Education_and_Discipline原文及翻译.docVIP

Education and Discipline Betrand Russell Any serious educational theory must consist of two parts： a conception of the ends of life， and a science of psychological dynamics， i.e.， of the laws of mental change. Two men who differ as to the ends of life cannot hope to agree about education. The educational machine， throughout Western civilization， is dominated by two ethical theories： that of Christianity， and that of nationalism. These two， when taken seriously， are incompatible， as is becoming evident in Germany. For my part， I hold that where they differ， Christianity is preferable， but where they agree， both are mistaken. The conception which I should substitute as the purpose of education is civilization， a term which， as I meant it， has a definition which is partly individual， partly social. It consists， in the individual， of both intellectual and moral qualities： intellectually， a certain minimum of general knowledge， technical skill in ones own profession， and a habit of forming opinions on evidence； morally， of impartiality， kindliness， and a modicum of self-control. I should add a quality which is neither moral nor intellectual， but perhaps physiological： zest and joy of life. In communities， civilization demands respect for law， justice as between man and man， purposes not involving permanent injury to any section of the human race， and intelligent adaptation of means to ends. 　　 If these are to be the purpose of education， it is a question for the science of psychology to consider what can be done towards realizing them， and， in particular， what degree of freedom is likely to prove most effective. 　　 On the question of freedom in education there are at present three main schools of thought， deriving partly from differences as to ends and partly from differences in psychological theory. There are those who say that children should be completely free， however bad they may be； there are those who say they should be completely subject to authority， however goo