Philosophy of Education is a label applied to the study of the purpose, process, nature and ideals of education. It can be considered a branch of both philosophy and education. Education can be defined as the teaching and learning of specific skills and imparting of knowledge, judgment and wisdom, is something broader than the societal institution of education we often speak of.
Many educationalists consider it a weak and woolly field, too far removed from the practical applications of the real world to be useful. But philosophers dating back to Plato and the Ancient Greeks have given the area much thought and emphasis, and there is little doubt that their work has helped shape the practice of education over the millennia.
Plato is the earliest important educational thinker, and education is an essential element in "The Republic" (his most important work on philosophy and political theory, written around 360 B.C.). In it, he advocates some rather extreme methods: removing children from their mothers' care and raising them as wards of the state, and differentiating children suitable to the various castes, the highest receiving the most education, so that they could act as guardians of the city and care for the less able. He believed that education should be holistic, including facts, skills, physical discipline, music and art. Plato believed that talent and intelligence is not distributed genetically and thus is be found in children born to all classes. although his proposed system of selective public education for an educated minority of the population does not really follow a democratic model.
Aristotle considered human nature, habit and reason to be equally important forces to be cultivated in education, the ultimate aim of which should be to produce good and virtuous citizens. He proposed that teachers lead their students systematically, and that repetition be used as a key tool to develop good habits, unlike Socrates' emphasis on questioning his listeners to bring out their own ideas. He emphasized the balancing of the theoretical and practical aspects of subjects taught, among which he explicitly mentions reading. writing. mathematics, music, physical education, literature, history, and a wide range of sciences, as well as play, which he also considered important.
During the Medieval period, the idea of Perennialism was first formulated by St. Thomas Aquinas in his work "De Magistro". Perennialism holds that one should teach those things deemed to be of everlasting importance to all people everywhere, namely principles and reasoning, not just facts (which are apt to change over time), and that one should teach first about people, not machines or techniques. It was originally religious in nature, and it was only much later that a theory of secular perennialism developed.
What is the difference between the approaches of Socrates and Aristotle?
- Aristotle felt the need for repetition to develop good habits in students; Socrates felt that students need to be constantly questioned
- Aristotle felt the need for rote-learning; Socrates emphasized on dialogic learning
- There was no difference
- Aristotle emphasized on the importance of paying attention to human nature; Socrates emphasized upon science
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The question explores the philosophical differences between the educational approaches of Socrates and Aristotle, based on the given comprehension passage. Let's analyze the correct answer step-by-step.
Step 1: Understanding Socrates' Approach
Socrates emphasized the importance of dialogic learning, which involves questioning students to facilitate reflection and self-discovery. His method, often called the Socratic Method, encourages critical thinking and the elicitation of ideas from the learners themselves.
Step 2: Understanding Aristotle's Approach
Aristotle, on the other hand, believed in the systematic guidance of students by teachers. He advocated for the use of repetition to develop good habits in students, an approach that contrasts with Socrates' method of questioning.
Step 3: Comparing the Approaches
Based on the passage, Socrates' approach involves continuous questioning to draw out a student’s understanding, whereas Aristotle's method involves repetition to instill habits. Therefore, the primary difference lies in Socrates' use of questioning versus Aristotle's emphasis on systematic guidance and repetition.
Conclusion:
The correct option is: Aristotle felt the need for repetition to develop good habits in students; Socrates felt that students need to be constantly questioned.
Why do educationists consider philosophy a 'weak and woolly' field?
- It is not practically applicable
- Its theoretical concepts are easily understood
- It is irrelevant for education
- None of the above
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
To answer the question, "Why do educationists consider philosophy a 'weak and woolly' field?", we need to analyze the comprehension passage provided:
- The passage discusses the role and perception of philosophy in the domain of education.
- It states that many educationalists consider the philosophical aspect of education as "weak and woolly," suggesting it is distant from practical applications.
