As true enlighteners of the people Rousseau and Diderot aimed for the spread of enlightenment, the destruction of ignorance and darkness among the popular masses. They were keenly interested in questions of education and training of the rising of the generation.
Emile is a text book by Rousseau, which has been said to be a compromise between an educational treatise and a novel. It is concerned with the education of the individual; in this case it’s a story book that tells the story of the education of a young rich boy called Emile.
As the work progresses, the text book aspect fades away and the fictional element or Emile’s story becomes stronger, development derives from the subject itself.
In his book, Rousseau introduces an educational theory which he applies on Emile.
He claims that early childhood is fairly representative as in it doesn’t vary from one child to another. When the child grows up they become separate individuals with an individual history, that’s why we find quasi-fictional elements in the story.
Rousseau suggests that education is not all a matter of theory, but largely a practical business “malgr( tout d'(crits qui n’ont, dit-on, pour but que l’utilit( publique, la premi(re de toutes les utilit(s, qui est l’art de former des homes, est encore oubli(e” and to be practical Rousseau says you have to describe an individual story.
Rousseau moreover defended himself against the accusation that his special method is not applicable to everyone, everywhere and that it is of limited value. However, there is some truth in the accusation. By stacking facts in his form, i.e. by providing Emile with all the characteristics he has given him, it will allow the general theory to be expanded under formable conditions. But this doesn’t mean the educational principles that Rousseau lays down in the book are not adaptable to other particular cases one should make a distinction between general principles involved and the method in all its detail. Rousseau is only saying that these principles are workable and can be applied if they are adaptable according to the situation of the child involved.
A major criticism of this is that Emile has the advantage of having a tutor, a preceptor and since this isn’t available to all children considering that not all parents have high incomes to provide their children with tutors, then the whole book is thus of no value.
In the preface Rousseau touches on this issue, and makes an appeal to parents “P(res et m(res, ce qui est faisable est ce que vous voulez” this shows that Rousseau would have been staggered at the idea that all children should have a tutor, even if it happens that Emile does have one. The fact is that in this case Emile is an orphan. However if parents exist then it is they who should educate their children
Furthermore to this line of criticism towards Rousseau’s book is that Emile is a young rich boy and that therefore the book doesn’t apply to the children of the poor members of the community, or to how they are educated. But the fact that Emile is rich doesn’t mean that the essence of Rousseau’s educational theory is aristocratic or elitist. On the contrary, as Emile (as seen in the book) is taught how to earn his own living, even if he is bought up as a scrounging aristocrat living off the work of others.
Other criticisms that have been applied by educationists are questions such as; can the principles of education in Emile be applied to the class room, now that education is neither really a matter for parents or for private tutors? For the avant-garde section of the teaching body in France, Emile is considered as “le br(vieu de l’instituteur” since it incorporates, (especially of what we now call the primary school) an idea of children which is wholly modern in outlook.
The classroom question is also associated with another criticism: normally that within the context of this particular case Emile (the child) is supposed to be bought in isolation from others; however it could also be said that nonetheless, he has a lot of human contact in his education. As a matter of fact these points of contact are experiences that play an important role in Emile’s education. The only reason isolation was used was to make sure that Emile is protected against undesirable influences.
What Rousseau has done in Emile, is envisaging education as a possible factor in the much needed improvement of man. The driving force behind the work is that while society goes to the days, the individual at last may be reclaimed. Emile as the individual is going to become the social equivalent to the happy and healthy man of nature. The reason social equivalent is used here is because the “natural” man of the primitive states is not the same as the “natural” man in modern society. That is to say that what Rousseau is trying to have in his educational treatise, is not a return to what has been lost, but achievement of the equivalent of what has been lost. Therefore Emile is very important to Rousseau, as through out the book; he expresses his anxiety about the present state of man and his future.
Rousseau’s aim , in Emile like in other texts, is to show that vice is not inherent in man but, that it is the product of false ideas and wrapped human institutions ” Dans l'(tat o( sont d(sormais les choses, un homme abandonn( d(s sa naissance ( lui-m(me parmis les autres serait le plus d(figur( de tous. Les pr(jug(s, l’autorit(, la necessit(, l’example, toutes les institutions socials dans lesquelles nous nous trouvons submerg(s, (tonfferaient en lui la nature, et ne mettaient rien ( leur place”. Evil therefore must be prevented from striking root in the good nature of the child.
In Emile Rousseau claims that the child is completely innocent, and helpless in the world of bigger, stronger grown ups. He suggests that the child shouldn’t be forced to learn and that any teaching of the sort is a pedagogic failure and disaster. Instead he proposes that education should be a labour of love.
The basic plan on which Emile is constructed is, what is in modern educational psychology is called the Psycho-Genetic principle.
According to this principle, education is to follow and to keep pace with the development of the mind, neither lagging behind mental development nor jumping ahead of it. Rousseau had such ideas from the “Sensationalist” philosophy of the thinker Condillac.
Condillac Claimed that all mental processes could be analysed into their consistent parts consisting of basic units of sensation. He showed this using the famous image of a statue which was given new senses such as smell, taste etc. gradually one by one as if to construct the world of normal human beings bit by bit. However Condillac’s psychology is no psychology at all, it is only really rationalism applied to the human mind, and it could be said that because Rousseau adapted C’s account of development of our faculties, that his notions of human development seems too simple today.
Following Condillac’s theory, Rousseau isolated 4 main phases of development. In the first the senses are developed, the second sees the development of the imagination, the third that of sensibility and finally there is the phase in which reason is developed. These seem to be all clear and neatly cut for our complex ideas of development, however the basic principle of phasing does remain with us in educational theory and practice.
In Emile, Rousseau’s sets out the different stages of the child’s life( infancy-3 years, 12-15, 15-20, and manhood from 20 onwards) His point in doing this is to show that nothing in the child’s education is to be introduced prematurely, or before the child is ready for it, otherwise it will, in Rousseau’s opinion, inevitably lead to disaster. This is particularly true at the early stages where no formal teaching using language should be permitted. If this was to happen according to Rousseau, it would lead to a disastrous verbalism, which the child couldn’t possibly understand and through which all sorts of misunderstanding will arise. Again and again Rousseau stresses that it is things, rather than words which are necessary in education, especially at what we now call the primary stages.
Following Condillac’s study of the gradual acquisition of the different faculties we posses, Rousseau, in book 2 of Emile, came to the conclusion that reason is the last faculty that develops in human beings. So Rousseau, the educationist came to the conclusion that reason with children is useless as a pedagogical method. He also argues that as a result of reason not having developed, we cannot inculcate any moral principles in our children as they will not be able to take in these principles. He refused to accept contradicting theories and claimed that they were arguments of adults who are deluding themselves.
Rousseau looked at those arguments and responded to them. He claimed that you cannot teach children under the age of 12 the concept of charity since they haven’t come to that moral age. And here, Rousseau emphasises that it is in this sort of inculcation of principles that education has gone wrong. He claims moreover, that too often pressure is used against the child for example parents saying to their child “if you do this then you’ll receive a reward”. This to Rousseau is wrong s it never gives the child a sense of what is right and what is wrong. In this way the parents are merely teaching the child to associate what they do with the reward or punishment they will get as with Pavlov’s dogs1.
Instead Rousseau suggested the use of moral tales; however, he claimed that they could be a misguided pedagogical device since they require an intellectual appreciation which the children aren’t capable of. Rousseau speaks about this in book 2 of Emile “On fait apprendre les faibles dela fontaine ( tous des enfants, il n’ya en a pas un seul qui les entendu”. However he wasn’t totally gainst stories, in fact he does recommend reading at a later stage in book 2 but nevertheless he stresses the importance of it being at the right stage of the child’s life “La lecture est le fl(au de l’enfance et Presque la seule occupation qu’on lui sait donner. A peine ( douze ans Emile saura-t-il ce que c’est qu’un livre. Mais il faut bien, au moins dira-t-on qu’il sache lire. J’en conviens: il faut qu’il sache lire quand la lecture est utile”
Rousseau further more claimed that the child at such an early age does not have a sense of obligation; the child is a moral notion. Hence his criticisms of those parents who make children promise to do something and if the children decline then they get punished. Rousseau claimed that the reason why children do not have a sense of obligation is because they are living a continual present, they do not remember events of the past and do not envisage the future. If they were able to do such things then they would be fully-fledged rational, conscious adults. Rousseau stated that one as an educator should teach a child with out going in to lengthy explanations as to why, since they would be over the head of the child who hasn’t reached this stage of understanding.
Nonetheless Rousseau does explain that this does not mean that the educator should paly the role of a dictator in teaching. It is necessary to safe guard the child’s sense of freedom even if it was something of an illusion. He claimed that any idea of coercion is ruled out as being fruitless as well as on humanitarian grounds “On ne doit rien exiger des enfants pour ob(issance”. Terrorising and discouraging the child will not allow it to learn and so force renders nonsense in education.
