Don’t U know Jackson ?

Theory: If mankind were invented by intelligent design or brought hither by aliens or inexorably evolved from the unknown, he or she had to invent the learning and education process. (unless the aliens started it)

It is my belief that the first time nearly anything was begun, it most likely ended in folly if not disaster (measuring a river with a stick or whatever). Man-being must’ve then proceeded to improvise to a more plausible and workable solution. Which, in entirety, agrees with the “Thousand Li” theory. The manner in which one reads Tsu’s philosophy  will make it correct, if only inferred as thus.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques
“God makes all things good; man meddles with them and they become evil.”
Reading The World – Ideas that matter
2007

According to Rousseau, habit is hindering and prejudice is warping. A fine statement so long as it is understood that his definition is of bad habits. Examples of good habits being, what someone would likely guess, not over-eating or working out often, perhaps the habit of moderating to a healthy lifestyle; these are not of which Rousseau has written. The definition of prejudice is very rarely positive. Unless a man were predisposed to dislike hitting his penis with a mallet; that would be a decent prejudice, of which most men would agree.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques
“When I meet this miracle it will be time enough to decide whether he is a man or a citizen, or how he contrives to be both.”
Reading The World – Ideas that matter
2007

Evidently man is man and cannot be citizen, unless he lose what defined him as man. Yet, this “miracle” of perfect man-ness (as described by Rousseau) could be both, if he only wish to. Which is somewhat problematic, as being faith based and never seen or known to exist. Of course, Rousseau seemed to point out that a one such as this would be perfect – what he believed to be perfect. His later statings of this as “miracle” point to his perceiving that there is no factual way to express the idea of perfection as a verity (maybe that makes a philosopher).

Tsu and Rousseau both claim knowledge of what makes man. Tsu would claim his answer as fact, as he always seems to express that it is and has been done; that persons have been known to achieve pure harmony and accord. Rousseau more or less expresses the knowledge of how a perfect person would behave and come into being, but has not actually known or seen it.

Agreement falls to both writers in the aspect of people being taught into righteousness, but at different points in time. Though Rousseau claims all things are “made” good, he clearly states that a child’s upbringing is what allows the properness of men. It is more so stated that an infant falls to mediocrity, and must be given and nurtured least as possible – lest it be “evil-ised“. Basically, don’t screw up the kid and he or she’ll come out fine. Which is either teach no wrong and/or teach as little as possible; nature will do the rest. Something always remains as being taught.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques
“We can do much, but the chief thing is to prevent anything from being done.”
Reading The World – Ideas that matter
2007

One of the strong discords of ideas falls into the nature of man. Tsu and Rousseau seem in agreement about persons learning for themselves at times. However, they also seem to strongly disagree on education as being the causing factor of overall goody-ness, or the leading naissance in overall malevolence. Tsu would say, the only way to achieve gentleness and to avoid that of the harsh is to educate oneself. Rousseau may counter, the only way to avoid immorality and retain naturalistic decency is to avoid the aggrieved education.

Aside from time discrepancies, both have a claim for need of education and the shunning of ill wisdoms. Certainly not an agreement of the reasonings for it.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques
“-in the hands of women, the victim of his own caprices or theirs, and after they have taught him all sorts of things, when they have burdened his memory with words he cannot understand, or things which are of no use to him, when nature has been stifled by the passions they have implanted in him, this sham article is sent to a tutor.”
Reading The World – Ideas That Matter
2007

This could be taken into the context of a child’s natural idiocy disallowing it to absorb anything useful whilst in the care of his or her mother. Yet, at six or seven? Rousseau’s a mamma hater… and really doesn’t leave anything good to be said about orphans. I’m sure he would also be confused if a woman tried to teach something to him. Less than once did I read anything to lead me believe that Rousseau thought any different. In most probability, Rousseau believed that a bastard (fatherless child) was at one time “nurtured” past infancy and without fatherly direction became evil. He then proceeded to become the worlds first and foremost in evil teachings. A tyrant perhaps. (Oh shit! Here comes the devil.)

