PHILOSOPHIES AND THEORIES OF EDUCATION

Instructor: Dr. Mohalidin M. Suaeb

Reporter : Klitz B. Nadon

Nature and change

At the very source of this philosophical discussion concerning the philosophy of man and
education lies a fundamental difference in the concept of nature. Brubacher brings this out
towards the beginning of his interesting study of modern philosophy of education. He says, “One
of the principal sources (of difference) has been disagreement over the real nature of the world
for which education supposedly prepares our youth”. It is of prime importance, therefore, to
bring about the differences among philosophical approaches before determining the end of
education. Progressivism stressed so much the notion in change of nature, that the purpose of
education is continuously changed. The world is changing of man’s nature, his mind is
changing. Traditionalists although they admit the vast array of changes which have taken place
in the world since the dawn of reason, maintains steadfastly that the laws of nature are
unchanging.
No one in his right mind could possibly deny the progress made. Many, however have
inquired to the kind of progress made, to what caused this progress is due, whether it is cultural,
social, ethical, natural or merely scientific; whether it is progress intrinsic to nature itself or
merely pertaining to a greater knowledge and control over nature. Such questions must be ask
in order to ascertain what kind of change and progress has really been made.
Characteristics of progressive thought is the uncritical, triumphant, attitude its
proponents take in assuming a total victory of the empirical sciences and the outer liquidation of
metaphysics. Nature for them is changed. There is no such thing as a stable, permanent
nature. More specifically, this line of thought builds on the enormous advances of the natural
and social sciences. Thus, truth is virtually sequestered.
At this juncture, however, Kilpatrick jumps from facts to theory, form observable changes
in things to what change in their very nature. Notice the departure from factual certitude of
hypothetical conjecture as he asks himself, “What about the uniformities of nature? He
answers.“if we look closely enough at the spectacle of modern rapid changed, we see that in
our kind of world we face continual novelty.
Thus, he denies the existence of any uniformity in nature. To illustrate by example he
cites the concrete case of Galileo. Galileo was silenced by theologians who had a fear of the
empirical sciences. When Galileo proved his theory by letting two balls fall from the leaning
tower of Pisa, he proved that theologians wrong. Kilpatrick supposes that this event evidences
the fact in nature, when all it does is show an advance in our knowledge of nature.
When we speak of the laws of nature we did not refer to the discovery but rather to the
laws themselves. Would not the two balls have fallen exactly together if Archimedes had
performed the experiment? Such is an unchanging physical law of nature. Certainly, each time
the action repeated a new event evolved. One is reminded of the overflowing river of Heraclitus.
The fact that the water is never the same believed the fact the water flows downhill today just as
it did in the time of Heraclitus.
Changed there has been in bountiful amount. Transoceanic jets have replaced the
wind-driven schooners of a century ago. New theories have replaced the old concerning the
physical make up of the universe. But all these do not seem to point to intrinsic changed in
nature. Whitehead makes a pertinent distinction between the advances of science and the mind
of men.
However, far we go back in recorded history, we are within the period of the high grade
functioning of mankind, far removed from mere animal’s savagery. Also within that period it
would be difficult that man had improved upon its inborn mental capacity. Yet, there can be no
doubt that there has been an immense expansion of the outfit which environment provides for
the service of the thought…modes of communication, physical and mental, writing preservation
of documents…If this distinction between the unchanging mind of men and the growing body of
knowledge which man stores up be true, it would seem to exploit the underlying supposition of
progressivism, namely, that the essence of nature is changed.
Doctor James J. Walsh, contests the very foundation of progressivism by expressing
sound doubt whether their claim to such originality and novelty is well founded. He cites Mr.
Flenders Petrie an anthropologist of world renown, who had just finished his studies of the
earliest known document of education, a saying: “ We have now before us a view of powers of
men at the earliest point to which we can trace written history, and what strikes us most is how
very little his nature or abilities have changed in 7000 years; what we admired; what were his
limits in fine handy work are also ours. We may have a wider outlook, a greater understanding
of things, our interest may have extended in this interval; but as far as human nature and tastes
go, man is essentially unchanged in this interval.
“If so little has taken place in human nature within the last 7000 years, how much less takes
place from year to year! “Says Walsh with incisive irony and not a little wisdom; after all he said,
no one with any pretense knowledge of the past would claim for a moment that we were doing
better work in anything than man have done at any times in the history of our culture. Our idea
of progress just one of the vague bits of self-sufficiently that each generation has had in its own
time and that has made it feel that somehow what it is accomplishing means much of this world
history.
There may be some elements of exaggeration in the above citation, but the element of
truth mixed up for its defect, namely, that until our generation no other trait so well characterized
modern mentality than the beliefs in mans self sufficiency. Men substituted himself for God. God
has been killed by Nietzsche; he would no longer be a burden upon the conscience of men; he
has been proven an invention of the mind to make up for men’s helplessness.
But this did not last long. Soon our age has become known as “The Age of Anxiety”.
Having rejected God and reason, modern man found himself being thrust into the bottomless pit
of Nehelism. The question which philosophers has put aside as illegitimate and answerable,
namely that of men’s existence begun to bother man incessantly, to follow him to work, and
even to pester him, in the deepest subconscious of his dream. This is the cause of widespread
anxiety which has gripped our time so mercilessly.
After decades of debates, psychologists and psychiatrists are at last substantially agreed
that anxiety arises from feeling of helplessness. These feelings of helplessness are a
phenomenon to our modern age and must find their explanation in our times. The author of “The
Anatomy of Angst” points the fact of accelerated changed as the ultimate cause.
No sooner had Americans learned that they must not be rugged individualist but must
practice “adjustments” then they were told that they were turning into conformist. No sooner had
they learned that children must be raised progressively and permissibly that they were told that
children desperately want discipline…
This points to what may be the ultimate cause in the US pragmatism. It not only
legitimately questions every truth, but it also questions whether the concept of truth itself has
any meaning. When mixed with logical positivism, it leads to the notion that philosophy, the
search for truth beyond mere language or mathematical symbols, is impossible. Few things
could produce more anxiety in people who either believe in, or want to believe in moral order.
This long text expresses explicitly what I believe to be the root cause of education today. Such
thought, if left to design our educational objectives, cannot but lend us farther into the confusion.
Pragmatism, having shown itself to be truly un-pragmatic in its consequences must be rejected
unless we choose to wallow in our suffering state.

