The Dialectics of Nature Course Taught by the Teachers

 Sender: fengziforeve (Expired pineapple can～CME! U.S.-Russia! Little optics 。。), board: Philo

From start to finish, I had never seen such an utterly top-notch, depraved “teacher” before.

It felt to me like he was basically a psychopath; I have no idea how he became a teacher.

Before class, he announced that there would be no homework for this session, and that if anyone didn’t want to listen, they could just leave.

Then he went on to say that since you came to class, you should pay attention; if you didn’t want to listen, then leave—it wouldn’t affect your grade.

Then, just as class was about to end, he announced that the homework for this class was a 1,000-character assignment, and that if you didn’t hand it in, you had better watch out, because you might fail this semester’s final!

I’ve seen crazy people before, but I’ve never seen anyone this crazy. Not only did he go back on his word, he also brazenly said that if he failed us, let’s see how the graduate school would deal with it.

I really can’t stand it anymore. Just because he has a little bit of power in his hands, he threatens us students like this and turns the political class he controls into a stage for his own venting!

We are not capable of resisting this kind of behavior of his; we still need degrees and need to avoid leaving a stain on our resumes. But we do have the right not to come to your garbage class!

How can the School of Marxism tolerate such a teacher existing?

The teachers of the School of Marxism。。。。。。

Could it be Wu Guosheng?

北大 has only one Wu Guosheng, right? Does the School of Marxism still have a Wu Guosheng?

Please use a little common sense. Political courses aren’t all offered by the School of Marxism,

and besides, I’ve never heard of a second person this bt this semester besides Wu Guosheng.

At least the Wu Guosheng teacher in the philosophy department isn’t teaching political courses at all,

and he isn’t bt either.

Xiao mm,

have you ever taken a graduate political course?

Such a teacher is wonderful…

Sometimes one does need to be a bit strict…

You should go take the Thursday-afternoon political course for science graduate students and you’ll know—Room 213 in the School of Liberal Arts, go see for yourself.

Little sister,

have you taken a graduate political course?

This kind of teacher is pretty good…

Sometimes you do have to be a bit strict…

You should go attend the political class opened for science graduate students on Thursday afternoon, in Room 213 of the Liberal Arts building; go see for yourself.

At the very least, the philosophy department’s Wu Guosheng teacher is not teaching political courses at all,

and besides, he is not bt.

You should go take a look yourself and you’ll know. If you haven’t taken it and still insist on arguing here with people who have, it doesn’t matter whether you believe me or not. Next Thursday afternoon, go to Room 213 of the Liberal Arts building yourself and have a look; you can ask the older and younger students attending class whether it’s Wu Guosheng teaching the course, and see what they say.

If after that you still don’t believe it, then I have nothing more to say.

oh no~

I’m the one who’s ignorant, uncle…

patpat

You seem to have bad eyesight too…

I’m not an uncle

Wow, you’ve become an uncle, how magical.

I actually did see Teacher Wu in the Liberal Arts building this afternoon.

Red T-shirt, blue backpack.

hahaha

cmft

The repetition is really troublesome.

Wu Guosheng teacher seems to be the only one at Peking University, right?

ms is really not a duplicate name.

Sigh, in fact we really are too disrespectful to teachers on a daily basis, especially in political courses…

re
this

If you have a problem with the teacher,

then speak up to the teacher in person.

What’s the use of whinging on the board?

The same two sentences again:

Say it nicely if you have something to say.

Say it in person if you have something to say.

【 In aelfinspring (Little Demon·Be professional in doing things, be reliable as a person~~~)的大作中提到: 】

: No matter how you put it, cursing a teacher like that is going too far!

This way of doing things will look really ugly at the end of the semester~~ hahaha hahaha hahaha

The four teachers from the Center for the Study of Scientific Socialism jointly teach dialectics of nature.

I once sat in on one class taught by Liu Huajie before. He talked about the problem of induction, Popper, and the demarcation of science, and later he also discussed pseudoscience in China and the West. It didn’t feel like a political course at all. It was basically like attending a science philosophy class, and in fact it was a bit more expansive and casual than that; I found it very interesting. As for Teacher Wu and Teacher Zhou, I’ve seen them too, and their classes were quite interesting. Judging from the topics in the table above, what they teach definitely won’t be rigidly delivered in the mold of a political course. And if Teacher Wu is being accused of being so strict and “bt,” it is probably precisely because he did not treat this course as a political course, but instead carried through his usual style and standards—Teacher Wu’s classes have always been strict and non-negotiable: papers are assigned the same day and must be handed in the following week; if you hand it in even one day late, it is absolutely zero points, with no room for discussion. Actually, I think that’s pretty good.

But if students regard this course as a political course, that is, just a course to be gotten through perfunctorily, then of course things are different. In that case, such strict methods are indeed a bit bt.

It’s just that science students often complain about the dialectics of nature course, saying those teachers don’t understand science at all and insist on spouting nonsense. We liberal arts students have also heard such complaints; those who don’t know what’s going on might even think they’re criticizing the School of Marxism, when in fact they’re talking about that bunch of teachers in our own department.

The reason our teachers’ dialectics of nature course is still looked down upon is actually not because it is rigid or dogmatic in the usual style of political courses. It’s for the same reason that “science and humanities” are looked down upon. In fact, a course like this in dialectics of nature is quite good—just as scientists of science history like Sarton have spent their whole lives calling for the establishment of science history programs and general-education courses at universities, courses of this sort are of great significance for communication and integration between science and the humanities. And now Western universities generally offer a public course or set of courses on “science, technology, and society,” either as a required course or as a very popular elective, and that is also highly meaningful. In China, our dialectics of nature course, after such appropriate adjustment, can also play such a role in linking science and the humanities, and the arrangement at our school is very good. I think this course should be taken not only by science students, but also by liberal arts students. Of course, as a compulsory political course it is always easy to provoke resistance; if in the future more public courses of the science, technology, and society type can be offered and required as a university-wide elective category, that would probably be better.

It is understandable that some science students feel resistant to the dialectics of nature course, but those of us who haven’t taken the class shouldn’t jump on the bandwagon. Even less should we mistake this course for a political course opened by the School of Marxism; in fact, it is already a science-and-humanities course opened by our own department.

May 24, 2007, 23:31

mist

2007-05-25 19:29:23 Anonymous 210.56.216.4 [reply]

“As for the fact that science students often complain about the course in dialectics of nature, saying that those teachers simply don’t understand science and insist on rambling on about it.”

You should come study physics too, so that later no one will say you don’t understand science…

Guda

2007-05-25 20:56:18 http://epr.ycool.com/ [reply]

I already did the basic university physics and mechanics textbooks in high school (though I’ve forgotten them all now), and next year it’s possible I’ll take some more physics courses, but I’m not going to torture myself with a double major… (By the way, how’s that thing from your School of Mathematical Sciences or School of Physics and Engineering going?）

Next term I’ll be taking mathematical analysis; I still haven’t decided whether to use the other credits for physics or biology. But anyway, I’m not afraid of being accused of not understanding science, because I really don’t understand it! Who does understand science? Does taking a few science and engineering courses and doing a few experiments mean you understand science?

 

Guda

2007-05-25 22:41:57 http://epr.ycool.com/ [reply]

I need to make a self-criticism… Someone on the BBS has already sent me a message denouncing me, saying that I irresponsibly talked nonsense without first determining whether it was really aimed at Wu laoshi… I really don’t know whether it was aimed at Wu laoshi, and I also know that the situation described by the poster was definitely embellished and dramatized. But since many people told me it was Wu laoshi, and later someone even told me the assignment was about Christianity and views of nature or something like that, then that makes it all the more certain. Anyway, I’ll just tentatively accept it: so what if it really was Wu laoshi? That’s quite a character!

Of course, when I say “this really is Wu laoshi’s style,” I don’t mean “saying one thing one day and another the next,” but rather acting with great vigor and promptness.

