人之初，性本善；性相近，習相遠。
苟不教，性乃遷；教之道，貴以專。
Translation:
Men at their birth, are naturally good; Their natures are much the same; their habits become widely different.
If foolishly there is no teaching, the nature will deteriorate. The right way in teaching, is to attach the utmost importance to thoroughness.
Like many classical writings, the text is not that straight forward. One common comparison is by tying and contrasting the first six characters with the concept of "original sin", as some websites such as the YellowBridge utilized. As far as I can tell, those words means nothing more than what is stated: we are all gravitated to do good and behave good toward others or outwardly. However, our habit will deviate us not just from each other, but also from this good nature, which implied to be "bad". And the way to prevent this "deterioration of the good nature" is by education.
In short, it means that everyone are born with the same nature, and this nature can be kept, if they are willing to be educated properly.
A corollary from this: if the person's nature deteriorate, then the education system that teach them is flawed is flawed. In fact, a few lines down, you encounter the following:
養不教，父之過；教不嚴，師之惰。
子不學，非所宜；幼不學，老何為？
玉不琢，不成器；人不學，不知義。
If one merely feed without teaching, the father is a bad parent. If one merely teach without strictness, the teacher is lazy.
If the child does not learn, he being improper; if he does not learn when young, what will he be at old age?
If jade is not polished, it won't be useful; if man does not learn, he will not know righteousness.
While it is a good statement on the surface, when you read between the lines, you will notice a few things:
- Blame the father for just feed his offspring
- Blame the teacher for not having a tough education
- Blame the children for not willing to accept the teaching.
Now I know that some will say that this is not different from the traditional education. Yes... but that's the thing: it's "traditional", not how modern run-of-the-mill western education proceed, nor how preferred indigenous education would go (as shown in "Schooling the World") ; instead, it's build upon how the child should act, instead of building an education upon the child's uniqueness. No such thing as "indigenous culture", nor "mental disability". In Sino sphere, everything can be changed, for "better".
Extending from this ideology, the Sino concept also does not believe in "what people are born with" "what had been done before" for things outside of learning, which includes but not limited to earning capability, sexual orientation, and many more; and that these can all be changed through "tough educations". Those that react poorly are considered as failure, and is in fact encouraged in Sino societies.
There is an academic thesis from Taiwan in March 2016 by a Dr. Mu-Hong Chen, that outright claim that most of the "ADHD" are merely kids to be immature. I highly doubt this kind of hypothesis can even occur in a modern western society.
On a sidenote, the kids of Anicent China would not know the meaning; even Dr. Sun Yet-San as a child was said to suffer a beating in a class just for asking the meaning of this ode... but that is a topic for another day.
No comments:
Post a Comment