[CHAPTER XXII.]
THE SCIENCE OF EDUCATION.—HERBERT SPENCER AND ALEXANDER BAIN.
THE SCIENCE OF EDUCATION; THE GERMAN PHILOSOPHERS; THE ENGLISH PHILOSOPHERS; HERBERT SPENCER’S EDUCATION; PLAN OF THE WORK; DEFINITION OF EDUCATION; HUMAN DESTINY; UTILITARIAN TENDENCIES; DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF ACTIVITIES; CRITICISM OF MR. SPENCER’S CLASSIFICATION; EFFECTS ON EDUCATION; SCIENCE IS THE BASIS OF EDUCATION; SCIENCE FOR HEALTH AND INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY; SCIENCE FOR FAMILY LIFE; SCIENCE FOR ÆSTHETIC ACTIVITY; EXAGGERATIONS AND PREJUDICES; INTELLECTUAL EDUCATION; LAWS OF MENTAL EVOLUTION; PERSONAL EDUCATION; MORAL EDUCATION; SYSTEM OF NATURAL PUNISHMENTS; DIFFICULTIES IN APPLICATION; RETURN TO NATURE; PHYSICAL EDUCATION; GENERAL JUDGMENT; MR. BAIN AND THE SCIENCE OF EDUCATION; GENERAL IMPRESSIONS; DIVISIONS OF THE BOOK; PSYCHOLOGICAL ORDER AND LOGICAL ORDER; MODERN EDUCATION; ERRORS IN THEORY; UTILITARIAN TENDENCIES; FINAL JUDGMENT; AMERICAN EDUCATORS; CHANNING; HORACE MANN; CONCLUSION; ANALYTICAL SUMMARY.
629. The Science of Education.—To-day, thanks to important works, the science of education is no longer an empty term, an object of vague aspirations for philosophers, of easy ridicule for wits. Doubtless it is far from being definitely established; but it no longer conceals its name and its pretensions; it defines its purpose and its methods; and manifests its youthful vitality in all directions.
Up to the present period, philosophers had scarcely thought of organizing pedagogy, of constructing it on a rational basis. On the other hand, the practice of education is still less advanced than the conceptions of philosophers. Here we the more often follow a thoughtless routine, or the vague inspirations of instinct. The methods in use are not co-ordinated. They present a curious mixture of old traditions and modern surcharges. It is this lack of definiteness, of co-ordination of ideas, and the spectacle of these contradictions, which caused Richter[277] to say: “The education of the day resembles the Harlequin of the Italian comedy who comes on the stage with a bundle of papers under each arm. ‘What do you carry under your right arm?’ he is asked. ‘Orders,’ he replies. ‘And under your left arm?’ ‘Counter-orders!’”
Quite a number of the philosophers of the nineteenth century have attempted to remedy this incoherence, and, by appealing to the scientific spirit, to regulate educational processes that have fallen into excesses of empiricism or of routine. It is these attempts which we are summarily to recite.
630. The German Philosophers.—Since Kant, and by his example, the most of German philosophers have associated the theory of education with their speculations on human nature.
Fichte (1762-1814), in his Discourse to the German Nation, proclaimed the necessity of a national education to secure the regeneration of his country and its restoration to its former standing. The advocate of a public and common education, because he would fight against the selfishness which family life encourages, he contributed by his eloquent appeals to restore the intellectual and moral grandeur, and consequently, the material grandeur, of Germany.
Schleiermacher (1768-1834) wrote a Doctrine of Education, which was not published till 1849. In this he develops, among other ideas, this proposition, that religious education does not belong to the school, but that it is the affair of the family and the Church.