Topical Archive
Pedagogical community of Sverdlovsk Region is fully aware that the Ural lives now in the turn of the century. And even millennia.
26-27 April 1996 in Yekaterinburg in the Ural State Pedagogical University hosted the Interregional Scientific and Practical Conference entitled "Philosophy and Sociology of Education at the threshold of XXI century". Before us lies a collection of abstracts of the participants.
However, he thinks about its outcome broad educational community? As results of the conference can (and should) affect the total teaching abilities of teachers and scientific body of the Middle Urals?
On this question in an interview with a candidate of philosophical sciences Molchanov Valery Alekseevich. Questions are asked by the coordinator of the Regional Pedagogical Society Vladimir Gookin.
B. Gookin: Valery A., what is your impression and overall assessment of acquaintance with the theses of the conference?
V. Molchanov: Certainly, the good itself subject and his enthusiasm, reflected in the very title of the event. Impressive, and the organizational efforts made by activists of the event. Wide geography of participants: Yekaterinburg, Kurgan, Birsk, Sterlitamak, Nizhnevartovsk, Glazov, Moscow, Nizhny Tagil, Solikamsk, Orsk, etc.
B. Gookin: That is, in terms of environment, ambition and intuition are all ok?
V. Molchanov: Yes.
B. Gookin: And in terms of content, the nature of things for the stated problem?
V. Molchanov: Well, here is bad is exactly what the majority of the authors of this volume, conspired to ignore one important fact. Namely: that the "ignorance" ignorance - discord! It seems that they are of "one" uneducated know as the "other" are not aware or just ... silent. But how, may I ask, you can talk "about education" if you do not know that there is "lack of education as such, and because some do not notice some of its species and subspecies?
B. Gookin: What exactly is left in a "dead zone" of attention, so much of the research team?
V. Molchanov: Simply put what is "ignorance", which is inherent to man who never received education .. (did not learn - not educated). And there is "ignorance" wide, formal and even "brilliant" educated people.
B. Gookin: Accordingly, the specific lack of education leaders and agents of public education: the candidates and doctors of science, associate professors and professors, academics, finally?
V. Molchanov: Yes, exactly ... And she's the principle remains the "shadow". Moreover, it is quite capable to be the "principle of education", which literally drives the young, talented and innocent by reason of their youth, and people. Through the system of postgraduate study, for example ...
B. Gookin: Let's send a beam of light on this paradoxical phenomenon - lack of education as a product of education! Frankly, Valery A., I, as a professional educator and educational psychology, this phenomenon can not wait to "light the ...
V. Molchanov: Let's try. Here we will be better to rely on the experience of course, educated and world-renowned people. They need to say, a considerable group. And the place where this team is acquired, is called "History of Philosophy." Here and ask for help there.
For example, Aristotle. Synonymous with ignorance, he had what he called "slavery."
B. Gookin: Therefore, educated - is "free"?
V. Molchanov: Yes, but not quite. According to Aristotle, every educated - is free, but not every free man is educated. Freedom - the formal manifestation of the condition and education rights. Put simply, education is always good, but freedom can be both good and evil. Depending on the circumstances. From this peculiar originality of his attitude toward slavery, which (the ratio) so still not understood either by historians or linguists or philosophers, or teachers or psychologists, or economists, or aesthetics, or ethics ...
B. Gookin: And what is this peculiarity?
V. Molchanov: In his treatise, he claimed that slavery and the inherent and contradicts the essence of man. Aristotle himself had slaves, and before his death, they let go free ... That, and draw conclusions. It is clear that a person is educated and uneducated conclusions from this fact, the biography will vary.
B. Gookin: And yet, what are they?
V. Molchanov: You insist? Then, better watch. A history of philosophy knows that the idol of all the educated public of the twentieth century, Friedrich Nietzsche's thought that is synonymous with uneducated people, as "herd animal". (Even if it "deals with metaphysics," as the departments do university lecturers and professors). Being herd animals - meant to be Everyman. Hence, if Aristotle believed that all slaves - a man in the street, then in order of congeniality with him, Nietzsche believed that all the inhabitants - it's slaves. Whew!
