Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:29:57.947Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Education, Knowledge and Freedom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2018

Geoffrey Hinchliffe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the role of knowledge in education. It proposes that the arguments of Paul Hirst on liberal education can be updated using the idea of a ‘space of reasons’ drawn from the epistemology associated with John McDowell. It further argues that for education to flourish within the space of reasons the idea of ‘epistemic freedom’ needs to be both recognised and developed. Such freedom is particularly exemplified in the ability to form judgements. It is noted that education at all levels has been subjected to processes of ‘rationalisation’, processes identified by Max Weber over one hundred years ago: these processes severely restrict epistemic freedom. However, the paper argues that Alistair McIntyre's concept of a practice can be used to inform our thinking about subject disciplines. The pursuit of knowledge can therefore be seen in terms of practices which operate within the space of reasons. Moreover, we can see the idea of a practice as a counterweight to rationalisation

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy , Volume 93 , Issue 2 , April 2018 , pp. 211 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See: Young, Michael, Bringing Knowledge Back In: From Social Constructivism to Social Realism in the Sociology of Education (London: Routledge, 2008)Google Scholar. See also his ‘Why Educators Must Differentiate Knowledge from Experience’, Journal of the Pacific Circle Consortium for Education 2.1 (2010), 9–20Google Scholar.

2 Rata, Elizabeth, ‘Politics of Knowledge in Education’, British Educational Research Journal 38.1 (2012), 103–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 See McDowell, John, Mind and World (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

4 Hirst, Paul, ‘Liberal Education and the Nature of Knowledge’ in Peters, Richard (ed.), The Philosophy of Education, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 87–111Google Scholar.

5 The material in sections 2 and 3 are substantially drawn from the following publication, written by the author: Hinchliffe, Geoffrey, Liberty and Education (London, Routledge, 2015), 46–56Google Scholar.

6 Kant, Immanual, Critique of Pure Reason, tr. Norman Kemp Smith (London: Macmillan, 1929), 93: A51/B76Google Scholar.

7 Sellars, William, Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind in Freigl, H. and Scriven, M. (eds) Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol 1 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1956), 298–9Google Scholar.

8 Davidson, Donald, ‘A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowledge’ in Davidson, D., Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001), 137–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 McDowell, Mind and World, 11.

10 Op. cit. 28.

11 Op. cit. 26.

12 Op. cit. 87–88.

13 McDowell, John, ‘Experiencing the World’ in The Engaged Intellect (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2009), 249Google Scholar.

14 McDowell, Mind and World, 76–77.

15 Op. cit. 77–78.

16 Hirst, Liberal Education and the Nature of Knowledge, 90–95.

17 Originally, Hirst identified seven forms of knowledge were mathematics, the physical sciences, the human sciences, history, religion, literature and the fine arts, and philosophy and moral knowledge. In addition, there were interdisciplinary ‘fields’ of knowledge.

18 Hirst, op. cit. 97.

19 Op. cit. 98, emphasis added.

20 Op. cit. 98.

21 Op. cit. 97–98.

22 See, for example, the comments of White, John, ‘Why General Education? Peters, Hirst and History’, Journal of Philosophy of Education 43 (2009), Supplement 1, 138CrossRefGoogle Scholar where it is suggested that Hirst's view of the curriculum rested on a conception of the value of knowledge as ‘intrinsic’. See also Chapter 3, What is Education For? by Marples, Roger, in Bailey, R. (ed.), The Philosophy of Education (London: Continuum, 2010), 38Google Scholar in which the propositional character of Hirst's conception of knowledge is discussed.

23 Geach, P.T., Mental Acts (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1957)Google Scholar. For a summary of Geach see Kenny, A., Action, Emotion and Will (London: Routledge, 1963), 203–5Google Scholar.

24 See Austin, J.L., How To Do Things with Words (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962)Google Scholar.

25 See Grice, H.P., ‘Meaning’, Philosophical Review 66.3 (1957), 377–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 McDowell, John, Having the World in View: Essays on Kant, Hegel and Sellars (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2009), 5–6Google Scholar. See also Bakhurst, David, The Formation of Reason (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Kant, op. cit. 468: A539/B567.

28 Op. cit. 476: A554/B582.

29 Weber, Max, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1930), 181–2Google Scholar.

30 Habermas, Jurgen, The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol 1 (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), 168–171Google Scholar.

31 Biggs, J. & Tang, C., Teaching for Quality Learning at University (London: Open University Press, 2011), 97–99Google Scholar.

32 For a critique of the student engagement agenda, see McFarlane, Bruce, Freedom to Learn (London: SRHE, Routledge, 2016)Google Scholar.

33 Hirst, Paul ‘Philosophy of Education: Evolution of a Discipline’ in Hayden, Graham (ed.), 50 Years of Philosophy of Education: Progress and Prospects (London: Institute of Education, 1998), 19Google Scholar.

34 Hirst, op. cit. 18.

35 MacIntyre, Alistair, After Virtue (London: Duckworth, 1981), 175Google Scholar.

36 This is disputed – see Dunne, Joe, ‘Arguing for Teaching as a Practice: A Reply to Alisdair McIntyre’, Journal of Philosophy of Education 37.2 (2003), 353–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar.