 |
| 等 级：高级居民 |
| 经 验 值：483 |
| 魅 力 值：147 |
| 龙 币：836 |
| 积 分：517.5 |
| 注册日期：2003-03-24 |
| |
|
|
|
俺没时间翻译，随便看看吧：Different Value Histories
看来外国父母也可能犯“用讲道理的办法，决定孩子的价值取向”这样的错误。
我实在没有时间，感兴趣的朋友借助 金山词霸 看吧。
Different Value Histories
Learning to reason impartially with oneself is no easy
feat. To begin with, there are often overwhelming reasons
why one is loath to follow reasons where they lead. The
conclusion to which reasons point may appear to be
counter to one’s own short term best interests, or contrary
to the beliefs held by one’s reference group. However,
perhaps more importantly, learning to reason impartially
may be difficult because one has rarely been exposed to
it. In fact, quite the contrary is too often the case. Many
young humans, unhappily, are chronically exposed to
utterly biased reasoning, i.e., the sort of cognitive trickery
that distorts reasons so that they fit preconceived
conclusions.
That young humans are often exposed to ‘unreasonable’
environments is not always evident. This is so because it
is often assumed, incorrectly, that children who are
exposed to ‘talking’ are exposed to reasoning. That is,
with regard to parenting styles, parents often assume that
there are two main methods (a false dilemma as it turns
out): either use physical force to obtain discipline, or talk
to your children. Those who pick the latter assume that
the result will be a ‘reasonable’ child. This is a false
assumption. Talking with one’s child is not the same as
reasoning with one’s child. Talking parents often engage
in dialogue with the assumption that the aim is to get the
child to do the parents’ will. Going into a dialogue with
the aim of getting anyone to do one’s will is not going
into a dialogue with reasoning in mind. It is going into
a dialogue with manipulation in mind. Going into a
dialogue with reasoning in mind is to go into a dialogue
with the assumption that both parties will follow reasons
where they lead. Participants, of course, may assume
that they can predict where the reasons will lead, but
participants must, nonetheless, be prepared to genuinely
explore one another’s points of view and to allow reasons
- not persons - to adjudicate. In a reasoning dialogue, all
participants must believe that it is reasons - not persons
- that rule. If children are exposed over a long period of
time to dialogues in which reason rules, they will believe
- to their very core - that should their reasons for wishing
to do, or not to do, anything have overwhelming merit,
their parents will happily support them. Children
exposed in this way to dialogues in which reason rules
will never believe that any decision is arbitrary, or that
sheer power has any influence.
If parents honour the rule of reason[7], their offspring are
liable to do likewise. Rebellion is only necessary against
arbitrary power. When people - as opposed to reasons -
rule, then there will always be a subliminal war as to
who has the upper hand. If parents - as persons - rule,
they can expect that their children will eventually try to
wrest that authority from them. Such rebellion, of course,
is rarely in the name of genuine autonomy. Such rebellion
is usually merely an attempt to move from the ‘frying
pan’ of being finely socially attuned to one’s parents, to
the ‘fire’ of being finely socially attuned to one’s pals.
Unhappily many parents try to avoid rebellious
confrontation by abdicating parental authority altogether,
i.e., letting their kids do virtually whatever they want.
Such a disastrous environment predictably breeds
undisciplined self-centred individuals. Autonomy is not
nurtured in a jungle.
If the goal is to create an environment which will nourish
‘reasonableness,’ the answer lies not in merely talking to
one’s children, nor does it lie in not expecting a lot from
one’s offspring. If the goal is to create an environment
which will nourish ‘reasonableness,’ the answer lies not
in creating rules and then trying to talk one’s offspring
into them, nor does it lie in creating no rules at all. The
answer is to honour the rule of reason. Children who
are chronically exposed to dialogue in which reason rules
will become highly disciplined reasonable individuals
who have been given the tools to genuinely aspire to the
best that humans can be. Children who are chronically
exposed to dialogue in which reason rules can, with ease
and grace, become their own persons; they can with ease
and grace soar to autonomy. Children who are chronically
exposed to dialogue in which reason rules will be able to
decide for themselves, in whatever unique circumstances
they find themselves, what is needed in order to be the
best that they can be.
========
7: In is important to understand that learning through reasoning is
only one kind of learning, amongst other kinds of learning, that
ought to take place in childhood. The sort of learning that ought to
take place in any given situation is a function both of the dynamics
of the situation and the state and maturity of the individuals
involved. Attempting to use reason when a toddler is overwhelmed
by massive stimulus overload, for example, is clearly inappropriate.
|
| |
|
|
2004-07-27 09:52:05
