怀特海《教育的目的》教学提纲

摘录怀特海的《教育的目的》第六章几何课程教学的五个阶段，是如何体现数学教学的思想的？怀特海说，他把几何学习的过程分为五个阶段，在教学实践中并不一定要按照这个顺序来进行的。

第一个阶段是全等的学习。

我们对全等的认识，实际上取决于我们的一些判断，即当外部环境发生变化时物体本身的一些内在特征不会发生变化。

无论是用怎样的方法去认识几何图形的全等，本质上都是空间上两个几何图形之间点与点的对应关系，因此所有对应的边相等，所有对应的角也相等。

其实，所谓长度相等、角度相等，在本质上就是长度、角度的全等。

当我们采用各种工具来测量长度和角度是否相等时，都是简化判断全等的方法而已。

在数学教育中，第一个阶段，我们需要认真学习全等的概念和表现，更要认真领会全等所蕴含的逻辑推理思想和科学理论价值。

关于几何全等的命题说明了几何图形(例如三角形、平行四边形和圆)的基本特征以及两个平面之间的相互关系。

数学中的概念和定理过于纷繁复杂，所以我们必须选择那些有重要意义的内容进行教学，就全等教学来说，我们最好限定在一些最为基本的重要命题之中。

第二个阶段的任务是学习相似性，这一过程可以集中至三到四个基础性命题上。

相似性概念是全等的延伸，同样是基于空间图形之间的点对点的关联。

要进行相似性方面的学习，就一定要研究相似的或者处于相似位置的直线图形，这就可以帮助我们掌握相似的概念。

第三个阶段是学习三角函数。

三角函数研究相似图形的关系问题和图形旋转中的周期性问题。

在这里，我们首次引入了少量以数量研究为基础的代数分析，用数量关系去研究几何图形。

而我们还可以用几何图形去证明函数的周期性，最简单的方法就是利用三角函数。

三角函数中有很多公式，有的公式虽然重要，但对学习来说却亳无用处，因此应该严格选用教材中出现的公式。

数学教育中三角函数的学习内容应该限定在一个角上，通过一个角的各种运算来完成学习过程，不能超过正弦、余弦、两角之和这样的内容。

通过画出函数的图形，就能够求出三角函数的解。

---------------------------------------------------------------最新资料推荐------------------------------------------------------ 从《教育的目的》看怀特海心智教育思想.doc从《教育的目的》看怀特海心智教育思想读了英国教育家怀特海的《教育的目的》一书，受益匪浅。

书中将激发学生的聪慧置于现代教育的核心，明确指出教育要让孩子学会自由选择去探索未知领域，才能孕育出智慧和创造新的知识。

怀特海的深刻的教育思想得到了教育者的广泛认同，并影响深远。

在他的书里多次提及心智教育问题，反映了他的心智教育的思想，对当下学生的心智教育有相当大的指导作用。

一、教育就是培养学生的心智心智包含着心、知、智三个要素。

心指的是心理素质，表现为心思、心向、心态、心灵；知指的是个体所占有的知识及其结构体系；智指的是智慧，即个体获取和综合运用知识解决或创造性地解决实际问题的能力。

怀特海认为教育就是心智的教育，就是使学生最终获得有教养的心智。

他对心智的教育要素作了进一步的细说：认为教育是灵魂的训练，是心灵教育，要注意学生的心理素质的培养；教育是知识传授，但还有另一个要素就是培育智慧，使人具有活跃的智慧。

1 / 9他的论述扣住了心智内涵中心知智三个相互关联的要素，指明了现代教育真谛，教育是一个全面的心智工程。

这些阐述体现了他在第一章《教育的目的》中所说的，我们的目标是，要塑造既有广泛的文化修养又在某个特殊方面有专业知识的人才，他们的专业知识可以给他们进步、腾飞的基础，而他们所具有的广泛的文化，使他们有哲学般深邃，又有艺术般高雅。

二、心智要素是相互关联的怀特海认为心智的三要素心、知、智之间是相互联系、相互制约、相互影响的有机统一体。

他说：所谓知识的利用，我是指要把它和人类的感知、情感、欲望、希望，以及能调节思想的精神活动联系起来在一起，那才是我们的生活。

怀特海《教育的目的》五分钟演讲（3）自由与纪律的节奏提交人：红枫似火我非常希望你们铭记于心的是，虽然智力教育的一个主要目的是传授知识，但智力教育还有一个因素，比较模糊却更加伟大，因而也具有更重要的意义：古人称之为“智慧”。

