Marc Pembroke (maplawqb@clic.net)
Fri, 13 Aug 1999 10:20:43 -0400
From: "Marc Pembroke" <maplawqb@clic.net> Subject: Re: Re: learning in the 21st Century -Reply Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 10:20:43 -0400
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://grouper.ieee.org/ltsc/ifets/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Pereira responded to Dennis Nelson as follows:
>
> Please, do not misunderstand me. I respect other people's beliefs.
>
> I do have my ethical principles as well. However, they are not
> out there and I cannot impose my principles on others. I can live
> according to them, and perhaps this will make others think about
> them, and even adopt similar principles. However, I do
> not have the right to impose them on others.
>
> I confess that sometimes I feel desperate about it and I cannot
> understand how some architectural students cannot see the need to
> consider environmental or social issues, instead of just considering
> aesthetical aspects in their designs. What I can do is to talk to
> them about it and explain my views and considerations. I can design
> courses to help them to consider, reflect and understand the
> importance of these aspects. However, I don't feel I have the right
> to impose my view and say 'this is the truth'.
>
> What do you think? What do others think about it?
I find it a bit curious the notion that certain principles or beliefs must
always be subjective, and never "imposed." However, every day, we "impose"
all sorts of "beliefs" in the form of speed limits, taxes, fees, time
constraints, contract enforcement, and scores of other matters. We "believe"
that only certified public accounts can be hired to do their work, only
doctors can practice medicine, and only lawyers can practice law. Anyone who
believes otherwise and tries to live in accordance with some other
philosophy is in for a rude awakening.
At the same time, we have our personal preferences, inclinations, and
opinions, which, of course, carry no more weight for one person than for
another. But there is a difference between a purely personal opinion and a
principle worthy of inclusion in a culture or a public policy. I cannot
expect my neighbor to adopt my favorite flavor of ice cream or enjoy my
favorite composer, nor even attend my church. But if my neighbor chooses to
park his car in my driveway, I can expect him to remove it, or have it
removed by the police. Why? Is it not because our society has recognized
certain minimal boundaries and norms of behavior which we will defend, and
impose as a condition of living in society?
Curiously, also, I don't expect to find that the rule would be any different
if I go to France, Germany, Russia, Algeria, or China. I would expect the
fines, penalties, and procedures to be different, but not the principle.
That brings us to a question of the source of principles. Do we just make
them up? Do we discover them like the laws of physics and mathematics? If we
make them up, then they boil down to arbitrary power imposed by one group,
the conformists and their leaders, upon another group, the nonconformists.
But if they are more like the laws of physics, built into a creation, we
must come to terms with them, regardless of our inclinations. We cannot vote
to motify the law of gravity. We may or may not understand it as Newton did,
and Newton may not have understood it as Einstein did. We laugh when a
character like Bugs Bunny remains suspended in the air, and says "I know
this defies the law of gravity, but,you see, I never studied law!" Yet as
adults, we seem to miss the point of the joke. It simply doesn't matter
whether you understand or agree with a principle which, in fact is implicit
in the system you live in.
However, in the areas of behavior, social policy, or political philosophy,
the matter becomes more complex. Some of our rules are purely, and clearly,
products of our culture and religious traditions. Thus, in America, most
people do not work on Sunday, whereas in an Islamic culture, most do not
work on Friday, and in a Jewish culture, most would not work on Saturday.
Even if we agree that we should have a day of rest, we do not agree
necessarily which day that should be.
Are we responding to some instinct? to God? to reason? Which laws are
discovered, evolved, or revealed? Which are negotiated? Which are purely
matters of convenience? More particularly, when we strive to become
educators, and thus to transmit "impose" or share our civilization with the
next generation, we have to come to terms with such questions. When I
taught math, I had few worries about the "truth" of my lessons. The angles
of a triangle in a plane still add up to two right angles, just as Euclid
said. Christians, Hindus, and atheists seem to agree with that. We can't
change it, either. When I teach law, I have to say "the Constitution says"
or " the Supreme Court says." When I teach theology, I have to say "the
Bible says.."
The challenge is that if we live in ignorance or defiance of a principle
which does not depend on our opinions, we do so at the risks and perils
associated with the principle, be it physical or political or spiritual.
Learning the difference is an ongoing challenge. That's what education is
all about.
Marc A. Pembroke
Directeur, Institut Auguste Lecerf
University of Phoenix practitioner faculty
6401, rue des Camomilles Apt 2
Charny, QC G6X3E8
Canada
(418) 832-7168
maplawqb@clic.net
http://www.clic.net/~maplawqb
>
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat 14 Aug 1999 - 00:10:46 MEST