Rousseau had much faith in the strength of youth , aside from the need of naturalistic fathers education of zeal and need of mothers’ nurture (no over-nurturing!). If no habits whatsoever are noshed to the child and there is no forced educations thrust upon him or her, nature will stoically produce something good. Interesting is the fact that Rousseau had a very spiteful view on public education, yet he had an undiscerning public and industrial belief of how persons should be taught – especially babies.

This philosophy has it’s many fine points. I prefer to disagree; if I can )

response #1

Response #1 by Jessi Quay

 

                There are many different views on that natural state of man, if they originated pure and good or if they started off evil and bad. Hsun Tzu believes that men were originally bad and only education can turn a man into a gentleman. Jean-Jacques Rousseau believes that everything was made pure and man made them bad. While both of these men believe many different things, they do agree that men are naturally bad. It seems that by just looking at these two philosophers that man is just this evil being that has a small chance of redemption to become good again, but only if they are educated. Education can shape a man into a gentleman, and according to Hsun Tzu a gentleman is a good entity.

                According to Hsun Tzu, a man is born and is shaped like wood into a gentleman. Wood, when it is being shaped, is pressed and worked until it is the form that it was wanted to be. Like a piece of wood, a man is educated and is taught until they are a gentleman. Once a gentleman, they are constantly finding themselves with others that are learned, and as a result of that, they also are constantly learning.

                I disagree with Hsun Tzu in his idea of mankind. I believe that children are born pure and without sin. His idea of thinking is followed by the Catholic religion in believing children are born of sin and can only become forgiven through baptism. This is absurd as a way of a religion’s belief system. I actually believe that man is made bad and evil through education. If a man were never to learn what Hitler did or the tragedies of Shakespeare, they would never know the horror that is human life, and they would forever be blissful in their ignorance.

                Jean-Jacques Rousseau believes god makes all things good but mankind makes things bad and evil. It is because of this evil that mankind is the source of, that education plays a part of Rousseau’s ideals. With education, mankind can make up for the evil that it creates.

                I agree with his idea on the nature of things. If man were to leave animals and the land to itself, there wouldn’t be the problems and the many diseases there are in the world today. I believe that mankind is the reason there are people in the world that drive big SUV’s that put out so much bad pollutants into the air and that throw away massive amounts of reusable products without a care in the world. Education is a good thing, but the way that it is forced upon children when they are of an age when they most impressionable and are taught false facts that are not true, it is not being used to its true intention. Some untrue facts are the fact that Columbus was this amazing man who helped found America when in fact he murdered many a Native Americans. The intention of education is true, but the way it is acted upon needs to be changed into a way that it teaches morals and ideals that will benefit the student later in life and not mindless facts about which actor has won the most awards.

Good vs. Evil

 Chelsey Colbert

Hsün Tzu and Rousseau both believed that education is important to humankind; however, the two philosophers could not be more different on their views of the correct way to educate a child. Hsün Tzu believes that men are born evil and the only way a man can become a noble person is through strict, rigorous education. On the other hand, Rousseau, believed that men are born, more or less, innocent; because so, education is an instrument used to nurture a child’s natural intuition, which is to be curious.

            The scholar Hsün Tzu had a pessimistic view on human nature. As a result, he believed a child was born evil and through education that child could become noble. It was through education a human could follow “the path to perfection” and follow “The Way” to become a “Gentleman” (p. 456). Hsün Tzu suggests that educating a child can only be carried out in one manner, through specific studying. He compares the natural tendencies of humankind to that of a piece of wood curling; the board can be straightened through constant persistence and pressure, as a child can be educated through constant persistence and pressure.

            Unlike Hsün Tzu, Rousseau believes that men are born with natural instincts but most of those are kind in nature. Because of this, he speaks about how education should encourage man’s natural instincts to be curious and not inhibit man’s inquisitiveness. Instead of bending the piece of wood to be straight, Rousseau thinks that education should work in sync with nature. For example, children should not be forced to sit in a room for a certain number of hours per day and read out loud to other children from a book; instead, children should be one with nature and explore it along with reading texts for the ancient.

            Both men thought that education is important, one was single-minded and the other was open to different ways to learn. To one, education led to nobility and purity; to the other, education led to new discoveries and expanding philosophies. The significance of educating society was the only idea they had in common.  

Rousseau & Hsun Tzu

Michael Chopp

Ariana Paliobagis

ENG 121

1/24/07

 

                Hsun Tzu and Rousseau were two brilliant minds of our past, a couple of very talented philosophers. When it came to the subject of education, both had very opposite views. However, their main thesis on education is that it is the key to finding the good and understanding in people, as they are vulnerable and ignorant with the knowledge gained from an education.

                Hsun Tzu beliefs on education are as a child is born “evil” and through schooling and text learning, they can find their “oneness” or become a true “gentleman”.  Also, learning from about the classical times and gaining experience from the people well known in the past. If you fall off this track, you have doomed yourself and all achievement is lost. On the other hand, Rousseau believes a completely different point of view. He considers children as born as good, but just ignorant. From the moment they begin to breath, they start learning. The other difference to Hsun Tzu is that text learning and learning from the classics is not a way of Rousseau. He believes through natural experience, you will learn everything you need to know about life. Also, it prepares you for real life situations, unlike learning from a text.

                To me, a little bit of both philosophers are right. I believe, like Rousseau, that a child is born good and does begin learning from birth. However, just learning from experience can’t get you that far. In the world today, I solid education in the classroom makes you successful. On the contrary, life experience is good. Learning how to utilize that knowledge from class and use it in real life, or just experiencing new things is all learning. It is gained knowledge. But having just basic knowledge of one or the other is not gaining the true aspect of learning. All in all, they have the main idea of education… It leads to greatness and understanding.

Hsun Tzu vs. Rousseau

Describing the similarities between the educational philosophies of Rousseau and Hsun Tzu is difficult. They both have a great passion for education and believe that it is the corner stone of any society. They believe that all children should be educated, but they differ in their means.

Hsun Tzu believed that all humans were born inherently evil. His idea on education was that it was supposed to cure this evil. He believed that following the ideas of the past would lead to the getting rid of your evil. This tends to go along with traditional eastern thought. Tradition is very important in eastern cultures and therefore future generations are supposed to go along with traditional education. This idea really does not allow for the freedom of thought.

Rousseau believed that humans were inherently good. He thought that parents played a very important role in the education of their children. He thought that overprotective parents ended up hindering their children in the long run. He thought that you ought to let your children fall down and get back up again rather than stopping them falling in the first place. “People think only of preserving their child’s life; this is not enough, he must be taught to preserve his own life.” (Emile, 4) Rousseau also believed in the freedom of thought. Here he counters the thoughts of Hsun Tzu by saying “but when we consider the fleeting nature of human affairs, the restless and uneasy spirit of our times, when every generation overturns the work of its predecessor, can we conceive a more senseless plan than to educate a child as if he would never leave his room as if he would always have his servants about him?” (Emile, 4)

Both of these philosophers believed that education was a necessary part of society. Their ideas about how to educate were very different. Part of this was to their differing ideas, but I think a lot of it has to do with the times that they lived. Hsun Tzu lived in ancient China, where adherence to traditional thought was the normal. Rousseau on the other hand lived in the age of enlightenment where the freedom of ideas was much more accepted and this is reflected in his writings. Personally, I believe in both ideas. I think that you cant have great ideas without a firm footing to put them on. However without the freedom of ideas we would still be stuck in the Dark Ages. Both have great arguments and I look forward to reading more writing like these.

Rousseau vs. Hsun Tzu: Education Round One

In regards to Rousseau, I found his essay very interesting.  The idea that the best way to educate a child is to essentially allow himself to learn from everything he is exposed to in the world, as opposed to teaching him in a formal class room setting has its ups and downs.  The benefits would be that they would have a very broad knowledge of many things.  However, they would most likely not have an in depth knowledge of any one subject, which would hinder them if they were trying to get a job that was very specific in its field.  That is why there needs to be a proper balance between street smarts, which Rousseau endorses, and book smarts, which Hsun Tzu endorses.

Tzu believes that the proper development of a person comes through education as well, but he takes a different approach.  He thinks that this progress is encouraged by the studying of old texts, which basically supports the traditional style of teaching.  Book smarts are also very important because they emphasize specialization in a field.  The further you pursue a traditional education, the more specialized you will become, such as an engineer.  However, this also has its disadvantages.  If the field you step into requires any additional knowledge from a separate field, you will have limited if no knowledge.  That is why I believe you need to combine some of Tzu’s and Rousseau’s ideas, having a proper balance of street smarts and book smarts.  If you spend some extra time, you can not only understand how everything works, but you can have a deeper understanding of some important aspects.  An example would be a Civil Engineer who had prior experience in general construction, enabling him to work to a more efficient degree.

IT ALL COMES DOWN

To explain the difference between Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Tzu Hzun is like explaining the difference between night and day.  They have little in common, but just as the sky is as a part of the day as it is the night and the plant and animals thrive or rest in one or the other.  So do Rousseau and Tzu Hzun have beliefs that they shared.  A short point would be that of education and a belief and passion about it.  They both describe education as the link to becoming complete.  That completeness however begins their quick separation in theories.  One goes left and the other right.  In their styles of making points and creating circumstances they both use many metaphors about nature.  which makes us believe they both had connections to the natural world. These two philosophers were as distant in their ideas as they were geographically and generation-ally.  While one thought that the ideas and rituals of his ancients and not so ancients, were to be held with a great reverence and studied and pondered.  The other came from an environment of turmoil and the beginning of a great change for the world.  Rousseau seemed rebellious to his predecessors.  Wanting new ideas and a different way of life, not just for himself but for everyone.  We must take into consideration of these differences in backgrounds if we are to try to understand these two philosophers.  Weather we agree with them or not.    Hzun Tzu was a student of Confucius and after he died his students split into two different groups. One taking a more positive view following Menicus.  While Hzun Tzu and the others took on a more negative perspective.  So negative in fact that it was first rejected.  Hzun tzu was a firm believer in education.  Believing it to be the only way of reversing man’s evil tendencies.  Being that evil was the way all children were born.  To him education was the pursuit of perfection, which in turn could only be achieved through ritual, order,duty, and dedication.  The pursuit of this was the only thing that mattered, with death being the end.  To become a perfect gentleman (which is what an educated man was refer-ed to as)was the path to the way, Tao, oneness to becoming complete.  A gentleman would have no distractions from the way.  To associate with only other gentleman and never with a “beast” or a “petty man,”(Tzun Hzu) who was weak and in his mind to be shunned.  Through this study he believed the “son of heaven”(Tzun Hzu) would thus reward him for reaching perfection. “God makes all things good; man meddles with them and they become evil.”(Rousseau. Emile)  This is where Rousseau takes his stand.  He stresses that the way to over come man’s evil meddlings starts at birth.  With the education of nature, all its aspects the good the bad and the ugly.  Children are born with a curiosity for all things and through the enhancement and stimulus of it the child gains experience.  Through this you would grow to become a person that was confident and comfortable with change and with oneself.  Children needed a guidance that could never be forced.  The father and mother were to take this place, not a nurse maid or a tutor with his books and rules.  Children needed the experience and luck of nature and its goodwill, and the education, and kindness of his teachers.  In this way the child could grow to become truly complete and real.  Rousseau and Hzun Tzu, though they both believed in their theories and may not agree with each other were they to meet.  Agreed on at least one very important issue, education and its value and that it leads to wholeness.  Which in essence is a beautiful thing. 

I guess?

Uh, I don’t really have any questions about the class or the book considering I was in class for a couple days before I made this account.  So yeah, I guess I was kinda curious about why it is that hsun tzu was so into discipline?  Not a very good question but I also was in class while all the others were answered. 

