共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
James MacAllister 《Educational Philosophy and Theory》2013,45(9):908-920
Abstract This article will derive a definition and account of the physically educated person, through an examination of the philosophy of Andrew Reid, Richard Peters and Aristotle. Initially, Reid’s interpretation of Peters’ views about the educational significance of practical knowledge (and physical education) will be considered. While it will be acknowledged that Peters was rather disparaging about the educational merit of some practical activities in Ethics and Education, it will be argued that he elsewhere suggests that such practical activities could be educationally worthwhile in and of themselves. In Education and the educated man he specified that practical activities should be regarded as educationally important if they are either transformed by theoretical understanding and/or pursued to the point of excellence. In suggesting that education involves the cultivation of both theoretical and practical human excellences it is argued that Peters’ philosophy of education begins to take on a more Aristotelian bent. After exploring Aristotle’s notion of virtue (human excellence) and his discussion of physical training in The politics, it is claimed that physical education activities might be most worthwhile when they extend the moral habits and/or modes of thought of pupils, towards excellence. It is concluded that physically educated persons should be defined as those who have learned to arrange their lives in such a way that the physical activities they freely engage in make a distinctive contribution to their long-term flourishing. 相似文献
2.
Peter Gilroy 《Educational Philosophy and Theory》2013,45(2):202-218
Abstract This article was first published in 1982 in Educational Analysis (4, 75–91) and republished in 1998 (Hirst, P. H., & White, P. (Eds.), Philosophy of education: Major themes in the analytic tradition, Vol. 1, Philosophy and education, Part 1, pp. 61–78. London: Routledge). I was then a lecturer in philosophy of education at Sheffield University teaching the subject to Master’s students on both full- and part-time programmes. My first degree was in philosophy, read under D. W. Hamlyn and David Cooper and, given their interests, inevitably emphasized the philosophy of language, in particular the work of Wittgenstein in this field. When I subsequently turned my attention to the philosophy of education it seemed obvious to me that there were serious problems with Professor Peters’ approach to language, and I had particular difficulties with his approach to criteria, meaning theory and what seemed an odd interpretation of a transcendental argument. This article thus set out to show that the then dominant form of philosophy of education seemed not to take account of developments in the philosophy of language that preceded Professor Peters’ early work by at least a decade and which cast serious doubt on the enterprise as it was then understood. As the articles in the 1998 collection indicate, I was not alone in thinking there was something amiss, although at the time I seemed to be ploughing a somewhat lonely furrow. In revisiting this early article some 30 years after it was first published I have found to my surprise that there is little I would now change, although I have been forcibly reminded of the very lively discussions Professor Peters and I had over these issues. The fact that there is little I would now add to, or subtract from, my critique is in itself a telling comment on the enduring and influential legacy of the approach to the philosophy of education that Professor Peters championed so powerfully. 相似文献
3.
Ivan Snook 《Educational Philosophy and Theory》2013,45(2):191-201
Abstract I argue that, after Dewey, Peters was the first modern philosopher of education to write material (in English) that was both philosophically respectable and relevant to the day-to-day concerns of teachers. Since then, some philosophers of education have remained (more or less) relevant but not really respectable while others have ‘taken off into the skies’ learning acclaim from the philosophical community but ceasing to produce anything which would be of any relevance to teachers in their work. I suggest that Peters might again point the way towards a form of academic philosophy of education that is both relevant and reasonably respectable. 相似文献
4.
Jānis T. Ozoli?? 《Educational Philosophy and Theory》2013,45(2):153-170
Abstract R. S. Peters never explicitly talks about wisdom as being an aim of education. He does, however, in numerous places, emphasize that education is of the whole person and that, whatever else it might be about, it involves the development of knowledge and understanding. Being educated, he claims, is incompatible with being narrowly specialized. Moreover, he argues, education enables a person to have a different perspective on things, ‘to travel with a different view’ [Peters, R. S. (1967). What is an educational process? In R. S. Peters (Ed.), The concept of education (pp. 1–23). Routledge and Kegan Paul]. In asserting this about education, Peters has more in common with another great English educator, John Henry, Cardinal Newman, than one might expect, given they are separated by about a century and start from different philosophical perspectives, namely Kant to a significant degree in the former and Aristotle in the latter. Both nevertheless acknowledge the importance of reason and its development in any education worthy of the name. I will argue that in describing the ‘educated person’ Peters is not far from the view of Newman, who saw education as being about the ‘enlargement of mind’. Although Newman hesitates to call ‘enlargement of mind’ wisdom, and Peters does not use either term, there are good grounds for proposing that in distinguishing between education and training, and in asserting education is moral education because it is concerned to improve persons, Peters acknowledges the higher purposes of education and hence, we can add, its connection with wisdom. Significantly, what such a reading of Peters emphasizes is his insistence on the intrinsic value of education, a view seemingly lost in modern market-driven conceptions of education. 相似文献
5.