- The root of this perception lies in the theoretical nature of philosophy, which often involves abstract thinking and may not provide direct, actionable outcomes.
Now, let's evaluate the given options:
- It is not practically applicable: As suggested in the passage, this is the main reason why philosophy is considered "weak and woolly." It appears removed from direct practical application in the real-world context.
- Its theoretical concepts are easily understood: This option does not align with the passage, which emphasizes the complexity and abstract nature of philosophical concepts.
- It is irrelevant for education: The passage clearly indicates that philosophers like Plato and Aristotle had a significant impact on the development of educational practices, thus making philosophy relevant, albeit not in a directly practical way.
- None of the above: This option is incorrect as the first option is valid.
Conclusion: The correct answer is "It is not practically applicable." The passage confirms that the philosophical approach is seen as too theoretical for immediate practical application, which is why some educationists view it as "weak and woolly."
Were Plato's beliefs about education democratic?
- He believed that only the rich have the right to acquire education
- Yes
- He believed that only a select few are meant to attend schools
- He believed that all pupils are not talented
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
To determine whether Plato's beliefs about education were democratic, let's analyze the relevant portion of the passage.
Plato was a profound educational thinker, and his philosophy of education is discussed in his work "The Republic." According to the passage:
- Plato advocated for removing children from their mothers' care and raising them as wards of the state.
- He proposed a system where children were differentiated based on suitability for various societal castes. The highest caste received the most education to serve as guardians of the city.
- Despite believing that talent and intelligence could be found among all classes, his proposed educational system was selective and aimed at educating a minority who would become the ruling class.
This indicates that although Plato acknowledged the distribution of talent across all social classes, he did not propose a system that provides equal educational opportunities to everyone. Instead, education served the purpose of grooming a select few to act as leaders or guardians, which aligns more with a meritocratic or hierarchical system rather than a fully democratic one.
The correct answer is "Yes" because, within the context of the passage, while Plato's approach recognized talent across classes, it did not advocate for universal education in the democratic sense (i.e., equal opportunity for all).
Why did Aquinas propose a model of education which did not lay much emphasis on facts?
- Facts are not important
- Facts do not lead to holistic education
- Facts change with the changing times
- Facts are frozen in time
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
To determine why Aquinas proposed a model of education that did not emphasize facts, we need to delve into the educational philosophies mentioned in the given passage. Let's break down the relevant parts step by step:
-
Understanding Aquinas' View on Education:
- According to the passage, during the Medieval period, St. Thomas Aquinas formulated the idea of Perennialism in his work "De Magistro".
- Perennialism is an educational philosophy arguing for the teaching of principles and reasoning above mere factual knowledge.
-
Why the Avoidance of Emphasis on Facts:
- Aquinas' Perennialism advocates for principles and reasoning over facts because facts are apt to change over time.
- This philosophy suggests that enduring truths and critical thinking provide a more holistic education than learning facts, which may not remain true or relevant throughout time.
-
Conclusion:
- Based on this understanding, the correct answer is: "Facts change with the changing times."
- This aligns with the idea that education should focus on imparting timeless principles rather than transient facts.
Thus, the answer reflects the philosophical underpinning that facts may become obsolete, whereas reasoning and principles remain constant and universally applicable across time.
Top Questions on Reading Comprehension
- Shown below are letters ‘e’ taken from four popular logos, arranged in a sequence. Which of the options is the correct sequence?
- UCEED - 2026
- English Language Comprehension
- Reading Comprehension
- Shown below are four options, each showing consecutive frames representing the movement of a pendulum of an old-style wall clock for an animation movie. Which is the correct option?
- UCEED - 2026
- English Language Comprehension
- Reading Comprehension
- Acrucial moderating factor in how people experience comparisons is self-esteem. Individuals with high self-esteem are more likely to interpret upward comparison as informative rather than threatening. They are more resilient in the face of others’ success and more likely to believe they can reach their own goals. In contrast, people with low self-esteem are more prone to interpret comparison as judgment, reinforcing negative self-views and triggering feelings of inadequacy.
