歐康諾[D. J. O'Connor]與赫斯特[P. H. Hirst]「論辯」的智識脈絡
No Thumbnail Available
Date
1996-03-01
Authors
洪仁進
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
國立臺灣師範大學教育學系所
Abstract
本文定為「歐康諾與赫斯特『論辯』的智識脈絡」，旨在透過對英國分析哲學流遍與教育哲學發展的勘查，為歐康諾與赫斯特的教育論辯，提供一種初步的探討，作為進一步分析『論辯』的基礎。 經由「分析哲學思潮的接承」、「在教育分析哲學的韌起」、及「在傳統教育哲學的省察」三個予題的討論，本文的研究發現計有下列三項: 一、在分析哲學思潮的接承中，兩者均是哲學分析方法的啟蒙，祇是歐康諾採循邏輯實證論的哲學論調，赫斯特兼合劍橋學派與牛津學派的哲學理路，因此在教育論辯上，歐康諾較強調邏輯推理與經驗核證，而赫斯特則較注重語言概念的分析與批判，由此形成分殊不同的教育哲學立場。 二、在教育分析哲學的韌起中，歐康諾與聶斯特咸認哈迪是促引教育分析哲學興起的樞紐人物，而其論著《教育理論中的真理與繆誤》一書，係以「教育理論」為探討主題，亦同於兩者教育論辯的主題，故能延伸『論辯』的歷史視野，供作探析『論辯』的歷史線索。 三、在傳統教育哲學的省察中，藉由皮德思剖析「化約主義」、「歷史主義」、及「格言主義」的三種困局，除能了解歐康諾與赫斯特所面對的教育哲學景況外，對於兩者的教育哲學觀點及其有關『論辯』的主張，亦能提供一種同時代性的初步理解，作為深入分析『論辯』的背景脈絡。
The main purpose of this paper is to narrate the intellectual context of the O'Connor-Hirst debate. There are three major findings in this paper: Firstly, by giving the brief overview of the analytic philosophy in the United Kingdom since 20th century, it is found that O'Connor's stance is near to the Logical Positivism, but Hirst's standpoint is near to the Cambridge-Oxford School. Secondly, by clarifying C.D. Hardie's Truth and Fallacy in Educational Theory, this paper finds that Hardie's viewpoints about the status of educational theory can provide a historical clue for the Q'Connor-Hirst debate. Thirdly, by rehearsing Peters's reflection on the tradition of philosophy of education--reductionism, historicism, and aphoristicism, it is concluded that such reflections express a preliminary understanding for the background of the O'Connor-Hirst debate.
The main purpose of this paper is to narrate the intellectual context of the O'Connor-Hirst debate. There are three major findings in this paper: Firstly, by giving the brief overview of the analytic philosophy in the United Kingdom since 20th century, it is found that O'Connor's stance is near to the Logical Positivism, but Hirst's standpoint is near to the Cambridge-Oxford School. Secondly, by clarifying C.D. Hardie's Truth and Fallacy in Educational Theory, this paper finds that Hardie's viewpoints about the status of educational theory can provide a historical clue for the Q'Connor-Hirst debate. Thirdly, by rehearsing Peters's reflection on the tradition of philosophy of education--reductionism, historicism, and aphoristicism, it is concluded that such reflections express a preliminary understanding for the background of the O'Connor-Hirst debate.