B. Gookin: So, so interconnected hoary antiquity and our modern time ... And what other names ticked other eras, this phenomenon is lack of education?
V. Molchanov: Well, let's say, the gospel of uneducated non-Christian thought. For Christ is - is "In the true man." A transformation of an ordinary person "from Saul to Paul - is the way of education ... In which well and clearly distinguishable and the false Christs and false prophets ... In other words, education (like Christianity) is accomplished as heroism in the element of truth. But this can not accept nor those who lived before the I century AD, nor those who lived then and live now ...
B. Gookin: Who else?
V. Molchanov: Take Immanuel Kant. People are divided into "persons" and "things". Be a "thing" - as in the church and in the department, both before God and before the truth - which means, according to Kant, to be "uneducated person".
In Hegel, for example, a community of uneducated people may be cited in particular "spiritual animal kingdom".
Vladimir Solovyov and Nikolai Berdyaev, the nature of ignorance seen in so-called "positivism." And preferred to call it "spiritual bourgeois". "Truth knows only one who lives by the truth" - claimed the first of them.
Maxim Gorky styled ignorance "philistinism". A great Russian Hegelian Ivan Il'in proved that the method of all and every kind of ignorance is the so called "abstract" ...
B. Gookin: This is understandable. Modern domestic pedagogy, as is known in every school, struggling with the scourge with the help of the so-called "dialectical didactics" Academician Vladimir Davydov.
But what is interesting: all the teachers of the Middle Urals call system Davydova "developmental education" and few would suspect that developing training - this is a dialectical didactics is!
V. Molchanov: I totally agree with your observation. I do not just faced with this paradox.
B. Gookin: How can we explain this paradox?
V. Molchanov: I think that the essence of this so-called "paradox" is very simple. And it is called "negligence." Just sloppiness, this is special: Methodological. Sloppiness in the categories. "Kohl shortcoming in terms happen, they can replace the word" - said on this score classic literature. The most common manifestation of such carelessness in knowledge and education is the lack of respect for the classics, incidentally. Today, even ordinary intuition life reacts to it is particularly acute. Here's an example. In the TV spot of coffee "Elite Classic two characters are arguing. Raikin says: once an elite - the classic is better! Lyubov Polishchuk weighty objects: the opposite! Classical times - hence the elite, the best has to be ...
B. Gookin: So who is right?
V. Molchanov: Women rights and Raikin - no! Incidentally, the thought that de classical education - is "an even greater separation of training from day to day queries, we meet and discussed the materials USPU (p. 84).
B. Gookin: Valery A., and coffee ... not too unimportant occasion to discuss the big issues?
V. Molchanov: How to say. The genius of Napoleon's fate still lost because the wake was a national liberation movement of the peoples of Europe. And you know why? Because Britain imposed a naval blockade of the continent and there blocked access to coffee. And Europeans have become accustomed to it ... that's decided: better coffee than Napoleon. Coffee - is the most important category of philosophy of life, not a trifle.
B. Gookin: I'm a sinful deed believed that Napoleon defeated Mikhail Kutuzov ...
V. Molchanov: You are certainly right! The fact that Hitler won the Russian frost - to talk much and long. But that coffee defeated Napoleon - this is still not thought of one.
B. Gookin: Well, thank God! But what are the main features of the methodological untidiness and boorish attitude toward the classics today?
V. Molchanov: The most popular and influential modern superstition "educated public" (in school, in the department, in a textbook or monograph) is equating "crazy" and "intelligence." Consequences - disastrous for the child, and generally, the human soul ...
B. Gookin: What exactly is the falsity of such confusion?
V. Molchanov: From the history of philosophy knows that "intelligence" - is essentially the "accumulated (or dead) mind." Sometimes it even called "intellect". Sometimes "simple mind". And now to distinguish himself in his mind specifically "human" as the mind in contrast to the reason it was then that "reason". In keeping with the classics, incidentally.
Incidentally, the classic - it's always "national". And vice versa!
... There is a folk saying: hindsight is always strong! So the "back mind" - this "intelligence" is.
By the way, let the mind to the intellect - it's like to equate love to have sex. With such "equation" element of life usually goes like this: a) love = sex, and b) love "and" Sex and c) sex "without" love, r) sex "instead of" love, e) sex "contra" love.
A typical "equation" in this case is usually that identify "smart people" with "intelligent man" ... It follows from the above, an intelligence provided by the elements of life, leading to item "d". Namely: intelligence "against" crazy! Or "mad intelligence" ...
B. Gookin: Well, life is full of similar examples. And what in the conference "Philosophy and Sociology of Education at the threshold of the XXI Century?
V. Molchanov: Unfortunately, and here the case proves the rule. And do not go against the rules, as would be expected.
Collection of abstracts begins and ends with the materials department of philosophy and sociology (the former Scientific Communism) USPU. They structure the position of the vast research team. From them, we would expect and clarity of position. Namely: what is "education as such? And that is the subject of education as a philosophy as opposed to education as a matter of sociology?
But, alas! Nothing of the sort you these installation positions of the two leading professors of the Urals "pedagogical incubator" will not find. Moreover, their colleagues equate "the sociology of education and training" and so-called "Pedagogical philosophy" (p. 80).
Strictly speaking, the reader must conclude this: the "philosophy" and "sociology" - it's just two different words for the same. What exactly? And for all, whatever.
B. Gookin: So what exactly is wrong with the identification of philosophy and sociology?
V. Molchanov: If we take into account that "sociology" - this is the kind of specialized "mind", the answer is clear. Applied to human beings and the essence of philosophy = Sociology of Education encourages us to teach and educate, guided by no other than ... "hindsight".
B. Gookin: As in the proverb: teach foolish, and we fools?
V. Molchanov: Exactly. Educators, researchers, coming in the wake of such a methodology, rather than addressing the general and the real problems of education, engender a lot of their own. And gladly give them a universal problem.
B. Gookin: Can any examples?
V. Molchanov: Okay. Some see no difference between psychology and aesthetics, arguing about the genesis of aesthetic interest (p.43). Others can not grasp the essence of the concept of "childhood". And, finally, teach their students what the child are the same "favorite" creature as a cat ... and boy - it's just ... kind of girl. For what else can vyluschit from the wisdom that "educational institutions can be regarded as a developing system, which are inherent in such laws as a system-wide ..." (p.57). Still others, noting that "in the sociology of education, respectively, increases the role and importance of qualitative analysis" (p.50), makes for such "grounds" profound "conclusion" that de "educational institution ... should be regarded as" enterprise "that uses the material , labor, financial resources and producing immaterial services "(p.56)! Etc. etc.
Truly, anything from a smart and intelligent reason "not to conclude ...
If only "department" allowed and encouraged!
B. Gookin: Valery A., but put yourself in the place of a school teacher, whom you could believe. We set a bad philosophy, posing as "the sociology of education" as bad sociology, posing as a "philosophy of education" are unacceptable. How to be here: what is the real alternative to this double nausea? Oh no, "sophiology whether education"?
V. Molchanov: Yes, that's it. And if you're shocked it's name, then change it to a more indisputable. For example: "Education as a problem" and "educational issues" in the history of philosophy. Russian, German, Greek ... you want some? Only that it is, certainly, was classic!
B. Gookin: Glad to hear that the alternative is. Maybe there is also a short essay it is acceptable? In the same history of world philosophy, for example ...
V. Molchanov: Well, let's try. Especially since we have already determined that top Sophiological approach to education - is the ability to not confuse the mind and intellect.
On this basis Sophiological era in the history of world philosophy are divided into "metaphysical" (under the name "Metaphysics" of Aristotle), "anthropological" or "critical" (under the same name treatises Kant), and finally. "Phenomenological" or "dialectic" in which managed to convince the better part of humanity the great G. Hegel.
(It turned into one of these "eras" (or in all of them at once!) - And the means to find yourself as a member and participant in some, as is customary to say, "educational space." And so does not that usually mean by this: "... go on behalf of the faculty on a business trip to Holland and from there to lead his department ... grant or diploma ...." That's the Rector will be glad!)
Aristotle stated: in the education process of "thinking general" people will certainly come to a genuine, lively mind (as in his "Metaphysics"). Conversely, people will come from the mind to thinking in general (so to speak in his own treatise "On the Soul").
Kant: Live your mind and thinking "in general" should be carefully distinguished. Moreover, they should be separated. And even in opposition. Kant himself did it in his writings violently and ruthlessly. In this capacity, he saw the essence of education rights, and mature scholarship called "Enlightenment", (he does not know, for example, the author, p. 4).
Finally, Hegel: the mind and thinking are so different from each other, which in fact they are one. And vice versa, because they are something in the process of education, are united, that they can be different. From any provision of the Spirit comes to himself, if he strives for truth and does not do it in the bustle.
Here's a historical-philosophical version sophiology education, as you asked ...
B. Gookin: Well, there are more versions?
V. Molchanov: In the form of a conceptual and systematic? Of course there is. That may be, Educational, or theological, for example.
B. Gookin: Well, let's leave the conversation on this topic to other times. But, here, in our already had a conversation, I noticed one disadvantage, namely: we refer chiefly to the intellectuals, and at the same time seemingly porugivaem "intelligence." Neither will tell us whether our readers that we are "not like" intellectuals and "oppose" to its people?
V. Molchanov: Not at all! If I may say so, we "only saving the" equal intellectuals and people from the popular "cathedral" nonsense about "crazy", "education" and "intelligence". As befits an asset educational community to act.
As for the actual intellectuals ... clearly say this: an intellectual - someone who is able to perceive the life of his people as a unified artistic whole. He - and educated people. He - and a wise man.
B. Gookin: Is that all?
V. Molchanov: I will not insist on its version. To give just, of course, evidence in this regard, an example.
One of the authors analyzed our collection of theses on the essence of education believes: without the "facts" - there is no knowledge or education (see page 97). That's it, so ...
In May 1988, in Novgorod, the festival of Slavic literature and culture was represented by "The word" genius of the world and Russian education Alexei Losev. Here it is:
"I, like everyone, have always been taught: facts, facts, facts, most importantly - the facts. From the facts - a single step.
Pedagogical community of Sverdlovsk Region is fully aware that the Ural lives now in the turn of the century. And even millennia.
26-27 April 1996 in Yekaterinburg in the Ural State Pedagogical University hosted the Interregional Scientific and Practical Conference entitled "Philosophy and Sociology of Education at the threshold of XXI century". Before us lies a collection of abstracts of the participants.
However, he thinks about its outcome broad educational community? As results of the conference can (and should) affect the total teaching abilities of teachers and scientific body of the Middle Urals?
On this question in an interview with a candidate of philosophical sciences Molchanov Valery Alekseevich. Questions are asked by the coordinator of the Regional Pedagogical Society Vladimir Gookin.
B. Gookin: Valery A., what is your impression and overall assessment of acquaintance with the theses of the conference?
V. Molchanov: Certainly, the good itself subject and his enthusiasm, reflected in the very title of the event. Impressive, and the organizational efforts made by activists of the event. Wide geography of participants: Yekaterinburg, Kurgan, Birsk, Sterlitamak, Nizhnevartovsk, Glazov, Moscow, Nizhny Tagil, Solikamsk, Orsk, etc.
B. Gookin: That is, in terms of environment, ambition and intuition are all ok?
V. Molchanov: Yes.
B. Gookin: And in terms of content, the nature of things for the stated problem?
V. Molchanov: Well, here is bad is exactly what the majority of the authors of this volume, conspired to ignore one important fact. Namely: that the "ignorance" ignorance - discord! It seems that they are of "one" uneducated know as the "other" are not aware or just ... silent. But how, may I ask, you can talk "about education" if you do not know that there is "lack of education as such, and because some do not notice some of its species and subspecies?
B. Gookin: What exactly is left in a "dead zone" of attention, so much of the research team?
V. Molchanov: Simply put what is "ignorance", which is inherent to man who never received education .. (did not learn - not educated). And there is "ignorance" wide, formal and even "brilliant" educated people.
B. Gookin: Accordingly, the specific lack of education leaders and agents of public education: the candidates and doctors of science, associate professors and professors, academics, finally?
V. Molchanov: Yes, exactly ... And she's the principle remains the "shadow". Moreover, it is quite capable to be the "principle of education", which literally drives the young, talented and innocent by reason of their youth, and people. Through the system of postgraduate study, for example ...
B. Gookin: Let's send a beam of light on this paradoxical phenomenon - lack of education as a product of education! Frankly, Valery A., I, as a professional educator and educational psychology, this phenomenon can not wait to "light the ...
V. Molchanov: Let's try. Here we will be better to rely on the experience of course, educated and world-renowned people. They need to say, a considerable group. And the place where this team is acquired, is called "History of Philosophy." Here and ask for help there.
For example, Aristotle. Synonymous with ignorance, he had what he called "slavery."
B. Gookin: Therefore, educated - is "free"?
V. Molchanov: Yes, but not quite. According to Aristotle, every educated - is free, but not every free man is educated. Freedom - the formal manifestation of the condition and education rights. Put simply, education is always good, but freedom can be both good and evil. Depending on the circumstances. From this peculiar originality of his attitude toward slavery, which (the ratio) so still not understood either by historians or linguists or philosophers, or teachers or psychologists, or economists, or aesthetics, or ethics ...
B. Gookin: And what is this peculiarity?
V. Molchanov: In his treatise, he claimed that slavery and the inherent and contradicts the essence of man. Aristotle himself had slaves, and before his death, they let go free ... That, and draw conclusions. It is clear that a person is educated and uneducated conclusions from this fact, the biography will vary.
B. Gookin: And yet, what are they?
V. Molchanov: You insist? Then, better watch. A history of philosophy knows that the idol of all the educated public of the twentieth century, Friedrich Nietzsche's thought that is synonymous with uneducated people, as "herd animal". (Even if it "deals with metaphysics," as the departments do university lecturers and professors). Being herd animals - meant to be Everyman. Hence, if Aristotle believed that all slaves - a man in the street, then in order of congeniality with him, Nietzsche believed that all the inhabitants - it's slaves. Whew!
B. Gookin: So, so interconnected hoary antiquity and our modern time ... And what other names ticked other eras, this phenomenon is lack of education?
V. Molchanov: Well, let's say, the gospel of uneducated non-Christian thought. For Christ is - is "In the true man." A transformation of an ordinary person "from Saul to Paul - is the way of education ... In which well and clearly distinguishable and the false Christs and false prophets ... In other words, education (like Christianity) is accomplished as heroism in the element of truth. But this can not accept nor those who lived before the I century AD, nor those who lived then and live now ...
B. Gookin: Who else?
V. Molchanov: Take Immanuel Kant. People are divided into "persons" and "things". Be a "thing" - as in the church and in the department, both before God and before the truth - which means, according to Kant, to be "uneducated person".
In Hegel, for example, a community of uneducated people may be cited in particular "spiritual animal kingdom".
Vladimir Solovyov and Nikolai Berdyaev, the nature of ignorance seen in so-called "positivism." And preferred to call it "spiritual bourgeois". "Truth knows only one who lives by the truth" - claimed the first of them.
Maxim Gorky styled ignorance "philistinism". A great Russian Hegelian Ivan Il'in proved that the method of all and every kind of ignorance is the so called "abstract" ...
B. Gookin: This is understandable. Modern domestic pedagogy, as is known in every school, struggling with the scourge with the help of the so-called "dialectical didactics" Academician Vladimir Davydov.
But what is interesting: all the teachers of the Middle Urals call system Davydova "developmental education" and few would suspect that developing training - this is a dialectical didactics is!
V. Molchanov: I totally agree with your observation. I do not just faced with this paradox.
B. Gookin: How can we explain this paradox?
V. Molchanov: I think that the essence of this so-called "paradox" is very simple. And it is called "negligence." Just sloppiness, this is special: Methodological. Sloppiness in the categories. "Kohl shortcoming in terms happen, they can replace the word" - said on this score classic literature. The most common manifestation of such carelessness in knowledge and education is the lack of respect for the classics, incidentally. Today, even ordinary intuition life reacts to it is particularly acute. Here's an example. In the TV spot of coffee "Elite Classic two characters are arguing. Raikin says: once an elite - the classic is better! Lyubov Polishchuk weighty objects: the opposite! Classical times - hence the elite, the best has to be ...
