怀特海 重要性感受（成长教育作者Aims of Education怀海特尼采)

【1872年，尼采对德国教育的批判，仿佛是今日现状的预言 】https://m.toutiao.com/is/JG5EUH3/

The Aims of Education《教育的目的》是英国数学家、哲学家、教育家怀特海（Alfred North Whitehead，1861-1947）的教育演讲论文集，

收录了《教育的目的》《教育的节奏》《自由与纪律的节奏》《技术教育及其与科学和文学的关系》《古典文化在教育中的地位》《大学及其作用》6篇文章，以及怀特海 80岁时写于哈佛大学的1篇生平自述。这本正文不足150页的小册子初版于1929年，集中阐发了作者深刻而富有创见的教育思想，在欧美教育界影响深远。今天读来，对于我们认识和开展通识教育（general education）、博雅教育（liberal education）以及“素质教育”仍有很大的指导价值。本书的主要侧重点在于智力的教育，这个重点也贯穿于全书所有的章节中。除生平自述外，书中的文章均发表于1916年至1928年，即“一战”刚刚结束，经济大萧条尚未来临的“爵士乐时代”。当时的英美两国逐渐从战后恢复活力，经济发展，文化繁荣，人心乐观。用当时的“桂冠诗人”和“编年史家”菲茨杰拉德的话来说，“这是一个奇迹的时代，一个艺术的时代，一个挥金如土的时代，也是一个充满嘲讽的时代”。社会的转型对人才的培养提出了新的要求，而当时的教育体制僵化陈腐，严重束缚了学生创造力的发展。在第一篇演讲《教育的目的》中，怀特海痛陈英国中等教育的弊病：“在那些应该柔韧而富有弹性的地方僵化刻板，而在那些应该严格精确的地方却松散不严密。所有的学校都受到束缚，它们不得不训练学生去应付小范围的限制性的考试，否则学校便无法生存。没有一个校长能够按照学校面临的机遇，自由地发展普通教育或专业学习，这些机遇是由该校的教职人员、学校环境、它的学生以及它得到的捐款所创造的。”怀特海认为教育事关个人和国族的命运，“当命运之神对未受良好教育的人作出判决时，将不会有人为他们提出上诉”，而一个不重视教育的民族也注定会被淘汰。教育改革的首要条件就是学校要有课程自主权：“学校作为一个独立的单位，应有经过批准的课程，而这些课程是由本校教师根据学校自身的需要而设计制定的。”第一篇演讲是全书的总纲，是怀特海教育思想的本体论，为后来的五篇演讲奠定了基础。怀特海开宗明义地指出，“我们要造就的是既有文化又掌握专门知识的人才。专业知识为他们奠定起步的基础，而文化则像哲学和艺术一样将他们引向深奥高远之境。”文化素养与专业知识两者相辅相成，交汇于对现在生活的理解，这就是教育唯一的主题。也就是说，教育的目的就是促进对现在生活的理解。

CHAPTER I

Culture is activity of thought, and receptiveness to beauty and humane feeling. Scraps of information have nothing to do with it. A merely well-informed man is the most useless bore on Gods earth. What we should aim at producing is men who possess both culture and expert knowledge in some special direction. Their expert knowledge will give them the ground to start from, and their culture will lead them as deep as philosophy and as high as art. We have to remember that the valuable intellectual development is self development, and that it mostly takes place between the ages of sixteen and thirty. As to training, the most important part is given by mothers before the age of twelve. A saying due to Archbishop Temple illustrates my meaning. Surprise was expressed at the success in after life of a man, who as a boy at Rugby had been somewhat undistinguished. He answered, "It is not what they are at eighteen, it is what they become afterwards that matters."

In training a child to activity of thought, above all things we must beware of what I will call "inert ideas" -- that is to say, ideas that are merely received into the mind without being utilised, or tested, or thrown into fresh combinations.

In the history of education, the most striking phenomenon is that schools of learning, which at one epoch are alive with a ferment of genius, in a succeeding generation exhibit merely pedantry and routine. The reason is, that they are overladen with inert ideas. Education with inert ideas is not only useless: it is, above all things, harmful -- Corruptio optimi, pessima. Except at rare intervals of intellectual ferment, education in the past has been radically infected with inert ideas. That is the reason why uneducated clever women, who have seen much of the world, are in middle life so much the most cultured part of the community. They have been saved from this horrible burden of inert ideas. Every intellectual revolution which has ever stirred humanity into greatness has been a passionate protest against inert ideas. Then, alas, with pathetic ignorance of human psychology, it has proceeded by some educational scheme to bind humanity afresh with inert ideas of its own fashioning.

Let us now ask how in our system of education we are to guard against this mental dryrot. We enunciate two educational commandments, "Do not teach too many subjects," and again, "What you teach, teach thoroughly."

The result of teaching small parts of a large number of subjects is the passive reception of disconnected ideas, not illumined with any spark of vitality. Let the main ideas which are introduced into a childs education be few and important, and let them be thrown into every combination possible. The child should make them his own, and should understand their application here and now in the circumstances of his actual life. From the very beginning of his education, the child should experience the joy of discovery. The discovery which he has to make, is that general ideas give an understanding of that stream of events which pours through his life, which is his life. By understanding I mean more than a mere logical analysis, though that is included. I mean "understanding in the sense in which it is used in the French proverb, "To understand all, is to forgive all." Pedants sneer at an education which is useful. But if education is not useful, what is it? Is it a talent, to be hidden away in a napkin? Of course, education should be useful, whatever your aim in life. It was useful to Saint Augustine and it was useful to Napoleon. It is useful, because understanding is useful.

I pass lightly over that understanding which should be given by the literary side of

education. Nor do I wish to be supposed to pronounce on the relative merits of a classical or

a modern curriculum. I would only remark that the understanding which we want is an

understanding of an insistent present. The only use of a knowledge of the past is to equip us

for the present. No more deadly harm can be done to young minds than by depreciation of

the present. The present contains all that there is. It is holy ground; for it is the past, and it

is the future. At the same time it must be observed that an age is no less past if it existed

two hundred years ago than if it existed two thousand years ago. Do not be deceived by the

pedantry of dates. The ages of Shakespeare and of Moliere are no less past than are the

ages of Sophocles and of Virgil. The communion of saints is a great and inspiring

assemblage, but it has only one possible hall of meeting, and that is, the present, and the

mere lapse of time through which any particular group of saints must travel to reach that

meeting-place, makes very little difference.

Passing now to the scientific and logical side of education, we remember that here also

ideas which are not utilised are positively harmful. By utilising an idea, I mean relating it

to that stream, compounded of sense perceptions, feelings, hopes, desires, and of mental

activities adjusting thought to thought, which forms our life. I can imagine a set of beings

which might fortify their souls by passively reviewing disconnected ideas. Humanity is not

built that way except perhaps some editors of newspapers.

In scientific training, the first thing to do with an idea is to prove it. But allow me for one

moment to extend the meaning of "prove"; I mean -- to prove its worth. Now an idea is not

worth much unless the propositions in which it is embodied are true. Accordingly an

essential part of the proof of an idea is the proof, either by experiment or by logic, of the

truth of the propositions. But it is not essential that this proof of the truth should constitute

the first introduction to the idea. After all, its assertion by the authority of respectable

teachers is sufficient evidence to begin with. In our first contact with a set of propositions,

we commence by appreciating their importance. That is what we all do in after-life. We do

not attempt, in the strict sense, to prove or to disprove anything, unless its importance

makes it worthy of that honour. These two processes of proof, in the narrow sense, and of

appreciation, do not require a rigid separation in time. Both can be proceeded with nearly

concurrently. But in so far as either process must have the priority, it should be that of

appreciation by use.

Furthermore, we should not endeavour to use propositions in isolation. Emphatically I do

not mean, a neat little set of experiments to illustrate Proposition I and then the proof of

Proposition I, a neat little set of experiments to illustrate Proposition II and then the proof

of Proposition II, and so on to the end of the book. Nothing could be more boring.

Interrelated truths are utilised en bloc, and the various propositions are employed in any

order, and with any reiteration. Choose some important applications of your theoretical

subject; and study them concurrently with the systematic theoretical exposition. Keep the

theoretical exposition short and simple, but let it be strict and rigid so far as it goes. It

should not be too long for it to be easily known with thoroughness and accuracy. The

consequences of a plethora of half-digested theoretical knowledge are deplorable. Also the

theory should not be muddled up with the practice. The child should have no doubt when it

is proving and when it is utilising. My point is that what is proved should be utilised, and

that what is utilised should -- so far, as is practicable -- be proved. I am far from asserting

that proof and utilisation are the same thing.

At this point of my discourse, I can most directly carry forward my argument in the

outward form of a digression. We are only just realising that the art and science of

education require a genius and a study of their own; and that this genius and this science

are more than a bare knowledge of some branch of science or of literature. This truth was

partially perceived in the past generation; and headmasters, somewhat crudely, were apt to

supersede learning in their colleagues by requiring left-hand bowling and a taste for

football. But culture is more than cricket, and more than football, and more than extent of

knowledge.

Education is the acquisition of the art of the utilisation of knowledge. This is an art very

difficult to impart. Whenever a textbook is written of real educational worth, you may be

quite certain that some reviewer will say that it will be difficult to teach from it. Of course

it will be difficult to teach from it. If it were easy, the book ought to be burned; for it

cannot be educational. In education, as elsewhere, the broad primrose path leads to a nasty

place. This evil path is represented by a book or a set of lectures which will practically

enable the student to learn by heart all the questions likely to be asked at the next external

examination. And I may say in passing that no educational system is possible unless every

question directly asked of a pupil at any examination is either framed or modified by the

actual teacher of that pupil in that subject. The external assessor may report on the

curriculum or on the performance of the pupils, but never should be allowed to ask the

pupil a question which has not been strictly supervised by the actual teacher, or at least

inspired by a long conference with him. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but they are

exceptions, and could easily be allowed for under the general rule.

We now return to my previous point, that theoretical ideas should always find important

applications within the pupils curriculum. This is not an easy doctrine to apply, but a very

hard one. It contains within itself the problem of keeping knowledge alive, of preventing it

from becoming inert, which is the central problem of all education.

The best procedure will depend on several factors, none of which can be neglected, namely,

the genius of the teacher, the intellectual type of the pupils, their prospects in life, the

opportunities offered by the immediate surroundings of the school and allied factors of this

sort. It is for this reason that the uniform external examination is so deadly. We do not

denounce it because we are cranks, and like denouncing established things. We are not so

childish. Also, of course, such examinations have their use in testing slackness. Our reason

of dislike is very definite and very practical. It kills the best part of culture. When you

analyse in the light of experience the central task of education, you find that its successful

accomplishment depends on a delicate adjustment of many variable factors. The reason is

that we are dealing with human minds, and not with dead matter. The evocation of

curiosity, of judgment, of the power of mastering a complicated tangle of circumstances,

the use of theory in giving foresight in special cases all these powers are not to be imparted

by a set rule embodied in one schedule of examination subjects.

I appeal to you, as practical teachers. With good discipline, it is always possible to pump

into the minds of a class a certain quantity of inert knowledge. You take a text-book and

make them learn it. So far, so good. The child then knows how to solve a quadratic

equation. But what is the point of teaching a child to solve a quadratic equation? There is a

traditional answer to this question. It runs thus: The mind is an instrument, you first

sharpen it, and then use it; the acquisition of the power of solving a quadratic equation is

part of the process of sharpening the mind. Now there is just enough truth in this answer to

have made it live through the ages. But for all its half-truth, it embodies a radical error

which bids fair to stifle the genius of the modern world. I do not know who was first

responsible for this analogy of the mind to a dead instrument. For aught I know, it may

have been one of the seven wise men of Greece, or a committee of the whole lot of them.

Whoever was the originator, there can be no doubt of the authority which it has acquired

by the continuous approval bestowed upon it by eminent persons. But whatever its weight

of authority, whatever the high approval which it can quote, I have no hesitation in

denouncing it as one of the most fatal, erroneous, and dangerous conceptions ever

introduced into the theory of education. The mind is never passive; it is a perpetual

activity, delicate, receptive, responsive to stimulus. You cannot postpone its life until you

have sharpened it. Whatever interest attaches to your subject-matter must be evoked here

and now; whatever powers you are strengthening in the pupil, must be exercised here and

now; whatever possibilities of mental life your teaching should impart, must be exhibited

here and now. That is the golden rule of education, and a very difficult rule to follow.