 

mist

2007-05-26 11:33:53 Anonymous 210.56.216.4 [reply]

I didn’t take any action; I was just hanging around in the qmd~~

I’ll wait until I’ve definitely been accepted into graduate school before going to the piebridge forum~

Whether or not someone understands science really doesn’t depend on what courses they’ve taken, but just as many professionally trained philosophers won’t acknowledge民哲, many professionally trained scientists also won’t acknowledge民科—even if they say they respect民科 and民哲… In my view, one benefit of my double major is that it gives me the right to speak with them—no matter how poor my scientific literacy may be, at least I’ve received formal training in physics, and I take classes and exams together with classmates from the School of Physics and Engineering… I admit this benefit is a rather helpless outcome, but the social reality is just like this: although ability is important, ability is often judged by means of a diploma on paper…

Ps~ I support Wu sir’s behavior. Many people attend class solely because of degree requirements; Peking University should be restructured into a learning track and a diploma track in the future…

 

Guda

2007-05-26 14:44:34 http://epr.ycool.com/ [reply]

A diploma on paper isn’t all that useful either. Most of the Western SSK scholars and Chinese science-and-culture intellectuals also have science-and-engineering degrees; most switched fields only at the master’s level or later, but they are still often accused of not understanding science. There’s nothing to be done about that.

Still, if one is doing philosophy of science or science studies, one ought to take some natural science courses; otherwise, like many民科, if you haven’t even studied high school physics properly and have only read A Brief History of Time or something like that, you start acting as if you understand many things—that won’t do. I used to say that I was taking natural science courses in order to “experience life.”

 

UNIC

2007-05-26 14:48:39 Anonymous 220.171.177.180 [reply]

Isn’t it possible to set aside other people’s recognition? If others denounce you as民科, then you are民科? If others say you don’t understand, then you don’t understand? Where is there such an absolute?!

We are all pursuing some endless things; where are there any final conclusions? Work hard and keep every possibility open.

Sometimes, just set aside the universal so-called recognition / non-recognition and the like. What is there to fear?!!!!!!

 

Guda

2007-05-26 15:44:00 http://epr.ycool.com/ [reply]

Other people’s recognition really is secondary, but at the very least one has to recognize oneself. One can’t always rely on blind arrogance for self-recognition. Solid accumulation is what most helps strengthen self-recognition, and other people’s recognition is of course also very important. Though it isn’t decisive, it also shouldn’t be completely ignored. Philosophers are not solitary hermits who shut themselves away in contemplation; philosophers have to speak, have to write, have to search for and wait for their own readers.

 

依芜

2007-05-26 16:16:51 [reply]

What I mean is not that one should completely disregard what others think. But that absolutely cannot become a framework or constraint. Thinking about others’ views is learning. As for readers or recognition, I don’t pin my hopes on it; whether there are any or not has nothing to do with me. Though psychologically every person certainly hopes to have readers, their existence or nonexistence is irrelevant to whether I put forward a view—unless later I may need to further elaborate my language so that people are more likely to understand.

 

mist

2007-05-26 16:19:45 Anonymous 210.56.216.15 [reply]

Receiving proper natural-science training is also an improvement in one’s own scientific literacy; I really can’t see what’s bad about doing a double major~~ Of course, the GPA will look a bit ugly~~

 

依芜

2007-05-26 16:22:29 [reply]

All roads lead to Vaticantown  all right then

 

Guda

2007-05-26 16:45:14 http://epr.ycool.com/ [reply]

To UNIC: I know what you mean. But since you’ve always had a tendency toward worldliness, I need to stress this a bit more. Philosophers need communication; one person reading and writing in a sulk won’t do, unless he can learn the trick of self-dual combat, but self-dual combat still can’t compare with direct communication with others. The purpose of communication is not to make others recognize oneself, but at least one hopes others can more or less understand oneself. After all, everyone is speaking the same language, and language should first and foremost be usable for communication, and only then become usable for thinking.

To mist: A double major is too exhausting; it will take up the time I use for reading books or watching anime, so that’s a bad thing~~~