The dialectic between teacher and learner is one of great importance but is often misunderstood or, perhaps in more weighted terms, is not brought to its full potential by the teachers.
This permeates in the marxist environment, which is the only one I'm concerned with currently, where teachers do not realize their role and full capabilities as such. It remains by and large -- in my experience only -- as not a dialectic, but a unidirectional conveyance.
The teacher speaks, and the learner listens. This is the metaphysical model.
But are we not all being taught, and thus learning, at any time? From discussions I've had where I started in this metaphysical "authority" role of the teacher (a role most people, me included, subordinate themselves to rather easily as what they think a learner should be) and ended up learning more than I taught.
I may know dialectics well. But I may not know economics well. A learner is a fluid thing, it goes through stages back and forth. I teach dialectics to someone, and I learn economics from them. By asking their questions, they help me refine my understanding -- and capabilities to teach -- of dialectics further.
The teacher should explain, promote, make considerations. The learner should retain, evaluate and analyze.
This requires for the learner to understand that their role is not simply to nod along and retain everything from the authority, and for the teacher to be open to changing their mind and methods.
The dialectic (contradiction) is resolved when the session gives birth to a new third thing, in this case similarly to the "original" Ancient Greek dialectic, and both parties come out with a third new idea that did not exist previously. The learner has learned and taught, and the teacher has taught and learned in a way they both further their understanding of the topic.
It can then repeat with the learner being able to become a teacher (in any capacity) and the teacher having refined what they will say (and how) to the next learner.
I see the complete opposite too often; marxists that would rather confirm their biases, eschewing their own capabilities as teachers (and learners -- many think of themselves too highly to still be "learners") and completely smothering any potential their interactions may have had as a teaching opportunity, at least dialectically.
You see this most often on social media, where the order of the day is to make cheap jokes, quick "stream of consciousness" quips, and confirming one's own already formed beliefs.
In this role, they are being metaphysical (or at the very least undialectic). It's not bad for the sake of it and me being able to use the jargon; it's a malformed process because dialectic cannot take place, and cannot make things advance. Thus they remain stuck where they were exactly before: further confirming their belief that their tendency/ideas are the best, and working not to advance that tendency or idea, but to disprove that any other is good.
