臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：重訪史賓賽的教育哲學
作者：李政霖
作者(外文)：Chen-Lin Lee
校院名稱：國立東華大學
系所名稱：教育與潛能開發學系
指導教授：李崗
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2023
主題關鍵詞：史賓賽；演化論；倫理學；社會學；教育目的；教育方法；Spencer；Evolution Theory；Ethics；Sociology；Purposes of Education；Method of Education
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:0
臺灣教育學界對於史賓賽的理解，過去常稱為「生活預備說」，未曾深究其科學觀、演化論、倫理學的思考脈絡。本研究運用詮釋學的方法：分析史賓賽教育哲學的倫理學基礎，探討史賓賽教育哲學的演化論基礎，詮釋史賓賽教育演化論的內涵，評析史賓賽倫理學在倫理學史上的意義，以及教育演化論在教育哲學史上的意義。
就倫理學言，史賓賽接受柏拉圖企圖建立完美社會的理念，反對存在永恆的世界；接受亞里斯多德重視情感和情緒的立場，反對德行倫理的幸福論述；反對邊泌主張幸福可以計算，反對彌爾主張道德行為的偶然性，反對西奇威克主張道德直覺是與生俱來的本性。史賓賽主張道德科學的建立：必須綜合考量行為人的特質、動機的性質、動作的品質、行為的結果；必須依據科學的知識，才能理解道德直覺、道德情感、道德義務和道德行為的真正內涵。
就演化論言，史賓賽的科學觀，並非侷限於自然科學，而是推展至社會科學，應用其科學方法於其社會學與教育學。史賓賽是第一位公開使用「演化」一詞的學者：1857年提出生物演化概論，接受拉馬克繼承性遺傳學說；1864年將拉馬克「為生存而努力，物種才能延續」的觀點，修正為「適者生存」。1869年，達爾文在《物種起源》第五版，直接引用史賓賽「適者生存」的概念，作為該書第四章標題〈自然選擇，或適者生存〉。1872年，在《物種起源》第六版中，達爾文開始使用演化一詞，主張「為生存而競爭，物種才能延續」。因此，史賓賽的演化論，實為其教育哲學的理論基礎。
就教育學言，史賓賽教育哲學的體系，乃是以教育演化論為主軸，其理論基礎涵蓋科學觀、演化論、生理學、心理學、社會學與倫理學等。演化論的教育目的有四項主張：自我養護、自我管理、自我演化、社會演化。演化論的教育方法有六項原則：一是學習原則，而非規則；二是經由誘導，而非強迫；三是主動學習者，而非被動吸收者；四是自我指導，而非他人指導；五是快樂的，而非痛苦的；六是從身體發展、官能發展，到心智發展、知識實踐。
本文主張史賓賽的教育演化論，具有開創複雜科學的雛形、強化演化論的解釋效力、重視人類生命的價值、奠定教育的生理學基礎、建構教育目的的價值序階等貢獻，可惜忽略教育方法的科學研究為其缺點。最後，研究者試從身心教育、知識教育、道德教育、美感教育和親職教育等議題，反思史賓賽教育演化論有何啟示；並建議未來可以深究，其政治哲學、認識論、心理學與教育哲學之理論關連。
關鍵詞：史賓賽、演化論、倫理學、社會學、教育目的、教育方法
The conventional understanding within the educational community of Spencer’s philosophy often termed “Education as preparation,” had inadequately explored his scientific perspective, evolution theory, and ethical dimensions. This research employed Hermeneutics to scrutinize the ethical foundation of Spencer's philosophy of education, to investigate the evolutionary foundation, to interpret its implications, to evaluate the Spencer's Ethics in the historical context of ethical philosophy, and to examine the meaning of the “evolution theory of education” in the history of philosophy of education.
In terms of ethics, Spencer embraced Plato’s opinion to establish an ideal society while challenging the permanence of the world. Spencer concurred Aristotle's emphasis on feeling and emotion while denying the happiness expounding from virtue ethics. Spencer also countered Bentham's quantifiable happiness, Mill's assertion of occasional moral behavior and Sidgwick's claim that the moral intuition is inherent. Instead, Spencer contended that a framework of moral science should be constructed by the character of the agent; the nature of his motivation; the quality of his action; the quality of his deeds; and the results of behavior. He asserted that the comprehensive comprehension of moral intuition, moral feeling, moral obligation, and moral behavior should follow the scientific knowledge.
