20120109

欣慰

每個學期完了,都會收到一兩個學生的電郵或感謝卡,多謝我的教導。今天就收到這樣的一封電郵,不過和一般收到的有點不同,值得一談。

這個學生沒有說很多感謝和讚美的話,主要是說上學期他修我教的知識論,是他第一次感受到哲學可以這麼難懂而又同時這麼有趣。他特別提到課程裏的兩篇文章(Paul Grice, "The Causal Theory of Perception"  Nishi Shah, "A New Argument for Evidentialism"),說對他而言讀這兩篇文章是一個使人謙卑的經驗( "a humbling experience"),令他強烈意識到自己的程度還相當低。最後他這樣寫:「我在你班裏學到很多東西,卻又因此而發覺自己所知的是那麼的少。那真是一個很好的學習經驗!謝謝。」( "I learnt so much in your class, which also resulted in my finding out that I know so little. That’s quite a learning experience! Thank you." )

作為老師,尤其是作為哲學老師,我看罷電郵後的感受只兩字能形容:欣慰。

21 則留言:

  1. Wong,

    //我在你班裏學到很多東西,卻又因此而發覺自己所知的是那麼的少。//

    看來「王派」的學生跟「李派」的學生正相反^^

    回覆刪除
  2. Meshi,

    莫講笑,我哪有開宗立派的資格!

    回覆刪除
  3. meshi,

    「王派」and「李派」... 你咁攪法,真的覺得你是在攪破壞,攪分化 ...

    回覆刪除
  4. //「王派」and「李派」... 你咁攪法,真的覺得你是在攪破壞,攪分化 ...//

    - Meshi 明顯是說笑,況且甚麼「王派」「李派」的並不是他最先提出。

    回覆刪除
  5. 其實大家都係「李派」~~~



    原來出處:
    http://fishandhappiness.blogspot.com/2011/12/blog-post_29.html

    匿名提到...
    先不論誰對誰錯
    在討論的態度上
    個人覺得李派勝過王派很多
    擁王派表面理性
    實質輕易動怒無禮沮喪失望
    相比之下李派則較輕鬆善意兼更願意認真回應及探討
    當然到最後
    12/31/2011 6:59 下午

    Meshi 提到...

    告訴大家,我是「李派」的。不信?看看李大宗師的話:

    「筆者教「思考方法」這個課時,助教常說最怕碰到學生提出似是而非的講法。一個言論倘若明顯錯誤,你只消直指其非,大家就會明白。但要破斥似是而非的言論就最考功力了。你單單說「那是錯誤的」,別人不會心服。然而要指出毛病在什麽地方嗎,卻又殊不容易,因爲個中毛病每每是紊亂扭結、夾纏不清的,要一一拆解就十分費煞心思。針對這種情況,可以試用我戲稱之爲「子矛子盾法」的技巧去對治,那就是以子之矛攻子之盾,即以其人之道還治其人之身;這個策略可望能夠點醒對方明白自己之非。」(《李天命的思考藝術》)



    W. Wong 提到...
    //但要破斥似是而非的言論就最考功力了。你單單說「那是錯誤的」,別人不會心服。然而要指出毛病在什麽地方嗎,卻又殊不容易,因爲個中毛病每每是紊亂扭結、夾纏不清的,要一一拆解就十分費煞心思。//

    - 噢,原來連我也是李派的!

    回覆刪除
  6. //Meshi 明顯是說笑,況且甚麼「王派」「李派」的並不是他最先提出。//

    他 quote 這句 : 我在你班裏學到很多東西,卻又因此而發覺自己所知的是那麼的少。

    接著說「王派」and「李派」在這完全不相關的 blog entry 裏, 他真的是在說笑, 攪笑, 攪氣氛?

    回覆刪除
  7. 我以為「李派」最喜歡說笑,原來有「笑話判別失效症」?^^

    回覆刪除
  8. 別亂扣帽子, 我不是「李派」的。 我是「Meshi派」的, 攪破壞, 攪分化, 然後說只是在攪笑, 攪氣氛。

    回覆刪除
  9. 其實當日既L
    會唔會係李天命啊-0-"....

