排序方式： 共有15条查询结果，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
Mark Dawson 《Technology, Pedagogy and Education》2019,28(4):463-472
ABSTRACTGoing via Bernard Stiegler’s theorisation of technology, and his response to Chris Anderson’s claim that the era of hyper-networked, algorithmically driven digital technologies signals the end of theory, this paper aims to place the educational practice of networked learning as a space to think the edge, excess or limit of this proposed algorithmic dominance. The author discusses how networked learning can negotiate the border between educational theory, the practice of teaching and learning, and the processes and systems of educational technology, but suggests that to do this it must engage these disciplines through a thinking of technology which does not decide upon its status in advance. He argues that affirming this particular relation to technology is increasingly urgent given we are at a moment in which educational institutions are asking how to prepare our students for an age of continuing technological disruption. 相似文献
2.
Kristy Forrest 《Educational Philosophy and Theory》2020,52(4):337-347
AbstractThe student as consumer has emerged as a common motif and point of contestation in educational philosophy over the past two decades, as part of the critique of the neoliberal educational reform agenda that followed Lyotard’s (1984) mapping of the postmodern condition. In addition, the consumer-orientated student has assumed a problematic presence in secondary-school classrooms and higher education institutions, a fact that has led to the general lament for the dehumanisation of education under a market logic. Expanding upon these narratives of ‘loss’, Bernard Stiegler’s account of the student as consumer builds upon the Lyotardian view to reveal the neurological, generational and psychical implications of what he terms the ‘battle for intelligence’, which is a result of the proletarianisation of knowledge via the imposition of marketing technologies on the psyche of the youth. This leads not only to a consumer mind-set co-opting education, but a process of ‘short-circuiting’ disrupting the educative process itself. This article will consider Stiegler’s apocalyptic vision of youth malaise in comparison to the previous notion of students as consumers in the classical and Marxist narratives he revises. It will then outline the new challenges this poses to contemporary educators, as well as the possibility of translating his utopian call to action to pedagogical practice, both of which constitute the 'problem of now'. 相似文献
3.
Joff P.N. Bradley 《Educational Philosophy and Theory》2015,47(10):1023-1038
AbstractThis paper examines the affective disorders plaguing many young people and the problem of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in particular. It aims to define the limits of the critique of British educationalist Sir Ken Robinson in terms of his philosophy of ‘creativity’ through a consideration of the ideas of French philosopher Bernard Stiegler, especially the notions of ‘industrial temporal objects’ and stupidity (bêtise). It makes the case for adopting elements of each distinct research paradigm as a prolegomena to forging a social critique of capitalist-dominated, market-led educational institutions. The former, it will be seen, identifies some of the problems facing teachers in terms of the use and application of technology, the false divide between arts and the humanities, but falls short of explaining the root of the structural and psychic malaise in neo-liberal regimes regarding classroom breakdown in general. The latter, despite the apocalyptic tone of some his pronouncements provides an update and radicalization of Deleuze’s societies of control thesis in terms of what Stiegler designates ‘uncontrollable societies’. Stiegler, it will be seen, presents a critique of technology that is all the more pressing in an age in which the loss of expectation in the lives of young people can lead to a corresponding fall off or destruction in ‘deep attention’. I want to test the hyperbole of Stiegler’s assertion that young people today suffer from a ‘colossal’ attention deficit disorder of unprecedented scale and magnitude. 相似文献
4.
AbstractWe are living in and beyond two massive changes in the world, both of which must be addressed by education, the caretaker of memory. First is the geological era of the Anthropocene—a crisis of nature and mankind, a fundamental geo-trauma. While climate change is a reality which we are belatedly just beginning to understand as we increasingly experience its changing weather patterns, the Anthropocene remains unknown or invisible for many. As a concrete case in point, the 2011 nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in the Tōhoku region of Japan remains an ongoing but largely invisible crisis. Indeed, there is a sense of collective disavowal regarding what we must do in its wake, for it is a crisis which effects not only the contemporary but future generations. The second is equally momentous. The advent of mass access to the Internet in the 1990s and its effects on learning, knowledge, societal relations and psychical life are also just beginning to be understood. For Bernard Stiegler the ecological crisis and the technological question go hand in hand. To explain this position we are naming Stiegler not only a utopian thinker in the classical sense but also a utopian thinker who offers practical ‘negentropic’ weapons to contest entropic becoming in the digital world. We are arguing Stiegler’s oeuvre and pharmacological method has much to give to the philosophy of education as it seeks to account for the crisis in education. 相似文献
5.
Sunji Lee 《Educational Philosophy and Theory》2020,52(4):376-383
AbstractThis paper aims to show how to conceive the relationship between educational methods and cognitive modes. Focusing on the difference between Stiegler and Hayles, I will show that it is necessary to invent an educational philosophy for hyper attention. While Stiegler agrees with Hayles’s position regarding attention, he criticizes Hayles for defining attention as duration. According to Stiegler, attention has less to do with duration than with ‘retention’ and ‘protention.’ Based on this phenomenological insight, Stiegler appeals for a need to protect children from this mutation of the cognitive mode. However, Hayles suggests that hyper attention has certain advantages. It is not only a ‘mutation’ of attention but also a new cognitive mode in modern society. Thus, we should invent new educational methods and educational philosophies appropriate to hyper attention in order to bridge the gap between deep attention and hyper attention. 相似文献
6.
Mark Featherstone 《Educational Philosophy and Theory》2019,51(3):298-309
AbstractMy objective in this paper is to write a pharmacology of the university by thinking about its relationship to systemic stupidity, intelligence, and the possibility of becoming. Starting with an exploration of the contemporary dystopia of drive-based stupidity imagined by the French philosopher Bernard Stiegler, which I seek to capture through the idea of the humiliation of thought, I look to deepen his response to this situation by suggesting a return to the work of two of his key sources, Martin Heidegger and Gilles Deleuze. My objective here is to use their work in relation to Stiegler’s in order to suggest a utopia of educational becoming. Following my exploration of Stiegler’s dystopia, in the second part of the article I read Heidegger’s philosophy in order to formulate a utopian theory of education becoming, which is sensitive to the possibility of authoritarianism contained in his catastrophic decision to become a member of the Nazi party. Against the dystopic humiliation of thought Heidegger’s turn to Nazism can be seen to represent, I turn to Deleuze in the name of a model of educational becoming that recognises difference in itself, before noting that this philosophical approach has similarly found humiliation in the contemporary neoliberal university dominated by a form of rhizomatic power. Finally, I look to develop a fusion of Heideggerian and Deleuzean approaches to deepen Stiegler’s pharmacological critique of the contemporary dystopia of systemic stupidity and its potential resolution in an educational utopia of invention on the other side of the humiliation of thought. 相似文献
7.
Kevin Williams 《Educational Philosophy and Theory》2020,52(5):535-548
AbstractThis paper applies Oakeshott’s distinction between work and play to his philosophy of language education. The first part explores his critique of the vocational rationale for learning foreign languages and his affirmation of the intrinsic value or playful character of the activity. The second part of the article endeavours to give practical content to Oakeshott’s vision of studying language for the pleasure of the activity by drawing on sources that reflect the character of the experience in terms of playfulness. 相似文献
8.
Ruth Irwin 《Educational Philosophy and Theory》2020,52(4):361-375
AbstractHeidegger argues that modern technology is quantifiably different from all earlier periods because of a shift in ethos from in situ craftwork to globalised production and storage at the behest of consumerism. He argues that this shift in technology has fundamentally shaped our epistemology, and it is almost impossible to comprehend anything outside the technological enframing of knowledge. The exception is when something breaks down, and the fault ‘shows up’ in fresh ways. Stiegler has several important addendums to Heidegger's thesis. Heidegger fails to fully appreciate the early Greek myth of Prometheus, and the technological depth that fire offers all human societies. The fall, or failure, is doubled in the myth of Prometheus, and is at the root of all cultures. Since the onset of Information Technology, the acceleration of life is disorientating our Being. I argue the fall in both Heidegger and Stiegler has encaptured their imagination. Education is vital for generating the imaginary, along with the ability to think critically, and ensures the authenticity of political processes, but as importantly, it helps us to imagine the future beyond the Armaggedon scenarios of climate change, and ecological devastation. The Arts and Humanities are at the core of generating a new future. 相似文献
9.
According to Bernard Stiegler, social innovations in the educational field are an antidotical cure for social pathologies wrought by the digitalisation of society. This article explores how Stiegler’s social pharmacology links to the human-technical co-constitution thesis that he first expounded in Technics and Time, 1. Not only do we identify in the Stieglerian corpus a lack of conceptual clarity about social innovation, but also problems in the anthropo-philosophy on which this latter work rests. Tying up the loose threads of Stiegler’s philosophical tapestry is accomplished in three steps. In the first, we retrofit Stiegler with an enactivist view of cognition. The second involves precisely defining social innovation, and then pinpointing open education as a ‘pure’ social innovation situated on the socially curative side of Stiegler’s digital ledger. The third closes the loop by identifying complementarity between enactivism and socio-educational innovation in an age of mass empowerment by means of networked computers. 相似文献
10.
Mark Featherstone 《Educational Philosophy and Theory》2020,52(4):409-419
AbstractMy objective in this article is to consider the implications of Bernard Stiegler’s theory of the neganthropocene for the politics of knowledge and education. Stiegler sets out his theory of the neganthropocene in his recent books, Automatic Society and The Neganthropocene, in order to respond to what he writes about in terms of the entropic conditions of the hyper-industrial society of the anthropocene. In this respect Stiegler extends his earlier work on hominisation, technics, technology, and hyper-industrialisation to take in the concept of the anthropocene and related environmental, ecological concerns. In this article I set out Stiegler’s theory of the neganthropocene, before thinking through the politics of knowledge and education that could make this utopian transformation from an ecologically unsustainable to a sustainable society possible. What would the politics of knowledge of the neganthropocene look like and how would they work in the context of the (global) education system? 相似文献