Moral education is not the task of the university. By the time they enter college, most students are already adults, and their individual character has long since taken basic shape. A university ought to build a stage on which all kinds of different personalities can coexist, guiding each character to shine in its own distinctive way; it should not then try to remake students’ personalities.
Primary and secondary education are different. Primary and secondary schools, together with parents, bear the mission of cultivating and shaping children’s character. The “not yet complete” in “minors” refers precisely to the fact that their personality and character have not yet taken shape, and their thinking has not yet become sufficiently mature to resist and rebel against the preaching of their elders and the indoctrination of fashion. In fact, absolute resistance to preaching and indoctrination is impossible; only someone who knows nothing at all can manage that. And it is quite difficult even to break through and step outside preaching and indoctrination by a little bit—that is precisely the work of philosophers and seekers. For most ordinary people, so-called rebellion is often nothing more than covering one’s ears while stealing the bell: we can see how deeply those who unhesitatingly express revulsion toward middle-school Marxist philosophy are influenced by that mode of thinking and language, and how deeply those who cast contempt and disdain at moral preachers nonetheless share the very same moral outlook as those guardians of orthodoxy. The only difference lies in this: when faced with preaching, some people say “oh, hmm,” while others say “ah, pui.” But in the way they understand preaching in thought and in the degree to which they accept it, there is in fact no difference at all. At this point philosophy should be able to see this obvious fact: faced with the same question, two people, one answering “yes” and the other answering “no,” must necessarily be extremely close to one another. The only two situations that can distinguish them from the first two are these: one is that they cannot understand the question at all, for example, a mentally disabled person, an ancient person, or a person from another culture; the other is that of the philosopher, the lover of wisdom, who will not simply answer yes or no, but will reexamine the question itself and ask it again in his own language.
The aims of moral education are also of two kinds. One is to cultivate normal people who are recognized by society and the times, or rather, “good people” who satisfy the standards of the preacher—for example, in the language of the education we live within, this means “cultivating people useful to society.” This kind of education takes the form of preaching, that is, setting forth “correct” ideas and supporting them in various ways. Its usual tactic is to dramatize the radiance and beauty of the “righteous” and to display the darkness and ugliness of their opponents. Such moral education hopes that its audience will accept the correct ideas; if the audience develops aversion and rejection toward the preaching, then the preaching has not succeeded.
But whether preaching succeeds or not, it still cannot satisfy the second aim of moral education, namely, the cultivation of an independent personality and free thought. In a sense, this is the truly “human-forming” part. Still, I am not using this to belittle or deny the former kind of moral education. In fact, for the continuity of human culture, the idea of a free personality is dispensable, whereas the former kind of moral education is indispensable—even if this task is not undertaken by the school, human beings always first grow up in society, learning language and ways of thinking among fashions and ordinary people. Only after one first becomes a person of this era and this culture can one speak of transcending the era and reflecting on culture.
Even so, I must still say that the cultivation of a free personality is the more authentic and more important aim of “moral education.” The Chinese character “de” in 德 originally meant “to ascend,” “to climb.” And in ancient Greek, the meaning of the word for “virtue” was “excellence.” Thus from the very beginning, “virtue” has been a kind of aspiration “upward,” a transcendence of the ordinary. Moral education, after all, ought to cultivate in people the need to “go upward.” As the saying goes, 卓尔不群, the excellent are always different from the crowd,
Probably from my middle-school days on, I have been saying that primary and secondary schools should attach importance to moral education. By this I certainly do not mean that one should attach importance to the so-called “ideology and morality” or “ideology and politics” courses. Such courses are not only useless for the second aim of moral education; they are hard-pressed even to achieve the first. Although resistance to this crude preaching may perhaps have furthered my own personal pursuit of independence and freedom, I would of course not therefore endorse it.
Dogmatic preaching is not without any value. In fact, this method is especially suitable for preschool children and children before the rebellious phase. At this stage of growth, although it is also fine to guide or stimulate their independent thinking and curiosity, one should still have certain beliefs worthy of transmission remembered by the child in the form of dogma. When their minds gradually mature, they will naturally revisit and reflect on the dogmas remembered in childhood. If in childhood the elders failed to teach these beliefs and principles to the child clearly, so that the child was itself unclear about exactly what ideas it had ever accepted, then it becomes all the harder for self-examination to begin.
