E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

Possibilities of “Education” based on (through/aimed at) the
Concept of “Relationship”: Inquiry in terms of “Language”, “Care” and “Excellence”
Hiromi OZAKI
Toyo Eiwa University
Abstract
This study aims to explore the ramifications of ongoing debates concerning the essence of educationand the shift towards a learner-centric approach, using the concept of “relationship” as a guiding
framework. It acknowledges the transformative discussions within philosophy of education since the1990s, challenging conventional notions of education and advocating for a reevaluation rather thanoutright dismissal. In this paper, I delve into the idea of education as a process of human transformation,questioning traditional views on the educated person as the ultimate goal. It critically examines“language”, “care”, and “excellence” as key dimensions through which education can be reimagined.
“Language” is seen not only as a tool for communication but also as a vehicle for shaping educational
dynamics and discourse. “Care” is highlighted as a crucial aspect, urging a reconsideration of
dichotomies such as reason-emotion and universal-individual within educational evaluation. Similarly,
the concept of “excellence” is reconceptualized to emphasize empathy, understanding, andcollaborative knowledge-building rather than solely measurable achievements. This paper concludes
by advocating for productive discourse within educational philosophy to foster a more holistic andinclusive understanding of education as a means of human growth and societal advancement.
Key words: Educational aims, Relationship, Theory of “Care”, “Excellence” in education

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to examine the implications of the debate on themeanings of education and teaching-learning for human beings, using “relationship” asCorrespondence:
Hiromi OZAKI, Toyo Eiwa University. Email: ozaki.h@toyoeiwa.ac.jp

38

H. Ozakia perspective to restructure education. It is widely acknowledged that since the 1990s,
discussions on the philosophy of education have challenged the prevailing framework ofmodern education. These discussions have generated discourses that question the very
essence of education and the shift from teaching to learning. However, these debates do
not advocate the elimination of education or teaching; instead, they propose a rethinkingof our understanding of these concepts. Consequently, this paper aims to raise questions
from the perspectives of language, care, and excellence, rooted in relationships, to reenvision education (teaching-learning) within the realm of educational philosophy.

2. The concept of education as a process and means of transformationfrom human to human(1) What does “being educated” signify for a human?
As underscored in the primary objective of this symposium, Immanuel Kant
famously stated, “Man is the only creature who must be educated.” This assertion initiallysuggests a distinct difference between teaching-learning for humans and that for nonhumans. For instance, it is commonly known that parents of certain animal species teachtheir offspring how to hunt. Moreover, it has been observed that an individual within agroup of animals may begin to wash their food in seawater, a behavior that is then adopted
by other members of the group. We could draw from Kant's discourse above theassumption (or wish or hope) that there is some essential difference between the actions
and phenomena in these non-human cases that seem to be similar to “teaching” and“learning” and the “teaching-learning” in human “education.”
Here, let us revisit the critiques, predominantly by British educational philosopher
R.S. Peters in the 1960s, concerning the concept of the “educated person” and theportrayal of the human being as an ultimate goal inherent in education. Peters asserted,“Education, then, can have no ends beyond itself. Its value derives from principles andstandards implicit in it” 1. One notable critique of Peters’ view, which posits the purposeof education as intrinsic to education itself, comes from Japanese educational philosopher,
Akio Miyadera. He argued that responding to the demand for “justification of the purposeof education” and explaining “why this purpose of education is correct for society as a1

Peters, R. S., 1965, “Education as Initiation”, in: R. D. Archambault (ed.) Philosophical Analysis and Education,
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp.87-111. In the original work, Peters uses the term “educated man,” but thispaper uses the term “educated person” to refer to the concept.

