敎育人間學의 問題와 方法

서지정보

ㆍ발행기관 : 한국교육학회 ㆍ수록지정보 : 교육학연구 / 8권 / 1호
ㆍ저자명 : 吳麟鐸

목차

一. 序言
二. 問題
三. 方法論
四. 結論
RESUME

영어 초록

Purpose:
“What man is” is the most important and' elusive question of education, Knowledge about man abounds today. Sciences continue to reach into their respective aspects of man’s nature and conduct. Paradoxical as it may seem, man is less known to himself today than at any other times in history
The educational anthropology analyzes and understands man’s nature of educational aspects. It discovers the anthropological significances in the products of behavioral sciences. It also seeks what man is in the phenomena of man’s life (die Erscheinungen des menschlichen Lebens).
This study sought to find the problem and methodology of the educational anthropology in order to ascertain man in the education as its object and to open at the same time the horizon for the real independent educational Sciences(Erziehungswissenschaft).
Problem:
Education expresses man s whole life history. Education and life not only stand on the same foundation but also restrict each other. Education is the original phenomenon of life(das Urphänomen des Lebens). Homo erectus homo sapiens, homo faber, and homo sociologicus bear witness to it. This phenomena which have been existed in even before the Pädagogik are might called the prehistory of the educational anthropology.
The philosophy of life, the existential philosophy, and the philosophical anthropology give some basic ground on which the educationa anthropology can stand. By their very nature they reject the schemata necessary for a traditional philosophic system and to seek to under stand the man from the man itself.
The products of sciences, such as biology, psychology, medicine, sociology, and anthropology are the proper channels by which man’s nature could be known. They serve as the auxiliary sciences(Hilfswissenschaft) of the educational anthropology.
Education depends upon the basic sciences as philosophy, psychology, and sociology for its image of man, task, contents, way, and even means of education; the prejudices of the political and religious ideologies restrict the educational autonomy. The educational anthropology intends to integrate them and to open its proper channel to man in education. For instance, Noh Busemann, Keilhacker, and Langeveld hold the startpoints described above.
Methodology:
Popper insists the hypothetical-deductive method as the unity of method in natural and social sciences. To the contrary, Dilthey Proposes the hermeneutical method as the appropriate instrument to understand the humane sciences(Geistes-wissenschaft). Bollnow explains, if these two methods, not in contravention each other, serve intersupplementally(Zirkelhaftigkeit), then education can preserve the scientific autonomy.
There are three representative books which lay emphasis on the methodological principles of the educational anthropology. They are Flitner’s “Wege zur Pädagogischen Anthropologie” (1963), Loch’s “Die anthropologische Dimension del Pädagogik”(1963), and Bollnow’s “Die anthropologische Betrachtungsweise in der Pädagogik.” (1965) The typical principles common in these three books are the principle of the anthropological eduction, the organon-principle, the principle of the Offene Frage, and the anthropological hermeneutic principle of the specific phenomena.
Conclusion:
Educational anthropology will analyze the basic educational concepts and the educational problems of the Korean education through their special anthropological presuppositions. It will make clear the limit of application and abolition of them.
Man’s experiences are changed according to the time and space. Educational anthropology will grasp and interpret man’s everchanging experiences and discover some new educational implications of these experiences. It will, on the one hand, keep to treat man as an existence of unfathomableness (Unergründlichkeit) and indetermination (Unbestimmtheit). On the other hand, it will continue to elucidate and to define the men so that it may preserve the proper field for the autonomy of education as science.

참고 자료

없음