Insights of Hsun Tzu & Rousseau

Samantha Kujala

 ENGL. 121 

1/24/08

Ariana Paliobagis

                    Hsun Tzu vs. Rousseau         

          I found some of Rousseau’s thoughts to be very bizarre, but in some ways I agree with them. For example, Rousseau thought the more educated you become, the more you become evil and we are all born good. Well, I don’t disagree that we are all born good, you’re a baby of course you’re good. Although, I don’t see how becoming educated makes us evil. Some things we learn in life are bad and can possibly impact us for the worse. But what about people who read the Bible, is learning from that making us evil? Also, was Rousseau judging herself, because her ideas were educated ideas and being able to write requires learning? So is Rousseau admitting she is evil too? Rousseau also hinted toward the idea that people become successful by luck. Some people may be lucky by having someone they know be able to help them out and make them successful, but I totally disagree that people are successful by luck. At least in today’s world, if you really want to be successful you have to work hard at it. Say you’re trying to get a job, today you have to have a good resume to show experience, qualifications, and you have to have interviews so they can get to know you. I don’t believe life happens by luck, you have to work hard to get what you want, maybe not hundreds of years ago but today you do.                    With the reading from Hsun Tzu, I thought it made more sense and I liked the metaphors used to make you understand him. I do think it shows a lot about a person who gives up and drops out of high school. A person who is just lazy and doesn’t care about the education they could have, I agree with Hsun Tzu about, I don’t think they can ever really call themselves a man or woman.  But I don’t think that is totally true either and I kind of have a theory of my own. This is, when you do stop reading from texts and you’re not pushing to learn something new, you still do learn something new everyday, without even knowing it sometimes. Life is full of questions and answers.  

Tsu v. Rousseau

English 121College writing

Mrs. P

Henry Robertson

Tsu vs. Rousseau

“I once tried spending the whole day in thought, but I found it of less value than a moment of study (Tzu, p. 456).” “To my mind those of us who can best endure the good and evil of life are the best educated; hence it follows that true education consists less in precept than in practice (Rousseau, p.  483).”

Based on the two thoughts above it is easy for one to understand the differences between authors.  Tsu believes the only way for humans to evolve and succeed is through books and formal teaching.  It is also his belief that we are born evil and it is only through this type of teaching can we achieve internal goodness.  Whereas, Rousseau believes the opposite – success will only come through experience and hands-on training.  It is also his belief that we are born good and become evil through time.  Not only do these philosophers differ on education, but also how we succeed.

 Tsu bases success on dedication and hard work. He believes our forward progress with the struggles of life cannot be based on laziness. We have to put forth effort in order to succeed.  On the other hand, Rousseau bases success, to some degree, on luck.  To some extent Rousseau is right – being at the right place at the right time has created much success for some people.  However, to agree with Tzu, most people have had to work very hard to achieve their success.

Even though these authors have very differing views, to some extent, they are both correct.  In order to succeed we need both formal education and life experiences.  “Well rounded” people are not only book smart but also street smart.  Also, no one in their right mind can say that a little luck doesn’t help!

Evil? I think not.

Hsun Tzu’s and Rousseau’s views on human nature are entirely different.  Hsun Tzu felt that people are evil from the start and that it takes education and discipline to straighten them out.  At the other end of the spectrum, Rousseau believed that all people are born with good intentions and that it is the twists and turns of life that lead them astray.  Personally, I think both Rousseau and Hsun Tzu are extreme in their thinking—but, I would probably agree more with Rousseau and his ideas about human nature.  I believe that God created everyone as innocent and with good intentions.  At the same time, evil influences are around every corner and people need to be careful to avoid them.   Especially in this day and age sin is everywhere–and it is not hard to get caught up in it.

 One of the big reasons that I believe all people are naturally good is because of a person’s conscience.  With the exception of a few sick people on this earth, I think a person can usually tell the difference between right and wrong.  As a person gets older they may choose to ignore these intuitive feelings, but as far as I know they are always there.   And if a person overrides these thoughts, the evil aspects of life can easily take over. I can see where Hsun Tzu comes from when he says that an education straightens a person out and helps them become better—but I just have a hard time believing that our Creator would make us evil and expect an education to make us better.

 I do believe that an education can improve a person– but only because it helps them look within and realize that the easier choice in life is to be good.   It is like an education gives a person the chance to explore themselves– which in turn helps bring out their positive qualities.   So like Rousseau, I feel that all people are inherently good.  An education is not needed to straighten a person out (or change them from bad to good)—but more so to help them find that God-given goodness within.

Differing Philosophies: Rousseau vs. Hsun Tzu

Keely M. Boulton

ENGL 121—Palibagis

 

            When comparing and contrasting the philosophies of Hsun Tzu and Rousseau, there are some major differences.  As one reads the works of each philosopher it is difficult to find any similarities.  The differences between Hsun Tzu and Rousseau that are most obvious are their ideas on the purpose of education and human nature.