Symposium: Thinking about Education through Examining Human beings

Possibilities of “Education” based on (through/aimed at) the Concept of “Relationship”: Inquiry in terms of “Language”, “Care” and “Excellence”

39

whole” is challenging in a context of value pluralism (Miyadera, 2017, pp.189-190). In
recent years, it has also been pointed out that “the justification theory of educational
purpose distinguishes between intrinsic and extrinsic purposes of education, but theauthor's personal view may have influenced this distinction” and “the ideologicalneutrality of the research method was called into question” (Yamaguchi, 2023, p. 403).
These points critique not only Peters and the concept of the “educated person” but also
challenge the broader theories of educational purpose and analytical philosophy ofeducation that attempt to define an ideal human image as the goal of education or to view
such a goal as inherent in education2.
On the other hand, Miyadera highlights that Peters defined educational purpose as
intrinsic to education partly due to the societal context of the 1960s in the United
Kingdom, marked by an educational explosion (Miyadera, 1997). This period saw
demands from political, economic, national defense, and other areas increasingly directed
towards education, as Miyadera notes. This reflected a critical concern that education
might become merely an instrument of the state, tasked with training or selecting humanresources needed by sectors such as politics, economy, and national defense. In this regard,Peters' notion of the educated person, or educational purpose, effectively illustrated therole of education and its purposes within society, stemming from calls for educational
autonomy.
Considering this background, we must acknowledge a certain importance of
examining this discussion in light of the issues inherent in the concept of an “educatedperson.” Because not questioning the concept of the “educated person” rather implicitlyinternalizes it and runs the risk of fixing a particular view and increasing its influence. For
instance, American educational philosopher Jane Roland Martin's critique of Peters’
concept is significant because it demonstrates how education has reclassified humanqualities into those that are valued and those that are unvalued through the lens of the“educated person” concept (Martin, 1981, 1992, 2002). Her criticism highlights theimpact of defining a specific human image—including abilities, qualities, character, andbehavior—as the goal of education, which is the condition for being considered educated.
Moreover, the necessary discussion should not revolve around merely replacing or
adding to the content that serves as the goal but should focus on the method of setting
2

Furthermore, in the same paper, it is pointed out that “the research philosophy and explicit argumentation style ofanalytical philosophy of education” have been inherited by later philosophy of education, which accepted
Wittgenstein and others (Yamaguchi, 2023, p. 403). In recent years, arguments that reconsider the analyticalphilosophy of education based on developments in linguistic and epistemological theory can also be found (Cf.
Misawa & Watanabe, 2023).

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

H. Ozaki

40

these goals and redefining the roles and positioning of objectives within educational
discourse.
Why do we strive to reconstruct education and educational objectives instead of
abandoning them? It is because, in the current circumstances, failing to question
preserves the detrimental effects, and we recognize that the activity of education itself
holds the potential to significantly impact contemporary society and human beings,
whether we ask these questions or not.
(2) Education as a process and method—a philosophical inquiry
Kant's discourse above suggests “education” as the enterprise by which “humanbeings,” as mere organisms in biological classification, are transformed into “humanbeings.” If we posit that individuals who have not received education are not fully“human being” or cannot become “human being,” we must then address the fundamental
question of what is “human being”? However, from the perspective of the philosophy ofeducation as a pedagogical field, this inquiry primarily explores how to become “humanbeing,” what is essential, and what occurs during this transformation. This suggests thatthe question “what is education?” and the question “how to educate?” are inseparable inthe discourse on education.
Minoru Murai, a Japanese educationalist, characterized education both as a resultimage model and a process-image model, illustrating the transformation througheducation in two distinct manners.
One is to think of the “goodness” of that “good person” in terms of the way in which
the process of human development takes place, and the other, by contrast, is to thinkof the way in which the result of development takes place. ...... The one belonging to
the former is named process-oriented and the one belonging to the latter is named
result-oriented, and all educational ideas can be divided into those belonging to theformer and those belonging to the latter as types. (Murai, 1976, p.172)
Based on Murai, the result-image model posits a particular human image, skill, or
state as the outcome of education, and describes education as a process advancing towardthat image. The process model portrays education as a series of activities where education
itself is the goal, with each objective being progressively achieved through thecompletion of preceding objectives. According to Murai, educational models inspired by
Plato and Rousseau align with the former, while those influenced by the progressive
education approaches of Dewey and others align with the latter. It is crucial to reiterate
Symposium: Thinking about Education through Examining Human beings