    上面個位/_\
    引用某人之名 立新派
    再話新派志在搗亂
    恁樣好似將人比喻為派
    諷刺緊人bo- -"
    同埋你話自己都係該派既人- -"
    好似話埋自己都係搗亂bo....
    比小小風度好無=[
    ps:有無咩方法係可以用陳述擊破諷刺@@?

    回覆刪除
  10. 小子,

    //其實當日既L
    會唔會係李天命啊-0-"....//

    - 從思考水平和辯論態度看,都不可能是李天命。

    回覆刪除
  11. 匿名君,

    歡迎加入敝派。注意:入派年費美金100元,可以pay-pal付款。

    回覆刪除
  12. Meshi,

    高手! 不愧是教主, 高小子百倍。 歡迎加入 + pay-pal, 將一切化解於無形。

    一笑泯恩仇0拉!

    回覆刪除
  13. - 從思考水平和辯論態度看,都不可能是李天命。

    老師
    再係恁樣 唔係法子bo...
    不如等件事沖淡徂
    先再講李天命老前輩啦

    回覆刪除
  14. 再講
    世間上,陳述可唔可以應付諷刺@@"?

    回覆刪除
  15. 小子,

    //老師
    再係恁樣 唔係法子bo...
    不如等件事沖淡徂
    先再講李天命老前輩啦//

    - 是你先提,我只是答你呀!

    回覆刪除
  16. 小子,

    //陳述可唔可以應付諷刺@@"?//

    - 有些情況下,以冷靜的陳述澄清事實可以顯示對方的諷刺是無的放矢。

    回覆刪除
  17. Wong,
    //無的放矢//
    諷刺: 這個矢是狗矢的矢?

    回覆刪除
  18. Wong,
    //甲說:「我沒有做這件事,乙也沒有做。」
    乙說:「我沒有做這件事,丙也沒有做。」
    丙說:「我沒有做這件事,也不知道是誰做的。」
    在老師的再三追問下,他們承認上面幾句話,每人都有半句真話,半句假話。//
    About the problem above and how my 9 year old did:
    I cannot find where the problem was posted, so I put my reply here.
    I tested my 9 year old and 13 year old.
    I was too busy in the weekend and forgot about the problem. When I remembered it, my nine year old was in bed already. I tested my 13 year old instead. She got it. I forgot her reasoning but it was fine. The next day I tested my 9 year old; she got it too. She figured that from statement #3, C couldn't be the one, otherwise both parts of the statement would be true. Then she figured that from statement #2 the first part had to be false because the 2nd part was true (from what she figured out with statement 3). So, B was the one. She didn't check if A could be the one. But I would accept that from a 9 year old. After I asked her to check and she figured out that A couldn't be the one. Why did I ask her to check about A, I was thinking about making sure that it wasn't a trick question. I asked her to repeat her reasoning to make sure I understood what she said. (Kids don't talk like grownups.)
    I have to say that I suspect that the result does not represent average 9 year old kids. Mine is like 2 s.d. above average. So, parents please don't be discouraged even if your kids don't get it. One day they will. Before the test I didn't expect that my 9 year old would figure it out. I never taught her reasoning--I'm not a tiger dad. But I expected that my 13 year old would get it. Still, I would say that probably not every 13 year old gets it, but I suspect that quite a lot of them do.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. //She figured that from statement #3, C couldn't be the one, otherwise both parts of the statement would be true. //

      - Did you mean "otherwise both parts of the statement would be false"?

      Thanks. Very interesting results. (It's clear that your kids are smart.)

      刪除
  19. Wong,
    //Did you mean "otherwise both parts of the statement would be false"?
    //
    Yes, I meant that. It was my mistake, not my kid's.
    I know my kids are smart. Thank you. But I think that working hard is very important, no matter if one is smart or not. I try to instill such value in them and hope that they won't be over-confident when they grow up.

    回覆刪除