I never thought about this but I really believe it to be true and would love to know why is that. For example, whenever I want to get an interaction going with very small kids, I would pretend to not know something and they'd be super happy to teach me - works every time.
The reason arguments are dangerous is that while they look like an attempt to correct someone's knowledge, in reality they easily mix with the desire to place yourself in the 'teacher's seat.'
However, Confucianism places great value on teaching, and at first glance this might seem contradictory to Mencius's words. But it explains that the purpose of teaching is different. Good teaching aims to bring out the best in others and nurture them, and it should come after self-cultivation. On top of that, it requires the other person's consent, such as when they are in need. Bad teaching, on the other hand, is about self-display, the desire to feel superior, and interfering without being asked.
In reality, it's hard to draw a perfect line between the two, but I think the effort is to keep trying.
Would suggest possible explanation by adding Orwell's quote: If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.
To think about your logic a bit more precisely, Orwell's metaphor is about why the power to trample others ultimately arises. In Confucianism, it's usually said:
孟子曰: 君子以仁存心，以禮存心。仁者愛人，有禮者敬人。 (Mencius said: The noble person keeps benevolence in their heart and keeps propriety in their heart. The benevolent person loves others, and the person who has propriety respects others.)
論語: 不憤不啟，不悱不發。 (The Analects: If the learner is not eager to know, do not enlighten them; if they are not struggling to express themselves, do not inspire them.)
孟子曰: 教亦多術矣，予不屑之教誨也者，是亦教誨之而已矣。 (Mencius said: There are many ways to teach. My refusing to teach someone because I deem them unworthy is also a form of teaching.)
This can be summarized as: 'When that desire passes through benevolence and propriety, it becomes good teaching. When it loses benevolence and propriety, it becomes scolding, interference, and self-display.'
From this, teaching can be understood as having different stages. Teaching is meaningful only when the other person is ready to receive it. Teaching is not about pouring out explanations; sometimes not teaching, stepping back, and letting the other person reflect on themselves is also a form of education.
The extreme of power that Orwell speaks of is, in other words, a kind of 'forcing' upon someone who does not want it. This means that the same desire can lead to completely different outcomes depending on which ethical filter it passes through.
However, this is also a very fragmented explanation when viewed in the full context. In modern society, we rarely live out classical thought as a complete system; instead, we cut out fragments of it and use them to explain current problems. I am not trying to explain Confucianism as a whole either. I am simply using the Confucian sensibility that is relatively commonly spread in Korea to try to understand this issue. So I cannot claim that the passages I cited are arranged in a completely rigorous way.
Perhaps the reason I feel this way is because I was born and raised in Korea, and I am currently active there. I am just active on HN because it is the metropolis of the programming world.
I feel that Western individualism treats the individual as a more autonomous unit. In contrast, in the Confucian sensibility I am familiar with, an individual is less like an independent point and more like an intersection of multiple relationships.
I think both Western and Eastern thought have their strengths and weaknesses, and they arrive at similar insights through different paths.
Orwell starts from a macroscopic, top-down perspective and examines how power tries to subjugate humans. This is a response to the macroscopic question, as seen in Machiavelli, of 'power as a matter of order and domination.'
As seen in Orwell's 'Notes on Nationalism,' his thinking is about the problem of proxy power: the attitude where an individual dissolves their identity into a group and pursues that group's power and prestige.
In other words, I think Confucianism asks questions about how to solve this problem at the microscopic level, while Orwell's work is closer to an explanation of how unresolved problems at the microscopic level can cause trouble.
Of course, what I have read is only at a university-level introduction to philosophy, so I hope you will take my answer as being just as superficial. For more detailed explanations, I suspect wild philosophers hungry for questions will appear and take over.
p.s. The irony is that this very comment is basically me pouring out content you probably didn't ask for. The biggest contradiction is that I'm talking about controlling the urge to act like a teacher, while I'm not practicing it myself. In fact, I think Confucianism also has macroscopic discourses, and Orwell also has microscopic explanations, so they don't fit together perfectly. There are also points where they conflict
Most of the time, I use officially translated versions of Confucian classics, but I'm actually using Google Translate and Papago (a Korean translator) to translate them. The words I use are fixed, and since the rich vocabulary I use in my native language is restricted, I guess it's inevitable that it looks like AI.
