First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Can we learn by studying?
23189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / F / Mabuhay! Philippi...
Offline
Posted 3/4/08
sooooooooooooooo much...
2180 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / Planet Earth- som...
Offline
Posted 3/4/08
yeah, ofcourse!
that's why we study for us something to learn.
You just need to understand..
Studying is part of the learning process..- yeah, i agree w/ that!
Even you have a low photographic memory or slow learner still, we learn from our mistakes or weaknesses..
Studying or learning will help us to achieve our goals in life..
And it depends to the person whether he/ she wants to learn but I prefer that we must study so that we have some knowledge or intelligence.. Coz' w/o this then your lost..
13987 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Singapore
Offline
Posted 3/4/08
Quite A Question But Without A Doubt Of Course =_=ll
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M
Offline
Posted 3/4/08
Think about it. If you have no immediate need for something and thus you find studying to be useless, who is going to treat your wounds when you get wounded? struck by illness? need surgery?

Doctors? Well they would not exist simply because a healthy person would not want to study medicine and only those with immediate need would try and even then, no one else would bother learning what they learnt, so knowledge is always at 0.

People learn because they know they what they know may be needed at some point. It may never happen (eg you know all the names of all football players since the inception of the sport. This knowledge may never be useful outside of conversations) but if it does society benefits, and in turn you.

The second factor is that learning makes people less ignorant and in turn less stupid and less likely to cause themselves and others problems (Anybody here thinks that having sex standing up would *not* get you pregnant because the sperm will fall out? There are people who think this way. If you knew nothing you might think so too)

Now if society was comprised of only ignorant (and stupid) people, it would not last long since other people would have conquered them or bought their land for peanuts (qv red indians in north america) or they would have self destructed.

The third factor is scientific. Its the structure of your brain and how it acheives thinking. Your brain consists of neurons and they form connections with each other the more you think. If for example you kept seeing red apples, you would associate the concept of apples being red and the neurons for red and apple would be strongly connected. So the more you study, the more your neurons grow interlinked and you grow more able to think faster and about more complex issues.
397 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 3/4/08
I haven't read Gasset in detail except what you posted but I personally think this is an interesting concept.

What a student does when he studies at this point in time is that he is given information which he doesn't feel a need for. This I can relate to. I mean, I have never felt a need to know how to do trigonometry or learn the names of various body parts, but I'm forced to. Forcing information on someone who does not need it is counter-productive in a certain way, I must say.

How would I go about changing this? I think I would do away with studying and make it learning instead. People would not study but instead be put in an environment where they constantly question the "way of things". How to construct such an environment is beyond my intelligence, but that is the theory. In such a way, they will constantly "learn" things. It will be much more hands-on and people will develop their own ideas, own concepts and they will have people to discuss and share it with. Of course, people need to have a base on which to build all these, so grouping people at similar levels of interests and achievement would make sense.

Imagine, for instance, an environment in which kids came together and an interesting topic is thrown to them to discuss in the forms of events set about to illustrate an important point. An answer will not be given at the start but the children would discuss this event. A person would supervise their discussion and at the end supply what is the commonly accepted interpretation of such an incident occurring and appeal to these children's sense and logic in accepting this. By the end of it, they would think a lot and learn a lot. The validity of their arguments would be of less concern because the important thing is to encourage them to question and to develop that need for questioning. And whatever new information they get they basically learned, because they have gone through that process of questioning and finding out.

Of course, they'd have much less information than if they were "studying" however as such processes always take a long time. How long would it take for you to enact a situation and question the kids on the situation? How long would they take to have a proper discussion going? And then, would most jobs require such a level of thinking? Some types of knowledge would also be much more difficult to teach in such a condition, perhaps things such mathematics.
531 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / O CANADA!
Offline
Posted 3/4/08
I would have to say that this Gasset fellow is a complete moron. He's basically saying that learning something that's already been learned is useless. He's saying that these people have no curiosity. I think what he means to say is that people will force themselves to study something that they don't care about in order to get a good job that they don't care about.

And if he isn't saying that. Then he is dismissing people's personal reasons for being inquisitive. Learning the accumulated knowledge of the world is the gift to present man from past generations and not benifitting from it by not studying would be a heinous crime. The first scientists wondered and thought the world was flat till some guy came along and said it was round. He would have you believe that these are the only people that "learned". We have bigger, more complex problems now involving theorems that I can't wrap my head around. Studying these problems will make you learned.


Gasset is a moron.
173 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
77 / F / haiti~l
Offline
Posted 3/4/08
yeS!
12168 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Germantown TN
Offline
Posted 3/4/08
HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Look at me!
1581 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / canada
Offline
Posted 3/4/08
you're applying studying in a very narrow sense, studying doesnt necessairly have to be sitting down and reading/writing and memorizaing stuff. Studying is just any method by which u can understand certain material, it vaires from person to person, but then again so does everything else
31116 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Clow Country
Offline
Posted 3/4/08

OptimusGatts wrote:

I would have to say that this Gasset fellow is a complete moron. He's basically saying that learning something that's already been learned is useless. He's saying that these people have no curiosity. I think what he means to say is that people will force themselves to study something that they don't care about in order to get a good job that they don't care about.

And if he isn't saying that. Then he is dismissing people's personal reasons for being inquisitive. Learning the accumulated knowledge of the world is the gift to present man from past generations and not benifitting from it by not studying would be a heinous crime. The first scientists wondered and thought the world was flat till some guy came along and said it was round. He would have you believe that these are the only people that "learned". We have bigger, more complex problems now involving theorems that I can't wrap my head around. Studying these problems will make you learned.


Gasset is a moron.


