What constitutes teaching ? And when does teaching transform into imposing ?
The Free Dictionary defines 'Teaching' and 'Imposing' as :
teach·ing
n.
1. The act, practice, occupation, or profession of a teacher.
2.
a. Something taught.
b. A precept or doctrine. Often used in the plural: the teachings of Buddha.
adj.
1. Of, involving, or used for teaching: teaching materials; teaching methods.
2. Working as a teacher or in teaching: teaching assistants.
im·pos·ing
adj.
Impressive, as by virtue of size, bearing, or power: the monarch's imposing presence.
Seems as if there exists a fine line between teaching and imposing. But it is not. When a teacher teaches or tells a pupil that Hitler was cruel, is the teacher not imposing views on the pupil. After all, there must be at least some one in the whole world who would believe that Hitler was not cruel.
When the United States of America labels North Korea ( DPRK ) as a 'Rogue' and 'Failed' state, is it not imposing it's views on the whole world ?
The Church earlier believed that the Earth is at the center of the Universe. And this taught to students. Then came Gallileo, who said that the Earth is not at the center of the Universe. So until Gallileo's point was taken, view of Earth being at the center was imposed on others. Similary, when Gallileo's point was accepted, his view was also imposed that Earth is not at the center of the Universe.
But then what do we do ? Do we have an option ? Seem's not. Are you and me preparing for the Moon to check whether there is relatively less gravity there, as claimed by books and scientists ?
Are we going to open up the computer to check whether it is really the processor which does the computing or is it the Monitor ?
So there is a grey shade between teaching and imposing. And then there is a limit as to what we can verify and what we can not.
So whether it is teaching or imposing, accept it folks, atleast for the time being !
And this leads to an even more conclusion. That nothing in this world, nothing, is original. Everything borrows at least something from the already created.
Suppose you decide to start to all over from scratch. With your own language, dialect, numerical systems, signs, culture etc, you decide to create something original. But you fell in the trap when you decided that your 'language' would be different from the other languages which already exist. That is, even if your language is completely different from any other, you made a conscious effort to not borrow from any language. And while doing so, you relied on the past. You relied on something which already was there. And hence your language, dialect, numerical systems, signs, culture etc would not be original.
None of us will ever get a chance to be original. Only the first human on Earth had a chance to be original. But human's, say scientists, evolved from the monkeys - and this might be an imposition as well. So the first ever chance to be original was available to only the first ever living organism. And whether that was Earth or some other piece of object, can never be found out.
So sit back and enjoy your so called 'originality' and 'creative' juices !
