http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
朴奉穆 한국교육학회 1979 敎育學硏究 Vol.17 No.1
Dewey의 藝術論에 대해서 本人은 네 가지 側面에서 論議하고져 한다. 첫째는 듀이의 作品속에 나타난 그의 藝術論의 地位와 性格에 대해서 論하고, 둘째는 그가 藝術論에서 主張하는 바가 무엇인가를 밝히고, 셋째는 그의 藝術論과 敎育과의 관련성을 알아보고, 그러고 넷째로 그의 藝術論에 대한 批判과 評價를 하고자 한다.
平等의 定義와 敎育的 示唆 : Dewey, Niebuhr, Rawls의 思想 分析 An Analysis of the Ideas of Dewey, Niebuhr and Rawls
朴奉穆 대구효성가톨릭대학교 사회과학연구소 1976 女性問題硏究 Vol.5 No.-
This study attempts to achieve a threefold aim: (1) to analyze the ideas of John Dewey, Reinhold Niebuhr and John Rawls to define concept of just equality; (2) to compare the findings of these analyses to determine points of agreement and disagreement among these three men; and (3) to draw educational implications from both their common thoughts and different thoughts. Dewey recognizes the inequality of the natural endowments of man. He rejects the gifted becoming a means of oppression the less gifted. However, the better balance Dewey attemps can be brought about by an enlarged opportunity for the less privileged. Thus, Dewey's doctrine of equality is based on the positive and dynamic way. As a Christian realist, Niebuhr believes that human nature contains stronger self-interests than social impulses. Niebuhr rejects absolute equalitarianism which is derived largely from the concept of natural law. Niebuhr is more interested in a better balance of protecting the weak by lifting them to a level of an approximate equality with the strong. However, unlike Dewey, his approach to the equal justice is more based on negative and regulative coercion than educative development. It is difficult to expect a mere moral or rational exhortation can persuade to sacrifice irresponsible power of the privileged for the less privileged. Thus, an adequate social theory must do justice to both the spirit of equality and the necessities of functional inequalities. Rawls's concept of equal justice is based on what he calls "difference principle." This principle evaluates every possible institutional arrangement in terms of the interests of the least advantaged individual. However, unlike Niebuhr, he believes in both collective and individual rationality as being the criteria of our explanation of a sense of justice. In other words, we as the moral beings are never motivated by our own selfish interests but our strong sense of justice. Thus, just equality to him is the principle of rational prudence applied to the concept of "welfare for the whole." The common agreement among these ideas concerning the concept of equal justice is found paradoxically in the concept of unequal treatment. The agreement manifests itself in terms of Dewey's idea of the welfare of society, Niebuhr's interest of functional inequality with the spirit of equal justice and Rawls's concept of difference principle. Although there is agreement among the theorists, the ways to approach the elimination of injustice are different according to their different views of human nature. The different educational implications are in accord with these views. Dewey regards human nature as neutral. It can be developed in either a good or a bad direction according to the interaction between the self and the environment. Education, therefore, is imperative to realize equal justice. Dewey is positive and optimistic about the use of science through education. Niebuhr is more conscious of the social perils caused by the corruption of self-interest. Thus, he is much concerned with control of irresponsible power by the use of laws and various social systems for the benefit of the less privileged in terms of equal justice. Although education is not entirely deniable to Niebuhr, he gives it a smaller place for the equal justice. Rawls, unlike Niebuhr, puts great trust in the natural consequence of human reason as the sole criterion of justice. Those who have been favored by nature are expected to improve the situation of those who have not been so favored. By Rawls, thus, the naturally advantaged are required to use their endowment in ways that help the less fortunate. Rawls's optimistic view of the social consequences of rationality based on human nature easily may lead to eilte concept of education. His educational implication for equal justice in favor of the least advantaged is different from both ideas of Dewey's positive development of human possibilities through education and Niebuhr's negative control of irresponsible power through institutional efforts. We hope that Rawls's great trust on maturity of human reason may not abandon educational efforts whether they are positive or negative. Thus this writer cautiously draws educational implications for equal justice to promote the benefit of the least advantaged from both Dewey's positive education and Niebuhr's negative institutional policy rather than Rawls's natural consequences of human reason.