Nothing more sad in the world than watching a fella tear something positive down just for the sake of fueling his fragile little ego.

But, that sad display of irrationality aside, I would love to hear an informed argument in favor of a SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE to Heisig. Even if it's just a "devil's perspective" type argument, from someone who likes RtK: what would be an alternative that is (in some ways, at least) better, for a western, beginner Japanese learner who wishes to learn to read (and maybe even write) the language?

Only alternative I have to offer is "don't learn to read the Kanji, focus on the Kana and the spoken language". Worry about the Kanji after you already speak Japanese. I think that's a good path (for many, probably superior to Heisig's), but, of course, that's not an alternative for people who DO want to learn to read first (because that's how they like to learn a language: by reading it). So, anyone willing to take crack at it?

THAT would be a strong criticism of RtK: offering something better. Trashing something, and then going on to say "but hey, it's the best we got", is not. If something created 30 years ago is STILL the best we got, it doesn't deserve to be trash talked by someone who has nothing better to offer.

People who use Heisig's method literally as described in the book seem to be a minority. I did review keyword -> kanji but stopped writing them out after the first ~100, and switched to kanji -> keyword near the end of RTK3, so didn't really "do Heisig" either.

Added: With approaching 3500 kanji in my reading deck the idea of learning to write them all in order to read them is patently absurd. Yet "write them in order to read them" is Heisig's method in a nutshell.

(2016-06-06, 4:31 am)anotherjohn Wrote: People who use Heisig's method literally as described in the book seem to be a minority. I did review keyword -> kanji but stopped writing them out after the first ~100, and switched to kanji -> keyword near the end of RTK3, so didn't really "do Heisig" either.

Added: With approaching 3500 kanji in my reading deck the idea of learning to write them all in order to read them is patently absurd. Yet "write them in order to read them" is Heisig's method in a nutshell.

Yep. If you used this website or an Anki deck, you didn't really do "RTK" as written. Hell, Heisig was all about people coming up with their own stories past the ones he provided. Then came all the other changes a few years ago with abbreviated decks (either JLPT based or 2k1KO being the most popular), different keywords, different orders and different primitives. Quite a few problems with RTK the book that were fixed by the RevTK community. Problem is most critique of RTK the book are done by those unaware of the work of this community over the years. 

Now, I recommend writing down Kanji and Vocabulary and even Grammar sentences for new learners on the idea it would be a good time to get in practice doing something Japanese people have done since childhood. However, now I realize that should be an option and not something hyped as being essential. If most Japanese don't really write much anymore why demand it of people learning Japanese when they're still good about reading/understanding it.

[Zgarbas]

Ken, even if Heisig had used a translator for his academic papers, he specialises in kyoto school philosophy, very little of which is translated into other languages, and most of the academic papers about it are in Japanese. He wouldn't be worth anything as a scholar if he couldn't read the originals, and they require far more than basic fluency to understand.
Usually Japanologist scholars have to be fluent in Japanese to have any sort of credibility, since there's only so far you can get without native sources. A BA, maybe and MA dissertation if you choose your topic carefully and have a lot of native friends to help, but nothing beyond that point.

Ofc, writing academic papers is a whole 'nother monster. I wouldn't be able to write an academic paper in any language but English, but that has more to do with habit and effort. However, you can find his academic papers written directly in Japanese on his academic profile; if he doesn't have a co-author then he probably didn't even ask a native to proofread:
http://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/ja/staff/heis...ed-essays/

(2016-06-06, 4:05 am)Stansfield123 Wrote: Only alternative I have to offer is "don't learn to read the Kanji, focus on the Kana and the spoken language". Worry about the Kanji after you already speak Japanese. I think that's a good path (for many, probably superior to Heisig's), but, of course, that's not an alternative for people who DO want to learn to read first (because that's how they like to learn a language: by reading it). So, anyone willing to take crack at it?

