15315-wolbert

Chapter 3 43 Is theory on education for flourishing ideal theory? To conclude, we have seen that none of the discussed theories start from actual problems, in other words, from the nonideal world. On the contrary, in general the authors argue from a set of ideal theoretical conditions towards what this might imply for either a realistic or an actual educational practice. This Rawlsian ‘route’ that starts with and centralises the ideal situation, is our first and most important argument for the claim that current theory on education for flourishing should be considered a form of ideal theory. Second, we have seen that the discussed theories are not directly ‘action-guiding’ to the extent that nonideal theories would be. Third, all of the above examples make use of idealisations, and in some cases the theories have to rely upon external idealising assumptions, 59 which is characteristic of ideal theory. 60 Fourth, although real practices are being described, these are not central to the theory. In other words, the nonideal, actual world in some sense remains an ‘add-on’. We think therefore that the theories on education for flourishing as proposed by White, Brighouse, De Ruyter and Kristjánsson (even though he criticizes current theories for neglecting what he calls ‘adverse external circumstances’) 61 should be seen as forms of ideal theory analogous to realistic idealism . 62 3.4 P ROBLEMS WITH I DEAL T HEORY ON E DUCATION FOR F LOURISHING The (minimal) conditions deemed necessary for a flourishing life are for a large part what Kristjánsson calls ‘external necessities’; they lie outside an agent’s control. White acknowledges this in saying that one of the basic needs of a flourishing life is good luck. 63 It is of course possible to idealise these external necessities (e.g. good health, loving relationships, beauty, etc.), but in doing so, theorists have to ignore a whole lot of real and actual differences in ‘luck’ in education, and they do not answer in their theory on flourishing how teachers/parents should handle this. According to Kristjánsson 59 In the case of White 2011, and Reiss and White 2013. 60 See Mills 2005. 61 See Kristjánsson 2017, p. 94. Most theories on education for flourishing hark back to Aristotelian eudaimonia in one way or another, i.e. can be called Aristotelian or quasi-Aristotelian. Kristjánsson’s conception of flourishing is explicitly Aristotelian. We thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing to our attention that in Aristotelian theory it is unclear whether his theorising is ideal theorising or not, because Aristotle does emphasise that the world for most people is not ideal, whilst describing the virtues (needed for eudaimonia ) mostly in its most complete (i.e. ideal) way, as Kristjánsson does in the same manner in his 2016 article. It might therefore be partly due to Aristotle’s heritage that it is not clear in current theories on flourishing that they are in fact forms of ideal theory. Fully addressing the connection between Aristotelian theory and current theories would however require another article. 62 See Schmidtz 2016, p. 2. 63 White 2011.