This paper explores an aspect of Søren Kierkegaard as a humoristic awakening teacher. In the theory of education, Kierkegaard has been well known as an existential thinker. The concepts of 'awakening' and 'subjective decision' are considered to be unique to Kierkegaard. A good deal of effort has been made to clarify the relation of educational theory and existential philosophy, a topic which is not ours here. Our concern is with the examination of the performative role that Kierkegaard intends to play in front of his audience.
Kierkegaard describes himself as a humorist in his Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments, whose author is Johannes Climacus (one of Kierkegaard's pseudonyms). The question here is if we have not often overlooked the fact that the text is written by a humorist. Have we paid due attention to the nuances and atmospheres of the narrative of Climacus?
To begin with, we have to inquire into the meaning of “misunderstanding” which Kierkegaard thinks as one of his main themes all through his authorship. A great deal of misunderstanding in his age has made it necessary for Kierkegaard to adopt pseudonymous authorship and to communicate in an experimental form of a humorist.
Then, a detailed analysis of Climacus' humoristic narrative illustrates four features of a humorist : (1) continually to join the conception of God together with something else and to bring out contradictions; (2) not to relate himself to God in religious passion; (3) to change himself into a jesting and yet profound transition area for all the transactions; (4) to renounce the concordance of joys that go with having an opinion and always to dance lightly.
Lastly, it seems reasonable to suppose that Climacus' usage of “existence” is far from that of a conventional context of existential philosophy. This view on humoristic style of Climacus' narrative should throw new light on the relation between educational theory and Kierkegaard.

抄録全体を表示

The paper examines the meaning and significance of J. J. Rousseau's method of religious education. Although Rousseau takes up religious education in “Émile”, he doesn't argue what kind of methods should be used. He only inserts the famous story of “Profession de foi du vicaire Savoyard” in book 4 of “Émile”. The question as to why Rousseau's “Émile” remains silent on the concrete method of religious education seems not to have been properly answered so far.
This paper throws light upon this question through a reexamination of Rousseau's reminiscence, “Profession de foi du vicaire Savoyard”.
Through the examination the following points have been clarified :
1. The reason why the inserted story is very long comes from the fact that Rousseau thinks an inner piety very important. It was necessary for him to show what inner piety is and how one comes to obtain it. So he tried to show the whole process of religious education using many pages.
2. The reason why the whole process is narrated by this one priest derives from the fact that Rousseau thinks it important to put the piety into practice. He didn't try to adopt arguments on religion which would not be realized in practice.
3. The fact that he adopted the style of story telling shows that he aimed at leading Emile to acquire a reason which is consistent with the mind and deal of the gospels. A story or a narrative, which utilizes both phonetic and symbolic languages, was a useful style of expression, on which Rousseau placed a high value as a measure to communicate one's thoughts and sentiments.

抄録全体を表示

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the trends of the liberal arguments that aim to solve the conflict between parents and state over the educational authority, and to consider the significance of the theory of deliberative democracy. In the liberal democratic society, parents are assumed to have a natural right to raise their children in their own way : Children should be educated by their parents privately. Yet children are simultaneously the objects of public education, because they should be citizens in future. These two aspects of child-education make a conflict between parent and state (ex. Mozert v. Hawkins Country Board of Education). Thus we have to consider the way to balance the educational authorities between parents and state. For this purpose, this paper considers the theories of three contemporary political philosophers, William, A. Galston, Stephen Macedo and Amy Gutmann.
First, I will analyze their arguments concerning the case of Mozert, and classify their political stances. Macedo and Gutmann regarded the mandatory civic education as important while Galston thought there was the danger that it violated the individual liberty. However, Macedo and Gutmann also had different claims about the contents of civic education. Second, I will consider the criticisms of Gutmann's argument by Galston and Macedo. They claimed that her argument based on autonomy could not be justified. But, in my view, they overlooked the egalitarian feature in her argument. Finally, I will conclude that Gutmann's theory of deliberative democracy has been more sensitive to the religious diversity than other theories, and that she has succeeded in solving the conflict between parents and state.

抄録全体を表示

教育について考え語ろうとする者を、知らぬ間に呪縛し思想と語り方を制限してしまう戦後教育学の物語といったものがある。そのなかの最も強力な物語の一つは、戦後日本の教育史をとらえるときの「権力的に教育政策を聾断する反動的な政治勢力」と「戦後改革の理念を擁護する民主的な革新勢力」とのあいだでの「妥協の余地ない対立抗争」という二元的図式の物語であろう。このような二元的図式の物語にたいして、本書は、戦後教育の果たしてきた社会的機能を、「政策決定のレヴェルからミクロな教室実践にいたるまでの」さまざまな場において展開された「ヘゲモニーをめぐる争いの総和」としてとらえ、戦後教育史を読みなおそうとするものである。本書は以下の三部九章に分かれている。

抄録全体を表示