Re: DSM:teachers

Scott Gray (
Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:51:08 -0400 (EDT)

approved: stone
>From Wed Oct 21 22:22:05 1998
Received: from (JULIET.WX.LL.MIT.EDU [])
        by (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA02081
        for <>; Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:22:05 -0400
Received: from ( by id AA01971g; Wed, 21 Oct 98 22:21:51 EDT
Message-Id: <>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 22:21:24 -0400
From: Sharon Stanfill <>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; U)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: DSM:socrates
References: <> <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

    I did not say venture any opinion of Socrates as either good or bad. I
merely noted that his method was a form of education missing from your
list. (As was, it occured to me later, experimentation.)

Example of the assertion: sometimes one must simply have instruction to
learn. Note that I do not argue that everyone needs instruction for
everything. There may well be individuals who have never needed and will
never need instruction in anything. But I do assert that there exist
individuals who need instruction in some things.

Example: I simply failed to understand some technical aspects of formal
verse analysis when I first encountered them. I read, studied, and
attempted to do. In fact, I was fairly certain that I had done it
correctly. I was dead wrong. It did not take a great deal of instruction,
but it did take a solid half hour of painstaking work from someone who
know how and lead me through it. Yes - A very small thing, I'll admit -
the ability to perform highly regulated technical analysis of verse is not
very important in the scheme of things. But it is something I could only
learn by being taught.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Dec 23 1999 - 09:01:53 EST