Course: Philosophy of Education (8609) Semester: Autumn, 2022

ASSIGNMENT No. 2
Roll no: 0000114067

Q.1 Discuss Plato’s claim that different sections of society should be given different
types of education.
Ans.
Plato’s Theory of Education
Education for Plato was one of the great things of life. Education was an attempt to touch the
evil at its source, and reform the wrong ways of living as well as one’s outlook towards life.
According to Barker, education is an attempt to cure a mental illness by a medicine.
The object of education is to turn the soul towards light. Plato once stated that the main
function of education is not to put knowledge into the soul, but to bring out the latent talents
in the soul by directing it towards the right objects. This explanation of Plato on education
highlights his object of education and guides the readers in proper direction to unfold the
ramifications of his theory of education.
Plato was, in fact, the first ancient political philosopher either to establish a university or
introduce a higher course or to speak of education as such. This emphasis on education came
to the forefront only due to the then prevailing education system in Athens. Plato was against
the practice of buying knowledge, which according to him was a heinous crime than buying
meat and drink. Plato strongly believed in a state control education system.
He held the view that without education, the individual would make no progress any more
than a patient who believed in curing himself by his own loving remedy without giving up his
luxurious mode of living. Therefore, Plato stated that education touches the evil at the grass
root and changes the whole outlook on life.
It was through education that the principle of justice was properly maintained. Education was
the positive measure for the operation of justice in the ideal state. Plato was convinced that
the root of the vice lay chiefly in ignorance, and only by proper education can one be
converted into a virtuous man.
The main purpose of Plato’s theory of education was to ban individualism, abolish incompe-
tence and immaturity, and establish the rule of the efficient. Promotion of common good was
the primary objective of platonic education.
Influence on Plato’s System of Education:
Plato was greatly influenced by the Spartan system of education, though not completely. The
education system in Athens was privately controlled unlike in Sparta where the education
was state-controlled. The Spartan youth were induced to military spirit and the educational
system was geared to this end.However, the system lacked the literacy aspect. Intriguingly,
many Spartans could neither read nor write. Therefore, it can be stated that the Spartan
system did not produce any kind of intellectual potentials in man, which made Plato discard
the Spartan education to an extent. The platonic system of education is, in fact, a blend of
Athens and the organization of Sparta. This is because Plato believed in the integrated
development of human personality.
State-controlled Education:
Plato believed in a strong state-controlled education for both men and women. He was of the
opinion that every citizen must be compulsorily trained to fit into any particular class, viz.,
ruling, fighting or the producing class.
Education, however, must be imparted to all in the early stages without any discrimination.
Plato never stated out rightly that education system was geared to those who want to become
rulers of the ideal state and this particular aspect attracted widespread criticism.
Plato’s Scheme of Education:
Course: Philosophy of Education (8609) Semester: Autumn, 2022

Plato was of the opinion that education must begin at an early age. In order to make sure that
children study well, Plato insisted that children be brought up in a hale and healthy
environment and that the atmosphere implant ideas of truth and goodness. Plato believed that
early education must be related to literature, as it would bring out the best of the soul. The
study must be mostly related to story-telling and then go on to poetry.
Secondly, music and thirdly arts were the subjects of early education. Plato believed in
regulation of necessary step towards conditioning the individual. For further convenience,
Plato’s system of education can be broadly divided into two parts: elementary education and
higher education.
Elementary Education:
Plato was of the opinion that for the first 10 years, there should be predominantly physical
education. In other words, every school must have a gymnasium and a playground in order to
develop the physique and health of children and make them resistant to any disease.
Apart from this physical education, Plato also recommended music to bring about certain
refinement in their character and lent grace and health to the soul and the body. Plato also
prescribed subjects such as mathematics, history and science.
However, these subjects must be taught by smoothing them into verse and songs and must not
be forced on children. This is because, according to Plato, knowledge acquired under
compulsion has no hold on the mind. Therefore, he believed that education must not be
forced, but should be made a sort of amusement as it would enable the teacher to understand
the natural bent of mind of the child. Plato also emphasized on moral education.
Higher Education:
According to Plato, a child must take an examination that would determine whether or not to
pursue higher education at the age of 20. Those who failed in the examination were asked to
take up activities in communities such as businessmen, clerks, workers, farmers and the like.
Those who passed the exam would receive another 10 years of education and training in body
and mind. At this stage, apart from physical and mathematical sciences, subjects like
arithmetic, astronomy, geometry and dialectics were taught. Again at the age of 30, students
would take yet another examination, which served as an elimination test, much severe than
the first test.
Those who did not succeed would become executive assistants, auxiliaries and military
officers of the state. Plato stated that based on their capabilities, candidates would be assigned
a particular field. Those who passed in the examination would receive another 5 year
advanced education in dialectics in order to find out as to who was capable of freeing himself
from sense perception.
The education system did not end here. Candidates had to study for another 15 years for
practical experience in dialectics. Finally at the age of 50, those who withstood the hard and
fast process of education were introduced to the ultimate task of governing their country and
the fellow beings.
These kings were expected to spend most of the time in philosophical pursuits. Thus, after
accomplishing perfection, the rulers would exercise power only in the best interests of the
state. The ideal state would be realized and its people would be just, honest and happy.

Q.2 Discuss the features of educational curriculum proposed by john Dewey.

Ans
John Dewey is credited as founding a philosophical approach to life called ‘pragmatism’, and
his approaches to education and learning have been influential internationally and endured
over time. He saw the purpose of education to be the cultivation of thoughtful, critically
reflective, socially engaged individuals rather than passive recipients of established
knowledge. He rejected the rote-learning approach driven by predetermined curriculum
Course: Philosophy of Education (8609) Semester: Autumn, 2022

which was the standard teaching method at the time. However, importantly, he also rejected
child-centred approaches that followed children’s uninformed interests and impulses
uncritically. While he used the term ‘progressive education’, this has since been
misappropriated to describe, in some cases, a hands-off approach to children’s learning
which was not what Dewey proposed. Dewey believed that traditional subject matter was
important, but should be integrated with the strengths and interests of the learner.
He developed a concept of inquiry, prompted by a sense of need and followed by intellectual
work such as defining problems, testing hypotheses, and finding satisfactory solutions, as the
central activity of such an educational approach. This organic cycle of
doubt, inquiry, reflection and the reestablishment of sense or understanding contrasted
with the ‘reflex arc’ model of learning popular in his time. The reflex arc model thought of
learning as a mechanical process, measurable by standardised tests, without reference to the
role of emotion or experience in learning. Dewey was critical of the reductionism of
educational approaches which assume that all the big questions and ideas are already
answered, and need only to be transmitted to students. He believed that all concepts and
meanings could be open to reinvention and improvement, and all disciplines could be
expanded with new knowledge, concepts and understandings.
The main features of Dewey’s theory of education
Dewey suggested that individuals learn and grow as a result of experiences and interactions
with the world. These interactions and experiences lead individuals to continually develop
new concepts, ideas, practices and understandings, which, in turn, are refined through and
continue to mediate the learner’s life experiences and social interactions. According to
Dewey:
Interactions and communications focused on enhancing and deepening shared
meanings increase potential for learning and development. When students communicate ideas
and meanings within a group, they have the opportunity to consider, take on and work
with the perspectives, ideas and experiences of other students.
Shared activities are an important context for learning and development. Dewey valued real-
life contexts and problems as educative experiences. If students only passively perceive a
problem and do not experience the consequences in a meaningful, emotional and reflective
way, then they are unlikely to adapt and revise their habits or construct new habits, or will do
so only superficially.
Students learn best when their interests are engaged. It is important to
develop ideas, activities and events that stimulate students’ interest and to which teaching can
be geared. Teaching and lecturing can be highly appropriate as long as they are geared
towards helping students to analyse or develop an intellectual insight into a specific and
meaningful situation.
Learning always begins with a student’s emotional response, which spurs further
inquiry. Dewey advocated for what he called ‘aesthetic’ experiences: dramatic, compelling,
unifying or transforming experiences in which students feel enlivened and absorbed.
Students should be engaged in active learning and inquiry. Rather than teach students to
accept any seemingly valid explanations, education ought to give students opportunities to
discover information and ideas by their own effort in a teacher-structured environment, and to
put knowledge to functional use by defining and solving problems, and determining the
validity and worth of ideas and theories. As noted above, this does not preclude explicit
instruction where appropriate.
Inquiry involves students in reflecting intelligently on their experiences in order to adapt their
habits of action. Experience should involve what Dewey called ‘transaction’: an active phase,
in which the student does something, as well as a phase of ‘undergoing’, where the student
receives or observes the effect that their action has had. This might be as simple as noticing
Course: Philosophy of Education (8609) Semester: Autumn, 2022

patterns when adding numbers, or experimenting to determine the correct proportions for
papier mâché.
Education is a key way of developing skills for democratic activity. Dewey was positive
about the value of recognising and appreciating differences as a vehicle through which
students can expand their experiences, and open up to new ways of thinking rather than
closing off to their own beliefs and habits.
What empirical evidence is there for this philosophy in practice?
While there is no direct evidence that Dewey’s approach improves student
outcomes, Dewey’s theory of students’ learning aligns with current theories of
education which emphasise how individuals develop cognitive functioning by participating in
sociocultural practices1, and with empirical studies examining the positive impact
of interactions with peers and adults2 on students’ learning. Quantative research also
underlines a link between heightened engagement and children’s learning outcomes, with
strategies such as making meaningful connections to students’ home lives and encouraging
student ownership of their learning found to increase student engagement3. A few empirical
studies which examined the effectiveness of aesthetic experiences for students confirmed that
students experienced those lessons as more meaningful, compelling and connected than a
comparison group.4
Dewey’s influence on teaching practice
Dewey’s theory has had an impact on a variety of educational practices including
individualised instruction, problem-based and integrated learning, dialogic teaching, and
critical inquiry. Dewey’s ideas also resonate with ideas of teaching as inquiry.
Individualised instruction
Dewey’s ideas about education are evident in approaches where teaching and
learning are designed to be responsive to the specific needs, interests, and cultural knowledge
of students. Teachers therefore learn about students and their motivating interests and
desires in order to find subject matter, events and experiences that appeal to students and
that will provoke a need to develop the knowledge, skills and values of
the planned curriculum. Students are encouraged to relate learning to their lives
and experiences.
Problem-based learning and integrated learning approaches
Dewey’s principles of learning are evident also in problem-based learning and project
approaches to learning. These approaches begin with a practical task or problem which is
complex, comprehensive, multi-layered, collaborative, and involves inquiry designed
to extend students’ knowledge, skills and understandings. Problem-based learning should:
start by supporting students to intellectualise exactly what the problem is
encourage controlled inquiry by helping students to develop logical hypotheses (rather
than depending on their habits of thinking to jump to conclusions), for
example, by connecting or disconnecting ideas they already have encountered
encourage students to revise their theories and reconstruct their concepts as their inquiry
unfolds.
Student engagement
Dewey’s theory has also been extended to the problem of enhancing student engagement.
Some strategies that have been found to increase student engagement and that align with
Dewey’s concept of aesthetic experiences include:
engaging students in deeper perception – going beyond the simple recognition of
objects to look carefully at colours, lines and textures, question perceptions, and use new
understandings to perceive things in new ways
building intellectual, sensory, emotional or social connections to a topic, such as connecting
to the topic of space travel through intellectual connections to the concepts of speed, power
Course: Philosophy of Education (8609) Semester: Autumn, 2022

and force, sensory connections to the sounds, fire and vibrations, and emotional or social
connections to the feelings of astronauts involved
encouraging risk-taking, such as suggesting a calculation, or experimenting to make
papier mâché
encouraging sensory exploration
using a theme or metaphor to illuminate powerful ideas and to produce a sense of wonder,
imagination and anticipation, such as ‘rocks have a story to tell’
provoking anticipation with evocative materials or suggestive situations, enabling students
to unravel a mystery rather than follow a recipe.
Engagement can be heightened when students have ownership of their learning, for example,
by being engaged in curriculum planning and cooperatively build curriculum themes, or
by selecting a topic to research rather than being assigned a topic. Students can take
responsibility for judging the value, significance and meaning of their experiences as well as
next steps.
Dialogic teaching
Dialogic teaching emphasises the importance of open student dialogue and meaning-
making for learning, and builds on Dewey’s ideas about the importance of communication
and social interaction. In this approach, students are encouraged to form habits of careful
listening and thoughtful speaking: for example, they might be discouraged from raising their
hand to speak in a lesson, as that action triggers anticipatory thought rather than full attention
to the current speaker. Attention is paid to issues of power, privilege and access that may
hinder open dialogue.
Critical inquiry
Dewey’s approach to education is evident in curricula focused on critial thinking skills in
which students engage in intellectual reflection and inquiry, critique, test and judge
knowledge claims, make connections, apply their understandings in a range of different
situations, and go into depth, rather than be given quick answers or rushed through a series of
content. Dewey’s philosophy of education highlights the importance of imagination to drive
thinking and learning forward, and for teachers to provide opportunities for students
to suspend judgement, engage in the playful consideration of possibilities, and explore
doubtful possibilities.
Teaching as inquiry
Dewey’s perspective on teaching and learning encourages a teaching as inquiry mindset. His
principles for teaching and learning suggest that teachers should cultivate an energetic
openness to possibilities alongside a commitment to reflectively learning from experiences,
be willing to experience ambiguity and use problems as an opportunity to get deeper into an
understanding of self, students, the subject and the context.
Q.3 Describe the teaching method advocated by Al-Farabi.
Ans.
The aim of this paper is to present the attitudes to education of Abu Nasr al-Farabi within the
framework of his philosophical system, an aspect of his work about which little was known,
since researchers have been more interested in the logical, metaphysical and political aspects,
to the neglect of his educational concepts. However, scholars do know that al-Farabi studied
Plato’s Republic and this work, by which he was most certainly influenced, deals mainly with
education, as is now accepted by historians of philosophy [2]. It is even more unlikely that al-
Farabi could have been unaware of this dimension of Plato’s philosophy since he made a
summary of Plato’s Laws, a work which we know expresses his final thoughts on education.
1. Al-Farabi: A Biographical outline
So who is al-Farabi, and what is his contribution to education?
Course: Philosophy of Education (8609) Semester: Autumn, 2022

Al-Farabi was born in Wasij, in the province of Farab in Turkestan, in 872 AD (259 AH) of a
noble family. His father, of Persian origin, was an army commander at the Turkish court. Al-
Farabi moved to Baghdad, where he studied grammar, logic, philosophy, music, mathematics
and sciences; he was a pupil of the great translator and interpreter of Greek philosophy, Abu
Bishr Matta b. Yunus (d. 942/329) in Baghdad; he then studied under Yuhanna b. Haylan, the
Nestorian (d. 941/328), in Harran. Thereby he is affiliated to the Alexandrian school of
philosophy which had been located at Harran, Antakya and Merv, before definitively settling
in Baghdad. As a result of these years of study, he accumulated such knowledge of
philosophy that he earned the name of the ‘Second Teacher’, by reference to Aristotle, the
‘First Teacher’.
He moved to Aleppo in the year 943 (330) and became part of the literary circle in the court
of Sayf al-Dawla Hamdani (d. 968/356). Al-Farabi was given to wandering on his own in the
countryside to reflect and to write, and it was probably his despair at reforming his society
that inclined him towards Sufism. His travels brought him to Egypt and it was in Damascus
in 950 (339) that he died at the age of 80 [3].
Al-Farabi had a great desire to understand the universe and humankind, and to know the
latter’s place within the former, so as to reach a comprehensive intellectual picture of the
world and of society. He undertook the meticulous study of ancient philosophy, particularly
of Plato and Aristotle, absorbing the components of Platonic and neo-Platonic philosophy,
which he integrated into his own Islamic-Arabic civilization, whose chief source is, as we all
know, the Qur’an and the various sciences derived from it.
Al-Farabi represents a turning-point in the history of Islamic philosophical thought, since he
was the true first founder of epistemology which relies upon ‘universal reason’ and the
demonstrations he gave. The intellectual, political and social circumstances prevailing in his
day no doubt explain his approach since, in fact, he lived in a historical period of great
turmoil, during which the central Islamic caliphate was torn apart into independent states and
principalities in both the east and west; and sects and schools of thought (madhahib) sprang
up undermining the nation’s intellectual and political unity (oumma). Thus al-Farabi’s
concern was to restore unity to Islamic thought by confirming the gnoseology based on
demonstration.
He established logic within Islamic culture, and this is why he is known as the ‘Second
Teacher’, as already mentioned. He was also engaged in restoring unity in politics [4],
making political science the core of his philosophy, basing himself on the system of rules
which governs nature and on the Qur’an which emphasized the relationship between
gnoseology and values (axiology). He believed the first aim of knowledge was knowledge of
God and his attributes, a knowledge which has a profound effect on the human being’s moral
conduct and helps him to find the way to the ultimate aim of his existence, while indirectly
arousing the intellect so that it should achieve wisdom, which al-Farabi held to be the highest
level of intellectual attainment permitted to human beings in this life [5]. Thus the core of his
philosophy came to be the unity of society and of the State to be achieved by unity of
thought, wisdom and religion, each of these being the foundations of the community’s
government, which should be the same as the unity and order found in the universe. Indeed,
al-Farabi often compares the order and unity of the city to that of the universe. Philosophy
and religion were for him simply two expressions of a single truth, the variance between them
being only in the form of expression: philosophy explains religion and provides proof of it; it
is neither in conflict nor in contradiction with it. Therefore we find him also bringing together
the philosophy of Plato and of Aristotle to explain the unity of intellect; for, in his opinion,
there is a general unity of thought between Plato and Aristotle, the disparities being mere
details.
Course: Philosophy of Education (8609) Semester: Autumn, 2022

It is especially important to note here that al-Farabi described something that was taboo in the
Hellenistic era: namely, the logical category called ‘demonstration’ whose social and
educational function he illustrated in the formation of the mind and of political awareness.
2. The aims of education
In fact, education is one of the most important social phenomena in al-Farabi’s philosophical
system. It is concerned with the human soul and makes sure that the individual is prepared
from an early age to become a member of society, to achieve his own level of perfection, and
thus to reach the goal for which he was created. However, while it is true that there are no
writings specifically devoted to education in al-Farabi’s books, anyone who follows his
writings with care will come upon various texts scattered here and there containing clear
educational elements corresponding to his overall philosophical views, which incline to
integrate separate concepts and thoughts into a ‘unified world view’.
Indeed, the whole activity of education, in al-Farabi’s view, can be summed up as the
acquisition of values, knowledge and practical skills by the individual, within a particular
period and a particular culture. The goal of education is to lead the individual to perfection
since the human being was created for this purpose, and the goal of humanity’s existence in
this world is to attain happiness, which is the highest perfection—the absolute good [6].
The perfect human being (al-insan al-kamil), thought al-Farabi, is the one who has obtained
theoretical virtue—thus completing his intellectual knowledge—and has acquired practical
moral virtues—thus becoming perfect in his moral behaviour. Then, crowning these
theoretical and moral virtues with effective power, they are anchored in the souls of
individual members of the community [7] when they assume the responsibility of political
leadership, thus becoming role models for other people. Al-Farabi unites moral and aesthetic
values: good is beautiful, and beauty is good; the beautiful is that which is valued by the
intelligentsia [8]. So this perfection which he expects from education combines knowledge
and virtuous behavior; it is happiness and goodness at one and the same time.
Theoretical and practical perfection can only be obtained within society, for it is society that
nurtures the individual and prepares him to be free. If he were to live outside society, he
might only learn to be a wild animal [9]. Then, one of the goals of education is the creation of
the ideal community, ‘the one whose cities all work together in order to attain
happiness’ [10].
One of the aims of education is the formation of political leaders, because ‘ignorance is more
harmful in monarchs than it is in the common people’ [11]. So, in al-Farabi’s view, just as the
body needs food and the ship must have a captain, moral conduct must proceed from the soul
and the citizens have a real need for a leader who conducts an acceptable policy, directing
their affairs in a praiseworthy manner and improving their situation. There is integration
between the individual, the family and the city in social life: ‘What we say about all cities is
also true of the single household, and of each person’ [12]. The political leader, al-Farabi
considers, has the function of a doctor who treats souls and his political skill is to the
wellbeing of the city what the physician’s skill is to bodily health. The work of the politician
should not be restricted to the organization and management of cities, inasmuch as he
encourages people to help one another in achieving good things and overcoming evil; he must
use his political skills to protect the virtues and praiseworthy activities that he has been
encouraging in the citizens [13] so that they are free of failings. Among the other
characteristics of the political leader is the ‘consultative faculty’, in other words ‘an
intellectual capacity by which he can draw out what is most beneficial and most fair in the
search for the good among others’ [14].
The soundness of the city is a reflection of ‘the good balance of morals among its
people’ [15], and achieving this balance is one of the most important aims of education.
When moral behavior declines and there is doubt over behavior and opinions, the absence of
Course: Philosophy of Education (8609) Semester: Autumn, 2022

these common values governing people’s conduct disturbs the city. Morality, then, is a
fundamental objective of education. Al-Farabi defines virtues as ‘states of mind in which the
human being carries out good and kind deeds. […] They can be either ethical or rational; the
latter are virtues of the rational element in the intelligent human being, such as wisdom,
common sense, inventiveness and cleverness. The ethical virtues are, among others,
temperance, courage, generosity and justice’ [16]. These virtues in the individual must be
internalized in the soul so that a person is ready to act upon them ‘to earnestly desire them
and, rather than being harmed by them, finds them attractive […] so that he pursues always
those ends which are truly good and makes them his goal’ [17].
Among the other aims assigned to education, al-Farabi includes ‘proficiency in the arts’,
because, in his view, perfection in theoretical and practical arts is one of the expressions of
wisdom; for the wise are ‘those who are very proficient in the arts, and reach perfection in
them’ [18].
Thus, in al-Farabi’s view, one of the goals of education is to combine learning with practical
action, for the purpose of knowledge is that it should be applied, and perfection lies in its
being transformed into action: ‘Whatever by its nature should be known and practiced, its
perfection lies in it actually being practiced’ [19]. The sciences have no meaning unless they
can be applied in practical reality, otherwise they are void and useless. The real practical
sciences ‘are those which are linked to readiness for action’ [20] and absolute perfection is
‘what the human being achieves through knowledge and action applied together’ [21].
Moreover, if the speculative sciences are learned without having the opportunity to apply
them, this wisdom is marred [22].
Concerning the realization of these aims and the supervision of education and teaching, al-
Farabi agrees with Plato and the ‘Twelver Shi’a’ that it is the priest, ruler or philosopher who
should be responsible [23]. And since the lawgiver is also the ruler, al-Farabi concludes that
the law has an educational function: ‘The meaning of imam, in Arabic, indicates one whose
example is followed, one who is well-regarded’ [24] . Issuing laws for society does not
simply mean ‘that citizens should be obedient and diligent, but also that they should have
praiseworthy morals and acceptable behavior’ [25] .
Therefore al-Farabi considers that the one who prescribes the laws must be bound by them
himself before expecting others to conform to them: ‘The one who sets the laws must first
follow them, and only then make them compulsory’ [26] . For he would not be acceptable to
those under his command, nor would they respect him, if they did not see him observing his
own laws. In short, the law has an educational function since it leads to the inculcation of
virtues when the leaders conform to it themselves and are seen as role models for the general
public. For this purpose, the lawgiver must be trained from childhood in the affairs of
State [27] , and the imam‘s or caliph’s aim in legislation must be to please God. Only those
whom God has prepared may make laws, including the Prophet, whom al-Farabi defines as:
‘He who lays down the practices and the holy laws, and admonishes the people by incitement
and intimidation’ [28] . The function of the caliph is to pursue the educational role previously
undertaken by the Prophet.
Al-Farabi considers it a duty of the State to put aside a budget for education, taking a portion
from the alms tax (zakat) and land tax (kharaj), as well as other State resources for this
purpose: ‘Taxes and duties are of two kinds: one is taken to support mutual assistance and the
other for the education of the young’ [29] .
3. What is education?Al-Farabi used a large number of technical terms to describe this
concept: discipline (ta’dib) [30], correction/assessment (taqwim) [31], training (tahdhib) [32],
guidance (tasdid) [33], instruction (ta’lim) [34], exercise or learning (irtiyad) [35], and
upbringing or education (tarbiya) [36]. Good manners or culture (adab), in his opinion, in
their true educational meaning are the ‘combination of all the good qualities’ [37], while
Course: Philosophy of Education (8609) Semester: Autumn, 2022

discipline is the ‘way of creating the moral virtues, and the practical arts in the nations’ [38].
Instruction (ta’lim) is ‘creating the speculative virtues in nations and cities’[39]. Al-Farabi
distinguishes between instruction (ta’lim) and discipline (ta’dib). The former is the way of
acquiring a theoretical culture, and is mainly verbal. The latter forms ethical conduct, and
leads to technical or practical skills. They are therefore quite different.
But al-Farabi did not insist on this division, and on another occasion he defined instruction as
including discipline [40]. Al-Farabi divides instruction between ‘special’ and ‘general’. The
special is ‘that which is achieved exclusively by demonstration’ [41]. This kind of instruction
is directed at the elite ‘who do not restrict themselves in their theoretical knowledge to what
is expected by generally accepted opinions, because among nations, as among citizens, there
is an elite and the general public. The general public designates those who are restricted in
their theoretical knowledge -whether by obligation or not – to what is demanded by generally
accepted opinions’ [42].
It is the elite of the elite which exercises leadership [43]. It is for this reason that the method
of instruction is different: ‘Persuasive and descriptive methods are used in the instruction of
common people and the masses in nations and cities; while demonstration methods […] are
used for instructing those who are destined to form part of the elite’ [44], those who have
been tested and found to have superior intelligence.
Al-Farabi believes that education is founded upon the basis of the human being having
certain inborn aptitudes, which he calls ‘nature’; ‘in other words the power which the human
being possesses at the moment of birth, and which he could not have acquired’[45]. No
normal human being lacks it, just as the whole is greater than the part [46]. Al-Farabi also
speaks about ‘primary science’ and ‘primary principals’ [47]. He differs from Plato in that he
gives a fundamental place to sensory perception. He describes the senses as ‘the paths
whence the human soul gains knowledge’ [48].
Knowledge thus begins with the senses, then becomes an intellectual conception by way of
imagination, since whatever the soul understands contains an element of imagination.
Knowledge originates with the senses [49]. Al-Farabi drew attention to Aristotle’s opinion
in The Book of Demonstrations when he said: ‘Whosoever loses a sensory perception loses
knowledge’ [50]. One function of the imagination is to preserve the sensory
images [51] which, in the end, become intellectual possessions. Some of his views, dealing
with what today we would call general psychology and educational psychology should be the
subject of an interesting study [52]. Although he deals with sensory knowledge, he considers
that the senses are only instruments of the mind, for it is the mind which has the potential of
understanding. He pointed to Plato’s opinion that the nature of learning is based on ‘memory’
and gives a metaphor of the concept of ‘equality’ which, in his opinion, is fixed in the mind:
confronted with a piece of wood which is equal to another piece of wood, we are aware of
this equality, in other words the concept of ‘equality’ is presented to the memory which
compares it with the concept already in the mind. ‘Any learner proceeds in the same way by
comparing it with what is already in his mind’ [53]. We find this too in al-Biruni (d.
1048/444): ‘Our learning is no more than remembering what we have learned in the past […]
forgetting is the passing away of knowledge, and learning is remembering what the soul
knew before it came into the body’ [54].
4. Teaching methods
As we have seen, al-Farabi considers that the method of instruction must be appropriate to the
level of the learners, depending on whether people belong to the common people or the elite.
Education, as he sees it, is necessary for every individual in the nation, since without it
nobody would be able to reach perfection and happiness. So, if education must be available to
all, the method of teaching should however be adapted according to the group it is intended
for. There are two fundamental methods: the path of the common people, based on
Course: Philosophy of Education (8609) Semester: Autumn, 2022

persuasion; the path of the elite, based on demonstration. Furthermore, the method of
instruction may also vary according to the instructional material. Thus, teaching theoretical
intellectual virtues is carried out by demonstration, while teaching practical arts and crafts is
by way of persuasion.
The demonstrative path is achieved through speech. Aural instruction, according to al-
Farabi’s words, is therefore ‘that in which the teacher uses speech’ for matters which can be
taught in this way. It leads to the acquisition of theoretical virtues. The persuasive method is
conducted through speech and activity together, and is suitable for teaching the applied arts
and moral virtues
Following Plato’s model, al-Farabi used the method of dialogue or debate , although he does
not consider it as the only method to escape from the world of sensory perception to arrive at
the world of intelligentsia—beginning with contradictory ideas to arrive at unity. He
emphasized the importance of discussion and dialogue in instruction, and indicated two
methods: the method of argument and the method of discourse; both of these ‘can be used
orally or in writing’. When speaking to the common people, the methods used must be those
closest to their powers of comprehension, enabling them to grasp what they are capable of
understanding.
Q.4 Define Deconstructionism. Write down the qualities of teacher and curriculum
supported by Deconstructionists’ philosophy.
Ans
deconstruction, form of philosophical and literary analysis, derived mainly from work begun
in the 1960s by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida, that questions the
fundamental conceptual distinctions, or “oppositions,” in Western philosophy through a close
examination of the language and logic of philosophical and literary texts. In the 1970s the
term was applied to work by Derrida, Paul de Man, J. Hillis Miller, and Barbara Johnson,
among other scholars. In the 1980s it designated more loosely a range of radical theoretical
enterprises in diverse areas of the humanities and social sciences, including—in addition
to philosophy and literature—law, psychoanalysis, architecture, anthropology, theology,
feminism, gay and lesbian studies, political theory, historiography, and film theory. In
polemical discussions about intellectual trends of the late 20th-century, deconstruction was
sometimes used pejoratively to suggest nihilism and frivolous skepticism. In popular usage
the term has come to mean a critical dismantling of tradition and traditional modes of
thought.
Deconstruction in philosophy
The oppositions challenged by deconstruction, which have been inherent in Western
philosophy since the time of the ancient Greeks, are characteristically “binary” and
“hierarchical,” involving a pair of terms in which one member of the pair is assumed to be
primary or fundamental, the other secondary or derivative. Examples include nature
and culture, speech and writing, mind and body, presence and absence, inside and outside,
literal and metaphorical, intelligible and sensible, and form and meaning, among many
others. To “deconstruct” an opposition is to explore the tensions and contradictions between
the hierarchical ordering assumed (and sometimes explicitly asserted) in the text and other
aspects of the text’s meaning, especially those that are indirect or implicit or that rely on
figurative or performative uses of language. Through this analysis, the opposition is shown to
be a product, or “construction,” of the text rather than something given independently of it.
In the writings of the French Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, for
example, society and culture are described as corrupting and oppressive forces that gradually
develop out of an idyllic “state of nature” in which humans exist in self-sufficient and
peaceful isolation from one another. For Rousseau, then, nature is prior to culture. Yet there
is another sense in which culture is certainly prior to nature: the idea of nature is a product of
Course: Philosophy of Education (8609) Semester: Autumn, 2022

culture, and what counts as “nature” or “natural” at any given historical moment will vary
depending upon the culture of the time. What this fact shows is not that the terms of the
nature/culture opposition should be inverted—that culture is really prior to nature—but rather
that the relation between the terms is not one-sided and unidirectional, as Rousseau and
others had assumed. The point of the deconstructive analysis is to restructure, or “displace,”
the opposition, not simply to reverse it.
For Derrida, the most telling and pervasive opposition is the one that treats writing as
secondary to or derivative of speech. According to this opposition, speech is a more authentic
form of language, because in speech the ideas and intentions of the speaker are immediately
“present” (spoken words, in this idealized picture, directly express what the speaker “has in
mind”), whereas in writing they are more remote or “absent” from the speaker or author and
thus more liable to misunderstanding. As Derrida argues, however, spoken words function as
linguistic signs only to the extent that they can be repeated in different contexts, in the
absence of the speaker who originally utters them. Speech qualifies as language, in other
words, only to the extent that it has characteristics traditionally assigned to writing, such as
“absence,” “difference” (from the original context of utterance), and the possibility of
misunderstanding. One indication of this fact, according to Derrida, is that descriptions of
speech in Western philosophy often rely on examples and metaphors related to writing. In
effect, these texts describe speech as a form of writing, even in cases where writing is
explicitly claimed to be secondary to speech. As with the opposition between nature and
culture, however, the point of the deconstructive analysis is not to show that the terms of the
speech/writing opposition should be inverted—that writing is really prior to speech—nor is it
to show that there are no differences between speech and writing. Rather, it is to displace the
opposition so as to show that neither term is primary. For Derrida, speech and writing are
both forms of a more generalized “arche-writing” (archi-écriture), which encompasses not
only all of natural language but any system of representation whatsoever.
The “privileging” of speech over writing is based on what Derrida considers a distorted
(though very pervasive) picture of meaning in natural language, one that identifies the
meanings of words with certain ideas or intentions in the mind of the speaker or author.
Derrida’s argument against this picture is an extension of an insight by the Swiss
linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. For Saussure, the concepts we associate with linguistic signs
(their “meanings”) are only arbitrarily related to reality, in the sense that the ways in which
they divide and group the world are not natural or necessary, reflecting objectively existing
categories, but variable (in principle) from language to language. Hence, meanings can be
adequately understood only with reference to the specific contrasts and differences they
display with other, related meanings. For Derrida, similarly, linguistic meaning is determined
by the “play” of differences between words—a play that is “limitless,” “infinite,” and
“indefinite”—and not by an original idea or intention existing prior to and outside language.
Derrida coined the term différance, meaning both a difference and an act of deferring, to
characterize the way in which meaning is created through the play of differences between
words. Because the meaning of a word is always a function of contrasts with the meanings of
other words, and because the meanings of those words are in turn dependent on contrasts with
the meanings of still other words (and so on), it follows that the meaning of a word is not
something that is fully present to us; it is endlessly deferred in an infinitely long chain of
meanings, each of which contains the “traces” of the meanings on which it depends.
Derrida contends that the opposition between speech and writing is a manifestation of the
“logocentrism” of Western culture—i.e., the general assumption that there is a realm of
“truth” existing prior to and independent of its representation by linguistic signs.
Logocentrism encourages us to treat linguistic signs as distinct from and inessential to the
phenomena they represent, rather than as inextricably bound up with them. The
Course: Philosophy of Education (8609) Semester: Autumn, 2022

logocentric conception of truth and reality as existing outside language derives in turn from a
deep-seated prejudice in Western philosophy, which Derrida characterizes as the
“metaphysics of presence.” This is the tendency to conceive fundamental philosophical
concepts such as truth, reality, and being in terms of ideas such as presence, essence, identity,
and origin—and in the process to ignore the crucial role of absence and difference.
Deconstruction in literary studies
Deconstruction’s reception was coloured by its intellectual predecessors, most
notably structuralism and New Criticism. Beginning in France in the 1950s, the structuralist
movement in anthropology analyzed various cultural phenomena as general systems of
“signs” and attempted to develop “metalanguages” of terms and concepts in which the
different sign systems could be described. Structuralist methods were soon applied to other
areas of the social sciences and humanities, including literary studies. Deconstruction offered
a powerful critique of the possibility of creating detached, scientific metalanguages and was
thus categorized (along with kindred efforts) as “post-structuralist.” Anglo-American
New Criticism sought to understand verbal works of art (especially poetry) as complex
constructions made up of different and contrasting levels of literal and nonliteral meanings,
and it emphasized the role of paradox and irony in these artifacts. Deconstructive readings, in
contrast, treated works of art not as the harmonious fusion of literal and figurative meanings
but as instances of the intractable conflicts between meanings of different types. They
generally examined the individual work not as a self-contained artifact but as a product of
relations with other texts or discourses, literary and nonliterary. Finally, these readings placed
special emphasis on the ways in which the works themselves offered implicit critiques of the
categories that critics used to analyze them. In the United States in the 1970s and ’80s,
deconstruction played a major role in the animation and transformation of literary studies by
literary theory (often referred to simply as “theory”), which was concerned with questions
about the nature of language, the production of meaning, and the relationship
between literature and the numerous discourses that structure human experience and its
histories.
Deconstruction in the social sciences and the arts
Deconstruction’s influence widened to include a variety of other disciplines.
In psychoanalysis, deconstructive readings of texts by Sigmund Freud and others drew
attention to the role of language in the formation of the psyche; showed how psychoanalytic
case studies are shaped by the kinds of psychic mechanisms that they purport to analyze
(thus, Freud’s writings are themselves organized by processes of repression, condensation,
and displacement); and questioned the logocentric presuppositions of psychoanalytic theory.
Some strands of feminist thinking engaged in a deconstruction of the opposition between
“man” and “woman” and critiqued essentialist notions of gender and sexual identity. The
work of Judith Butler, for example, challenged the claim that feminist politics requires a
distinct identity for women. Arguing that identity is the product or result of action rather than
the source of it, they embraced a performative concept of identity modeled on the way in
which linguistic acts (such as promising) work to bring into being the entities (the promise) to
which they refer. This perspective was influential in gay and lesbian studies, or “queer
theory,” as the academic avant-garde linked to movements of gay liberation styled itself.
In the United States, the Critical Legal Studies movement applied deconstruction to legal
writing in an effort to reveal conflicts between principles and counterprinciples in legal
theory. The movement explored fundamental oppositions such as public and private, essence
and accident, and substance and form. In anthropology, deconstruction contributed to an
increased awareness of the role that anthropological field-workers play in shaping, rather than
merely describing, the situations they report on and to a greater concern about the discipline’s
historical connections to colonialism.
Course: Philosophy of Education (8609) Semester: Autumn, 2022

Finally, the influence of deconstruction spread beyond the humanities and social sciences to
the arts and architecture. Combining deconstruction’s interest in tension and oppositions with
the design vocabulary of Russian constructivism, deconstructivist architects such as Frank
Gehry challenged the functionalist aesthetic of modern architecture through designs using
radical geometries, irregular forms, and complex, dynamic constructions.
Influence and criticism
In all the fields it influenced, deconstruction called attention to rhetorical and performative
aspects of language use, and it encouraged scholars to consider not only what a text says but
also the relationship—and potential conflict—between what a text says and what it “does.” In
various disciplines, deconstruction also prompted an exploration of fundamental oppositions
and critical terms and a reexamination of ultimate goals. Most generally, deconstruction
joined with other strands of poststructural and postmodern thinking to inspire a suspicion of
established intellectual categories and a skepticism about the possibility of objectivity.
Consequently, its diffusion was met with a sizeable body of opposition. Some philosophers,
especially those in the Anglo-American tradition, dismissed it as obscurantist wordplay
whose major claims, when intelligible, were either trivial or false. Others accused it of being
ahistorical and apolitical. Still others regarded it as a nihilistic endorsement of radical
epistemic relativism. Despite such attacks, deconstruction has had an enormous impact on a
variety of intellectual enterprises.

Q.5 How do, according to Montessori, environment and freedom of a child play a
significant role in his education?
Ans.
Freedom within limits in Montessori Education
Freedom within limits is a core Montessori concept. For parents that are new to Montessori,
this concept may seem contradictory. After all, aren’t limits and rules the opposite of
freedom? Some parents may also be concerned that the absence of rules will lead to bad
behaviour. Because surely, no rules lead to anarchy, right?
What is freedom within limits?
Freedom within limits is an empowering concept. It embraces the notion of the child as an
explorer who is capable of learning and doing for themselves. Montessori encourages
freedom within limits through the design of the prepared environment. Especially relevant is
the low open shelves, logically ordered activities, and child-friendly work spaces of the
Montessori classroom. In effect, this encourages the child to move freely around the
classroom, and choose their own work within limits of appropriate behaviour. These limits
are the ground rules of the Montessori classroom.
What are the limits of Montessori classroom?
There are three ground rules of the Montessori classroom. All other ground rules stem from
these three.
1) Respect for oneself
2) Respect for others; and
3) Respect for the environment.
In the first place, respect for oneself refers to teaching children how to work safely and
productively in the Montessori classroom. Children are free to choose their activities,
provided that they have been shown a presentation of the activity, and know how to use the
materials respectfully to avoid self-harm.
Furthermore, respect for others incorporates social skills and good behaviour. Children can
choose to work independently or in small groups; however, they must be invited to work with
another child, and must not interfere with another child’s work. All children must show
respect for others within their classroom community.
Course: Philosophy of Education (8609) Semester: Autumn, 2022

Finally, respect for the environment relates to the proper care for everything within the
Montessori classroom. This includes the proper use of the Montessori materials, packing
away, and taking care of all things living and non-living within the environment.
Types of freedom in the Montessori environment
Freedom to move
Within the Montessori classroom, children are free to move around the room, and move from
one activity to the next. Children who move around the room are more likely to choose
purposeful work when they have fulfilled their need for activity. In consequence, by allowing
freedom of movement, children learn to explore their environment; and therefore discover
their interests.

Freedom of choice
Freedom of choice is fundamental to the Montessori approach. This is because choice allows
children to discover their needs, interests and abilities. Furthermore, freedom of choice
encourages children to be engaged in their learning, and thus discover the outcome of the
activity.
Freedom of time
Freedom of time allows children to work with the same material for as long as they like. In
effect, this encourages children to learn at their own pace, develop the skills of concentration,
and learn patience to wait their turn.
Freedom to repeat
The three-hour work cycle gives students the opportunity to work with materials and achieve
success through practice. Furthermore, through repetition, children learn to self-correct and
problem solve.
Freedom to communicate
Montessori encourages communication in the classroom. Children learn to discuss activities,
problem solve, and develop their social skills.
Freedom to make mistakes
Furthermore, the design of the Montessori materials encourages children to discover the
outcome of the activity by themselves. Each material is designed with a visual control of
error. This guides the child to understand the outcome of the activity through hands-on
learning experiences.
How does freedom within limits benefit the child?
Freedom within limits encourages children to become respectful members of their classroom
community. Through real life experience, students learn that freedom is choosing to do what
is best for themselves and others. In conclusion, freedom within limits teaches children how
to become independent and confident learners who respect the rules of their freedom.
“Let us leave the life free to develop within the limits of the good, and let us observe this
inner life developing. This is the whole of our mission.” – Maria Montessori