Introduction
Kneller (1958) defines existentialism as the philosophy that gives emphasis to the existence of an individual with choice and freedom whereby human beings decide on their paths and meaning of their lives as rational human beings with the capability of following unique directions in life. In essence, it is free will and each person has the responsibility of ethically making judgments and taking courses of action for which they are individually responsible. Chapter five gives an explanation of the philosophical view of existentialism and its relation to education.
Chapter Analysis
Existentialism primarily talks about the freedom to choose. According to this philosophical school of thought, existence is a preceding factor to the essence. Human beings have the choice to make decisions that describe their nature. According to National Society for the Study of Education, & In Henry (2005), a man must naturally create his nature through the decisions that he makes. The decisions bear commitment, responsibility, and risk that the individual must bear. For example, some of the decisions that a human being in the au courant society must make include physical fitness and health decisions, financial status, and the intellectual standards that the person subjects self to. Additionally, there are decisions regarding issues like participation in poetry, drama, and other art forms. These are the open areas that individuals have the choice of deciding. The chapter also brings in the themes of existentialism, which include the need for the arousal of consciousness, maximization of individual choice and freedom, recognition of ambiguity, and retention of individual functions. The role of existentialism in education is arguably debatable. According to the text, some students are anxious in groups, thus the need to prefer to learn in the groups, thus, enjoy social learning programs. Group-centered learning and individual teaching are primarily dependent on the type of person that a student is. Therefore, to subject a person to an environment that he or she is uncomfortable is not only unfair but unethical, going against the existentialism principle of free choice.
For that, I disagree with the characteristics of human nature that the description of philosophy above gives. I am in agreement with Brubacher (1968) when he says that people are naturally social creatures. Therefore, to subject an individual to a personalized learning is to defy the nature of people. The philosophical school of thought states that people have freedom of choice. I agree on the inherent accurate assessment of the purpose of this reasoning. However, it is imperative to look at both sides of the argument. While human beings have the freedom to choose social or individual learning environment, the choice of an individual environment is against the nature of human beings. A person cannot learn by self. Rather, he or she needs the teacher and other students to gauge their advancements. For example, the chapter talks about standardized tests, different subjects, and skills. There has to be a measurement of achievement and aptitude. Nonetheless, it is impossible to gauge the same without comparing it with that of other students. The achievement and success of learning of a person are vis-à-vis that of others. Therefore, without social learning, it is impossible to realize the creativity and uniqueness of the student.
Thus, I feel that this school of thought is inaccurate because it is blind to the fact that human beings are naturally social. In this case, it is crucial to put into consideration that since the beginning, there are no instances whereby human beings have the description of being solitary. Therefore, while each person has the freedom to choose, there must be an evaluation of the consequences of the choices on others. For instance, a person that chooses to travel must examine how his or her family will feel in the event of making the decision. In addition to that, the choice of the school to attend also matters. The chapter states that the evaluative and cognitive awareness have ambiguity because of the absence of pre-determination and pre-definition of future occurrences such as the future of students. There are no metaphysical systems that determine preordainment. For that reason, educationists must teach the value of the society in the same breath that they emphasize free will and individual choice of determination of futures.
In essence, the teacher or educator must give emphasis to knowledge and values that survived over time. A teacher must be conservative and authoritarian. According to Kneller (1958), teachers have the ethical responsibility of preparing their students for the future, giving them contemporary relevance, and focusing on their individual needs. While the latter concept is relevant to the existentialism as a school, it does not auger well with the former concept of education. For instance, preparing a student for the future means ensuring that he or she can read fiction in a social structure that has rules, regulations, and culture. Handling the student in a solitary manner as the philosophical school supports is negative to the development of social skills of the individual. Hence, while I fully support existentialism, I am not in support of some of the principles that it stands for such as exclusion from the social space and structure.
Furthermore, in existentialism, students learn hands-on. In spite of the fact that I am in support of that because the development of skills and knowledge is fast through this mode, I do not support the way of thinking whereby exclusion from the general community and society is the way to go. Learning that does not have support from other quarters is inaccurate and defy the purpose of the same.
References
Brubacher, J. S. (1968). Modern philosophies of education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kneller, G. F. (1958). Existentialism and education. New York: Philosophical Library.
National Society for the Study of Education, & In Henry, N. B. (1955). Modern philosophies and education. Chicago: NSSE; distributed by the University of Chicago Press.
