The present situation in South Africa is that the study of the science of pedagogy is mainly based on the phenomenological approach. In this method of reduction the scientist is enabled to get to the essences of the phenomenon of "education". This method has gradually become a system or a philosophy of education based on phenomenology. The system, iniated by Husserl, was adopted by the dutch philosophers Langeveld and Perquin and embrace9 in their philosophy of education. Their writings on this subject became very popular and were taken over by the South African educationists Oberholzer, Gunter, Landman, Van Zyl and others. These people established a philosophy of education for South Africa almost similar to the dutch system, but they went further and declared that the phenomenological method is the one and only method for the study of the science of education, this is the sole method, they maintain, by which a scientific study could be made and by which an unbiased, neutral conception of this science could ever be obtained. Thus they have absolutized phenomenology as a method and a philosophy and have excluded all other approaches as being unscientific, biased and even tarnished with some unscientific pre-conception. These phenomenologists maintain that it is essential to advance from the phenomenon of education and to investigate this phenomen without any prejudice or preconceived principles as these prejudices or principles or conceptions or beliefs are injurious to the pure science which education should be. Such a preconceived principle or attitude could be a christian outlook on life and such like conceptions. These principles would have been in order had they remained pre-scientific or post-scientific but they should not be taken in account when the pure phenomen "education" as such is studied. All these pre-conceived ideas, religions, conceptions have to be bracketed before any such scientific study could be undertaken. It is further maintained these e that the result arrived at under these conditions is "a universally acceptable and scientific result" on which e of any creed or denomination could be unanimous as it is then a neutral conclusion. This neutral approach implies that the is taken and reduced to its essences or irreducible components which are then the originally given or "fait primitif” which has the intrinsic ability to declare itself to the investigator or "education scientist". The investigator must only listen to this essence which then is active while the "scientist" is the passive medium through which these essences disclose themselves. As pointed out before the personal beliefs, disbeliefs, convictions, etc. must under no account be brought into play while this "scientific scrutiny and the resultant disclosure by the essences" take place. The interpreter and his action of reduction are left out of account and it is only the "knowable" as such that declares itself to the investigator. The phenomenological philosophy hence ascribes the potential and ability of denoting or explaining, itself to the essence or "eidos". The, method and philosophy known as Phenomenology has become a conception accepted by the majority of writers on educational science and also by teachers and students of education. It is, of course, a natural outcome when one considers that most books on the philosophy of education are written from the phenomenological approach authors of this conviction. To our mind this conception has caused a problem as it has not remained with education and educators but has spread the nation and has become a philosophy of life with its branches of naturalism, humanism and essentialism others. Ultimately a need and a desire for a changed view have become imperative. A religiously minded people cannot accept the alienation of its religion from its education and hence this study was undertaken in an effort to put the two facts into perspective. To our mind a conception that an "essence" has the ability to convey to the investigator its knowability, while the investigator remains passive and God the Creator is left altogether out of reckoning, is impossible to accept. If a thing or fact is knowable and can. be known it is such because God has created it as such. It has a part in the analitical modality and the fact that man possesses the ability to analyse the analysable and express the result in words and thus communicate it to fellow men process of knowing has a two-poled "dialogue" because it is the knower and the knower -each in its complete reality, but is not a "dial in the sense in which the phenomenologists desire the term to be interpreted -coming from the "knowable" or "essence" only. It is a process of knowing, an activity, which ensues from the knower. It is a "two-oneness" because the scope and contents of the result of knowing, is determined by the knowable. In its full reality, however, the God of Scripture and the Word of God can not for one moment be excluded from its reality and no neutrality as such is ever possible. Any scientist or investigator is a human being and hence a religions being who stands in relation to God, whether he knows it or not, whether he accepts it or not, does not matter. And the scientific activity is an activity ensueing from the heart and qualified by the heart be it in obedience to the law of God or not. Hence all activities of man is religiously deter= minded and that includes education and educating. Man was created by God, as child of God with the task to Govern and rule over all of creation which was given to him by God to rule over as even over himself, over his fellow human being in which is included the child in its rearing and educating to answer to its calling in complete responsibility solely to the glory of God, its Creator. The problem posed thus is - what is the place of Word revelation in practising any science, even the science of education or pedagogics? What are the implications of this and do the truths of Scripture come to realization in science without having to be verified or proven? What actually are these truths? Which of these truths are required for the science of education and what part will they play? The phenomenologists reject these truths or parenthesize them until they deem it necessary to bring them into play. In their so-called scientific or neutral approach they repudiate World revelation in which God discloses Himself and His relation to all things. The Lord God had put a radical yet correlated variety in the cosmos. This irreducible variety and interdependent relation must be accepted and investigated without reletavizations and particulirizations and yet with acknowledgement of God as sovereign Ruler over and Creator of man and cosmos which are subjected to His cosmic law and order. This approach to science will nullify all cosmologic absolutization of naturalism, pragmatism, positivism, scientism, secularism, existentialism as well as "phenomenism" which is an absolutization of the phenomenon. Man was created by God with a given task and responsibility to do his share in fulfilment of God's will. Practising science is part and parcel of this task accomplishment for which the light of the lord of God is indespensible but practising science is also religious service of God which has to be practised in the light of Scripture. The true scientist, therefore, tests the foundation of his science by the Word of God and absolutization of something from the cosmos, be it something of man like his reason, or be it something of the world like the phenomenon, must be opposed because it is not in accordance with the light of Scripture. Thus the scientist shall investigate the whole of reality in its complete coherence and not only a phenomenon which has been reduced to its "essences" from this reality. In his research the educationist as a scientist, shall continually realize that he can know only partially but in the light of Scripture he should declare the sovereignity of God over all cosmos and over each and every activity of man and this includes education as such. This, then is the crux of the matter therefore a Christian cannot accept the neutral approach of the phenomenologists to found a philosophy of education on anything else but Scripture. The field of is to include the founding and practise of present phi of education in South Africa as practised and accepted at most instutions for teacher training. This philosophy is based on the phenomenol approach and the Christian world and life view is bracketed and ignored until a point is reached. This actually leads to a dualistic approach which is not acceptable in view of the above mentioned standpoint. Education is religiously determined and a pedagogy of essences declares its approach to be phenomenologically based The origin and devel of this branch of thought is indicated and reference is made to the greatest exponents of this school of thought in Brentano as the originator of the conception of phenomenology is given attention to. Some of the works of Husserl, the initiator of this school are studied as well as works of Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, who are famous exponents of the phenomenology. The works of these philosophers had inspired the dutch philosophers Langeveld and Perquin to design their system of phenomenologically based philosophy of education. The dutch version of this philosophy was brought to South Africa by C.K. Oberholzer and he and his followers are mainly responsible for the present day widely accepted fundamental pedagogy or philosophy of education, which can be denoted as the "pedagogy of essences". A look is taken at this pedagogy of essences and it is duly evaluated. Because this pedagogy of essences is not acceptable to some of us in the light of Christian and religious conviction as indicated earlier, a tentative idea for an alternative philosophy of education is indicated. The so called unbiased and neutral approach to education is, to our mind, not only impossible but actually an apostasy of the Christian religion. This is virtually proved by these phenomenologists themselves by the fact that sooner or later they do return to a world and life view which they initially had professed to have bracketed so as to enable them to reach a scientific, unbiased or neutral foundation for the philosophy of education. It was deemed necessary to refer to religion, science and calling (vocation) as these are integral aspects of man's life. It was also necessary to refer briefly to the ontic law, as well as to the implications of the belief in God as the foundation for a science of education with its corresponding aim and contents. Therefore reference is made to a cosmological, a anthropological, a cognizable and a methodological basis for this philosophy of education determined Word revelation. The method mainly used in this study is philosophic-historic-critical. Philosophy is that science which studies the radical variety in its integral composity, so as to establish a total conception of temporal reality. It therefore explains matters about the universe and man in the universe, thus also matters about man and his education. A philosophy of education must develop against a specific philosophical background and cannot be isolated from it. To the Christian it is clear that the task of a well-defined, well-formulated and scientifically substantiated and responsible philosophical pedagogy, is to indicate the final destination of man and practise this education with a similar purpose. It should then be clear that in this study a systematic method was used which has a specific view on the relation between God, ontic law and cosmos. The sources used in this study were works of Husserl (English translations mainly) Langeveld, Perquin, and the South African authors Oberholzer, Gunter and B.F. Nel, Landman and others. Works of Stoker, Spier, Loen, Taljaard, Strauss and Venter, were valuable sources. The conclusion arrived at in this study is that a philosophy of education should be based on a christian philosophy and should include the totality of education and not only a phenomenon. Such a philosophy of education should, in its entirety depend on Word revelation. / Proefskrif--PU vir CHO

The aim of this study is to indicate, analyse and describe, by means of theoretical principles, the close connection between man's philosophy of life and the educational system which is often postulated by educationalists. The research was conducted in the form of a literature study. In this way different aspects in the field of research were highlighted. In contrast with scientists who maintain the so-called autonomy of theoretical thought as a basic starting point, the explicit point of view taken here was that the Bible should be the guideline for all human action, this necessarily includes all scientific activity. The philosophical "model of reality" which was used was that of the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea. The use of this structure of reality was, however, subject to the view that not all conclusions to which the various followers of this school of thought arrived at, were acceptable. This research revealed that the basic motive in both education and the educational system is always of a religious nature. By "religious" is meant that man's inclination is always towards that to which he is most deeply attached in the depths of his being. In the educational situation it has been shown that human attitudes and beliefs vary greatly from person to person. This difference is the result of the Fall - since the Fall the heart of man is inclined either towards God or idolatrously towards something in the cosmos. From the subsequent analysis of identity and modal structures in education, and the educational system, it became abundantly clear that these structures are particularised by the religious motive. It was found that the central principle of a philosophy of life is also of a religious nature. This makes it evident to conclude that man's philosophy of life is the guiding force of his life. It directs all his activities and consequently also his educational work and the educational system designed by him. From this analysis it was concluded that man's philosophy of life which is always religiously determined is the first and most primary principle of the educational system and therefore forms the basis for differentiation in the educational system one which takes precedence over and forms the basis of all other principles of differentiation in the educational system. / Thesis (MEd)--PU vir CHO

Education and schooling have been under severe and constant attack on all sides since the Russians launched Sputnik in 1957. It is today a platitude or a reality of educational thought to say that the school as a social institution is in a state of deep crisis. In the relevant literature there is a great amount of data available which support the contention that the schools are in trouble. The increasing number of private and free schools is also indicative of the extent to which the modern school is beset with problems. A survey of the literature on the crisis of the school revealed several topical problems which underlined the necessity for undertaking this study. First of all, what the critics accuse the school of varies widely. It was, therefore, necessary in this study to outline some fundamental problems of the school. Secondly, the modern school remains in trouble in spite of the fact that the calls to reform the school situation have been met by many positive suggestions. Therefore, this study needed to explore the reasons why criticism of the school has failed to solve the problems of the school. Thirdly, there appeared on the scene in the past decade or so some extremely radical critics of the school whereas the school and its particular role fulfilment in society have so far only been accepted uncritically in Christian-reformational circles. The socalled "deschooling" philosophy therefore had to be viewed from a Scriptural perspective. Lastly, an investigation into the reasons why schools today pass through such a bombardment of criticism had to be made from a Scriptural perspective. This study attempted to achieve a threefold over-all aim: firstly, it tried to profile and analyse the main or fundamental problems or the crisis of the school; secondly, it tried to evaluate these problems or crisis of the school fundamental-educationally; and thirdly, it tried to find a Christian solution to the crisis of the school from a Scriptural perspective, in the process attempting to make a contribution to a radically Christian science of education and theory of the school. The research method employed in this research is characteristic of fundamental educational inquiry. The method applied to this study is, therefore, based mainly on documentary analysis. The problem-historical method and the method of philosophical reflection were also used in this study. Furthermore, various views of the school, school criticisms, reforming ideas as well as alternative ideas to the present schooling are criticized and evaluated in this study by way of immanent, transcendental, and exheretical critical methods. Above all else, this study is guide by the principle of sola Scriptura. In order to see and understand properly the present-day fundamental crisis of the school, attention was, firstly, given to a brief historical review of the development of the