In the realm of evolution theory, Spencer's scientific perspective extended beyond natural sciences into social sciences. He applied scientific methodologies to do research into sociology and education. As a pioneering scholar, Spencer publicly introduced the term “evolution” incorporating Lamarck's perspective on the “Inheritance of Acquired Traits” in 1857. Subsequently, he refined Lamarck's viewpoint of “struggle for life” and proposed the concept of “survival of the fittest” in 1864. Darwin incorporated Spencer's concept in his fifth editions of On the Origin of Species in 1869. Therefore, Spencer's philosophy of education fundamentally emerged from his evolution theory.
In terms of education, Spencer's philosophy of education was mainly “evolution theory of education” from scientific perspective, evolution theory, physiology, psychology, sociology, and ethics. Spencer advocated that the purposes of education should be learned through self-instruction, self-management, self-evolution, and social evolution. There were six principles of educational method: learning based on principles over strict rules, learning by induced over enforced, being active learner over passive receptor, teaching by self over others, joyful learning over painful experiences, and extraction of knowledge from physical, mental, and practical domains.
This research highlights Spencer's significant contributions to evolution theory of education, encompassing the structuring of a comprehensive scientific framework, enhancing the explanatory potential of evolution theory, valuing human life, establishing physiological foundations, and deriving educational objectives from a discerned hierarchy of values. It also acknowledges the limitations of Spencer's approach due to the lack of empirical substantiation. The study reflected on the implications of Spencer's educational theory across various domains, such as physical and mental education, knowledge acquisition, moral development, aesthetic cultivation, and parenting education. Furthermore, it suggested avenues for future research, including Spencer's philosophy of politics, epistemology, psychology, and philosophy of education, thus fostering a more comprehensive comprehension of his philosophy of education.
Key words: Spencer, Evolution Theory, Ethics, Sociology, Purposes of Education, Method of Education
中文文獻
白亦方(1991)。裴斯塔洛齊學前教育思想之研究。(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學。
王曾才(1996)。世界近代史。臺北市：正中書局。
王智弘(2019)。素養導向師資培育與課綱轉化─教育2030的觀點。臺灣教育評論月刊，8(12)，p32-37。
甘進(2021)。政治、知識和學術：嚴復翻譯“Logic”的三重維度。邏輯學研究，5，p86-96。
江亮演(1998)。國立空中大學附設空專用書—社會學(全)。臺北市：中華電視股份有限公司。
朱啟華(2006)。Rousseau《愛彌兒》道德教育思想之探究。國民教育研究學報，20，p25-54。
朱啟華(2008)。I. Kant道德教育之方法學探討。教育研究集刊，52(3)，p23-41。
行政院國家永續發展委員會(2019)。臺灣永續發展目標(核定版)。臺北市：行政院國家永續發展委員會。
李光耀、許全守(2016)。由OECD. 對技術人才培育之倡議談技術型高中. 培育職場學習力。教育研究與發展月刊，12(3)，p1-24。
李政霖 (2017年11月)。體育思潮變遷反思健康身心之實踐。第八屆教育創新國際學術研討會發表之論文，國立清華大學。
李彥儀(譯) (2021)。洛克的倫理推證論及其德育意涵（原者：歐陽教）。臺北市：文景。
李承貴(1997)。嚴復進化思想探微。福建論壇：人文社會科學版，3，p1-8。
李義中(2013)。l8世紀英國國教會述析。北京大學學報(哲學社會科學版)，50(4)，p132-139。
李鳳珠(譯) (2009)。亞里斯多德與<<形上學>>(原作者：V. Politis)。臺北市：五南圖書出版有限公司。
宋孛鋒(2003)。複雜性、複雜系統與複雜性科學。中國科學基金(5)，p262-269。
安希孟(2005)。從猶太教民族主義到基督教世界主義的跨躍。道風：基督教文化評論，(22)，p179-200。
但昭偉(譯述) (2002)。重讀彌爾的「論自由」。臺北市：學富文化事業有限公司。
林火旺(1999)。倫理學。臺北市：五南圖書出版有限公司。
林火旺(2017)。林火旺導讀：穆勒及其效益主義。載於邱振訓(譯)，效益主義(p 14-38)，新北市 :暖暖書屋文化事業出版有限公司。
林玉體(1986)。教育概論 (3 Ed.)。臺北市：臺灣東華書局股份有限公司。
林永豐(2018)。核心素養導向的課程轉化與教案特色。教育研究月刊，289，p41-54。
林顯宗(1987)。社會學概論。 臺北市：五南圖書出版公司。
施又瑀、施喩琁(2019)。務實的教師專業發展。臺灣教育評論月刊，8(2)，p 37-45。
吳俊升，王西徵(1946)。教育概論。 臺北市：正中書局。
吳清山(2021)。教育概論(六版)。臺北市：五南圖書出版公司。
吳展良。(1999)。嚴復早期的求道之旅－兼論傳統學術性格與思維方式的繼承與轉。臺大歷史學報，23，p239-278。
吳展良。(2002)。嚴復的「物競天擇」說析論：嚴復與西方大師的演化觀點之比較研究。臺大歷史學報，56，p69-94。
吳恩裕(1983)。論亞里斯多德的《政治學》。載於吳恩裕(譯) (1983) 漢譯世界學術名著叢書：政治學(古希臘 亞里斯多德著)(pi-xvi)。北京：商務印書館。
孟天運(2019)。荀子與亞里斯多德的社會控制觀。東方論壇—青島大學學報（社會科學版），1，p1-10。
邱振訓(譯) (2017)。效益主義。新北市：暖暖書屋文化事業出版有限公司。
侯健(譯) (2014)。柏拉圖理想國(原作者：Polato)。臺北市：聯經經典。
范壽康(1932)。教育概論。 上海：開明書店發行所。
范任宇(1943)。教育概論。重慶市：商務印書館。
倪文宙，陳子明(1946a)。教育概論(上冊)。上海 中華書局。
倪文宙，陳子明(1946b)。教育概論(下冊)。上海 中華書局。
徐宗林(1988)。現代教育思潮。臺北市：五南圖書出版公司。
唐祥珍(1999)。試論柏拉圖的法律思想。鎮江市高等專科學校學報，4，p29-33。
教育部(2013)。體育運動政策白皮書。臺北市：教育部。
教育部體育署(2017) 。體育運動政策白皮書2017修訂版。臺北市：教育部。
教育部體育署(2021a)。中華民國110年運動統計。臺北市：教育部體育署。
教育部體育署(2021b)。「體育運動政策白皮書2017修訂版」行動方案執行成果表(109年度)核定版。臺北市：教育部體育署。
莊國銘(2003)。亞里斯多德論鞏固政治共同體 的兩大德性：正義與友誼。政治科學論叢，18，p191-216。
陳思賢(1999)。近代自由主義政治的古典前驅：希臘化時代反城邦政治與自然法的興起。政治科學論叢，10，p195-226。
陳榮華(2015)。羅逖的詮釋學概念及其困境：從高達美的觀點。揭諦，29，p1-39。
彭震球 (1947)。教育概論。 臺北市：臺灣省立師範學院。
彭懷真(2009)。社會學。臺北市：洪葉文化事業有限公司。
張鼎國(2006)。歷史、歷史意識與實效歷史—論高達美哲學詮釋學中「歷史性」概念之演變。揭諦，11，p185-216。
曾益康(2011)。柏拉圖《法律篇》中神學的法治意蘊。貴州社會科學，258(6), p17-21。
馮傳濤(2009)。貴格會的威廉· 潘。金陵神學志，1，p92-104。
黃光雄(1997)。教育概論(2 Ed.)。臺北市：師大書苑有限公司。
黃藿(1997)。亞里斯多德《尼各馬科倫理學》導讀。哲學與文化，24(4), p394-397。Doi: 10.7065/MRPC.199704.0394
黃藿(2000)。德行倫理學的復興與當代道德教育。哲學與文化，27(6), p522-531。Doi:10.7065/MRPC.200006.0522
黃藿(2003)。從德行倫理學看道德動機。哲學與文化，30(8), p5-19。Doi:10.7065/MRPC.199704.0394
楊永明(1996)。民主主權：政治理論中主概念之演變與主權理論新取向。政治科學論叢，7，p125-156。
葉佳承(2015)。進化原來也是退化。科學發展(516)，p20-24。
溫明麗(1996)。西洋教育思想。載於歐陽教（主編）教育概論(p89-97)。臺北市：師大 書苑有限公司。
賈士蘅(譯)(1991)。英國史(下冊)(原作者：C. Roberts & D. Roberts)。臺北市：五南圖書出版有限公司。
賈馥茗(1979)。教育概論。 臺北市：五南圖書出版公司。
鄭玉卿(2014)。Spencer的實用課程觀及其在當代課程史上的影響。教育研究月刊，238，p49-63，Doi: 10.3966/168063602014020238004。
劉佳昊(2017)。國家意志與政治行動：霍布斯，鮑桑葵與柯靈烏論主權國家的代表與臨現。政治科學論叢，63，p131-184。DOI: 10.6523/168451532017120063003
賴鈺勻 (2007)。天道與群道--嚴復思想初探(碩士論文)。臺北市：臺灣大學。
韓承樺 (2010)。斯賓塞到中國——一個翻譯史的討論。編譯論叢，3(2)，p33-60。
顏秉璵 (1961)。洛克教育思想。臺灣省立師範大學教育研究所集刊，4，p51-125。
外文文獻
土屋 洋(2008)。清末の体育思想 : 「知育・徳育・体育」の系譜。史学雑誌，117(8)， 1434-1458。
片岡曉夫(1998).ハ ーバ ー ト ・ス ペ ≧サ ー の 体育論についての考察。スポーツ教育研究，V8(2)，pp. 1-10。
杉山英人(1991)。スペンサーの 教育思想研究序-ス ペンサーの体育思想の基礎研究として。スポーツ教育研究，V11(2)，pp. 67-79。
Ahad, M.A. (2011). Evolution without Lamarck’s Theory and its Use in the Darwinian Theories of Evolution. International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management 2011, 2(3):353-358
Ahad, M.A. (2014). Darwin’s Theory is the Mixture of Malthus’s Theory and Lyell’s Theory and Darwin Use Wrong Lamarck’s Theory as Well as Believe as a Mechanism of Evolution. American Journal of Life Sciences. 2(3), pp. 128-137. doi: 10.11648/j.ajls.20140203.12
Asif, M.(2009). Sustainable energy options for Pakistan. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(4), p 903-909.
Banks. P. (1980). Herbert Spencer: Victorian Curriculum Theorist. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 12(2), p123-135, DOI: 10.1080/0022027800120204.
Baltzly, D. (2018). Stoicism. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/
Bentham, J. (2000). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Kitchener: Batoche Books.
Benneet, J. A. (1986). The Mechanics' Philosophy and the Mechanical Philosophy. History of Science, 24(1), p1-28.
Bohuon, A. & Luciani , A.(2009). Biomedical Discourse on Women's Physical Education and Sport in France (1880–1922), The International Journal of the History of Sport, 26(5), 573-593, DOI: 10.1080/09523360902722518.
Broudy, H.S. (1982). What knowledge is of most worth? Educational Leadership, 39(8), p574-578.
Brink, D. (2018).Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/
Carls, P.(1995). Émile Durkheim (1858-1917). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://iep.utm.edu/emile-durkheim/#H5
Carneiro, R. L. (1981). Herbert Spencer as an Anthropologist. The Journal of Libertarian Studies, 5(2), p153-210.
Chu, S. & Majumdar A.(2012). Opportunities and challenges for a sustainable energy future. Nature, 488, p294-303.
Chu, S. Cui, Y. & Liu N.(2017). The path towards sustainable energy. Nature Materials, 16, p16–22.
Corning, P. A.(1982). Durkheim and Spencer. The British Journal of Sociology, 33. p359-382.
Crimmins, J. E. (2021). Jeremy Bentham. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bentham/
Dewey, J.( 1921). Democracy and Education：A introduction to the philosophy Education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Durkheim, É. (1984). The Division of Social Labor (Brookfield, C. Trans.). London: Macmaillan.
Durkheim, É. (1957). Professional Ethics and Civic Morals (Brookfield, C. Trans.). Illinois：The Free Press.
Egan, K. (2002). Getting it wrong from the beginning our progressive inheritance from Herbert Spencer, John Dewey, and Jean Piaget. New Haven and London, CT：Yale University Press.
Gates, R.M. (2020). Exercise of Power: American Failures, Successes, and a New Path Forward in the Post-Cold War World. NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Goldemberg, J. (2007). Ethanol for a Sustainable Energy Future. Science, 315(5813), p808-810. DOI: 10.1126/science.1137013
Hocutt, M.(2008). In Defense of Herbert Spencer. The Independent Review, 12, p. 433-445
Hofstadte, R.(1944). Social Darwinism in American Thought. Boston: Beacon Press. (Original work published 1955). Boston Beacon Press.
Holmes, B. (1994). Herbert Spencer (1920-1903). In PROSPECTS: the quarterly review of comparative education, V(24), p. 533-554. Paris UNESCO: International Bureau of Education.
Hossain, D. M. & Mustari, S. (2012). A Critical Analysis of Herbert Spencer's Theory of Evolution. Postmodern Openings, 3(2), p 55-66.
Hill, T. W. (1937). Introduction. In Spencer, H. First principles. The Thinker's Library. No. 62. (6th and final ed edition). London: Watts & Co.
Jeanrond, W. G.(1991). Theological Hermeneutics: Development and Significance. London：Macmillan Academic and Professional Ltd.
Jones, R.A. (1974). Durkheim’s response to Spencer: An essay toward historicism in the historiography of sociology. The Sociological Quarterly, 15(3): 341-358.
Kant, I.(1900).Kant on Education (über Pädagogik). Boston：Heath &Co.
Kazamias, A.M.(1966). Herbert Spencer on Education. NY: New York: Teachers College.
Kaźmierczak, A.(2018). Physical education and sport in pedagogical concepts - historical context. Journal of Education, Health and Sport, 8(8):281-292. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1307521
Kennedy, J. F,, Office of the Military Aide (1962). Media Gallery: Sports and Recreation. Boston: Presidential Library and Museum.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997) Chaos/Complexity Science and Second Language Acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18, 141-165.
Lee, D. (1975). Re Republica [ Plato: The Republic ] (2nd ed.). Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd.
Leslie, J. C.(2006).Herbert Spencer's Contributions to Behavior Analysis: A Retrospective Review of Principles of Psychology. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 86, p123-129.
Lightman, B.(2015). Global Spencerism: The Communication and Appropriation of a British Evolutionist. Cato Journal, Boston: Brill.
Locke, J.(1995).Some Thoughts Concerning Education(Classics in Education). Bristol, England：Thoemmes Press.
Long, T. R. (2004). Spencer: Libertarian Prophet. The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, p25-28.
Machamer, P., Darden, L. & Craver, C.F. (2000). Thinking about Mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67(1), p 1-25.
Macleod, C. (2016). John Stuart Mill. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/
McKelvey, B.(2004). Toward a complexity science of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, p313–341. DOI: 10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00034-X
McKinnon, M. A. (2010). Energy and society: Herbert Spencer’s ‘energetic sociology’ of social evolution and beyond. Journal of Classical Sociology,10(4), p439-455.
Mele, C., Pels, J., & Polese, F. (2010). A Brief Review of Systems Theories and Their Managerial Applications. Service Science, 2(1-2), p 125–135.
Mill, J. S. (2001). Utilitarianism. Kitchener: Batoche Books.
Moran, R.L. (2018). Governing Bodies: American Politics and the Shaping of the Modern Physique. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Morrow, J. R. & Gill, D. L. (1995). The Role of Physical Activity in Fitness and Health, The Academy Papers, 47(3). p261-262.
Moore G. E. (1922).Principia Ethica (2nd ed.). London: Cambridge University Press.
Myers, C., Orr, R. M., Goad, K., Schram, B., Lockie, R. G., Kornhauser, C., Holmes, R., & Dawes, J. (2019). Comparing levels of fitness of police officers between two United States law enforcement agencies. Work, 63(4), 615-622. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-192954
Offer, J. (2019). Herbert Spencer, Sociological Theory, and the professions. Frontiters in Sociology, 4(77). dot:1036689/fsoc.2013.00077
Perrin, R. (1976). Herbert Spencer’s four theories of social evolution. The American Journal of Sociology, 81(6): 1339–1359.
Rai, P., Saha, D. Rai P., Saha D., Jha A.K. (2019). Jean Baptiste Lamarck. In: Vonk J., Shackelford T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_978-1
Richards, P. (2008). Herbert Spencer (1820-1903): Social Darwinist or Libertarian Prophet? London: Libertarian Alliance.
Roark, E. (2004). Herbert Spencer’s Evolutionary Individualism. Quarterly Journal of Ideology, 27, Retrieved from http://www.lsus.edu/la/journals/ideology
Rousseau, J.J.(1956). Émile: ou De l' éducation [ The Emile of Jean-Jacques Rousseau]. London: William Heinemann Ltd.
Russell, B. (2020). A Priori Justification and Knowledge. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/apriori/
Starr, C. (2000). Original: Biology -Concepts &Applications (4th ed). Boston: Thomson learning.
Schultz, B.(2019). Henry Sidgwick. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sidgwick/
Shafie, S.M., Mahlia, T.M.I., Masjuki, H.H. & Andriyana, A.(2016). Current energy usage and sustainable energy in Malaysia: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 60, p 4370-4377.
Serrano, E., Rus, Guillermo. & García-Martínez, J. (2009). Nanotechnology for sustainable energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(9), p 2373-2384.
Sidgwick, H. (1874). The Method of Ethics. London: The Macmillan Co.
Smith, G.H.(1981). Herbert Spencer's Theory of Causation Institute for Humane Studies. The journal of libertarian studies, 5(2), p113-152.
Solomon, B. D.& Krishna K.(2011). The coming sustainable energy transition: History, strategies, and outlook. Energy Policy,39(11). P 7422-7431.
Spencer, H. (1896). The Principles of Ethics. New York: D. Appleton and Company.
Spencer, H.(1861). Education: Intellectual, Moral, and Physical. In Willams and Nortgate (1933). British Educational Theory in the 19th Century (Vol 6). London, England: Thoemmes Press.
Spencer, H. (2011). The Study of Sociology. In The Online Library of Liberty (Ed. &Trans.). The standard edition of the complete The Study of Sociology of Herbert Spencer. Retrieved from https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/spencer-the-study-of-sociology-1873 (Original work published 1873)
Spencer, H. (1896). The Principles of Ethics. New York: D. Appleton and Company.
Spencer, H. (1898). The Principles of Sociology (3rd ed), Vol. I. New York: D. Appleton and Campny.
Sugiyam, H(1991). The system of Herbert Spencer's thought in its entirety: The foundation of his educational ideas. 體育·スポーツ哲學研究, 13(1), p58-68.
Tomlinson, S. (1996). From Rousseau to Evolutionism Herbert Spencer on the science of education. History of Education, 25(3), p235-254.
Turner, J. H., Beeghley, L., & Powers, C. H. (2002). The emergence of sociological theory (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning, p 54-89.
ÜMÜTLÜ, A.Y. (2020). Herbert Spencer's Evolutionary Theory of Judicial and Executive Systems. Kamu Hukuku, 65, p237-254.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2014). UNESCO Roadmap for Implementing the Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable Development. France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1. UN: General Assembly.
Weinstein, D. (2019). Herbert Spencer. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spencer/
Yang, J.(2014). John Norris. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/john-norris/
Yang, X., Song, Y., Wang, G. &Wang, W. (2010). A Comprehensive Review on the Development of Sustainable Energy Strategy and Implementation in China. Journals & Magazines, 1(2), p 57-65. DOI: 10.1109/TSTE.2010.2051464
Zebrowski, R. L. (2008). Mind is Primarily a Verb: An Exanimation of Mistaken Similarities between Johe Dewey and Heber Spencer. Educational Theory, 58(3), p305-320. US: University of Illinois.
Zwolinski, M.(2015). Social Darwinism and Social Justice: Herbert Spencer and the Poor. In Boisen, C. & Murray, M. C. (Eds.), Distributive Justice Debates in Political and Social Though(p56-76). Perspectives on Finding a Fair Share.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：377（臺灣：367，外國：10） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2344557 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：68147535
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上