The Intelligence of Complexity: Do the Ethical Aims of Research and Intervention in Education Not Lead Us to a New Discourse "On the Study Methods of our Time"

J. L. Moigne
{"title":"The Intelligence of Complexity: Do the Ethical Aims of Research and Intervention in Education Not Lead Us to a New Discourse \"On the Study Methods of our Time\"","authors":"J. L. Moigne","doi":"10.29173/CMPLCT20397","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To better appreciate the contribution of the ‘paradigm of complexity’ in Educational sciences, this paper proposes a framework discussing its cultural and historical roots. First, it focuses on Giambattista Vico’s (1668-1744) critique of Rene Descartes’ method (1637), contrasting Cartesian’s principles (evidence, disjunction, linear causality and enumeration), with the open rationality of the ‘ingenium’ (capacity to establish relationships and contextualize). Acknowledging the teleological character of scientific inquiry (Bachelard) and the inseparability between ‘subject’ and ‘object’, the second part of the text explores the relevance of ‘designo’ (intentional design) implemented by Leonardo da Vinci (1453-1519) in order to identify and formulate problems encountered by researchers. Referring to contemporary epistemologists (Bachelard, Valery, Simon, Morin), this contribution finally questions the relationships between the ‘ingenio’ (pragmatic intelligence), the ‘designo’ (modeling method) and ethics. It proposes one to conceive the paradigm of complexity through the relationships it establishes between (pragmatic) action, (epistemic) reflection and meditation (ethics).","PeriodicalId":43228,"journal":{"name":"Complicity-An International Journal of Complexity and Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Complicity-An International Journal of Complexity and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29173/CMPLCT20397","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

To better appreciate the contribution of the ‘paradigm of complexity’ in Educational sciences, this paper proposes a framework discussing its cultural and historical roots. First, it focuses on Giambattista Vico’s (1668-1744) critique of Rene Descartes’ method (1637), contrasting Cartesian’s principles (evidence, disjunction, linear causality and enumeration), with the open rationality of the ‘ingenium’ (capacity to establish relationships and contextualize). Acknowledging the teleological character of scientific inquiry (Bachelard) and the inseparability between ‘subject’ and ‘object’, the second part of the text explores the relevance of ‘designo’ (intentional design) implemented by Leonardo da Vinci (1453-1519) in order to identify and formulate problems encountered by researchers. Referring to contemporary epistemologists (Bachelard, Valery, Simon, Morin), this contribution finally questions the relationships between the ‘ingenio’ (pragmatic intelligence), the ‘designo’ (modeling method) and ethics. It proposes one to conceive the paradigm of complexity through the relationships it establishes between (pragmatic) action, (epistemic) reflection and meditation (ethics).
复杂性的智能:教育研究与干预的伦理目的是否会引导我们走向一种“关于我们时代的学习方法”的新话语?
为了更好地理解“复杂性范式”在教育科学中的贡献,本文提出了一个讨论其文化和历史根源的框架。首先,它关注詹巴蒂斯塔·维科(1668-1744)对勒内·笛卡尔方法(1637)的批判,将笛卡尔的原则(证据、分离、线性因果关系和枚举)与“ingenium”的开放理性(建立关系和情境化的能力)进行对比。承认科学探究的目的论特征(巴舍拉)以及“主体”和“客体”之间的不可分割性,本文的第二部分探讨了达芬奇(1453-1519)实施的“设计”(有意设计)的相关性,以识别和制定研究人员遇到的问题。参考当代认识论家(巴舍拉、瓦莱里、西蒙、莫林),这篇文章最终质疑了“ingenio”(实用智能)、“设计”(建模方法)和伦理之间的关系。它建议人们通过它在(实用主义)行动、(认识论)反思和(伦理)冥想之间建立的关系来构想复杂性范式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信