VALUE PARADIGMS OF CHARACTER EDUCATION

Apressyan Ruben Grantovich

DOI: 10.23951/2782-2575-2022-1-5-12

Information About Author:

Ruben G. Apressyan, Dr. Sc., Philosophy, Head of the Department of Ethics, Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences (12/1 Goncharnaya Str., Moscow, 109240, Russian Federation). E-mail: apressyan@mail.ru

When speaking about the value component of character education, one usually means, first and foremost, the value content of education associated with educational goals. A look at the current network resources only confirms this impression. For example, the authors of online publications deal mainly with the problems of patriotic, civic, ecological, and democratic education; to a lesser extent, also with moral (which is often reduced to patriotic and civic education) and esthetic (artistic, musical); there are also publications on Christian, especially Orthodox education. There is no reason to believe that diversified education can be effective. However, as a preparatory intellectual elaboration on ideologically heterogeneous content to be incorporated into character education, such an approach, analogous to subject-differentiated learning, may have practical significance. The relationship between values and character education has two aspects. One concerns the value content of character education. Here, it is appropriate to discuss the values of education programs. The other concerns the value bases, the value component of the educational activity itself, and the ethos of education. The theme of the value paradigms of character education, mentioned in the title of this article, emerges here. The educator implements a specific value system in their activity. However, the particular educational activity is not always directed at forming the underlying value system.

Keywords:

References:

1. Hildebrand D. von. Ethik. 2nd ed. Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer, 1973. 496 S. (Russ. ed.: Hildebrand D. von. Etika: per. s nem. A.I. Smirnova. St. Petersburg, Alteya Publ., 2001).

2. Hartmann N. Ethik. 2nd ed. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1935. 768 p. (Russ. ed.: Hartman N. Etika: per. s nem. A.B. Glagolev, red. Yu.S. Medvedev i D.V. Sklyadneva. St. Petersburg, Fond Universitet, Vladimir Dal’ Publ., 2002. 707 p.).

3. Fromm E. Zdorovoye obschestvo [Healthy society]. In: Fromm E. Muzhchina i zhenzhina [Man and woman]. Moscow, 1998.

4. Durkheim E. O razdelenii obschestvennogo truda [On the division of social labor]. In: Durkheim E. O razdelenii obschestvennogo truda. Metod sotsiologii [On the division of social labor. Method of sociology]. Moscow, 1991.

5. Apressyan R.G. Talion i zolotoye pravilo: kriticheskiy analiz sopryazhennykh kontekstov [Talion and the Golden Rule: a critical analysis of conjugated contexts]. Voprosy filosofii – Problems of Philosophy, 2001, no. 3.

6. Guseynov A.A. Sotsial’naya pririda nravstvennosti [The social nature of morality]. Moscow, 1974.

7. Karsavin L.P. O lichnosti [On the Personality]. In: Religiozno-filosofskiye sochineniya [Religious and Philosophical Works]. Moscow, 1992.

( 624.86 kB ) ( 609.8 kB )

Issue: 1, 2022

Series of issue: Issue 1

Rubric:

Pages: 5 — 12

Downloads: 315