The desire to learn vs. the desire for recognition

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » The desire to learn vs. the desire for recognition

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Deckard
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 05:51 pm
I don't always have the discipline to read through all the posts on a thread because the original post inspires some response that I want to voice right away. I think this is my desire for recognition surfacing and trumping my desire to...well um...it is what it is...my desire learn. Now when a thread is extremely long then this is excusable but with shorter threads I don't think it is. So I'm calling myself out on this.

Anyway, this does bring up an interesting conflict...the conflict between the desire to learn and the desire for recognition. I think that the desire to learn is a desire of the higher order and the desire for recognition is of a relatively lower order. I think this conflict arises quite often especially in an environment such as a forum and also the environment of the classroom and edifying conversations in general.

Thoughts?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 05:58 pm
@Deckard,
Excellent issue. I think the two are twin aspects of the same drive. Is the desire for recognition the desire for the perfect self-consciousness of the wise-man in an erroneous but developing-evolving form? Is the philosopher an error who is seeking to recognize himself as truth? (Thought inspired generally by K on H, of course...)
 
Deckard
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 06:30 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;133031 wrote:
Excellent issue. I think the two are twin aspects of the same drive. Is the desire for recognition the desire for the perfect self-consciousness of the wise-man in an erroneous but developing-evolving form? Is the philosopher an error who is seeking to recognize himself as truth? (Thought inspired generally by K on H, of course...)

It occurs to me that a sort of preliminary recognition of all discussants and a constant conscious effort to maintain this mindset towards others would be extremely helpful both pedagogically and...whats the other side of pedagogy?...I want to recognize it but I don't even know the word for it!

An analogy:

Pedagogy (method of instruction) is to instructor
as X is to instructed

X can be defined as "the method of learning" but there is not even a word for it! Care to coin?

Is this a pitfall of a didactic mindset?
Does a more dialectical mindset resolve this problem?

In the didactic mindset, teachers are recognized, students can only learn. In the dialectic mindset all involved are recognized and all involved can learn. The dichotomy between recognition and learning dissolves into something else at the same moment that the dichotomy between the "I" of the teacher and the "You" of the student dissolves into an all inclusive "We".
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 06:35 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;133048 wrote:

In the didactic mindset, teachers are recognized, students can only learn. In the dialectic mindset all involved are recognized and all involved can learn. The dichotomy between recognition and learning dissolves into something else at the same moment that the dichotomy between the "I" of the teacher and the "You" of the student dissolves into an all inclusive "We".


Do you know of Martin Buber's "I and Thou" as contrasted to "I and it"? Two modes of being. One that recognizes the divine and one that does not. The ideal teacher sees his self in the student and the student in himself? Is ideal teaching a conceptual/numinous orgy? Maybe Socrates wrote no books because he knew that books lacked the erotic/divine element?
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 06:47 pm
@Reconstructo,
Could it be that the desire to learn holds higher socio-moral capital. It could be likened to the different between PBS watchers and Fox Reality TV channel watchers. Some like tawdry drama for drama's sake others don't. Or is it really some people force themselves not to like tawdry drama because its trashy like not reading all the posts before submitting.
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 06:54 pm
@Deckard,
I think the two desires can be reconciled. If we are all parts of something greater, then one can wish for recognition of some part of that part of the greater Being whom one is. (Was that sentence readable? Unambiguous? At least it wasn't Heidegger!) Still, one should try to wait to see if some other person, who is also a part of the greater Being, has already expressed that same part of it, which is also part of him or her (because we all overlap in our being, in complex ways), and has perhaps expressed it better. What isn't justifiable is rushing to express something one believes to be exclusively one's own. If there is an intention to share, it's OK; otherwise, not.

(I read all the thread before posting this! I agree with you about the difference between long threads and short ones. I just wouldn't be able to remember what I wanted to say while reading all the way through a long thread - and finding more things to say.)
 
Deckard
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 07:06 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;133051 wrote:
Do you know of Martin Buber's "I and Thou" as contrasted to "I and it"? Two modes of being. One that recognizes the divine and one that does not. The ideal teacher sees his self in the student and the student in himself? Is ideal teaching a conceptual/numinous orgy? Maybe Socrates wrote no books because he knew that books lacked the erotic/divine element?


