自主性作為教育目的之哲學省察：倫敦路線的相關論辯
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2020-03-??
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
國立臺灣師範大學教育學系
Department of Education,National Taiwan Normal University
Department of Education,National Taiwan Normal University
Abstract
R. S. Peters、R. F. Dearden、R. Barrow、J. White等在1960年代，開創倫敦學派教育理念，強調個人建立在自主性下的理性反思，規劃其美好生活的能力，是教育目的之所在。本文首先交代其理念概要，第二節敘述1980年代以後，其他學者的質疑。如C. M. Stone挑戰Dearden的看法，指其只重視理性，忽略了感性、欲求及其他層面。S. E. Cuypers認為，自主的過程其實是表現在自我認同、自我評估之上，提出關懷才是教育之重點。第三節主要介紹E. Callan，他在自由主義的立場上，較倫敦路線更為強調興趣導向的課程，並將社群主義之理念融入自主性概念中。第四節則提出倫敦路線立場學者們的回應。筆者最後的結論是，當年倫敦路線自主性的主張，容或有過於重視理性的限制，不過，諸反對者並未能全盤否定自主性的訴求，自主性也能吸納情感、意願、認同等因子。易言之，重構後的自主性概念仍不失為臺灣當下民主氛圍中應有的核心教育目的。
Based on the liberal tradition of the age of Enlightenment, the scholars of London Line, including R. S. Peters, R. F. Dearden, among others, had advocated autonomy as an educational aim since the 1960s. The core claims of London Line are provided in the first section. The second section discusses numerous criticisms, which had risen since the 1980s, including C. M. Stone’s and S. E. Cuypers’ criticisms to autonomy as educational aim. The third section expresses the perspectives of E. Callan, who integrated the spirit of communitarianism to the liberal concepts of autonomy, and put much more emphasis on interest-oriented curriculum than White did. Despite some criticisms, London Line scholars still defended autonomy as an aim of education, and this is discussed in the fourth section. Finally, the author concludes that rationality might be overvalued with regard to the role autonomy had played in London Line. Nevertheless, we can reconstruct the concept of autonomy as it encompasses emotion, volition, recognition, etc. In general, the idea of reconstructed autonomy should be the core educational aim embodied in Taiwanese democratic spirit nowadays.
Based on the liberal tradition of the age of Enlightenment, the scholars of London Line, including R. S. Peters, R. F. Dearden, among others, had advocated autonomy as an educational aim since the 1960s. The core claims of London Line are provided in the first section. The second section discusses numerous criticisms, which had risen since the 1980s, including C. M. Stone’s and S. E. Cuypers’ criticisms to autonomy as educational aim. The third section expresses the perspectives of E. Callan, who integrated the spirit of communitarianism to the liberal concepts of autonomy, and put much more emphasis on interest-oriented curriculum than White did. Despite some criticisms, London Line scholars still defended autonomy as an aim of education, and this is discussed in the fourth section. Finally, the author concludes that rationality might be overvalued with regard to the role autonomy had played in London Line. Nevertheless, we can reconstruct the concept of autonomy as it encompasses emotion, volition, recognition, etc. In general, the idea of reconstructed autonomy should be the core educational aim embodied in Taiwanese democratic spirit nowadays.