Advertisement

Secularity and Education: The One-Dimensional Man’s Tunnel Vision and the Transcendental

  • Orlando Nang Kwok Ho
Chapter

Abstract

How then is The Epistle to the Romans relevant to the modern world? This chapter will examine curriculum content and focus on the essential historicity of humans as beings. To do this, a historical account on the rise of the prototypically “modern” and “ahistorical” contemporary mindset is essential. This will allow readers nowadays to see the continuity between the “ancient” Greco-Roman world and the present as well as reassess the existential problems of humans as historical beings. Indeed, the contemporary world is in many cultural, institutional, philosophical, and epistemic aspects a spiritual and perspectival descendant of Rome (see Chap.  4). “The great methodologists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (and some even of the nineteenth century) were educated in the classics” (McDonald 1993, p. 19). Hence, the questions related to the Old Model of Human as expounded in the world of imperial Rome, which The Epistle to the Romans has sought to explore and answer for its original learners, have remained perennial problems until today.

References

  1. Alston, R. (1998). Aspects of Roman history, AD 14–117. London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amin, A., & Cohendet, P. (2004). Architectures of knowledge: Firms, capabilities, and communities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antonakis, J. (2012). Transformational and charismatic leadership. In D. Day, & J. Antonakis (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 256–288). Los Angeles/London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  4. Appiah, K. (1994). Identity, authenticity, survival: Multicultural societies and social reproduction. In C. Taylor et al. (Eds.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 149–163). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bellous, J. (2005). Faith and social intimacy: Learning for life. In C. Ota, & C. Erricker (Eds.), Spiritual education: Literary, empirical and pedagogical approaches (pp. 123–136). Brighton/Portland: Sussex Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Berstein, D., et al. (2012). Psychology. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  7. Bonnett, M. (2008). Authenticity, autonomy and compulsory curriculum. In N. Norris (Ed.), Curriculum and the teacher: 35 years of the Cambridge Journal of Education (pp.64–74). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P. et al. (1999). The weight of the world: Social suffering in contemporary society (P. Ferguson, et al., Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven /London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Boyer, W. (2002). Planning education and systems change. In Education for the twenty-first century (pp. 77–92). San Francisco: Caddo Gap Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cawthon, D. (2002). The divine right of kings. In Philosophical foundations of leadership (pp. 41–50). New Brunswick/London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, B. (1986). Optimizing learning: The integrative education model in the classroom. Columbus /Toronto: Merrill Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Clark, T. (2011). Martin Heidegger. London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooling, T. (1994). A Christian vision for state education: Reflections on the theology of education. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.Google Scholar
  15. Einstein, A. (1984). The world as I see it (A. Harris, Trans.). New York: Citadel Press.Google Scholar
  16. Erricker, C. (2007). If you don’t know the difference you are living with, how can you learn to live with it? Taking difference seriously in spiritual and religious education. In C. Ota, & M. Chater (Eds.), Spiritual education in a divided world: Social, environmental & pedagogical perspectives on the spirituality of children and young people (pp. 137–150). London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ford, T. (1999). Constructing self as object. In Becoming multicultural: Personal and social construction through critical thinking (pp. 21–39). New York; London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fröbel, F. (1896). The education of man. New York: D. Appleton & Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gadamer, H. (1985). Truth and method. New York: Crossroad.Google Scholar
  20. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  21. Guignon, C. (1993). Introduction. In C. Guignon (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Heidegger (pp. 1–41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haplin, D. (2003). Hope and its significance for education. In Hope and education: The role of utopian imagination (pp. 10–30). London/New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  23. Heidegger, M. (1993). Martin Heidegger: Basic concepts (G. Aylesworth, Trans.). Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hillyard, S. (1999). Responding to text construction: Goffman’s reflexive imagination. In A. Massey & G. Walford (Eds.), Studies in educational ethnography, Vol. 2: Explorations in methodology (pp. 57–71). Stamford: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  25. Ho, O. (2013). Translation paradigms and a historic-critical reading of The Epistle to the Romans: Intercultural curriculum challenges on life and values education for contemporary Chinese-speaking adult Christian. EdD diss., The Education University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  26. Huo, T. H. 霍韜晦. (2014). Dang dai wen hua pi pan – yi ge dong fang ren wen xue zhe de hu ying. 當代文化批判── 一個東方人文學者的回應 [A critique of contemporary cultures – A response from a scholar in the east.]. Hong Kong: The Dharmasthiti Group.
  27. Johnson, H. (2007). Difference, explanation, certainty and terror: A view from a Londoner about the formation of children’s spirituality as relational consciousness. In C. Ota, & M. Chater (Eds.), Spiritual education in a divided world: Social, environmental & pedagogical perspectives on the spirituality of children and young people (pp. 57–70). London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kant, I. (2008). Religion within the limit of reason alone (J. Silber, Trans.). New York: Harper One.Google Scholar
  29. Keener, C. (2016). The mind of the spirit: Paul’s approach to transformed thinking. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.Google Scholar
  30. Kenny, A. (2006). A new history of Western philosophy, Vol. 1, Ancient philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  31. Kikoski, C., & Kikoski, J. (2004). The inquiring organization: Tacit knowledge, conversation, and knowledge creation – Skills for 21st century organizations. Westport/London: Praeger.Google Scholar
  32. Kilbane, C. (2014). Teaching models: Designing instruction for 21st century learners. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  33. Kingsley, P. (1999). In the dark places of wisdom. Inverness: Golden Sufi Center.Google Scholar
  34. Kunzmann, U., & Baltes, P. (2003). Beyond the traditional scope of intelligence: Wisdom in action. In R. Sternberg, J. Lautrey, & T. Lubart (Eds.), Models of intelligence: International perspectives (pp. 329–343). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  35. Luo, N., & Shui J. 罗念生、水建馥 (Eds.). (2004). Gu xilayu hanyu cidian 古希腊语汉语词典. Beijing: Shang wu yin shu guan.Google Scholar
  36. Macionis, J. (2014). Sociology. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  37. Marcuse, H. (1991). One-dimensional man: Studies in ideology of advanced industrial society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  38. Mazur, J. (2013). Learning and behavior. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  39. McDonald, L. (1993). The ancient origins of the social sciences. In The early origins of the social sciences (pp. 19–73). Montreal/London/Buffalo: McGill-Queens’s University Press.Google Scholar
  40. McLaren, P. (2006). Some reflections on critical pedagogy in the age of global empire. In C. Rossatto, R. Allen, & M. Pruyn (Eds.), Reinventing critical pedagogy (pp. 79–98). Lanham/Boulder: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Monchinski, T. (2010). Education in hope: Critical pedagogies and the ethic of care. New York/Oxford: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Myers, B. (1997). Young children and spirituality. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Nejadmehr, R. (2009a). Objectivism and alienation. In Education, science and truth (pp. 24–44). New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Nejadmehr, R. (2009b). The educational order of truth. In Education, science and truth (pp. 144–158). New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Nemo, P. (1998). Histoire des idées politiques dans l’antiquité et au Moyen âge. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  46. Nias, J. (2008). Teaching and the self. In N. Norris (Ed.), Curriculum and the teacher: 34 years of the Cambridge Journal of Education (pp. 241–253). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Oakley, F. (2006). Kingship: The politics of enchantment. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Olson, K. (2009). What are school wounds? In Wounded by school: Recapturing the joy in learning and standing up to old school culture (pp. 11–29). New York/London: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  49. Paul, G. (2010). The Evolution of popular religiosity and secularism: How First World statistics reveal why religion exists, why it has been popular, and why the most successful democracies are the most secular? In P. Zuckerman (Ed.), Atheism and secularity, Vol. 1: Issues, concepts, and definitions (pp. 149–207). Santa Barbara: Praeger.Google Scholar
  50. Phillips, B., & Christner, D. (2012). Revolution in the social sciences: Beyond control freaks, conformity, and tunnel vision. New York/Toronto: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  51. Pilario, D. (2005). Back to the rough grounds of praxis: Exploring theological method with Pierre Bourdieu. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
  52. Powell, J. (2007). Who are we? The ones to come. In Heidegger’s contributions to philosophy: Life and the last God (pp. 20–32). London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  53. Ritzer, G. (2000). Sociological theory. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  54. Seneca, L. (1995). Seneca: Moral and political essays (J. Cooper, & J. Procopé, Eds. & Trans.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Sernau, S. (2012). Global problems: The search for equity, peace and sustainability. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  56. Smith, R. (1997). Natural science and objectivity. In The Norton history of the human sciences (pp. 636–700). New York/London: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  57. Steele, D. (2008). Atheism explained: From folly to philosophy. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  58. Stenhouse, L. (2008). Defining the curriculum problem. In N. Norris (Ed.), Curriculum and the teacher: 35 years of the Cambridge Journal of Education (pp. 25–28). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Stiglitz, J., Sen, A., & J. Fitoussi (2010). Mismeasuring our lives: Why GDP doesn’t add up (The report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress). New York/London: The New Press.Google Scholar
  60. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Verbeke, G. (1991). Ethics and logic in Stoicism. In M. Osler (Ed.), Atoms, pneuma, and tranquility: Epicurean and Stoic themes in European thought (pp. 11–24). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Wallace, B., & Hodel, B. (2008). The mind behind the eyepiece – Limits on scientific objectivity. In Embracing mind: The common ground of science and spirituality (pp. 86–108). Boston/London: Shambhala.Google Scholar
  63. Weaver, R. (1948). Ideas have consequences. London: The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  64. Webb, S. (2000). Taking religion to school: Christian theology and secular education. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press.Google Scholar
  65. Westphal, M. (1998). Freud and the psychoanalysis of the believing soul. In Suspicion and faith: The religious uses of modern atheism (pp. 33–119). New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Wexler, P., & Hotam, Y. (Eds.). (2015). New Social Foundations for Education: Education in ‘Post Secular’ Society. New York/Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  67. Willis, G. (1998). The human problems and possibilities of curriculum evaluation. In L. Beyer & M. Apple (Eds.), The curriculum: Problems, politics, and possibilities (pp. 339–357). New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  68. Xie, M. 謝木水 (2010). Ren zhi wei ren — shen xue ren lei xue su miao 人之為人:神學人類學素描. Johor: Xie chuan pei xun zhong xin.Google Scholar
  69. Zhong wen sheng jing qi dao ben bian ji wei yuan hui. 中文聖經編輯委員會. (1990). Zhong wen sheng jing qi dao ben 中文聖經啟導本. Hong Kong: The Rock House Publishers, Ltd.Google Scholar
  70. Zuckerman, P. (Ed.). (2010). Atheism and secularity, Vol. 2: Global expressions. Santa Barbara: Praeger.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Orlando Nang Kwok Ho
    • 1
  1. 1.The Chartered Institute of LinguistsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations