Advertisement

Seeing the Points of Connection

Chapter
  • 275 Downloads

In Lieu of an Abstract

  • Paul Standish: Some people might expect us to start by explaining why we have written this chapter as a dialogue. Leaving aside the fact that Plato – to whom all philosophy, it has been said, is a series of footnotes – wrote in dialogue form, and never seems to have felt the need to tell us why, we might say that we have written it in this way because it is a dialogue. We push ideas to and fro, question each other, disagree with each other, and so on.

  • Reader: You say that it is a dialogue. Do you mean that this chapter is a transcription of an actual conversation between you?

  • Richard Smith: There have been so many conversations among us that these pages are pretty well bound to be true to our spoken words at some time or another. And of course these conversations have involved Paul Smeyers too, and – for many years – Nigel Blake, whose presence can also be detected in these pages.

  • Reader: So you are saying that there has been something essentially dialogic in your relationship with Paul Smeyers, and you felt that only a dialogue could do justice to that.

  • Paul: Pretty much so. And while there is something worryingly self-confirming in justifying the dialogue form with a dialogic explanation, it would be odd to cast the justification in some other prose form, as if that were superior to dialogue in respect of clarity or persuasive power or in some other way.

  • Richard: Then too dialogue is a fine medium for reminiscence, allowing for uncertainty, different perspectives, and debate (“It was in 1993, wasn’t it, that you and I and Paul…?”) rather than assuming that veridical record is what is at issue here.

  • Paul: In any case, reminiscence is largely a way of revisiting philosophical projects and arguments from the past in order to subject their soundness to fresh critique.

  • Reader: So, if I understand you, this dialogue is both true and fictive, and reminiscence looks forward, as much as back.

  • Richard: Splendid. I only hope that what follows isn’t a disappointment to you.

References

  1. Blake, N., Smeyers, P., & Smith, R. (1998). Thinking again: Education after postmodernism. Westport, CN: Bergin & Garvey.Google Scholar
  2. Blake, N., Smeyers, P., Smith, R., & Standish, P. (2000). Education in an age of nihilism. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  3. Bridges, D., Smeyers, P., & Smith, R. (Eds.). (2009). ‘Evidence based educational policy’: What evidence? What basis? Whose policy? Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Gottlieb, A. (2016). The dream of enlightenment. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  5. Hodgson, N., & Standish, P. (2006). Induction into educational research networks: The striated and the smooth. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 40(4), 563–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Peters, M., & Stickney, J. (Eds.) (2018, forthcoming). A companion to Wittgenstein on education. Singapore, Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Saramago, J. (1998[1984]). The year of the death of Ricardo Reis (G. Pontiero, Trans.). London: The Harvill Press.Google Scholar
  8. Smeyers, P. (2016). Neurophilia: Guiding educational research and the educational field. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 50(1), 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Smeyers, P. (2018a, forthcoming). “This is simply what I do.” on the relevance of Wittgenstein’s alleged conservatism and the debate about Cavell’s legacy for children and grown-ups. In M. A. Peters, and J. Stickney (Eds.), A companion to Wittgenstein on education. Singapore, Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Smeyers, P. (Ed.). (2018b, forthcoming). International handbook of philosophy of education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Smeyers, P., & Marshall, J. (1995). Philosophy and education: Accepting Wittgenstein’s challenge. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Smeyers, P., & Smith, R. (2014). Understanding education and educational research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Smeyers, P., Smith, R., & Standish, P. (2007). The therapy of education. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Smith, R. (2018). Wittgenstein, science, and the social sciences. In P. Smeyers (Ed.), International handbook of philosophy of education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Standish, P. (2018, forthcoming). This is simply what I do too: A response to Paul Smeyers. In M. Peters & J. Stickney (Eds.), A companion to Wittgenstein on education. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Stone, L. (2006). Kuhnian science and education research: Analytics of practice and training. In P. Smeyers & M. Depaepe (Eds.), Educational research: Why what works Doesn’t work. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Winch, P. (1958). The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  18. Wittgenstein, L. (1968). Philosophical investigations. (3rd ed., G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Wittgenstein, L. (1969). On certainty. (P. Denis and G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Wittgenstein, L. (1998). Culture and value (Rev. ed., P. Winch, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of DurhamDurhamUK
  2. 2.University College LondonInstitute of EducationLondonUK

Personalised recommendations