20120501

拒絕思考

每次教 Logic and Critical Thinking,都會有些很不合作的學生;不合作,是指他們完全不肯思考。只要教的是稍為抽象和複雜的概念,這些學生根本不會嘗試動腦筋,點著他們回答問題時,必然是雙目發呆,搖搖頭表示不懂。上星期解釋 De Morgan’s Laws 時,就有這個情況,我用 truth tables,用實例,反複解釋,有幾個學生總是跟不上,每次都不懂回答我的問題。最後,我直接問其中一個學生究竟哪一點弄不清楚,他只是說:「不知道呀,這真的很難明白啊!」(I don’t know. It’s so hard to understand!”)其實一點不難,很多學生不消一會便明白了,因為他們跟著我的講解和例子逐步思考,我在堂上給的練習題他們亦用心去做 --- 這就是跟我合作了。

那些不願思考的學生相信大多不會承認自己懶得思考,然而,昨天有個學生到我的辦公室「求救」時(學期尾是這些擔心自己會不及格的學生湧現的時候),竟直認最怕思考,還說自己是一個很輕信的人(a gullible person),說時的語氣似乎是不認為那有甚麼不妥!最妙的是,她問了我一個問題:「你真的時時刻刻思考、凡事也分析一番嗎?」(“Do you really think all the time and analyze everything?”)好像愛思考、好分析是很不自然的事。我只好回答:「不是時時刻刻,也非凡事,但也差不多了。」(“Well, not all the time, not everything, but close.”)她睜大雙眼,一副難以置信的樣子。

38 則留言:

  1. 想起以前有個公務員同事的名言:「一世斷估,唔駛受苦。」

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 羅素甚至說:"Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do."

      刪除
    2. 「懶人自有懶人福」亦何嘗不是。

      刪除
  2. 或者那位學生是「一朵溫室的花」,未曾有過受騙的經歷。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 我想那也和性格和家庭教育有關。

      刪除
    2. 我確實請過好多後生仔﹐他們很怕諗嘢的﹐但佢地肯定唔係甚麼溫室兒童﹐有唔少家境仲係好貧困﹐兼且屋企人時常吵大鑊果種。
      當然﹐我相信他們也不是不諗嘢﹐只係他們都是諗得很直接同好簡單﹐也只能諗些好簡單的問題
      一遇上稍有複雜的問題﹐反應便如你所說﹐目定口呆﹐有如痴呆!要不就大叫頭痛!
      而且教完佢做﹐佢都依然係目定口呆﹐令人火滾!
      他們還有一個特點﹐便是很怕計數!要他們埋數的話﹐慘過叫他們擔泥!

      刪除
    3. 文少,
      If you are willing to pay more, there are smarter people out there. I can refer a whole bunch of them to you. --zpdrmn

      刪除
    4. zpdrmn﹕
      沒所謂啦﹐天生蠢材必有用﹐人盡其才嘛﹖
      其實不肯或不懂動腦筋的人有個好處﹐便是聽話。
      你很容易說服他去為你做事
      至於壞處﹐便是你要浪費很多唇舌才能教懂他做事。

      刪除
    5. 做事...做壞事?? Now I understand why my wife and kids never do whatever I suggest-- I am the stupid one. --zpdrmn

      刪除
  3. 覺得這文章的label應該是「不吐不快」!

    此外,有個有趣而麻煩的問題(很簡單問):我們要反省到甚麼程度才算truthful?人比人,比死人,恐怕維根斯坦會認為羅素是個很差的 moral philosopher。你怎樣看呢?有時我怕反省太多,寧願把反省當作curiosity所引導的,而不是 truthfulness 所要求的;你是怎樣看的?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 我不覺得不吐不快,卻認為那學生的問題和反應都有趣,所以便歸類「浮生記趣」。

      反省是為了認識自己,盡量做到毋自欺,所以我認為應由 truthfulness 而非由 curiosity 推動。

      刪除
    2. 可是,要盡量不自欺也不容易(「盡量」是指?......),舉個例子,我搞不清楚morality的本質和特點,但做人如果不抱著一些道德立場會很辛苦。Russell 算是很會反省的人吧?但我看也有些討論認為他根本不算是 moral philosopher 卻談了很多 morality 的東西。你怎樣看呢?我很想知道。

      刪除
    3. //要盡量不自欺也不容易(「盡量」是指?......)//

      - 當然不容易,「盡量」就是盡力而為,要做多少則無一定,也不能量化。

      //我搞不清楚morality的本質和特點,但做人如果不抱著一些道德立場會很辛苦。//

      - 不一定要搞清楚morality的本質和特點才可以有自己反省過後仍認為合理的道德信念或判斷。

      //Russell 算是很會反省的人吧?但我看也有些討論認為他根本不算是 moral philosopher 卻談了很多 morality 的東西。//

      - 不一定要是 moral philosopher 才可以談 morality 吧?重要的是不武斷和知道自己的限制。

      刪除
  4. 怎麼又是女學生呢王sir?

    R.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 你看﹐不是得我一個人這麼說你的!(閃)

      刪除
    2. 我也留意到這一點。

      刪除
  5. De Morgan’s Laws: Should be taught in 7th grade (F.1 in HK). But I'm not surprised that many college students have problems with it. I had experience with some of them who couldn't draw a simple graph right. Don't want to trash the science and math education here again. Even my wife is complaining now. She is very easy going.
    I started to give some (but not much) extra math to my oldest kid when she was in 4th grade. But I started to give extra math to my youngest when she was in 3rd. Her teachers (3rd and 4th grade) were not teaching much. The 3rd grade teacher of my youngest skipped most of the science textbook. The 4th grade teacher skipped a big topic covered in several chapters. She also didn't teach some math topics which were taught in my oldest kid's 4th grade. --zpdrmn

    PS How come the spelling check here is off. I have a lot of typos and hate to catch them myself.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. The spelling check is working fine.