Kevin Harris 《Educational Philosophy and Theory》2013,45(2):182-190
Abstract This paper outlines aspects and dimensions of my ‘relationship’ with Richard Peters from 1966 onward. The underlying suggestion is that, while Peters’ contribution to philosophy of education was undeniably of major proportions, both that contribution and his legacy are institutional rather than substantive. 相似文献
6.
Bruce Haynes 《Educational Philosophy and Theory》2013,45(2):123-127
Abstract Paul Hirst claimed that Richard Peters ‘revolutionised philosophy of education’. This does not accord with my experience in the Antipodean periphery. My experience of the work of Wittgenstein, Austin and Kovesi before reading Peters and Dewey, Kuhn and Toulmin subsequently meant that Peters was a major but not revolutionary figure in my understanding of philosophy of education. 相似文献
7.
D.N. Aspin 《Educational Philosophy and Theory》2013,45(2):219-235
Abstract In this article I describe the analytic approach adopted by Peters, his colleagues and followers of the ‘London line’ in the 1960s and 1970s and argue that, even in those times, other approaches to philosophy of education were being valued and practised. I show that Peters and his colleagues later became aware of the need for philosophy of education to become aware of and take in hand a new set of agendas and address the list of substantive issues inherent in the contexts and political considerations beginning to impinge on education in the 1980s and beyond. I argue that there is much to be said for adopting a postempiricist problem-solving approach and point to the ways in which an evolutionary epistemology may be usefully applied to many of the problems of modern educational discourse. But I also seek to show how the abiding axiological concerns of Peters may still serve as the substantive background and definition of the value emphasis of the aims and directions in which philosophers of education are currently still working. 相似文献
8.
Richard Cotter 《Educational Philosophy and Theory》2013,45(2):171-181
Abstract A central element of Richard Peters’ philosophy of education has been his analysis of ‘education as initiation’. Understanding initiation is internally related to concepts of community and what it may mean to be a member. The concept of initiation assumes a mutually interdependent, dynamic relationship between the individual and community that claims to be justified on cognitive, moral and practical grounds. Although Peters’ analysis is embedded in a different discourse, his insights are relevant to current discourse on the individual in community. A fruitful conversation can be developed between Peters’ account of the learner’s ‘initiation’ into ‘bodies of knowledge and awareness’ and Alasdair MacIntyre’s concept of ‘practices’; and how both assume a notion of ‘tradition’ within partly overlapping accounts of ‘community’. Secondly, I will consider how ‘initiation’ touches the concept of ‘social justice as membership’ developed by current philosophers, Michael Sandel and Michael Walzer, and what import Peters’ analysis has for different degrees of active and passive membership and participation. Thirdly, I will consider Charles Taylor’s ‘social imaginary’ as a contextual framework for processes surrounding ‘education as initiation’. This article does not argue that Peters’ concept of initiation cannot be contested at some points but rather that it can inform, and be informed by, the conversation with those who contend that community is itself a good essential for human flourishing. 相似文献
9.
AbstractLudwig Wittgenstein suggests that ‘A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes’. The idea for this dialogue comes from a conversation that Michael Peters and Morwenna Griffiths had at the Philosophy of Education of Great Britain annual meeting at the University of Oxford, 2011. It was sparked by an account of an assessment of a piece of work where one of the external examiners unexpectedly exclaimed ‘I knew Jean-Paul Sartre’, trying to trump the discussion. This conversation is a dialogue about comedy and humor as a basis for philosophy, education and pedagogy that provides an introduction to recent works and a context for ongoing research. The concluding section provides further reflection on some of the main themes, drawing attention to the significance of humor in dialogues within philosophy and education, and suggesting that it has a particular role in resisting managerialism at all levels of educational institutions. 相似文献
10.
《Educational Philosophy and Theory》2013,45(7):781-788
Abstract Although John Dewey has had the most profound effect on education, less is known about the philosophy of education of the original founder of pragmatism, Charles Peirce Using Peirce’s theory of formal rhetoric, I try to show that Peirce’s philosophy of education, when fully understood, is aligned with Dewey’s pedagogy of experiential learning, and can provide a justification for the promotion of active learning in the classroom. Peirce’s rhetoric, as one part of his logical or semiotic theory, argues that reasoning alone is not sufficient to gain knowledge, but that it must be embedded within a community of inquiry, of a certain sort. Applying this to the classroom, I argue that we, as teachers, should endeavor to create the features of a proper community of inquiry in the classroom, one that emphasizes engagement of the students in doing research rather than passively receiving information about its results. 相似文献
11.
PAUL STANDISH 《Journal of Philosophy of Education》2020,54(3):711-716
This short text provides an introduction to the five papers that follow, all of which reflect on R.S. Peters, his founding importance for contemporary philosophy of education, and his continuing relevance. It sets the scene by referring to Peters’ early and important encounter with Israel Scheffler before going on briefly to acknowledge other work published over the past decade that examines Peters’ achievement. In addition, it explains the background to the fifth paper in this suite. This is Ieuan Lloyd's record, posthumously published, of conversations about the philosophy of education with Rush Rhees, in which Peters’ work is considered. 相似文献
12.