school, and also to some of the problems which the school has faced from primitive times up to the end of the 19th century. It became evident that the school, in the first instance, came into existence as an institution which takes care of teaching, namely the transmitting of knowledge and skills regarded as necessary to the pupils. A review of the history of the school revealed that the school has, throughout the centuries, been criticized in various ways. Up to the end of the 19th century, however, it seems that all the critique of the school was in some way related to the school’s basic function, that is, related to the question of whether it performs its primary function of teaching children effectively or not. Consequently, most of the efforts to reform the school were, in a broad sense, concentrated upon the problem of organizing learning content logically or according to the natural development of the educand, or to extending more opportunities of schooling to more pupils, or to striking a balance between individual demands and societal demands. The most important thing in connection with the crisis line of the school which the review of the history of the school has revealed, is that the school has always performed its basic function of teaching children in a way determined by a certain (mainly apostatic) religious ground motif, but has so far (generally speaking) never truly stood on the sound and true (anastatic) Scriptural religious ground motif. The examination of the problems or crisis of the school in the North American regional context has also proved that the critics and the reformers of education and the school in North America have so far never truly stood on the sound and true (anastatic) Scriptural religious ground motif. The Deweyan progressive school was determined, motivated, and controlled by the modern humanistic religious ground motif of nature and freedom. After the Sputnik debacle, education and schooling for the pursuit of individual excellence began to take central importance again and a largescale curriculum reforming movement was launched. The return to "hard" education after Sputnik, however, contributed significantly to the radicalism of the counter-cultural movement, which then again led to the advent of the "return-to-basics" movement of the early 1980's. All this clearly shows that the pendulum of school reform oscillates to and fro between the two extreme poles of the modern humanistic religious ground motif, that is, the science or nature pole, on the one hand, and the ideal of human freedom or the personality ideal, on the other hand. In modern/contemporary times, education and schooling in the Western world are dominated by the personality ideal. The left liberal critics (like Postman, Weingartner, Kohl, Silberman, Dennison, and Neill) and the left radical critics (like Reimer, Goodman, Holt, Freire, and Illich) are all concerned about the individual's free l autonomous, and self-sufficient growth and development. They all charge the public schools with damaging, thwarting, stifling children's capacity to learn and grow as free autonomous human beings. The present school, according to their criticism, is not fit for free autonomous human beings. The left liberals, on the one hand, have a strong belief in progress and accept the assumption that the problems of the present school can be changed" creatively. Therefore, they want to reform the school environment to become more humane by putting more emphasis on individuality and on the individual freedom of the child. They do not reject the very idea of a school system. The left radicals, on the other hand, no longer think of the school in terms of reforming, changing or improving it, but think of the total destruction of the school. The school as it currently exists, according to its left radical critics, generates ill-will, hypocrisy, mono= poly, and manipulation to such a degree that the school is beyond all hope. School reform, whether radical or moderate, is, according to them, a futile enterprise. Therefore, they have suggested that the very idea of a school system must be rejected in favour of finding a more effective, humane, personal, self-directed choice of means for learning. The concept of deschooling society has been, therefore, suggested by the left radical critics as a solution to the educational crisis in general, and the school crisis in particular. Although the problems (or crisis) of the school which have been raised by humanistic critics do not reveal a homogeneous character, the central or fundamental problems of the school centre mainly around matters of ontology, anthropology, epistemology, societal relationships, and matters of an ethical and religious nature. The Bible does not offer any directive and systematic treatment of these problems of the school. However, it supplies sufficient guidelines and perspectives on fundamental aspects of the school and schooling. With regard to the ontological "problem" of the school, it is clear from the Scriptural perspective that the school as an institution is no mere product of historical coincidence. It is a form of positivization of the ontic law for the school, which was given by God, at creation, for His glory. The left radical critics of the school regard the school merely as a historical phenomenon and they overlook the ontic law for the school. For this reason, they do not acknowledge the fact that the school has its own unique law side. The anthropological presuppositions of modern humanistic critics of the school are also unacceptable. Man, as a created being, is not a totally "free" and autonomous/sovereign being. The critics, however, succeed in calling our attention to the fact that the modern school leaves little room to the pupils to be creative and original. In connection with the epistemological "problem" of the school, modern humanistic criticism cannot be justified in its insistence that the primary function of the school is the educative function and that the school is the wrong place for the transmission and learning of knowledge and skills. The school certainly has and should have an educational task, but it is a fallacy to state that it is the school's first and foremost responsibility to educate children. If the primary and exclusive teaching task of the school is not fully acknowledged, confusion and haziness about the unique structure and task of the school may arise. Furthermore, the school has so far succeeded fairly in carrying out its basic function of teaching pupils. However, modern humanistic critics are justified, to a certain extent, in their criticism that the teaching function of the school has been contrived to serve the established norms and ideals of the existing social order in society. From a Scriptural standpoint, the crisis of the modern school can be ascribed to the fact that the teaching work of the school has not always been truly educational teaching. The relationship of the school with other societal structures is also one of the fundamental "problems" about which many school-critics have been concerned. The school has the specific and unique task of teaching, and no other task in communal life can be allocated to it. Founded in the historical modality, the school has its own structural identity which functions in its unique way in all the cosmic aspects. The unique teaching task (logical-analytical function) of the school, however, can not be effectively achieved unless there exist a proper and correct relationship of understanding and co-operation between the different types of communities as concrete realities. The crisis of the school in modern times is also caused to a large extent by the misconception of the close relationship between freedom and authority. The ultimate morality of a society, according to the left liberal and left radical critics, depends upon the education of its members; a moral society must have moral education, that is, education which protects and enhances the natural goodness of man. The freedom of the child is, therefore, strongly emphasized by the left liberal and left radical critics. They distort the real and true meaning of freedom and authority. Freedom and authority in the school should be viewed and practised by both the teacher and the pupil within the biblical perspective. All the above-mentioned fundamental "problems" of the school are basically related to the religious ground motif "problem" since nothing (not even science) can escape from being religiously determined. The school and schooling are always determined by certain some or other religious ground motif. Modern school critics (humanists) keep wavering backward and forward between the two polar opposites of the modern