Science and Philosophy

To sign and seal this whole business about nature being permanent or not, we shall add
this last note. The problem is not new; it is an old as history. Socrates argued the point with
Pythagoras a long time ago. Kant, the philosopher of modern science challenged St. Thomas
Aquinas by opposing (nomos). And now many theorists of modern science are beginning to hold
that “that laws of physicist holds a law to be true as long as it suits his purposes of prediction.
Then he will discard it.
This was called the Procrustean theory of modern physics by Eddington, referring to the
legendary bed of Procrustes who used to cut his travelers to fit into his bed. Modern physics
applies the Procrustean method to facts by cutting them down to fit the theory. Many examples
could be given to verify this new concept of science, but this is not its place. The conclusion,
however, is important. These sciences are far more relative, and they are certainly much less
ontological. Gavin makes an assertion which I esteemed and is of extreme importance and quiet
applicable to the progressivists in education.
When it is generally realized that modern physics is not really telling about anything of the world
about us, in other words that the ontological status of the world of physics is very low, then we
might expect that physics will be allotted to its proper place as an auxiliary to life and a
fascinating experience…
Now that we see physics in a different life, perhaps the philosophic craze to physicist will
die out, and philosophy can resume its proper role of comprehending the real world in so far as
that is possible to us… metaphysics should thus comeback into its own again, one physics has
been relegated to its proper place.
What is said here of modern physics can be said well of modern sociology, experimental
psychology, and the educational theory predicated upon them. They must learn to give way to
philosophy, when the question concerns the ontological nature of them. When questions
concerning the free will of men, whether there is moral responsibility, whether the religion is the
result of guilt complex and so forth, are put forward, they should realized that any answers they
may feel in the position to give not attain the real order of nature (physics) but will pertain to the
categorian order (nomos).
If these men, preoccupied with the empirical sciences, would learn not to exceed the
legitimate boundaries of their respective sciences, there would be reasonably less conflict
between science and philosophy, between the phenomenal and the nominal orders.
Metaphysics is and will continue to be the queen of the sciences. If we desire unity in
knowledge we must respect the due place of metaphysics in the order of knowledge.