            Hsun Tzu’s philosophy regarding education is that it can somehow compensate for man’s evil nature.  He believes that through education a man can better himself and become a “gentleman” of moral character (455).  He suggests that “if the gentleman studies widely and each day examines himself, his wisdom will become clear and his conduct be without fault” (456).  His view of education ties directly into his belief that humans are inherently corrupt and evil.  From here we can see the total opposite viewpoints of Hsun Tzu and Rousseau. 

            In complete contrast to the philosophies of Hsun Tzu are those of Rousseau.  He had great faith in the human race and its goodness.  Because of this philosophy he believed that institutions, like education, corrupted people’s natural state of goodness.  According to Rousseau, “God makes all things good, man meddles with them and they become evil” (480).  He believed that man in his natural state was at his best and education served to hinder the oneness a person should have with that natural state of being.  To Rousseau, “education should nurture and protect the natural virtue that all children are born with” (479).

            I thought it was very interesting to se how different the two philosophers are in their ideas.  It was apparent to me right away that in today’s society these two philosophies are still very visible.  There are many who believe that education should always be objective and strict, whereas others believe that education should teach a child to be ready for every curveball in life.  Because I am studying to become an educator these differences were very interesting to me in particular.

             

The philosophies of Hsün Tzu and Rousseau

  

Felix J Grobler

Ariana Paliobagis

English 121

25^th of January 2008

The philosophies of Hsün Tzu and Rousseau

Hsün Tzu and Rousseau were influential philosophers. They both concerned themselves with the initial state a person is in when he or she is born. Hsün Tzu believed that humans were born inherently evil and that only through hard work do they become good. Education is used to achieve this goal. Hsün Tzu believes that only through education can we reach true “oneness”. In contrast to this Rousseau believed that humans have an innate goodness about them. He believed that society and government corrupted people’s innate nobility (Rousseau, p.479). In his view education could serve as a barrier against the corrupting forces that are all around us.

The two philosophers’ opinions on education follow on a similar note; education is an important theme for both philosophers and is seen as a tool to promote the goodness in people. But each philosophers’ educational viewpoints differ widely in a few instances. Hsün Tzu would have you rather learning from the classics and the experiences of well learned persons. Perfection is the only reasonable goal and if you stray form the path only once then you have failed. One slip up seems to destroy all your prior achievements in his eyes. Only a person who has a constancy of virtue can be called a true gentleman (Hsün Tzu, p.461). Therefore you should not learn by your own experience and rather by the knowledge or experiences of others or that of texts.

Rousseau represents the polar opposite in this part of education. Rousseau talks about the different elements or origins education should consist of, which are from nature, from men and from things (Rousseau, p.480). Both the education from nature and things are intended to be received through your own experiences. Rousseau is not a great fan of formal education. He recognizes the need for it, but makes a clear point that it does not represent the most important part of education. He favors leaning on your own, which you can conduct at your own speed and in a manner that works best for you. The abilities to solve problems and think creatively are crucial to your development as a person. By having these abilities you will always be capable of adjusting to your situation and succeeding in it.

I agree with Rousseau’s view of education. By straying a little bit from our formal model of education we have the opportunity to further the interest of the students in the subject matter. A more relaxed class atmosphere allows the students to feel more comfortable and be more interested in class. Capturing the fascination of a child is crucial to educating them, if they are interested in something then they will study harder in and out of class, that subject may even become a hobby of theirs.

