Dewey 敎育哲學에 있어서 "權威" 槪念

林泰平 한국교육철학회 1987 교육철학 Vol.5 No.-

John Dewey의 成長論理와 敎育

임태평 동국대학교 교육연구원 1988 한국교육문제연구 Vol.5 No.-

John Dewey의 形而上學과 存在論

林泰平 동국대학교 경주대학 1982 慶州大學論文集 Vol.1 No.-

John Dewey의 成長論理와 敎育 : John Dewey's Logic of Growth and Education

林泰平 東國大學校 敎育問題硏究所 1988 교육문제연구 Vol.5 No.-

ABSTRACT Dewey's conception of 'education as growth', in this paper, will be critically re -considered in following : (1) The foundations of the logie of growth, (2) The logie of growth ; (i) the meaning of growth, (ii) the nature and condition of growth, and (iii) the criteria of growth, (3) The logie of growth and the theory of education ; (i) philosophy and the theory of education, (ii) the logie of growth and education. To sum up : Dewey's theory of growth can be called a product of his age formed by his accepting the yarious philosophical theory. It can be systematized in the logie of growth. It is found that it is to be inquired in the ethical (or social) sense, and that growth itself is the oniy moral "aim". In this point, Dewey's conception of growth is different with that used by naturalist philosophers of education (e. g. Rousseau, Frobel). For the former see growth as the social process, whereas the latter it the natural process. Accordingly, Dewey's conception of growth is to be stipulately defined with the "moral" sense. The logie of growth is as follow : (l) the nature and condition is immaturity, (2) taken absolutely, not comparatively, it designates a positive force or ability-the power to grow, therefore, the chief traits of immaturity are dependence and plasticity, and (3) the criteria of growth are continuity and interaction. This logie of growth is applied to his conception of education as the process of socialization and the process of social leaming. The two principles of growth is justified as criteria in order to differentiate educational and non-educational experiences. This method has greatly R.S.Peters' philosophy of education. But, for Dewey, there is also a problem that the has not resolved with principle of interaction. It is a problem that occures in conflict between need and desire within the inner of self. Thus, the principle of interaction is possible in searching for the consistence of the inner factor and outer factor of self, but impossible in seeking for the consistence in conflict of factors within the inner of self. Dewey's conception of 'education as growth', in this paper, will be critically reconsidered in following : (1) The foundations of the logic of growth, (2) The logic of growth ; (ⅰ) the meaning of growth, (ⅱ) the nature and condition of growth, and (ⅲ) the criteria of growth, (3) The logic of growth and the theory of education ; (ⅰ) philosophy and the theory of education, (ⅱ) the logic of growth and education. To sum up : Dewey's theory of growth can be called a product of his age formed by his accepting the various philosophical theory. It can be systematized in the logic of growth. It is found that it is to be inquired in the ethical (or social) sense, and that growth itself is the only moral "aim". In this point, Dewey's conception of growth is different with that used by naturalist philosophers of education(e.g. Rousseau, Frobel). For the former see growth as the social process, whereas the latter it the natural process. Accordingly, Dewey's conception of growth is to be stipulately defined with the "moral" sense. The logic of growth is as follow : (1) the nature and condition is immaturity, (2) taken absolutely, not comparatively, it designates a positive force or ability-the power to grow, therefore, the chief traits of immaturity are dependence and plasticity, and (3) the criteria of growth are continuity and interaction. This logic of growth is applied to his conception of education as the process of socialization and the process of social learning. The two principles of growth is justified as criteria in order to differentiate educational and non-educational experiences. This method has greatly R.S.Peters' philosophy of education. But, for Dewey, there is also a problem that the has not resolved with principle of interaction. It is a problem that occures in conflict between need and desire within the inner of self. Thus, the principle of interaction is possible in searching for the consistence of the inner factor and outer factor of self, but impossible in seeking for the consistence in conflict of factors within the inner of self.

마르틴 하이데거의 존재론적 진리개념과 교육

임태평 한국교육철학회 2017 교육철학 Vol.65 No.-

Martin Heidegger who is opposed to school philosophy is now widely recognized as one of the most influential philosophers of existential phenomenology of the twentieth century. In this paper, I seek to clarify Heidegger's important philosophical suggestions for the future of higher education. In order to inquire his suggestions, I shall first explain Heidegger's philosophy as science of truth, secondly, analyze and reinterpret (a) the traditional concept of truth and its ontological foundations; (b) the primordial phenomenon of truth and the derivative character of the traditional concept of truth, and thirdly, look for implications of these concepts of truth for his educational theory and philosophy. To sum up: 1. The Question of Truth and Philosophy. 1) The preparatory analysis of Heidegger's Philosophy, 2) Philosophy as science of truth(epistēme ties tes alētheias). 2. The Modes of Concept of Truth. 1) The preparatory analysis of the concept of truth. 2) The traditional, derivative truth as ontical truth grounded on Aristotle's epistemological tradition. 3) Heidegger's primordial truth as ontological truth grounded on Parmenides's ancient philosophical tradition. 3. Heidegger's Conception of Truth and Education. 1) The preparatory fundamental analysis of paidaia(Bildung). 2) The traditional ontic truth and ontotheological education(reframing) 3) His ontological truth and ontological education(teaching as a form of learning). 4. Conclusions: Heidegger's ontological education and Its Implications for Korean Higher Education. Education has to be teaching as a form of learning

孔子의 正名主義와 敎育理論

林泰平 한국교육학회 대구·경북지회 1999 교육학논총 Vol.19 No.2

Confucius was neither a prophet nor a revealer, but the first person who taught large numbers of students in a private capacity, by whom he was accompanied during travels in differant ststes, and was China's first private teacher. His ideas are best known through the Confucian Analects (or Lun Yu¨). He is a Ju and the founder of the Ju school. Confucius is more than a ju in the common sense of the word, and is portrayed merely as an educator. Because he wanted his disciples to be "rounded men" who would be useful to state and society, and taught them various branches of knowledge based upon four liberal arts(孔門四科). Threfore, Confucius was neither the auther, nor even editor of any of the classics. In this view, to be sure, he was a conservative who upheld tradition. Confucius also had his own ideas about the individual and society, heaven and man. he hold that the most important thing in order to have a well-ordered society is to carry out what he called the rectification of names. Once upon a time a disciple(Tsze-lu^: 子路) asked him what he would do first if he were to rule a state. Confucius replied: "What is necessary is to rectify names." On another occasion the duke Ching, of Ch'i^(齊景公) asked Confucius about government, to which he answered: "There is government, when the ruler is ruler, and the minister is minister; when the father is father, and the son is son." These are the origins of theory of Confucius' retification of names. Thus, if a ruler acts according to a way of the ruler, he is then truly a ruler, in fact as well as in name. But if he does not, he is no ruler, even though he may popularly be regarded as such. In this paper I will attempt synoptically to re-examine theories of Confucius' rectification of names and teaching-learning known through the Confucian Analects, and look for its implications for Korean educational theory and reality today.

人格道德敎育의 哲學 : Richard S. Peters를 중심으로

林泰平 한국교육학회 대구·경북지회 1987 교육학논총 Vol.6 No.-

In this paper, Peters' aspect of character in moral education (Character-Moral Education) will be considered. The aspect of knowledge in moral education has been very emphasized, while the aspect of character in moral education has been disregarded in Korean education till now-a-days. In this point, the study of Peters' character-moral education should have much implications for Korean moral education. In this paper, the problems are considered as follows. 1) Analysis of the concept of character, 2) Training character and moral education; a) complex tasks of character-moral education; b) cultivating of intelligence and training of character, c) finally, implication for and perspective of Korean moral education. To sum up: In relation to rules, character can be used a) in a non-committal sense, b) in having 'a type of character', and c) in 'having character'. Character is used in the non-committal sense as a way of referring to the sum-total of a man's character-traits, In the second way of speaking of 'character', some distinct patterns of traits are indicated. And the third way of speaking of character is clearly different from having 'a type of character'. This analysis, as Peters put forward, should be sufficient to indicate how complex the business of moral education must be. First, child has to be accepted rules of society, second, he has to develop ability to understand, judge them, and third, he has to develop stable policy of action. Peters' concern in the aspect of character in moral education is for the development on autonomous type of character who follows rules in a rational discriminating manner and who also has character. This is the 'paradox of moral education': children can enter the palace of reason through the courtyard of habit and tradition, and they must. So children must be tauhgt a set of 'basic rules', which come to be adopted, as habits in as rational a manner, is possible for the mat that time, until they are able to think more critically about how such rules might be justified. And this character-moral education can bring about by what is called the Alexandrian type of education, not by the new post-Pestalozzi's concept of education which adopts character-building as its fundamental goal. Therefore, there need be no basic conflict between cultivating the intellect and training character.

Plato의 正義의 철학과 교육

林泰平 한국교육철학회 1993 교육철학 Vol.11 No.-

The study of this paper is to consider the structure of Plato' educational proposals with relation to justice, and to re-examinate his philosophy of justice and education which is so attractive to the students of philosophy of education today also. His structure of educatonal proposals consists of 1) his worked-out theory of human nature, 2) his worked-out ethical theory, and 3) his worked-out theory of knowledge. For Plato, justice is a tripartite harmony of the soul or the state. This tripartite theory was an applicaton of Pythagorean Harmornics to the immaterial realm. When parts (reason,spirit,and desire) of the soul as well as (philosopher-king, auxiliaries, and economic class(craftmen,etc.)) of the state combined together as the right pitch, then justice or harmony resulted. Like all particular sensible objects, according to Plato, men have contradictory character; man are intermediate between being and not-being(or becoming). But men can arrive at the only genuine form of knowledge( that is,justice), for men possess souls that can recollect what they has known in previous life. The men who have knowledge has knowledge of something that exists, but the men who have opinion have opinion of something that does not exist. Then knowledge is infallible, opinion can be mistaken. Thus,the philosophers who have knowledge differ from the lovers of sights and sounds who have opinion in that they have a priori knowledge of eternally existing concepts, whereas others have at best observational knowledge of changeable particular things. Only the philosophers know what justice is, so only they have the right to rule. For Plato, therefore, his task of educational philosophy is to construct an ideal state ruled by the philosopher-king who has knowledge of justice.

정다산의 교육철학

임태평 한국교육철학회 1998 교육철학 Vol.16 No.-

제3장: Frankena의 도덕교육의 비판

임태평 한국교육철학회 1988 교육철학 Vol.6 No.-