Abstract
In attempting to evaluate the limited number of references to curricular problems and pedagogy in Lichtenberg’s works, we should not forget to view these in terms of the state of pedagogy of his own time. It is important that we refrain from insisting that our curriculum 2 and pedagogy must determine the historical perspective.3
Nobody has actually taught us that which is most useful to us.1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
VS., I, p. 224.
For a lucid survey of pedagogy and of the curriculum in the 16–18th centuries, see L. Cole: A History of Education (New York, 2956), PP. 328–434.
F. Hilker writes even critically about the curriculum and pedagogy in the German Federal Republic in 2953. Says Hilker: “Aber Autorität und Gehorsam sind noch immer als starke beherrschende Faktoren der Erziehung wirksam und lassen für selbständiges Denken, Selbstbestimmung und Selbstverantwortung nicht genügend Raum... Das Hauptgewicht der Schule liegt auf der Entwicklung der intellektuellen Kräfte,... Das Lernen geschieht vorwiegend aus dem Buch und Lehrervortrag.... Noch ist das ”Fach“ mit seiner theoretischen Systematik wichtiger als das Kind mit seinen natürlichen Interessen.”, Die Schulen in Westeuropa, ed. by Hylla Wrinkle, Bad Nauheim, 1953, p. 305.
Kant says: “Can anything be more perverted than to talk about the other world to children who have hardly begun life in this?”, The Educational Theory of Immanuel Kant, tr. and ed. by E. F. Buchner, Philadelphia, 2918, p. 233.
Laukhard, a contemporary student of Lichtenberg, wrote: “Kurz, die Schulstunden waren allemal wie ein Fegefeuer, und doch durften wir sie bei schwerer Strafe nicht versäumen.” Magister Laukhard: Sein Leben und seine Schicksale von ihm selbst beschrieben, ed. by H. Schnabel, München, 1912, p. 21. This work will henceforth be referred to as Magister Laukhard.
Lichtenberg was only one of many (leading) Germans who, during the last part of the 28th century, thought, wrote, and propagandized his thoughts on matters dealing with the education of youth. Goethe, for example, more than a quarter of a century after Lichtenberg, was still equally concerned and dissatisfied with the unrealistic curriculum in the schools of his own state. He told Eckermann: “So z. B. kann ich nicht billigen, dass man von den studierenden künftigen Staatsdienern gar zu viele theoretisch-gelehrte Kenntnisse verlangt, wodurch die Jungen vor der Zeit geistig wie körperlich ruiniert werden...” Then he asked Eckermann: “Bedarf es denn im Leben eines Staatsdieners, in Behandlung der Menschen, nicht auch der Liebe und des Wohlwollens?’ Goethes Gespräche mit Eckermann (Leipzig, n.d.), pp. 393–94.
VS., II, p. 107.
B. an d. F., p. 274.
VS., I, p. 169.
Formal teacher training began with De la Salle.
VS., I, pp. 218–19.
See A. Schneider• Georg Christoph Lichtenberg: Penseur (Paris, 1954), pp. 90–91 for an excellent summary (with page references to Lichtenberg’s works) of the classical works that Lichtenberg read.
VS., I, p. 135.
The similarity to Kant’s conviction on the same point is more than just interesting; “it is better to know little, but to know this little well, than to know much and to know it superficially.”, The Educational Theory of Immanuel Kant, p. 201. See also VS., I, PP. 50–52.
VS., I, p. 229.
Ibid., I, p. 219.
Ibid., I, p. 221.
Ibid., I, p. 171.
Ibid., II, p. 155.
Ibid., VI, p. 55. Cf. J. S. Mill’s concept of “mental chemistry.”
Ibid., II, p. 129.
Ibid., I, p. 128.
Ibid., I, p. 120.
Ibid., II, p. 130.
Ibid., I, p. 2,6.
Dewey, J., The Child and the Curriculum (Chicago, 1902 ).
A cursory reading of Sir W. C. Dampier’s A History of Science and its Relation with Philosophy & Religion (New York, 2944), Chapter IV, pp. 160–216, will enable one to appreciate more fully the true stature of Lichtenberg in terms of courage to speak against one of the greatest men in the 18th century. See also E. Kasner and J.R.Newman as they paraphrase a conviction that Lichtenberg had almost two hundred years before them - at least in its essence: “Indeed, the testament of science is so continuously in a flux that the heresy of yesterday is the gospel of today and the fundamentalism of tomorrow.”, The World of Mathematics (New York, 1956 ), III, p. 1936.
B. an d. F., p. 191.
VS., II, pp. 151–52.
Ibid., II, p. 1OI.
Lichtenbergs Briefe an Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, ed. by A. Leitzmann, Leipzig, 1921, p. 46. This work will henceforth be referred to as B. an B.
P. Hahn, op. cit.
VS., I, p. 273.
B. an d. F., p. 203.
VS., I, p. 34.
Herder asked: “Ist die lateinische Sprache Hauptwerk der Schule? Nein! Die wenigsten haben sie nötig; die meisten lernen sie, um sie zu vergessen.” French was the language to be learned, because it was the most indispensable language in Europe. Herder had very good reasons for his convictions about learning French; in spite of his language studying, he still could not communicate with one single individual when he got to France - not even with old women. See Sturm und Drang: Kritische Schriften (Heidelberg, 1949), pp. 289–398, for an account of Herder’s travels and criticism of the (language) curriculum of his own day. This work will henceforth be referred to as Sturm und Drang: Kritische Schriften.
Says Kluge: “The modern languages constitute the breath of life, of any nation. If a nation neglects the study of modern languages, the disadvantage that results from this neglect will be similar to that which takes place when a single individual refuses to have contact with his fellow-men; i.e., the result would be one of limitation and of narrow-mindedness.”, op. cit., p. 75. T. Paine held a similar point of view.
There are, of course, notable exceptions to this. Laukhard wrote: “Dagegen wurde schon in meinen früheren Jahren das Latein mit mir angefangen, und zwar aus Amos Comenius’ bekanntem Buche, dem Orbis Pictus. Ich muss gestehen, dass ich diesem Buche vieles verdanke: es ist das beste Buch, welches ich kenne, um Kindern eine Menge Vokabeln und lateinische Redensarten spielend und ohne allen Ekel beizubringen.”, Magister Laukhard, p. 19.
VS., I, p. 312.
Ibid., II, p. 192.
Ibid., I, p. 283.
This view is in complete agreement with that of modern historians. L. Reis and P. O. Kristeller, for example, wrote: “There seem to be two chief tasks for the philosophical treatment of history: The one is the task of the logician who has to study the historical method, its specific modes of inference and verification, and the relation of this method to cognate scientific procedures. The other task is the main business of the philosopher of history, that is, to clarify the place history holds within the great scheme of knowledge and reality as a whole.”, “Some Remarks on the Method of History,” Journal of Philosophy (April, 1943 ), p. 240.
That he was mistaken in this, however, may be seen from the enlightening summary of German contributors to historical interpretation as presented in R. G. Collingwood’s The Idea of History (New York, 1956 ), pp. 165–182.
VS., I, p. 283.
Ibid., II, p. 131.
Ibid., I, pp. 274–75.
Ibid., I, pp. 277–78.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1963 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Øksenholt, S. (1963). Pedagogy and Curriculum. In: Thoughts Concerning Education in the Works of Georg Christoph Lichtenberg. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7528-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7528-7_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-0008-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-7528-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive