Ito Jinsai's educational thought consisted mainly of the relationships among three conceptions; namely, human nature, the Way (of Man), and the teachings (of both Confucius and Mencius). These conceptions in turn were known to him through his inquiry into the essence of the thoughts of Confucius and of Mencius.
For Jinsai the Way (of Man) should be found in daily human relations, and it was first generalized and presented to people as teachings by Confucius. However, as people were separated from Confucius's times, they interpreted the Way (of Man) arbitrarily; otherwise, they despaired of their ability to practice morality. To overcome these difficulties, Mencius contended that the Way (of Man) meant humanity and justice in human relations, and that man's inborn nature wa good.
Thus Jinsai's educational thought was focused on a problem : how to urge people to participate in daily human relations. It would be said that his thought was one of the prominent achievements in educational thought which was constructed on the basis of Confucianism.

抄録全体を表示

Am Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts, als in Hamburg ein staatliches Volksschulwesen eingerichtet wurde, hatten die Volksschullehrer über ihre Arbeit, also Erziehung und Schulverwaltung wenige Rechte zu sagen. Sie kritisierten die Verbürokratisierung der Schule. Um ihre Rechte von der Offentlichkeit anerkannt zu sehen, starteten sie nicht nur eine reformpädagogische Bewegung (Kunsterziehungsbewegung oder Arbeitsschulbewegung), sondern auch eine soziale Bewegung, oder nahmen daran teil. In der Bewegung entwarfen sie die 'neue Schule' als Alternative zur 'alten Schule'. Um diesen Entwurf zu realisieren, verlangten sie öffentlich eingerichtete Versuchsschulen.
In der Versuchsschule Berliner Tor, die 1919 entstand, wurde eine Erziehung eingeführt, die auf dem Interesse und der Förderung des Kindes basiert, wobei diese von seiten der Lehrer angefaßt wurden. Die Lehrer der Berliner Tor Schule forderten nicht nur das Recht des Kindes, sondern auch immer dasjenige der Lehrer selbst.
Daher stellte sich heraus, daß die Pädagogik 'vom Kinde aus' in der Hamburger Schulreformbewegung aufgrund der Forderung der Lehrer selbst nach Selbständigkeit entworfen wurde.

抄録全体を表示

The theory of recollection in the Meno (TRM) has been generally interpreted as the theory 'that learning is recollection of knowledge acquired before birth' (Bluck). Recently Moravcsik and other scholars have argued that only 'learning taking the form of inquiry is recollection'. However, knowing consists of two distinct parts : inquiring and finding out, teaching and learning. 'Plato identifies knowledge with recollection' (Irwin).
According to Guthrie, in TRM a distinction is made 'for the first time between empirical and a priori knowledge'. Only the latter (e.g.geometry) is the object of recollection, and genuine knowledge. However, this established view does not correspond with the text (81c5-9, 85c6-7, 97a-c). 'Someone who knows the road to Larisa' (97a9) has empirical knowledge. This is not an analogy, but a concrete example of knowledge (pace Bluck). Recollection covers all knowledge including skills and virtues.
At 97-98, Plato distinguishes for the first time between true belief and knowledge. Only the latter is tied down by the considerration of reason (αιτιαζ λογισμοζ), and this is called 'recollection'. This shows Plato's exellent insight. A lot of scholars are 'wrong to restrict aitias logismos, and recollection as a whole, to reasoning relying on logical necessity' (Irwin).
Plato insists that (a) all the slave-boy's answers were his own belief, and that (b) these beliefs were originally inside him. The point (a) is just, but does not guarantee (b). The point (b) is a fallacy. This has been the problem with TRM.
The insights in Plato's TRM can contribute to modern pedagogy which is urged to reexamine learning itself.

抄録全体を表示

Anna Freud-Melanie Klein controversies over child analysis made up a turning point for psychoanalysis. Even today there remains a wide gap between the Freudian ego-psychology and the Kleinian psychoanalysis. This division can be traced to a series of dispute on child-analysis in 1927 and to the Controversial Discussions that took place in the British Psycho-Analytical Society between 1941 and 1945.
These controversies centered on the nature of infantile super-ego as well as of early object relationships. Because these controversies unfolded around child development, they have been interpreted as conflicts of different theories of child development. In contrast, this paper attempts to explain these controversies as those concerning epistemological foundations in understanding children's mind, and it tries to show how two different, even opposing, metapsychologies arose simultaneously.
Their theories of child development were guided by distinctive perspectives of the treatment of children, and their observations in turn relied on their theories. Their theories as well as their perspectives of treatment were caught respectively in a vicious circle.
Anna Freud pursued the relations between children and their enviroments. Since her perspectives included not only children but also external objects, she did not have to conceptualize early unconscious relationships. In contrast, because Klein analyzed children's unconsciousness alone without considering their surroundings, she discovered and theorized inevitably infantile super-ego and early object-relationships.
These two models of meta-psychology are rooted in different emphases : one, on external realities, and the other, on inner realities.
We can trace the origins of these two types of the explanation of mind to Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis. Inquiring into patients' pasts and childhood experiences, he concluded that an early trauma could lead to a neurosis. In child analysis, however, iansmuch as analysists can observe a child as it is, Anna Freud and Melanie Klein would build two meta-psychological theories-one, from external environments and the other, from inner realities.

抄録全体を表示