tolerance, patience… What is more important than knowledge itself is the mean’s by which it is communicated. {{{_"P"_}}} ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Can We Ever Really Know the Truth About Anything?)

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

Jude: Yeah, I’d agree with the 6th form element. And I don’t think that a lot of the debates have much to do with true wisdom either. I do, though, find it rewarding sometimes to step aside from a debate and see how it works through, and to try to pick out the wisdom or ‘truth’ there – and that does come up quite a bit. There are a lot of people using these forums (including yourself) whose opinions I respect, and I’m not ashamed to admit that I’ve even modified some of my own opinions in the light of stuff I’ve read here. That’s what debate should be about – in my view, anyway. Some might think it's a sign of intellectual failing on my part, or lack of confidence. Possibly right on both points - though I prefer to think of it as just trying to keep an open mind. As for the arguments not being about one-upmanship or proving the correctness of opinions, well… I wouldn’t be so sure. Maybe I just read some of the wrong threads. Galfreda: Completely agree with you – though I don’t see the Buddhist position as pessimistic necessarily. It’s just stating how learning CAN have that tendency for us to believe that we are right. Clearly it does in very many people. I also feel comforted by the idea of the plurality of truth. I find it an essential idea to live by. I think I can just about grasp the gist of the Foucault quote. It seems to say roughly the same thing, just in a slightly harder way! Peps: “What is more important than knowledge itself is the mean’s by which it is communicated.” Clarity as much as cogency, in other words. To ‘open-mindedness, tolerance, patience’ I’d also add ‘respect’ – though the tone some people here set doesn’t exactly encourage respect, true. Responding with abuse and insult, though, doesn’t even the balance. It just takes us back to the playground – and several forms below 6th.
Hey, Mr Welfare Check. Why not lighten up a bit? Buddhist philosophy? Sheeez! What you think this place is, a college? No insult meant.
I respect your comments, Mr. Benefit. Couldn't agree more. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

~It's a maze for rats to try, it's a race for rats to die.~

Thanks, Yan2. None taken, Sniper.
Respect and... a little bit of humbleness. A willingness (a real willingness, not just a passing nod) to accept that one may be wrong.... which, I think, is the root of all the other things I and Mr B mentioned. {{{_"P"_}}} ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Can We Ever Really Know the Truth About Anything?)

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

'As for the arguments not being about one-upmanship or proving the correctness of opinions, well… I wouldn’t be so sure. Maybe I just read some of the wrong threads.' You are right, I am wrong now I've thought about that. One-upmanship is important but I don't think winning others over is. I think that if somebody conceded that they were wrong by saying , "Gosh, now that you have made your awfully clever point so eloquently, argued the reason and logic behind your thinking and backed this up by supplying some really meaty facts, I realise that I was misguided and now agree with you. Thank you so much for the clarification". I don't think the triumphunt 'winner' would be thinking that this conversion is great and the purpose of the debate is achieved. The purpose of the debate is not always persuasion but the pleasure in the art of debate itself and perhaps a little bit of bigging up one's cleverness. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

 

You're right, Jude. And I'm wrong. Or maybe we're both wrong. Or right... "...perhaps a little bit of bigging up one's cleverness" or, like me, just bullshitting a lot!
There is indeed a pleasure to be had in the art of debate, irrespective of the result... {{{_"P"_}}} ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Can We Ever Really Know the Truth About Anything?)

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

That's debatable.
:-/ {{{_"P"_}}} ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Can We Ever Really Know the Truth About Anything?)

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

It is not always had, but it is there to be had! :-) {{{_"P"_}}} ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Can We Ever Really Know the Truth About Anything?)

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

“One characteristic of the TRULY wise man is that he can recognise the wisdom in others and is more concerned in discovering the truth of any situation than in simply defending his own opinion.” Are you taking note, Mr. Yan? Argument is useful to me because it causes me to reexamine my position critically, as well as others, which, one would think, leads you more towards arguments that are truthful. It can also help in articulation - if you find, as I do, that a certain way of phrasing an argument causes most people to radically misinterpret it. Sometimes, however, as I've also learned, there is no way of phrasing an argument so that people don't ignore what you've said totally in favour of tearing down a straw man they are vehemently opposed to, and have rehearsed their arguments against. I've also found that it pays to ask what people *mean* a lot of the time, because, as was the case with 'is morality subjective?' you end up tangled by the fact that five different people have ten different ideas of what 'morality' is and what it means for something to be 'subjective'.
Agree with all the above! - presuming you mean what I think you mean... ;-) ... except I'd add that I personally find myself frequently asking myself what I meant in the midst of a heated/intense/complex debate. pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

I mostly stay out of debates because I'm never entirely convinced either that I know what I mean, or that I believe it. I've never had a great deal of faith in my own convictions - which probably means they're not convictions in the first place!
I think that's a sign of real wisdom, alan.
I think the best place to start with a debate is not being sure of the answer. People who think they've got the issue licked generally display a superhuman imperviousness to opposing arguments. I generally don't debate anything I'm absolutely certain of, as a rule. Of course, very often, once something gets called into question, my certainty of the answer is knocked, so it still leaves me able to engage in most topics. But if someone was arguing, say, that the Holocaust never happened - that's a sufficiently closed topic as to prompt nothing much from me. I also don't debate things where I honestly have no idea. Because, well - I wouldn't have anything to say. Everything else is a case of me having an idea of what position seems strongest and adopting that. If the debate takes place on ABCTales, what then follows is ten pages of me explaining again and again what that position is, while most people argue against something entirely different, or reiterate a weaker position.
Galfreda: "I think that's a sign of real wisdom, alan." At the risk of sounding like I'm just agreeing with everyone... agreed! It is a wise man indeed who admits he knows f**k all... pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

Thanks for that vote of confidence, folks. I feel better about myself already! That's the essence of that quote: “One characteristic of the TRULY wise man is that he can recognise the wisdom in others and is more concerned in discovering the truth of any situation than in simply defending his own opinion.” Though I tend to think that it's less about my being wise, and more about the fact that I have an inferiority complex of Himalayan proportions!
We are all inferior, insignificant and small. Recognising that *and* being happy = wisdom. You are wise, Alan! Accept it! pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

I'll take your word for it, Peps. I certainly wouldn't take my word for it.
You wouldn't take your word for it? There's something somewhat PKD-ian about that... :-/ pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

We are all inferior, insignificant and small. some of us more so than others

 

Truism. pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

The All New Pepsoid the Second!

Topic locked