The difficulty is just this: the apprehension of general ideas, intellectual habits of mind,

and pleasurable interest in mental achievement can be evoked by no form of words,

however accurately adjusted. All practical teachers know that education is a patient

process of the mastery of details, minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day. There is no

royal road to learning through an airy path of brilliant generalisations. There is a proverb

about the difficulty of seeing the wood because of the trees. That difficulty is exactly the

point which I am enforcing. The problem of education is to make the pupil see the wood by

means of the trees.

The solution which I am urging, is to eradicate the fatal disconnection of subjects which

kills the vitality of our modern curriculum. There is only one subject-matter for education,

and that is Life in all its manifestations. Instead of this single unity, we offer children --

Algebra, from which nothing follows; Geometry, from which nothing follows; Science,

from which nothing follows; History, from which nothing follows; a Couple of Languages,

never mastered; and lastly, most dreary of all, Literature, represented by plays of

Shakespeare, with philological notes and short analyses of plot and character to be in

substance committed to memory. Can such a list be said to represent Life, as it is known in

the midst of the living of it? The best that can be said of it is, that it is a rapid table of

contents which a deity might run over in his mind while he was thinking of creating a

world, and has not yet determined how to put it together.

Let us now return to quadratic equations. We still have on hand the unanswered question.

Why should children be taught their solution? Unless quadratic equations fit into a

connected curriculum, of course there is no reason to teach anything about them.

Furthermore, extensive as should be the place of mathematics in a complete culture, I am a

little doubtful whether for many types of boys algebraic solutions of quadratic equations do

not lie on the specialist side of mathematics. I may here remind you that as yet I have not

said anything of the psychology or the content of the specialism, which is so necessary a

part of an ideal education. But all that is an evasion of our real question, and I merely state

it in order to avoid being misunderstood in my answer.

Quadratic equations are part of algebra, and algebra is the intellectual instrument which

has been created for rendering clear the quantitative aspects of the world. There is no

getting out of it. Through and through the world is infected with quantity. To talk sense, is

to talk in quantities. It is no use saying that the nation is large, -- How large? It is no use

saying that radium is scarce, -- How scarce? You cannot evade quantity. You may fly to

poetry and to music, and quantity and number will face you in your rhythms and your

octaves. Elegant intellects which despise the theory of quantity, are but half developed.

They are more to be pitied than blamed, The scraps of gibberish, which in their schooldays

were taught to them in the name of algebra, deserve some contempt. This question of

the degeneration of algebra into gibberish, both in word and in fact, affords a pathetic

instance of the uselessness of reforming educational schedules without a clear conception of

the attributes which you wish to evoke in the living minds of the children. A few years ago

there was an outcry that school algebra, was in need of reform, but there was a general

agreement that graphs would put everything right. So all sorts of things were extruded, and

graphs were introduced. So far as I can see, with no sort of idea behind them, but just

graphs. Now every examination paper has one or two questions on graphs. Personally I am

an enthusiastic adherent of graphs. But I wonder whether as yet we have gained very

much. You cannot put life into any schedule of general education unless you succeed in exhibiting its relation to some essential characteristic of all intelligent or emotional

perception. lt is a hard saying, but it is true; and I do not see how to make it any easier. In making these little formal alterations you are beaten by the very nature of things. You are pitted against too skilful an adversary, who will see to it that the pea is always under the other thimble.

Reformation must begin at the other end. First, you must make up your mind as to those quantitative aspects of the world which are simple enough to be introduced into general education; then a schedule of algebra should be framed which will about find its exemplification in these applications. We need not fear for our pet graphs, they will bethere in plenty when we once begin to treat algebra as a serious means of studying the world. Some of the simplest applications will be found in the quantities which occur in the simplest study of society. The curves of history are more vivid and more informing than the dry catalogues of names and dates which comprise the greater part of that arid school study. What purpose is effected by a catalogue of undistinguished kings and queens? Tom,Dick, or Harry, they are all dead. General resurrections are failures, and are better

postponed. The quantitative flux of the forces of modern society is capable of very simple

exhihition. Meanwhile, the idea of the variable, of the function, of rate of change, of

equations and their solution, of elimination, are being studied as an abstract science for

their own sake. Not, of course, in the pompous phrases with which I am alluding to them

here, but with that iteration of simple special cases proper to teaching.

If this course be followed. the route from Chaucer to the Black Death, from the Black

Death to modern Labour troubles, will connect the tales of the mediaeval pilgrims with the

abstract science of algebra, both yielding diverse aspects of that single theme, Life. I know

what most of you are thinking at this point. It is that the exact course which I have

sketched out is not the particular one which you would have chosen, or even see how to

work. I quite agree. I am not claiming that I could do it myself. But your objection is the

precise reason why a common external examination system is fatal to education. The

process of exhibiting the applications of knowledge must, for its success, essentially depend

on the character of the pupils and the genius of the teacher. Of course I have left out the

easiest applications with which most of us are more at home. I mean the quantitative sides

of sciences, such as mechanics and physics.

Again, in the same connection we plot the statistics of social phenomena against the time.

We then eliminate the time between suitable pairs. We can speculate how far we have

exhibited a real causal connection, or how far a mere temporal coincidence. We notice that

we might have plotted against the time one set of statistics for one country and another set

for another country, and thus, with suitable choice of subjects, have obtained graphs which

certainly exhibited mere coincidence. Also other graphs exhibit obvious causal connections.

We wonder how to discriminate. And so are drawn on as far as we will.

But in considering this description, I must beg you to remember what I have been insisting

on above. In the first place, one train of thought will not suit all groups of children. For

example, I should expect that artisan children will want something more concrete and, in a

sense, swifter than I have set down here. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is what I should

guess. In the second place, I am not contemplating one beautiful lecture stimulating, once

and for all, an admiring class. That is not the way in which education proceeds. No; all the

time the pupils are hard at work solving examples drawing graphs, and making

experiments, until they have a thorough hold on the whole subject. I am describing the

interspersed explanations, the directions which should be given to their thoughts. The

pupils have got to be made to feel that they are studying something, and are not merely

executing intellectual minuets.

Finally, if you are teaching pupils for some general examination, the problem of sound

teaching is greatly complicated. Have you ever noticed the zig-zag moulding round a

Norman arch? The ancient work is beautiful, the modern work is hideous. The reason is,

that the modern work is done to exact measure, the ancient work is varied according to the

idiosyncrasy of the workman. Here it is crowded, and there it is expanded. Now the essence

of getting pupils through examinations is to give equal weight to all parts of the schedule.

But mankind is naturally specialist. One man sees a whole subject, where another can find

only a few detached examples. I know that it seems contradictory to allow for specialism in

a curriculum especially designed for a broad culture. Without contradictions the world

would be simpler, and perhaps duller. But I am certain that in education wherever you

exclude specialism you destroy life.

We now come to the other great branch of a general mathematical education, namely

Geometry. The same principles apply. The theoretical part should be clear-cut, rigid, short,

and important. Every proposition not absolutely necessary to exhibit the main connection

of ideas should be cut out, but the great fundamental ideas should be all there. No omission

of concepts, such as those of Similarity and Proportion. We must remember that, owing to

the aid rendered by the visual presence of a figure, Geometry is a field of unequalled

excellence for the exercise of the deductive faculties of reasoning. Then, of course, there

follows Geometrical Drawing, with its training for the hand and eye.

But, like Algebra, Geometry and Geometrical Drawing must be extended beyond the mere

circle of geometrical ideas. In an industrial neighbourhood, machinery and workshop

practice form the appropriate extension. For example, in the London Polytechnics this has

been achieved with conspicuous success. For many secondary schools I suggest that

surveying and maps are the natural applications. In particular, plane-table surveying

should lead pupils to a vivid apprehension of the immediate application of geometric

truths. Simple drawing apparatus, a surveyors chain, and a surveyors compass, should

enable the pupils to rise from the survey and mensuration of a field to the construction of

the map of a small district. The best education is to be found in gaining the utmost

information from the simplest apparatus. The provision of elaborate instruments is greatly

to be deprecated. To have constructed the map of a small district, to have considered its

roads, its contours, its geology, its climate, its relation to other districts, the effects on the

status of its inhabitants, will teach more history and geography than any knowledge of

Perkin Warbeck or of Behrens Straits. I mean not a nebulous lecture on the subject, but a

serious investigation in which the real facts are definitely ascertained by the aid of accurate

theoretical knowledge. A typical mathematical problem should be: Survey such and such a

field, draw a plan of it to such and such a scale, and find the area. It would be quite a good

procedure to impart the necessary geometrical propositions without their proofs. Then,

concurrently in the same term, the proofs of the propositions would be learnt while the

survey was being made.

Fortunately, the specialist side of education presents an easier problem than does the

provision of a general culture. For this there are many reasons. One is that many of the

principles of procedure to be observed are the same in both cases, and it is unnecessary to

recapitulate. Another reason is that specialist training takes place -- or should take place --

at a more advanced stage of the pupils course, and thus there is easier material to work

upon. But undoubtedly the chief reason is that the specialist study is normally a study of

peculiar interest to the student. He is studying it because, for some reason, he wants to

know it. This makes all the difference. The general culture is designed to foster an activity

of mind; the specialist course utilises this activity. But it does not do to lay too much stress

on these neat antitheses. As we have already seen, in the general course foci of special

interest will arise; and similarly in the special study, the external connections of the subject

drag thought outwards.

Again, there is not one course of study which merely gives general cultures and another

which gives special knowledge. The subjects pursued for the sake of a general education

are special subjects specially studied; and, on the other hand, one of the ways of

encouraging general mental activity is to foster a special devotion. You may not divide the

seamless coat of learning. What education has to impart is an intimate sense for the power

of ideas, for the beauty of ideas, and for the structure of ideas, together with a particular

body of knowledge which has peculiar reference to the life of the being possessing it.

The appreciation of the structure of ideas is that side of a cultured mind which can only

grow under the influence of a special study. I mean that eye for the whole chess-board, for

the bearing of one set of ideas on another. Nothing but a special study can give any

appreciation for the exact formulation of general ideas, for their relations when

formulated, for their service in the comprehension of life. A mind so disciplined should be

both more abstract and more concrete. It has been trained in the comprehension of

abstract thought and in the analysis of facts.

Finally, there should grow the most austere of all mental qualities; I mean the sense for

style. It is an aesthetic sense, based on admiration for the direct attainment of a foreseen

end, simply and without waste. Style in art, style in literature, style in science, style in logic,

style in practical execution have fundamentally the same aesthetic qualities, namely,

attainment and restraint. The love of a subject in itself and for itself, where it is not the

sleepy pleasure of pacing a mental quarter-deck, is the love of style as manifested in that

study.

Here we are brought back to the position from which we started, the utility of education.

Style, in its finest sense, is the last acquirement of the educated mind; it is also the most

useful. It pervades the whole being. The administrator with a sense for style hates waste;

the engineer with a sense for style economises his material; the artisan with a sense for style

prefers good work. Style is the ultimate morality of mind.

But above style, and above knowledge, there is something, a vague shape like fate above the

Greek gods. That something is Power. Style is the fashioning of power, the restraining of

power. But, after all, the power of attainment of the desired end is fundamental. The first

thing is to get there. Do not bother about your style, but solve your problem, justify the

ways of God to man, administer your province, or do whatever else is set before you.

Where, then, does style help? In this, with style the end is attained without side issues,

without raising undesirable inflammations. With style you attain your end and nothing but

your end. With style the effect of your activity is calculable, and foresight is the last gift of

gods to men. With style your power is increased, for your mind is not distracted with

irrelevancies, and you are more likely to attain your object. Now style is the exclusive

privilege of the expert. Whoever heard of the style of an amateur painter, of the style of an

amateur poet? Style is always the product of specialist study, the peculiar contribution of

specialism to culture.

English education in its present phase suffers from a lack of definite aim, and from an

external machinery which kills its vitality. Hitherto in this address I have been considering

the aims which should govern education. In this respect England halts between two

opinions. It has not decided whether to produce amateurs or experts. The profound change

in the world which the nineteenth century has produced is that the growth of knowledge

has given foresight. The amateur is essentially a man with appreciation and with immense

versatility in mastering a given routine. But he lacks the foresight which comes from

special knowledge. The object of this address is to suggest how to produce the expert

without loss of the essential virtues of the amateur. The machinery of our secondary

education is rigid where it should be yielding, and lax where it should be rigid. Every

school is bound on pain of extinction to train its boys for a small set of definite

examinations. No headmaster has a free hand to develop his general education or his

specialist studies in accordance with the opportunities of his school, which are created by

its staff, its environment, its class of boys, and its endowments. I suggest that no system of

external tests which aims primarily at examining individual scholars can result in anything

but educational waste.

Primarily it is the schools and not the scholars which should be inspected. Each school

should grant its own leaving certificates, based on its own curriculum. The standards of

these schools should be sampled and corrected. But the first requisite for educational

reform is the school as a unit, with its approved curriculum based on its own needs, and

evolved by its own staff. If we fail to secure that, we simply fall from one formalism into

another, from one dung hill of inert ideas into another.

In stating that the school is the true educational unit in any national system for the

safeguarding of efficiency, I have conceived the alternative system as being the external

examination of the individual scholar. But every Scylla is faced by its Charybdis -- or, in

more homely language, there is a ditch on both sides of the road. It will be equally fatal to

education if we fall into the hands of a supervising department which is under the

impression that it can divide all schools into two or three rigid categories, each type being

forced to adopt a rigid curriculum. When I say that the school is the educational unit, I

mean exactly what I say, no larger unit, no smaller unit. Each school must have the claim to

be considered in relation to its special circumstances. The classifying of schools for some

purposes is necessary. But no absolutely rigid curriculum, not modified by its own staff,

should be permissible. Exactly the same principles apply, with the proper modifications, to

universities and to technical colleges. When one considers in its length and in its breadth

the importance of this question of the education of a nations young, the broken lives, the

defeated hopes, the national failures, which result from the frivolous inertia with which it is

treated, it is difficult to restrain within oneself a savage rage. In the conditions of modern

life the rule is absolute, the race which does not value trained intelligence is doomed. Not all

your heroism, not all your social charm, not all your wit, not all your victories on land or at

sea, can move back the finger of fate. To-day we maintain ourselves. To-morrow science

will have moved forward yet one more step, and there will be no appeal from the judgment

which will then be pronounced on the uneducated.

We can be content with no less than the old summary of educational ideal which has been

current at any time from the dawn of our civilisation. The essence of education is that it be

religious.

Pray, what is religious education?

A religious education is an education which inculcates duty and reverence. Duty arises from our potential control over the course of events. Where attainable knowledge could have changed the issue, ignorance has the guilt of vice. And the foundation of reverence is this perception, that the present holds within itself the complete sum of existence, backwards and forwards, that whole amplitude of time, which is eternity.

教育的目的 [作者：怀特海 Whitehead] The Aims of Education（英文摘要）

要充分认识怀特海教育思想的“现在性”“生活性”与“理解性”观点，必须从其哲学思想切入。怀特海的代表作《过程与实在》系统论述了机体哲学（或称过程哲学），认为宇宙是由性质和关系所构成的处于永恒的创造进化过程的有机生命体，其根本特征是活动，表现为一个生生不息的活动过程。这种生生不息的过程宇宙观聚焦于现在的永恒性。“现在包含一切。现在是神圣的境界，因为它包含过去，又孕育着未来。”它要求教师要教在当下，学生要学在当下。怀特海提醒教师：“不管学生对你的主题有什么兴趣，必须此刻就唤起它；不管你要加强学生什么样的能力，必须即刻就进行；不管你的教学给予精神生活什么潜在价值，你必须现在就展现它。这是教育的金科玉律，也是一条很难遵守的规律。”怀特海告诫学生：“再没有比轻视现在给青年人带来更严重的危害了。”教育的“现在性”决定了教育的“生活性”和“理解性”，需要说明的是，怀特海所说的“理解”并不是一种纯粹的思维活动，而是一种具体的生活实践。在第三篇演讲《自由与纪律的节奏》中，这一观点得到了更为清楚的表述：“教育便是引导个体去领悟生活的艺术，我所说的生活的艺术，是指人的各种活动的最完美的实现，它表现了充满生命力的个体在面对环境时所具有的潜力。”可见，只有具备“现在性”“生活性”与“理解性”的教育才是有生命的教育。回到第一篇演讲，如果说对现在生活的理解是教育的目的，那么这一目的的实现就意味着教育的效果和功用——使个体形成独特的“风格”。风格是“受教育的文化人最后学到的东西；它也是最有用的东西。……风格是智者的最高德性。”我们把风格理解为个体将知识内化为智慧，并能自由地运用于生活，从而达到自我实现的独特方式。风格本质上是一种力量：“风格是力的塑造，是力的约束。……风格帮助你直接达到目标……有了风格，你可以计算出行动的效果，而预见的能力也成为神赐予人类的最后的礼物。”可以说，风格就是一种自由的人生境界，它是开篇提到的文化素养与专业知识互相作用的结果。怀特海“风格就是力量”的观点，是对培根“知识就是力量”的进一步发展，因为知识只有被被内化为智慧才能发挥作用。在第一篇演讲的结尾，怀特海曲终奏雅，揭示了教育的本职在于虔诚的宗教性。教育的宗教性也要从过程哲学的角度去理解：“它谆谆教导受教育者要有责任感和崇敬感。责任来自于我们对事物发展过程具有的潜在控制。当可习得的知识能够改变结局时，愚昧无知便成为罪恶。而崇敬是基于这样的认识：现在本身就包含着全部的存在，那漫长完整的实践，它属于永恒。”这段话集中体现了怀特海的教育目的论与风格论。第一篇演讲的很多观点，在后来篇章中都得到了充分的阐述。读完后面的几篇演讲，回过头来再读第一篇，很多费解的地方都会豁然开朗。第二篇《教育的节奏》与第三篇《自由与纪律的节奏》可视为怀特海的教育方法论。第四篇《技术教育及其与科学和文学的关系》、第五篇《古典文化在教育中的地位》和最后一篇《大学及其作用》则从课程设置、学科关系和大学精神的角度阐述了海特海的通识教育（general education）理念。这几篇文章的主题各有侧重，也互相联系和佐证，内在地统一于“教育促进对现在生活的理解”这一主题中。

《教育的节奏》与《自由与纪律的节奏》论述了一个看似老生常谈的原则：“不同的科目和不同的学习方式应该在学生的智力发育达到适当的阶段时采用。”

怀特海的独造之处在于提出一种周期性的节奏发展论，取代传统的匀速的线性进步论。具体说来，从婴儿发展到成年的过程是一个大循环周期，这一周期具有三重节奏，即浪漫、精确和综合运用三个发展阶段。“浪漫阶段覆盖了儿童生活最初的12年，精确阶段包含青少年在中等学校接受教育的整个时期，而综合运用阶段则是青年迈向成人的阶段。”三个阶段分别大致对应着小学（含学前）、中学和大学。这一三重节奏的循环周期还表现在学习过程中每一个相对独立的环节。需要注意的是，对于不同的学科，学生所经历的三个阶段并不是同步的。比如：“当语言学习开始进入精确阶段，即开始掌握词汇和语法是，科学学习应该处于完全的浪漫阶段。语言学习的浪漫阶段始于婴儿时期的学话阶段，因此较早进入精确阶段；相比而言，科学学习阶段的发展则较为滞后。因此，如果在比较小的年纪被反复灌输精确的科学知识，就会扼杀学生的首创精神和求知兴趣，使学生不可能理解科学题目的丰富内容。因此，在语言学习的精确阶段开始之后，科学学习的浪漫阶段还应持续若干年。”显然，怀特海的三重节奏发展理论来源于黑格尔正题——反题——合题的发展三段论，具有明显的思辨色彩。它虽然不像皮亚杰的认知发展理论、埃里克森的人格发展理论或科尔伯格的道德发展理论具有更扎实的实验依据，但仍具有普遍的理论阐释力和可操作性，对于学校的课程设置、教学的过程控制和教学评价都具有指导意义。三重节奏有助于教师从整体上把握学生的学习阶段进程。怀特海进而又提出了自由与纪律的双重节奏，用来调控每一阶段的学习状态。“通往智慧的惟一的道路是在知识面前享有自由，但通往知识的唯一途径是在获取有条理的事实时保持纪律。”自由和纪律这两个原则不是对立的：“一种设计完美的教育，其目的应该是市纪律成为自由选择的自发的结果，而自由则应该因为纪律而得到丰富的机会。”每一个三重节奏的循环周期都伴随着自由和纪律的交替调节：浪漫阶段必须侧重于自由，精确阶段应该侧重于纪律，到了综合运用阶段，自由原则又应该占据主导地位。可以说，三重节奏与双重节奏的相互作用这是符合小学、中学和大学的教育实际的。怀特海曾说过：“全部西方哲学传统都是对柏拉图的一系列注脚。”他自己的教育思想也不例外。《技术教育及其与科学和文学的关系》《古典文化在教育中的地位》和《大学及其作用》这三篇文章便是对柏拉图所开创的古希腊文科教育传统的批判和修正，进而提出了自己的通识教育理念：通过文科课程、科学课程和技术课程的全面训练，培养灵肉和谐、知行合一、富有首创精神、审美能力和想象力的现代精英，他们对于当下的生活给予充分的理解，在科学、技术、艺术、宗教等领域形成了美的风格。怀特海指出，在通识教育理念下，“大学存在的理由是，它是青年和老年人融为一体，对学术进行充满想象力的探索，从而在知识和追求生命的热情之间架起桥梁。”这是一幅多么令人神往的教育图景！在对通识教育的核心理念“自由”的重视上，怀特海与自柏拉图、康德、纽曼以来的思想家是一致的。就教育工作者而言，《教育的目的》一书充满洞见，有助于我们认识教育的本质与目的、过程与方法、现状和未来。对教师而言，思考并尝试书中的种种观点，终不至于让自己在daily routine中迷失方向，沦为教书匠而不自知。

通识教育的奥秘：怀特海《教育的目的》

怀海特：教育不是应试而是应世

教育的目的是为了激发和引导学生的自我发展，教育应该充满生机与活力。作者反对灌输生硬的知识，反对没有火花的使人呆滞的思想，强调古典文学艺术在学生智力发展和人格培养中的重要性，倡导受教育者在科学和人文方面全面发展；重视审美在道德教育中的意义……跟我们现在提倡的素质教育很像。It can be stated briefly thus: the students are alive, and the purpose of education is to stimulate and guide their self-development. It follows as a corollary from this premise, that the teachers also should be alive with living thoughts.

第一章【教育的目的】

第二章【教育的节奏】

第三章【自由和训练的节奏】

第四章【技术教育及其与科学和文学的关系】

第五章【古典文化在教育中的地位】

第六章【大学及其作用】

备注：除第四章外，都是作者在一些教育和科学团体的演讲，是有实践证明的经验之谈，或是教育实践后的反思，还有一些对时代流行思想的批判。文中谈及的教育体系来自于英国，但是这些例子具有说明性。

“成功的教育所传授的知识必有某种创新......陈旧的知识会像鱼一样腐烂。”怀特海

说明了成功的教育的两个要素：其一、方法比知识更重要。陈旧的知识就像一条死鱼，而方法就是教人如何捕捞鱼。由此鱼的取得才是无尽的。其二、只有活的知识才是有用的。活的知识首先是真的知识，而不是伪知识、邪恶的知识；其次就是经过理解并消化的知识。只有满足了这两个条件，知识才能成为人认识世界、改造世界的武器。

"大学存在的理由是,它使青年和老年人融为一体,对学术进行充满想像力的探索,从而在知识和追求生命的热情之间架起桥梁。"怀特海

对大学的存在理由的争论从来伴随着大学的发展而未停止过。

至少有三种不同的观点：政治决定论、知识决定论和发展决定论。怀海特的观点倾向于知识论的存在论。其中包含两层意思：一是大学的任务就是探求学术；二是通过学术研究将青年人与老年人融为一体，因为精神的追求与更新是相通的，不存在任何隔阂的。"每一所学校应根据本校的课程授予自己的毕业证书。对这些学校的标准应该进行抽样评估和修正。但教育改革的首要条件是,学校作为一个独立的单位,应有经过批准的课程,而这些课程是由本校教师根据学校自身的需要而设计制定的。"怀特海

作者赞成对学校评估，不过先决条件是学校必须有办学的自主权、有办学的自由。

第一章 教育的目的（主要教育思想）

怀特海的教育目的观：

1、教育的目的是培养有文化的人【我们的目标，是要塑造既有广泛的文化修养又在某个特殊方面有专业知识的人才，他们的专业知识可以给他们进步、腾飞的基础，而他们所具有的广泛的文化，使他们有哲学般的深邃，又有艺术般的高雅】

作者所谓的“文化”就是我们通常所说的素质，这是教育中最宝贵的东西，它不但是受教育者适应社会的必要手段，也是自我发展的基础。怀特海强调素质教育要从小抓起，“至于说到人的培养，人们所受到的最重要的培养是他们12岁以前从母亲那里接受的教养。”

2、注重创新教育培养思考力是公认的教育目标，但培养什么样的思考力可能有不同的理解。一种是接受型的思考力，一种是创造型的思考力。前者仅仅是一种理解力，而不具有批判的功能。作者主张培养后一种思考力。

3、如何防止”呆滞的教育“如果学校进行的是一种”呆滞的教育“，那么宁可不要这种教育。所以怀特海提出“两条教育的戒律”：其一，“不可教太多的科目”，其二，“所教科目务须透彻”。它的实质是反对学校里传授死的知识和“无活力的概念”，反对学习中刻板地接受而不予运用、检验或重新组合知识概念， 认为一切教育的中心应该使知识保持活力和防止知识僵化。

怀特海论教育的价值教育的用处：教育最终是为理解生活作准备的，理解生活需要文化，需要创造型的思考力。”理解生活是理解现在的生活，而不是过去的生活，也不是未来的生活，因为”现在的“生活是真实的，是最有意义的。它包含了过去和未来，如果没有”现在“，那么过去与未来都是无意义的。

教育的用处首先表现在思想概念的利用。怀所说的思想概念的应用是对生活的思考，是综合性的运用。“当我们转而考察科学和逻辑的教育时，我们应记住，在这里不加利用的思想概念同样是十分有害的。我所说的利用一个思想概念，是指将它与一连串复杂的感性知觉、情感、希望、欲望以及调节思维的精神活动联系在一起，这构成了我们的生活。”这实际上是说，理论知识必须在学生的课程里具有可应用性。所有的教育的核心问题是：不能让知识僵化，而要让它生动活泼起来。

怀特海认为，最理想的教育取决于几个不可或缺的因素：“老师的天赋、学生的智力类型、他们对生活的期望、学校外部（临近环境）所赋予的机会，以及其他相关的因素。同时，他批评了“人的大脑就像是一件工具，你必须先把它磨锋利了，才能去使用它”的观点。人的大脑不是被动地接受知识，它是永恒活动着的，能对外部的刺激做出最精密的反应。你不能像对待工具一样，把它磨锋利了才去使用它。

怀特海论学术怀认为，在科学训练中，对概念的证明是非常重要的。证明概念不是证明这一概念是否可采用，亦即在形式上是否成立。这不是证明的任务。证明乃是概念的真实性，使概念更加明晰。”概念的利用以证明为前提，概念的证明以利用为依归。

怀特海论教育的本质1、教育是培养人的高超艺术怀特海强调概念的作用，强调知识的整体结构，这与后来的结构主义观念何其一致。他说：“各种理论概念在学生的课程中应该永远具有重要的应用性。这并不是一个容易付诸实践的原理，相反，很难实行。但是，它本身便涉及这样的问题：要使知识充满活力，不能使知识僵化，而这是一切教育的核心问题。”

2、教育的主题是生活

在谈到专业教育方面的问题和普通文化修养之间的关系时，怀特海认为，普通文化修养旨在鼓励心智活动，而专业课程则是利用这种活动。不必过多地强调两者的对立。在普通文化修养过程中，学生会对某些内容产生特殊的兴趣；而在专业化学习中，课程之间的外在联系也会拓展学生的视野。这种知识与知识掌握者的生活有着特别的关系。还是体现教育与生活的关系。

3、培养对风格的鉴赏，即审美的能力风格是建立在欣赏通过简约的方式直接达到预见的目标，风格可以实现目标，风格是专业化学习的结果，是专门化研究对文化做出的贡献。回到英国的教育体系中，作者强调每所学校都应该有自己的风格和自主性，要致力于培养学生智力。

第二章 教育的节奏

怀特海说，生命中存在着很微妙的涉及智力发展的周期，他们循环往复的出现，每个循环期都各不相同，每次循环期中又再生出附属的阶段。缺乏对智力发展的节奏和特征的认识是我们教育呆板无效的主要原因。这里作者提出教育的原则：不同的科目和不同的学习方式应该在学生的智力发育达到适当的阶段时采用。为此，怀特海先生在演讲中反复强调教育和学习的节奏，以及节奏中三个阶段的循环，给出了应该怎么去学习的顺序。

首先，怀特海批判流行思想：先学容易的知识再学难的知识，这种观点并不对，他认为：有些最难的东西必须先学。先学的东西一定是很重要的。举例婴儿生下来最先用智力解决的问题是掌握口语，口语其实是很难学的，但是婴儿做到了。在教育中，有关科目顺序的选择原则是：必要优先原则。当然他也说明，什么东西是必要的也要做细致的甄别。

一、怀特海认为智力发展阶段分为：浪漫阶段、精确阶段和综合运用阶段。

1、浪漫阶段是开始领悟阶段，这个阶段，知识不受系统的程序分配，可以直接认识事实，偶尔对事实做系统的分析。从接触单纯的事实,到开始认识事实间未经探索的关系的重要意义,这种转变会引起某种兴奋,而浪漫的情感本质上就属于这样一种兴奋。提到浪漫，就包含着感性，包含着不确定，包含着种种猜测。

2、精确阶段是代表一种知识的增加和补充，并对浪漫阶段提出的种种可能做一般性的揭示和分析。

3、综合运用阶段我们重新回归浪漫，但此时我们已经掌握了精确阶段所获取的事实及一般性概念，这个阶段可以看作是一个从一般到特殊的过程。

二、循环过程在作者看来，针对不同的学科，这三个阶段开始的时间和持续的时长都不尽相同，而我们的教育应该是这样一种不断重复的周期，教师帮助学生确立明确的目标，通过不断地激励让学生不断地重新开始学习，而不断在课堂上以自身的方式引导出知识的下一个过程，这就是循环的过程。

“如果教师在满足学生有节奏的渴望方面恰到好处地起激励作用，学生一定会不断地为某种成就而欣喜，不断地重新开始。” 我们应把对学生直观理解来说各有其内在价值的不同的教学内容,调整到各个从属的循环周期中,通过这样的努力,使学生在大脑中形成一幅和谐的图案。怀特海

总结：作者大体上勾画出了从婴儿阶段到大约16岁半这段时间教育发展的过程，对儿童成长的每一个阶段，每个循环周期不同学习内容进行了明确的阐述。比如青春期的浪漫阶段处于应付考试的填鸭式教学的阴影里，浪漫阶段结束时，周期性发展使得人开始注重培养学习准确知识的能力。

三、有关智力的培养1、大学的智力培养真正有价值的教育是使学生透彻理解一些普遍的原理,这些原理适用于各种不同的具体事例。大学的作用是使你摆脱细节去掌握原理。用另外的方式来阐述,即一所大学的理想与其说是知识, 不如说是力量;大学的目标是把一个孩子的知识转变为成人的力量。

2、智力发展的节奏特点①智力的发展表现为一种节奏,这种节奏包含一种交织在一起的若干循环周期,而整个过程作为发展中的小旋涡,又受一个具有相同特点的更重要的循环周期的控制。此外,这种节奏显示出某些可确定的普遍规律,这些规律对大部分学生来说都是合理的。我们应当改进教育质量,使教育适应学生在这个发展节奏中已经达到的阶段。

②不要夸大一个循环周期中三个阶段之间的明显差别。我是指各阶段的侧重不同,主要特质不同——浪漫,精确,综合运用,自始至终存在着。但是,占主导地位的阶段交替出现,正是这种交替构成了各个循环周期。

第三章 自由与纪律的节奏

智力教育的目的是传授知识，也是获得智慧。教育是教人掌握如何运用知识的艺术， 这是一种很难传授的艺术。所以说，单纯传授知识并不是教育的目标。知识本身也并不是学习的第一目标，而获取知识的方法才是。通过知识培养智慧的渠道是运用知识解决问题，人们在遇到问题时明显地感受到知识的作用，就不仅能提高学习知识的兴趣，而且智慧就在运用知识中不断得以发展形成。

通往智慧的惟一的道路是在知识面前享有自由,但通往知识的惟一途径是在获取有条理的事实时保持纪律。自由和纪律是教育的两个要素，两个原则也并不对立,在儿童身心发展的过程中对自由和训练的调节，就是“教育的节奏”。最好的纪律是自我约束，而这种纪律必须是让学生充分地享有学习知识的愉悦，充分感受到知识、思维和智慧的伟大魅力后才能实现。

智力发展离不开兴趣，兴趣是注意和理解的先决条件。激发生命有机体朝着适合自己的方向发展，最自然的方式就是快乐。我们应该寻找那种符合自然发展规律的模式, 而它本身又是令人愉快的。

知识的重要意义在于它的应用,知识的价值完全取决于谁掌握知识以及他用知识做什么。对知识的这种活动性而言,在教育中过分强调纪律是十分有害的,那种生动活跃的思维习惯只能在恰当的自由氛围中产生。不加区别的纪律使大脑变得麻木不仁。

成功的教师有一个秘诀:他在自己的脑子里清楚地确定了学生必须以精确的方式掌握的东西。因此,他不用勉强让学生为熟记许多次要的不相关的知识而烦恼。成功的秘诀是速度,速度的秘诀是集中精力全力以赴。但是,就精确的知识而言,秘诀是速度, 速度,速度。快速获取知识,然后应用它。如果你能应用知识,你便能牢牢地掌握它。

第四章 技术教育及其与科学和文学的关系

怀特海认为，科学教育、技术教育和人文教育是教育的三种主要形式，三者相辅相成， 缺一不可。

科学教育是训练观察自然的艺术，侧重于逻辑思维（用脑）。技术教育是训练生产物质产品的艺术，侧重于知识的运用（动手）。

技术教育会满足国家的实际需要，孕育于一种自由的精神中怀特海

人文教育则是通过语言、文学、历史、哲学等课程的学习，学会观察社会、进而学会生活的艺术。

柏拉图式的文科教育是一种培养思维能力和美学鉴赏力的教育，是向受教育者传授最优秀的文学的大量而博杂的知识怀特海

但是，源于现代哲学之精神与躯体、思想与行动之二元对立的现代教育却割裂了三者的内在联系， 或是把科学教育和技术教育对立起来， 或是把两者与人文教育对立起来，导致了狭隘的专门化，是一种“最糟糕的教育”。我们看到的大量眼高手低、高分低能或是虽有一定的科技修养、 但又缺乏社会责任感的学生， 就是这种现代教育的畸形产物。在怀特海看来，只进行一种教育必然会有失偏颇， 但三者的机械混合同样难以通达真理。关键是把握三者的必要张力，实现其最佳平衡。我们有三种主要的途径去努力追求智力与性格的最佳平衡,这就是文学的修养,科学的修养,和技术的修养。

第五章 古典文化在教育中的地位

过去古典文化非常兴盛，今天古典文化处于危险之中。而作者认为，古典文化对科学发展和社会建设来说是非常重要的，我们需要保护古典文化课。

第六章 大学及其作用

大学的作用：不仅仅是传播知识，提供研究，更重要的是使青年和老年人融为一体,对学术进行充满想像力的探索,从而在知识和追求生命的热情之间架起桥梁。

大学为民族的进步提供了充满智慧的想象力。长时间按固定的程序工作使人的想象力变得迟钝。因此，受过正确训练的人有希望获得一种经过复杂事实和必要行为习惯训练的想像力,而不是一种单调乏味的工作所带来的盲目的经验。因此，大学的恰当作用是用充满想象力的方式去掌握知识。

想象与学习的结合需要摆脱限制和约束，需要各种经验，需要不同见解和不同才能的人给予激励，需要有求知的兴奋和自信心。在这个社会里,受过教育的大众都应该同时具备某种学识水平以及某种发现和发明创造的能力。

大学的限制：学习可能影响市场,市场也可能影响学习。将各种进步的活动融合成促使社会进步的有效工具,大学是完成这一任务的主要机构。但是,我们绝不能认为,大学以创新思想的形式生产的产品只能通过发表署有作者姓名的论文和著作来衡量。只有当最高管理机构采取克制,牢记不可用管理普通商业公司的条例和政策来管理大学,那时,我们伟大民主国家的现代大学教育体制才能够取得成功。

​教育的目的（完整笔记）

教育的目的 (豆瓣) （中文英文）英文原著推荐 | 《教育的目的》_of （简介）重庆工商大学 The Aims of Education： some areas of controversyThe Aims of Education:some areas of controversy 教育的目的(英文)阅读从小开始 https://m.toutiaocdn.com/i6854898838537241091/柏拉图教育哲学https://m.toutiaocdn.com/i6702784798580015619/