赫斯特的博雅教育理論之價值評析

教育的對象是人，因此了解人性（human nature）本質乃是刻不容緩的基要（fundamental）工作，不僅教育的理論建構由此而得以奠基，教育的措施也據此而賴以開展。在古希臘（Hellas）雅典的（Athenian）理想公民的培育是所謂自由民（free citizen）身心兩方面都能獲致健全涵融冶的教育過程，此種視人生為一整體（unity）而非原子論匡的孤立存在的哲學觀點，實際的教育措施有文法學校（gram-matistes）、音樂學校（kitharistes）以及及體育學校（paidoeribes）等場所，並認為此些場所的教育成就當能培育出一個身心各方均衡和諧發展的整全個體（the whole person）。（Freeman， Kenneth J. 1996：50）。公元前五世紀，雅典的偉大政治家佩里克利斯（Pericles）在言及城邦（city states）教育之理想時，曾有如下之表示：我們熱愛智慧，卻避免耽於身體上的怠惰；熱愛美、追求美，然而卻避免插劣的鑑賞力及豪奢放蕩（”We love and pursue wisdom， yet avoid bodily sloth；We love and pursue beauty， yet avoid bad taste and extravagance）（Freeman， Kenneth J. 1969：276）此語道出了雅典注重博亞教育（liberal education）之史實。然而綜觀整個西方歷史之發展，人性在笛卡兒（Descartes）和啟蒙運動（the Enlightenment）之後，因過度重視人類人的理性能力，心性已逐漸被扭曲，尤其笛卡兒視心靈（mind）之特徵在於思想（thought），而身體（body）則在於擴延（extension）特性，身心因而是不同之本質、互不相容（mutually exclusive）之實體，笛卡兒之心靈觀可以藉由下述三個特徵而窺知：（1）心靈和身體是互斥的；（mind and body are mutually exclusive kinds of things）（2）心靈和身體是種是或否之問題；（being a mind or-body a yes/no kind of things）心靈其特徵具隱密性，因此被認為是種高度個人而非社會之語詞。（the mind， as characterized by privacy， is thought of in highly individualistic， not social terms）。

This paper aims at clarifying Paul Hirst’s earlier ideas of liberal education and its axiological assumptions. There are four parts in this paper： Firstly， an introduction to Hirst’s professional career and his life long research themes. They are， inter alia：1. relationship between theory and practice， 2. teacher education；3. the nature of educational aims and objectives. From this， we can find out that owing to Hirst’s showing zeal for teaching， research and taking part in educational practical activities， he often debated with his critics and then got an acute insight into the nature of education. Secondly， by giving the brief narration of Hirst’s two far-reaching noted papers “Liberal Education and the Nature of knowledge” and “Forms of knowledge revisited”， we can demarcate the underpinning of Hirst’s earlier liberal educational thought. Thirdly， in the light of Hirst’s assumptions， critics clearly pointed out the limitations of his thought. Fourthly， many critics with a hope of supplying an alternative to Hirst’s liberal education that is fundamentally epistemological， thought that appealing to the Aristotelian tradition is the best solution to Hirst’s problem of redefining liberal education in modern Philosophy. In fact， Hirst in the recent paper “Education， Knowledge and Practices（1993）has revised his several original philosophical considerations and shifted from seeing education as primarily concerned with knowledge to social practices in spite of still holding different forms of theoretical knowledge to be distinguishable in terms of their logical features and truth criteria.