Well, it's not necessary to know kanji to read, because furigana - and it's quite possible to recognise kanji/words by sight without having any real understanding of how they're constructed, just by recognising them as symbols. I think (well, know - seeing that's what I did) that ignoring kanji while doing mostly reading-focused study is completely doable.

Whether it is better than kanji-first is impossible to answer ... though if I had to learn all the kanji first I would never have gotten this far from sheer boredom. Hated RTK.


... and I do not see the problem with the stuff quoted in the OP. I don't see anything there that is particularly hateful. It's saying it's a decent tool, even - while calling it out for being half-arsed (which, y'know, after a while it just turns into a wordlist, so it's a fair argument, I feel).

Learning Japanese wholly organically by playing baseball with children is exactly what I would recommend if one has the opportunity to do it.

Heisig-sensei did in fact take a month to read through grammar textbooks to absorb the structure of the language:

The school had a 2-volume textbook. I read through every chapter; I didn't do any drills, didn't memorize anything; I just wanted to see the structure of the language. I just wanted to understand how the language worked. Reading through it all took me about a month. (James Heisig Interview)

He then devised his famous method to learn the kanji before immersing with Japanese children.

Interestingly enough, his approach (apart from the fact that we don't recommend learning kanji by his system, but we don't strongly disrecommend it either) was based on exactly what we said at KawaJapa:

The best way to learn Japanese is to be in Japan, interacting and using the language for everything all the time. That way the brain builds up all the natural associations of words and grammar with things and experiences that make up true knowledge of any language.

Of course, many of us don’t have the option of being in Japan (and if we are there in an English-teaching environment we still may not have the option of true immersion).
In that case the second-best way is the best way to go.
What is the second-best way?
The answer to that should be obvious.
Getting as near to the best way as possible! (KawaJapa: The Best Way to Learn Japanese)

He did exactly what we recommend: First learn basic grammar (not with a lot of drilling, but enough to grasp the basic structures of the language), and then immerse to the fullest extent possible. Of course he wasn't acting on our recommendation (he did it long before we existed). Neither were we thinking of Heisig-sensei when we worked out our approach.

And of course the approaches differ, primarily in the fact that Heisig-sensei had the opportunity for near-total immersion, while we are trying to create near-immersion without having that opportunity.

In fact I would say that the Heisig system is perfectly attuned to someone in Heisig-sensei's Japanese-learning situation. I too would see much more sense in getting all the kanji in one's mind (as well as basic grammar) before total immersion.

We recommend learning the kanji more organically alongside/inside of artificial immersion. But you can't do that on the baseball field! Essentially Heisig-sensei was finding a way around the fact that while he could immerse pretty fully, he didn't have a nine-year Japanese shougaku/chuugaku kanji education.

I had never thought of this before, but Heisig-sensei's approach to learning Japanese was essentially the same as Kawajapa's, with the main differences being adaptations to different circumstances and opportunities.

I don't think I am saying anything all that special here. It is a pretty natural and obvious approach if you believe that language should be learned as far as possible organically.

(2016-06-06, 12:57 am)JapaneseRuleOf7 Wrote: When I asked him how he learned how to speak Japanese, he said, "I played baseball with the kids."

lol

actually, his reply is way funnier and wittier than anything i read from you so far. i guess to some it comes natural, while others have to force it.

about heisig's japanese ability...as zgarbas already explained, your opinion is based on ignorance. when 'philosophers of nothingness' was published, majority of works discussed in that book were only available in original japanese language. if he didn't know japanese he could never have written that book in the first place.

instead, why don't you try reading nishida kitaro or nishitani keiji in original japanese and then tell us how's your japanese skill?

So Heisig arrived in Japan in Sep 1978 without knowing a word of Japanese.

Heisig doesn't name any of the books he referenced while devising RTK. Was it a kanji dictionary with English keywords by any chance? Hard to see how it can have been anything else, given that by his own account he didn't know a word of Japanese at that stage and claims to have been working entirely alone.

1875 kanji working 10 hours/day for 30 days = about 10 mins per kanji total. Break down into components, "invent" a keyword, come up with a story, write out the kanji ... yeah right. Where did those keywords come from again?