Yes, I've read "I and thou" that's the reason I have often brought up "presonality" which very much relates to the OP in a round about way i.e. recognizing personhood, status, some floor of equality. Socrates wrote no books, Plato wrote dialogues, Aristotle went full on didactic. Conclusion Aristotle messed it all up. Aristotle as "the Philosopher" as the accepted authority of the late medieval philosophers. Dialectic is what Socrates achieved and Plato tried to preserve and Aristotle (at least in his writing) abandoned entirely.

However, I think it doesn't help much to bring in the erotic or the divine or rather this confuses things and requires further comment. At first blush the erotic/divine collapses into the student/teacher dichotomy. Yet I recall a verse from the Gospel of Thomas that says something like "When two of you meet I am there" where the "I" can be understood as a divine logos. And of course Plato's Socrates was ever courting a muse. "Erotic" is a loaded and misleading term on the exoteric level but it can be understood at the esoteric as referring to the desire to know the divine.

Thinking of Buber and personality again - logos, truth (call it what you will) does seem to loose it's personality along the way and this is Contra-Buber by my reading of Buber. Does logos have a personality? Does truth? The personality of a wise father? The personality of a wise mother? Some personality beyond our exoteric concepts of father and mother (and at the same time some personality beyond those exoteric concepts of androgyny that suggest only hermaphoditism, castration and/or barrenness)? Since I really like Buber's ideas about personality I'm going to provide a rhetorical answer to my last few rhetorical questions: Yes.

The divine Logos presiding over all discussants none of whom can be recognized as Teachers with a capital "T" just as the Hebrews had no King before Saul.

(I wrote this post while Twirlip and Goshisdead were writing and posting theirs)

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 07:40 PM ----------

Twirlip;133059 wrote:
I think the two desires can be reconciled. If we are all parts of something greater, then one can wish for recognition of some part of that part of the greater Being whom one is. (Was that sentence readable? Unambiguous? At least it wasn't Heidegger!) Still, one should try to wait to see if some other person, who is also a part of the greater Being, has already expressed that same part of it, which is also part of him or her (because we all overlap in our being, in complex ways), and has perhaps expressed it better. What isn't justifiable is rushing to express something one believes to be exclusively one's own. If there is an intention to share, it's OK; otherwise, not.

Yes, integration is the direction I went in as well as you can see. The hope that someone else will succeed in "expressing it better" or that as a group we can find further articulation of a concept or idea is definitely relevant. And yes rushing in with some new idea to throw into the mix out of blue I think can be very helpful to this overall goal.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 08:26 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;133066 wrote:
Socrates wrote no books, Plato wrote dialogues, Aristotle went full on didactic. Conclusion Aristotle messed it all up. Aristotle as "the Philosopher" as the accepted authority of the late medieval philosophers. Dialectic is what Socrates achieved and Plato tried to preserve and Aristotle (at least in his writing) abandoned entirely.

Well put. I never noticed that progression.

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 09:35 PM ----------

Deckard;133066 wrote:
"Erotic" is a loaded and misleading term on the exoteric level but it can be understood at the esoteric as referring to the desire to know the divine.

Yes, it's a "lust for God" I'm referring to. Beatrice as the numen of Dante. We are all Dantes climbing out of hell, purgatory, or higher into heaven. But this is just an analogy of course. For time and chance happens to them all.

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 09:37 PM ----------

Deckard;133066 wrote:

The divine Logos presiding over all discussants none of whom can be recognized as Teachers with a capital "T" just as the Hebrews had no King before Saul.

Yes, I agree very much with this. It's idolatry. And for a teacher to play on man's idolatrous tendencies is selfish in a petty and not a holy way. For what isn't selfish? Virtue is its own reward.

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 09:42 PM ----------

Deckard;133066 wrote:

Thinking of Buber and personality again - logos, truth (call it what you will) does seem to loose it's personality along the way and this is Contra-Buber by my reading of Buber.