humanistic religious ground motif of freedom/the personality ideal and nature/the science ideal. From a non-Scriptural, humanistic point of view the problem of the ground motif of the school is insoluble; the humanist has no choice but to vacillate irresolutely between the two poles of the antinomy. Only the Scriptural ground motif of creation, fall into sin and redemption through Jesus Christ in communion with the Holy Spirit can make it possible for one to reach a real and true synthesis. If the modern school is to truly meet crises in future it must radically break with all the inwardly contradictory trends of humanistic thought and practice, and should in all its aspects and facets be radically determined by the sound Scriptural ground motif. Only then, the school as a social institution will be able to function properly and effectively in future. The school as a social institution, as a form of positivization of the divine ontic law for the school, should continually be reformed according to God's will (law) for the school. Modern humanistic critics surely call our attention to the rigidities, weaknesses and various shortcomings of the existing school system. Much talk about the crisis and even of the death of the school should be the signal to reform the school. / Proefskrif (DEd)--PU vir CHO

The present situation in South Africa is that the study of the science of pedagogy is mainly based on the phenomenological approach. In this method of reduction the scientist is enabled to get to the essences of the phenomenon of "education". This method has gradually become a system or a philosophy of education based on phenomenology. The system, iniated by Husserl, was adopted by the dutch philosophers Langeveld and Perquin and embrace9 in their philosophy of education. Their writings on this subject became very popular and were taken over by the South African educationists Oberholzer, Gunter, Landman, Van Zyl and others. These people established a philosophy of education for South Africa almost similar to the dutch system, but they went further and declared that the phenomenological method is the one and only method for the study of the science of education, this is the sole method, they maintain, by which a scientific study could be made and by which an unbiased, neutral conception of this science could ever be obtained. Thus they have absolutized phenomenology as a method and a philosophy and have excluded all other approaches as being unscientific, biased and even tarnished with some unscientific pre-conception. These phenomenologists maintain that it is essential to advance from the phenomenon of education and to investigate this phenomen without any prejudice or preconceived principles as these prejudices or principles or conceptions or beliefs are injurious to the pure science which education should be. Such a preconceived principle or attitude could be a christian outlook on life and such like conceptions. These principles would have been in order had they remained pre-scientific or post-scientific but they should not be taken in account when the pure phenomen "education" as such is studied. All these pre-conceived ideas, religions, conceptions have to be bracketed before any such scientific study could be undertaken. It is further maintained these e that the result arrived at under these conditions is "a universally acceptable and scientific result" on which e of any creed or denomination could be unanimous as it is then a neutral conclusion. This neutral approach implies that the is taken and reduced to its essences or irreducible components which are then the originally given or "fait primitif” which has the intrinsic ability to declare itself to the investigator or "education scientist". The investigator must only listen to this essence which then is active while the "scientist" is the passive medium through which these essences disclose themselves. As pointed out before the personal beliefs, disbeliefs, convictions, etc. must under no account be brought into play while this "scientific scrutiny and the resultant disclosure by the essences" take place. The interpreter and his action of reduction are left out of account and it is only the "knowable" as such that declares itself to the investigator. The phenomenological philosophy hence ascribes the potential and ability of denoting or explaining, itself to the essence or "eidos". The, method and philosophy known as Phenomenology has become a conception accepted by the majority of writers on educational science and also by teachers and students of education. It is, of course, a natural outcome when one considers that most books on the philosophy of education are written from the phenomenological approach authors of this conviction. To our mind this conception has caused a problem as it has not remained with education and educators but has spread the nation and has become a philosophy of life with its branches of naturalism, humanism and essentialism others. Ultimately a need and a desire for a changed view have become imperative. A religiously minded people cannot accept the alienation of its religion from its education and hence this study was undertaken in an effort to put the two facts into perspective. To our mind a conception that an "essence" has the ability to convey to the investigator its knowability, while the investigator remains passive and God the Creator is left altogether out of reckoning, is impossible to accept. If a thing or fact is knowable and can. be known it is such because God has created it as such. It has a part in the analitical modality and the fact that man possesses the ability to analyse the analysable and express the result in words and thus communicate it to fellow men process of knowing has a two-poled "dialogue" because it is the knower and the knower -each in its complete reality, but is not a "dial in the sense in which the phenomenologists desire the term to be interpreted -coming from the "knowable" or "essence" only. It is a process of knowing, an activity, which ensues from the knower. It is a "two-oneness" because the scope and contents of the result of knowing, is determined by the knowable. In its full reality, however, the God of Scripture and the Word of God can not for one moment be excluded from its reality and no neutrality as such is ever possible. Any scientist or investigator is a human being and hence a religions being who stands in relation to God, whether he knows it or not, whether he accepts it or not, does not matter. And the scientific activity is an activity ensueing from the heart and qualified by the heart be it in obedience to the law of God or not. Hence all activities of man is religiously deter= minded and that includes education and educating. Man was created by God, as child of God with the task to Govern and rule over all of creation which was given to him by God to rule over as even over himself, over his fellow human being in which is included the child in its rearing and educating to answer to its calling in complete responsibility solely to the glory of God, its Creator. The problem posed thus is - what is the place of Word revelation in practising any science, even the science of education or pedagogics? What are the implications of this and do the truths of Scripture come to realization in science without having to be verified or proven? What actually are these truths? Which of these truths are required for the science of education and what part will they play? The phenomenologists reject these truths or parenthesize them until they deem it necessary to bring them into play. In their so-called scientific or neutral approach they repudiate World revelation in which God discloses Himself and His relation to all things. The Lord God had put a radical yet correlated variety in the cosmos. This irreducible variety and interdependent relation must be accepted and investigated without reletavizations and particulirizations and yet with acknowledgement of God as sovereign Ruler over and Creator of man and cosmos which are subjected to His cosmic law and order. This approach to science will nullify all cosmologic absolutization of naturalism, pragmatism, positivism, scientism, secularism, existentialism as well as "phenomenism" which is an absolutization of the phenomenon. Man was created by God with a given task and responsibility to do his share in fulfilment of God's will. Practising science is part and parcel of this task accomplishment for which the light of the lord of God is indespensible but practising science is also religious service of God which has to be practised in the light of Scripture. The true scientist, therefore, tests the foundation of his science by the Word of God and