The question I address in this paper is to what extent the prevailing description of educational reality that can be found in contemporary research, policy and practice can be considered complete. The motivation for asking this question stems from an educational paradox to which I refer as the Parks-Eichmann paradox. This paradox has to do with the fact that what appears as educational success from one perspective is problematic when viewed differently, whereas what appears as educational failure may actually reveal something that is of crucial importance educationally. The paradox thus leads to the suggestion that the prevailing description of educational reality – to which I will refer as the ‘paradigm’ of education as cultivation – is insufficient or incomplete. I use the work of John Dewey to highlight key characteristics and key shortcomings of this ‘paradigm’ and argue that it needs to be supplemented by what I will refer to as an existential educational ‘paradigm’. I highlight the distinction between the two paradigms through the question whether it is possible to educate ‘directly’ – an option which Dewey explicitly denies. I turn to the German notions of Bildung and Erziehung in order to explore to what extent they provide us with a set of concepts for articulating the distinction between the two educational paradigms. I will show that this is not as straightforward as it may seem, as there is no agreement about the exact definitions of the terms. However, having two terms rather than just the word ‘education’ is important in order to be able to make the distinction I am after, and here the terms Bildung and Erziehung are helpful. I conclude the paper with a brief sketch of the ‘existential work’ of education in order to outline what the existential paradigm implies for educational practice.

中文翻译：

---

可以将对教育现实的普遍描述认为是完整的吗？在帕克斯-艾希曼悖论上，远距离的怪异行为和教育理论中的缺失维度

我在本文中要解决的问题是，在当代研究，政策和实践中可以找到的对教育现实的主流描述在多大程度上可以被认为是完整的。提出这个问题的动机源于一个教育悖论，我称之为帕克斯-艾希曼悖论。这种悖论与以下事实有关：从不同的角度来看，从一个角度看作为教育成功的东西是有问题的，而作为教育失败的东西实际上可能揭示出在教育上至关重要的东西。因此，这种悖论导致了这样一种暗示，即对教育现实的普遍描述是不足或不完整的，我将其描述为教育作为修养的“范式”。我使用约翰·杜威（John Dewey）的作品强调了这种“范式”的关键特征和关键缺点，并认为需要以我将其称为存在的教育“范式”的方式加以补充。我通过质疑是否可以直接教育“杜威”明确否认这一选择这一问题来强调两种范式之间的区别。我转向德国的Bildung和Erziehung概念，以探讨它们在多大程度上为我们提供了一套概念，以阐明两种教育范式之间的区别。我将证明这并不像看起来那样简单，因为对术语的确切定义没有达成共识。但是，为了能够区分我所追求的，拥有两个术语而不只是“教育”一词很重要，这里的Bildung和Erziehung这两个词很有帮助。在本文的结尾，我简要概述了教育的“存在性工作”，以概述存在性范式对教育实践的含义。