      刪除
  6. Feeling and Thinking are like twin brothers.
    They have same last name, but Feeling is the first name young people remember most. Also, they have a cousin, whose name is Common Sense, but young people couldn't spell it right.

    回覆刪除
  7. 不思考的人有時比思考的人快樂,故意不讓自己想事物的陰暗面,
    像遊魚樂,但斷估魚不會思考?
    如果魚會想為什麼我是魚,為什麼魚要被人吃而不是我吃人,
    也許他會變成一條不快樂的魚?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 子非魚﹐焉知魚之樂
      子非魚﹐焉知魚不思﹖(爆)

      刪除
    2. 子非魚﹐焉知魚被吃而不快樂??(爆爆) If no fish are eaten my pedators there will be too many of them completing over limited food supply. Many of them die of hunger. 魚被吃不被吃也不快樂. What can fish do? Don't worry, be happy... no matter if 被吃不被吃. --zpdrmn
      PS 子非魚﹐焉知魚是魚?

      刪除
    3. competing, I mean

      刪除
    4. Laika,

      //不思考的人有時比思考的人快樂//

      - 這個我同意,但思考和快樂不一定有衝突,有時思考正確會令人更快樂。

      刪除
  8. 如何才能修練到上乘如老子般大智若愚的處世智慧,明澈圓融不與凡俗世人爭的哲學思考正確模式,可否透露達到人生思考成熟實際生活可行的哲學小徑?如湖濱散記作者梭羅所体悟的那樣舉重若輕的飄逸與豁達…

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. //明澈圓融不與凡俗世人爭的哲學思考正確模式// Is that really 哲學? What definition is used here?
      Anyway, I would say it is probably not a 思考模式. Don't 思考 so much may be it. Just act. That leads to the following.
      //實際生活可行的哲學小徑// Again, is that really 哲學?
      Let me paraphaze some zen master: Dinner time, eat! Time to go (#2), poop! 實際生活可行, 明澈圓融, 上乘修練.
      --zpdrmn

      刪除
    2. 這種模式,好聽一點可叫做生活智慧,說穿了就是凡事不加思考的生活模式。一思考,就是陷入迷執。一用理性,就被理性思維所捆綁。

      然而,這種「處世」方式其實無助處理解決任何問題,只不過是將一切客觀問題化歸主觀因素從而加以解消,又或者,用一種亂打亂撞符錄隨機的態度去處理。但並非所有真實問題都來自庸人自擾。面對著現實生活上種種不公,如果依然要堅持一種掩耳盜鈴視若無睹逃避現實的所謂智慧,其實可以是很冷酷無情自私。

      修練這種智慧,方式同不斷修練自我感覺良好類似。

      刪除
    3. 小溪,

      //如何才能修練到上乘如老子般大智若愚的處世智慧,明澈圓融不與凡俗世人爭的哲學思考正確模式,可否透露達到人生思考成熟實際生活可行的哲學小徑?//

      - 對不起,我未到這境界。

      刪除
    4. 匿名,
      //這種模式,好聽一點可叫做生活智慧,說穿了就是凡事不加思考的生活模式。//
      I won't get into too much details here, but let me briefly respond.
      Most people asking questions like 小溪's aren't people who don't think or aren't willing to think. If such a question is posted before a zen master or some spiritual master of similar type, one of the responses (s)he will give is like what I posted above. (Another example: A swami once responed, "eat some grapes." I would use mango.) If someone who don't think or aren't willing to think asks a similar question, (it is unlikely, but we should give them the benefit of doubt) the response will be different. I don't know what it will be. I would repond by asking the person to read Wong's papers. --zpdrmn

      刪除
  9. Wong, the spelling check isn't working on me. See my typo "paraphaze." I think maybe it's because I am using IE now. I had some problems with my Firefox and uninstall it.

    回覆刪除
  10. 其實,哲學的訓練,雖然解決了一些偏見,但會否又會帶來另一種限制,或者製造新的偏見?

    例如,有無一樣野,係思維建全的普通人會想到,會比較客觀地看到,反而特別讀過哲學的學人會有偏見,或者偏偏想不到呢?

    不是想批評任何哲學人,只是很好奇,哲學的專業訓練,本身是否仍會具有某些偏見。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 你說得對,所以讀哲學的人要警惕,不要以為自己凡事都比一般人看得深入、準確、和通透。

      刪除
  11. 不欲思考的人何苦要讀大學呢?老師有教無類,耐心解釋不駡人,恐怕未能讓不肖學生明白自己錯在何處。

    回覆刪除
  12. 我從來都不認為自己拒絕思考, 可是我又經常會被龐大的哲學體系所嚇怕, 苦苦追求一切背後的道理令我有很大的空虛感, 然後覺得(以經濟學來說) 反正市場總是用著最有效率的方法運行, 只要順著世俗的方向走, 往往錯不了多少, 然後再覺得, 聰明的人應該知道如何最有效地運用資源, 應該知道知道到那一個地步就可以了。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. The whole world is polluted. No problem, //反正市場總是用著最有效率的方法運行...聰明的人應該知道如何最有效地運用資源.// So much for economics and smart people.
      --zpdrmn (經常被龐大的 pollution 嚇怕)

      刪除
    2. Mark Lee,

      //苦苦追求一切背後的道理令我有很大的空虛感//

      - 我有時亦有這種感覺。

      刪除