[PDF]a book of readings

JOHN S. BRUBACHER.


A UETAN
O ES


dc RO
D (CALCUTTA, E
NON ps)


4
'
x " -
'

" p Í

Hi i
; "e
20^ P
: ui
/ r ' P

vá
v P Aji

44
v
» -

r ` d
LI n

i sald Ne

4 :
A
]


EDITED BY


JOHN S. BRUBACHER


HALLECK PROFESSOR OF THE HISTORY
AND PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION
YALE UNIVERSITY


Eclectic


Philosophy of Education.


» A Book of Readings «


NEW YORK


PRENTICE-HALL, INC.


Bureau Edni Pus Ba |

^ . Research
DAVID HAs. . ALNG COLLEGE |
Dated E eee |


A ACCS. m d saa pem Í


PRENTICE-HALL EDUCATION SERIES
Editors
JoHN S. BRUBACHER
Dan H. CoorrR


HAROLD SPEARS


TO. |
BRUM


1 ` E
|»... Copyright, 1951, by PRENTICE-HALL, INC. 70 Fifth Avenue, New York.
= All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, by mimeograph
or any other means, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Printed in the United States of America.


4 First printing ..... September, 195r
T Second printing ... September, 1952
Ía , Third printing .... September, 1953


Preface


A VOLUME OF READINGS has important advantages. For one thing, it
offers a remedy for one notable complaint against modern education.
Critics declare that present-day education depends far too much on
second-hand accounts of great works that have profoundly affected
human thought and action. The result is that the student fails to gain
the invaluable inspiration and training that follow from contact with
the great minds of his profession and with the original sources of his
culture. It is standard advice to a ball player that if he wants to excel,
he must learn to play in "fast company." So too of thinking. Certainly
one cannot grow physically or mentally strong on a continued diet of
predigested foods. As illuminating as commentaries may be, there is
no substitute for making one's own comparisons and drawing one's
own conclusions. Indeed, it is the only safeguard against the personal
though innocent bias of authors of secondary accounts.

Among the excuses for this shortcoming is, doubtless, the altogether
plausible one that there is not enough time in one's academic day to
consult the large number of books that would be involved. One could
easily be overwhelmed searching just for the pith of a writer's thought
or for that which is peculiarly relevant to some problem at hand. In-
deed, this would be true even if one were assigned specific page refer-
ences to consult in selected bibliographies. Perhaps a further excusable
reason for this shortcoming is the fact that the student may have only
limited library facilities at his disposal. In either case, a carefully se-
lected book of readings like the present one will go far toward relieving
such limitations.

More positively, however, the advantage of a sourcebook is much
the same as that early realized from the case method employed in law
schools. Perhaps some small measure of this type of benefit can also
be derived in the training of teachers. In some fields case studies al-
ready form the backbone of instruction. In educational philosophy, of
course, there is nothing which exactly corresponds to cases. Selected
writings from those who are shaping educational destinies is the nearest
possible approach. But perhaps that is near enough. Such writings


n


iv PREFACE


bring the reader into direct contact with the quality of a man's think-
ing. And better yet, if there is a sufficient contrariety of viewpoint rep-
resented, these writings throw the reader quite on his own to weigh
the arguments put forward and to come to his own personal conclu-
sions. The benefits of this approach to teaching educational philosophy
are not only in the direction of the student. The teacher who enjoys
encouraging students to think and think hard has, I believe, no more
ellective nor satisfying method of instruction than one which stimu-
lates his own thinking.

It has already been suggested that the success of a book of readings
is dependent on the quality of its selections. A number of reasons
justify the publication of this selection in spite of the fact that several
other sourcebooks already exist in the field. In the first place, the pres-
ent collection of sources is taken from as nearly a complete reading ol
the literature of educational philosophy appearing in English as it is
possible to make. Most of them are naturally taken from the twentieth
century since that century is unrivalled in productive effort in this
field. Nevertheless, earlier centuries have been tapped for their treasures
as well. These have been chosen, however, not for their historical sig-
nificance so much as for the perennial vouth with which they speak to
modern times.

In the second place, an especially conscientious effort has been made
to give adequate representation to every significant philosophy of edu-
cation. As already stated, the effectiveness of a book of readings in
large part depends on the variety of its selections. It is earnestly hoped
that the extensive preparation that went into this volume is a modest
guarantee of an adequate sampling of the great contrariety of educa-
tional philosophies. Indeed, to insure presentation of some points of


view, quotations from less well-known authors are some times pre:


sented. If others appear to have been slighted, it is not because of thc
author's bias but rather because no succinct st


> à atements of their philoso-
phies were found available for inclusion.


A third advantage of the instant collection of sources is the fact that
practically everyone of them has been taken from authors who were
writing with definite educational implications in mind.
argue that other more general selections are irrelev


In the latter type, however, there is always the d
cational inferences to


This does not
ant or inappropriate.
anger of ascribing edu-
authors who are entirely innocent of such inten-
tions. The merit of the present criterion of selection is that it enables
the student to judge more soundly of the connection between premises
and conclusions. Besides, if more general Statements had been admitted,
it would have greatly increased the difficulty of the problem of what


PREFACE Vv


to exclude from this collection, a problem already onerous enough
when educational selections alone were considered.

The author has been embarrassed no end by the number of excellent
selections he has had to omit from this volume. This is particularly
true of longer selections. Unfortunately, however, there is a limit to the
size to which a book like this can grow. Consequently, for the most part
the author has limited himself to passages in which salient points are
made very succinctly.

Study questions are submitted at the beginning of each chapter to
give focus to the reading of the less initiated in educational philosophy.
The readings themselves will, no doubt, raise many more. The readings,
of course, do not always provide specific answers for specific questions.
There is large room for the indigenous thought of the reader. In the
hope that reading and thinking will make him a philosopher, these
readings are submitted for his perusal.

Presenting all these materials to the reader has only been possible
with the help of many others. In this connection I am especially in-
debted to the numerous authors and publishers who so generously
consented to the republication of selections for which they hold copy-
rights. I am also further indebted to members of my family who gave
Ireely of their time in helping to see the manuscript through produc-
tion.


J- S. B.


Yale University


Contents


THE ROLE or EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY


SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY or EDUCATION ComM-
PARED


Traits OF REALITY


I THE NATURE OF BEING 32

II THE NATURAL AND SUPERNATURAL 35
III STATIC AND DYNAMIC 44
IV TEMPORAL AND ETERNAL 50

V NOVEL AND PRIMORDIAL 52
VI ORIGIN AND DESTINY 55


HUMAN NATURE ia


I MIND AND BODY 68

II ORIGINAL NATURE 72
IIl THE WHOLE CHILD AND INTEGRATION 81
IV FREEDOM AND DETERMINISM 89


LEARNING AND CAPACITY TO LEARN


‘THe NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE


I TRUTH 117
Il Ways or KNOWING 126


III THE ROLE OF INTELLIGENCE 137


EDUCATION AND VALUE THEORY


vi


67


101


116


142


CONTENTS


8.


11.


13.


14.


15.


16.


17.


18.


EDUCATIONAL AIMS


I FUNCTION AND DETERMINATION OF AIMS 161
II AIMS AS GENERALIZED VALUES 177


SociAL BAsEs or EDUCATION


ETHICAL PRINCIPLES OF EDUCATION


DEMOCRATIC EDUCATION


NONDEMOCRATIC EDUCATION


EDUCATION AND THE PRODUCTION AND OWNER-
SHIP OF WEALTH


EDUCATION AND Socio-Economic CLAss STRUC-
TURE


PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EDUCATION


CHURCH AND STATE IN EDUCATION


NATIONALISM AND EDUCATION


THE SCHOOL AND SOCIAL PROGRESS


TEACHING CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES


ACADEMIC FREEDOM


METHOD OF INSTRUCTION


LOGIC AND THE ORDER OF INSTRUCTION


vii


161


195


199


208


259


274


viii


30.


INTEREST, EFFORT, AND DISCIPLINE
FREEDOM AS METHOD
MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION
THE CURRICULUM


Work, PLAY, AND ART IN EDUCATION


STUDENT DISCIPLINE AND GOVERNMENT


MoRar EDUCATION


RELIGIOUS EDUCATION


INDEX OF NAMES


SUBJECT INDEX


CONTENTS


376


1


The Role of Educational Philosophy


Directive questions to bear in mind when seeking the foundations on


uo


which to build a philosophy of education


- Of what use is a philosophy of education to parents? To teachers?


Does every parent and teacher have a philosophy of education, whether he
is aware of it or not?

What is an educational viewpoint? How does it originate? Does it involve
other viewpoints? Why do viewpoints on education differ? Can viewpoints
be modified?

To what extent is a common-sense viewpoint on educational problems
philosophic? Scientific?

What identifies an educational problem as philosophic?

What is the philosophic method of solving educational problems?

How can a person be sure his educational philosophy is sound?

Should practical results be expected from a philosophy of education?
Would there be any use for speculative results?

When educational philosophers disagree, what should the individual
teacher do? When teachers in a school differ in educational philosophy,


how should school policy be settled? Would it be desirable for all teachers
in a given school to have the same philosophy of education?


1. Philosophy Inescapable


As we look upon life so we teach. What we believe, the loyalties to
which we hold, subtly determine the content and the method of our
teaching. Each of us has a philosophy whether or not he has thought
it through and definitely phrased it. Everything we say and do as well
as what we think reflects that philosophy.


P.


1. Harold O. Rugg, The Great Technology. New York: John Day Company, 1933,
258.


"
1


THE ROLE OF EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY


15


2. Practicality of Theory


Theory is in the end, as has been well said, the most practical of all
things, because this widening of the range of attention beyond nearby
purpose and desire eventually results in the creation of wider and
farther-reaching purposes and enables us to use a much wider and
deeper range of conditions and means than were expressed in the
observation of primitive practical purposes.


3. Philosophy and Common Sense


The difference between a common-sense philosophy and a critical and
systematic one is somewhat analogous to the difference between
common-sense knowledge and scientific knowledge; that is, the latter
is more thorough than the former, is made more carefully, its parts


articulate better, it gives us a larger world which has more depth and
steadfastness in it.


4. Comprehensiveness of Philosophy


As we might expect, then, philosophy has generally been defined in
ways which imply a certain totality, generality and ultimateness of both
subject matter and method. With respect to subject matter, philosophy
is an attempt to com prehend—that is, to gather together the varied de-
tails of the world and of life into a single inclusive whole, which shall
either be a unity, or, as in the dualistic systems, shall reduce the plural
details to a small number of ultimate principles. On the side of the
attitude of the philosopher and of those who accept his conclusions,
there is the endeavor to attain as unified, consistent, and complete an
outlook upon experience as is possible. This aspect is expressed in the
word "philosophy"—love of wisdom. Whenever philosophy has been
taken seriously, it has always been assumed that it signified achieving


a wisdom which would influence the conduct of life. Witness the fact


that almost all ancient schools of philosophy were also organized ways


2. John Dewey, Sources of a Science of Education. N


E VT ew York: Liveright Publishing
3. Ernest Carroll Moore, What is E i i
ks tat is Education? Boston: Ginn and Company, 1915


4. John Dewey,


Democracy and Educati Y
1815, pp. HES, cy ication. New Y


ork: The Macmillan Company:


THE ROLE OF EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY 3


of living, those who accepted their tenets being committed to certain
distinctive modes of conduct; witness the intimate connection of phi-
losophy with the theology of the Roman church in the middle ages,
its frequent association with religious interests, and, at national crises
its association with political struggles.

This direct and intimate connection of philosophy with an outlook
upon life obviously differentiates philosophy from science. Particular
facts and laws of science evidently influence conduct. They suggest
things to do and not do, and provide means of execution. When science
denotes not simply a report of the particular facts discovered about
the world but a general attitude toward it—as distinct from special
things to do—it merges into philosophy. For an underlying disposition
represents an attitude not to this and that thing nor even to the aggre-
gate of known things, but to the considerations which govern conduct.

Hence philosophy cannot be defined simply from the side of subject
matter. For this reason, the definition of such conceptions as gener-
ality, totality, and ultimateness is most readily reached from the side
of the disposition toward the world which they connote. In any literal
and quantitative sense, these terms do not apply to the subject matter
of knowledge, for completeness and finality are out of the question.
‘The very nature of experience as an ongoing, changing process forbids.
In a less rigid sense, they apply to science rather than to philosophy.
For obviously it is to mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, anthro-
pology, history, etc. that we must go, not to philosophy, to find out
the facts of the world. It is for the sciences to say what generaliza-
tions are tenable about the world and what they specifically are. But
when we ask what sort of permanent disposition of action toward the
world the scientific disclosures exact of us we are raising a philosophic
question.

From this point of view, “totality” does not mean the hopeless task
of a quantitative summation. It means rather consistency of mode of
response in reference to the plurality of events which occur. Con-
sistency does not mean literal identity; for since the same thing does
not happen twice, an exact repetition of a reaction involves some mal-
adjustment. Totality means continuity—the carrying on of a former
habit of action with the readaptation necessary to keep it alive and
growing. Instead of signifying a ready-made complete scheme of action,
it means keeping the balance in a multitude of diverse actions, so that
each borrows and gives significance to every other. Any person who
is open-minded and sensitive to new perceptions, and who has con-
centration and responsibility in connecting them has, in so far, a
philosophic disposition. One of the popular senses of philosophy is


a calm and endurance in the face of difficulty and loss; it is even sup-
>>>