At the link provided by Zgarbas there is a paper published in Japanese in 1981 with Heisig as sole author and no credit to anyone else. Remarkable progress! I guess those kids playing baseball really knew their stuff.

There also appears to be a distasteful political angle which I won't go into - starting to wish I hadn't looked into it.

Of course none of this has any bearing on whether learning kanji meanings in advance is an effective way to get started, which it obviously is.

(2016-06-06, 10:39 am)anotherjohn Wrote: So Heisig arrived in Japan in Sep 1978 without knowing a word of Japanese.

Heisig doesn't name any of the books he referenced while devising RTK. Was it a kanji dictionary with English keywords by any chance? Hard to see how it can have been anything else, given that by his own account he didn't know a word of Japanese at that stage and claims to have been working entirely alone.

1875 kanji working 10 hours/day for 30 days = about 10 mins per kanji total. Break down into components, "invent" a keyword, come up with a story, write out the kanji ... yeah right. Where did those keywords come from again?

At the link provided by Zgarbas there is a paper published in Japanese in 1981 with Heisig as sole author and no credit to anyone else. Remarkable progress! I guess those kids playing baseball really knew their stuff.

There also appears to be a distasteful political angle which I won't go into - starting to wish I hadn't looked into it.

Of course none of this has any bearing on whether learning kanji meanings in advance is an effective way to get started, which it obviously is.

Now, if one wants to write critical opinions in a witty and effective way, anotherjohn's answer is a good example to take inspiration from

Honestly, I feel that a lot of learners feel that it's either too difficult, too time-consuming (lol) or doesn't actually teach Japanese. The various hate I've seen for it seems to stem from the fact that people study it before actually studying any grammar/vocab.

I find it weird that people would bash a learning method but it happens so often (Genki or bust, learning Japanese from anime is the worst, etc.) If it works for that person then that's the best method. Over time they will find methods that work for them and discard what doesn't.

[Zgarbas]

(2016-06-06, 10:39 am)anotherjohn Wrote: So Heisig arrived in Japan in Sep 1978 without knowing a word of Japanese.

Heisig doesn't name any of the books he referenced while devising RTK. Was it a kanji dictionary with English keywords by any chance? Hard to see how it can have been anything else, given that by his own account he didn't know a word of Japanese at that stage and claims to have been working entirely alone.

1875 kanji working 10 hours/day for 30 days = about 10 mins per kanji total. Break down into components, "invent" a keyword, come up with a story, write out the kanji ... yeah right. Where did those keywords come from again?

At the link provided by Zgarbas there is a paper published in Japanese in 1981 with Heisig as sole author and no credit to anyone else. Remarkable progress! I guess those kids playing baseball really knew their stuff.

There also appears to be a distasteful political angle which I won't go into - starting to wish I hadn't looked into it.

Of course none of this has any bearing on whether learning kanji meanings in advance is an effective way to get started, which it obviously is.

He seems to reference some of the books and schools he was working with in paper #48 on the website, which is basically intro to RTK in Japanese.

I get the impression that a lot of the opposition is people expecting it to do more than it is supposed it.
It doesn't teach you to read or write the language nor be able to listen to or speak it.
All it does is allow one to attach an English keyword to a Kanji, to be able to recognize one vs the other, to write them [if you write as part of the review process] and to make able to make sense of new Kanji as opposed to them being completely random sciggles.

It does what it does well, but it fails at what it doesn't even try to do.
The only alternative other than a clone of the method is to just try to learn them by extreme exposure but memory systems shaves time off of it.

Myself I got to 1950 before switching to Chinese [and getting nowhere from the fear, sigh, a few more days and I think I will switch back]. I didn't use the full method. I have no interest in coming up with Grandpa Simpson style stories when I can usually construct a short sentence with the components and the key word. However I used the order of his Kanji and the basic method.
That plus Anki, without either I think I'd rather poke myself in the eye with a really hot French Fry than try to learn it.

About the only downside other than long stories vs a simple sentence is that if you do it first which he recommends and kinda makes sense although unpopular, there can be a pretty wide gap between the time you learn a Kanji and when you start using it unless you are speeding through the texts and media and even then. Rather that then be stuck trying to learn a complex Kanji before I got to it in RtK.

It seems Remembering the Hanzi is much less popular on the Chinese side than Remembering the Kanji for some reason.

Everybody has their preference in learning style. People tend to be protective of the way they do things for reasons, I think especially so with study methods because an enourmous amount of time and effort goes into them. If you're doing things one way, and another way leads to success, it might mean you're doing things "wrong", which would mean you're wasting time either because you won't get to your goal, or you're taking an unnecessarily long route. My guess is it's the sunken costs fallacy mixed with the usual wanting to be right, and a feeling of defensiveness about our actions. It's not really in our DNA to think there's multiple ways to skin a cat, certainly not that there are many ways that are just as effective. We want to know that we have found THE most effective, efficient, sensible way to get that hide.

Going back to the original example, I think it displays throughout, an unwillingness to actually give the technique a genuine attempt. Right off the bat, the user is telling you to abandon the technique before you've even tried it, to keep only the keywords and kanji connection, and to use them in exactly the opposite fashion to how they're intended. That's a perfectly plausible suggestion coming from someone who's had success doing it that way, not so much from someone who is insisting the technique is an outright waste of time. I also like how they throw doubt on Heisig's language ability, and throw out totally unsabstantiated "suspicions" that a simple google search would show are ridiculous. He's one of the few foreigners to make himself a name in serious Japanese Academia, it's quite obvious just from that alone that the man can probably wield pretty decent Japanese.

That's a good indicator that somebody is just being knee-jerk because they didn't use the technique, and they don't want to think that their life might have been easier if they had.

(2016-06-07, 3:39 am)Dudeist Wrote: I get the impression that a lot of the opposition is people expecting it to do more than it is supposed it.
It doesn't teach you to read or write the language nor be able to listen to or speak it.
All it does is allow one to attach an English keyword to a Kanji, to be able to recognize one vs the other, to write them [if you write as part of the review process] and to make able to make sense of new Kanji as opposed to them being completely random sciggles.

I think some people have the impression that breaking kanji down into their constituent elements and making mnemonic stories was Heisig-sensei's invention.

There is also an idea that Japanese people are completely unaware of radicals and remember by blind copying.

Actually Japanese people from an early age not only know radicals but know their formal names.

While most mnemonics are personal and informal (one makes them up as one goes along, rather as Heisig-sensei recommends later in the book) there are some traditional native mnemonics for difficult kanji, eg:

For 鬱,

リンカーンはアメリカンコーヒーを３杯飲んだ

リンカーン is for rin 林 and kan 缶, コーヒー for the parts that resemble コ and ヒ etc.

Heisig-sensei did not, and did not claim to, invent the technique of component-based kanji mnemonics, although he was probably the primary force in making Western learners aware of it and for that alone deserves our gratitude.

So for example, when I suggest learning kanji more organically, I am certainly not suggesting that we learn without mnemonics. In fact I have advocated using mnemonics more widely for aspects of Japanese other than kanji.

I really don't understand people who speak roughly and disrespectfully about Heisig-sensei himself or his method.

However there are those of us who do not feel that learning large amounts of kanji as abstract entities with English keywords before knowing any Japanese is necessarily the best way to begin learning the language.

At least not for everyone. Some people clearly thrive on it, but others equally clearly don't. And the implication that you have to start that way has been rather deadening to some people.

That, I think, is all it really boils down to. Any grumpiness that enters into the picture is just a distraction really! There seems to be a bad habit of getting grumpy unnecessarily about anything and everything these days!

I read that too actually. I stopped myself from commenting. I think Ken already knows what I would say. I'm an anti class, pro anki person too. And he is the opposite. Core ajatt tenements all the way. But I suspect sometimes Ken is too, more than he admits maybe, and argues the opposite to spite himself or to challenge this new online orthodoxy that has sprung up in recent years. Which is probably a good thing.

Anyway, I think it's a great system. Although I was already too far along in my study when I tried it I think the principles are sound and it seems to work for a lot of people. Most attavks I read against it seem to miss the point. And if you don't like the keywords or stories? Make your own. Or try somebody else's, like at Kanji Damage.

But then I also think Ken is a bit right about Heisig in other respects. Funny story. My research these days on an academic topic is "here's why Heisig is wrong." Only not related to Kanji but philosophy. So at least when it comes to disagreeing with Heisig we have something in common. Even if it's about different things. :-)

(2016-06-06, 7:58 am)Aikynaro Wrote: Well, it's not necessary to know kanji to read, because furigana

I'm aware of furigana. But I'm interested in an alternative way to learn to read Japanese as it is commonly written.

(2016-06-07, 10:15 am)CureDolly Wrote: So for example, when I suggest learning kanji more organically, I am certainly not suggesting that we learn without mnemonics. In fact I have advocated using mnemonics more widely for aspects of Japanese other than kanji.

That is not an alternative to RtK though. That is an alternative to learning Japanese through reading. That is not people who like to learn languages by reading are looking for.

RtK is a big step towards learning the writing system up-front. Learning the Kanji more organically means that you're learning the writing system as you're learning the language. Which is fine, but: the reason why that won't work for some people is because some people like to learn languages almost exclusively through reading. If you're learning German, or French, you can just start reading (extensively or intensively, doesn't matter), and, eventually, you'll learn the language. You don't need any kind of system. You can just read.

If you're learning Japanese, you cannot do that. RtK serves to get you close to a point where you CAN. That is what it does. And it only takes about 200 hours. Learning Kanji organically would take far, far more than that. It would get you further along in learning Japanese than RtK, but some people aren't trying to get further, they're trying to get to a specific point in the shortest time possible. From that point, they have it covered, they don't need any more help.

That is what an alternative to RtK would have to accomplish: get someone to that same point, faster. Without such an alternative, criticizing RtK is pointless. If it's the only option to accomplish the task, then it's by default the best option. Not saying it is, by the way...but what is a faster option (not to learn Japanese, but to accomplish the task that RtK sets out to accomplish)?

(2016-06-08, 6:44 am)Stansfield123 Wrote:

(2016-06-06, 7:58 am)Aikynaro Wrote: Well, it's not necessary to know kanji to read, because furigana

I'm aware of furigana. But I'm interested in an alternative way to learn to read Japanese as it is commonly written.

I do read Japanese as it is commonly written - for instance, I'm currently reading a seinen manga series 第七女子会彷徨, which has almost no furigana, and recently finished the first two volumes of the LN 神様のいない日曜日, which is relatively generous with the furigana for a LN but the majority of words don't have any. I won't claim that I recognise 100% of those words, but I'm comfortable saying I have a high level of understanding.

The thing with starting out reading things with extensive furigana is that eventually you recognise the words without the furigana - like you don't need to parse every letter of an English word to recognise it as you read, you don't need to know the components that make up kanji as you read. I guess it would be like being able to read without being able to spell.

I do think that learning the kanji (i.e. how to write) at some point is necessary, but that point is far, far past where advocates of RTK etc. put it, even with a reading-focused study method.

The primary reason behind the huge amounts of drama in language acquisition communities in general is that they are hugely populated by shut-ins, outcasts, emotionally fragile types, and people just going through a hard time in life. When I dig deeper than "tips and tools" posts what I usually find is people looking for a way to stay busy to detract from dealing with the real causes of sadness in their lives. When your L2 progress is all you have to hang on to, a challenge to your methods can feel extremely personal. 

I'm speaking from experience here, my first couple of years of L2 acquisition started when a 5 year LTR blew up and  a during a full year of unemployment. Feeling like I was progressing through RTK gave me a feeling of order and progress when my life had objectively turned to complete utter shit. Go to the gym in the morning, go the library and do my Anki reps, half-assedly "look for a job", sit alone in my apartment watching L2 dramas- this was my life for an entire year. Eventually I had to admit to myself I was just staying busy and didn't even really give a shit about Japanese, and finally I broke out of the rut and now it's like looking back on someone else's life, it's hard to believe it was me. Back then any method I was using was objectively right and those I rejected were garbage and everyone needed to know it.

Now when I see posts screaming about how "method X is crap" I just see "my life is crap right now." Lashing out keeps us busy so we don't lash ourselves.

(2016-06-08, 7:16 am)Stansfield123 Wrote:

(2016-06-07, 10:15 am)CureDolly Wrote: So for example, when I suggest learning kanji more organically, I am certainly not suggesting that we learn without mnemonics. In fact I have advocated using mnemonics more widely for aspects of Japanese other than kanji.

That is not an alternative to RtK though. That is an alternative to learning Japanese through reading. That is not people who like to learn languages by reading are looking for.

Actually I learn Japanese mostly by reading - or rather I read, and as a consequence I hope I learn a little Japanese（⌒▽⌒)

But certainly learning by reading and other massive input (much of which involves reading) is what I do and try to help others to do. Using mnemonics is certainly not an alternative to learning by reading. It is precisely an adjunct to that very thing.

Quote:That is what an alternative to RtK would have to accomplish: get someone to that same point, faster.  Without such an alternative, criticizing RtK is pointless. If it's the only option to accomplish the task, then it's by default the best option. Not saying it is, by the way...but what is a faster option (not to learn Japanese, but to accomplish the task that RtK sets out to accomplish)?

I would agree that if you want to do exactly what Heisig-sensei sets out to teach (i.e. learn all the kanji in advance without knowing any Japanese), then the Heisig method may well be the best tool for the job (I can't say for sure as I have never set out to do that particular job).

The question really is whether one does want to begin that way or not. There is no right or wrong here; it is a matter of the approach one prefers to take and what suits one's own learning style.

I fully accept that Heisig is the right method for a lot of people. I also think there are a lot of people for whom it isn't the right method.

(2016-06-08, 8:14 am)Aikynaro Wrote:

(2016-06-08, 6:44 am)Stansfield123 Wrote:

(2016-06-06, 7:58 am)Aikynaro Wrote: Well, it's not necessary to know kanji to read, because furigana

I'm aware of furigana. But I'm interested in an alternative way to learn to read Japanese as it is commonly written.

The thing with starting out reading things with extensive furigana is that eventually you recognise the words without the furigana - like you don't need to parse every letter of an English word to recognise it as you read, you don't need to know the components that make up kanji as you read.

This is a very important point. A competent reader of English does not look at all the letters of each word. If she did, reading would be painfully slow. It behoves us all to remember that however we start, ultimately, if we are to read Japanese well, we have to get beyond not only mnemonics but also beyond parsing kanji into their components and into recognizing them at a glance.

This isn't an argument for one method or another. Just a fact that is worth bearing in mind.

_____

@Danchan I'd be fascinated to know why Heisig-sensei is wrong philosophically. I have actually dipped into some of his philosophical writings, but currently I don't have the time to read that much English. In my very inept way I felt a few of his points were a little questionable, but I have given so little attention to the philosophical issues concerned that my opinion is currently worthless. I would like to approach some of this in Japanese eventually. (Just an aside. Not trying to take the thread a long-haul flight off-topic!)

(2016-06-08, 11:44 am)mattimus Wrote: The primary reason behind the huge amounts of drama in language acquisition communities in general is that they are hugely populated by shut-ins, outcasts, emotionally fragile types, and people just going through a hard time in life. When I dig deeper than "tips and tools" posts what I usually find is people looking for a way to stay busy to detract from dealing with the real causes of sadness in their lives. When your L2 progress is all you have to hang on to, a challenge to your methods can feel extremely personal. 

I'm speaking from experience here, my first couple of years of L2 acquisition started when a 5 year LTR blew up and  a during a full year of unemployment. Feeling like I was progressing through RTK gave me a feeling of order and progress when my life had objectively turned to complete utter shit. Go to the gym in the morning, go the library and do my Anki reps, half-assedly "look for a job", sit alone in my apartment watching L2 dramas- this was my life for a an entire year. Eventually I had to admit to myself I was just staying busy and didn't even really give a shit about Japanese, and finally I broke out of the rut and now it's like looking back on someone else's life, it's hard to believe it was me. Back then any method I was using was objectively right and those I rejected were garbage and everyone needed to know it.

Now when I see posts screaming about how "method X is crap" I just see "my life is crap right now." Lashing out keeps us busy so we don't lash ourselves.

Good thought. Not only, but as a consequence of what you said, those individuals tend to have the necessity to prove they are superior in that field, so they bash the others in order to feel better.
I've seen this much in the programming and the linux community, most of the time the more arrogants are the ones more mediocre, but they act so much as experts that they seems expert, to other and to themselves.
Especially in the IRC era when there was the "op" thing, and the "kick/ban" power. All those adult individuals self-proclaimed as upmost experts on a field, and all this on the internet.

This is why YouTube is my favorite platform. In order to give suggestions and judgements, you must first show your skills and gain your credibility. All those poliglots with a lot of videos where they show their speaking ability.
And the thing I see is that they do mostly the same things, in order to improve. They put the time, first of all. And they don't spend all the time speaking "about" how to learn the language, but they actually study the language. Obviusly as enthusiasts of language learning they speak a lot of the "how", too. But mostly after they already did it, and they speak by experience.

On the other hands all those blogs tend to overtink it, techniques, secrets, and so on. It remembers me some forums where all those Jimi Hendrix-wannabe spend hours talking about how to be faster on solos and so on, which is not bad by itself. But then they don't improve and they begin to criticize tecniques, exercises, practice, and became to think there is a sort of magic secret knowledge which will make you good at guitar. This while other guitarists are away from the computer practicisig with the guitar hours a day.

CureDolly wrote: "@Danchan I'd be fascinated to know why Heisig-sensei is wrong philosophically."

That was me being a bit facetious of course. I wouldn't want to say publicly that Heisig is "wrong", so I also probably shouldn't say so online, even if I am ever-so-slightly anonymous. But yes, I disagree with some of the arguments that he and some of his colleagues (Thomas Kasulis and John Maraldo) make about philosophy.

It's to do with how they understand what philosophy is, which relates to their argument that philosophy is a phenomena intrinsic to human societies that can be found probably throughout history in most cultures, and maybe all of them. They aren't unusual in saying this. It's actually a very common position to find in comparative philosophy, and its major journals like Philosophy East and West (Hawai'i university press, since 1951). It's also a position that is strongly based on arguments developed by classical pragmatists, like John Dewey or William James. We can't hope to define things like "civilization" or "religion" or "philosophy" in some apriori manner, as these words are understood as pointing to complex social phenomena that take on a variety of forms, have multiple aspects, over time, across space. (This is kind of the Darwinian side of pragmatism. Human consciousness and society is a kind of "adaptation" to the environment, albeit not a passive one-way kind, but one that involves a kind of feedback loop). So, if we want to know what, say, philosophy is, we should look at lots and lots of different particular kinds of philosophy as found in different environments, and not simply assume, that, for example, a dominant way of doing philosophy (for example, say a logo-centric one or a European one) is the only legitimate way.

I disagree though. I don't think they see it this way, or have even considered it, but I think they have turned "philosophy" into "thought" through this kind of empiricist-botanist approach. That's actually fine, if you are aware of it, and argue with that presupposition. So for example, you might say, "by philosophy, I mean, a kind of deep thinking, generally understood", and then conclude that... "philosophy" is intrinsic to human civilization. What they are doing though is using philosophy in the sense of "thought in general" and yet also in the sense of philosophy as a tradition of questioning, at the same time. So somehow "philosophy as a tradition of questioning" now has existed everywhere, in all places. I'm really not sure how helpful this is to our understanding of philosophy or civilizations. I think it can actually be quite misleading. That's not to say that I don't sympathize with the motivations of Heisig and his colleagues. I agree with some of their premises, and we shouldn't doubt that the arguments of the classical pragmatists have a lot to offer us today. But the matter is not as simple as I think they make it out to be.

Oh thank you for elucidating that. I was being a little flippant too in reflecting your comment about Heisig-sensei being "wrong". It seems really that this is a matter of how we define the word "philosophy", which obviously could be done in a variety of ways.

I would tend to take the etymology literally (philo-sophia, love of wisdom) and suggest that is something that is not wisdom in itself but could perhaps lead to wisdom - wisdom itself being inherently incommunicable (the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao).

However, I am sure I should be considered even wronger than Heisig-sensei from some perspectives（⌒▽⌒）

I think RTK is a useless method. A much more efficient method would be to just Anki vocabulary without learning kanji beforehand.

You do NOT need to memorize the radicals for every kanji, you do in fact only need to be able to recognize the shape in order to read / type. Writing on paper is the only time that radicals actually matter. Most Japanese people forget the radicals of the majority of kanji and just use recognition as well.

It's like in English you don't need remember the spelling of any given word, as long as you remember the word when you see it, except it's compounded by the fact that in English you do need to spell to type, but in Japanese you don't need radicals to type. There is little to no point in memorizing which radicals are used in which kanji. You just need to be able to read it when you see it. Everything else is a waste of time and something you will most likely just forget in the long run anyway.

Even if you wanted to be able to write, I still would NOT recommend learning to write 2000+ kanji before you learn anything else, that's a horrible method. Learn what's actually useful first. Do RTK after you can already read fluently if you really want to.

(2016-06-12, 11:36 pm)kameden Wrote: I think RTK is a useless method. A much more efficient method would be to just Anki vocabulary without learning kanji beforehand.

You do NOT need to memorize the radicals for every kanji, you do in fact only need to be able to recognize the shape in order to read / type. Writing on paper is the only time that radicals actually matter. Most Japanese people forget the radicals of the majority of kanji and just use recognition as well.

It's like in English you don't need remember the spelling of any given word, as long as you remember the word when you see it, except it's compounded by the fact that in English you do need to spell to type, but in Japanese you don't need radicals to type. There is little to no point in memorizing which radicals are used in which kanji. You just need to be able to read it when you see it. Everything else is a waste of time and something you will most likely just forget in the long run anyway.

Even if you wanted to be able to write, I still would NOT recommend learning to write 2000+ kanji before you learn anything else, that's a horrible method. Learn what's actually useful first. Do RTK after you can already read fluently if you really want to.

That's a fascinating theory.

However, in practice I found that before I did RTK, I was constantly confusing one character for another... I spent literally -years- drilling kanji and vocabulary without making any significant progress. Making real progress required that by some happenstance I drilled two similar-looking characters very close to each other in time so that I was forced to stop and really compare the shapes and try to come up with some kind of mnemonic to distinguish them.

Recognizing characters by their outline or shape is not really sufficient, because so many characters have a similar shape. You need to recognize characters by their -exact- set of strokes.

Some people are blessed with a strong visual memory and don't find it a problem ... remembering the 'shape' of the kanji and remembering the 'exact set of strokes' is the same for them. For some of us, however, it's extremely easy to confuse kanji that differ only by a single stroke in the left radical. The RTK system helps distinguish each character as a unique entity and build a recognition of how extremely important the difference of a single tiny dot can be. It also sets you up with a whole -set- of mnemonics for the character, instead of leaving you struggling to come up with mnemonics on the fly when you realize that you're constantly confusing similar characters.

I mean, hey, if you have the kind of memory that lets you just drill kanji vocab in anki and learn it correctly, more power to you, but not everybody has that kind of memory so instead of denigrating a whole learning system that has been really helpful to thousands of learners, perhaps you should realize that not everyone has your advantages.