absolutization of something from the cosmos, be it something of man like his reason, or be it something of the world like the phenomenon, must be opposed because it is not in accordance with the light of Scripture. Thus the scientist shall investigate the whole of reality in its complete coherence and not only a phenomenon which has been reduced to its "essences" from this reality. In his research the educationist as a scientist, shall continually realize that he can know only partially but in the light of Scripture he should declare the sovereignity of God over all cosmos and over each and every activity of man and this includes education as such. This, then is the crux of the matter therefore a Christian cannot accept the neutral approach of the phenomenologists to found a philosophy of education on anything else but Scripture. The field of is to include the founding and practise of present phi of education in South Africa as practised and accepted at most instutions for teacher training. This philosophy is based on the phenomenol approach and the Christian world and life view is bracketed and ignored until a point is reached. This actually leads to a dualistic approach which is not acceptable in view of the above mentioned standpoint. Education is religiously determined and a pedagogy of essences declares its approach to be phenomenologically based The origin and devel of this branch of thought is indicated and reference is made to the greatest exponents of this school of thought in Brentano as the originator of the conception of phenomenology is given attention to. Some of the works of Husserl, the initiator of this school are studied as well as works of Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, who are famous exponents of the phenomenology. The works of these philosophers had inspired the dutch philosophers Langeveld and Perquin to design their system of phenomenologically based philosophy of education. The dutch version of this philosophy was brought to South Africa by C.K. Oberholzer and he and his followers are mainly responsible for the present day widely accepted fundamental pedagogy or philosophy of education, which can be denoted as the "pedagogy of essences". A look is taken at this pedagogy of essences and it is duly evaluated. Because this pedagogy of essences is not acceptable to some of us in the light of Christian and religious conviction as indicated earlier, a tentative idea for an alternative philosophy of education is indicated. The so called unbiased and neutral approach to education is, to our mind, not only impossible but actually an apostasy of the Christian religion. This is virtually proved by these phenomenologists themselves by the fact that sooner or later they do return to a world and life view which they initially had professed to have bracketed so as to enable them to reach a scientific, unbiased or neutral foundation for the philosophy of education. It was deemed necessary to refer to religion, science and calling (vocation) as these are integral aspects of man's life. It was also necessary to refer briefly to the ontic law, as well as to the implications of the belief in God as the foundation for a science of education with its corresponding aim and contents. Therefore reference is made to a cosmological, a anthropological, a cognizable and a methodological basis for this philosophy of education determined Word revelation. The method mainly used in this study is philosophic-historic-critical. Philosophy is that science which studies the radical variety in its integral composity, so as to establish a total conception of temporal reality. It therefore explains matters about the universe and man in the universe, thus also matters about man and his education. A philosophy of education must develop against a specific philosophical background and cannot be isolated from it. To the Christian it is clear that the task of a well-defined, well-formulated and scientifically substantiated and responsible philosophical pedagogy, is to indicate the final destination of man and practise this education with a similar purpose. It should then be clear that in this study a systematic method was used which has a specific view on the relation between God, ontic law and cosmos. The sources used in this study were works of Husserl (English translations mainly) Langeveld, Perquin, and the South African authors Oberholzer, Gunter and B.F. Nel, Landman and others. Works of Stoker, Spier, Loen, Taljaard, Strauss and Venter, were valuable sources. The conclusion arrived at in this study is that a philosophy of education should be based on a christian philosophy and should include the totality of education and not only a phenomenon. Such a philosophy of education should, in its entirety depend on Word revelation. / Proefskrif--PU vir CHO

The aim of this study is to indicate, analyse and describe, by means of theoretical principles, the close connection between man's philosophy of life and the educational system which is often postulated by educationalists. The research was conducted in the form of a literature study. In this way different aspects in the field of research were highlighted. In contrast with scientists who maintain the so-called autonomy of theoretical thought as a basic starting point, the explicit point of view taken here was that the Bible should be the guideline for all human action, this necessarily includes all scientific activity. The philosophical "model of reality" which was used was that of the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea. The use of this structure of reality was, however, subject to the view that not all conclusions to which the various followers of this school of thought arrived at, were acceptable. This research revealed that the basic motive in both education and the educational system is always of a religious nature. By "religious" is meant that man's inclination is always towards that to which he is most deeply attached in the depths of his being. In the educational situation it has been shown that human attitudes and beliefs vary greatly from person to person. This difference is the result of the Fall - since the Fall the heart of man is inclined either towards God or idolatrously towards something in the cosmos. From the subsequent analysis of identity and modal structures in education, and the educational system, it became abundantly clear that these structures are particularised by the religious motive. It was found that the central principle of a philosophy of life is also of a religious nature. This makes it evident to conclude that man's philosophy of life is the guiding force of his life. It directs all his activities and consequently also his educational work and the educational system designed by him. From this analysis it was concluded that man's philosophy of life which is always religiously determined is the first and most primary principle of the educational system and therefore forms the basis for differentiation in the educational system one which takes precedence over and forms the basis of all other principles of differentiation in the educational system. / Thesis (MEd)--PU vir CHO

Education and schooling have been under severe and constant attack on all sides since the Russians launched Sputnik in 1957. It is today a platitude or a reality of educational thought to say that the school as a social institution is in a state of deep crisis. In the relevant literature there is a great amount of data available which support the contention that the schools are in trouble. The increasing number of private and free schools is also indicative of the extent to which the modern school is beset with problems. A survey of the literature on the crisis of the school revealed several topical problems which underlined the necessity for undertaking this study. First of all, what the critics accuse the school of varies widely. It was, therefore, necessary in this study to outline some fundamental problems of the school. Secondly, the modern school remains in trouble in spite of the fact that the calls to reform the school situation have been met by many positive suggestions. Therefore, this study needed to explore the reasons why criticism of the school has failed to solve the problems of the school. Thirdly, there appeared on the scene in the past decade or so some extremely radical critics of the school whereas the school and its particular role fulfilment in society have so far only been accepted uncritically in Christian-reformational circles. The socalled "deschooling" philosophy therefore had to be viewed from a Scriptural perspective. Lastly, an investigation into the reasons why schools today pass through such a bombardment of criticism had to be made from a Scriptural perspective. This study attempted to achieve a threefold over-all aim: firstly, it tried to profile and analyse the main or fundamental problems or the crisis of the school; secondly, it tried to evaluate these problems or crisis of the school fundamental-educationally; and thirdly, it tried to find a Christian solution to the crisis of the school from a Scriptural perspective, in the process attempting to make a contribution to a radically Christian science of education and theory of the school. The research method employed in this research is characteristic of fundamental educational inquiry. The method applied to this study is, therefore, based mainly on documentary analysis. The problem-historical method and the method of philosophical reflection were also used in this study. Furthermore, various views of the school, school criticisms, reforming ideas as well as alternative ideas to the present schooling are criticized and evaluated in this study by way of immanent, transcendental, and exheretical critical methods. Above all else, this study is guide by the principle of sola Scriptura. In order to see and understand properly the present-day fundamental crisis of the school, attention was, firstly, given to a brief historical review of the development of the school, and also to some of the problems which the school has faced from primitive times up to the end of the 19th century. It became evident that the school, in the first instance, came into existence as an institution which takes care of teaching, namely the transmitting of knowledge and skills regarded as necessary to the pupils. A review of the history of the school revealed that the school has, throughout the centuries, been criticized in various ways. Up to the end of the 19th century, however, it seems that all the critique of the school was in some way related to the school’s basic function, that is, related to the question of whether it performs its primary function of teaching children effectively or not. Consequently, most of the efforts to reform the school were, in a broad sense, concentrated upon the problem of organizing learning content logically or according to the natural development of the educand, or to extending more opportunities of schooling to more pupils, or to striking a balance between individual demands and societal demands. The most important thing in connection with the crisis line of the school which the review of the history of the school has revealed, is that the school has always performed its basic function of teaching children in a way determined by a certain (mainly apostatic) religious ground motif, but has so far (generally speaking) never truly stood on the sound and true (anastatic) Scriptural religious ground motif. The examination of the problems or crisis of the school in the North American regional context has also proved that the critics and the reformers of education and the school in North America have so far never truly stood on the sound and true (anastatic) Scriptural religious ground motif. The Deweyan progressive school was determined, motivated, and controlled by the modern humanistic religious ground motif of nature and freedom. After the Sputnik debacle, education and schooling for the pursuit of individual excellence began to take central importance again and a largescale curriculum reforming movement was launched. The return to "hard" education after Sputnik, however, contributed significantly to the radicalism of the counter-cultural movement, which then again led to the advent of the "return-to-basics" movement of the early 1980's. All this clearly shows that the pendulum of school reform oscillates to and fro between the two extreme poles of the modern humanistic religious ground motif, that is, the science or nature pole, on the one hand, and the ideal of human freedom or the personality ideal, on the other hand. In modern/contemporary times, education and schooling in the Western world are dominated by the personality ideal. The left liberal critics (like Postman, Weingartner, Kohl, Silberman, Dennison, and Neill) and the left radical critics (like Reimer, Goodman, Holt, Freire, and Illich) are all concerned about the individual's free l autonomous, and self-sufficient growth and development. They all charge the public schools with damaging, thwarting, stifling children's capacity to learn and grow as free autonomous human beings. The present school, according to their criticism, is not fit for free autonomous human beings. The left liberals, on the one hand, have a strong belief in progress and accept the assumption that the problems of the present school can be changed" creatively. Therefore, they want to reform the school environment to become more humane by putting more emphasis on individuality and on the individual freedom of the child. They do not reject the very idea of a school system. The left radicals, on the other hand, no longer think of the school in terms of reforming, changing or improving it, but think of the total destruction of the school. The school as it currently exists, according to its left radical critics, generates ill-will, hypocrisy, mono= poly, and manipulation to such a degree that the school is beyond all hope. School reform, whether radical or moderate, is, according to them, a futile enterprise. Therefore, they have suggested that the very idea of a school system must be rejected in favour of finding a more effective, humane, personal, self-directed choice of means for learning. The concept of deschooling society has been, therefore, suggested by the left radical critics as a solution to the educational crisis in general, and the school crisis in particular. Although the problems (or crisis) of the school which have been raised by humanistic critics do not reveal a homogeneous character, the central or fundamental problems of the school centre mainly around matters of ontology, anthropology, epistemology, societal relationships, and matters of an ethical and religious nature. The Bible does not offer any directive and systematic treatment of these problems of the school. However, it supplies sufficient guidelines and perspectives on fundamental aspects of the school and schooling. With regard to the ontological "problem" of the school, it is clear from the Scriptural perspective that the school as an institution is no mere product of historical coincidence. It is a form of positivization of the ontic law for the school, which was given by God, at creation, for His glory. The left radical critics of the school regard the school merely as a historical phenomenon and they overlook the ontic law for the school. For this reason, they do not acknowledge the fact that the school has its own unique law side. The anthropological presuppositions of modern humanistic critics of the school are also unacceptable. Man, as a created being, is not a totally "free" and autonomous/sovereign being. The critics, however, succeed in calling our attention to the fact that the modern school leaves little room to the pupils to be creative and original. In connection with the epistemological "problem" of the school, modern humanistic criticism cannot be justified in its insistence that the primary function of the school is the educative function and that the school is the wrong place for the transmission and learning of knowledge and skills. The school certainly has and should have an educational task, but it is a fallacy to state that it is the school's first and foremost responsibility to educate children. If the primary and exclusive teaching task of the school is not fully acknowledged, confusion and haziness about the unique structure and task of the school may arise. Furthermore, the school has so far succeeded fairly in carrying out its basic function of teaching pupils. However, modern humanistic critics are justified, to a certain extent, in their criticism that the teaching function of the school has been contrived to serve the established norms and ideals of the existing social order in society. From a Scriptural standpoint, the crisis of the modern school can be ascribed to the fact that the teaching work of the school has not always been truly educational teaching. The relationship of the school with other societal structures is also one of the fundamental "problems" about which many school-critics have been concerned. The school has the specific and unique task of teaching, and no other task in communal life can be allocated to it. Founded in the historical modality, the school has its own structural identity which functions in its unique way in all the cosmic aspects. The unique teaching task (logical-analytical function) of the school, however, can not be effectively achieved unless there exist a proper and correct relationship of understanding and co-operation between the different types of communities as concrete realities. The crisis of the school in modern times is also caused to a large extent by the misconception of the close relationship between freedom and authority. The ultimate morality of a society, according to the left liberal and left radical critics, depends upon the education of its members; a moral society must have moral education, that is, education which protects and enhances the natural goodness of man. The freedom of the child is, therefore, strongly emphasized by the left liberal and left radical critics. They distort the real and true meaning of freedom and authority. Freedom and authority in the school should be viewed and practised by both the teacher and the pupil within the biblical perspective. All the above-mentioned fundamental "problems" of the school are basically related to the religious ground motif "problem" since nothing (not even science) can escape from being religiously determined. The school and schooling are always determined by certain some or other religious ground motif. Modern school critics (humanists) keep wavering backward and forward between the two polar opposites of the modern humanistic religious ground motif of freedom/the personality ideal and nature/the science ideal. From a non-Scriptural, humanistic point of view the problem of the ground motif of the school is insoluble; the humanist has no choice but to vacillate irresolutely between the two poles of the antinomy. Only the Scriptural ground motif of creation, fall into sin and redemption through Jesus Christ in communion with the Holy Spirit can make it possible for one to reach a real and true synthesis. If the modern school is to truly meet crises in future it must radically break with all the inwardly contradictory trends of humanistic thought and practice, and should in all its aspects and facets be radically determined by the sound Scriptural ground motif. Only then, the school as a social institution will be able to function properly and effectively in future. The school as a social institution, as a form of positivization of the divine ontic law for the school, should continually be reformed according to God's will (law) for the school. Modern humanistic critics surely call our attention to the rigidities, weaknesses and various shortcomings of the existing school system. Much talk about the crisis and even of the death of the school should be the signal to reform the school. / Proefskrif (DEd)--PU vir CHO

The purpose of reformed apologetics is to defend the Christian faith against heresy.However, this is not all. Reformed apologetics also wants to give a convincing answer why the Christian view is the real hope for mankind (see 1 Peter 3:15).Other that differ from this life and world view, do it mostly based on a different starting point. Although finer points are debated between parties, the starting point, including presuppositions, are always somewhere in the background. Van Til4 and Stoker5, two famous Reformed thinkersof the last century (respectively theological and philosophical), in contact with other made their presuppositions part of their apologetic discussions. This agreement in approach and method emerges in the Festschrift for Van Til, when Stoker (1971:28-71) proposes a connection between his and Van Til’s methods, and when Van Til in turn responds positively. This study will focus on what role these two thinkers’ presuppositions play in their apologetic conversation. It eventually comes to important guidelines regarding the place and role of presuppositions in conversations of Christians across a broad scientific front with those who hold other points of departure. / MTh (Missiology), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

The purpose of reformed apologetics is to defend the Christian faith against heresy.However, this is not all. Reformed apologetics also wants to give a convincing answer why the Christian view is the real hope for mankind (see 1 Peter 3:15).Other that differ from this life and world view, do it mostly based on a different starting point. Although finer points are debated between parties, the starting point, including presuppositions, are always somewhere in the background. Van Til4 and Stoker5, two famous Reformed thinkersof the last century (respectively theological and philosophical), in contact with other made their presuppositions part of their apologetic discussions. This agreement in approach and method emerges in the Festschrift for Van Til, when Stoker (1971:28-71) proposes a connection between his and Van Til’s methods, and when Van Til in turn responds positively. This study will focus on what role these two thinkers’ presuppositions play in their apologetic conversation. It eventually comes to important guidelines regarding the place and role of presuppositions in conversations of Christians across a broad scientific front with those who hold other points of departure. / MTh (Missiology), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

No existentialism exists as a thought system as such. Not only are differences obvious between theistic and atheistic fields of thought as practised by the existentialist philosophers$ but there are also fundamental differences between advocates of the system such as Heidegger and Sartre. Certain common characteristics can be distinguished. It deals with the existent human being as plunged into a situation, a rebellion against rationalization, the absolutization of human freedom the incompleteness and transience of man, a denunciation of God and the Scriptures. The above-mentioned characteristics of this philosophy exercise a profound influence on the thoughts of modern man and are therefore of immediate importance to education. As Christians we need to understand these existentialists because unlike other more complacent modern thinkers, they are honest enough to voice that sense of despair which is so widespread in our world. They speak for millions of our contemporaries for whom God is dead. They tear away the masks of optimism, self-confidence and indifference. To our mind this philosophy has contributed to a large extent to the moral decline of this decadent twentieth century. It would therefore be gross neglect on the part of Christian education if it does not determine and define the implications of this philosophy. A religious minded people cannot accept the separation of its religion from its education and hence this study was undertaken in an effort to evaluate the existentialism in the light of the scriptures in which God discloses Himself and His relation to all things. It was deemed necessary to refer to religion and calling (vocation) as these are integral aspects of man's life. It was also necessary to refer to the implications of the belief in God as the foundation for a science of education with its corresponding aim and content. Therefore reference is made to an ontological, a cosmological, an anthropological, a cognizable and a methodological basis for this philosophy of education determined by Word revelation. The phenomenological approach (method) employed by the existentialists as well as the denunciation of the God of the Scriptures, causes the total absence of any relation to God, hence the neutrality. In its full reality, however, the God of the Scriptures and the Word of God cannot for one moment be excluded from its reality and no neutrality as such is ever possible. Any educator is a human being and thus a religious being who stands in relation to God, whether he is aware of it or not. Whether he accepts it or not, does not matter. All human activity is an activity issuing from the heart and qualified by the heart, be it in obedience to the law of God or not. Hence all activities of man are religiously centred and that includes education and educating. Man was created by God, as a child of God with the task of governing and ruling over His whole creation, as he would over himself; over his fellow human being, a task which includes the rearing and educating of the child and thereby complying with the responsibility entrusted to him by his Creator. Existentialistic anthropology which considers man as an incomplete and temporary being with no ultimate goal, severs the bond of the human being at its very source, viz., God. Anthropology has contributed largely to contemporary non-recognition of values and principles in education. The Christian educator sees man as the creation of God. Only anthropology based on the Bible can reflect a truly realistic image and total concept of the child. Existentialism