What I Think

The issue of education has been debated by a countless amount of people.  Everyone seems to have their own opinion about the correct way to teach the willing.  Everyone also has their own opinion about the will of human beings.  Some say that we are born evil, and some say that we are born as “noble savages.”  Hsun Tzu is a Chinese philosopher who thought that humans were born evil, and only through education could we make ourselves gentlemen and achieve oneness.  Rousseau however, is a philosopher who believes that we are born as noble savages and that the only education worth having is one that comes from the natural world.  I don’t really agree with either of these philosophies however.  I think that they both have strong points and some of their ideals make perfect sense.  But I really don’t think that either of them is completely right.                     The way that I view education differs from both Hsun Tzu and Rousseau’s ideals.  I agree with Hsun Tzu in the fact that education is one of the only ways to advance our society.  When you look back on history you can clearly see that all of the major advancements are made after an obvious jump in our educational programs.  I do not agree however with Hsun Tzu when he says that we are all born inherently evil beings.  I agree with Rousseau when he says that we are all born as noble savages.  I believe that if you took a child, and gave him nothing more than the things he needs to survive,  than he would grow up to be a good human being.  I don’t think that humans are born with a natural inclination to cause harm to other people.              My conclusion to reading Hsun Tzu and Rousseau is that neither of them stands well on their own, but when they step aside and examine the flaws of the other side, they should be realizing that those flaws are actually the strengths of theirs.  Both arguments counter each other and bring sense to an idea that has been long discussed. 

Hsun Tzu & Rousseau vs. Bored of Education

 Chris Kurz

ENG 121
Ariana Paliobagis
January 25, 2008

Nearly two thousand years separated the writings of Hsun Tzu and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Their belief in the importance of education in the development of man encompassed a much smaller gap. Both men believed that true enlightenment could not be born of man without a constant thirst for knowledge. Only by seeking to quench this thirst at every stage of development do humans approach enlightenment.
Hsun Tzu said, “The Gentleman says: Learning should never cease” (456). He felt that man was in a constant struggle against complacency of the mind. Education through teachings of others and independence of thought were the keys to actively seeking knowledge. “When a man is careless and lazy and forgets himself, that is when disaster occurs,” said Hsun Tzu (457).
In Rousseau’s writings, he also spoke of the need to constantly seek out that which is not known to the individual. Rousseau wrote, “The natural man is interested in all new things” (487).
In order to continually learn from our surroundings one must not become complacent with learning. Each author spoke of how people have to fight against being satisfied with having learned something in the past. Each day was an opportunity to continually amass knowledge in the eyes and minds of Hsun Tzu and Rousseau.
Rousseau placed much of the impetus for learning on the parents of each child. The parents of the child controlled the early development of their children, and thus played a vital role in their child’s formation. Furthermore, Rousseau deemed that the father’s enthusiasm for learning was essential. “For zeal will atone for lack of knowledge, rather than knowledge for lack of zeal” (485).
Each author had his own view of exactly how to go about expanding one’s knowledge. However, they both agreed that education was the cornerstone to becoming a well-rounded individual. Neither Hsun Tzu or Jean-Jacques Rousseau was at all bored with education.

Hsun Tzu vs. Rousseau

Benjamin Burns

Araina Paliobagis

English 121

1/25/08                                      

     Hsun Tsu vs. Rousseau

Both Hsun Tsu and Rousseau were philosophers with out of the box viewpoints on education and mankind.  The main differences that I noticed between Hsun Tsu and Rousseau were their viewpoints on education and good vs. evil at birth.  Hsun Tsu believes that all persons are born inherently evil and we use education to make ourselves better and rid ourselves of the natural evil.  He believes in the oneness and using education to come as close to oneness as possible; oneness being self-bliss and being content with one’s self. He also believes that we are always striving to reach our full potential but can never reach it. Rousseau believes the exact opposite; he believes that all persons are born good and that human beings are not aggressive and selfish by nature. His views on education are different entirely, his view was that one will learn much more and more efficiently if he/she learns in his/her natural environment.  He believes that using methods such as reading texts in a classroom and studying for a test are pointless and will not prepare the child in the future for the good and bad in nature.  Rousseau states in his book “We are born weak, we need strength; helpless, we need aid, foolish, we need reason.” (480)  He is saying that everyone is born needing help and aid because we are weak and in order to rid our self of this weakness, we need to be educated. The main similarities between Rousseau and Hsun Tsu is that they are both philosophers that had radical viewpoints, but other than that they are polar opposites of one another.

                My viewpoint on these issues is that I believe parts of what Rousseau says and parts of what Hsun Tsu says, but neither are 100% correct. I believe in Rousseau with the fact that people are born weak but good, but I disagree with him on his viewpoints on education. I believe there needs to be some sort of organized, classroom work. I agree partially with Hsun Tsu on his views on education in that education is needed to better our self, but I disagree that we need to use education to rid our self of our natural evil.