你不掌握一些基本知识就不可能聪明，但你可以很容易获得知识却仍然没有智慧。

智慧是掌握知识的方式。

它涉及知识的处理，确定有关问题时知识的选择，以及运用知识使我们的直觉经验更有价值。

智慧高于知识。

通往智慧的唯一的道路是在知识面前享有自由，但通往知识的唯一途径是在获取有条理的事实时保持纪律。

自由与纪律的节奏即教育的节奏，是指调节自由与纪律以适应儿童个性的自然发展。

儿童的大脑是一个不断发育的有机体。

一方面，它并不是一个要被人无情的塞满各种陌生思想的匣子；另一方面，用有序的方式掌握的知识，对正在发育的大脑来说是天然的食品。

因此一种完美的教育，其目的应该是使纪律成为自由选择的自发的结果，而自由则应该因为纪律而得到丰富的机会。

教育的开始阶段和结束阶段的主要特征是自由，但是有一个纪律占主导地位的中间阶段，整个智力发展是由多个自由（浪漫）――纪律（精确）――自由（综合运用）的三重循环阶段交替构成。

在各个阶段的发展中，每天，每星期，每个学期都有若干较小的漩涡，他们本身又包含着三重循环。

浪漫阶段。

浪漫阶段必须永远侧重于自由，让儿童独自去领会，独自去行动。

智力发展离不开兴趣。

兴趣是专注和颖悟的先决条件。

你可以用教鞭来极力引起兴趣，或者通过愉快的活动激发兴趣，但没有兴趣就不会有进步。

快乐是刺激生命有机体合适的自我发展的自然方式。

我们应该寻找那种符合自然发展规律的模式，而它本身又是令人愉快的。

居于次要地位的严格纪律必须以保证其中一种长远的利益为目的；尽管合适的目标不能过低，如果要保持必要的兴趣的话。

在教育中过分强调纪律是有害的，那种生动活跃的思维习惯只能在恰当的自由氛围中产生。

对正在成长的儿童来说，浪漫阶段的自然发展尝未结束时就对精确性进行训导，必然会妨碍他对概念的吸收。

Alfred North Whitehead, The Aims of Education and Other Essays (Macmillan, 1929).CHAPTER IThe Aims of EducationCulture is activity of thought, and receptiveness to beauty and humane feeling. Scraps of information have nothing to do with it. A merely well-informed man is the most useless bore on God's earth. What we should aim at producing is men who possess both culture and expert knowledge in some special direction. Their expert knowledge will give them the ground to start from, and their culture will lead them as deep as philosophy and as high as art. We have to remember that the valuable intellectual development is self development, and that it mostly takes place between the ages of sixteen and thirty. As to training, the most important part is given by mothers before the age of twelve. A saying due to Archbishop Temple illustrates my meaning. Surprise was expressed at the success in after-life of a man, who as a boy at Rugby had been somewhat undistinguished. He answered, "It is not what they are at eighteen, it is what they become afterwards that matters."In training a child to activity of thought, above all things we must beware of what I will call "inert ideas" -- that is to say, ideas that are merely received into the mind without being utilised, or tested, or thrown into fresh combinations.In the history of education, the most striking phenomenon is that schools of learning, which at one epoch are alive with a ferment of genius, in a succeeding generation exhibit merely pedantry and routine. The reason is, that they are overladen with inert ideas. Education with inert ideas is not only useless: it is, above all things, harmful -- Corruptio optimi, pessima. Except at rare intervals of intellectual ferment, education in the past has been radically infected with inert ideas. That is the reason why uneducated clever women, who have seen much of the world, are in middle life so much the most cultured part of the community. They have been saved from this horrible burden of inert ideas. Every intellectual revolution which has ever stirred humanity into greatness has been a passionate protest against inert ideas. Then, alas, with pathetic ignorance of human psychology, it has proceeded by some educational scheme to bind humanity afresh with inert ideas of its own fashioning.Let us now ask how in our system of education we are to guard against this mental dryrot. We enunciate two educational commandments, "Do not teach too many subjects," and again, "What you teach, teach thoroughly."The result of teaching small parts of a large number of subjects is the passive reception of disconnected ideas, not illumined with any spark of vitality. Let the main ideas which are introduced into a child's education be few and important, and let them be thrown into every combination possible. The child should make them his own, and should understand their application here and now in the circumstances of his actual life. From the very beginning of his education, the child should experience the joy of discovery. The discoverywhich he has to make, is that general ideas give an understanding of that stream of events which pours through his life, which is his life. By understanding I mean more than a mere logical analysis, though that is included. I mean "understanding' in the sense in which it is used in the French proverb, "To understand all, is to forgive all." Pedants sneer at an education which is useful. But if education is not useful, what is it? Is it a talent, to be hidden away in a napkin? Of course, education should be useful, whatever your aim in life. It was useful to Saint Augustine and it was useful to Napoleon. It is useful, because understanding is useful.I pass lightly over that understanding which should be given by the literary side of education. Nor do I wish to be supposed to pronounce on the relative merits of a classical or a modern curriculum. I would only remark that the understanding which we want is an understanding of an insistent present. The only use of a knowledge of the past is to equip us for the present. No more deadly harm can be done to young minds than by depreciation of the present. The present contains all that there is. It is holy ground; for it is the past, and it is the future. At the same time it must be observed that an age is no less past if it existed two hundred years ago than if it existed two thousand years ago. Do not be deceived by the pedantry of dates. The ages of Shakespeare and of Moliere are no less past than are the ages of Sophocles and of Virgil. The communion of saints is a great and inspiring assemblage, but it has only one possible hall of meeting, and that is, the present, and the mere lapse of time through which any particular group of saints must travel to reach that meeting-place, makes very little difference.Passing now to the scientific and logical side of education, we remember that here also ideas which are not utilised are positively harmful. By utilising an idea, I mean relating it to that stream, compounded of sense