Nevertheless, Rousseau recommends three alternative principles that the educator can use instead of force. The first is giving the child total freedom to do things that are not bad themselves and which will not be of harm to it.
The second involves making use of the child’s awareness of its immediate interests as they would be the ones to encourage the child to learn “Les enfants ne peuvent rien apprendre don’t ils ne sentent l’avantage actuel et present, soit d’agr(ment, soit d’utilit(; autrement quel motif le porterait ( l’apprendre?”
One of the examples Rousseau uses to explain this is the window breaking example. He states that one could keep a child from breaking a window by allowing it to experience the consequences of breaking the window. The child will realise that breaking the window will deprive it of having the convenience of the panes of glass which keeps the cold out during the winter. Thus the child learns something through its senses: “Comme tout ce qui entre dans l’entendment human y vient parle sens, la premi(re raison del’homee est une raison sensitive; c’est elle qui s’est de base ala raison intellectuelle” That is to say that the child will behave properly as a result of temporary, physical reasons, which become discarded at a later stage for more profound and intellectual reasons. It is enough however that the child respects the property of others (in this case the windows) through personal experience as it will not understand the concept of people’s property rights at this age.
The third principle is directly related to the second. The principle of necessity, as suggested by Rousseau, indicates that the child will accept restrictions on its liberty if these restrictions are the consequences of natural laws that is, if they necessarily derive from nature itself. In other words, the sanctions imposed on the child shouldn’t seem arbitrary decisions of the grown up but rather they should appear to be consequences of the child’s own acts.
From here we start noticing the emphasis of the value of things that Rousseau has made and continues to make through out the book. Through teaching the child to value something through its own experience.
Rousseau points out that up to the age of 12 the child shouldn’t be subject to any formal learning i.e. learning by heart and/or book learning. For instance book learning wouldn’t allow the child to form its own opinions but instead the child would take the opinions of others. This would lead to disastrous verbalism as the child would be thinking in terms of images and things rather than in terms of words, “Nos premi(re ma(tus de philosophie sont nos pieds, nos mains, nos yeux. Subtituer de livres ( tout cela, c’est ne pas nous apprendre ( raisonner, c’est nous apprendre ( nous savoir de la raison d’autrui; c’est nous apprendre ( beaucoup croire, et ( ne jamais rien savoir”. Rousseau called this early age “l’education negative ou inactive”. He claimed it is negative as it involves 2 “non point ( enseigner la vertu ni la v(rit(, mais ( garantir la coeur du vice et l’esprit de l’erreur” and inactive because “si pouviez ne rien faire et ne rien laiser faire…vous auriez fait un prodige l’education”
“La le(on des choses” or the object lessons are what Rousseau claimed should be used in this kind of education. The child would be within its own natural surroundings and not a classroom or a study. Thus the objects selected would be from this surrounding which the child can feel for itself, “il faut montrer l’objet m(me”.
Rousseau goes on to suggest that Emile’s desire to learn should be stimulated by the educator whom none the less shouldn’t force the stimulation so that the child can form its own opinions and personality.
Many arguments have been put forward against this method of teaching. It has been said that infancy is the best time for teaching a child the virtue of application and so, Rousseau’s throwing away the child’s use of memory at this early age might not be justified. Moreover Rousseau’s method might prevent a child from having serious study or from performing a task at a later stage.
Another criticism that has been put forward is the fact that Emile’s education is organised by the educator up to the age of 12. If Emile was to find out that his education was some kind of an act, then Rousseau’s thesis would lack support. An example of this is seen in book 3 where Emile is introduced to a juggler accidentally. The fact was that the meeting was set up by Rousseau (who turns out to be the juggler) himself (as his educator) on purpose. The aim of this encounter was to teach Emile morality and the principles of magnetism. We see that Emile is the subject of a plot rather than the object of care and attention of his educator, who is conspiring with others to expose Emile to the right sort of things.
As seen in book 3 of Emile, Rousseau gives Emile his first book at the pre-adolescent phase (12-15 years), which turns out to be Robinson Cruiso. This is seen as an excellent example of self reliance and independence, however, Emile might have thought that knowledge is justified by its immediate usefulness and if its usefulness isn’t apparent it will be rejected. But Rousseau does indicate that Emile will soon get over this utilitarian phase of his education.
