The twentieth century has generated three serious initiatives to revive the educational philosophy put forward by Aristotle (384-322 BC), or similar to his. In essence, revival initiatives aim at prioritizing the student’s individual development.
Let’s review these three attempts and see the extent to which they have remained loyal to Aristotelian education. Let’s assess if they have grasped the philosophy outlined in the “Eudemian Ethics” and the “Nicomachean Ethics” by Aristotle.
John Dewey (1859-1952) put experiential learning back into the picture, bringing education a step closer to the empiricism favoured by Aristotle.
Dewey argued that students learn best when they’re actively engaged in solving real-life problems. It is an idea reminiscent of Aristotle’s theory of causality (material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause) that prompts us to assess facts by looking at them from several practical standpoints.
For this reason, Dewey proposed “learning by doing” as the ideal educational formula. In the classroom, Dewey wanted to engage students in hands-on activities and real-life problems, so that students grasp better the subject matter.
Aristotle’s views on education compared to John Dewey’s
In contrast to Aristotle, Dewey underscored the importance of social interaction. He demanded students to solve problems collectively and arrive at solutions in a democratic manner.
Dewey’s social interaction requirement plays against all the other elements in his education philosophy. Aristotle would not have endorsed it because he regarded the individual student as the prime actor and beneficiary of the educational process.
For Aristotle, the purpose of education is helping students acquire good habits (virtues). It entails shaping each student’s mind, so that it understand the world and learns the difference between good and evil.
In contrast to Dewey, Aristotle viewed reason as a personal capability. Each individual must learn to think for himself and make good decisions. There is nothing democratic about virtue and rationality. Each individual must decide whether to employ his mind or not. It is not a social decision.
While Aristotle wanted to teach students to think and draw correct conclusions on their own, Dewey wanted to turn them, little by little, into enthusiastic voters.
The problem is that life is going to demand you to take each day dozens of decisions. You can’t expect other people to take those decisions for you, or devote energies to participating in a democratic process for taking those decisions. You’ll be much better off if you learn from Aristotle how to think for yourself.
Aristotle’s views on education compared to Carl Roger’s
The second attempt of reviving ideas similar to Aristotle’s is to be credited to Carl Rogers (1902-1987). His approach to education focuses on the idea that learning is most effective if it focuses on the student’s growth and self-actualization.
Note that Roger’s term “self-actualization” is derived from a conceptual tandem created by Aristotle in his “Metaphysics.” I am referring to the concepts “potentiality” and “actuality.”
The Aristotelian definition of potentiality revolves about the future. It is about qualities or skills that you do not possess yet, but that you could develop if you exert yourself.
Actuality refers to the present state. It encompasses yourself as you are today. It includes your skills, your knowledge, your character, and all other physical and mental aspects that define you.
Roger’s concept of “self-actualization” means bringing your potential into reality. It means that you work day after day with the goal of developing a better version of yourself. You are in charge of the process of turning your potentiality into actuality.
For this reason, Rogers favoured an education approach that revolves around the student’s unique needs and perspectives. In his eyes, education is a means to facilitate self-actualization. It should help individuals discover their potential and bringing it to fruition.
Rogers took his idea to the extreme by demanding that each student is given full autonomy and control over his learning. In Roger’s ideal classroom, the teacher is only a facilitator placed at the service of the student.
The “facilitator” was described by Rogers as non-directive, which means that he should refrain from dictating any content, agenda or curriculum on students. Roger viewed facilitators as responsive to the student’s interests, but lacking authority.
The uniqueness of Aristotle’s views on education
Aristotelian educational principles differ from Roger’s ideas because of their focus on practicality. Aristotle wanted students to learn specific virtues (e.g. courage, temperance, justice) and make them part of the students’ personality. His education idea is profoundly directive and practical.
Roger’s views are on the opposite extreme of the scale. His idea of fully autonomous students removes responsibility from teachers.
His model removes the link to purpose in education. Rogers is turning education into exploration, but normal students aren’t equipped to do that. Most of them are too ignorant and do not know what they want.
Instead of facilitating learning and personal growth, Roger’s non-directive teachers are wasting the students’ time. It is naive to expect teenagers to possess a strong sense of direction. Their chances of rediscovering the Aristotelian virtues are practically zero.
Aristotle’s views on education compared to Maria Montessori’s
The third and best attempt to revive Aristotelian educational ideals was made by Maria Montessori (1870-1952). She was in favour of learning through hands-on experiences, taking full advantage of children’s natural drive to explore the world.
Montessori’s argued that children will learn faster if they are placed in an environment that lets them pursue their interests. I must point out here the difference separating Montessori’s and Roger’s educational philosophies. Roger favoured a completely non-directive approach, but Montessori created vast collections of materials that allow children to learn by exploring.
The classroom, according to Montessori, should allow each child to choose activities aligning with his interests, but doesn’t allow children to do nothing. Teachers are supposed to gently push children in the right direction. Their role goes far beyond the “facilitator” figure defined by Rogers.
Good habits and Aristotle’s views on education
Just a Aristotle had developed the theory of the four causes, Montessori developed teaching materials allowing children to engage their touch, vision, and other senses. The materials are helping children learn specific lessons in the same way that the Aristotelian teacher is helping students acquire good habits.
Montessori was not solely focused on teaching facts. Just as Aristotle regarded the acquisition of virtue (good habits) as the purpose of education, Montessori wanted to educate children for life and equip them with practical skills such as cooking or self-care.
Aristotle would not have endorse Montessori’s insistence on mixed-age groups, where older students mentor younger ones, but that’s a relatively minor detail in Montessori’s educational philosophy. Overall, she shared a good part of Aristotle’s ideas on education.
If you are interested in learning about practical wisdom in daily situations, I recommend you my book “The 10 principles of rational living.”
Related articles
Aristotle’s theory of causality
The path of Aristotle’s influence on Western philosophy
Aristotle’s influence on Western philosophy
Putting Aristotle’s views on education into practice