融通還是斷裂？－－大學通識教育發展的再省思

Integration or Fragmentation?-Reconsiderations of the Development of College General Education

如果大學通識教育課程的精神與設計立場，是建立在史諾(C.P Snow)在1959年所提出「兩種文化」(The two Cultures)的概念上來進行發展的話，那麼通識教育在理論上應該是彌補學科分工過細、導致學術心靈受到限制的現象；然而目前台灣的大學通識教育，由於經常被當成與「專業」相標舉的內容概念，甚至是被定立成與理工或自然科學等相關領域尋求平衡或對話的角色，因此不免讓人懷疑：當大學教育致力於打破知識或學科的藩籬，並且試圖建立豐富而有系統的通識教育時，是否無奈且弔詭地重新走回史諾當時所描述並嘗試突破改變的學術狀況－「人文」與「科學」依然充滿緊張與對立，知識不僅難以達到融通、甚至陷入另一種斷裂的可能？
本文試圖從當前大學通識教育的課程設計與自我定位，來檢討並論述過去通識教育被置放在與「專業教育」相對的前提下討論，乃是策略或過渡性的發展，然而如果長此以往，通識教育較不容易建立其主體性，甚至在通識教育領域的教育工作者，也容易被迫回到個人的學術專業上，而失去通識教育的基本精神。
本文認為，大學通識教育的發展，應該建立在「融通」(consilience)的基礎之上，而在不同學科與知識之間尋求融通的方式，除了知識本身可以找到解答之外，恐怕還是需要一種更高級的思維；而這種更高級的思維，或許比知識更具優位性，而近似信仰的意義。

If the spirit and the curriculum of the general education in universities were founded and developed on concept of, ”The Two Cultures” by C.P. Snow in 1959, in theory, the general education should be to make up for the limitation of the academic mind caused by the excessive subdivisions of disciplines. Currently, the curriculum of general education in Taiwan University is often used as the professional standard as to the concept in contents, or with science and natural sciences related fields, it may even be set as a leading role in balance seeking. It is; therefore, doubtable that while college education devotes in breaking the barriers of knowledge or academic disciplines, and attempts to establish enriched yet systematic general education, at the same time, helplessly returns to the breakthrough of academic condition described by C.P. Snow where ”the Humanities” and ”the Science” still confront anxiously. This would not only fail to achieve the consilience in knowledge but also lead to a possible fracture.
The attempt of this paper is to discuss that under the premise of the current general education curriculum development in universities as well as self-positioning how general education has been compared to field education in the past. This is thought to be the strategically or transitional development. However, if the situation continues, it will be difficult to establish the subjectivity in general education. Moreover, in the long run, for educators of general education will be redirected to his/her own academic field and therefore fail the fundamental sprit of general education.
It is believed that the development of general education in universities should be built on the basis of consilience and therefore to seek comprehensive methods among different fields and knowledge. Besides the explanation found on knowledge itself, a more advanced thinking is essential. This advanced thinking, perhaps, is superior to knowledge as to a means of faith.