自主性作為教育目的之哲學省察：倫敦路線的相關論辯

Philosophical Reflections on Autonomy as an Educational Aim: Some Debates on London Line

簡成熙(Cheng-Hsi Chien)

《教育研究集刊》 66:1期 (2020/03) Pp. 1-33

https://doi.org/10.3966/102887082020036601002

摘要

R. S. Peters、R. F. Dearden、R. Barrow、J. White等在1960年代，開創倫敦學派教育理念，強調個人建立在自主性下的理性反思，規劃其美好生活的能力，是教育目的之所在。本文首先交代其理念概要，第二節敘述1980年代以後，其他學者的質疑。如C. M. Stone挑戰Dearden的看法，指其只重視理性，忽略了感性、 欲求及其他層面。S. E. Cuypers認為，自主的過程其實是表現在自我認同、自我評估之上，提出關懷才是教育之重點。第三節主要介紹E. Callan，他在自由主義 的立場上，較倫敦路線更為強調興趣導向的課程，並將社群主義之理念融入自主性概念中。第四節則提出倫敦路線立場學者們的回應。筆者最後的結論是，當年倫敦路線自主性的主張，容或有過於重視理性的限制，不過，諸反對者並未能全盤否定自主性的訴求，自主性也能吸納情感、意願、認同等因子。易言之，重構後的自主性概念仍不失為臺灣當下民主氛圍中應有的核心教育目的。

關鍵字

公民教育 ； 個人自主 ； 理性自主 ； 教育目的

並列摘要

Based on the liberal tradition of the age of Enlightenment, the scholars of London Line, including R. S. Peters, R. F. Dearden, among others, had advocated autonomy as an educational aim since the 1960s. The core claims of London Line are provided in the first section. The second section discusses numerous criticisms, which had risen since the 1980s, including C. M. Stone's and S. E. Cuypers' criticisms to autonomy as educational aim. The third section expresses the perspectives of E. Callan, who integrated the spirit of communitarianism to the liberal concepts of autonomy, and put much more emphasis on interest-oriented curriculum than White did. Despite some criticisms, London Line scholars still defended autonomy as an aim of education, and this is discussed in the fourth section. Finally, the author concludes that rationality might be overvalued with regard to the role autonomy had played in London Line. Nevertheless, we can reconstruct the concept of autonomy as it encompasses emotion, volition, recognition, etc. In general, the idea of reconstructed autonomy should be the core educational aim embodied in Taiwanese democratic spirit nowadays.

並列關鍵字

civic education ； personal autonomy ； rational autonomy ； aims of education

參考文獻

White, J. (2003). Five critical stands towards liberal philosophy of education in Britain. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37(1), 147-184. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.3701010

但昭偉（2017）。社會倫理關懷。新北市：國立空中大學。[Dan, J.-W. (2017). Social philosophy and caring. New Taipei, Taiwan: National Open University.]

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）。高雄市：復文。[Lee, F.-J. (1997). The antinomy of freedom and reason: A study on moral autonomy and moral education. In C.-H. Chien (Ed.), Philosophy of education: Educational philosophy in the late 20th century (pp. 153-173). Kaohsiung, Taiwan: Fu Wen.]

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）。臺北市：正中書局。[Lin, F.-C. (1992). The creative thinker of philosophy of education, R. S. Peters. In K.-H. Liu (Ed.), The lighthouse for humanity: Contemporary thinkers on education (pp. 110-150). Taipei, Taiwan: Chen Chung Book.]

溫明麗（1997）。批判性思考教學—哲學之旅。臺北市：師大書苑。[Wen, S. M. L. (1997). Teaching of critical thinking: Journey of philosophy. Taipei, Taiwan: Lucky Bookstore.]