Pure Hypocrisy...

Does anyone else catch the massive amount of hypocrisy baked into that old saying—you know, the one where they claim "the teacher always appears just when the student is ready to learn"? 😕

Are you referring to Socrates and the material discussed in the Phaedo? There isn't any hypocrisy involved; that is quite simply the only way true dialogue and learning can happen.

northernscout said:Does anyone else see some hypocrisy in the saying, "A teacher always appears when the student is ready to learn"? 😕

That statement would be hypocritical if it were aimed at teachers. Since it focuses on the students, it is simply true. 🙂

Heisenberg wrote some beautiful passages about students being ready to learn in his book Physics and Metaphysics.

🙂 🙂 🙂

northernscout said:I was just sitting here wondering if anyone else catches the total hypocrisy in that old saying, "A teacher always appears when the student is ready to learn"?! 😕

I mean, honestly, you're just not ready yet. 👋

Just asking from a purely practical standpoint here: who, in your opinion, actually qualifies as a "student"?

northernscout said:I’m just looking at this from a practical standpoint: who actually counts as a "student" in your eyes?

In the whole Western philosophical tradition, it’s kind of like the philosopher is always the student, and nobody is ever really the teacher. Socrates was constantly insisting he wasn't some "sophos"—you know, a wise guy who knows everything and lectures others. He was more like the guy searching, just hungry for wisdom—which makes sense, because if he actually had it, he wouldn't be hunting for it, right?
At the same time, his big rivals were the "Sophists," basically these experts who charged huge fees to teach young people. They definitely had students, and they played up this whole image of being the ones with all the answers. Socrates' favorite pastime was basically proving that he didn't know anything. And in his mind, he was actually wiser than them just because he was honest enough to admit he was clueless.
Honestly, there are plenty of people out there way smarter than me, and I learn from them. I'm their student. But obviously, that only works when I'm actually ready to listen. If I'm walking around thinking I already have it all figured out, I don't feel like I need to learn anything, so I won't see a teacher anywhere.
It's only when I realize I'm lost that I can actually start learning.
And yeah, there are also people who aren't nearly as smart as I am. They could learn from me. I'm here! But they’re only going to see me as a teacher once they're actually ready for that.

But it sounds like you might be dealing with a specific situation here?
I don't think it's even a problem. If someone is trying to play teacher to you, but you just don't see them that way, then you're simply not ready to be their student. It doesn't matter if it's a "mistake" on your end or theirs. There's no mistake. You two just don't click.

I honestly couldn't add a single thing to what mistyfox812 wrote here.

🙂 🙂 🙂

Exquisitely put, mistyfox812.👍

P.S.
Teach others what you can, even if they aren't quite ready for it...

What would you guys actually think about this proverb if you were hearing it for the very first time—like, without having ever cracked open a single philosophy book? I mean, how would your mind even go about processing it? Would you immediately flag it as hypocritical, or would you miss that entirely? Why or why not? Just give me your raw, unfiltered thoughts—purely from a philosophical standpoint. 😉

northernscout said:But what if you just heard that proverb for the first time, totally fresh, without ever having read a single book on the subject? How would your brain even process it? Would you catch onto the hypocrisy right away, or would it fly under your radar? Like, just you and your own thoughts—purely philosophical. 😉

Honestly, that’s just not how it works. There's no such thing as a "pure" opinion that hasn't been influenced by someone else. It’s super rare—like, almost impossible—for anyone to actually stumble upon a completely original thought in their lifetime. Thinking you have your own unique take on something is a total illusion. It’s probably the most common delusion out there, but still, a delusion. You hear one person say something, then you read a post online, then you listen to a friend talk about it... and then, through some weird, mysterious mental filter, it all settles in your head and you're like, "Yeah, this is my opinion." But let's be real: there's no opinion that exists independently of everything you've ever heard, read, or discussed.

northernscout said:If you had only ever heard this proverb without any prior exposure to the literature, what would your personal take be? How would your thought process unfold? Would you conclude that the saying is hypocritical, or would you see it differently? I’m curious—purely from a philosophical standpoint, how would you process it on your own? 😉

Who would actually pose a question like that? A child, or an adult?

The saying itself is quite pointless, though perhaps not for our society—where there’s this persistent, misguided notion that kids simply don't want to learn unless they're forced into it.

Under normal circumstances, outside the constraints of our modern civilization, a child is essentially a learning machine. Everyone becomes their teacher—from their parents and older peers to every single friend or acquaintance they cross paths with. Isn't that how it should be?

In our modern civilization, a child is essentially a learning machine—until they get swallowed up by the school system. We hand them over to teachers who are supposedly tasked with teaching them how to navigate an environment that we ourselves reshaped under the guise of "progress." But here is the problem: the system and its educators often fail at this very mission. Instead of fostering growth, they restrict the maneuverability of these little learning machines, dictating exactly what must be learned and when. It begs the question: why is that?

It’s designed that way so the economic system can cultivate a workforce that is essentially "tethered" to it. The goal is to ensure people feel they have no choice but to plug in and grind away for their entire lives just to keep the whole machine running. Isn't that the ultimate design?

It boils down to this: a teacher only truly shows up when the student is ready to learn—and that readiness is always there. Yet, in our modern society, we operate under the assumption that the student starts with a blank slate, desperately needing some "qualified" expert to guide them. Isn't it strange how we view learning that way?

What would the Illegals say? "You can learn more from a street vendor at a local farmers market in a single hour than you could in an entire day sitting in a classroom."😉

northernscout said:Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in the saying, "A teacher always appears when the student is ready to learn"? 😕

There’s no hypocrisy in the statement itself. It’s a fact. The problem arises when fake or malicious teachers weaponize that truth. Look at how Jesus called out the Pharisees. Some were nothing but frauds, twisting and adding to the Truth just to exploit their status for material gain. Others possessed deep knowledge of the divine Word but kept it hidden from people who were actually starving for it. They weren't living the life themselves, yet they stood in the way of everyone else.

I’ve been stuck on this one question lately—who actually qualifies as a "student"? My first instinct was just to say anyone who gets a shot at learning. But then I hit a wall with the idea of an "opportunity." A student really only gets that chance when they encounter someone—or something—that knows more than they do. And honestly, they probably won't even make use of that chance unless they're "ready." But how does a student actually become ready? It's likely some messy combination of internal and external factors. So, yeah, there's an external component to it. Basically, being "ready" isn't entirely up to the individual. For instance, a kid growing up in a household with an alcoholic father who's also abusive—well, that kid is going to have enough baggage and trauma to make it nearly impossible to be "ready" to deeply absorb whatever they're being taught at school. In that light, the whole concept feels a bit hypocritical to me, since it seems to imply that readiness is solely the student's responsibility.
Then I started wondering: shouldn't everyone be considered a student? Being human pretty much means being a student, because unless you're living on a deserted island, there's always someone or something around you that possesses more knowledge. But as I sat thinking about where people actually live, it became obvious that many people can't even function as students because their basic physiological needs aren't being met. If you're starving or dying of thirst, you aren't exactly preoccupied with seeking self-actualization or searching for some semblance of meaning—even if that meaning is just realizing that nothing matters. Again, we run into those external factors that make learning impossible, which makes the whole cliché feel even more hollow.
Does any of this actually count as "philosophy"—and I mean that in the serious sense, not the way people use it as an insult? At the beginning of my high school philosophy textbook, the author mentioned there's no magic recipe for philosophizing. So, what actually distinguishes deep thought from just... thinking? Is it just the subject matter, maybe? I suppose I should probably dive into the literature, find representative texts that tackle this specific idea, analyze them, and try to expand upon or reinterpret them. Is that the moment when mere thought actually transforms into true philosophy?

northernscout said:I’ve been stuck on the question of "who is a student?" initially, I assumed a student is anyone given the chance to learn. But then I hit a wall with the concept of "opportunity." A student gets that chance when they encounter someone or something possessing more knowledge than themselves. They only actually seize that opportunity when they are "ready." How does a student become ready? It’s likely a mix of internal and external factors. So, external ones matter. It doesn't just rest on the student's shoulders when readiness occurs. For instance, a kid growing up in a home with an alcoholic father who’s abusive is definitely going to face enough trauma to prevent them from being ready to deeply absorb what's taught in school. In that light, the old saying feels hypocritical because it implies readiness is solely the student's responsibility.
Then I wondered: shouldn't every person be considered a student? Being human means being a learner, because unless you're living on a deserted island, there is always someone or something around you that knows more. Looking at where people live globally, it becomes obvious that some can't even function as students because their basic physiological needs aren't met. If you're starving or thirsty, you can't pursue self-actualization or seek out meaning—even if that meaning is realizing nothing matters. Again, learning is blocked by external realities I didn't consider when I first heard the proverb, making it feel hollow.
Does this line of thought count as philosophy (in the actual sense of the word, not the colloquial insult)? An intro to a high school philosophy textbook mentioned there is no recipe for philosophizing. So how do we distinguish genuine thought from philosophy? Maybe by the subject matter? Should I be diving into literature now, finding representative texts that debate this specific idea, analyzing them, and reinterpreting them to expand my own views? Is that the only point where it truly becomes philosophy?

northernscout,
Philosophy is wisdom—the gift of understanding divine truth and the spiritual principles flowing through all matter. The Bible reinforces this: "Seek wisdom, and everything else will be added unto you."

A student. That’s anyone with the opportunity to learn, and the desire and necessity to do so. You can learn from a teacher, but a teacher is anything and everything: life, fate, nature, the world, people... and God sits at the top of the pyramid.
A student is only a student when their heart is ready to learn. Jesus said, "Do not cast pearls before swine." Jesus withheld certain truths from his followers because they weren't prepared for them: "I have much more to tell you, but you are not able to bear it right now." Certain knowledge can actually be a curse if a person accepts it while being fully aware of the responsibility but incapable of living up to it.

northernscout said:... and why shouldn't everyone be a student? To be human is to be a lifelong learner...

🙂
Absolutely. It also means being a teacher, since those two roles are essentially two sides of the same coin.
But we first have to ditch the traditional concept of schooling, because it’s built on the flawed assumption that there’s a hard line between the teacher and the student.

There is that old bit of wisdom:
No one is your enemy. No one is your friend. Everyone is simply your teacher!
I would take it a step further: everyone is also your student.

After all, the best way to teach is to learn, and the best way to learn is to teach. Without that reciprocity, there is no real growth.
One-sided "teaching" just results in indoctrination—essentially programming someone—rather than actual knowledge or the capacity for insight. True dialogue requires both people to be equals in the pursuit of learning.
Of course, some might argue: "But what could children possibly know?"
The truth is, they know so much more than we give them credit for, right up until the moment our school systems try to mold them into cookie-cutter versions of ourselves. 😉

northernscout said:I’ve been totally stuck on this idea of "who is a student?" at first, I just assumed a student is anyone who gets the chance to learn. But then I got tripped up on what "chance" actually means. You only get that shot when there's someone or something around you that knows way more than you do. And honestly? A student only really grabs that opportunity when they're "ready." But how does someone even become ready? It’s gotta be a mix of stuff going on inside them and stuff happening outside, right? So, external factors definitely matter. It isn't just up to the student to decide when they're ready. Like, take a kid growing up in a rough house where a parent is struggling with alcoholism and things get violent—that kid is dealing with so much trauma, it makes it almost impossible for them to be "ready" to actually soak up whatever they're being taught in school. That made the whole saying feel kind of fake to me, because it basically implies the responsibility is entirely on the student to be prepared.
Then I started wondering: wait, isn't every single person a student? Being human pretty much means being a learner, because unless you're living on a deserted island, there's always someone or something out there that knows more than you. But then I thought about where everyone in the world actually lives, and it hit me—there are people who physically *can't* be students because they don't even have their basic needs met. If you're starving or dying of thirst, you can't exactly focus on self-actualization or searching for some deep sense of meaning, even if that meaning is realizing nothing matters. Again, the learning is blocked by these outside forces I didn't even consider when I first heard the saying. It felt super hypocritical.
So, is my rambling actually "philosophy"? (And I mean that in the real, serious sense, not the way people use it as an insult!) The intro to my high school philosophy textbook said there’s no magic formula for doing philosophy. So, how do you even tell the difference between just thinking and actually philosophizing? Maybe it's just what you're thinking about? I guess I should probably dive into the literature, find the heavy hitters who have debated this, analyze them, wrap my head around it, and then build on or re-interpret their ideas. Is that the moment when it finally counts as philosophy?

This is absolutely philosophy. Philosophy starts with wonder—that's what Plato, Aristotle, and Heidegger taught us. Or maybe "wonder" is better described as the source of philosophy. You've gotta hold onto that spark if you want to keep doing this.
And hey, "philosophy only lives where it finds words"—where it can actually be expressed. And you did that pretty skillfully.
Thirdly, philosophy is naturally a dialogue. You can jump into a conversation with us—which you're already doing—or with the great thinkers from the past (those representative texts). Those wise figures might know more, but they don't react to you; a written text will always give you the same answer no matter what questions you throw at it.
Regarding those "external and internal factors": if you shut yourself off from either one, the learning stops. Because if you close yourself off to change, you stay exactly the same, and if you stay the same, you aren't learning. Being ready to learn means being ready to change who you are. It's not like a person exists in a vacuum separate from their knowledge. Who a person is includes everything they know.

mistyfox812 said:Yeah, obviously, I can learn plenty from people way smarter than me, blah blah blah...

WISDOM IS NOT THE SAME AS IQ!!!

For crying out loud, does nobody here even play d&d?

John Carter21 said:WISDOM ISN'T THE SAME AS INTELLIGENCE!!!

For crying out loud, does nobody here play D&D?

I honestly can't tell if it's a lack of brains or just zero wisdom, but I have absolutely no clue what you're trying to say. And I don't even know what D&D is.

...if we look at that saying from your perspective—meaning, if there isn't any clarity on who is actually the student and who is the teacher—then there’s definitely a hint of hypocrisy and condescension involved here...

...we really ought to establish some actual criteria for deciding who qualifies as a student versus who is a teacher...

...maybe the primary benchmark is empirical evidence, or perhaps it's how much someone has read, their level of enlightenment, or maybe just a total integration of all those things...

...so, now we're back to square one: who is actually the student and who is the teacher?

...the most logical conclusion is that we are all both teachers and students simultaneously. It just depends on our surroundings, the specific situation we find ourselves in, and what we actually know about the subjects we're teaching or learning about...

...man, philosophy... so much talking, but nothing concrete...🙂...

Ehm, this whole thread actually helped me wrap my head around where I stood yesterday versus where I am today. ;)