Reminds me of Blake. In Heaven there are no women, for women symbolize immanation, or Time in relation to Eternity, (which would translate to Space in relation to Time for both Joyce and Hegel.) Man as an a error who seeks to become the truth. Man is a concept that wants to mirror being, but his Concept (system of concepts) is riddled with error. This reminds me of T. S. Eliot: "Only those who have personality know what it's like to want to get rid of it..." Do winding contingent paths (love-for-wisdom/error) converge on the One(wisdom/concept and being unified)?
 
Deckard
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 09:28 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;133094 wrote:

Reminds me of Blake. In Heaven there are no women, for women symbolize immanation, or Time in relation to Eternity, (which would translate to Space in relation to Time for both Joyce and Hegel.) Man as an a error who seeks to become the truth. Man is a concept that wants to mirror being, but his Concept (system of concepts) is riddled with error. This reminds me of T. S. Eliot: "Only those who have personality know what it's like to want to get rid of it..." Do winding contingent paths (love-for-wisdom/error) converge on the One(wisdom/concept and being unified)?

I just watched the movie Agora which is a good show and I highly recommend it. Hypatia qualifies as one of the martyrs of philosophy right up there with Socrates. According to the movie, her students desired her much as some of Socrates students (see Symposeum) desired Socrates. But Hypatia, in the movie several times stressed that to her students that "we are all brothers." (Reminds me of Simone de Beauvoir's brand of feminism).

I think the applying of a gender to Wisdom; Wisdom as Sophia, wisdom as the Goddess is a mistake or perhaps a lower rung on the ladder of understanding. In any case I like to shake up that metaphor. Wisdom isn't a woman nor is it a man. Neither the 0 nor the 1. Neither first nor second. Wisdom is not a lover to be courted or seduced nor is Wisdom a mother or father to be obeyed. Wisdom is something to be protected and nurtured. Wisdom is a child.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 02:55 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;133028 wrote:
I'm a bit of a cad sometimes. For example: I don't always have the discipline to read through all the posts on a thread because the original post inspires some response that I want to voice right away. I think this is my desire for recognition surfacing and trumping my desire to...well um...it is what it is...my desire learn. Now when a thread is extremely long then this is excusable but with shorter threads I don't think it is. So I'm calling myself out on this.

Anyway, this does bring up an interesting conflict...the conflict between the desire to learn and the desire for recognition. I think that the desire to learn is a desire of the higher order and the desire for recognition is of a relatively lower order. I think this conflict arises quite often especially in an environment such as a forum and also the environment of the classroom and edifying conversations in general.

Thoughts?


A cad is not someone who you describe. A cad is someone who is not nice to women, but who uses them for his own purposes. Why is a desire to learn in conflict with a desire for recognition? It might be that the latter is the spur for the former.

"Fame is the spur that the clear spirit doth raise / (That last infirmity of noble mind) / To scorn delights, and live laborious days".

(John Milton)
 
jgweed
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 09:02 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;133028 wrote:
the original post inspires some response that I want to voice right away.


Rather than a desire for recognition, doesn't your original explanation make more sense? I hope so, because I think a lot of Members do the same thing for the same reason, renewing the conversation immediately.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 09:10 am
@jgweed,
jgweed;133187 wrote:
Rather than a desire for recognition, doesn't your original explanation make more sense? I hope so, because I think a lot of Members do the same thing for the same reason, renewing the conversation immediately.


Both make sense, but I agree, one is more plausible that the other. In any case, if anything, most responses show a desire for notoriety rather than a desire for recognition.
 
Lost1 phil
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 10:34 am
@Deckard,
I haven't been around very long, but already I find myself picking and choosing who's responses I read. Partly because I'm not wise enough to understand some who have a far greater grasp of the English language than myself, and partly because of what is being questioned here.

When I see the same 2-4 people seemly attempting to simply get the last word end I often over look those posters...especially if it's gone on for 2-4 pages because more often then not they are now totally off the original topic.

Other posters I read every word they post because I find them wishing to share knowledge more than wanting to prove themselves to me.

