In the context of poststructuralist and postmodern philosophy, the concept of a decentered subject has always retained a powerful, deconstructive potential – tracing its conceptual history all the way back to Nietzsche and beyond. But are we not yet to realize its constructive potential, from an educational-philosophical point of view? In this paper, we attempt to reassess the potential of a decentered subject using a variety of resources – leaning for instance on notions from a Romantic philosophical tradition, as expressed by Schelling; on Jungian depth psychology; and on Rudolf Steiner’s writings on the central and peripheral self. In conclusion, we argue that a teacher may benefit from differentiating his/her understanding of decenteredness as well as from the ability to act out of a variety of psychic centers – of which the conscious ego is an important example, although not exclusively so. Also, we conclude that such attempts are likely to find success to the extent that they are grounded in the teacher’s ability to align him/herself to centers that are of a more spiritual nature; for instance as described by Jung’s writings on the nature of the Self archetype.

This paper explores the educational significance of the critique of representationalism. As it includes the notion of non-representational knowledge, Rudolf Steiner’s epistemology is introduced and further linked to elements in Bergson and Deleuze. Humboldt’s idea of Menschenbildung as the central function of knowledge is brought in, since both Humboldt and Steiner emphasise knowledge as mediating the interplay between self and world, producing a deeper sense of reality. Such an education must respect the living nature of genuine concepts as well as the aesthetic aspects of learning. After a note on the educational abuse of language in discursive closures, some traits of Steiner’s practical pedagogy are presented as possible practical implications.

It would be futile, John Dewey argued in 1902, to think that we have to choose between child-centered, progressive education and traditional, subject-matter-oriented approaches. Calling for adaptivity, he stressed that we need the act of balancing the one with the other. The tendency in current educational policy to lean in favor of traditional, disciplinary modes of control appears to lose sight of this need. The aim of this paper is to reconnect to the task of maintaining a balance between educational freedom and structure, using a variety of theoretical resources such as complexity science, and the philosophies of Deleuze and Guattari, Schiller, and Nietzsche. Based on these resources, the authors also discuss Steiner Waldorf education as an example of how educational practice may approach, and integrate the significance of chaos in the form of a “virtual pedagogy”.

This paper is a philosophical reflection on the historical development of ideas about the nature of human beings and what this development may mean for the future of and in education. In terms of the causal layered analysis developed by Sohail Inayatullah, it is an investigation on the levels of worldviews and archetypes. Ideas of human nature describe a trajectory from supranature (theological and mystical) via nature (philosophical and mechanical) to subnature (digital). With the development of psychological science about a century ago, so called psycho-utopian visions of a better society arose, based on the transformation of the human mind. Such visions seem today to have been replaced by digital utopias, based on the development of superfast computers and the enhancement of brain capacity through neural implants. The latter is a prominent feature of so called transhumanism. The transhumanist ideas of Ray Kurzweil are briefly presented and contrasted with traditional religious and spiritual ideas. Of special interest in this context is Rudolf Steiner’s philosophical–spiritual understanding of human being and development, which underpins Steiner Waldorf education. There is an existential choice confronting us today: whether to see humans as essentially spiritual beings, or as highly complex bio-computers. This choice has obvious ramifications for education as well as for the future of human being in general.

In these days of both national and international comparative studies of so called learning outcomes it seems important to raise the question of appropriate methods and methodologies for the assessment and evaluation of educational processes. Present evaluation methods seem to focus more and more on curriculum-as-product at the expense of curriculum-as-process. However, it is in the latter that more holistic qualities like social, moral and spiritual aspects of development and learning are likely to emerge, since such qualities are embedded in everything that teachers and students are doing. And, as MacGilchrist, Myers, and Reed (2004) point out, it is important that we assess what we value, rather than value what we can easily measure