Doing the ultimate public good through Teacher Education

It is argued here that the many public goods associated with education are derivatives of an ultimate good. This ultimate good is the overall purpose of life in general and is similar to a telos as understood in ancient Greek culture. This paper reviews the notions of ‘good' and telos, and examines implications of Bauman’s analysis of our present individualizing era, the role of personal meaning making and the nature of education. It is then argued that preservice teachers can do the ultimate public good in a postmodern society, by articulating a developed personal, professional perspective that expresses a purpose (telos) of life. This is not an idle esoteric project. Dewey (1958, p. 383) reported that “the greater part of life” will remain in darkness unless illuminated “by thoughtful inquiry”. It is argued in this paper that such an illumination into the greater part of life can be made possible by the articulation of a telos. This perspective provides the basis for all other goods which teachers decide to do. This project accords well with a recent UNESCO report which calls for such a perspective, and its importance is clearly indicated in its claim that “It is no exaggeration on the Commission’s part to say that the survival of humanity depends thereon” (Delors, 1998, p. 18). The ultimate public good Aristotle indicated that ‘good’ could be considered as belonging to three categories. These were the external, the body and the soul, and with reference to the latter he claimed that “those belonging to the soul we call most properly and specially good” (trans. Chase, 1911, p. 13, my emphasis). This soul is described by Aristotle as having both irrational and rational attributes. The irrational includes the appetites and desires, and the rational consists of intellectual and moral attributes. His notion of good then, involves our desires being tempered with intellectual and moral reasoning. Aristotle’s virtues were expressions of good character, which enabled people to live a life of excellence (aretê) and happiness (eudaimonia). Aristotle developed his notion of special goodness that pertained to this soul, and conceptualised it as a Chief Good. This represented “that which all things aim at” (trans. Chase, 1911, p. 1, my emphasis). This Chief Good, being the main thing aimed at, the end purpose or telos for humankind, was understood from the perspective of the community rather than that of the individual. What was ‘good’ for Aristotle is often contrasted with other notions of good, such as found in the Christian New Testament. In contradistinction to Aristotle’s virtues which included wealth, strength and courage, Christian theology promotes notions of weakness, poverty and humility. Nietzsche made great issue with this difference. He argued that the conception of ‘good’ was subject to the worldviews of various interest groups. Nietzsche was against any notion of a grand teleology existing for humankind and through Zarathustra claimed, “A thousand goals have there been so far... the one goal is lacking. Humanity still has no goal” (Nietzsche, 1954, p. 60). Zarathustra observed that only humankind could create a meaning