Marijan Petras: filozof odgoja, filozof kulture i filozof tehnike
Marijan Petras: Philosopher of Education, Philosopher of Culture, and Philosopher of Technology

Summary/Abstract: Besides on logic and aesthetics, the opus of the Croatian philosopher Marijan Petras (1912–2004) contains his records on education, culture, and technology. Petras expressed his thoughts on the three disciplines in the following six articles: “Funkcija uzgajanja u aspektu teorije i prakse” (“Function of Education in the Aspect of Theory and Practice”) from 1936, “Kultura i odgoj” (“Culture and Education”) from 1940, “Filozofija u srednjoj školi” (“Philosophy in High School”) from 1941/1942, “Problematika pedagogičke psihologije” (“Problems of Pedagogical Psychology”) from 1943, “Gradivo i oblici odgojne nastave” (“Teaching Materials and Forms of Educational Teaching”) from 1944, and “Odgoj i tehnika” (“Education and Technology”) from 1962. All of the abovementioned articles contain Petras’ claims on education. The claims were regularly characterized by his pursuit of the essence of education, by his pursuit of the essence of the educational function, as well as by his phenomenological questioning of the foundations of pedagogy as an autonomous science. Petras expressed his attitudes on culture in three articles: in the article “Culture and Education”, in the article “Function of Education in the Aspect of Theory and Practice”, and in the article “Education and Technology”. In these articles, Petras considered culture in its relationship towards education, technology and philosophy, concluding that philosophy is crucial for the foundation of culture. Petras published his thoughts on technology in the article “Education and Technology”. In that article, he wrote on both positive and negative effects of technology on the individual, the society, and nature. In doing so, Petras considered those effects from an ethical and educational perspective, since he advocated an approach to technology which would be more humane. Therefore, Petras was neither just a logician nor an aesthetician. Judging by the contents and the character of his attitudes regarding education, culture and technology, it is justified to conclude that he was a philosopher of education, philosopher of culture and philosopher of technology.

• Details
• Contents