Possibilities of “Education” based on (through/aimed at) the Concept of “Relationship”: Inquiry in terms of “Language”, “Care” and “Excellence”

41

here that portraying education shapes both the objectives and methods of education.
It is entirely possible that the frameworks of education depicted by Peters and Murai,
as discussed in this section, could become subjects of critique or remain unaddressed,
representing rigid structures within modern education. Regardless of whether one
endorses, however, critiques, or distances oneself from education, it is vital to recognizethat these debates are built upon a foundation of discourse that articulates “education”.
Because this discussion is an examination of the language of education that discusses“education,” it also seeks an effort to create a new “education.” In light of the previously
mentioned concept of the “educated person” as an objective of education, our aim is not
solely to question the validity of this concept as an educational goal. Instead, we explore
how the assumption of the “educated person” concept as an implicit educational objective
shape and influences the practice of education, seeking methods to address these
influences.

3. Language, care, and excellence as perspectives for examining
education(1) Multi-layered views of language in the context of education
How can the concept of “education”, defined both as the separation of the humanfrom the non-human and as an activity that transforms one into a "human being," bereconstructed following critiques of modern education? The primary question concerns
language within the context of education. It is well understood that human activities areshaped by the language used, and these activities can also be examined and refined. The
diversity of linguistic activities, recognized as a characteristic of human beings, has been
explored in fields such as analytical philosophy, linguistic theory, epistemology, andsymbolism, focusing particularly on the language of education. This exploration haspresented possibilities for a language that embraces situational contexts and physicality
as well as figurative and expressive language, in contrast to universal descriptive
language. Such a reassessment of language in education not only highlights that the actof teaching extends beyond merely transmitting propositions like “A is B” or giving
uniform instructions such as “make A to B.” Rather, it also prompts further considerationof the teaching-learning image based on this linguistic perspective.
What is noteworthy here is the accumulation of debates on how language itself
should be viewed within the context of education. For instance, Izrael Schaeffler, an
American philosopher of education, categorized definitions of certain statements into
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

H. Ozaki

42

scientific definitions, which are somewhat detached from context, and general definitions,which vary depending on the context3. He posited that educational statements typicallyfall into the latter category. Schaeffler further distinguished among definitions in
educational discourse: (1) “stipulative definitions”, which aim to “exhibits some term to
be defined and gives notice that it is to be taken as equivalent to some other exhibited
term, or description, within a particular context,” (2) “Descriptive definitions”, which“explain terms by giving an account of their prior usage,” and (3) “Programmatic
definitions,” which “is acting as an expression of a practical program” (Sheffler, 1960,
pp.13-19). This classification is not merely about how language is expressed but about its
contextual role. While Schaeffler’s categories, if considered universally applicable,clearly have limitations, they are useful as an example of a method to describe the conceptof “education.” This approach is important because it emphasizes the search for a
vocabulary that can be shared at a certain level in order to increase the consistency of
discussion when examining the concept of “education” from the perspective of thephilosophy of education.
Additionally, Kumiko Ikuta, Japanese educational philosopher, drawing on studiesof analytical philosophy of education, has analyzed “knowing” and “knowledge” in“education,” classifying the language of traditional arts and craftsmanship into three types
based on the process of work transmission as a case study for verification:ⅰ. Language that serves as an “action-directed language” through metaphoricalexpression of sense.
ⅱ. Language that serves to “lead” the learner to have a certain physical sensation.
ⅲ. Language in which the teacher “confronts” the learner with the state(achievement) that he/she has reached, and “invites” the learner to explore the senseof this achievement that he/she has attained. (Ikuta, 2011, pp.28-29)
In this context, language in education serves a role beyond merely transmitting
information. Consequently, it is expected that learners will progress from simply
acquiring a skill as a “task” to mastering a skill as an “achievement.”
Considering the characteristics of language as outlined by Schaeffler and Ikuta, it
represents a unique form of communication for human beings, closely tied to or even
3