B. Gookin: So who is right?
V. Molchanov: Women rights and Raikin - no! Incidentally, the thought that de classical education - is "an even greater separation of training from day to day queries, we meet and discussed the materials USPU (p. 84).
B. Gookin: Valery A., and coffee ... not too unimportant occasion to discuss the big issues?
V. Molchanov: How to say. The genius of Napoleon's fate still lost because the wake was a national liberation movement of the peoples of Europe. And you know why? Because Britain imposed a naval blockade of the continent and there blocked access to coffee. And Europeans have become accustomed to it ... that's decided: better coffee than Napoleon. Coffee - is the most important category of philosophy of life, not a trifle.
B. Gookin: I'm a sinful deed believed that Napoleon defeated Mikhail Kutuzov ...
V. Molchanov: You are certainly right! The fact that Hitler won the Russian frost - to talk much and long. But that coffee defeated Napoleon - this is still not thought of one.
B. Gookin: Well, thank God! But what are the main features of the methodological untidiness and boorish attitude toward the classics today?
V. Molchanov: The most popular and influential modern superstition "educated public" (in school, in the department, in a textbook or monograph) is equating "crazy" and "intelligence." Consequences - disastrous for the child, and generally, the human soul ...
B. Gookin: What exactly is the falsity of such confusion?
V. Molchanov: From the history of philosophy knows that "intelligence" - is essentially the "accumulated (or dead) mind." Sometimes it even called "intellect". Sometimes "simple mind". And now to distinguish himself in his mind specifically "human" as the mind in contrast to the reason it was then that "reason". In keeping with the classics, incidentally.
Incidentally, the classic - it's always "national". And vice versa!
... There is a folk saying: hindsight is always strong! So the "back mind" - this "intelligence" is.
By the way, let the mind to the intellect - it's like to equate love to have sex. With such "equation" element of life usually goes like this: a) love = sex, and b) love "and" Sex and c) sex "without" love, r) sex "instead of" love, e) sex "contra" love.
A typical "equation" in this case is usually that identify "smart people" with "intelligent man" ... It follows from the above, an intelligence provided by the elements of life, leading to item "d". Namely: intelligence "against" crazy! Or "mad intelligence" ...
B. Gookin: Well, life is full of similar examples. And what in the conference "Philosophy and Sociology of Education at the threshold of the XXI Century?
V. Molchanov: Unfortunately, and here the case proves the rule. And do not go against the rules, as would be expected.
Collection of abstracts begins and ends with the materials department of philosophy and sociology (the former Scientific Communism) USPU. They structure the position of the vast research team. From them, we would expect and clarity of position. Namely: what is "education as such? And that is the subject of education as a philosophy as opposed to education as a matter of sociology?
But, alas! Nothing of the sort you these installation positions of the two leading professors of the Urals "pedagogical incubator" will not find. Moreover, their colleagues equate "the sociology of education and training" and so-called "Pedagogical philosophy" (p. 80).
Strictly speaking, the reader must conclude this: the "philosophy" and "sociology" - it's just two different words for the same. What exactly? And for all, whatever.
B. Gookin: So what exactly is wrong with the identification of philosophy and sociology?
V. Molchanov: If we take into account that "sociology" - this is the kind of specialized "mind", the answer is clear. Applied to human beings and the essence of philosophy = Sociology of Education encourages us to teach and educate, guided by no other than ... "hindsight".
B. Gookin: As in the proverb: teach foolish, and we fools?
V. Molchanov: Exactly. Educators, researchers, coming in the wake of such a methodology, rather than addressing the general and the real problems of education, engender a lot of their own. And gladly give them a universal problem.
