Human beings have a characteristic, that is, they like to shape things according to their own preferences, and evaluate this shape from a subjective point of view. However, there is an article in "Zhuangzi" called "Horseshoe", which specifically criticizes this problem of man. The article says that Bó Lè is good at cultivating Maxima, which is recognized by the world. However, did Ma Du take Advantage's horse training skills as good? When BoLe cultivated the Thousand Mile Horse, he threw a large whip and put on a heavy saddle, driving the horses to run lifelessly day and night, resulting in two-thirds of the dead of the horses; and continuing to work on the bones of the horses and the body of the hungry horses, so that the number of dead horses was more than half complete. In the end, a small number of people who survived were the carefully selected Maxima. So, from the horse's point of view, do all the horses in the world want to be trained by Mr. Bole?
Horses on the plains like to gallop freely; thirsty drink mountain springs, hungry eat weeds, "the true nature of this horse." However, when Bo Le appeared, he wrapped a rope around their necks, whipped their hips fiercely, and made the horses completely slave to man, and said, "Am I cultivating you?" "Can a horse have value only if it becomes a slave to man?" Could it be that those free-running wild horses envy the maxima that is driven by people? It can be said that for horses, they only need a Bole who can meet themselves and find themselves; and hate the cruel groom who is clever and wants to "cultivate" himself.
"Zhuangzi Outer Chapter, Horseshoe"
However, throughout the ages, many educators have unconsciously become such unconcealed grooms. They not only like to shape things, but also want to shape people, want to educate the next generation into the way they want, and claim to cultivate talents for society and the motherland. Rousseau disagreed, and he criticized these groom-like educators, saying, "They are going to train people like horses in a horse training farm." Rousseau believed that all educators need to make a choice question: do you want to be a "Soma" Bole or a "horseman" groom? - That is:
Rousseau's Emile
<h1 class= "pgc-h-arrow-right" > the difference between nature education and civic education. Is the purpose of education to help the educated discover their own nature, or is it to mold them into the way we want them to be? </h1>
The Enlightenment thinker Ertie believed that "man is a product of the environment and education", and what kind of environment and education he receives will be shaped into what kind of person. So we can shape the kind of people we want by changing the environment and using education. This concept of education is very old, appearing as early as Plato's Republic.
Plato's view that the purpose of education is to train rulers for the country and to mold talented people into citizens of the country comes from Spartan educational practice. Spartan children were trained in the military from an early age, trained by the state as samurai, and fought for the interests of the country all their lives. This type of education is what Rousseau called "civic education," and this kind of educator is like the groom who "rules the horse", shaping others according to his own needs.
So, what kind of person is the "citizen" that Rousseau refers to?
It is said that there was a Spartan woman whose five sons all fought in a war. When the slave returned from inquiring outside, the woman asked him in horror about the situation, and the slave replied, "All five of your sons have perished." ”
When the woman heard this, she not only did not cry bitterly, but also scolded: "Lowly slave, I am not asking you this question." ”
The slave suddenly realized, hurriedly informed her of another message, saying: "Our country has won!" ”
When the mother heard this, she was ecstatic and hurried to the temple to thank the gods. Rousseau said: "The citizen refers to such a person." "They put the national interest above all else.
The so-called "citizen" is like a molecule whose value is determined by the denominator, the state being the denominator. For the rulers of the country, they naturally want to create a group of people who are subservient to themselves and love the motherland, and who can sacrifice everything for the country. Such people are indoctrinated from an early age by civic education to the point of neglecting their human identity. They love their country so much that they adopt an indifferent and even hostile attitude towards foreigners. For example, the Spartans were impartial and law-abiding citizens in their own country, but as soon as they went abroad, they became greedy, unjust, tyrannical invaders.
Civic education is the kind of person it wants to cultivate, and it wants to change everyone's nature and avoid their self-centeredness. We will make every effort to instill in people the idea of community and integrate "I" into the country. As long as education is turned into a national cause and the state is allowed to take the lead in educational work, then it is bound to be "civic education" that is implemented. In this mode of education, everyone is like a horse, from childhood to adulthood, they are oppressed by various homework and examinations, and those with good grades will be screened out and risen to the upper echelons of society, while those with poor grades will be eliminated and can only sink at the bottom.
