Abstract

The German philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey, who died in 1911, is remembered internationally today as one of the great pioneers of the interpretive approach to the disciplined study of the human world. His contributions to foundational studies in educational theory have also long been recognized, at least in his native country, but they have, I argue, been largely misunderstood. ;Because of Dilthey's reluctance to publish his systematic works, influential early interpreters of his work were familiar only with scattered fragments. On that basis they believed that education had been a relatively minor concern of Dilthey's and that he had abandoned the foundational concept of an immanent "teleology in the life of the psyche" as he developed his later hermeneutic approach. With the rejection of teleology the critical moment in Dilthey's educational theory was obscured. A static focus on the structure of the teacher-student relationship and a thoroughgoing but politically subservient relativism in values came to be identified as Diltheyan. ;As English-speaking educational theorists now begin to take an interest in Dilthey, this misunderstanding could be reproduced. I have therefore translated Dilthey's seminal paper on this subject, the 1888 address "On the possibility of a universally valid science of education," and analyzed it in light of his other works as a crucial element in a unified life-long project; a project in which teleological understanding and moral educative intent remained central. ;With the present and ongoing publication of Dilthey's voluminous notes and manuscripts, the continuity, scope, and nature of this life-project becomes more apparent. Dilthey was committed to the possibility of practical rationality in a changing human world; to the conscious guidance of healthy human development on the individual and the societal level. The problems he faced in reconciling the demands of society and the goal of individual autonomy are at the core of today's controversies in moral education. The reassessment of Dilthey's work now both possible and necessary is likely to clarify our own policy debates and to suggest fresh approaches.