卢梭的教育意图

Rousseau's Educational Intention

卢梭的《社会契约论》和《爱弥儿》之间似乎存在某种矛盾和紧张关系。《社会契约论》以"社会"为取向,否定人的"自然状态";《爱弥儿》以"个人"为取向,强调"自然教育"。然而根据卢梭本人的教育意图,二者实际上是一以贯之的。卢梭的"社会契约论"表面上是对"自然状态"的否定,其实是对"自然状态"的模仿:以"道法自然"的方式建立公民社会。并且,卢梭在《社会契约论》中着重阐述了对一般公民的教育(大众教育)。《爱弥儿》并非《社会契约论》的对立面,它阐述的是对公民社会的立法家的教育(精英教育)。正因为立法家对于社会的作用高于一般公民,所以《爱弥儿》的重要性高于《社会契约论》。

It seems that there is a paradoxical relationship or a tension between Rousseau＇ s The Social Contract and his Emile. The Social Contract focuses on ＂society＂, denying human＇ s ＂State of Nature＂, while Emile is individual-oriented, emphasizing the importance of ＂natural education＂. But according to Rousseau＇ s educational intention, the two writings are actually based on the same principle and consistent with each oth- er. On the surface, Rousseau＇ s The Social Contract denies ＂the State of Nature＂, but in essence it imitates ＂the State of Nature＂, that is, building a civil society by ＂Learning from Nature＂. Further, in The Social Contract Rousseau focuses his discussion on the education of the ordinary citizens （ namely, mass education）. Emile is not the opposite of The Social Contract. Its aim is to cultivate the legislator for the civil society （namely, elite education）. Emile is more important than The Social Contract for the reason that the legislator plays a greater role in society than the ordinary citizens.