B. Gookin: Can any examples?
V. Molchanov: Okay. Some see no difference between psychology and aesthetics, arguing about the genesis of aesthetic interest (p.43). Others can not grasp the essence of the concept of "childhood". And, finally, teach their students what the child are the same "favorite" creature as a cat ... and boy - it's just ... kind of girl. For what else can vyluschit from the wisdom that "educational institutions can be regarded as a developing system, which are inherent in such laws as a system-wide ..." (p.57). Still others, noting that "in the sociology of education, respectively, increases the role and importance of qualitative analysis" (p.50), makes for such "grounds" profound "conclusion" that de "educational institution ... should be regarded as" enterprise "that uses the material , labor, financial resources and producing immaterial services "(p.56)! Etc. etc.
Truly, anything from a smart and intelligent reason "not to conclude ...
If only "department" allowed and encouraged!
B. Gookin: Valery A., but put yourself in the place of a school teacher, whom you could believe. We set a bad philosophy, posing as "the sociology of education" as bad sociology, posing as a "philosophy of education" are unacceptable. How to be here: what is the real alternative to this double nausea? Oh no, "sophiology whether education"?
V. Molchanov: Yes, that's it. And if you're shocked it's name, then change it to a more indisputable. For example: "Education as a problem" and "educational issues" in the history of philosophy. Russian, German, Greek ... you want some? Only that it is, certainly, was classic!
B. Gookin: Glad to hear that the alternative is. Maybe there is also a short essay it is acceptable? In the same history of world philosophy, for example ...
V. Molchanov: Well, let's try. Especially since we have already determined that top Sophiological approach to education - is the ability to not confuse the mind and intellect.
On this basis Sophiological era in the history of world philosophy are divided into "metaphysical" (under the name "Metaphysics" of Aristotle), "anthropological" or "critical" (under the same name treatises Kant), and finally. "Phenomenological" or "dialectic" in which managed to convince the better part of humanity the great G. Hegel.
(It turned into one of these "eras" (or in all of them at once!) - And the means to find yourself as a member and participant in some, as is customary to say, "educational space." And so does not that usually mean by this: "... go on behalf of the faculty on a business trip to Holland and from there to lead his department ... grant or diploma ...." That's the Rector will be glad!)
Aristotle stated: in the education process of "thinking general" people will certainly come to a genuine, lively mind (as in his "Metaphysics"). Conversely, people will come from the mind to thinking in general (so to speak in his own treatise "On the Soul").
Kant: Live your mind and thinking "in general" should be carefully distinguished. Moreover, they should be separated. And even in opposition. Kant himself did it in his writings violently and ruthlessly. In this capacity, he saw the essence of education rights, and mature scholarship called "Enlightenment", (he does not know, for example, the author, p. 4).
Finally, Hegel: the mind and thinking are so different from each other, which in fact they are one. And vice versa, because they are something in the process of education, are united, that they can be different. From any provision of the Spirit comes to himself, if he strives for truth and does not do it in the bustle.
Here's a historical-philosophical version sophiology education, as you asked ...
B. Gookin: Well, there are more versions?
V. Molchanov: In the form of a conceptual and systematic? Of course there is. That may be, Educational, or theological, for example.
B. Gookin: Well, let's leave the conversation on this topic to other times. But, here, in our already had a conversation, I noticed one disadvantage, namely: we refer chiefly to the intellectuals, and at the same time seemingly porugivaem "intelligence." Neither will tell us whether our readers that we are "not like" intellectuals and "oppose" to its people?
V. Molchanov: Not at all! If I may say so, we "only saving the" equal intellectuals and people from the popular "cathedral" nonsense about "crazy", "education" and "intelligence". As befits an asset educational community to act.
As for the actual intellectuals ... clearly say this: an intellectual - someone who is able to perceive the life of his people as a unified artistic whole. He - and educated people. He - and a wise man.
B. Gookin: Is that all?
V. Molchanov: I will not insist on its version. To give just, of course, evidence in this regard, an example.
One of the authors analyzed our collection of theses on the essence of education believes: without the "facts" - there is no knowledge or education (see page 97). That's it, so ...
In May 1988, in Novgorod, the festival of Slavic literature and culture was represented by "The word" genius of the world and Russian education Alexei Losev. Here it is:
"I, like everyone, have always been taught: facts, facts, facts, most importantly - the facts. From the facts - a single step.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий