One cannot teach what one did not experience

[prasanth5]

How can one teach that which one did not experience? One who realizes the supreme truth cannot explain about it and one who did not realize goes about explaining the so called 'truth'.

 

[alexmike]

I believe that if one wants to teach something they must know feel and completely understand what they are teaching. That is the best way to do so. It is not possible for one to be able to teach properly until he understands completely.

 

[irahat]

But there were certain things you learn after teaching ....... but many things in life remembered not learned after experience.

 

[Arlie]

I think experience aids in teaching, but many people teach about things in the past which they could not have experienced. Like the holocaust. People can explain how horrible it was and those listening can use their empathy to "experience" a teensy tiny bit of it.

 

[Aristotle]

While those who experienced the subject matter first hand, probably do have a greater sense of what that matter entails, that does not mean something cannot be taught without firsthand experience. Sometimes we must rely on secondary sources, especially in the context of history.

 

[Frogger]

I spent more than thirty years as an educator and if I had taught only that which I had personally experienced my students would have been short changed. I taught many things which I had either learned from others or learned from books.

 

[mvr]

I think that experiencing what you're teaching helps a lot in the transfer of knowledge and understanding. Someone could effectively teach on the topic depending on the depth and intensity.

After all, if you look at a new teacher who has experienced whatever they are teaching and compare it to a seasoned teacher who has more experience, it doesnt mean that the new teacher cant teach effectively. It just means the experienced teacher can teach more effectively

 

[jdsingle]

Just stick to Plato's views on the soul and then you are able to teach it...

 

[notimpressed]

"How can one teach that which one did not experience? One who realizes the supreme truth cannot explain about it and one who did not realize goes about explaining the so called 'truth'."

Hmm, it’s not a very scholarly way to respond, I know, but I have to say, It depends.

I did not receive nor experience the umpteen viruses my Father gets on his PC. But I can teach him how to remove them.

Historical education is a far murkier pond to get to the bottom of. The OP’s statement has merit there, the endlessly debatable merit, but not totally false IMHO.

 

[Frogger]

"How can one teach that which one did not experience? One who realizes the supreme truth cannot explain about it and one who did not realize goes about explaining the so called 'truth'."

Hmm, it?s not a very scholarly way to respond, I know, but I have to say, It depends.

I did not receive nor experience the umpteen viruses my Father gets on his PC. But I can teach him how to remove them.

Historical education is a far murkier pond to get to the bottom of. The OP?s statement has merit there, the endlessly debatable merit, but not totally false IMHO.

Most teaching is of things of which the teacher has no personal experience. I have, in the past, taught ancient history, medieval history, revolutionary war history, etc. even though I experienced none of those periods myself.

I can show someone the best way to get from Florida to California even though I have never personally made the trip.

There are many different ways of getting knowledge. One of those ways is through personal experience but since no one can experience more than a miniscule part of the world most teaching is on and about things the teacher has never personally experienced. Most people pass on knowledge that they have received from others either orally or through the written word.

 

[notimpressed]

History is always tougher though. All you can teach is what you learn usually from sources that also have no direct experience. Even if they do have experience, you only get their perspective, which can lead to misinterpretation. There is also bias, and purposeful revisionism of history to contend with.

 

[Calvin]

How can one teach that which one did not experience?

Isn't that the amazing thing about God? Often peopel say 'God cannot relate to me or my problems'. But he came down to earth in human form as Jesus. He lived his life as we do. He ate, he drank, he breathed, he did everything we do to sustain life - although he did not sin, he was tempted by sin. In short - he was God in the form of man. As such, he can teach us - from the perspective not just of a Creator, but also as one who has 'been there, done that' as the Mountain Dew commercial states.

No God of Islam or Hindism can make a similar claim.

 

[jdsingle]

Isn't that the amazing thing about God? Often peopel say 'God cannot relate to me or my problems'. But he came down to earth in human form as Jesus. He lived his life as we do. He ate, he drank, he breathed, he did everything we do to sustain life - although he did not sin, he was tempted by sin. In short - he was God in the form of man. As such, he can teach us - from the perspective not just of a Creator, but also as one who has 'been there, done that' as the Mountain Dew commercial states.

No God of Islam or Hindism can make a similar claim.

If God is all knowing and loving, why create a world in which there is hate and death? Correct me if I am wrong, but in the Bible (or one of the books) did God not order Joshua (I believe?) to kill every person in Canaan? I feel like some of these religions have too many contradictions.

EDIT: Sorry for straying off topic

 

[Calvin]

If God is all knowing and loving, why create a world in which there is hate and death?

He didn't.

The world he created for Adam and Eve had no death or hate. Those things only came into the equation once the fall had happened (ie. eating of the forbidden fruit).

 

[jdsingle]

What is the purpose of allowing the "forbidden fruit" to be eaten? If he is all powerful and knowing, then he knowingly created a world in which he knew that the "forbidden fruit" would be eat. Therefore the responsibility lies on his shoulders. Would you not agree?

 

[David]

No God of Islam or Hindism can make a similar claim.

1. Same god.
2. Jesus influenced Hinduism (and others).

Next?

 

[obtuseobserver]

How can one teach that which one did not experience? One who realizes the supreme truth cannot explain about it and one who did not realize goes about explaining the so called 'truth'.

if we cannot learn from the experiences of others we'd have long annoying days


think about inventing the airplane everytime you needed to fly


think about inventing the internet every time you wanted to post... to say nothing of computers, fiber optics, electricity, machinery, factories


talk about a pain in the ass!

 

[obtuseobserver]

If God is all knowing and loving, why create a world in which there is hate and death?

This is usually referred to as "the problem of evil"

See Leibniz Theodicy

 

[TortoiseDream]

How can one teach that which one did not experience? One who realizes the supreme truth cannot explain about it and one who did not realize goes about explaining the so called 'truth'.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, it just seems like that's kind of obvious. Every experience I have - no one will ever have that exact same experience as me, otherwise that person would be me.

 

[obtuseobserver]

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, it just seems like that's kind of obvious. Every experience I have - no one will ever have that exact same experience as me, otherwise that person would be me.

so, you cannot teach some one to read?

how did you learn to read?

the experiences of others played no role?