But whether or not special courses are offered, moral education is always carried on more through unobtrusive means. For example, compared with adults’ preaching, their behavior will have a greater influence on children’s growth. And when deliberate preaching is overemphasized, the huge gap between what adults say and what they do will become especially glaring. The result is that children no longer believe adults’ preaching, and are also no longer easily moved by adults’ good deeds. After passing through adolescence, they form a cynical mentality; emotions such as “hatred,” “resentment,” “contempt,” and “disdain” take root in the child’s heart. No matter what these emotions are directed toward, they will cover over and crowd out the weight in the heart of emotions such as “love,” “respect,” and “sympathy.” As for why such a result is regrettable, I will speak of that later.
In general, it is always better to achieve things by imperceptible influence. However, the grasp of the idea of independence and freedom cannot be imperceptible, because freedom is the capacity to choose, and must pass through a consciousness of choice or decision. And moral education in this sense is precisely meant to stimulate, guide, and point things out so as to促使 people “discover themselves,” to discover their place and situation.
So how should such moral education be carried out? How can one guide people to “discover themselves”? It is actually very simple: every course is a moral education course!
Every course teaches some branch of learning that human beings are in the midst of exploring. And the exploration of learning has always, in the first place, arisen from the human quest to find themselves and discover themselves. Teaching a discipline is therefore simultaneously the display of one side of the human mode of existence. Every discipline can, from a different angle, remind the learner: “What am I, and where am I?” Because these disciplines are from the very beginning a pursuit of precisely this question.
We may list a few of the most typical moral-education courses:
The first course is “Chinese language.” In any era and culture, the Chinese language course is always the most basic kind of course—provided, of course, that some form of “course” exists in that culture. As the name suggests, “Chinese language” teaches the ability to use language and writing, and this ability is one of the most important marks of being human: the capacity for language sets human beings apart in the animal world, and differences in language distinguish different peoples. Dogma is always transmitted through language, and the idea of freedom is also always apprehended through language and through its self-reflection and self-transcendence.
Before beginning to study Chinese language as a subject, children have already learned how to speak. Even without studying Chinese language as a special subject, people are already able to communicate smoothly with one another. In particular, in the teaching of Chinese, the learning of “recognizing characters” can at most be completed during primary school, so what are the remaining Chinese language classes for? In fact, the mission of Chinese language classes is not merely to teach children to use language and writing fluently; more importantly, it is to teach children to use language and writing “consciously.” “Chinese language” is not only about practice in using words and writing; it also requires asking: how are we using language and writing, and how should we use language and writing better?
The second course is “mathematics.” “Mathematics” is actually a concept that comes from the West, and it is different from “arithmetic”; the geometry of ancient Greece is the source of “mathematics.” Arithmetic teaches a technique, whereas mathematics teaches people to practice “freedom.”
We know that written at the gate of Plato’s Academy in ancient Greece was: “Let no one ignorant of geometry enter.” Why? Wu Lao often says: mathematics was the moral education course of the ancient Greeks. Just as we can hardly become successors to the socialist cause if we do not study ideology and politics, so too, in the view of the ancient Greeks, one could hardly become a free thinker without studying mathematics.
Why is mathematics so deeply connected with freedom? Freedom means to legislate for oneself; “self-discipline” stands opposed to “heteronomy.” Freedom requires casting off the preset formulas imposed by others and relying on one’s own independent thought to reach conclusions. Mathematics is precisely such a discipline.
Many people see only the unparalleled certainty of mathematics and therefore think that mathematics is composed of dogmas. This misunderstanding is probably the crux of why many people never learn mathematics well. In fact, mathematics is precisely meant to teach people to break dogma.
Mathematics recognizes no dogma. Every theorem given in a textbook can be examined and re-proved by you personally; any existing mathematical conclusion allows you to doubt it, and only when you have personally convinced yourself, that is, “proved” the conclusion, can you accept it. Otherwise, no matter how “reliable” its source may be, you still have the right to reject it. All you need is careful and deep self-reflection, and you never need to rely on any authority or dogma.
Whether a math problem is done right or wrong can be concluded by no one but yourself alone; as long as someone else points out where you were careless, you are fully able to correct your mistake from the heart. No second discipline can be so complete and so profound in “self-discipline.”
So it is no surprise at all that learning mathematics can promote an understanding of ideas such as “self-discipline,” “self-confidence,” “independence,” and “freedom.” Of course, it would be even better if mathematics teachers provided a little more guidance and inspiration. If teachers taught mathematics as an iron law beyond question, how tragic that would be.
The third course is “foreign language.” The significance of this moral-education course lies in understanding oneself through experience of the other, learning tolerance and respect through understanding difference, and at the same time promoting an awareness of one’s own culture and situation.
Since the world of language corresponds to the spiritual world of a civilization, a different language corresponds to a different spiritual world of a different civilization. The reason people can learn different languages is that different ways of life do after all have common points. Through studying foreign languages, we may enter a different world and experience a different way of thinking. Understanding foreign languages may enable people to recognize the limitations of language, that is, the limitations of human thought, and thus to learn humility; it may enable people to recognize that there are different, yet equally great, cultures in the world; different, yet equally wise, ways of thinking. In this way one comes to recognize one’s own limitations and learns to respect the other, to respect different opinions and different ways of life… Of course, it would be even better if foreign-language teachers provided a little more guidance and inspiration. If teachers simply treat foreign languages as a practical skill to be taught, that is truly regrettable.
The fourth course is “physics.” Physics is related to mathematics in both form and effect, but further than that, it brings the order and beauty displayed by mathematics into communication with the external world. In the Western tradition, physics can be taken as a theology course. In fact, among scientists in the United States, mathematicians and physicists are the group with the highest proportion of believers in religion, and this of course is by no means accidental. For China, which lacks a religious tradition, this Western theology course can at least promote a sense of “awe.” In addition, the thirst for knowledge and pragmatic attitude required in scientific inquiry can also be conveyed through courses such as physics.
The fifth course is “biology.” Like physics, these courses have the danger of pushing people toward nihilism. But from another angle (cf. Heidegger), a frank confrontation with “nothingness” can also force people to face up to their most authentic selves. Before nothingness, people have nowhere to flee and nothing to rely on. Before nothingness, the question of “being” becomes so striking; before destiny, the question of “freedom” becomes so abrupt. Nothingness and destiny force people to reflect, and this is also an opportunity to grasp the idea of freedom and discover one’s own existence.
In addition, the special status of biology as a moral-education course lies in this: since ancient times, the concepts of personality and virtue have always been entangled with the question of the distinction between human and beast. People ought humbly to acknowledge that human beings are nothing more than a kind of animal. But at the same time, human beings are after all different from animals; beastly desire is not the essence of the human.
But biology cannot help us draw a sharp distinction between human and animal. Does this prove that human beings are “only” animals? Quite the opposite. The vast difference between humans and animals is obvious; human beings are so distinctive that this does not need to be proved or denied by science. And the fact that biology is unable to defend human excellence precisely means this: human excellence is not natural. Human excellence does not lie in the body or its functions, but only in the fact that human beings are moral beings, that is, beings who can be their own legislators.
The sixth course is “history.” If Chinese and foreign language help people confirm their place among all humankind, and physics and biology help people confirm their place in nature, then history can help people confirm their place in the long river of time and in human development. And for discovering and understanding oneself, this is a more important side.
For a person, self-awareness includes not only determining one’s spatial position, but also determining one’s “history.” When a person says “I am…,” what he is mostly saying is his “history.” A Chinese person traveling abroad remains Chinese; a student standing on the lectern remains a student. What makes a person what he is is always his history; what he is is determined by the connections he has established in past time.
If one wishes to reflect on one’s present situation, one must necessarily “rethink” the reasons for that situation: how did this situation come about? That is its “history.” History can help people understand their own situation, and it can also provide people with different “possibilities.” Of course, as the saying goes, “to take history as a mirror,” the stories handed down in history are always full of educational meaning; this helps the first aim of moral education, and this can also be done through fables and the like. What I am emphasizing here, history as a moral-education course, is more importantly history as the precondition of freedom. Of course, if history teachers provided a little more guidance and inspiration, that would be even better. If history were taught merely as one event after another that one only needs to memorize, that would be terrible.
The last course is “physical education.” This is also the oldest, simplest, and most efficient moral-education course. The essence of physical education—including competition and games—is in fact the source of human civilization. Physical education can almost teach people every valuable quality: excellence, freedom, propriety, rules, self-confidence, respect, solidarity and mutual aid, love, beauty, justice, equality… These ideas are all embedded in physical activity. Religion, law, science, democracy, art… all of humanity’s most important undertakings can find their source in physical activity.
The meaning of physical education would take a long time to discuss, and I will write a separate piece on the topic of the Olympics; I will leave it at that for now. Of course, if physical education teachers provided a little more guidance and inspiration, that would be even better. If they merely treat physical education as exercise for the body, that is truly too shallow.
In short, any course, if it is taught not merely as a practical technique, but as human beings’ efforts and stage-by-stage achievements on the path of seeking truth and understanding themselves, then all such courses are the best moral education courses.
July 17, 2008
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply