Much more likely:

1. Reactionary Stance: the student states flaws in the new information. If finding none, the student states some anyway.

2. Ignoring the New Information: the student simply disregards it for nonrational reasons. It cannot be, the 19-year-old believes. I know it not to be true, as my life as taught me so.

3. Accepting, with Modifications: the student ignores or throws out choice elements his core paradigm disagrees with, reservedly embracing the husk that remains.

There are some more that slip my mind. Nonetheless, I find that the best way to inoculate against students dismissing out-of-hand radical ideas is to introduce this on the very first day.

I think I may have commented to this effect before on this site. If so, disregard it.

http://awaitingtenure.wordpress.com

Still, it is true that in some instances what you say is true. Too much information about Aristotle reveals that he believed some ridiculous (but given his time period pretty advanced) ideas about biology. Or, it reveals that he believed in natural slavery. As a result, students ignore his philosophy, thinking that he is a moron not worth their time.

Teaching the history of medicine tends to call on students to laugh at the old belief in humors and devil possession for viral or bacterial infection. We feel, as a result, so superior over our ignorant ancestors. Or, for example, that washing your hands wasn’t all that needed back in the Dark Ages.

It doesn’t have to be that way with any discipline, but most classes in that kind of context tend to lean in that direction, anyway.

You’ll avoid this, I’m sure, but this chrono-egoism or whatever is going to be a factor.

Just an general observation.

http://awaitingtenure.wordpress.com/

Even with my familiarity in dealing with historical and social contexts, (broadly conveived that is) I haven’t been convinced they always matter. For your purposes that is. Sure, there may be a historically correct view of who Confucius was that can be peiced together through painfully scruplius scholarship, but you’re more concerned with the theoretical side of moral philosphy. Why sweat it? Especially in dealing with a man who was so geared toward learning, personal betterment, and the like.

I think you’re dead on regarding the “personage” issue too. If it turns out that the big C was less like you had envisioned then it may be harder to present him as the ideal exemplar, but he’s still – in one respect or another – responsible for influencing your line of thought.

UNLIKE with Christianity, I’m not so sure the big C was as committed to the existance of there being one dogmatic truth (i.e. the Bible is truth and so is the Trinity). There’s room in Confucanism for big C to have been wrong and he points this capacity out with everyone.

So long as you aren’t trying to say “Confucius was historically X,” retain your commitment toward a moral philosophy approach, and appeal to the most fundamental aspects of Confucanism I don’t think you have any problems. That’s what I liked about how you dealt with him. Instead of focusing on what big C was you focused on what he could be/could have been.