研究生: |
何雅雯 Yen- Yawin Ho |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
漢娜‧阿倫特(Hannah Arendt)判斷理論及其教育蘊義 The Theory of Hannah Arendt's Judgement and the Educational Implications of her Viewpoints |
指導教授: |
林逢祺
Lin, Ferng-Chyi 洪仁進 Hung, Ren-Jin |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
教育學系 Department of Education |
論文出版年: | 2002 |
畢業學年度: | 90 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 124 |
中文關鍵詞: | 心靈生命 、判斷 、擴大心智 、再現性思考 、旁觀者 |
英文關鍵詞: | the life of mind, judgement, enlarged mentality, representative thinking, spectator |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:258 下載:55 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
伴隨著當前科技高度發展的榮景,如何以人之心靈中的「內在對話」為起點,落實於現象世界的「心靈生命」和「活動生命」的協奏,這樣的議題正迫人而來,而Hannah Arendt判斷理論正是對重要心靈官能的重新審視,回歸「人」基本面向的本質性思索。據此,本研究之目的在於:一、呈述Hannah Arendt的思想脈絡,並探究其判斷思想論述基礎與問題背景。二、研討Hannah Arendt的判斷理論之核心概念與特質。三、析論Hannah Arendt的教育思想與論點。四、探究Hannah Arendt判斷理論和教育觀所形成的教育蘊義。五、根據研究所得,擬具結論與建議,作為我國教育理論和實際教育情境的參照,並進一步回應當前之教育社會情境背景。
經由對上述研究目的之探究,本研究之結論包括:
一、Hannah Arendt的判斷理論思想基礎在於援引I. Kant的《判斷力批判》中的重要概念,企圖將美學判斷引渡到政治判斷中。
二、Hannah Arendt判斷理論的核心概念在於其認為判斷能力是人類心智官能的樞紐,需以一種「旁觀者」的立場和地位,利用「擴大心智」以不斷「再現他人的思考」,將他者意見置於心中,藉以分享吾人和他者的視野。
三、Hannah Arendt認為判斷的能力不可教,但可以經由實踐培養而得。
四、Hannah Arendt認為教育與判斷力的關係在於因為教育領域的特殊性與教育權威的重要性,所以判斷力教育的培養具有其必要性。
五、Hannah Arendt對於判斷力的探討,可以為當前教育工作者、教學者與學習者面臨的處境,尋求可能的出路。
根據以上結論,試擬具體建議如下:
一、教育必須提供學習者學習「再現性思考」或達到「擴大心智」的情境,協助其站在「旁觀者」的立場來培養判斷能力。
二、教育必須提供學習者實踐判斷能力的契機,以替他們預備更新世界的能力。
三、由於教育情境具保守主義傾向,且因應教育領域的個殊性,教育人員適當行使教育權威及適切保留教師權威乃具必要性。
四、教育人員面臨當前教育的處境,可以運用判斷理論中「再現性思考」、「擴大性思考」、「想像」與「反省」的概念,尋求可能的出路。
五、學習者面臨當前的教育處境,宜透過學校課程的安排,多練習探訪他人的心靈,並與不同立足點的其它人相互影響,尋求可能的出路。
Because of the vast and rapid advancement of technology and physical sciences in recent years, the importance of spiritual lives of man has been overwhelmingly neglected. The need to reexaminate the faculty of human mind has also emerged, specifically, how to start with the inner dialogue of human spirit then end up with the harmony between the contemplative and active lives in the world of appearance. The judgment theory of Hannah Arendt is not only the reexamination of the important faculty of mind but also the fundamental speculation of humanity. The theory might serve as a key to the studies on the emerging issues in contemporary societies. In the current study, we presented the thread as well as the basis and related background of the thoughts of Hannah Arendt. We then tried to extract the core concepts and characters of her judgment theory and also analyze her thoughts and viewpoints on education. The implication for education of her judgment theory and educational viewpoints was investigated as well. Finally the conclusions drawn form our study could provide not only reflections between the educational theory and nowadays situation in our society but also suggestions to the educational system in our country.
Hannah Arendt considered that judgment plays a pivotal part in human spiritual faculty; one can share his perspective with others’ through enlarged mentality and continuous representative thinking at the standpoint of the spectator. The ability to judge could not be passed by instruction but could be cultivated by practice. Because she thought that crisis of judgment comes from the loss of authority, she preferred a conservative educational viewpoint and put a great emphases on educational authority. The purpose of education in her idea is to help the young renew this common world.
Based on the above conclusions, we proposed the following suggestions: A good education system must provide an environment for the young to develop an enlarged mentality through representative thinking and also cultivate the ability to judge through practicing. The decision-maker and the instructor must always remain at the standpoint of speculators during the learning processes. The importance of maintaining authority of instructors in education should also be considered. Finally, a good education system must provide the opportunities for the young to practice judgment and help them prepare the abilities to renew this world.
壹、中文部份
江宜樺 (1989)。政治、行動與判斷-漢娜.鄂蘭政治思想之研究。台大政研所碩士論文。未出版。
江宜樺(1993)。政治美學化:漢娜.鄂蘭政治行動理論的詮釋。載於人文與社會科學集刊,第六卷第一期,頁303-340。
江宜樺 (1995)。漢娜.鄂蘭論政治參與與民主。載於張福建、蘇文流主編民主理論:古典與現代,頁123-151。台北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所。
江宜樺(1996)。共和危機導讀,載於Hannah Arendt著,共和危機,臺北:時報。
江宜樺(1998)。自由主義、民族主義與國家認同。臺北:揚智文化。
江宜樺(2000)。政治判斷如何可能?載於當代,第一五O期,頁28-43。
呂亞力(1997)。韓納艾蘭的政治思想。臺灣大學政治系(未出版)。
竺乾威等譯(1999)。Hannah Arendt著。人的條件。上海:人民出版社。
牟宗三譯註(1992)。Kant,Immanuel著。康德:判斷力之批判上下冊。台北:台灣學生書局。
林麗珊 (1993)。漢娜.亞蘭特的政治行動論。載於東吳哲學傳習錄,頁 117-151。
林驤華譯(1995)。Hannah Arendt著。極權主義的起源。台北:時報。
斯日譯(2002)。阿倫特—公共性的複權。川崎修著。石家莊:河北教育出版社。
張伯權譯(1976)。Franz Kafka著。卡夫卡的寓言與格言。新竹:楓城。
張鈿富(1980)。教育政策分析:理論與實際。台北:五南。
張建成(1998)。教育政策。載於陳奎熹主編。現代教育社會學。台北:師大書苑。
黃怡譯(1990)。May, Derwent 著。漢娜鄂蘭。台北:聯經。
孫愛玲譯(1999)。徐菲‧維特曼著。充滿激情的思索—漢娜‧阿倫特。貴陽:貴州人民出版社。
焦洱譯(2001)。Alois Prinz著。愛這個世界—漢娜‧阿倫特傳。北京:社會科學文獻出版社。
彭鏡禧譯(1969)。William Barrett著。非理性的人。台北:志文。
劉仁甫譯(1999)。Johnann Wolfgang Goethe著。浮士德。臺北:貓頭鷹。
劉昌元(1994)。西方美學導論。台北:聯經。
簡水源譯(1999)。Eugen Fink著。教育學與人生之道。台北:桂冠。
簡成熙譯(1996)。Jacques Maritain著。十字路口的教育:通事教育的理論機處。台北:五南。
蔡清田(2000)。教育行動研究。台北:五南。
蔡佩君譯(1986)。Hannah Arendt著。共和危機。台北:時報。
蔡英文譯(1982)。帝國主義。Hannah Arendt著。台北:聯經。
蔡英文(1991)。歷史與政治:漢娜‧顎蘭(Hannah Arendt)與麥可‧歐克秀(Michael Oakeshott)政治理論之研究。東海大學歷史系博士論文(未出版)。
蔡英文(1992)。政治實踐與歷史敘述--漢娜.鄂蘭的歷史理念。載於新史學,第三卷第二期,頁103-122。
蔡英文(1994)。評介瑪格麗特.卡諾凡《漢娜.鄂蘭政治思想的再解釋》。載於東吳政治學報,3,頁349-364。
蔡英文(1995)。漢娜.鄂蘭的公共領域理論及其問題。載於錢永祥、戴華主編。哲學與公共規範,頁269-312,台北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所。
蔡英文(1997)。兩種政治的概念:卡爾.史密特與漢娜.鄂蘭。載於台灣社會研究季刊,27,頁139-171。
蔡英文(2000)。革命.人民主權與制憲權-漢娜.鄂蘭(Hannah Arendt)對「革命民主」傳統的闡述 。載於當代,32=150,頁44-59。
蔡英文(2002)。政治實踐與公共空間。台北:聯經。
蔡宗珍譯(2000)。在公共領域中冒險犯難-漢娜‧鄂蘭訪談錄。載於當代,150,頁12-27。
蘇友貞譯(1997)。女哲學家與她的情人:漢娜‧鄂蘭與馬丁海‧德格。Elzbieta Ettinger著。台北:麥田。
還學文(1992)。亞里斯多德絕望的女兒-漢娜·鄂倫特(Hannah Arendt)的極權主義研究。載於當代,77,頁106-111。
二、英文部份
Allen, Wayne F.(1982).Hannah Arendt: Existential Phenomenology and Political Freedom,Philosophy & Social Criticism 9(2): 169-190.
Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (並參照譯本:竺乾威等譯(1999)。Hannah Arendt著。人的條件。上海:人民出版社。)
Arendt, H. (1961). Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought. New York: Penguin Books. Expanded edition of book originally published as Between Past and Future: Six Exercises in Political Thought. (New York: Meridian, 1961)
Arendt, H. (1963).On Revolution. New York: Viking.
Arendt, H. (1971).”Thinking and Moral Considerations: A Lecture” ,Social Research 38(1971),421-445.
Arendt, H. (1977). The Life of the Mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Arendt, H. (1982) Lecture on Kant's Political Philosophy. Ed., and with an interpretive essay by Ronald Beiner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Beiner, R.(1982).Interpretive Essay, in Hannah Arendt, Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Beiner, R.(1983).Political Judgment. London: Methuen.
Beiner, R.(1994).Judging in a World of Appearance: A Commentary on Hannah Arendt’s Unwritten Finale,” in Lewis P. Hinchman and Sandra K. Hinchman(eds.), Hannah Arendt: Critical Essays. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Beiner, R.(1997)Rereading Hannah Arendt’s Kant Lectures, in Philosophy in a Time of Lost Spirit: Essays on Contemporary Theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Bernstein, R. (1977)Hannah Arendt: The Ambiguities of Theory and Practice, in Terence Ball (eds.), Political Theory and Praxis: New Perspective. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Bernstein, R. (1986).Judging– the Actor and the Spectator, in Philosophical Profiles: Essays in a Pragmatic Mode. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bernstein, R. (1996).Hannah Arendt and the Jewish Question. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Birmingham, P.(1997).Hannah Arendt: The Activity of the Spectator, in David Michael Levin, Site of Vision: The Discursive Construction of Sight in the History of Philosophy. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Canovan, M.(1992).Hannah Arendt: A Reinterpretation of Her Political Thought. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Denneny, M.(1979).The Privilege of Ourselves: Hannah Arendt on Judgment, in Melvyn A. Hill(ed.), Hannah Arendt: The Recovery of the Public World. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Draenos, S. S.(1979).Thinking without a Ground: Hannah Arendt and the Contemporary Situation of Understanding,” in Melvyn A. Hill(ed.), Hannah Arendt: The Recovery of the Public World. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Giroux, H. A. (1988).Theachers as Intellectuals:Toward aCritical Pedagogy of Learning.Massahusetts:Bergin & Garvey.
Ingram, D.(1988).The Postmodern Kantianism of Arendt and Lyotard, The Review of Metaphysics 42(1): 51-77.
Kateb, G.(1983).Hannah Arendt: Politics, Conscience, Evil. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
Kateb, G.(1999).The Judgment of Arendt, evue-Internationale-de-Philosophie 53(208): 133-154.
Maurizio, Passerin d’Entreves (1994)The political philosophy of Hannah Arendt.New York.
May, D.(1986).Hannah Arendt. New York: Penguin Books.
May, L.(1996)Socialization and Institutional Evil, in Larry May and Jerome Kohn( eds.), Hannah Arendt: Twenty Years Later. Cambridge, Ma: The MIT Press.
Smith,Stacy.(2001).Education For Judgment:An Arendtian Oxymoron?, in Mordechai Gordon ed, Hannah Arendt and Education.Kingdom:Westview Press.
Villa, D. R.(1996).The Banality of Philosophy: Arendt on Heidegger and Eichmann,in Larry May and Jerome Kohn(eds.), Hannah Arendt: Twenty Years Later. Cambridge, Ma: The MIT Press.
Villa, D. R.(1996).Arendt and Heidegger: The Fate of the Political. Princeton,NJ.: Princeton University Press.
Villa, D. R.(1997)Hannah Arendt: Modernity, Alienation, and Critique, in Craig Calhoun and John McGowan(eds.), Hannah Arendt and the Meaning of Politics.Minneapolis: University Of Minnesota Press.
Yar, M.(2000).From Actor to Spectator: Hannah Arendt’s ‘two theories’of Political Judgment. Philosophy & Social Criticism 26(2): 1-27.
Young-B, E.(1982).Hannah Arendt: For Love of the World. New Haven,Conm.: Yale University Press.