Schaeffler also noted that “definitions in science are all, in an important sense, technical in purport and call for
special knowledge and the use of special theoretical criteria in their evaluation. In scientific communication,
definitions are presented and interpreted accordingly by professional members of the scientific community”(Sheffler, Ibid., pp.12-13), and he points out a certain context-dependence.

Symposium: Thinking about Education through Examining Human beings

Possibilities of “Education” based on (through/aimed at) the Concept of “Relationship”: Inquiry in terms of “Language”, “Care” and “Excellence”

43

inseparable from the context of teaching-learning. This distinct language, acquired
through engagement in the teaching-learning process, differs from the mother tongue
learned through biological parent-child interactions, or from language learned
systematically through grammar and vocabulary. Therefore, analyzing the nature oflanguage in educational contexts—such as parent-child interactions at home, teacherstudent interactions at school, and supervisor-subordinate guidance at work—is crucial.
This analysis helps define the unique role of language in shaping and being shaped by
the teaching-learning dynamics that occur in these settings4.
(2) Care and excellence as questions
The second question is posed from the perspective of “care.” Central to this question
is a biased evaluation system embedded in the dichotomies of reason-emotion, publicprivate, and universal-individual, which prompts a reconsideration of these dichotomies
themselves. Specifically, it attempts to redefine the concepts of reason, public, anduniversal from the perspective of care, urging the recognition of the value of emotional,
private, and individual aspects of care. The essential inquiry here is not whether careshould be taught in public education, but rather how public education can be enhanced
from the perspective of care.
The third question pertains to excellence. Modern education has traditionallyvisualized the excellence of human beings as quantifiable and assessable throughmeasurable objectives. While this evaluative criterion shares common biases with thequestion of “care,” it does not lead to a rejection of evaluating excellence in “education.”
Instead, it suggests an attempt to reconceptualize excellence as a goal and method within“education,” emphasizing shared empathy and understanding within specificrelationships and contexts. This approach envisions excellence as both a target for and ameans by which education of human beings can be pursued.
For example, in her analysis of ethics of care, Carol Gilligan emphasized anunderstanding of “the dynamics of relationships” as central to moral development in
humans (Gilligan, 1986). This suggests that “care” is not simply an attribute to becontrasted with “reason” or “autonomy,” but one of the perspectives from which theconcepts of “reason” and “autonomy” can be reconstructed5. In essence, it challenges the
For example, the accumulation of research on teachers' language activities is not simply a collection of cases of“Just say ‘A’ in that situation” but also includes the educational perspective, educational relationships, and thenature of educational methods in those situations (Cf. Himeno.K & Ikuta.T, 2019).
5
In recent years, following a discussion that has pitted “justice” against “care” an attempt has been made to integrate
the two. If based on the said discussion, from the discussion of “care” as opposed to (as a complement or counter4

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

44

H. Ozaki

traditional view of excellence sought through education, prompting a reassessment ofwhat constitutes the state of excellence.
One illustration of this is in the concept of “collaborative knowledge.” Traditionally,knowledge within the framework of educational purpose theory has been conceptualized
as stemming from “the individual as a person.” However, in recent years, there has beena shift towards viewing knowledge from the perspective of collaboration, togetherness,and joint effort. For instance, Japanese educationalist Kayo Matsushita emphasizes theimportance of acquiring the ability to engage in “dialogical argumentation” in the“learning” envisioned by the curriculum (Matsushita, 2021, p.3). Furthermore, Japanese
educationalist Masahiro Nasu, in his discussion on “Japanese-style education in the
Reiwa Era” (Central Council for Education, 2021), highlights that “personalized optimallearning,” which refers to independent learning, and “collaborative learning,” which
entails mutual learning among peers, are in a “complementary and mutually facilitating
relationship” (Nasu, 2021, pp. 168-169). Given the insights from Matsushita and Nasu,
it becomes evident that dialogue and collaboration are integral to education, serving bothas skills to be acquired and methods to be implemented. Nasu also notes that “every childis a competent learner” (Ibid., p. 109), but the progression of the argument here shifts
from a child-centered perspective to one where learning collaboratively shapes the viewof children as “competent learners.” This underscores that the perception of a child as a“competent learner” emerges from engaging in “collaborative learning.” This approachsuggests that the concept of “education” discussed at the outset of this paper not only
directs the purpose and methods of education but also influences our understanding of“children” themselves. From a different perspective, the concept of “children” also has
aspects that are influenced by the characteristics of the teaching and learning activities inwhich they are engaged.
The preceding questions on language, care, and excellence initially focused on therelationships between human beings (teachers) and human beings (learners and thetaught) within the teaching-learning process. Additionally, they prompt us to consider the
relationship between “human beings” and the subjects of teaching-learning (the content
being taught). In the framework of modern education, universal and neutral “language”
seeks to the transparent transmission of “the content being taught.” However,transparency here implies that the teacher's intentions do not influence the content, butconcept to) the concepts of “justice” and “fairness” in Western philosophy, we have experienced a fluctuation in
the boundary line between “justice” and “fairness” and “care” and “we,” and the possibility (necessity) of fusion is
being considered (Cf. Shinagawa, 2007, Tokunaga, 2020).
Symposium: Thinking about Education through Examining Human beings

Possibilities of “Education” based on (through/aimed at) the Concept of “Relationship”: Inquiry in terms of “Language”, “Care” and “Excellence”

45

can this truly be more than merely transferring and recording information? It is crucial torecognize that the teacher's intentionality is not merely directive with a defined intent or
system. Lave & Wenger, in their “Legitimate Peripheral Participation” (1991), argue thatthe learning of beginning learners is not automatic, but is led by the practices ofexperienced learners in the community in which they are participating. In addition to this,and in light of Ikuta's discussion of “inviting” language, the concept of the teacher's“intentionality to teach” itself is also being examined in a multilayered way.
In light of the above, the role of the teacher, when viewing a child as a “competentlearner” or a participant in collaboration, invites renewed scrutiny. It becomes necessary
to reassess the role of the teacher not only as a specialist in teaching but also as an agent
in various aspects of human social life. This includes roles in forming home or parental
relationships that extend beyond biological kinship. Such a reevaluation prompts areconsideration of the learner-teacher dynamic and the teachable objects6. Here, we could
find the potential to discuss education from the perspective of relationships—viewing
education as an activity that both builds and is built through relationships. This approach
can provide new ways of expressing and narrating “those who teach,” “those who aretaught (those who learn),” and “things that are taught,” thereby presenting “education”
and, by extension, “human beings” as more attractive entities.

4. Conclusion: questions leading to productive discourse through critical
discourse
In light of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the reevaluation of the conceptof “human beings” and “education,” based on the objectivity of being educated, which isthe primary aim of this research, is progressing within the discourse of philosophy ofeducation (pedagogy). Moreover, this reevaluation suggests that the discourse stating “itis not education, it is ……,” emanating not only from pedagogy but also from disciplines
beyond it does not merely highlight the limitations of “education” but provides valuable
insights for further enhancing the concept of education. Japanese Education scholar Akira
Geshi, referring to the term education as “second-rate fake academia” (Geshi, 2019),
addresses the critique of modern education within the trends of educational philosophy

6

For example, in more recent research on the philosophy of education, we can find such possibilities in thequestioning of the “autonomy” aimed for in “education” and the examination of the role of the “community” in thediscussion of the professionalism of teachers (Cf. Miyagawa, 2022, Suzuki, 2018).

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

46

H. Ozakiand educational thought, posing the question, “What comes after the criticism?” In
response to this, this paper would like to reply that through the exploration of “education”
in the philosophy of education, a productive discourse can emerge that proposes a more
attractive concept of “education” and the way it should be practiced. This approach aims
to depict “human being” as a more appealing entity, which is expressed through“education” from “human beings”, and also seeks to reassess “humanness” itself. How
can education based on relationship foster “human beings” capable of innovation whileembracing heterogeneous others, and how can knowledge be expanded in this context?
These are questions that we aim to explore further in future research and dialogue.

References
Central Council for Education, 2021, “Reiwa no Nihon-gata gakko kyoiku no kochiku
wo mezashi te (Toward the Construction of a Japanese-Style School Education in the
Reiwa Era)”.
Dewey, J., 1916, “Democracy and Education” Boydston, J. (ed.), The Middle Works ofJohn Dewey, vol. 9, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1976–1983.
Geshi, A., 2019, “Kyoiku-tetsugaku: Hihan no ato ni nani ga kuru noka? (Philosophy of
Education: What comes after the criticism?)” in Kyoiku-gaku Nenpo 11: Kyoikugaku
no new chapter (Annual Review of Education 11, New Chapters in Educational
Research), Seori Shobo. pp.7-35.
Gilligan, C., 1982, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Himeno, K. & Ikuta, T., 2019, Kyoshi no Waza wo Kagaku suru (The Science of Teachers’‘Waza’), Tokyo: Ikkei shobo.
Ikuta, K., 2011 “‘Waza’ no densho ha nani wo mezasu noka (What does the transmissionof the ‘Waza’ aim to be?)” in Ikuta, K. & Kitamura, K. (ed.), Waza Gengo (Languageof ‘Waza’), Tokyo: Keio University Press, pp.3–31.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E., 1991, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, Jane Roland,-1981 “The Ideal of the Educated Person”, Educational Theory, 31(2), pp.97-109,
Illinois: The University of Illinois.
-1987 Reclaiming a Conversation: The Ideal of the Educated Woman, New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Symposium: Thinking about Education through Examining Human beings

Possibilities of “Education” based on (through/aimed at) the Concept of “Relationship”: Inquiry in terms of “Language”, “Care” and “Excellence”

47-1992 The Schoolhome: Rethinking Schools for Changing Families, Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
-2002 Cultural Misueducation: In Search of a Democratic Solution, New York:
Teachers College Press.
-2018 School Was Our Life: Remembering Progressive Education, Indiana: Indiana
University Press.
Matsushita, K., 2021, Taiwagata-ronsho ni yoru Manabi no Dezain (Designing Learning
through dialogical argumentation), Tokyo: Keiso Shobo.
Mayeroff, M., 1971, On Caring, New York: Harper & Row.
Misawa, K. and Watanabe, F., 2023, “P.H.Hurst no kyoiku tetsugaku (P. H. Hurst's
Philosophy of Education),” Tetsugaku (Philosophy), vol.150, pp.59-84, Mita
Tetsugakukai.
Miyagawa, Y., 2022, Jiritsu wo mezasu Kyoiku toha nani ka (What is Education forAutonomy), Kanagawa: Shumpusha Publishing.
Miyadera, A.,-1997, Gendai Igirisu kyoiku tetsugaku no tenkai (The Development ofContemporary British Philosophy of Education), Tokyo: Keiso Shobo.
-2017, “Kyoiku mokuteki (The Purpose of Education),” in History of Educational
Thought Society (ed.), Kyoiku Shiso Jiten, Zoho kaitei ban (Encyclopedia ofEducational Thought, