S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 5 - 2 Fa l l 2 0 1 9 2 1 Moral character education respecting dignity and unobjectification of a pupil is principally dialogical. It is highly demanding on character and pedagogical approach of the teacher. According to Martin Buber, “the mission of an educator” contains three presuppositions of education: 1. humility – awareness of the fact that the teacher is only one of several elements that influence formation of a pupil’s character; 2. responsibility– the will to impact the entire personality of a pupil, particularly by the example of being that the teacher represents themselves; 3. trust – the only authentic path to a pupil that enables to educate their character to complexity (Buber 2016, 67). A pupil needs to accept the educator as a person whom they can trust, who does not handle with them and teaches them to ask questions. Martin Buber believes that an effective teacher does not dictate answers but creates a space for an “educational encounter”. “His look encounters a face that captures his attention. It is not pretty, nor particularly intelligent, however, it is a real face, or rather a chaos that gives rise to cosmos of the real face and he reads a question from it: Who are you? Do you know something that relates to me? Do you bring something? What do you bring?” (Buber 2016, 80). The task of an educator is not limited to the system of maxims, nor the system of habits that they teach pupils, but it resides in the ability to react “wisely” to a unique situation among unique persons. This “wisdom” was called fronesis by the Greeks. Pedagogical fronesis may not be closed to a system of principles, rules or transcendental deductions, it cannot be narrowed to “brightness” of a calculating reason. Practical wisdom of a teacher, in an “encounter with the Other” (erzieherische Begegnung) touches the sacred, the ungraspable, the transcendental. 6 Conclusion The submitted study is aimed at analysis of basic ethical and moral-educational discourses indicated in Kantian philosophical and psychological-pedagogical terminology as heteronomous and autonomous, while the criterion of examination of the relationship between morality and transcendence was applied. The grammatical structure of “three persons” was used as a methodological aid, which, as I discovered while studying texts, responds to Ricoeur’s triad of key words: describe, prescribe and narrate (Ricoeur 2016, 346). My original thesis on inappropriate reduction of moral models to the dichotomy of the “first-person ethics” and the “third-person ethics” was proved. If we sticked to these two models, we would be imprisoned in moral immanentism, and also, we would deprive the complex moral praxis of man of its funding dimension, which is the relationship to the appealing transcendence of the other Thou. The model of moral education the core of which is cultivation of the relationship to the Other in the context of a community appears to respond the best to the requirement of a holistic and multidimensional formation of character. Counter to monological ethics of the “first person” and the “third person”, dialogical ethics of the “second person” emerges and integrates and includes both previous ones, however, in an appropriate functional structure (cf. Maritain 1943, 88; Ricoeur 2016, 321– 322; Krámsky 2015, 148-149; Brestovanský 2019, 206 and others). The integral approach to man and their education enables to maintain respect to transcendence and vice versa, openness to transcendence secures conditions for a holistic formation of man. AnDREJ RAJSKý
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=