perceptions, feelings, hopes, desires, and of mental activities adjusting thought to thought, which forms our life. I can imagine a set of beings which might fortify their souls by passively reviewing disconnected ideas. Humanity is not built that way except perhaps some editors of newspapers.In scientific training, the first thing to do with an idea is to prove it. But allow me for one moment to extend the meaning of "prove"; I mean -- to prove its worth. Now an idea is not worth much unless the propositions in which it is embodied are true. Accordingly an essential part of the proof of an idea is the proof, either by experiment or by logic, of the truth of the propositions. But it is not essential that this proof of the truth should constitute the first introduction to the idea. After all, its assertion by the authority of respectable teachers is sufficient evidence to begin with. In our first contact with a set of propositions, we commence by appreciating their importance. That is what we all do in after-life. We do not attempt, in the strict sense, to prove or to disprove anything, unless its importance makes it worthy of that honour. These two processes of proof, in the narrow sense, and of appreciation, do not require a rigid separation in time. Both can be proceeded with nearly concurrently. But in so far as either process must have the priority, it should be that of appreciation by use.Furthermore, we should not endeavour to use propositions in isolation. Emphatically I do not mean, a neat little set of experiments to illustrate Proposition I and then the proof ofProposition I, a neat little set of experiments to illustrate Proposition II and then the proof of Proposition II, and so on to the end of the book. Nothing could be more boring. Interrelated truths are utilised en bloc, and the various propositions are employed in any order, and with any reiteration. Choose some important applications of your theoretical subject; and study them concurrently with the systematic theoretical exposition. Keep the theoretical exposition short and simple, but let it be strict and rigid so far as it goes. It should not be too long for it to be easily known with thoroughness and accuracy. The consequences of a plethora of half-digested theoretical knowledge are deplorable. Also the theory should not be muddled up with the practice. The child should have no doubt when it is proving and when it is utilising. My point is that what is proved should be utilised, and that what is utilised should -- so far, as is practicable -- be proved. I am far from asserting that proof and utilisation are the same thing.At this point of my discourse, I can most directly carry forward my argument in the outward form of a digression. We are only just realising that the art and science of education require a genius and a study of their own; and that this genius and this science are more than a bare knowledge of some branch of science or of literature. This truth was partially perceived in the past generation; and headmasters, somewhat crudely, were apt to supersede learning in their colleagues by requiring left-hand bowling and a taste for football. But culture is more than cricket, and more than football, and more than extent of knowledge.Education is the acquisition of the art of the utilisation of knowledge. This is an art very difficult to impart. Whenever a textbook is written of real educational worth, you may be quite certain that some reviewer will say that it will be difficult to teach from it. Of course it will be difficult to teach from it. If it were easy, the book ought to be burned; for it cannot be educational. In education, as elsewhere, the broad primrose path leads to a nasty place. This evil path is represented by a book or a set of lectures which will practically enable the student to learn by heart all the questions likely to be asked at the next external examination. And I may say in passing that no educational system is possible unless every question directly asked of a pupil at any examination is either framed or modified by the actual teacher of that pupil in that subject. The external assessor may report on the curriculum or on the performance of the pupils, but never should be allowed to ask the pupil a question which has not been strictly supervised by the actual teacher, or at least inspired by a long conference with him. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but they are exceptions, and could easily be allowed for under the general rule.We now return to my previous point, that theoretical ideas should always find important applications within the pupil's curriculum. This is not an easy doctrine to apply, but a very hard one. It contains within itself the problem of keeping knowledge alive, of preventing it from becoming inert, which is the central problem of all education.The best procedure will depend on several factors, none of which can be neglected, namely, the genius of the teacher, the intellectual type of the pupils, their prospects in life, the opportunities offered by the immediate surroundings of the school and allied factors of this sort. It is for this reason that the uniform external examination is so deadly. We do notdenounce it because we are cranks, and like denouncing established things. We are not so childish. Also, of course, such examinations have their use in testing slackness. Our reason of dislike is very definite and very practical. It kills the best part of culture. When you analyse in the light of experience the central task of education, you find that its successful accomplishment depends on a delicate adjustment of many variable factors. The reason is that we are dealing with human minds, and not with dead matter. The evocation of curiosity, of judgment, of the power of mastering a complicated tangle of circumstances, the