Rousseau opposed Plato's use of education to shape the minds of citizens
<h1 class = "pgc-h-arrow-right" > second, education does not change a person's nature, and it is futile to try to shape others through education. The duty of education should be to help people recognize and make good use of their own nature. </h1>
For nature education, civic education is a backward idea. Marx once said in the Critique of the Gotha Programme: "Any influence of the government and the church on schools should be excluded in the same way." "Deny the meaning of civic education.
Civic education believed that it could mold people into what the state wanted, but this was unrealistic, and Nietzsche once questioned why Nero had become a cruel tyrant under the education of a virtuous man like Seneca. This may be because the environment and education can only change a person's habits, but cannot shake their nature. For the difference between the two, Rousseau gives a vivid example in Emile:
Plants originally had the habit of growing vertically, and if we force them to bend, then their habits will be changed by human intervention and they will choose to grow in an oblique direction; however, this does not mean that their sap does not flow in the original direction, because it is the nature of the plant to grow towards the sun. If man's coercive power is removed, the habit of growing obliquely will soon be abandoned, and the plant will return to the same vertical growth habit as nature.
It can be seen that habits developed by habits are influenced by education. But without the intervention of external forces, it tends to the inherent nature of things, which education cannot change. Human nature is self-interest, and under civic education, people sometimes sacrifice their own interests to serve the collective interests out of patriotic enthusiasm. But this is only a temporary phenomenon, and unless the state has the ability to maintain people's enthusiasm and keep them in a state of exuberant patriotism, when people calm down, they will again be "selfish, each with its own son".
For Nero, who is cruel by nature, Seneca's teachings can only allow him to develop a gentle habit; as soon as he loses the restraint of his teacher, and has unlimited power in his hands, and sees that others cannot help him, he will return to his cruel nature. This is a fact that education cannot change, and all we can do is to remove him from that position, deprive him of the material power that fuels his evil character, and avoid the phenomenon that "the unkind are in a high position, and they sow their evil to the multitude."
Nietzsche's dilemma: If education can change human nature, why is there still no filial piety?
<h1 class = "pgc-h-arrow-right" > third, nature education values human nature, respects the rights of individuals, and educates them to become human beings with a sound personality. Be able to withstand the pressures of life and feel the meaning of life. </h1>
For everyone, the primary purpose of life is for themselves. Just as plants struggle to move toward sunlight, humans are trying to live. Nature has allowed us to grow from weak babies into able-bodied individuals, endowing us with various organs to meet the needs of making a living; society has taught us various survival skills and made us know how to use our bodies to make a living; things have given us the experience of life, constantly refining our own livelihood skills.
Everyone has gifted limbs and brains, but it takes families and society to teach us how to use them. With the help of others, we know how to think with our brains and work with our hands and feet; in the process of work, we can constantly understand the nature of the object, and practice makes perfect. But we need to understand that of nature, society, and things, nature is the most important. We cannot teach a weak person how to make a living by carrying things, nor can we teach a person with a defective IQ to do mental work. Education should conform to the innate natural nature of each person and teach them according to their superiority.
Education is not about shaping others, it is about leading others to discover themselves
Rousseau believed that true education is not to shape others according to my model, but to give each person a character commensurate with his own nature according to his own unique nature. We don't want to teach others how to be lawyers, teachers, or civil servants, but how to discover themselves and know how to be themselves. Only when you know how to be a person can you know how to do things and how to live. Education is not only an obligation, it is also a right, everyone has the right to know themselves through education, to know how to use their natural strengths, to obey their own nature to live the life they want.
Rousseau said, "The law of nature is to follow, and what we need to do is to follow this law." "The person who lives the longest does not necessarily live the most meaningful life, and only the person who has the most feelings about life can understand where the meaning of life is." We are not trying to mold the next generation into what we want, but to teach them how to live the way we want to live according to our own nature.