教育哲学における他者解釈の技法の機制について
レヴィナスとブーバーの比較を通して
2002 年 2002 巻 85 号 p. 59-75
詳細
2002 年 2002 巻 85 号 p. 59-75
The present paper intends to clarify the mechanism of arts of interpreting others in the philosophy of education, as well as to examine some of its problems. For this purpose, the present author compares the thoughts of Lévinas and of Buber who developed unique theories on “otherness” respectively. There has long existed in education the problem of how to understand pupils and children as they really are; i.e. the problem of otherness. Lévinas, as the noted ethician and philosopher of otherness, is expected to give us a firm foothold for the clarification of this problem.
However, Lévinas's thought has rarely attracted attention in the context of pedagogy. One should first ask why this has been the case. An analysis of those rare responses to Lévinas on the part of pedagogists reveals that they have been characteristically connected with the interpretation of others in educational praxis : i.e., “hermeneutische Kompetentz” or the power of interpretation.
Second, the author will examine in detail the Problematik attending such power of pedagogists, and will indicate that the power is closely related to Buber's conceptions of educational relationship, especially that of “Umfassung” or inclusion. It is further shown here that the power and the inclusion paradoxically fall into a vicious circle, despite their original intention to break that very circle.
Third, the author will compare the two philosophers to elucidate the critical potentiality of their conceptions by paying special attention to their differences. As objects of analysis stand, for example, pairs of conception such as “le dire” (the saying) and “le dit” (the said), and “Ich-Du” (I-Thou) and “Ich-Es” (I-It).
Through these examinations, the distinction between Lévinas and Buber will be ascribed to the principle of gift, on one hand, and the principle of exchange, on the other. With its principle of gift, Lévinas's thought appears too radical and unrealistic for pedagogy, but it all the more clearly highlights the nature of the mechanism of arts of interpreting others.