use of theory in giving foresight in special cases all these powers are not to be imparted by a set rule embodied in one schedule of examination subjects.I appeal to you, as practical teachers. With good discipline, it is always possible to pump into the minds of a class a certain quantity of inert knowledge. You take a text-book and make them learn it. So far, so good. The child then knows how to solve a quadratic equation. But what is the point of teaching a child to solve a quadratic equation? There is a traditional answer to this question. It runs thus: The mind is an instrument, you first sharpen it, and then use it; the acquisition of the power of solving a quadratic equation is part of the process of sharpening the mind. Now there is just enough truth in this answer to have made it live through the ages. But for all its half-truth, it embodies a radical error which bids fair to stifle the genius of the modern world. I do not know who was first responsible for this analogy of the mind to a dead instrument. For aught I know, it may have been one of the seven wise men of Greece, or a committee of the whole lot of them. Whoever was the originator, there can be no doubt of the authority which it has acquired by the continuous approval bestowed upon it by eminent persons. But whatever its weight of authority, whatever the high approval which it can quote, I have no hesitation in denouncing it as one of the most fatal, erroneous, and dangerous conceptions ever introduced into the theory of education. The mind is never passive; it is a perpetual activity, delicate, receptive, responsive to stimulus. You cannot postpone its life until you have sharpened it. Whatever interest attaches to your subject-matter must be evoked here and now; whatever powers you are strengthening in the pupil, must be exercised here and now; whatever possibilities of mental life your teaching should impart, must be exhibited here and now. That is the golden rule of education, and a very difficult rule to follow.The difficulty is just this: the apprehension of general ideas, intellectual habits of mind, and pleasurable interest in mental achievement can be evoked by no form of words, however accurately adjusted. All practical teachers know that education is a patient process of the mastery of details, minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day. There is no royal road to learning through an airy path of brilliant generalisations. There is a proverb about the difficulty of seeing the wood because of the trees. That difficulty is exactly the point which I am enforcing. The problem of education is to make the pupil see the wood by means of the trees.The solution which I am urging, is to eradicate the fatal disconnection of subjects which kills the vitality of our modern curriculum. There is only one subject-matter for education, and that is Life in all its manifestations. Instead of this single unity, we offer children -- Algebra, from which nothing follows; Geometry, from which nothing follows; Science, from which nothing follows; History, from which nothing follows; a Couple of Languages,never mastered; and lastly, most dreary of all, Literature, represented by plays of Shakespeare, with philological notes and short analyses of plot and character to be in substance committed to memory. Can such a list be said to represent Life, as it is known in the midst of the living of it? The best that can be said of it is, that it is a rapid table of contents which a deity might run over in his mind while he was thinking of creating a world, and has not yet determined how to put it together.Let us now return to quadratic equations. We still have on hand the unanswered question. Why should children be taught their solution? Unless quadratic equations fit into a connected curriculum, of course there is no reason to teach anything about them. Furthermore, extensive as should be the place of mathematics in a complete culture, I am a little doubtful whether for many types of boys algebraic solutions of quadratic equations do not lie on the specialist side of mathematics. I may here remind you that as yet I have not said anything of the psychology or the content of the specialism, which is so necessary a part of an ideal education. But all that is an evasion of our real question, and I merely state it in order to avoid being misunderstood in my answer.Quadratic equations are part of algebra, and algebra is the intellectual instrument which has been created for rendering clear the quantitative aspects of the world. There is no getting out of it. Through and through the world is infected with quantity. To talk sense, is to talk in quantities. It is no use saying that the nation is large, -- How large? It is no use saying that radium is scarce, -- How scarce? You cannot evade quantity. You may fly to poetry and to music, and quantity and number will face you in your rhythms and your octaves. Elegant intellects which despise the theory of quantity, are but half developed. They are more to be pitied than blamed, The scraps of gibberish, which in their school-days were taught to them in the name of algebra, deserve some contempt. This question of the degeneration of algebra into gibberish, both in word and in fact, affords a pathetic instance of the uselessness of reforming educational schedules without a clear conception of the attributes which you wish to evoke in the living minds of the children. A few years ago there was an outcry that school algebra, was in need of reform, but there was a general agreement that graphs would put everything right. So all sorts of things were extruded, and graphs were introduced. So far as I can see, with no sort of idea behind them, but just graphs. Now every examination paper has one or two questions on graphs. Personally I am an