兩種本真理念對自主性作為教育目的之反思

Reflections on Autonomy as the Aim of Education Through Two Streams of the Idea of Authenticity

10.6910/BER.202403_70(1).0004

簡成熙(Cheng-Hsi Chien)

本真 ； 存在主義 ； 自主性 ； 社群主義 ； 教育目的 ； authenticity ； existentialism ； autonomy ； communitarianism ； educational aim

教育研究集刊

70:1期（2024 / 03 / 31）

123 - 161

繁體中文;英文

1960年代倫敦路線的R. S. Peters等人承繼啟蒙時代理性之傳統，開展自主性（autonomy）作為教育目的。同一時間，在英、美分析的教育哲學蔚為主流時，來自歐陸的存在主義也同步影響英、美。存在主義的本真（authenticity）重視自由、抉擇，與自主性有著類似但不同的旨趣。同屬英國倫敦路線陣營的D. E.Cooper、M. Bonnett都致力於歐陸思潮的開拓，企圖以存在主義本真的理念來反思Peters等人所倡導的自主性。C. Taylor另從社群主義的立場挑戰自由主義自我觀，也提出本真倫理學。Taylor認為，自由主義的自主性讓自我根無著處。他希望藉由本真性的討論，檢討自由主義的不當設定與影響，豐富自我觀，並厚實人類文明。H. G. Frankfurt也從意志（will, volition）的探索，提出意志的必然來修正理性在自主性所扮演的角色。本文希望經由存在主義及社群主義開展的兩種本真理念，反思倫敦路線自主性作為教育目的，體現教育哲學厚實教育目的與理想的積極意義。

In the 1960s, the scholars of the London Line, including Peters, Hirst and Dearden, inherited the tradition of rationality from the Enlightenment, and developed autonomy as the educational aim. When analytic philosophy of education in British and American had become the mainstream, existentialism from Europe also had influenced Britain and America at the same time. Compared with autonomy, existential authenticity values freedom and choice, and has a similar but different emphasis from autonomy. Bonnett and Cooper, both from the London Line in Britain, were committed to the development of the European trend of thought with the existential authenticity and attempted to reflect on the autonomy advocated by Peters and other scholars. The communitarian scholar C. Taylor challenged the liberal view of the self and proposed the ethics of authenticity. Taylor argued that autonomy of liberalism leaves the self unencumbered and rootless. He hoped to review the improper setting and influence of liberalism through the discussion of authenticity, enrichment of self-view, and consolidation of human civilization. This paper aims to reflect on the autonomy as the aim of education advocated by the London Line through two streams of authenticity developed by existentialism and communitarianism, and to demonstrate the positive significance of educational philosophy in strengthening educational ideals.