This dynamic creates a self-reinforcing loop. People with high self-esteem are less vulnerable to upward comparison, which intensifies those doubts. Those with a secure sense of self are more likely to use comparison as a learning tool. The same external stimulus—a colleague’s achievements, a friend’s popularity—can have radically different effects depending on internal stability.
Self-esteem also influences how people choose their comparison targets. Research has found that individuals often engage in “selective comparison,” seeking out those who confirm their existing beliefs about themselves. This can become a subtle form of self-sabotage. Someone who feels unworthy may subconsciously seek out targets that reinforce that sense, perpetuating a narrative of inferiority. One of the most promising antidotes to social comparison is temporal comparison—evaluating oneself not against others, but against one’s own past. This method has been shown to increase motivation and satisfaction, especially when individuals can see concrete progress. Temporal comparison activates the same reward circuits as social comparison but avoids the threat systems associated with social ranking. It also reinforces agency: individuals focus on what they can control and improve rather than what others control. In therapeutic and coaching settings, temporal comparison is used to help clients build self-efficacy and track growth over time.
Moreover, people who focus on self-improvement rather than social dominance are less likely to fall into cycles of envy or self-pity. They can still use others as inspiration, but they do so without attaching their self-worth to the outcome. This is not to say they never compare—but that they focus on learning, rather than judgment. The most skilful approach to comparison may lie in eliminating it, but in reframing it as feedback. When we interpret comparison as information rather than a verdict, we can ask, “What can I learn from this?” This shift turns comparison into a growth tool. Teachers mentor their students, not as rivals. Psychologists emphasize that the key variable here is mindset.
A fixed mindset sees comparison as a threat. If someone else is better, it means we are worse. A growth mindset sees comparison as a map. If someone else has reached a certain level, it means the path exists. This reframing is not just a cognitive trick. It changes the emotional tone of comparison, making it more likely to inspire than to wound. Reframing also requires emotional regulation—the ability to notice an initial pang of envy or shame without reacting impulsively. With practice, individuals can learn to pause, reflect, and reinterpret their emotional responses. Over time, this builds resilience and self-trust, allowing comparison to become a learning tool rather than a cage.- XAT - 2026
- Verbal and Logical Ability
- Reading Comprehension
When people who are talking don’t share the same culture, knowledge, values, and assumptions, mutual understanding can be especially difficult. Such understanding is possible through the negotiation of meaning. To negotiate meaning with someone, you have to become aware of and respect both the differences in your backgrounds and when these differences are important. You need enough diversity of cultural and personal experience to be aware that divergent world views exist and what they might be like. You also need the flexibility in world view, and a generous tolerance for mistakes, as well as a talent for finding the right metaphor to communicate the relevant parts of unshared experiences or to highlight the shared experiences while demphasizing the others. Metaphorical imagination is a crucial skill in creating rapport and in communicating the nature of unshared experience. This skill consists, in large measure, of the ability to bend your world view and adjust the way you categorize your experiences. Problems of mutual understanding are not exotic; they arise in all extended conversations where understanding is important.
When it really counts, meaning is almost never communicated according to the CONDUIT metaphor, that is, where one person transmits a fixed, clear proposition to another by means of expressions in a common language, where both parties have all the relevant common knowledge, assumptions, values, etc. When the chips are down, meaning is negotiated: you slowly figure out what you have in common, what it is safe to talk about, how you can communicate unshared experience or create a shared vision. With enough flexibility in bending your world view and with luck and charity, you may achieve some mutual understanding.
