David Lewin

From Ricoeur to Action engages with the thinking of the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005) in order to propose innovative responses to 21st-century problems actively contributing to global conflict. Ricoeur's ability to draw from a diverse field of philosophers and theologians and to provide mediation to seemingly irreconcilable views often has both explicit and implicit practical application to socio-political questions. Here an international team of leading Ricoeur scholars develop critical yet productive responses through the development of Ricoeur's thought with respect to such topics as race, environmental ethics, technology, political utopia and reinterpreting religion. Representing a new generation of Ricoeur scholarship that attempts to move beyond an exegetical engagement with his philosophy, this collection of original essays examines key problems in the 21st-century and the ways in which Ricoeur's philosophy understands the subtleties of these problems and is able to offer a productive response. As such it presents an elucidation of the practical significance of Ricoeur's thinking and an innovative contribution to resolving socio-political conflicts in the 21st century.

Are there differences between the pedagogical approaches of East Asian and European cultures regarding the question of how to navigate the complex relations of the universal and the particular, the communal and the individual? By no means an abstract question, it calls for thought in what seems to be an increasingly volatile age: from political and social division and polarization, divergent forces of localization, globalization, and glocalization, increasing efforts to acknowledge and recognize different histories and traditions in expanding intercultural communication processes while simultaneously not losing sight of the global challenges that humankind must respond to without much time for hesitation, it seems that conventional approaches to national education need to adapt. As a critical response to certain stereotypes regarding the apparent relations of sociality and individuality in countries traditionally influenced by (Neo-)Confucianism, this suite of articles gathers positions from colleagues working in East Asian contexts and in the UK to explore these and related problems from a variety of viewpoints.

This paper develops work undertaken by the After Religious Education project which seeks to reimagine Religious Education in schools for a context in which both religious and non-religious worldviews are taken seriously. One of the longstanding challenges for RE teachers in schools in England has been how to reconcile the broad range of aims and purposes it is supposed to support in a context in which RE is increasingly perceived as confused, inconsistent, and irrelevant. Through a discussion of selected meanings and histories of ’Bildung’, from Eckhart through Heidegger culminating in Biesta’s renunciation of the term, this paper considers whether Bildung could offer a way to rethink the educational purposes of RE. It explores how the varied and competing purposes of RE might be harmonized partly because this concept provides an educational direction without over-specifying the destination: it invites ‘unbidden’ aspects to enter educational processes.

Contemporary theories of non-confessional religious education (RE) imagine the subject as inclusive and non-indoctrinatory. Any latent confessional tendencies towards universalism—encouraging or promoting a singular religious vision—have been exorcised within secular, liberal education systems. But can universalism be so easily avoided? In this article, I argue that some forms of universalism are unjustified, while others are educationally inevitable. The argument acknowledges that failures to distinguish between different forms of universalism lead to confusion about the purposes and justification of RE, and contribute to the poor status of the subject in schools within England and Wales. Knowing when, how, and why universalism operates educationally can help to improve all kinds of education, particularly RE. This article is part of a suite of articles, titled ‘Universal Individuals’, which explore the relations and tensions between forms of universalism (political, civic, philosophical) and individualism.

Education is astonishingly simple. We have all been through it, whether as children or later in life—indeed, many of us are still going through it in some form or other; we all know what works; and we are all committed to realising its individual and social potential. Such a view of the matter might dispense with the need for philosophy of education altogether as the problems of education are seen as little more than puzzles to be solved. We know (or think that we know) what we want to achieve, the challenge is how to do so most efficiently. If only the virtues of education were that perspicuous, that simple. If only the vices were so easily identified and expunged. It turns out that education is astonishingly complex. The following chapters aspire to re-introduce a certain complexity that abstains from an all-too-easy understanding. They seek not to offer solutions, but complications, disruptions and dissensions. The authors assume positions against the usual associations and evaluations regarding certain words and phrases—a revaluation that turns the virtues to vices and the vices to virtues.

This article seeks to elaborate the step of epistemological affirmation that exists within every movement of learning. My epistemological method is rooted in philosophical hermeneutics in contrast to empirical or rationalist traditions. I argue that any movement of learning is based upon an entry into a hermeneutical circle: one is thrown into, or leaps into, an interpretation which in some sense has to be temporarily affirmed or adopted in order to be either absorbed and integrated, or overcome and rejected. I illustrate this process through a retrieval of the concept of submission in pedagogy, particularly with reference to submission in Eastern traditions, as well as pre-modern Christian thought. These other traditions are introduced to contrast with the modern liberal Western perspective in which the role of submission has been almost entirely lost.

From Ricoeur to Action engages with the thinking of the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005) in order to propose innovative responses to 21st-century problems actively contributing to global conflict. Ricoeur's ability to draw from a diverse field of philosophers and theologians and to provide mediation to seemingly irreconcilable views often has both explicit and implicit practical application to socio-political questions. Here an international team of leading Ricoeur scholars develop critical yet productive responses through the development of Ricoeur's thought with respect to such topics as race, environmental ethics, technology, political utopia and reinterpreting religion. Representing a new generation of Ricoeur scholarship that attempts to move beyond an exegetical engagement with his philosophy, this collection of original essays examines key problems in the 21st-century and the ways in which Ricoeur's philosophy understands the subtleties of these problems and is able to offer a productive response. As such it presents an elucidation of the practical significance of Ricoeur's thinking and an innovative contribution to resolving socio-political conflicts in the 21st century.

This essay argues that a purely secular philosophy of technology omits an essential aspect of technical activity: the ultimate concern for which any action is undertaken. By way of an analysis of Borgmann and Hickman, I show that the philosophy of technology cannot articulate the nature of the good life without reference to an ultimacy beyond finite human goods. This paradoxically implies that human beings desire something infinite which they cannot name, a paradox that theologians have long understood in terms of a theological dialectic.

Is physical presence an essential aspect of a rich educational experience? Can forms of virtual encounter achieve engaged and sustained education? Technophiles and technophobes might agree that authentic personal engagement is educationally normative. They are more likely to disagree on how authentic engagement is best achieved. This article argues that educational thinking around digital pedagogy unhelpfully reinforces this polarising debate by failing to recognise that digitalisation is, as Stiegler has argued, pharmacological: both a poison and a cure. I suggest that Biesta’s critique of learnification can be applied to online learning, but that any such application does not sufficiently acknowledge the pharmacological nature of modern technology. While Stiegler has something important to contribute on the relation between technology, attention and education, I suggest his account is rather too bound up with critical theories of technology. In the end I turn to philosophers of religion, such as Eliade and Smith to suggest different ways of conceiving the role of attention in education that does set technologies up over/against the formation of attention essential to education.

The last one hundred years has seen unimaginable technological progress transforming every aspect of human life. Yet we seem unable to shake a profound unease with the direction of modern technology and its ideological siblings, global capitalism and massive consumption. Philosophers such as Marcuse, Borgmann and especially Heidegger, have developed important analyses of technological society, however in this book David Lewin argues that their ideas have remained limited either by their secular context, or by the narrow conception of religion that they do allow. This study guides the reader along the newly formed paths of the philosophy of technology, arguing that where those paths come to an abrupt end, a religious discourse is needed to articulate the ultimate concerns that drive technological action. It calls for a meditation on the central insight of many religious traditions that, in an ultimate sense, we 'know not what we do.' To acknowledge that we know not what we do is the first step towards a theology of technology that draws upon insights from the mystical theological tradition, as well as from recent developments in the continental philosophy of religion.

John Tillson’s book Children, Religion and the Ethics of Influence addresses several themes: the ground and nature of ethical responsibility; the means and goals of ethical formative influence; the nature and ground of religious belief. In this article, I focus on the issue of justification for educational influence in general. Attention to this issue could avoid some intractable problems of specifically religious influence, most particularly the challenge of providing satisfactory criteria for what belongs to the category of religion. Whilst there may be important reasons for examining specifically religious influence, I argue that religious influence is not fundamentally different from other forms of influence, and that the logic of the ethics of influence in general would encompass the logic of religious influence. If the educator is to justify certain forms of influence, then they should employ a kind of restraint: the educator should influence whilst simultaneously protect the influencee from that very influence.