Socialism in Philosophy of Education

Socialism as Philosophy of Life

Socialism, as a philosophy of life, has invariably affected contemporary education. It is

direct offshoot of naturalism. It looks man as a wondrous product of nature, but modifies and
interprets this naturalistic viewpoint to fit the particular requirements of social life. In essence,
socialism arose as direct reaction to the selfishness and disorder by the extreme individualism
of Rousseau and others who held that individual creates society through contract and therefore,
is totally over and above society.
Socialism stresses that society and group life take precedence over the individual.
Society, as exemplified by the group, is considered the only reality. The individual is just a
product of the group. Being so, he is subservient to its needs, purposes, and desires.
Socialism and naturalism are integrally related since both venture to solve the problems of life
through science; the former, by social science, the latter, by natural science. Both do not have a
correct interpretation of man’s true nature in that naturalism emphasizes the human animal,
whereas socialism stresses the social animal. Religion and the spiritual aspects of man’s
existence are but the product of social convention and exist only to serve the interest of the
group. Ethics is established in terms of its pragmatic value and is rooted on the conditions,
exigencies, and demands of social life.
Socialism is an outgrowth of naturalism since the underlying tenets of both are based on
the naturalistic philosophy of life. Nonetheless, since socialism makes society the center of life,
views the problems of life as the problems of society, and attempts to remove the anti-thesis
between the individual and the society, the treatment needs more careful perusal.

Individualism vs Socialism

The history of education is replete with proofs of the constant flux between the teachings
of extreme individualism and extreme socialism. Individualism stresses complete freedom in the
pursuit of his own welfare whereas; socialism stresses the welfare of society over and above the
individual.
Since man is treated as the creator of society, upon his welfare depends the welfare of
society. Therefore, for the sake of future social progress, individual liberty and personal
autonomy must be unhindered and absolute.
But it was recognized, little by little, that this free autonomous individual would need some
direction. A means had to be sought whereby expression might be given to individual rights.
This felt need is largely viewed to be viewed as the cause for the development of socialism as a
self discipline for the common good of the society where they live.
Morality cannot be interpreted as identical with sociality, and, as such, a product of
society. The social problem is inherently a moral problem. Hence, its solution must be sought in
the field of ethics. Ethics reveals that man is a moral being who has both a social and individual
side to his nature. If society is to gain from human conduct, education must, of necessity,
develop the individual personality for himself, and not for society alone.
In the socialistic theory of education “work” or “activity” is the main instrumentality employed. In
this theory, activity is the bottom line and must lead to further activity. Learning becomes largely
a matter of doing, with “experience” considered the only means of acquiring knowledge. Ideas
are neither nor false but become such only in so far as they guarantee the success or failure of
human action through experience. All problems of nature and life as well as social relations are
to be solved by a procedure of trial and accidental success. Everything must be tested and
approved by experience. Otherwise, they do not being true. There is no place for any spiritual
guidance because social and moral values are conceived as mere products of social experience
and with no absolute sanction. The school in viewed as an “embryonic community” it is a
miniature society.
What else does socialism say? In contradistinction with the traditional view that the
school should prepare the individual for life, temporal and eternal, the socialistic philosophy of
education maintains that the school is life itself, an active school, a living school, “a community
of workers”. The school must reproduce the actual problems of social life so that the student
may face and solve them in a manner characteristic or real life. Thus, the school must take up
the task of setting a miniature community, which reflects the needs of life. The principal factor in
social life is held to be work, manual labor, or industry.
The socialistic movement in education attributes the confusion in modern society to the
traditional school organization which, socialism asserts, centers its attention largely around the
undue development of the individual, and thus fails to give adequate attention to the social
aspects of human life. The individual’s “social instinct” is given due recognition.
But true socialization must come from within, and is always an outward manifestation of one’s
inner nature, that is, the operation of his intellect and rational will.
The followers of socialism realized that despite his freedom and autonomy, man was in
need of some definite direction. A process has to be spelled out which could hasten the
expression of individual human rights. This felt need is the reason for the evolution of socialism
as a philosophy of life. Socialization, its adherents, claim, offered the only satisfactory solution.
Socialism stresses adjustment, a modification of the environment through cooperation and
concerned group action. Man is held to be through cooperation and concerned group action.
Man is held to be only a social being. His conduct must be modified to conform to the needs of
the group. It has to be stated, of course, that in the actual educational theory and practice, one
will not find the tracers of either individualism or socialism in their extreme form.
A brief summarization of the socialistic philosophy of life is contained in the statement:
“Man is not a social being because he is man; rather, he is man because he is a social
being.”33 Socialism fosters the belief that everything that is essentially human in man is in some
manner the result of, and dependent upon, group social life. The old dictum that “man is by
nature a social animal” sums up socialistic philosophy.

