Philosophy and the Rationalisation of Educative Action: The Example of Personal Autonomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In France, the philosophy of education is not accustomed to reflect on the concept of the ‘education system’. Often, the ‘humanistic’ purposes that it gives to education are far away from the real goals of a systematic education. Often also, it is confined to a critical attitude, whose constructive side is missing. Which form of philosophical practice is desirable vis-à-vis the transformations of the education systems? How to develop an at the same time normative and critical thought, which take account of the current evolutions? This is what this contribution is concerned with, using the limited example of personal autonomy. In this reply to Philippe Foray's article ‘Philosophy and the Rationalisation of Educative Action’, the author salutes Foray's call to anchor the project of articulating aims of education in the realities of contemporary education but claims that Foray's plea to re-imagine the philosophy of education is arbitrarily restricted. The notion that defending high-level directives should preoccupy educational philosophy is rejected. Far from characterising educational philosophy prior to mass, state-managed educational systems, the author argues, a more faithful rendering of the history of the field demonstrates that the responsibility of stating education's ends was largely imposed on educational philosophy by the rationalisation of educational systems itself. In conclusion, contemporary practical ethics is advanced as a model for a more expansive conception of educational philosophy's potential contribution to educational research, policy and practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.109 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".