It is in book 4 that Rousseau deals with the fourth phase or the adolescent phase. In this phase Emile learns how to become aware of people as separate individuals. Also Rousseau introduces the idea of beauty and religion and expresses his views that religious studies should be suspended until the adolescent stage or the age of 16.
The last phase in Emile’s education involves the study of history and the social life of the capital i.e. Paris. Furthermore Emile is also introduced to sexual education which can no longer be postponed.
Rousseau believed that sexual instincts can only be satisfied in love and marriage we see that he is more traditional and differs a great deal from the more adventurous Diderot. Rousseau arranges for Emile to meet with his friend (in the wings) Sophie, whom he sees as a suitable companion for Emile. Later on we come across Rousseau’s views on female education. He believed that women’s education takes place merely in terms of man’s needs that is to care for him in household terms, and to bring up his children.
In the course of Emile and Sophie’s meetings we see that Rousseau finds it hard to leave them alone and he displays some sort of possessiveness. This could have been as a result of Rousseau’s fear of any possible impurity.
Diderot however had different views on education than Rousseau did. Diderot believed that the physiological organisation of man decisively influences his intellectual abilities and activities. He didn’t deny the importance of education, but he gave it a more modest role than did other philosophers. He believed that education cannot modify the innate capacities and dispositions what determine general intellectual development. He claimed that the role of education involves supplying man with knowledge which is seen a synonymous with power. Furthermore, he stated that education if properly conducted could improve morals, and even help in eliminating the division of mankind into rich and poor. Diderot did not consider education to be all powerful in moulding the human being; he saw it rather as the means by which natural talents could be developed and evil impulses repressed.
According to an article by A.F Shishkin, Diderot was a genuine revolutionary in the field of pedagogy2. Shishkin compared Diderot’s Plan d’une universit( pour le government de Russie3, with his R(futation suivi delouvrage d’Helv(tius intitul( l’homme4.
The main point of discussion between Diderot and Helv(tius that Shishkin draws upon is the role of education in human development. He claimed that the determination of the role of education is dependent upon the answer one gives to two preliminary questions: what influence does man’s physical organisation exert upon his intellectual activity and what are his innate abilities?
According to Helv(tius, all the normal men are born with 1) equal physical capacity to perceive sensations, which have the only source of ideas, and 2) the capacity to compare and combine sensations which is the foundation of judgment. Helv(tius goes on to claim that observable differences training of the sense organs i.e. the education play the decisive role in determining what a man becomes.
Diderot however disagreed with the view that men are born equally apt for all pursuits. He moreover objected that Helv(tius in his concern with the sense organ neglects the nervous system, especially the brain. Diderot claimed that the different physical organisations of men’s brains and sense organs are those which determine their different innate gifts. Therefore men can compare and combine sensations better than others and some have stronger memories than others. Diderot concludes that education, determines much, but not everything and that one should be careful no to claim too much on its behalf.
Diderot believed that the role of education is to allow men to develop their innate gifts of physical organisation. The primary task of a pedagogue is therefore discerning a child’s natural gifts.
It is also evident from Shishkin’s article that Diderot supported Marx’s view of the influence of the social structure upon man and the development of his talents.
Marx claimed that if man draws all his knowledge, sensations etc. from the sensible world and experience received from this world then it is necessary so to order the environment that man may know in it what is truly human, that he may become accustomed to training in himself the human qualities.
However Shishkin argued that Diderot’s concept of nature as the ground of differences in human talents is unacceptable from his Marxist view. He claimed that there’s a sense of fatalism about the manner in which “nature” limits in advance the possible results of education. Shishkin believed that the nature of man is embedded in the development of society and not abstract, eternal or unchangeable entity.
In his plan d’une universit( we see that Diderot had faith in the enlightenment and its beneficent moral effects. We also see a practical application of Diderot’s philosophy of education which he states in the R(futation d’Helv(tius.
Diderot suggested that education should be universal, free of charge, and obligatory on the primary level, with meals to be served in schools. He wanted to make education available for everyone and stressed that the poor would even value education more than the rich, and work harder at acquiring it.
Diderot grouped his subjects to be taught in successive classes according to their utility to man as well as according to their relationship among themselves. We see that the course of study Diderot recommended is heavily weighted at the side of mathematics, autonomy and astronomy, in the first five classes. The last three are to involve teaching the native language, “universal grammar” logic, ancient languages, and the fine arts. Diderot’s lack of emphasis on humanities is due to his belief that poetry and philosophy etc. are merely useful to those students who want to go further in their education. However Shishkin, argued against this view and he claimed that although it is true that the mathematical sciences must discipline the mind of the child, but alongside the task of disciplining, stand the tasks of forming it and training it for citizenship, the human sciences play a colossal role here.
Diderot’s view also contradicts with Rousseau’s view who in Emile claims that a child should not to learn languages at such an early age, as the child is not mature enough to tackle it. However Rousseau agrees that humanities should be delayed for the same reason that Diderot has given, which is that the child isn’t mature enough to tackle such subjects at an early age. This is the phase which Rousseau called “l’education negative ou inactive”
Moreover, Shishkin believed that it is necessary to consider the psychological situation of the child who might want to read interesting stories but is stuffed with mathematics instead. This contradicts Rousseau’s view who believes that any book reading at an early age would cause children to take the opinions of others and not form their own.
In order to understand the motives of Diderot’s curriculum, one should look at them from a historical point of view. We see that Diderot was attempting to combat the traditional scholasticism; he believed that sound mathematics training would install habits of clarity of reasoning and dissatisfaction with obscurities that would preserve young minds against scholastic modes of thought. Moreover, Diderot’s arrangement of the mathematical and natural sciences reflects to some degree the real relations holding among them. Thus mathematics must precede mechanics, which in turn must precede astronomy. Finally, Diderot was concerned with the utility of knowledge. He understood very well the role of the natural sciences in the development of technology and in the subordination of nature to man.
Diderot furthermore suggested the teaching of history in higher classes, but in reverse chronological order. He also recommended the teaching of drawing, perspective, and the elements of architecture as well as worldly skills such as music, dancing, horsemanship and swimming but, at an even later stage of the child’s life.
In his plan, Diderot also discussed the internal organisation of the school, its administration, class schedules, text books, rewards and punishments for students (which he believes, should be based on a formal explicit code that excludes corporal punishment. Also teachers should receive decent wages and be cared for in sickness and old age.
Much of Diderot’s ideas of education have been reflected in his book Le Neveu de Rameau, in which we find a sharp critique of education among the morally corrupt French upper class.
We find two contradicting views about education. One is of “Moi” and the other of “Lui”. The discussion starts when “Lui” mentions his belief that in France one doesn’t need to know the subject they are teaching. Here we find that “Moi” shares the same belief and in fact claims that one doesn’t need to know what they are learning either. “Moi” later admits to have taught maths and not having known any of it but he claims to have learned it through the teaching of others.
However we start to see “Moi” and “Lui’s” contradicting views when “Lui” asks about “Moi’s” daughter. “Moi” indicates that she is taught at home by her mother. This takes us back to Rousseau who believed that if children do have parents i.e. if they are not orphans like Emile, then it is they who should teach their children. Thereby we have a clear similarity of opinions between Diderot’s “Moi” and Rousseau.
“Moi” states that his daughter is eight years old whom to “Lui” should have started her musical education four years earlier. However “Moi” claims that music is a subject which takes up too much time and serves little purpose. He believed that he should teach her to reason properly “, which he also believed it to be something rare in men and even more rare in women, “A raisonner juste, si je puis; choses si peu commune parmi les homme et plus rare encore parmi les femmes”. This contradicts with Rousseau’s method of teaching which states that reason is to be taught at the last stage of the child’s education. It also shows that “Moi” is quite modern in his views towards women’s education unlike Rousseau who has more traditional views towards women as evident in book 4 of Emile.
However “Lui” believes that the child doesn’t have to be reasonable as long as she is pretty, amusing and attractive.
“Moi” believed that it is his duty, as the girl’s father, to teach her how to protect herself against the troubles of life. He claimed that by nature she was delicate and sensitive and those are not the right attributes that one should have when facing life’s difficulties “Puisque la nature a tï¿½ assez ingrate envers elle pour lui donner une organisation d(licate, avec une (me sensible, et l’exposer aux m(mes peines de la vie que si elle avait une organisation forte, et une Coeur de bronze, je lui apprendrai, si je puis, ( les supporter avec courage”. “Lui” nonetheless believes that the child should go through such difficulties like everybody else as long as she is pretty, amusing and attractive.
“Moi” did not see it as important to teach his daughter singing or dancing, which “Lui” considered as essential. In their place, “Moi” believed that the child should be taught grammar, literature, history, geography, a bit of drawing and a great deal of ethics.
We see that this a clear reflection of Diderot’s ideas of education stated earlier in the essay. The importance of the subjects is moreover indicated in the same way by “Moi” in Le Neveu de Rameau, as they were in le Plan d’une universit(.
“Lui” on the other hand considered such subjects as useless in their society and, even worse, he saw them as dangerous, “Combien il me serait facile de vous prouver l’inutilit( de toutes ces connaissances-l( dans un monde tel que le notre que dis-je, l’inutilit(, peut-(tre le danger”.
“Lui” furthermore claimed that if “Moi’s” daughter is to have teachers for those subjects, they wouldn’t know the subjects themselves. If they did, he claimed, they wouldn’t be teaching as they would still be studying those subjects.
When asked about his son, “Lui” indicates that he will not do anything about his education, such as train him at an early age. Instead he will leave him to develop naturally. “Lui” claimed that any training being continually at cross purposes with the natural bent of the paternal molecule, he would be torn between two opposing forces and walk all crooked down life’s road “Mais si la mol(cule voulait qu’il f(t un vaurien comme son p(re, les peines que j’aurais prises pour en faire un homme honn(te lui seraient tr(s nuisibles: l’education criosant sans cesse la pente de la mol(cule , il serait tir( comme par deux forces contraires, et marcherait tout de guingois, dans le chemin de la vie”.
He moreover, indicated that by leaving his son to develop naturally he is already watching him develop into a thief, a waster and a liar, or one could say that the son is becoming like that father.
This is entirely contradictory to Rousseau’s views towards the development of man. Rousseau (as seen before) believed that if a child is bought up away from life’s vices then it would grow up to be a happy and healthy man as he believed that vice is not something one is born with but one learns it from outside contact.
“Lui” furthermore stated that what is important to teach his son is how to get money. He says instead of stuffing the child’s mind with maxims that he would have to forget or else beg for bread, he would teach him how important money is and how one must appreciate it.
“Lui” also states that he wouldn’t give his child a Spartan education as that would be stupid to do especially in Paris. He believed that it is money which gives esteem and power even if one is not educated. However he also believed that a father must not give his child vices which will enrich him or eccentricities which will make him useful to the great. “Lui” wanted to give his son a sense of proportion, the art of doging, disgrace, dishonour the law, and he also believed that these are the dissonances in the social harmony that need skill in placing, leading it to resolving.
In conclusion we see that much of Emile, even today seems avant-garde, from the educational point of view, and its effects in the educational field has been incalculable.
Rousseau’s aim of education is to regenerate an through education he wanted to achieve the reformation of everyman in the fullest possible sense.
Likewise Diderot was considered to be a genuine revolutionary in pedagogy. He strongly believed in the power of enlightenment and wanted positive knowledge instead of the dead weight of scholasticism. However Diderot was criticised by shish kin for not having sufficient experience with children. In other words, he didn’t have enough experience to enable him to penetrate the mysteries of education and become a pedagogue.
There are clear differences, as well as similarities, between Rousseau and Diderot’s ideas of education. Rousseau is more traditional in his approach whereas Diderot is more modern and somewhat idealistic.
Nonetheless we see that, although they had different methods of achievement, the two philosophers had the same aim and this was the total regeneration of man through education.
1. Diderot. D; Le Neveu de Rameau; Folio Classique; (dition Gallimard, 1972.
2. Diderot.D; Rameau’s Nephew; Penguin Classics, first published 1966.
3. Harvey. S; Lecture notes on Emile.
4. Fellows.O, D. Guiragossian; Diderot Studies XV. P.224-230, 296-297, 381-387.
5. Rousseau. J. J; (mile ou l’Education. Les Classiques du Peuple Edition Sociales
6. Rousseau. J. J; Emile or on Education. Penguin Classics, 1991.
1 Pavlov was a physiologist interested in the process of digestion in dogs. His observations led to the study of what is now called classical (Pavlovian) conditioning, whereby a stimulus (such as a bell) which would not normally produce a particular response (such as salivation) will eventually do so by being paired repeatedly with another stimulus ( such as food) which does normally produce the response.
2 The article is called Denis Diderot’s theory of Education
3 this was written at the request of Catherine 2nd (1775-1776), but she had no real intention of implementing Diderot’s scheme for popular education of all degrees. Her desire was merely to increase her authority and prestige among the enlightened men of western Europe by the act of commissioning such a plan. The work remained in the Hermitage library until 1856 and was published in full by Ass(zat in 1875 in his edition of the Oevres compl(tes.4 Written, 1773-1774)