122 Chapter 3 that human dimension of personality that would guarantee a humane—in current terminology—pro-social use of all of the school acquired equipping, and it fails in spite of a significant (and more or less alternative) didactic arsenal. (Hábl, 2017, p. xvi) What Comenius offered in this respect, according to Hábl (2017), was a unique combination of ‘anthropological realism’ and ‘pedagogical optimism’ (p. xvii). Both differ substantially from the unfounded optimism that critics have distinguished in Comenius himself. They are connected to both an ontological and a moral dimension in Comenius’ approach to man. Ontologically, Comenius (1623/2021) perceived man as a good creation, noble, valuable and gifted with ‘innate dignity’ (as cited in Hábl, 2017, p. xvii). Morally, however, man is broken, fallen in sin and corrupt. ‘Or said other way, our humanity is fine, our humaneness, however, is depraved, as is evident by all the inhumane things a person is capable of doing’. Emphatically, Hábl (2017) avoided attributing to Comenius any anthropological optimism. In a pedagogical sense, however, optimism is justified and present in Comenius’ thinking. Hábl (2017) defined pedagogical optimism shortly as ‘the conviction that man is essentially educable, i.e., pedagogical effort scan shape the nature of man’ (p. xvii). Thus, pedagogical optimism is the opposite of pedagogical pessimism, which ‘does not believe it is possible for education to achieve substantial change’ (Hábl, 2017, p. xvii). The combination of the accent on ontological dignity and the accent on moral brokenness distinguishes Comenius’ view of man from rival views, such as those of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Comenius’ approach to the child can be considered unique because it does not solely depart from the good in man, as anthropological romanticism does, neither from manufacturability without ontological dignity, nor from ontological dignity without any chance of enhancement or renewal. The fact that Comenius, from a Calvinistic perspective, appeared to pay little attention to sin and brokenness was, according to Hábl (2017), the result of the development of his thinking during his lifetime. In the phase of his life in which the focus on the beauty of creation caused especially strong emotions in him, this accent was, in fact, less strongly present. It is true that at this time Comenius was focused more on the ontological beauty of humankind—there is moral decay here, but so far he wasn’t emphasizing it too much. For now he still hadn’t contrived a corrective plan, he was only leading his listeners/readers to contemplation and wonder. (Hábl, 2017, p. 14)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw