--------
Ke konci šestnáctého století jezuité usilovali o standardizaci své pedagogické činnosti v různých zemích. Výsledkem bylo Ratio studiorum (1599). Jednalo se o striktně metodické kurikulum, studenti následovali daný řád předmětů, ukončený zkouškou. Prvních pět let bylo věnováno humanistice (latina a řečtina), další tři roky filosofii. Přednášky byly doplňovány denním opakováním a častými disputacemi: "The Ratio required that "[f]rom the very beginning of Logic ... the young men be so trained that nothing would make them more ashamed than to fail in the form of disputation. And let the instructor demand nothing more severely from them than the laws and method of disputing." Shorter disputations were held weekly, and longer disputations, often accompanied by printed lists of theses, were held monthly. Disputation was a fundamental part of Jesuit education until the suppresion of the Society. As in all early modern universities, the goal was not to discover new knowledge but to enable students to master and reproduce a defined body of knowledge as effectively as possible." (Hellyer, s. 72)
Tříletý filosofický program byl strukturován do logiky, fyziky a metafyziky (srv. Common rules of the Professors of Higher Faculties, 19). Základem studia byla Aristotelovo dílo.
První rok - logika
"20 [Professor of philosophy] should teach the full course of philosophy in not less than three years, lecturing for two hours daily, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, unless in his particular university a different arrangement has been prescribed. ... He should explain the principles of logic the first year, devoting the first two months to a digest of it, not by dictating but by discussing pertinent passages from Toledo or Fonseca. In the introduction to logic he should discuss only such questions as: its claim to be a science, its proper subject matter, and the general concept of universal ideas. He should postpone the full discussion of universals until metaphysics, being contented here to give no more than a general idea of them. Similarly he should discuss only the easier of the predicables, which are usually taken from Aristotle, and should defer a larger discussion of them until the second year. But in logic he should explain as fully as need be the notions of analogy and relations, since these very frequently occur in philosophical discussions. He should cursorily cover the second book On Interpretation and both books of the Prior Analytics, except the first eight or nine chapters of the first book. Even in these chapters he should explain what is pertinent and treat only very briefly the notion of contingency and not at all the question of free will. In order to give the whole second year to the physical sciences, he should begin a fuller discussion of science at the end of the first year and in it he should include the major topics of the introduction to physics, such as the divisions of science, abstractions, theoretical and practical science, subordination, the difference of method in mathematics and physics, which is treated by Aristotle in the second book of the Physics, and finally what Aristotle says about definition in the second book On the Soul." (Ratio studiorum, vlastní podtržení).
Zajímavé je (mimojiné), že v logice jsou výslovně doporučeny učebnice Francisca de Toledo (1532-1596) [patrně Introductio in dialecticam Aristotelis, Řím 1561 spíše než u Hellyera uvedená Commentaria una cum questionibus in universam Aristotelis logicam, Řím 1572] a Pedra da Fonsecy (1528-1599) [Institutionum dialecticarum libri octo, Lisbon 1564].
Druhý rok - fyzika
"21 The discussion of the grounds of proof and fallacies from the Topics and the Elenchi, rearranged in more convenient order, should preferably be explained in the digest given at the beginning of logic. In the second year he should explain the eight books of the Physics, the books On the Heavens, and the first book On Generation. He should treat the text of the sixth and seventh books of the Physics compendiously, and likewise that part of the first book which discusses the opinions of the ancients. In the eighth book he should omit discussion of the number of intelligences, of liberty, and of the infinity of the prime mover. These matters will be explained in metaphysics according to the views of Aristotle. The text of the second, third, and fourth books On the Heavens will be summarized and for the most part omitted. In these books he should deal only with the elements and with the substance and influences of the heavens. The rest can be left to the professor of mathematics or reduced to a summary. What is contained in the Meteorology will be gone through in the summer months during the last hour of the afternoon class. Where possible it should be taught by the regular professor of philosophy, or by a special teacher, unless another arrangement seems more convenient.
Třetí rok - metafyzika (a duše)
21... In the third year he is to explain the second book On Generation, the books On the Soul, and the Metaphysics. He should merely summarize the opinions of the ancient philosophers that are discussed in the first book On the Soul, and when he is discussing the sense organs in the second book he should avoid digressing into anatomy and similar topics which are the concern of medical science. In the Metaphysics he should pass over the questions on God and on the types of intelligence, which depend entirely or in great part on truths derived from revelation. The preface and the text of the seventh and twelfth books are for the most part to be thoroughly explained.
K metodologii výuky metafyziky se v Ratio studiorum píše:
22 From each of the other books he should select certain principal texts which are basic to the discussion of questions found in the Metaphysics. He should make it his chief aim to interpret well the text of Aristotle and be as painstaking in this interpretation as in discussing the subject matter itself. He should likewise convince his students that their philosophy will be weak and wanting if they do not value highly this study of the texts. Whenever he comes upon celebrated texts that are often argued in disputations, he must examine them carefully by comparing the more noted interpretations so as to judge which is to be preferred. He should base his judgment on a study of the context, on the special force of the Greek expression, on a comparison with other texts, on the authority of eminent commentators, or finally, on the conclusiveness of the reasons advanced. He will then come to certain minor questions of interpretation which are not to be gone into too deeply nor omitted if they are of any importance. He should have available a large selection of topics for discussion. If, however, any of these do not have their origin in the Aristotelian text at hand, but are suggested by some axiom he himself uses as a passing remark in his argument, they are to be deferred until they are met in their proper place in other books, provided they are treated there. Otherwise they are to be explained immediately following the text by which they were suggested. Questions that come up in the reading of Aristotle are to be treated only after all the passages touching on this matter have been explained, unless indeed the passages are too numerous to be expounded in one or another lecture. But if passages being read are too lengthy, such as those on principles, causes, and motion, then the emerging questions are to be neither treated exhaustively nor entirely postponed to the end of the reading. Rather let reading and discussion be suitably intermingled. At the conclusion of a lecture, the students in small groups of about ten each should spend half an hour reviewing among themselves the lecture just given.
Konečně je zde i specifikace jak a s kým mají probíhat disputace.
23 One of the students, preferably a member of the Society, should be put in charge of each group. Monthly disputations are to be held, in which not less than three students should pose objections in the morning and as many in the afternoon. The first should argue for an hour and the others for about three-quarters of an hour. In the morning disputation some theologian (if there are enough theologians) should open the argument against a student of metaphysics; a student of metaphysics against a student of physics; a student of physics against a student of logic. In the afternoon a student of metaphysics, physics, and logic respectively should propose arguments against another student of each of these disciplines. In the morning also a student of metaphysics and in the afternoon a student of physics should briefly substantiate one or other conclusion by philosophical arguments. While the professor is teaching the elements of logic, neither he nor his students are to attend these disputations. In fact, during the first week or two the logicians will have no disputations but will be content with the explanation of their subject. There- after they can hold disputations in their own class on Saturdays. Where there is only one professor of philosophy, he is to hold more impressive disputations three or four times a year on a feast day or other holiday, surrounding them with pomp and ceremony and inviting religious and other doctors to take part in the arguments. In this way our philosophical studies will receive a fruitful stimulus. The young philosophers are to be trained from the very beginning of logic to consider it a matter of shame to deviate in a disputation from the use of the scholastic form. The teacher should be most vigorous in demanding of them the observance of the laws of argumentation and the proper order to be followed by the disputants. Accordingly, one who defends in a disputation must first repeat the full objection without replying to the separate premises. Next he is to repeat each premise of the argument and reply “I deny” or “I concede the major, minor, or conclusion.” Occasionally, too, he should distinguish, but rarely interject explanations or reasons, particularly if unasked."
Žádné komentáře:
Okomentovat