Ad unum vertere? Education as con-versio from multitude

• Authors: Andrej Rajský

Abstracts

EN

Complexity and universal validity of knowing became a reason and aim of intellectual effort expressed in the notion philo-sophia. Advantages of universalism can be summarised into several elements: the concept of human nature, ontological fundament of human dignity and their ethical demands, regardless of individual differences. On the other hand, universalism hides within itself an ever-present germ of potential destructivity, when, in the name of the „universal truth,” a factual and inhumane exclusion of certain individuals and groups from the community of those who „deserve” dignitas humana occur. Slovak philosopher of culture Ladislav Hanus (1907-1994) in his work Principle of Pluralism (manus. 1967, publ. 1997) defines the “organic pluralism” – pluralism has two basic tasks: 1. toward multitude (to see, accept and assess all plurality elements of a community), 2. toward unity (to lead multitude to unity – to “integrate” it). Unity stated here is not a totalitarian, homogenising, centralistic unity (a unity of the “herd” or a “state of termites”), it is an organic unity. Hanusian “organic pluralism” connects and integrates multitude (a human as an individuum in plurality of those similar to them), which is its quantitative dimension, with organicness (a human as a person, a human-in-relationship-with-others), which is its qualitative dimension. Development of a person takes place by a gradual and purposeful interweaving of quantity with quality and this activity is called education, or con-versio from multitude.

Keywords

EN

universalism; unity versus plurality; polyphonical truth; Ladislav Hanus; organic pluralism; education as conversion

• Publisher: Akademia Humanistyczno-Ekonomiczna w Łodzi
• Journal: Kultura i Wychowanie
• Year: 2018
• Volume: 14
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 25-35

Dates

published

2018

Contributors

author

Andrej Rajský

• Trnava University in Trnava

References

• Buber M., Já a ty, Mladá fronta, Praha 1969.
• Flores d’Arcais (ed.), Pedagogie personalistiche e/o pedagogia della persona, La Scuola, Brescia 1994.
• Hanus L., Princíp pluralizmu, Lúč, Bratislava 1997.
• Lechta V. (ed.), Základy inkluzivní pedagogiky, Portál, Praha 2010.
• Lévinas E., Být pro druhého, Zvon, Praha 1997.
• Maritain J., L’educazione al bivio, Editrice La Scuola, Brescia 1993
• Milan G., Educare all’incontro. La pedagogia di Martin Buber, Città Nuova, Rím 2002.
• Palouš R., Čas výchovy, SPN, Praha 1991.
• Patočka J., Péče o dusi, Oikoymenh, Praha 1996.
• Platón, Obrana Sokratova, [in:] A. Bröstl, Aténsky ľud proti občanovi Sokratovi, Kalligram, Bratislava 2006, pp. 53–88.
• Poláková J., Filosofie dialogu, Ježek, Praha 1995.
• Rajský A., Nihilistický kontext kultivácie mladého človeka. Filozoficko-etický pohľad, TUT/Veda, Trnava 2009.
• Rajský A., Personalistické východiská pre teóriu kultivácie človeka, [in:] B. Kudláčová, S. Sztobryn (eds.), Kontexty filozofie výchovy v historickej a súčasnej perspektíve, Pedagogická fakulta Trnavskej univerzity v Trnave, Trnava 2011, pp. 73–88.

Identifiers

DOI

10.25312/2083-2923.14/2018_25-35

Biblioteka Nauki

2216438