This paper investigates the origin of Heidegger's theory of Pathos prior to his Sein und Zeit. Pathos is a concept generally means moods or sufferings. It has long been considered that moods and sufferings are closely related to education and human development. How is it possible, however, to think about moods and sufferings in connection with education? Heidegger's theory of Pathos gives some valuable suggestions concerning this question.
In his earlier thinking, Heidegger already appreciated a close relationship between moods and sufferings, on one hand, as well as our existence, on the other. In his lecture, “Grundbegriffe der aristotelischen Philosophie” (1924), he scrutinized the Greek concept of Pathos. He attempted to reveal those fundamental grounds upon which our understanding of, and speaking about, Pathos become possible. According to Heidegger, the concept has three basic meanings; 1) variable disposition, 2) suffering, 3) passion. In our Dasein, we human beings always have the possibilities of being angry, grieved, or pleased. In these variable moods, we as In-der-Welt-Sein are constantly and inevitably caught by the world and ourselves. Being thus encountered by the world or by ourselves, we are in such movedness (Bewegtheit) as being embarrassed or making up our minds. In this way, we always find the world and ourselves in moods through Logos.
In conclusion, the study of the concept of Pathos brings us to those fundamental experiences which enable us to understand and speak about moods and sufferings in connection with education : 1) movedness, 2) passivity, 3) discoveredness (Entdecktheit). The present paper is an initial attempt to find a proper way to think and speak about moods and sufferings.

View full abstract

This paper describes an aspect of Steiner's discourse concerning “Body, ” “Rhythm, ” and “Education.” At first, the author will analyze Steiner's lectures in 1923 on “Muse Education” in ancient Greece, because this concept and his educational practice sustain an important relationship. Steiner envisages the viewpoints of “Rhythmic System” and “Synesthesea” from the antcient Greek idea of the universe. These viewpoints enable him to adopt “Art Education” in his educational practice.
Here, the author will compare Steiner's discourse with the thought of Dalcroze, a contemporary philosopher. Dalcroze and Steiner give their thought to the relation of the human body and rhythm, an Aporia for 19th century science. By appropriating the evolutionary theory in the different contexts, both try to explicate the mechanism of the relation between body and rhythm. Each identifies a distinct “Organ of Sense, ” and tries to develop it respectively. But their difference ultimately drives from linguistic definitions. Steiner's “Euryhtmie” consists in the rhythm and gesture which consist in the rhythm and gesture as defined by language.
Moreover, the beginning of the 20th century has discovered various “rhythms.” Krieck takes up the rhythm that promoted the moment of festivity as well as human mobilization to community. Dalcorze mentions the rhythm which facilitated human adjustment to the external environment. Steiner points to the inner rhythm of life and to that of words as logos. Although the author has analyzed the same word “Rhythm”, he found its various meanings.
The discourse on the connection of “Body, ” “Rhythm, ” and “Education” indicates different possibilities and dangers which may attend various rhythms. Dalcroze notes the power of rhythm which promotes individuals' involvement in the community. By comparison, Steiner emphasizes the transcendental relations between the universe and individuals, and he explores a vision of the rhythm and education distinctly different from that for the formation of community.

View full abstract