What Knowledge is of Most Worth? Considering the Neo-Confucians in the Contemporary Debate Between Moral and Intellectual Learning

IF 2.7 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ECNU Review of Education Pub Date : 2022-12-20 DOI:10.1177/20965311221145446
J. Shekitka
{"title":"What Knowledge is of Most Worth? Considering the Neo-Confucians in the Contemporary Debate Between Moral and Intellectual Learning","authors":"J. Shekitka","doi":"10.1177/20965311221145446","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Highlights The perennial debate regarding the relative usefulness of various forms of knowledge, especially between the theoretical and practical and the intellectual and moral, lies at the heart of education in both past and present times in both the West and China (de Bary, 1988, 2004, 2005, 2015). Neo-Confucians remain relevant in the 21st century and can help us to understand and elucidate contemporary debates in education—specifically, to answer, as Spencer asked nearly a century and a half ago, “What knowledge is of most worth?”. Mencius, Zhu Xi, Wang Yangming, Xu Ai, and Kang Youwei advocated for a type of learning that would strongly resonate with John Dewey (1938) and Paulo Freire (1970, 1978). Foundational philosophies of education, particularly in the United States, have drawn heavily on 20th century European—American thinkers; this article attempts to correct this myopia and broaden perspectives.","PeriodicalId":33103,"journal":{"name":"ECNU Review of Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ECNU Review of Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311221145446","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Highlights The perennial debate regarding the relative usefulness of various forms of knowledge, especially between the theoretical and practical and the intellectual and moral, lies at the heart of education in both past and present times in both the West and China (de Bary, 1988, 2004, 2005, 2015). Neo-Confucians remain relevant in the 21st century and can help us to understand and elucidate contemporary debates in education—specifically, to answer, as Spencer asked nearly a century and a half ago, “What knowledge is of most worth?”. Mencius, Zhu Xi, Wang Yangming, Xu Ai, and Kang Youwei advocated for a type of learning that would strongly resonate with John Dewey (1938) and Paulo Freire (1970, 1978). Foundational philosophies of education, particularly in the United States, have drawn heavily on 20th century European—American thinkers; this article attempts to correct this myopia and broaden perspectives.
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
什么知识最有价值?当代德智之争中的新儒家思考
亮点关于各种形式的知识的相对有用性的长期争论,特别是在理论和实践以及知识和道德之间的争论,是西方和中国过去和现在教育的核心(de Bary,1988200420052015)。新儒家在21世纪仍然具有相关性,可以帮助我们理解和阐明当代教育辩论——特别是,正如斯宾塞在近一个半世纪前所问的那样,回答“什么知识最有价值?”。孟子、朱neneneba习、王阳明、徐艾和康有为主张一种能与杜威(1938)和弗雷尔(19701978)产生强烈共鸣的学术。教育的基本哲学,特别是在美国,在很大程度上借鉴了20世纪欧美思想家;本文试图纠正这种短视,拓宽视野。
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
ECNU Review of Education
ECNU Review of Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Educational Improvement Science: The Art of the Improving Organization Artificial Intelligence and Robotics for Young Children: Redeveloping the Five Big Ideas Framework Extending the Comparisons of Shadow Education and Its Nexus With Schooling Toward a High-Quality System: A Critique of Chinese Special Education Policy Development and the Guidelines for the Evaluation of the Quality of Special Education Schools China's Policy Actions to Lead Teacher Development With Evaluation Reform
×
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