Book review: Robert F. Ladenson, Moral Issues in Special Education: An Inquiry into the Basic Rights, Responsibilities and Ideals

IF 1.3 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Theory and Research in Education Pub Date : 2021-07-01 DOI:10.1177/14778785211029758
Colin M. Macleod
{"title":"Book review: Robert F. Ladenson, Moral Issues in Special Education: An Inquiry into the Basic Rights, Responsibilities and Ideals","authors":"Colin M. Macleod","doi":"10.1177/14778785211029758","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"interlocutors’ characters – their concerns, their experiences and their acts before or after the dramatic date of the dialogues in which they appear – colours every Socratic conversation. Jones and Nakazawa are primarily interested in addressing the scholarship that ignored Plato’s characterization and drama and focused instead on dividing his corpus into periods of his alleged intellectual development. Although they note that identifying dialogues as ‘early’, ‘middle’ and ‘late’ has increasingly lost defenders, that developmental framework grounds their analysis; they discuss separately, for example, intellectualism in the early dialogues and intellectualism in the middle dialogues. In my view, Jones and Nakazawa would have offered an even richer view of the psychological nuance in Plato’s theory of moral education had they drawn more heavily on scholars who have looked at the interplay between drama and philosophy in the dialogues. Nevertheless, this is perhaps an unfair critique. Given the array of scholarly approaches to Plato, there are many interpretive frameworks available to Plato scholars, and Jones and Nakazawa have certainly embraced one that has long had a great deal of influence. Had they drawn more on scholarship about Plato’s use of character and drama, their conclusion would be the same and no less original and important: Habituation and epiphany are central to the Platonic theory of moral education.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":"19 1","pages":"208 - 210"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/14778785211029758","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Research in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785211029758","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

interlocutors’ characters – their concerns, their experiences and their acts before or after the dramatic date of the dialogues in which they appear – colours every Socratic conversation. Jones and Nakazawa are primarily interested in addressing the scholarship that ignored Plato’s characterization and drama and focused instead on dividing his corpus into periods of his alleged intellectual development. Although they note that identifying dialogues as ‘early’, ‘middle’ and ‘late’ has increasingly lost defenders, that developmental framework grounds their analysis; they discuss separately, for example, intellectualism in the early dialogues and intellectualism in the middle dialogues. In my view, Jones and Nakazawa would have offered an even richer view of the psychological nuance in Plato’s theory of moral education had they drawn more heavily on scholars who have looked at the interplay between drama and philosophy in the dialogues. Nevertheless, this is perhaps an unfair critique. Given the array of scholarly approaches to Plato, there are many interpretive frameworks available to Plato scholars, and Jones and Nakazawa have certainly embraced one that has long had a great deal of influence. Had they drawn more on scholarship about Plato’s use of character and drama, their conclusion would be the same and no less original and important: Habituation and epiphany are central to the Platonic theory of moral education.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
书评:Robert F.Ladenson,《特殊教育中的道德问题:对基本权利、责任和理想的探究》
对话者的性格——他们的担忧、经历以及在对话戏剧性日期前后的行为——为每一次苏格拉底式的对话增添了色彩。Jones和Nakazawa主要感兴趣的是解决学术界忽视柏拉图的人物塑造和戏剧,而专注于将他的语料库划分为他所谓的智力发展时期。尽管他们注意到,将对话确定为“早期”、“中期”和“晚期”已经越来越多地失去了捍卫者,但这一发展框架为他们的分析奠定了基础;他们分别讨论了早期对话中的智性主义和中期对话中的智慧主义。在我看来,如果琼斯和中泽在对话中更多地关注戏剧和哲学之间相互作用的学者,他们会对柏拉图道德教育理论中的心理细微差别提供更丰富的看法。然而,这也许是一种不公平的批评。考虑到柏拉图的一系列学术方法,柏拉图学者可以使用许多解释框架,Jones和Nakazawa肯定接受了一个长期以来产生巨大影响的框架。如果他们更多地借鉴柏拉图对人物和戏剧的使用,他们的结论将是相同的,同样具有独创性和重要性:习惯化和顿悟是柏拉图道德教育理论的核心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Theory and Research in Education
Theory and Research in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Theory and Research in Education, formerly known as The School Field, is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes theoretical, empirical and conjectural papers contributing to the development of educational theory, policy and practice.
期刊最新文献
Book Review: Julian Culp, Johannes Drerup and Douglas Yacek (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Democratic Education Education for deliberative democracy through the long-term view Education for flourishing: A social contract for foundational competencies Book review: Barbara S Stengel, Responsibility: Philosophy of Education in Practice How much is too much? Refining normative evaluations of prescriptive curriculum
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1