Hi-My
7]iscussion
RUSSELL AS PHILOSOPHER OF EDUCATION: REPLY TO HAGER
HOWARD WOODHOUSE Educational Foundations / University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N owo
I. INTRODUCTION
aul Hager's admirable article, "Why Russell Didn't Think He Was a Philosopher of Education", I contains much that is of worth. He takes seriously, for example, the claims'of educational philosophers like William Hare and myself that there is a logical connection between Russell's philosophy and his educational thought even though he goes on to reject this perspective. 2 Then, in defence of his own view, Hager provides a clear and cogent account of Russell's philosophical method. and indicates the implications of this method for
P
I Russell, n.s. 13 (1993): 150-67. For reasons of space I ignore Hager's interesting account ofWilliam Frankena's approach to philosophy of education and its relationship to Russell's educational thought. For my views on recent work in analytic philosophy of education, see H. Woodhouse, review of Richard Pratte's Philosophy ofEducation: Two Traditions, leachers College Record, 19 (1994): 426-9. For a comprehensive account of the relationship between Russell's educational thought and analytic philosophy of education, see Brian Hendley, Dewey, Russell, Whitehead: Philosophers as Educators (Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois U. P., 1986). 2 W Hare, "Russell's Contribution to Philosophy of Education", Russell, n.s. 7 (1987): 25-41; Hare, "What Can Philosophy Say to Teachers?", in Hare, ed., Reason in leaching and Education (Halifax, N.S.: School of Education, Dalhousie U., 1989), p. 44; H. Woodhouse, "Science as Method: the Conceptual Link between Russell's Philosophy and His Educational Thought", Russell, n.s. 5 (1985): 150-61; Woodhouse, "More than Mere Musings: Russell's Reflections on Education as Philosophy", Russell, n.s. 7 (1987): 176-8; Woodhouse, "Russell and Whitehead on the Process of Growth in Education", Russell, n.s. 12
RUSSELL AS PHILOSOPHER OF EDUCATION: REPLY TO HAGER
HOWARD WOODHOUSE Educational Foundations / University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N owo
I. INTRODUCTION
aul Hager's admirable article, "Why Russell Didn't Think He Was a Philosopher of Education", I contains much that is of worth. He takes seriously, for example, the claims'of educational philosophers like William Hare and myself that there is a logical connection between Russell's philosophy and his educational thought even though he goes on to reject this perspective. 2 Then, in defence of his own view, Hager provides a clear and cogent account of Russell's philosophical method. and indicates the implications of this method for
P
I Russell, n.s. 13 (1993): 150-67. For reasons of space I ignore Hager's interesting account ofWilliam Frankena's approach to philosophy of education and its relationship to Russell's educational thought. For my views on recent work in analytic philosophy of education, see H. Woodhouse, review of Richard Pratte's Philosophy ofEducation: Two Traditions, leachers College Record, 19 (1994): 426-9. For a comprehensive account of the relationship between Russell's educational thought and analytic philosophy of education, see Brian Hendley, Dewey, Russell, Whitehead: Philosophers as Educators (Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois U. P., 1986). 2 W Hare, "Russell's Contribution to Philosophy of Education", Russell, n.s. 7 (1987): 25-41; Hare, "What Can Philosophy Say to Teachers?", in Hare, ed., Reason in leaching and Education (Halifax, N.S.: School of Education, Dalhousie U., 1989), p. 44; H. Woodhouse, "Science as Method: the Conceptual Link between Russell's Philosophy and His Educational Thought", Russell, n.s. 5 (1985): 150-61; Woodhouse, "More than Mere Musings: Russell's Reflections on Education as Philosophy", Russell, n.s. 7 (1987): 176-8; Woodhouse, "Russell and Whitehead on the Process of Growth in Education", Russell, n.s. 12