Communication theories based on the CONDUIT metaphor turn from the pathetic to the evil when they are applied indiscriminately on a large scale, say, in government surveillance or computerized files. There, what is most crucial for real understanding is almost never included, and it is assumed that the words in the file have meaning in themselves—disembodied, objective, understandable meaning. When a society lives by the CONDUITmetaphor on a large scale, misunderstanding, persecution, and much worse are the likely products.- XAT - 2026
- Verbal and Logical Ability
- Reading Comprehension
Later, I realized that reviewing the history of nuclear physics served another purpose as well: It gave the lie to the naive belief that the physicists could have come together when nuclear fission was discovered (in Nazi Germany!) and agreed to keep the discovery a secret, thereby sparing humanity such a burden. No. Given the development of nuclear physics up to 1938, development that physicists throughout the world pursued in all innocence of any intention of finding the engine of a new weapon of mass destruction—only one of them, the remarkable Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard, took that possibility seriously—the discovery of nuclear fission was inevitable. To stop it, you would have had to stop physics. If German scientists hadn’t made the discovery when they did, French, American, Russian, Italian, or Danish scientists would have done so, almost certainly within days or weeks. They were all working at the same cutting edge, trying to understand the strange results of a simple experiment bombarding uranium with neutrons. Here was no Faustian bargain, as movie directors and other naifs still find it intellectually challenging to imagine. Here was no evil machinery that the noble scientists might hide from the problems and the generals. To the contrary, there was a high insight into how the world works, an energetic reaction, older than the earth, that science had finally devised the instruments and arrangements to coart forth. “Make it seem inevitable,” Louis Pasteur used to advise his students when they prepared to write up their discoveries. But it was. To wish that it might have been ignored or suppressed is barbarous. “Knowledge,” Niels Bohr once noted, “is itself the basis for civilization.” You cannot have the one without the other; the one depends upon the other. Nor can you have only benevolent knowledge; the scientific method doesn’t filter for benevolence. Knowledge has consequences, not always intended, not always comfortable, but always welcome. The earth revolves around the sun, not the sun around the earth. “It is a profound and necessary truth,” Robert Oppenheimer would say, “that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them.”
...Bohr proposed once that the goal of science is not universal truth. Rather, he argued, the modest but relentless goal of science is “the gradual removal of prejudices.” The discovery that the earth revolves around the sun has gradually removed the prejudice that the earth is the center of the universe. The discovery of microbes is gradually removing the prejudice that disease is a punishment from God. The discovery of evolution is gradually removing the prejudice that Homo sapiens is a separate and special creation.- XAT - 2026
- Verbal and Logical Ability
- Reading Comprehension
Questions Asked in CMAT exam
- Alpha and Beta are two chemical fertilizers. Alpha consists of \(N, P, K\) and Beta consists of \(N\) and \(P\). A mixture of Alpha and Beta is prepared in which the ratio of \(N, P\) and \(K\) is \(26%\), \(68%\) and \(6%\). The ratio of \(N, P, K\) in Alpha is \(20%\), \(70%\) and \(10%\). What is the ratio of \(N\) and \(P\) in Beta?
- CMAT - 2025
- Mixtures & Alligations
- \(20\) girls, among whom are \(A\) and \(B\) sit down at a round table. The probability that there are \(4\) girls between \(A\) and \(B\) is
- CMAT - 2025
- Permutations and Combinations
- Financial Institutions are not merely transactional entities but key architects of economic progress. Their roles also span in
(A) Capital formation
(B) Risk management
(C) Inclusive finance
(D) Arbitration
(E) Consultation in project report preparation to intern during their internship program.
Choose the correct answer from the options given below :- CMAT - 2025
- Financial Markets
- Equal amounts of each \(₹ 1,000\) is lent to two persons for \(3\) years one @ \(30%\) simple interest and second at \(30%\) compound interest annually. By how much percent is the compound interest greater than the simple interest received in this \(3\) years duration.
- CMAT - 2025
- SI & CI
- If \(x^2 = y + z, y^2 = z + x\) and \(z^2 = x + y\) then the value of \(\frac{1}{x+1} + \frac{1}{y+1} + \frac{1}{z+1}\) is
- CMAT - 2025
- Algebra