15315-wolbert

Chapter 6 86 6.1 C ONCLUSIONS PER CHAPTER The purpose of this dissertation is to critically investigate contemporary educational theories that propose human flourishing as an ideal, overarching aim of education. The central question of this dissertation is how should we think about human flourishing as an ideal aim of education? The main question is reflected in four subquestions, each answered in one of the chapters. I will first give concise conclusions per chapter, before I will answer the main question. I end by a reflection upon the possible implications of this answer. In chapter 2 I analysed the concept of human flourishing and suggested that human flourishing (1) is regarded as something that is intrinsically worthwhile; (2) refers to the actualisation of an agent’s potential; (2a) is always about a whole life; (2b) is what we’ve called a ‘dynamic state’; and (2c) necessarily refers (also) to objective goods, in the sense that there are human capacities that are objectively good for a person as well as certain external goods people need in order to live well. These criteria can be used to distinguish flourishing from a hedonic interpretation of ‘well-being’ or ‘happiness’. They also make clear that human flourishing is characterised by ongoing development, striving and effort to sustain it. The way in which human flourishing is described in this chapter, and the importance that is given to ‘actualising the potential’ of children, refers to a widely shared intuition that children have to ‘make something out of their life’. As mentioned in the introduction, Kristjánsson argues that the current flourishing paradigm is characterised by a ‘strength-based approach’, which emphasises furthering students’ talents and helping them actualise their potential. 1 This seems to refer to the same focus on (individual) human effort. The question is whether we have to think about human flourishing in this way, and whether we should. Chapter 2 argued that it is important for both educators and children to aim high, in the sense that these aims are difficult or even impossible to realise. At the same time, it was made clear that setting such aims does not mean that human beings do not flourish until their lives are perfect; flourishing is a matter of degree and it is important to bear in mind the difference between a (regulative) ideal and what one may expect someone to be able to realise given this person’s capacities and circumstances. However, it is one thing to set high aims and be aware of the ‘gap’ between the ideal and the real world, it is another question whether the content of such a high (or even perfect) aim must emphasise the effort-side, as opposed to the luck-side. There seems to be an implicit assumption in the ‘strength based approach’ that setting high aims implies setting demanding aims (demanding 1 Kristjánsson 2017, p. 88.