absolutizes human liberty and self responsibility which does not subordinate itself to any authority or principle. This approach is a cosmologic absolutization of man’s existence. Man is created by God with a given task and responsibility to do his share in the fulfilment of God’s will. The Lord God has put a radical yet correlated variety in the cosmos. This irreducible variety and interdependent relation must be accepted and investigated without relativization and absolutization and yet with the acknowledgement of God as sovereign Ruler over and Creator of man and the cosmos subject to God’s cosmic law and order. The subjectivism into which the existentialists have deteriorated has caused the relegation to total insignificance of the subject-object relationship in the actual creation. To our mind the concept that knowledge can be obtained only through subjectivity, is impossible to accept. Subject and object are cognizable because God has created them as such. The educationist as a scientist, should continually realize that his knowledge can only be partial, but in the light of Scripture he should acknowledge the sovereignity of God over the whole cosmos and over each and every activity of man and this includes education. In order to combat the godlessness of existentialism the Christian educator should practise his education, that is every subject in the light of Scripture. The determining approach, the Word of God, has illumined that which has to be researched. An attempt has been made not only to give a mere description of the field or research, but also to delve into the results with full and due consideration of what God has revealed in connection with it in His Word. The Word has therefore a function to fulfil in connection with the field of research as well as the researcher. These principles have therefore of neccesity determined the method used. Use has also been made of the analytical and comparative methods. The conclusion arrived at in this study is that the answers to questions arising from educational problems such as those with regard to the eventual aims education should strive for, the very essence of education, the reason for educating, content and method, freedom and authority, discipline and punishment, the task of the teacher, and all questions relating to the full spectrum of education, cannot be supplied by existentialism. A philosophy of education should be based. on a Christian philosophy and should include the totality of education that in its entirety depends on the revelation of the Word. / Thesis (M.Ed.)--PU vir CHO

No existentialism exists as a thought system as such. Not only are differences obvious between theistic and atheistic fields of thought as practised by the existentialist philosophers$ but there are also fundamental differences between advocates of the system such as Heidegger and Sartre. Certain common characteristics can be distinguished. It deals with the existent human being as plunged into a situation, a rebellion against rationalization, the absolutization of human freedom the incompleteness and transience of man, a denunciation of God and the Scriptures. The above-mentioned characteristics of this philosophy exercise a profound influence on the thoughts of modern man and are therefore of immediate importance to education. As Christians we need to understand these existentialists because unlike other more complacent modern thinkers, they are honest enough to voice that sense of despair which is so widespread in our world. They speak for millions of our contemporaries for whom God is dead. They tear away the masks of optimism, self-confidence and indifference. To our mind this philosophy has contributed to a large extent to the moral decline of this decadent twentieth century. It would therefore be gross neglect on the part of Christian education if it does not determine and define the implications of this philosophy. A religious minded people cannot accept the separation of its religion from its education and hence this study was undertaken in an effort to evaluate the existentialism in the light of the scriptures in which God discloses Himself and His relation to all things. It was deemed necessary to refer to religion and calling (vocation) as these are integral aspects of man's life. It was also necessary to refer to the implications of the belief in God as the foundation for a science of education with its corresponding aim and content. Therefore reference is made to an ontological, a cosmological, an anthropological, a cognizable and a methodological basis for this philosophy of education determined by Word revelation. The phenomenological approach (method) employed by the existentialists as well as the denunciation of the God of the Scriptures, causes the total absence of any relation to God, hence the neutrality. In its full reality, however, the God of the Scriptures and the Word of God cannot for one moment be excluded from its reality and no neutrality as such is ever possible. Any educator is a human being and thus a religious being who stands in relation to God, whether he is aware of it or not. Whether he accepts it or not, does not matter. All human activity is an activity issuing from the heart and qualified by the heart, be it in obedience to the law of God or not. Hence all activities of man are religiously centred and that includes education and educating. Man was created by God, as a child of God with the task of governing and ruling over His whole creation, as he would over himself; over his fellow human being, a task which includes the rearing and educating of the child and thereby complying with the responsibility entrusted to him by his Creator. Existentialistic anthropology which considers man as an incomplete and temporary being with no ultimate goal, severs the bond of the human being at its very source, viz., God. Anthropology has contributed largely to contemporary non-recognition of values and principles in education. The Christian educator sees man as the creation of God. Only anthropology based on the Bible can reflect a truly realistic image and total concept of the child. Existentialism absolutizes human liberty and self responsibility which does not subordinate itself to any authority or principle. This approach is a cosmologic absolutization of man’s existence. Man is created by God with a given task and responsibility to do his share in the fulfilment of God’s will. The Lord God has put a radical yet correlated variety in the cosmos. This irreducible variety and interdependent relation must be accepted and investigated without relativization and absolutization and yet with the acknowledgement of God as sovereign Ruler over and Creator of man and the cosmos subject to God’s cosmic law and order. The subjectivism into which the existentialists have deteriorated has caused the relegation to total insignificance of the subject-object relationship in the actual creation. To our mind the concept that knowledge can be obtained only through subjectivity, is impossible to accept. Subject and object are cognizable because God has created them as such. The educationist as a scientist, should continually realize that his knowledge can only be partial, but in the light of Scripture he should acknowledge the sovereignity of God over the whole cosmos and over each and every activity of man and this includes education. In order to combat the godlessness of existentialism the Christian educator should practise his education, that is every subject in the light of Scripture. The determining approach, the Word of God, has illumined that which has to be researched. An attempt has been made not only to give a mere description of the field or research, but also to delve into the results with full and due consideration of what God has revealed in connection with it in His Word. The Word has therefore a function to fulfil in connection with the field of research as well as the researcher. These principles have therefore of neccesity determined the method used. Use has also been made of the analytical and comparative methods. The conclusion arrived at in this study is that the answers to questions arising from educational problems such as those with regard to the eventual aims education should strive for, the very essence of education, the reason for educating, content and method, freedom and authority, discipline and punishment, the task of the teacher, and all questions relating to the full spectrum of education, cannot be supplied by existentialism. A philosophy of education should be based. on a Christian philosophy and should include the totality of education that in its entirety depends on the revelation of the Word. / Thesis (M.Ed.)--PU vir CHO