How would you judge the urge to teach people who have power or influence?
Your previous comments about Narcissism in Western economies come to mind.
It seems to me that Mencius was often talking down to his interlocutors. Maybe that would have worked out for him, but it didn't work out for many officials who got decapitated for speaking out. But am I an inferior person for thinking they weren't wrong not to control their urge to teach "tyrants"?
It seems that Stoics, Cynics etc escaped such punishment even though there were no equivalent advice in their worldview? Besides Socrates obviously. It could be that Westerners are simply better with manipulating emotions. And Socrates was complicated, but he'd never worm away from teaching.
I also think "hubris", a not very Asian concept, is something easier to address than narcissism (which has Asian versions).. maybe we can start there. (I am thinking of hubris in Greek stories or law, not the modern translation as "arrogance")
Consider Wu Kong. That's narcissism, not hubris, because he essentially had the powers of (most of) the gods. Whereas what Mencius had, and what the mods here have, could be called hubris. Hubris can be invisible to mortals, but not to gods. Hubris can be very abstract injuries to human dignity.
It feels like Orwell was being intimate with hubris. Big Brother. The Inner Party. And so on. Even "The Boot". Were carefully short of being "egoistic".
One caveat. It's very common in Chinese popculture to call someone competent a god, a goddess, almost always humourously. Interesting way to nip hubris in the bud?
Hubris is easier to correct than narcissism because sometimes all you have to do is point it out. Or wait for the AI bubble to pop.
Mencius would already have enjoyed his passive act of teaching before a bubble actually popped? Did he feel a need to buy puts?
I think we and Westerners think differently when it comes to the concepts of narcissism and hubris. I'm not very familiar with the Stoics or the Cynics. As you know, we East Asians don't really learn Western philosophy much, right? It's mostly Confucian thought.
Anyway, as you said, 好爲人師 (loving to teach others / being fond of acting as a teacher to others) doesn't mean one shouldn't remonstrate with those in power. However, in Asia — especially in Korea — while Confucius is famous, Mencius is treated as almost his equal. I've heard that in China, Mencius is ranked a little lower. I'm particularly fond of Mencius, and I especially love this passage:
(居天下之廣居, 立天下之正位, 行天下之大道: 得志, 與民由之; 不得志, 獨行其道. 富貴不能淫, 貧賤不能移, 威武不能屈, 此之謂大丈夫.)
"To dwell in the wide house of the world, to stand in the correct station of the world, to walk in the great path of the world; when one achieves his ambition, he shares it with the people; when he fails to achieve it, he walks his path alone. Riches and honors cannot corrupt him, poverty and low status cannot make him waver, power and force cannot bend him. this is what is called a great man."
Personally, I think Wukong was actually more of a case of hubris, wasn't he? Because whether he had power or not, he fought against the heavens. Perhaps he could also be seen as an embodiment of Mencius's concept of the "great man."
I sometimes think about this. because we're in different language spheres, the vocabulary we think in evaporates so much. It saddens me that I can't express things at a high level in English.
Otoh there is the famous story of young Confucius getting "rejected" by Laozi.. (Sima Qian, Shiji)
孔子適周，將問禮於老子。
老子曰：「子所言者，其人與骨皆已朽矣，獨其言在耳。且君子得其時則駕，不得其時則蓬累而行。吾聞之，良賈深藏若虛，君子盛德容貌若愚。去子之驕氣與多欲，態色與淫志，是皆無益於子之身。吾所以告子，若是而已。」
..."I have heard that a shrewd merchant hides his wealth deeply, appearing as if he has nothing; a gentleman of abundant virtue keeps a demeanor that looks like foolishness."...
This way of avoiding (direct!) teaching & sharing sounds both more actionable and appealing to me :)
For Westerners, Court Jesters? Korean movie King's Man?
But like you, I habitually do the opposite..
'We are all trapped in a desire for recognition, and it's hard to control that desire. And when that desire loses its way, we try to teach others, try to control them, and ultimately try to take their place. True learning only begins when we put that position down, but we are too afraid of letting go.'
I hope this is the answer you were looking for.
If you look at HN comments in pre-"AI" era, you will see posts were way shorter and way more concise. While I am certainly could be in wrong, it does look like AI output.
I would also make a distinction between kids’ ‘teaching’ behaviors you describe and the one in Mencius’s quote