So yes, we all seek acceptance, more so in a field we are personally interested in, but we are also seeking to learn. Could be some wish to learn more inorder, in their own minds, to be more acceptable?

Being willing to admit ones desire for recognition is a life's lesson is it not?

Lost1
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 04:04 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;133112 wrote:

I think the applying of a gender to Wisdom; Wisdom as Sophia, wisdom as the Goddess is a mistake or perhaps a lower rung on the ladder of understanding. In any case I like to shake up that metaphor. Wisdom isn't a woman nor is it a man. Neither the 0 nor the 1. Neither first nor second. Wisdom is not a lover to be courted or seduced nor is Wisdom a mother or father to be obeyed. Wisdom is something to be protected and nurtured. Wisdom is a child.


I agree with you. I've been thinking about this. Yes, Wisdom is a child. A child is androgynous, in a manner of speaking. Think of Wordsworth Intimations of Immortality. The Child is a 10, and neither a 1 nor a 0. (Of course this is all just symbolization.)
At moment I see Wisdom as a union of truth and beauty. The numinous concept, or numen. I can't help but find Jung's Self-archetype in Wisdom. But he himself uses Sophia as the highest development of the Anima. But Sophia is actually the soul of God, yes? I think that's the myth. If God is the Truth, then Sophia is the passion for this Truth, the soul in God that finds it (it's other "half") beautiful.
A dialectic within the truth that becomes more numinous as the truth becomes more naked, more purified. (This also ties into Nietzsche: maturity is attaining the seriousness of a child at play..)
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 06:12 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;133028 wrote:
I'm a bit of a cad sometimes. For example: I don't always have the discipline to read through all the posts on a thread because the original post inspires some response that I want to voice right away. I think this is my desire for recognition surfacing and trumping my desire to...well um...it is what it is...my desire learn. Now when a thread is extremely long then this is excusable but with shorter threads I don't think it is. So I'm calling myself out on this.

Anyway, this does bring up an interesting conflict...the conflict between the desire to learn and the desire for recognition. I think that the desire to learn is a desire of the higher order and the desire for recognition is of a relatively lower order. I think this conflict arises quite often especially in an environment such as a forum and also the environment of the classroom and edifying conversations in general.

Thoughts?


You could also look at it as not wanting your initial inspiration responce interpretation to be clouded or go to waste because of the responces of others.
Besides sometimes i am only interested in answering replying to what you expressed, the art work critiqued not the critics.

You are trying to teach reach something with your responce not just learn earn.
Is 'to teach' the recognition you speak of?

I have just doen what you described, so some might have already said what i have put down here, but i just wanted YOU to know MY thoughts even if someone else has had them, i want you to know that i can come to my own conclusion.
If what i say has been said by soemone else it still has not been said by or as me.
Is this recognition? Yes becuase i would not have answered if i did not want you to see me.
Inspiration come sinto this somewhere surly? And the need to not let it go to waste or forget it.
That is a big thing for me when i do what you have described, inspired and just cant wait, the need to be see so as to let you know i have seen you.

Recogintion all depends on what you need to be recognised for, not just asked for your autograph with out them having watched the film having been inspired by your performance,

You are not the model you are the artist.
The model has little to do with the peice.
You changed the information into art.
Sometimes you dont need the critics comentary to have your own appreciation of a work, just as sometimes you do, just as sometimes you should avoid them altogether, and if you really like a piece you will like later to go back and critique the critics.
All depends on what inspires you.
Your understanding or others.
I want you to know what you inspired.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 11:35 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;133393 wrote:
You could also look at it as not wanting your initial inspiration responce interpretation to be clouded or go to waste because of the responces of others.
Besides sometimes i am only interested in answering replying to what you expressed, the art work critiqued not the critics.

You are trying to teach reach something with your responce not just learn earn.
Is 'to teach' the recognition you speak of?

I have just doen what you described, so some might have already said what i have put down here, but i just wanted YOU to know MY thoughts even if someone else has had them, i want you to know that i can come to my own conclusion.
If what i say has been said by soemone else it still has not been said by or as me.
Is this recognition? Yes becuase i would not have answered if i did not want you to see me.
Inspiration come sinto this somewhere surly? And the need to not let it go to waste or forget it.
That is a big thing for me when i do what you have described, inspired and just cant wait, the need to be see so as to let you know i have seen you.

Recogintion all depends on what you need to be recognised for, not just asked for your autograph with out them having watched the film having been inspired by your performance,

You are not the model you are the artist.
The model has little to do with the peice.
You changed the information into art.
Sometimes you dont need the critics comentary to have your own appreciation of a work, just as sometimes you do, just as sometimes you should avoid them altogether, and if you really like a piece you will like later to go back and critique the critics.
All depends on what inspires you.
Your understanding or others.
I want you to know what you inspired.


You point out that there are two sides to recognition. I was overly focused on the desire for recognition - Tthere is also the ability to recognize. There is recognizing and there is being recognized. This can be reciprocal. I recognize you, you recognize me. Other times this doesn't happen. Sometimes one side withholds recognition. Sometimes one side doesn't care whether or not s/he is recognized.

Mutual recognition is a sort of confirmation. It's a yes, that is the case. And sometimes it is a Yes, I or we learned something there. We have some bit of knowledge in common.

Mutual recognition also seems to be a step towards a more objective understanding. The purely subjective understanding can recognize no other subjects. I recognize you and you recognize me and also we can both recognize the same truth and recognize each other as having recognized it. The objective understanding arises out of these mutual recognitions between thinking subjects.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 11:53 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;133463 wrote:
You point out that there are two sides to recognition. I was overly focused on the desire for recognition - Tthere is also the ability to recognize. There is recognizing and there is being recognized. This can be reciprocal. I recognize you, you recognize me. Other times this doesn't happen. Sometimes one side withholds recognition. Sometimes one side doesn't care whether or not s/he is recognized.

Mutual recognition is a sort of confirmation. It's a yes, that is the case. And sometimes it is a Yes, I or we learned something there. We have some bit of knowledge in common.

Mutual recognition also seems to be a step towards a more objective understanding. The purely subjective understanding can recognize no other subjects. I recognize you and you recognize me and also we can both recognize the same truth and recognize each other as having recognized it. The objective understanding arises out of these mutual recognitions between thinking subjects.

We all need confirmation, it is hard to confirm the self.
I wonder if it is impossible to baptise your self? My minister confirmed that i could.
(each time i just wrote confirmed i wrote conformed, and had to correct my self, i wonder if that means anything?)
 
Deckard
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 12:13 am
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;133466 wrote:
We all need confirmation, it is hard to confirm the self.
I wonder if it is impossible to baptise your self? My minister confirmed that i could.
(each time i just wrote confirmed i wrote conformed, and had to correct my self, i wonder if that means anything?)

I think conforming implies a less than mutual recognition. To confirm is to agree. To conform is to give in.

John the Baptist is an interesting character. His place in the story is to recognize more than be recognized. I suppose Jesus recognized him back.

Quote:
Matthew 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
It really does get to the crux of the problem. Yet Jesus goes around saying that he is the truth the way and the light. Something seems wrong about this. It would have been better if he was not the word made flesh but rather someone who knew the truth the way and the light and thus someone who could teach it. But that's not how the story goes. It is on this point that I would rather believe that Jesus was really just speaking metaphorically and I must confess I think it's a very misleading and rather stupid metaphor. Sorry J.C. I just don't see eye to eye on this one. Stumbling block indeed. Perhaps I have more to learn.

Did I mention that John the Baptist is my favorite character in the bible?

Still, Jesus had to be baptized and had to be baptized by someone else. Not even Jesus could baptize himself. I think your minister is wrong. and Insofar as a baptism can be called a recognition...
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 12:39 am
@Deckard,
Which i suppose is why i have never attempted it or recognised myself as a Christian, even if i need to believe i can still be one.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 12:40 am
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;133470 wrote:
Which i suppose is why i have never attempted it or recognised myself as a Christian, even if i need to believe i can still be one.

Funny, I have attempted it and now recognize the error.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » The desire to learn vs. the desire for recognition
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 06/16/2024 at 01:40:05