Calls for reframing the subject matter of Religious Education in schools include the tricky question of how to select from a world of potentially interesting and relevant material. Pedagogues have long questioned the educational logic that takes so-called substantive knowledge as its starting point and imagines education to follow a linear path from simple to complex. Scholars of Religious Studies have addressed similar questions of how to bring the subject matter to life through taking a more disciplinary orientation, though this approach is problematized by RE’s multi-disciplinary foundations This paper brings together pedagogical and disciplinary perspectives to the question of exemplification in the production of curricular subject matter. Taking as its context RE in schools, the paper assumes the didactic principle that there is considerable difference between putative disciplinary knowledge and school subject matter and that the production of school subject matter requires considered processes of pedagogical transformation and reduction. The paper explores the logic governing this transformation by drawing on the pedagogical analysis of exemplarity offered by Martin Wagenschein alongside the more disciplinary analyses of the place of examples from Jonathan Z. Smith.

The argument of this article assumes that religious literacy is urgently needed in the present geopolitical context. Its urgency increases the more religion is viewed in opposition to criticality, as though religion entails an irrational and inviolable commitment, or leap of faith. This narrow view of religion is reinforced by certain rather dogmatic secular framings of religion, which require any and all forms of religious expression to be excluded from public life. Excluding religion from the public has the unfortunate effect that religiosity can take extreme forms with little social mediation through political deliberative cultures. Such approaches do not support religious literacy, but tend to generate increasingly polarized and fractured debates about the place of religion in society and education. In contrast to the attitude that seeks to privatize religion, I argue that religions are fundamentally public facing, not least because they act as social institutions that bind communities together. I argue that it is the hermeneutical traditions immanent to religions themselves that must inform the ways that religions can appropriately inform public life.

This paper provides a review of Reconstructing ‘Education' through Mindful Attention: Positioning the Mind at the Center of Curriculum and Pedagogy by Oren Ergas. The review examines the central argument of the book, namely that present educational theory and practice avoids substantial self-inquiry, paying lip service to reflective practice but stopping short of any real encounter with the complex dynamics of the self. In Ergas’ bold inquiry, we are invited to attend and to see for ourselves by considering perspectives and practices rooted in contemplative traditions. The educational context becomes clear as attention to the self entails formation of the self. However, I argue that it is not clear why contemplative traditions are best placed to engage in such formation. I suggest that a central problem with the book is the conflation here of education and socialisation, and that more systematic treatment of educational questions might obviate some of the troubling issues around the failures of what is called the inner curriculum.

This handbook presents a comprehensive introduction to the core areas of philosophy of education combined with an up-to-date selection of the central themes. It includes 95 newly commissioned articles that focus on and advance key arguments; each essay incorporates essential background material serving to clarify the history and logic of the relevant topic, examining the status quo of the discipline with respect to the topic, and discussing the possible futures of the field. The book provides a state-of-the-art overview of philosophy of education, covering a range of topics: Voices from the present and the past deals with 36 major figures that philosophers of education rely on; Schools of thought addresses 14 stances including Eastern, Indigenous, and African philosophies of education as well as religiously inspired philosophies of education such as Jewish and Islamic; Revisiting enduring educational debates scrutinizes 25 issues heavily debated in the past and the present, for example care and justice, democracy, and the curriculum; New areas and developments addresses 17 emerging issues that have garnered considerable attention like neuroscience, videogames, and radicalization. The collection is relevant for lecturers teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in philosophy of education as well as for colleagues in teacher training. Moreover, it helps junior researchers in philosophy of education to situate the problems they are addressing within the wider field of philosophy of education and offers a valuable update for experienced scholars dealing with issues in the sub-discipline. Combined with different conceptions of the purpose of philosophy, it discusses various aspects, using diverse perspectives to do so.

8. Eckhart's why and Heidegger's what: beyond subjectivistic thought to groundless ground -- I -- II -- III -- Notes -- 9. Meister Eckhart's speculative grammar: a foreshadowing of Heidegger's Der Satz vom Grund? -- A problem of expression -- Language in modism -- Spiral-vortex metaphor -- Concluding remarks -- Notes -- 10. Pay attention!: exploring contemplative pedagogies between Eckhart and Heidegger -- Paying attention -- The paradox of intention -- Intended attention -- Conclusion -- Notes -- PART IV: Re-readings and new boundaries -- 11. Mysterium secretum et silentiosum: praying the apophatic self -- The secret prayer of apophasis -- Breaching the silent sanctuary in Fear and Trembling -- Exteriority and interiority: the scandal of self and other -- Praying the apophatic self -- Notes -- 12. Becoming mystic, becoming monster: the logic of the infinite in Kierkegaard, Cusa and Deleuze -- Kierkegaard: thinking the unthinkable -- Cusa: the repetition of unity -- Conclusion -- Notes -- 13. Non-philosophical immanence, or immanence without secularization -- I Immanence and philosophy -- II Eckhart's unrestrained immanence -- III Non-philosophical immanence -- Notes -- 14. 'Not peace but a sword': Žižek, Dionysius and the question of ancestry in theology and philosophy -- The sins of the fathers: the congenital disorders of Christian-Neoplatonism -- Unto the third and fourth generation: Žižek and the mutation of Christian inheritance -- Conclusion: miscegenous liaisons -- Notes -- Index.

The indoctrination debates have been a key feature of the philosophy of education over the past 50 years. While it is generally acknowledged that the pejorative associations of indoctrination only emerged over the last 100 years, those normative associations are widely taken to be an essential part of the concept itself as are the positive connotations of education. I explore some of the problems of assuming that the term must refer to something negative and the essentialism that this implies. The attempt to ‘transvaluate’ indoctrination results in the claim that the concept is virtually indistinguishable from education. Drawing on Ivan Snook's Indoctrination and Education, I examine several candidates for indoctrination to show that the pejorative label is not a good fit. I argue that much of what is framed as indoctrination turns out to be either impossible–implausible or necessary–inevitable; the fact that there is scarcely a gap between these extremes should give us pause to wonder about this term and its relation to education: By providing a term for those influences of which we generally disapprove, does the concept of indoctrination act as a way for educationalists to uphold and protect the normative view of education (that education must aim for something intrinsically worthwhile)?Eds.: This paper forms part of a Special Issue entitled ‘Beyond Virtue and Vice: Education for a Darker Age’ in which the editors invited authors to engage in exercises of ‘transvaluation’. Certain apparently settled educational concepts (from agency and fulfilment to alienation and ignorance) can be reinterpreted and transvaluated (in a Nietzschean vein) such that virtues become vices, and vices, virtues. The editors encouraged authors to employ polemics and some occasional exaggeration to reimagine educational values that are all too readily accepted within contemporary educational discourses.

This book opens up philosophical spaces for comparative discussions of education across ‘East and West’. It develops an intercultural dialogue by exploring the Anglo-American traditions of educational trans-/formation and European constructions of Bildung, alongside East Asian traditions of trans-/formation and development. Comparatively little research has been done in this area, and many questions concerning the commensurability of North American, European and East Asian pedagogies remain. Despite this dearth of theoretical research, there is ample evidence of continued interest in (self-)formation through various East Asian practices, from martial arts to health and spiritual practices (e.g. Aikido, Tai Chi, Yoga, mindfulness etc.), suggesting that these ‘traditional’ practices and pedagogical relations have something important to offer, despite their marginal standing in educational discourse. This book will appeal to all researchers and students of comparative education studies with an interest in issues of interpretation and translation between different traditions and cultures.

This article aims to articulate the richness of the pedagogical relation and pedagogical tact in an age of the near ubiquitous presence of digital education. Drawing on Citton, we argue that there is an ecology of attentional influence that is pedagogically decisive. Our argument proceeds as follows: first, we introduce Citton’s theoretical frame; second, we examine the general conception of education that is established and articulated through the pedagogical relations between educator, student and world; third, we consider the concept of pedagogical tact and analyse how Citton’s framing of attention gives shape to understanding pedagogical tact; last, we connect attention to education, arguing that education concerns drawing attention to aspects of the world through pedagogically tactful action. We conclude by calling for greater reflection on aspects of education which are difficult to render digitally, and which rely on the speculative and interpretive capacities of the educator.