Journal Article 哲学における論文読解比較研究 : 2人の哲学者の「思考法」に着目して

岡田, 了祐  ,  福井, 駿

(4)  , pp.13 - 23 , 2016-03-31 , 学習システム促進研究センター (RIDLS)
School teachers often study multiple academic manuscripts for their research on teaching material. Therefore, our collaborative study reviews the relevant literatures and attempts to clarify the best way to practically connect reading and learning (interpreting) in the relevant field. In this paper, we focus on philosophical studies that predominantly relate to the concept of value. By comparing two books with two different types of research characteristics, we examine the act of reading in relation to the act of learning (interpreting) the subject matter.The selected books are Another Bio- and Eco-ethics (by Kazuo Kudo, published in 2004 by Koyo Shobo) and The Moral Problem (by Michael Smith, translated by Noriaki Katagi, published in 2006 by Nakanishiya Shuppan) .Both books were written in response to challenges and issues faced by humanity, issues that are believed to be inherently difficult to solve. These two studies can be discussed differently if both are read from the perspective of “what can ethics lead to?”The two books use different perspectives because they adhere to different meta-cognitive levels. Kudo’s research pursues the question “what are the guidelines for our actions?,” implying “thought about action.” In contrast, Smith’s research asks “what are the guidelines for researchers who pursue the question of ‘what are the guidelines for our actions?’” Thus, Smith’s research promotes “thinking about thinking.” By considering the question from a higher meta-cognitive level, Smith delves deeper beneath the problem’s surface and further exposes serious problems that were previously outside the scope of the study, which eventually helps expand the possible range of what can be examined.If we believe that the purpose of philosophical research is to create new approaches to tackle essential problems faced by humanity, Smith’s study can be regarded as the development of research that helps uncover new problems and opens the possibility of addressing such problems. Results of our comparative study can allow us to determine that the best way to connect reading and learning (interpreting) is not by trying to interpret the end results of what you were attempting to find, but rather by interpreting the process of the author’s thinking in and of itself. We believe that this is the appropriate way of pursuing philosophical research.

Number of accesses :  

Other information