International Issue

Socrates Vs. Confucius: “Western” and “Asian” Educational Philosophy


Many divide our world into a generalized dichotomy—the East and the West. This division is used to distinguish cultural, societal, and political systems. In an increasingly globalizing and internationalizing world, the line placed between these two distinctions is fading. This paper review seeks to examine the history, differences, and merits of educational philosophy of both sides.
What many consider and praise today as Western thought stems from the teaching methods of Greek philosopher Socrates, 2,500 years ago. He asserted that a student could not learn and seek knowledge only by following the authority, but instead by challenging oneself to seek evidence, analyzing relevant concepts, and determining one’s subjective perception of truth on his or her terms. He stressed the importance of questions that encourage evaluation and dissection of thought; one’s own sense of logic and profundity is key. His concept of critical thinking developed through the European historical timeline as it was adapted by Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas of the Middle Ages who emphasized the power of reasoning, Renaissance scholars, Voltaire in the French Enlightenment, Karl Marx, Darwin, and Sigmund Freud of the 19th century, and into modern Western educational methods. This is the reason that those who attend, for an example, an American university are typically encouraged to assess, debate, and discuss the information we receive within the classroom.
When we think of exceptionally high test-scores and rigorous academic lifestyle, what does one imagine, stereotypically speaking? For many Americans, Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC) nations like Japan, China, and Taiwan come to mind. One of the most common stereotypes of Asian Americans involves their supposed painfully rigorous study and work habits, an attribute instilled by their demanding parents. Just as Socrates is thought to have created the rudiments of the style of education prevalent in the Occidental region, countries whose cultural, societal, and political systems are greatly impacted by Confucius are coined as having an educational ethic to match.
Confucius was born in 551 BCE and his real name, Qui Kong, was Latinized much later in the sixteenth century. He was raised on feudalistic ethic during a time in China where the overthrow of a traditional slave-owning system caused social, economic, and political instability. Having great respect for the philosophy of his fore fathers, He was inspired to help reform his country’s chaotic state with a traditional approach to society, government, and culture. He applied his personal values to receiving his education and later, his teaching methods. He taught this whole life, instructing about 3000 disciples throughout the span of his profession. His thought greatly emphasizes the importance of “lifelong learning”; a concept that ties the education one receives to their individual development as a virtuous and balanced human being, as well as their societal and economic roles in relation to others. In other words, to gain academic knowledge is to step “the stepping stone to the state of humanity”. The Confucian approach to education advocates quiet diligence in studying and devotion to the teacher. In his analects; “Study without thought is labor lost; thought without study is dangerous”, he expresses that one can gain knowledge only by assessing and observing personally the information provided. The teacher is the wiser, and therefore the student must imitate the teacher in order to achieve sagacity his or herself.
History lesson aside, it is recognized today that contemporary education is greatly impacted by Confucius’ philosophy. As he questions in his analects, “Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?”
Confucius is therefore thought of as the respective founder to East Asian education, while Socrates is of Western education. There is highly analytical debate amongst today’s scholars over which system is “better”. Western critics of Confucian education say that it prevents students from reaching their full potential as profound, analytical human beings. In a study held by Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages in Taiwan, forty-three third year students were encouraged to participate in active student discussion within the classroom as well as in an online course. Observations conclude that just a third of the students participated online, while two volunteered to do so in the face-to-face classroom setting. The students had difficulty “checking the credibility and validity of the evidence, not on one’s favored stance, but when challenged for an unfavored stance, comparing and contrasting the stances of different sources of information”, and reaching conclusion based on logical reasoning. Of the students who remained silent, the researcher described three variations: the student who did not speak due to not knowing what to think or how to respond, the students who did not speak because they were deep in thought, and the students who remained silent in order to avoid conflict. The western instructional approach clearly did not coincide with the methods in which the Taiwanese students were used to, and this illustrates the influence of Confucian educational philosophy.
Critical thinking is not assessed without a critical eye, however. An article by scholar Donald L. Hatcher of Baker University titled “A Critique of Critical Thinking” addresses the potential faults of assumed backbone to Western education. He emphasizes the ambiguity and relativism of critical thinking, questioning the merit of a learning system based on philosophy rather than fact. Hatcher elaborates:
“The interest may be an indication that educators are attempting to spare society from another generation of graduates who have so endorsed the relativistic view of truth and values that, in the name of tolerance, they cannot distinguish between a belief which is reasonable and one which is not. From the student's relativist perspective all beliefs are of equal merit, and hence the very idea of critically evaluating one's own or another's beliefs and values is moot” (Hatcher)
In an essay by scholars of Australia’s Monash University and The University of Hong Kong titled “False Dichotomy? ‘Western’ and ‘Confucian’ Concepts of Scholarship and Learning”, the authors note that both terms are “fuzzy”, suggesting vague concepts that ultimately create further division between Western and CHC societies. Students from a CHC who come to study in Australia often have difficulty because of the curriculum’s negligence in adapting to their academic ethic. The CHC students are separated from the Australian students by terms of philosophy, and are seen as passive, meek, and submissive in the classroom.
Perhaps this is an example of conflict theory, as it seems too difficult to claim one system better than the other. Though Western and CHC students share the same learning capacity as human beings, it is important to recognize that culture shapes human beings. Education is an important part of culture, and therefore these differences are to be accepted and understood as equally effective methods.