Hylemorphism and Education

In this article, I’d like to embark on the Aristotelian principle of hylemorphism to elucidate us on the problems encountered in the practices of Outcomes-based education.  Recent studies show some points of difference between lecture-based and outcomes-based education.  Whereas lecture-based education is centered on the content and the teacher who imparts the content, outcomes-based education is centered on the outcomes and the students who produce the outcomes.  In short, the former is teacher-centered and content-based, whereas the latter is student-centered and outcomes-based.  But, there is a misconception on how these types of methods in education are applied in the classroom settings.  Perhaps, some questions that need a thorough reflection and informed answers are as follows: (1) how much lessons we have to impart to our students; (2) how long do teachers spend in giving lectures; (3) what are outcomes; (4) how to assess students’ outcomes; and (5) how do we know that the outcomes of students cover the lessons that students should learn.  I’ll try to shed light on some of these problems using the theory of hylemorphism of Aristotle.

Grappling with a philosophical problem posed by his master Plato, Aristotle developed a metaphysical theory commonly known today as hylemorphism.  Hylemorphism is a belief which holds that every existing thing or object is a composite of matter and form.  Derived from two Greek words, hylo meaning matter and morphe meaning form, hylemorphism literally means a matter-form principle.  In metaphysical sense, not a thing could exist without this composition.  Neither matter nor form can exist by itself.  Matter is the passive principle; form is the active one.  Matter is eternal, not created.  Aristotle called it, “raw material” of the universe.  Form, on the other hand, exists in the mind of the Demiurge.  This active principle is imposed in the matter causing a thing or object to exist.  Thus, any object we see in this world is a composite of matter and form.

This matter-form principle doesn’t only apply in cosmology (the way we understand the material universe) but also to man’s reasoning.  Reasoning is one form of man’s mental activities.  The outcome of reasoning is what we call “argument.”  Argument is the main concern of Logic –the science of evaluating arguments.  Arguments have a form and content.  To determine the forms of arguments, one has to identify the parts of arguments like the premis/es and conclusion.  The premis/es are parts of the arguments that give rational support to the conclusion.  The conclusion is what is affirmed on the basis of the premis/es. 

There are two kinds of argument, namely: deductive and inductive.  Deductive argument is one whose conclusion is arrived at from its premises with absolute necessity.  By absolute necessity, I mean that the conclusion follows from its premises necessarily and absolutely.  In other words, the rational support given in the premises is enough or sufficient to claim the truth or falsity of the conclusion.  Sufficient reason guarantees the validity of a deductive argument.  It does not mean to gather all available evidences, but simply gather some pieces of evidence to make the argument impervious to doubt.  To put it simply, the argument will no longer be contested by other contradicting evidence, or the argument can no longer be defeated.  Inductive argument, on the other hand, is one whose conclusion is arrived at from its premises only with probability.  This sort of argument gives us only a probable conclusion.  By probability, I mean that the degree of truth or falsity of the conclusion varies according to the available pieces of evidence.  That’s why, an inductive argument can never be a valid one.  Only deductive arguments can be valid or invalid.

For Aristotle, there are forms of deductive arguments which can be valid or invalid.  Yet, it’s clear that the validity or invalidity of arguments does not guarantee the truth or falsity of the argument’s conclusion.  Or, the truth or falsity of the propositions in the arguments does not by itself determine the validity or invalidity of the argument.  It is possible that the argument is valid but all of its propositions are false, or the argument is invalid but all of its propositions are true.  But if the argument is valid and all of its propositions are true, that’s the time that we call this argument as “sound.”  A sound argument is valid in form and substantial in content.  It is similarly true in doing research.  To make the research paper “sound,” form and content should be present.  Valid format of a sound research paper includes the introduction, objectives, theoretical framework, methodology, presentation and analysis of results, and conclusion.  Its substance, on the other hand, refers to the comprehensiveness of the subject matter researched on.  The valid format asks the questions, “How the research is systematically done, what method used, how it is presented?”  The substance asks the question, “How comprehensive is the paper?”  The comprehensiveness of the paper means that the number of variables of the study known and met is sufficient to support the assumption in doing the study. Without these two elements, a research paper serves nothing good.

This is what I like to embark in my analysis of education.  One important component of education is to impart knowledge to students.  For Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher, education is a process of leading out students from ignorance to enlightenment.  In his allegory of the cave, Plato compared learners to prisoners chained in a cave for a long time.  Their hands and heads are chained too so that they only see in one direction –seeing merely the dark wall with silhouette of light coming from a torch hanged over their heads.  Once in a while images are flashed on the wall.  In their lifetime they see only these images or shadows flashed on the wall.  Eventually, they come to believe that shadows are real.  Plato may have exactly imagined the way modern people are watching programs or movies on TVs.  In consequence, these people identify objects shown on TVs and the real objects, not knowing that TV programs or movies are created by the creative mind of producers.  Even news programs are sometimes twisted to suit the taste of the management or the taste of the public.  For Plato, education is a way to make students realize what are essentials in life.  Of course, to look for the essentials in life is to escape from imprisonment.  To escape from imprisonment is like getting rid of those images or shadows constantly impinging our senses.  To get rid of those images or shadows is like piercing through the world of appearances and able to see what is real or the essentials. 

This Platonic project, however, is challenged by Richard Rorty, known Neo-Pragmatist in the US.

In Platonic context, what is essential in education is knowledge and the delivery of it.  In ancient times, when written materials were not yet in practice, knowledge is delivered to students by story-telling.  Jesus –the great teacher, delivered his message (or knowledge of the Kingdom of God) by story-telling.  He became great; the impact of his teaching is still reverberating until these times.  Sound pedagogy, I think, simply consists of a clear message –that is, the knowledge to impart is clear, and a clear method of imparting it.  It goes without saying that either method (lecture-based or outcomes-based) can be valid in form and substantial in content.  Neither is a good method nor a bad one.

In conclusion, it seems to me that our policy-makers are much concerned of what method will be employed in Philippine education.  Yet, they fail to realize that the knowledge to impart to students is also equally important.  Sound education should be valid in form (method) and substantial in content.