1. 徐永康（2015）。自律與本真的倫理學比較。通識教育與多元文化學報，5，45-62。https://doi.org/10.30119/TSJYYDYWHXB
   連結：
2. 簡成熙（2020a）。自主性作為教育目的之哲學省察：倫敦路線的相關論辯。教育研究集刊，66（1），1-33。https://doi.org/10.3966/102887082020036601002
   連結：
3. 簡成熙（2020b）。Foucault權力／知識論述對於自主性作為教育目的之省思：J. D. Marshall專著的檢視。教育學刊，55，1-40。https://doi.org/10.3966/156335272020120 055001
   連結：
4. Bonnett, M. (1976). Authenticity, autonomy and compulsory curriculum. Cambridge Journal of Education, 6(3), 107-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764760060302
   連結：
5. Bonnett, M. (1978). Authenticity and education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 12(1), 51-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.1978.tb00503.x
   連結：
6. Bonnett, M. (1983). Education in a destitute time. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 17(1), 21-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.1983.tb00013.x
   連結：
7. Bonnett, M., & Cuypers, S. (2003). Autonomy and authenticity in education. In N. Blake, P. Smeyers, R. Smith, & P. Standish. (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education (pp. 326-340). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996294.ch19
   連結：
8. Callan, E. (1988). Autonomy and schooling. McGill-Queen’s University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780773561625
   連結：
9. Cooper, D. (1983). Authenticity and learning: Nietzsche’s educational philosophy. Routledge & Kegan Paul. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203092668
   連結：
10. Cuypers, S. E. (2018). Self-identity and personal autonomy: An analytic anthropology. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315211428
    連結：
11. Dearden, R. F. (1975). Autonomy as an educational ideal I. In S. C. Brown (Ed.), Philosophers discuss education (pp. 3-18). The Macmillan Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-02562-6_1
    連結：
12. Frankfurt, H. G. (1998). The importance of what we care about. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818172
    連結：
13. Frankfurt, H. G. (1999). Necessity, volition and love. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624643
    連結：
14. Golomb, J. (1995). In search of authenticity: From Kierkegarrd to Camus. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203006795
    連結：
15. Harper, R. (1955). Significance of existence and recognition for educationt. In N. B. Henry (Ed.), Modern philosophies of education: 54th yearbook of the national society for the study of education, Pt. 1 (pp. 215-258). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/0.1177/016146815505600907
    連結：
16. Kymlicka, W. (1996). Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. Clarendon. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198290918.001.0001
    連結：
17. Leahy, R. (1994). Authenticity: From philosophic concept to literary character. Educational Theory, 44(4), 447-461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1994.00447.x
    連結：
18. Sarid, A. (2015). Reconciling divisions in the field of authentic education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 49(3), 474-489. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12113
    連結：
19. Splitter, L. J. (2009). Authenticity and constructivism in education. Studies in philosophy and Education, 28, 135-151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-008-9105-3
    連結：
20. Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvv41887
    連結：
21. Thompson, M. B. (2015). Authenticity in education: From narcissism and freedom to the Messy interplay of self-exploration and acceptable tension. Studies in philosophy and Education, 34, 603-618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-015-9459-2
    連結：
22. Trilling, L. (1972). Sincerity and authenticity. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674044463
    連結：
23. Trubody, B. (2015). Heidegger, education and the “cult of the authentic.” Journal of Philosophy of Education, 49(1), 14-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12093
    連結：
24. Vu, T. T., & Dall’Alba, G. (2014). Authentic assessment for student learning: An ontological conceptualisation. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(7), 778-791. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.795110
    連結：
25. White, J. (1973). Towards a compulsory curriculum. Routledge & Kegan Paul. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203814826
    連結：
26. White, J. (1976). Authenticity, autonomy and compulsory curriculum: A reply to Michael Bonnett. Cambridge Journal of Education, 6(3), 122-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0305764760060303
    連結：
27. Wolf, S. (1990). Freedom within reason. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195056167.001.0001
    連結：
28. 李克寰（2011）。尼采的教育哲學：論做為藝術的教育。桂冠圖書。
29. 李奉儒（1997）。自由與理性的正反論辯：道德自律與道德教育的探究。載於簡成熙（主編），哲學和教育：20世紀末的教育哲學（頁153-173）。復文圖書。
30. 林逢祺（1992）。教育哲學的創造思想家：皮德思。載於劉焜輝（主編），人類航路的燈塔：當代教育思想家（頁110-150）。正中書局。
31. 簡成熙（2022）。重審教學哲學：分析傳統、本真與解放的美麗邂逅。現代教育論叢，5，17-34。
32. Bonnett, M. (1986). Personal authenticity and public standards: Towards the transcendence of a dualism. In D. E. Copper (Ed.), Education, values and mind: Essays for R. S. Peters (pp.111-133). RKP.
33. Bonnett, M. (1994). Children thinking: Promoting understanding in the primary school. Cassell.
34. Bonnett, M. (2002). Education as a form of the poetic: A Heideggerian approach to learning and the teacher-pupil relationship. In M. A. Peters (Ed.), Heidegger, modernity and education (pp. 229-244). Rowman & Littlefield.
35. Kneller, G. F. (1958). Existentialism and education. John Wiley & Sons.
36. Morris, V. C. (1966). Existentialism in education: What it means. Harper & Row.
37. Peters, R. S. (1966). Ethics and education. George Allan & Unwin.
38. Peters, R. S. (1973). Freedom and the development of free man. In J. F. Doyle (Ed.), Educational judgements: Papers in the philosophy of education (pp. 119-142). Routledge & Kegan Paul.
39. Peters, R. S. (1974a). Moral development and moral learning. In Psychology and ethical development (pp. 360-385). Routledge.
40. Peters, R. S. (1974b). Subjectivity and standard. In Psychology and ethical development (pp. 413-432). Routledge.