15315-wolbert

Summary 109 of an agent’s potential; (2a) flourishing is always about a whole life; (2b) it is what we’ve called a ‘dynamic state’; and (2c) the concept of human flourishing implies a reference 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, for instance, to distinguish flourishing from ‘well-being’ or ‘happiness’. However, these criteria also make clear that human flourishing is characterised by ongoing development, striving and effort to sustain it, and as such emphasises the ‘effort-side’ of flourishing as opposed to the ‘luck-side’. There seems to be an implicit assumption in the ‘strength based paradigm’ that setting high aims implies demanding aims (demanding of an individual human being), but this doesn’t necessarily follow. Human flourishing can for example also be regarded as a high (as in: difficult or impossible to realise) aim, because one has to be incredibly lucky to achieve this dynamic state of being (for example with the family one is born in, or how healthy one is, etc.). Chapter 3 asked what kind of theory educational theory for flourishing should be. The chapter distinguishes between nonideal and ideal theory, and argues that, although mostly not explicated, current educational theory on flourishing is often ideal theory. It is characteristic of ideal theory to construe theory around the ideal, and to centralise the ideal as such, as opposed to nonideal theory, which constructs its theory around the actual situation. An example of ideal educational theory would be to theorise what the perfect classroom would look like, for instance a classroom filled with healthy, awake and motivated children, a dedicated teacher and challenging materials. With such a ‘picture perfect’ in mind, theorists as well as teachers can begin to reflect accordingly what it would require of teachers, the school and the pupils to create this perfect classroom. It is argued that an exclusive reliance on ideal theory when theorising education for flourishing is problematic, because (a) it is also important to know how to deal with the ideal when moving to the nonideal level; (b) ideal theory on education for flourishing makes (has to make) idealising assumptions about children’s lives and their chances of receiving good education which do not reflect reality; and (c) ideal theory is often formal and abstract, and therefore ‘unpopulated’, which raises the question in what sense this theory is applicable to real people. Therefore, to create a better balance, there is a need for nonideal theory on education for flourishing. Chapter 3 suggests two worthwhile ways in which this can be done; (1) prioritising theory on the improvement of basic needs (such as for example safety, health, good housing, etc.) over theorising the ideal education for flourishing, and/or (2) the less radical option of starting from the actual world in theorising what might be ideal. In the classroom example this would imply beginning with the daily practice in which many teachers are faced with children coming to school who haven’t had breakfast, whose