enthusiastic adherent of graphs. But I wonder whether as yet we have gained very much. You cannot put life into any schedule of general education unless you succeed in exhibiting its relation to some essential characteristic of all intelligent or emotional perception. lt is a hard saying, but it is true; and I do not see how to make it any easier. In making these little formal alterations you are beaten by the very nature of things. You are pitted against too skilful an adversary, who will see to it that the pea is always under the other thimble.Reformation must begin at the other end. First, you must make up your mind as to those quantitative aspects of the world which are simple enough to be introduced into general education; then a schedule of algebra should be framed which will about find its exemplification in these applications. We need not fear for our pet graphs, they will be there in plenty when we once begin to treat algebra as a serious means of studying theworld. Some of the simplest applications will be found in the quantities which occur in the simplest study of society. The curves of history are more vivid and more informing than the dry catalogues of names and dates which comprise the greater part of that arid school study. What purpose is effected by a catalogue of undistinguished kings and queens? Tom, Dick, or Harry, they are all dead. General resurrections are failures, and are better postponed. The quantitative flux of the forces of modern society is capable of very simple exhihition. Meanwhile, the idea of the variable, of the function, of rate of change, of equations and their solution, of elimination, are being studied as an abstract science for their own sake. Not, of course, in the pompous phrases with which I am alluding to them here, but with that iteration of simple special cases proper to teaching.If this course be followed. the route from Chaucer to the Black Death, from the Black Death to modern Labour troubles, will connect the tales of the mediaeval pilgrims with the abstract science of algebra, both yielding diverse aspects of that single theme, Life. I know what most of you are thinking at this point. It is that the exact course which I have sketched out is not the particular one which you would have chosen, or even see how to work. I quite agree. I am not claiming that I could do it myself. But your objection is the precise reason why a common external examination system is fatal to education. The process of exhibiting the applications of knowledge must, for its success, essentially depend on the character of the pupils and the genius of the teacher. Of course I have left out the easiest applications with which most of us are more at home. I mean the quantitative sides of sciences, such as mechanics and physics.Again, in the same connection we plot the statistics of social phenomena against the time. We then eliminate the time between suitable pairs. We can speculate how far we have exhibited a real causal connection, or how far a mere temporal coincidence. We notice that we might have plotted against the time one set of statistics for one country and another set for another country, and thus, with suitable choice of subjects, have obtained graphs which certainly exhibited mere coincidence. Also other graphs exhibit obvious causal connections. We wonder how to discriminate. And so are drawn on as far as we will.But in considering this description, I must beg you to remember what I have been insisting on above. In the first place, one train of thought will not suit all groups of children. For example, I should expect that artisan children will want something more concrete and, in a sense, swifter than I have set down here. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is what I should guess. In the second place, I am not contemplating one beautiful lecture stimulating, once and for all, an admiring class. That is not the way in which education proceeds. No; all the time the pupils are hard at work solving examples drawing graphs, and making experiments, until they have a thorough hold on the whole subject. I am describing the interspersed explanations, the directions which should be given to their thoughts. The pupils have got to be made to feel that they are studying something, and are not merely executing intellectual minuets.Finally, if you are teaching pupils for some general examination, the problem of sound teaching is greatly complicated. Have you ever noticed the zig-zag moulding round a Norman arch? The ancient work is beautiful, the modern work is hideous. The reason is,that the modern work is done to exact measure, the ancient work is varied according to the idiosyncrasy of the workman. Here it is crowded, and there it is expanded. Now the essence of getting pupils through examinations is to give equal weight to all parts of the schedule. But mankind is naturally specialist. One man sees a whole subject, where another can find only a few detached examples. I know that it seems contradictory to allow for specialism in a curriculum especially designed for a broad culture. Without contradictions the world would be simpler, and perhaps duller. But I am certain that in education wherever you exclude specialism you destroy life.We now come to the other great branch of a general mathematical education, namely Geometry. The same principles apply. The theoretical part should be clear-cut, rigid, short, and important. Every proposition not absolutely necessary to exhibit the main connection of ideas should be cut out, but the great fundamental ideas should be all there. No omission of concepts, such as those of Similarity and Proportion. We must remember that, owing to the aid rendered by the visual presence of a figure, Geometry is a field of unequalled excellence for the exercise of the deductive faculties of reasoning. Then, of course, there follows Geometrical Drawing, with its training for the hand and eye.But, like Algebra, Geometry and Geometrical Drawing must be extended beyond the mere circle of geometrical ideas. In an industrial neighbourhood, machinery and workshop practice form the appropriate extension. For example, in the London Polytechnics this has been achieved with conspicuous success. For many secondary schools I suggest that surveying and maps are the natural applications. In particular, plane-table surveying should lead pupils to a vivid apprehension of the immediate application of geometric truths. Simple drawing apparatus, a surveyor's chain, and a surveyor's compass, should enable the pupils to rise from the survey and mensuration of a field to the construction of the map of a small district. The best education is to be found in gaining the utmost information from the simplest apparatus. The provision of elaborate instruments is greatly to be deprecated. To have constructed the map of a small district, to have considered its roads, its contours, its geology, its climate, its relation to other districts, the effects on the status of its inhabitants, will teach more history and geography than any knowledge of Perkin Warbeck or of Behren's Straits. I mean not a nebulous lecture on the subject, but a serious investigation in which the real facts are definitely ascertained by the aid of accurate theoretical knowledge. A typical mathematical problem should be: Survey such and such a field, draw a plan of it to such and such a scale, and find the area. It would be quite a good procedure to impart the necessary geometrical propositions without their proofs. Then, concurrently in the same term, the proofs of the propositions would be learnt while the survey was being made.Fortunately, the specialist side of education presents an easier problem than does the provision of a general culture. For this there are many reasons. One is that many of the principles of procedure to be observed are the same in both cases, and it is unnecessary to recapitulate. Another reason is that specialist training takes place -- or should take place -- at a more advanced stage of the pupil's course, and thus there is easier material to work upon. But undoubtedly the chief reason is that the specialist study is normally a study of peculiar interest to the student. He is studying it because, for some reason, he wants toknow it. This makes all the difference. The general culture is designed to foster an activity of mind; the specialist course utilises this activity. But it does not do to lay too much stress on these neat antitheses. As we have already seen, in the general course foci of special interest will arise; and similarly in the special study, the external connections of the subject drag thought outwards.Again, there is not one course of study which merely gives general cultures and another which gives special knowledge. The subjects pursued for the sake of a general education are special subjects specially studied; and, on the other hand, one of the ways of encouraging general mental activity is to foster a special devotion. You may not divide the seamless coat of learning. What education has to impart is an intimate sense for the power of ideas, for the beauty of ideas, and for the structure of ideas, together with a particular body of knowledge which has peculiar reference to the life of the being possessing it.The appreciation of the structure of ideas is that side of a cultured mind which can only grow under the influence of a special study. I mean that eye for the whole chess-board, for the bearing of one set of ideas on another. Nothing but a special study can give any appreciation for the exact formulation of general ideas, for their relations when formulated, for their service in the comprehension of life. A mind so disciplined should be both more abstract and more concrete. It has been trained in the comprehension of abstract thought and in the analysis of facts.Finally, there should grow the most austere of all mental qualities; I mean the sense for style. It is an aesthetic sense, based on admiration for the direct attainment of a foreseen end, simply and without waste. Style in art, style in literature, style in science, style in logic, style in practical execution have fundamentally the same aesthetic qualities, namely, attainment and restraint. The love of a subject in itself and for itself, where it is not the sleepy pleasure of pacing a mental quarter-deck, is the love of style as manifested in that study.Here we are brought back to the position from which we started, the utility of education. Style, in its finest sense, is the last acquirement of the educated mind; it is also the most useful. It pervades the whole being. The administrator with a sense for style hates waste; the engineer with a sense for style economises his material; the artisan with a sense for style prefers good work. Style is the ultimate morality of mind.But above style, and above knowledge, there is something, a vague shape like fate above the Greek gods. That something is Power. Style is the fashioning of power, the restraining of power. But, after all, the power of attainment of the desired end is fundamental. The first thing is to get there. Do not bother about your style, but solve your problem, justify the ways of God to man, administer your province, or do whatever else is set before you. Where, then, does style help? In this, with style the end is attained without side issues, without raising undesirable inflammations. With style you attain your end and nothing but your end. With style the effect of your activity is calculable, and foresight is the last gift of gods to men. With style your power is increased, for your mind is not distracted with。

从根源上思考教育读怀特海《教育的目的》图片发自简书App《教育的目的》英怀特海著，庄莲平，王立中译，文汇出版社，2023年10月版“什么是教育？当你从学校出来以后，把所有学到的内容都忘记了，剩下的内容就是教育。

”了解怀特海是从爱因斯坦转述的他的那句教育名言开始的。

后来，我又读到了罗素《西方哲学史》，了解到怀特海与罗素合著的《数学原理》标志着人类逻辑思维的巨大进步，是永久性的伟大学术著作之一教师常常被人们称之为“人类灵魂的工程师”，但是当我们面对“什么是真正的教育？”“教育的最终目的是什么？”等教育的终极问题的时候，我们是否能够比较清晰而又理性地回答呢？在我们的职业生活中，我们能否创造使孩子受到良好教育的生活呢？暑假的时候，终于有幸读到了《教育的目的》这一本奇书。

读完之后，许多的感怀。

教育的目标究竟是什么？是为了知识的传授，还是健康人格的培养？全面发展的劳动者究竟是怎样的？“我们必须记住，不能加以利用的知识是相当有害的。

”对于知识教育，怀特海这样警告教育者。

这样的观点和荷兰著名学者房龙如出一辙。

房龙曾经说过：“凡学问一到穿上专家的拖鞋，躲进它的‘精舍’，而把它的鞋子上的泥土的肥料抖去的时候，它就宣布自己预备死了。

与人隔绝的知识生活是引到毁灭去的。

”（引自房龙《宽容》三联书店1985年9月版之后记《关于房龙与他的著作》p404）我当时读了以后，很震惊，马上想到了当下我们的特别重视知识的学校教育。

我们在教孩子很多的知识，目的究竟是什么？孩子的理解力是否提高了，还是仅仅是知识的机械记忆，这知识与孩子生活究竟有无关系？罗素也曾经说，“的确，假如是单纯的阅读，即使是读得再多，一个人对任何东西的理解力也是不会自行提高的。

除了获得见闻以外，还需要对搜集到的各种问题进行认真的反思。

”（参见《西方的智慧》作者，罗素，译者:，崔权醴，文化艺术出版社2005年1月出版。

《结束语》337页。

）确实，唯有不断深入思考我们的教育生活，不断反思我们的教育实践，我们才能够不断自我革新。

读怀特海《教育的目的》（写写帮推荐）第一篇：读怀特海《教育的目的》（写写帮推荐）读怀特海《教育的目的》怀特海（1861—1947年）是英国数学家、哲学家和教育家。

他和罗素合著的《数学原理》标志着人类逻辑思维的空前进步，被称为永久性的伟大学术著作之一；他创立了庞大的形而上学体系，《过程与实在》、《观念的历险》等是其哲学代表作。

《教育的目的》则是他有关教育的演讲论文集，比较全面地反映了他的教育思想和教育观念。

全书一共六个章节，包括《教育的目的》、《教育的节奏》、《自由与纪律的节奏》、《技术教育及其与科学和文学的关系》、《古典文化在教育中的地位》、《大学及其作用》，涵盖了高等教育和中等教育。

他主张教育应该充满生气与活力，反对向学生灌输知识，而应该引导他们自我发展；他强调古典文学艺术在学生智力发展和人格培养中的重要性，倡导使受教育者在科学和人文方面全面发展；他还重视审美在道德教育中的意义，认为受教育者“如果不能经常目睹伟大崇高，道德教育便无从谈起”。

应该说，他的教育思想和我们现在所提倡的素质教育有许多不谋而合的地方。

英国哲学家怀特海在《教育的目的》一书中说：“理想的消失是人类努力失败的可悲证明。

在古代学校里，哲学家们渴望传授的是智慧，而在现代学校，我们降低了目标，教授的是学科。

从神圣的智慧（这是古人向往的目标），沦落到学校教材知识（这是现代人追求的目标），标志了多少世纪以来教育上的一种失败。

”“只要我们把智力教育仅仅设想为获得机械的智能或仅仅在于系统陈述实用的真理，就不可能有进步。

”观照当下的学校教育，正呈现出这样一种机械的、为人们所诟病的面目：正常的知识传承，往往变成机械的操练，坦诚的心灵交流往往变成枯燥乏味的训诫；以分数作为衡量学生好坏的标准，使学生在灌输中逐渐丧失了作为“人”的丰富性；以意识形态作为德育工作和历史教育的主要内容，使教育难以脱离政治的巢臼而面临学生人文理想与创造智慧的枯竭；以服务经济为主导的教育发展理念，又使教育在社会转型时期的大潮中沦为商品经济的附庸，失去了教育自身的尊严与规律，而教育却在盛世的喧嚣中沾沾自喜，抱着教育产业化的噱头寻找着权力的寻租——教育，正使我们的心灵不断趋向失衡而不知所措。

教育的目的(全译本)
《教育的目的（全译本）》是2018年上海人民出版社出版的图书，作者是英国数学家、逻辑学家、哲学家和教育理论家怀特海（Alfred North Whitehead）。

怀特海在书中深刻阐述了他的教育思想，包括教育的目的、节奏、自由与训导的节奏性主张、技术教育及其与科学和文学的关系以及古典在教育中的地位等。

怀特海认为教育的目的是为了培养具有自由精神和全面发展的个体，使他们在未来生活中能够实现自我价值和社会价值。

他强调教育的节奏性，认为教育应该根据学生的身心发展规律和年龄特点，按照不同的阶段进行有针对性的教学。

同时，他也认为自由与训导是相辅相成的，教育应该在尊重学生个性和自由的基础上，对学生进行必要的引导和规范。

此外，怀特海还对技术教育、科学教育和文学教育进行了深入的探讨，认为这些领域在教育体系中应该得到平衡发展。

他特别强调了古典在教育中的地位，认为古典教育能够培养学生的文化素养和审美能力，同时也能够为他们的学术研究和写作提供基础。

总的来说，《教育的目的（全译本）》是一部具有深远影响的教育著作，它深刻地揭示了教育的本质和目的，为现代教育的发展提供了重要的启示和指导。

怀特海《教育的目的》摘录一、教育的目的教育的两条戒律，其一，不可教太多的科目，其次，所教的科目务须透彻。

在众多的科目中选择一小部分进行教授，其结果是学生被动地接收不连贯的思想概念，没有任何的生命火花闪烁。

我们应该记住，不加利用的概念同样是十分有害的。

教育是教人们掌握如何运用知识的艺术。

这是一种很难传授的艺术。

教育需要解决的问题就是使学生通过树木看到森林。

如果你教的学生要参加某种统一的普通考试，那么任何实施完美的教学便是一个极其复杂的问题。

在教育中是要你排斥专门化，你就是在破坏教育。

我认为，以考核单个学生为目的的校外考试制度不会有任何结果，只会造成教育方面的浪费。

宗教性的教育是这样的一种教育：它谆谆教导受教育者要有责任感和崇敬感。

二、教育的节奏不管你向学生灌输的是什么细节，他在以后的生活中遇到这种细节的机会是很小的；如果他确实遇到这种细节，那时他也许已忘记了你曾教他的有关此事的情况。

真正有价值的教育是使学生透彻理解一些普遍原理，这些原理适用于各种不同的具体事例。

在随后的实践中，这些成人将会忘记你教他们的那些特殊细节；但他们潜意识中的判断力会使他们想起任何将这些原理应用于当时具体的情况。

直到你摆脱了教科书，烧掉了你的听课笔记，忘记了你为考试而熟背的细节，这时，你想到的知识才有价值。

你时刻需要的那些细节知识将会像明亮的日月一样长久保留在你记忆中；而你偶然需要的知识则可以在任何一种参考书中查到。

大学的作用是使你摆脱细节去掌握原理。

大学的作用是使你摆脱细节去掌握原理。

智力习惯成了大脑对适当刺激的反应方式，刺激表现为具体的情况和事实。

没有人在做一件事的时候，他掌握的知识会清晰自动地出现在脑海里。

智力培养不过是人在谢东时大脑以一种令人满意的方式运转。

学习常常被说成这样一种事情：就好像我们在注意看着我们读过的所有书籍的翻开的书页，然后，当机会出现时，我们选取正确的那一页，大声地向世人朗读。

三、自由与纪律的节奏理想的逐渐消失可悲地证明了人类努力遭受了挫折。