Education and Socialism

There are five effects of the philosophy of socialism on education. They are: (1) a false
interpretation of human nature; (2) a false theory of education; (3) a false methodology, (4) false
notions of discipline and (5) false aims. They are now elaborated.

(1) A false interpretation of human nature. Just as naturalism misinterpreted man’s true
nature by subjecting him totally to nature, likewise socialism misinterprets the essential
nature of man by subordinating him entirely to society. As such, socialism is a regression
to pagan naturalism that recognizes no end of man higher than the state. Socialism
excludes the concept of the individual as an autonomous and free personality and
regards man as man only insofar as he contributes to the welfare of the community.
Socialism interprets man’s nature solely in terms of the physical and the economic,
ignoring man’s relation to the Absolute.
(2) A false theory of education. The social theory of education is based on the false
philosophy of socialism. The theory asserts that conduct is wrong when it produces a
social good and wrong when it produces a social evil.
Thus, an act outside of social consequences do not follow conduct, nevertheless, a
knowledge of possible or probable consequences is, of itself, insufficient to prevent man
from engaging in unsocial conduct, or stimulate man to self-sacrifice and self-discipline
for the common welfare of society. After all the welfare of the people is the supreme law.
(3) A false methodology. Socialism, as a school of philosophy of education, holds that the
child is to l” learn by doing”, by his own direct experience. This, “doing” means child
activity something real and true to life is created. Such activity must be coupled with
constant guidance to life is created. Such activity must be coupled with constant
guidance by which to insure the maximum degree of individual and social good. The
child must be constantly encouraged to acquire knowledge on his own initiative,
especially when the “felt need” for such knowledge has its origin in certain approved
social outcomes. Furthermore, the child is to face “problem situations”, perform his own
experiences, and come upon solutions of his own.
The socialistic philosophy of education, as applied to methods, fails to give proper
recognition to the place and importance of formal instruction and authority in the
education of the child. Such philosophy condemns all indoctrination or direct effort to
inculcate in the individual the ultimate end for which he was created.
Moreover, socialism ignores the fact that there can be no true education apart from the
development of man’s intellect and the strengthening of his will. It fails to perceive that
behind all purposeful activity lie the spiritual intellect and the will.
(4) False notion of discipline. Socialistic philosophy of education denies the freedom of
the will. This is so because it teaches that the individual will is determined by society and
is but an extension of the will of the group. Conformity of the individual will to the group’s
will is obtained through the discipline of social approval or social ostracism. The
individual must fashion his behavior or conduct after the social pattern set forth with the
group in order to avoid social conflict. It holds that “good” and “evil” have their origin in
society but it substitutes for good and evil the term “social” and “antisocial”.
There can be no special education that is not based on the obligation of conformity to
the moral law. When self-discipline and obedience constituted authority are not present,
social education simply degenerates into social experience without any goal of its own.
(5) False aims. Socialism asserts that the ultimate aim of education is to achieve the
maximum degree of self-realization by the individual through proper participation in the
institutional activities of the society. The ultimate objective, then, is to prepare the
educand to take part in the affairs of the society. Since society established schools to
promote its own interest to which all other interest are subservient, then, the school has
only a social aim.
It can be said that socialism, as a philosophy, has its own merits as well as
shortcomings. Despite its weakness, it teaches some altruistic views in that the common
welfare is the supreme law. As the Latin would say: “Salus populi est suprema lex.” In
the Philippine context, we speak of “Bayan muna bago ang sarili”.