13.
《British Journal of Educational Studies》2012,60(2):181-208
Abstract This article examines four related aspects of Hegel's approach to the teaching of philosophy and to the philosophy of the teacher. Specifically, it highlights some of the views Hegel expressed on education in general whilst Rector of the Nuremberg gymnasium; describes his opinions on the place of philosophy within the school curriculum and the structure of the philosophy course which he designed for his pupils; examines the pedagogy which he employed in teaching his system of philosophy; and offers preliminary comments on his insights into the contradictions which resist the abstract identity of the teacher. 相似文献
14.
Kelvin Beckett 《Educational Philosophy and Theory》2018,50(4):380-389
John Dewey adopted a child-centered point of view to illuminate aspects of education he believed teacher-centered educators were neglecting, but he did so self-consciously and self-critically, because he also believed that ‘a new order of conceptions leading to new modes of practice’ was needed. Dewey introduced his new conceptions in The Child and the Curriculum and later and more fully in Democracy and Education. Teachers at his Laboratory School in Chicago developed the new modes of practice (1896–1903). In this article, I explore Dewey’s new conception of education and compare it with the apparently opposed views of R. S. Peters and Paulo Freire. In doing so, I show that, despite their criticisms of Dewey, whether explicit (Peters) or implicit (Freire), these influential philosophers, representing quite different traditions in philosophy of education were in substantial agreement with him. I also show that, despite our own differences, as important as they are, seeing teachers and learners at work in a rapidly changing society, now on a global scale, in classrooms which are also changing, driven largely by new technologies, the conception of education Dewey, Peters, and Freire developed can provide us with the foundation we need to understand the changing teacher–learner relationship and the purposes their shared activities serve. 相似文献
15.
《British Journal of Educational Studies》2012,60(1):89-104
ABSTRACT In the contemporary literature of educational philosophy and theory, it is almost routinely assumed or claimed that ‘education’ is a ‘contested’ concept: that is, it is held that education is invested – as it were, ‘all the way down’ – with socially constructed interests and values that are liable to diverge in different contexts to the point of mutual opposition. It is also often alleged that post-war analytical philosophers of education such as R. S. Peters failed to appreciate such contestability in seeking a single unified account of the concept of education. Following a brief re-visitation of Peters’ analytical influences and approach and some consideration of recent ‘post-analytical’ criticisms of analytical educational philosophy on precisely this score, it is argued that much of the case for the so-called ‘contestability’ of education rests on a confusion of different concepts with different senses of ‘education’ that proper observance of well-tried methods of conceptual analysis easily enables us to avoid. 相似文献
16.
17.
18.
《Journal of Philosophy of Education》2005,39(4):647-659
In this interview with Harvey Siegel, Israel Scheffler reflects on his career in philosophy of education. Beginning with his unusual entry into the field, he discusses the connections between his own early projects and that of R. S. Peters and Paul Hirst to make philisophy a central part of teacher education programmes, and articulates his view of the importance of general philosophy for work in philosophy of education. He reaffirms his longstanding commitment to the central importance of rationality in education, and reconsiders the fact/value distinction and the place of analysis in philosophy of education. He discusses the enduring legacy of Dewey, and assesses changing trends in the philosophy of education and the current state of the subject. 相似文献
19.
Kelvin Stewart Beckett 《Educational theory》2011,61(3):239-255
In this essay Kelvin Beckett argues that Richard Peters's major work on education, Ethics and Education, belongs on a short list of important texts we can all share. He argues this not because of the place it has in the history of philosophy of education, as important as that is, but because of the contribution it can still make to the future of the discipline. The limitations of Peters's analysis of the concept of education in his chapter on “Criteria of Education” are well known. In the chapter on “Education as Initiation,” however, Peters offered a synthetic sketch of education that, Beckett argues, points us toward a more comprehensive definition of education, one which, he maintains, can be accepted by all philosophers, regardless of the tradition they work in. 相似文献
20.
Patricia H. Phelps 《Teaching Education》2013,24(2):147-150
The purpose of this article is to share the results of a study that explored the recommendations of practicing teachers about ways to prepare preservice teachers for including children with disabilities into general education classrooms. A survey was distributed to 71 practicing general elementary education teachers. The survey included the following questions: What should the general education student know about teaching students with special needs? Should this information be included in one course or integrated with other course content? General education teachers reported that teacher education programs should include the following content: behavioral strategies, conflict resolution and social skills, identification of students with special needs, adaptation of curriculum and materials, adaptation of instructional strategies, legal regulations and individual education programs, and co-teaching, teaming, and collaboration. These data suggest that preservice teacher preparation programs would include content courses to address these thematic areas and present a solid knowledge base about teaching children with disabilities. 相似文献