Comment by jdw64
6 days ago
孟子曰：「人之患在好爲人師。」
Mencius said: "The trouble with people is that they are too fond of being teachers to others."
仁者如射，射者正己而後發。發而不中，不怨勝己者，反求諸己而已矣。
The benevolent person is like an archer. The archer corrects their own posture before releasing the arrow. If they shoot and miss, they do not blame the one who surpasses them, but simply turn around and seek the cause within themselves.
孟子曰：「愛人不親，反其仁；治人不治，反其智；禮人不答，反其敬。行有不得者，皆反求諸己，其身正而天下歸之。《詩》云：『永言配命，自求多福。』」
Mencius said: "If you love others and they do not become close to you, reflect on your own benevolence. If you govern others and they are not well governed, reflect on your own wisdom. If you treat others with courtesy and they do not respond, reflect on your own respectfulness. When things do not go as you wish, always turn inward and seek the cause in yourself. When your own person is upright, the whole world will turn to you. The Book of Odes says: 'Always strive to align with your destiny, and seek your own blessings.'"
`Mencius said: "The trouble with people is that they are too fond of being teachers to others."`
I never thought about this but I really believe it to be true and would love to know why is that. For example, whenever I want to get an interaction going with very small kids, I would pretend to not know something and they'd be super happy to teach me - works every time.
People feel competent and important when they teach others. This desire is so primal, as you said, that it can even be seen in young children. That's why people unconsciously try to teach others, and it often creates problems in relationships.
The reason arguments are dangerous is that while they look like an attempt to correct someone's knowledge, in reality they easily mix with the desire to place yourself in the 'teacher's seat.'
However, Confucianism places great value on teaching, and at first glance this might seem contradictory to Mencius's words. But it explains that the purpose of teaching is different. Good teaching aims to bring out the best in others and nurture them, and it should come after self-cultivation. On top of that, it requires the other person's consent, such as when they are in need. Bad teaching, on the other hand, is about self-display, the desire to feel superior, and interfering without being asked.
In reality, it's hard to draw a perfect line between the two, but I think the effort is to keep trying.
Thank you.
> I never thought about this but I really believe it to be true and would love to know why is that
Would suggest possible explanation by adding Orwell's quote: If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.
This is generally rooted in the Confucian thought that is broadly spread across Northeast Asia.
To think about your logic a bit more precisely, Orwell's metaphor is about why the power to trample others ultimately arises. In Confucianism, it's usually said:
孟子曰: 君子以仁存心，以禮存心。仁者愛人，有禮者敬人。 (Mencius said: The noble person keeps benevolence in their heart and keeps propriety in their heart. The benevolent person loves others, and the person who has propriety respects others.)
論語: 不憤不啟，不悱不發。 (The Analects: If the learner is not eager to know, do not enlighten them; if they are not struggling to express themselves, do not inspire them.)
孟子曰: 教亦多術矣，予不屑之教誨也者，是亦教誨之而已矣。 (Mencius said: There are many ways to teach. My refusing to teach someone because I deem them unworthy is also a form of teaching.)
This can be summarized as: 'When that desire passes through benevolence and propriety, it becomes good teaching. When it loses benevolence and propriety, it becomes scolding, interference, and self-display.'
From this, teaching can be understood as having different stages. Teaching is meaningful only when the other person is ready to receive it. Teaching is not about pouring out explanations; sometimes not teaching, stepping back, and letting the other person reflect on themselves is also a form of education.
The extreme of power that Orwell speaks of is, in other words, a kind of 'forcing' upon someone who does not want it. This means that the same desire can lead to completely different outcomes depending on which ethical filter it passes through.
However, this is also a very fragmented explanation when viewed in the full context. In modern society, we rarely live out classical thought as a complete system; instead, we cut out fragments of it and use them to explain current problems. I am not trying to explain Confucianism as a whole either. I am simply using the Confucian sensibility that is relatively commonly spread in Korea to try to understand this issue. So I cannot claim that the passages I cited are arranged in a completely rigorous way.
Perhaps the reason I feel this way is because I was born and raised in Korea, and I am currently active there. I am just active on HN because it is the metropolis of the programming world.
I feel that Western individualism treats the individual as a more autonomous unit. In contrast, in the Confucian sensibility I am familiar with, an individual is less like an independent point and more like an intersection of multiple relationships.
I think both Western and Eastern thought have their strengths and weaknesses, and they arrive at similar insights through different paths.
Orwell starts from a macroscopic, top-down perspective and examines how power tries to subjugate humans. This is a response to the macroscopic question, as seen in Machiavelli, of 'power as a matter of order and domination.'
As seen in Orwell's 'Notes on Nationalism,' his thinking is about the problem of proxy power: the attitude where an individual dissolves their identity into a group and pursues that group's power and prestige.
In other words, I think Confucianism asks questions about how to solve this problem at the microscopic level, while Orwell's work is closer to an explanation of how unresolved problems at the microscopic level can cause trouble.
Of course, what I have read is only at a university-level introduction to philosophy, so I hope you will take my answer as being just as superficial. For more detailed explanations, I suspect wild philosophers hungry for questions will appear and take over.
p.s. The irony is that this very comment is basically me pouring out content you probably didn't ask for. The biggest contradiction is that I'm talking about controlling the urge to act like a teacher, while I'm not practicing it myself. In fact, I think Confucianism also has macroscopic discourses, and Orwell also has microscopic explanations, so they don't fit together perfectly. There are also points where they conflict
8 replies →
I can see how one’s tendency to preach being associated with their ego
I would also make a distinction between kids’ ‘teaching’ behaviors you describe and the one in Mencius’s quote
A slightly more charitable interpretation might be: sharing useful information creates the possibility of reciprocity.
[dead]