Yeah... I would have included the part about curiosity, and in fact, a lot of what he says to clarify on those issues, but I'd have to take the time to type all of it up. I couldn't find an Internet source. My apologies. He does address that curiosity does in fact serve as a drive to learn. And more importantly he said that it IS necessary to continue to assimilate the growing knowledge base every generation. You're right, it would be criminal not to. All he's saying is that there has got to be a better way than what our present educational system offers. That's what he wants to redefine. The way we study today, the way most people study, is false. Learning the knowledge of the age is still necessary.

Anyway, I'm very apologetic that I could not bring up the rest of the essay (time constraints won't allow it). I'm interested to know how the general opinion of this subject would change if I had time to write up the remainder of the essay. If anyone finds an online version, please tell me.
531 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / O CANADA!
Offline
Posted 3/4/08

winsomemastix wrote:


OptimusGatts wrote:

I would have to say that this Gasset fellow is a complete moron. He's basically saying that learning something that's already been learned is useless. He's saying that these people have no curiosity. I think what he means to say is that people will force themselves to study something that they don't care about in order to get a good job that they don't care about.

And if he isn't saying that. Then he is dismissing people's personal reasons for being inquisitive. Learning the accumulated knowledge of the world is the gift to present man from past generations and not benifitting from it by not studying would be a heinous crime. The first scientists wondered and thought the world was flat till some guy came along and said it was round. He would have you believe that these are the only people that "learned". We have bigger, more complex problems now involving theorems that I can't wrap my head around. Studying these problems will make you learned.


Gasset is a moron.


Yeah... I would have included the part about curiosity, and in fact, a lot of what he says to clarify on those issues, but I'd have to take the time to type all of it up. I couldn't find an Internet source. My apologies. He does address that curiosity does in fact serve as a drive to learn. And more importantly he said that it IS necessary to continue to assimilate the growing knowledge base every generation. You're right, it would be criminal not to. All he's saying is that there has got to be a better way than what our present educational system offers. That's what he wants to redefine. The way we study today, the way most people study, is false. Learning the knowledge of the age is still necessary.

Anyway, I'm very apologetic that I could not bring up the rest of the essay (time constraints won't allow it). I'm interested to know how the general opinion of this subject would change if I had time to write up the remainder of the essay. If anyone finds an online version, please tell me.



There's no need to apologize, without the full text it's impossible for me to know what Gasset is thinking. But from the excerpt that's what I got from it. Upon re-reading I will add that he is mostly philosophising about the nature of man, rather than his "studying". And if he is just saying that a need for a different way to educate is in order than what does he propose? I would wager he has no concrete solution of his own. After all i believe he is a philosopher. I think he was high one day and wrote that paper. You get the BEST ideas when your high, but when you sober up and re-examine them it just turns out to be calorie filled brownies. God dammit i want some brownies.
31116 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Clow Country
Offline
Posted 3/4/08

OptimusGatts wrote:

There's no need to apologize, without the full text it's impossible for me to know what Gasset is thinking. But from the excerpt that's what I got from it. Upon re-reading I will add that he is mostly philosophising about the nature of man, rather than his "studying". And if he is just saying that a need for a different way to educate is in order than what does he propose? I would wager he has no concrete solution of his own. After all i believe he is a philosopher. I think he was high one day and wrote that paper. You get the BEST ideas when your high, but when you sober up and re-examine them it just turns out to be calorie filled brownies. God dammit i want some brownies.


He gave a pretty direct answer, but it was vague at the same time. Part of it was definitely the part I mentioned about the fundamental purpose of teaching. "Teachers should teach the need of the science, not the science itself" is a paraphrased version. He goes more into it than that. Keep in mind though, this is an opening speech to his metaphysics class, it's going to be a bit vague.
531 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / O CANADA!
Offline
Posted 3/4/08

winsomemastix wrote:


OptimusGatts wrote:

There's no need to apologize, without the full text it's impossible for me to know what Gasset is thinking. But from the excerpt that's what I got from it. Upon re-reading I will add that he is mostly philosophising about the nature of man, rather than his "studying". And if he is just saying that a need for a different way to educate is in order than what does he propose? I would wager he has no concrete solution of his own. After all i believe he is a philosopher. I think he was high one day and wrote that paper. You get the BEST ideas when your high, but when you sober up and re-examine them it just turns out to be calorie filled brownies. God dammit i want some brownies.


He gave a pretty direct answer, but it was vague at the same time. Part of it was definitely the part I mentioned about the fundamental purpose of teaching. "Teachers should teach the need of the science, not the science itself" is a paraphrased version. He goes more into it than that. Keep in mind though, this is an opening speech to his metaphysics class, it's going to be a bit vague.


So it's a philosophy class. Philosophy is like a dog chasing it's tail, it will chase it t'ill it either:
A) gets bored
B) catches it, then has to release it because it can't walk with it's tail in it's mouth.


I got some brownies by the way, they were awesome.



P.S. He's not a moron, he's a philosopher. I should have read much more carefully the first time around. I still believe that studying for the sake of passing a test is not "useless" nor is studying for anything without understanding the need, "useless". Motivations are personal after all.

8432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/4/08

lauyiling wrote:

one cant learn by studying..
one learns by understanding..
you can study every single book in the universe..
but if you dont understand a shit about it..
what have you learn? NOTHING..

you can study.. you can memorise..
well, maybe you can answer the theory section..
but how about the application section?
w/o understanding the concept behind whatever you're studying, are you really learning? NO.
and if you just study and study and study, if a question asked has been tweaked somehow, are you sure you
can answer it?

so bottomline is that, to learn is to understand.. not just plain studying..


However, studying is still needed for most people to aid in understanding. It's pretty damn hard for someone to understand something difficult the first read through. By studying key ideas, it helps them understand how to solve such questions.
Of course all is void if referring to a genius who understands everything the first time through.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.