I. Overview of this book

When I first started reading Emily, there was always an impulse-I couldn't wait to draw everything about the specific educational content. The nature education it preaches is so in line with the nature of nature! But the more you row, the more you feel that something is wrong. When I finished reading the first volume, I found myself increasingly refuting his education of the Amir. Even when I read the next volume, I found that Rousseau had been interfering with Emile, not guiding him.

I also have some questions about his educational goals:

The education he gave Emily was not aimed at everyone, because "the poor don't need any education, and the education in his environment is compulsory, so he can't get any other education." The Commercial Press, Edition 32 His student Emil must come from a temperate land with a rich family, but he is an orphan and only obeys "I", and no one can separate them. I don't understand. Why did he make Emily an orphan? Isn't it important for a father to love a mother? If he can't have parents, he might as well go to the orphanage and bring one back to teach! Who is rich, or who is willing to let his children only listen to others?

He said Emily was an ordinary person and he wanted to teach an ordinary child. In this way, people can compare the differences between the children he taught and those taught in other ways in society. In my opinion, Emily's ordinary is ordinary in a sense. Since the purpose of his education is to cultivate a new bourgeoisie, his education is bound to have certain class limitations. Needless to say here.

He advocates that the educational environment is in the countryside. The fresh air in the countryside, the simple people and being close to nature are all favorable conditions for implementing education, indeed. However, there will be some disadvantages in the countryside, such as ignorance, but this is much better than the filth and chaos of French cities at that time.

The framework of this book is roughly as follows:

The first volume focuses on how to carry out physical education for infants before the age of two, so that children can develop naturally. At this time, it is mainly to let the baby get the most suitable care and nutrition.

In the second book, children between the ages of two and twelve are still asleep and lack thinking ability, so they advocate sensory education for children in this period, including vision, touch, hearing, smell and exercise, so as to standardize their food, clothing, housing and transportation. At this time, physical exercise is still very important. At this time, it is purely passive education. He did not advocate that Emile should contact books in this period, even to the point where Emile was twelve years old and didn't know what books were.

In the third volume, he thinks that teenagers aged from 12 to 15 have had some experience through sensory perception, so he mainly discusses their intellectual education. During this period, we should cultivate their curiosity and the habit of paying attention to one thing for a long time. And don't teach all kinds of knowledge in advance, because he doesn't advocate cultivating child prodigies. There is a book that must be read-Robinson Crusoe, a book about survival education. In the meantime, Emily is also required to master a technology so that she will not lose her wealth, stand on her own feet and get no respect.

In the fourth volume, he thinks that young people aged 15 to 20 are beginning to enter the society, so he mainly discusses their moral education. Self-love, love, fraternity, sympathy, honesty, kindness, kindness, religious understanding and choice. Here, although he advocates natural religion, I doubt it. Why must we be religious? As long as the truth is in your heart, isn't it enough?

In the fifth volume, he thinks that Young Men and Women mainly discusses the education of women and the love education of young men and women because of the needs of natural development. I don't think Rousseau himself has figured out the problem of love education. His sermon to Emile seemed ridiculous to me. Rousseau himself didn't know whether it was sentimental or promiscuous. Anyway, I don't think he is qualified to preach in education. And women's education, in his time, is not necessarily in line with the times, it is simply modern discrimination against women.

Rousseau's idea of phased education according to age characteristics is a great progress in the history of education, but this method of phased education and the separation of physical education, intellectual education and moral education are not suitable for modern times. This is also contrary to a person's life, because the educational environment can't be carried out in an absolute vacuum, and Emil is bound to be influenced by various external influences. He can't be exposed to pure education at the same time.

If Plato's Republic is an absolute idealization of the country, Rousseau's Emile is an absolute idealization of education.

And after the education is completed, can Emile finally adhere to Rousseau's education?

What does Rousseau want to express in the appendix-Emile and Sophie, or lonely people? In order to show his role in Emile's education, Sophie deliberately betrayed him to show Emile's ability to think independently? The ability to use the skills you have learned to support yourself without any money? Or the wit and courage after being captured by pirates on the voyage and sold into slavery? In other words, no matter what kind of education people have received, Emil performs best when facing the inevitable tragedy of life. Unfortunately, he didn't finish his appendix. After the completion of education, Rousseau should be most satisfied with the result of his natural education.

Second, something worth thinking about.

In Rousseau's educational thought, I found some interesting topics:

1. Is it necessary to be a baby, and how to treat a child who has been "slaughtered"? It should conform to the child's natural development and should not be tied to it. Let it move freely.

2. How to treat children's crying? You can't let him finally get into the habit of crying and ordering you to do things. It is easy to develop children's waywardness from infancy.

"When the baby silently reaches for something, because he can't estimate the distance between him and what he wants to get, he thinks he can get it, and his idea is of course wrong; However, when he reached out while crying, it wasn't that he made a mistake in the distance, but that he was ordering that thing into his hand, or that you should give it to him. In the former case, you should take him to the place he wants step by step; In the second case, not only do you pretend not to hear, but the more he cries, the more you ignore him. It must be early for him to get into the habit of not bossing people around. " On page 55, I think Rousseau is too cruel. Do you have to torture him so young? Even when you grow up, you can get rid of the habit of giving orders to people.

3. What should I do when I give something to my child? If you are going to give, you should give happily. Don't wait for him to make any conditions or beg you, but you should definitely refuse and not give. Once he refuses, he can't change it, otherwise he won't give up.

4. Educational opportunities. This is a profound knowledge, and perhaps it is more appropriate to apply Confucius' education "Don't be angry, don't be angry, don't be unhappy". But teachers should create an environment for students to think.

5. Do you want to explain your child's curiosity as soon as possible or take some small things to perfunctory? For example, a child often asks: Where does the child come from? At this time, you can answer without lying or embarrassment. It doesn't matter if the metaphor is rough, as long as the truth is clear. However, the mother's answer in the book has hidden concerns. If the child comes out, the child will ask why some people can't come out. Hehe, children like to get to the bottom of it. I think you can refuse to tell him such a question first, let him know that his mother wrote it down for him first, and then tell him the reason when he can know it.

6. Gender equality. This is also a big problem. What's hateful is that Rousseau actually thinks that men and women should perform their respective duties, which reminds me of the times when men ruled outside and women ruled inside in feudal society. Although he has a good reason to say that this is caused by the difference between men and women on the physiological basis, he can't think that women are so inferior to men! In women's education, I always think Rousseau is a villain. Fortunately, modern education is equal to men and women, so I won't go into details.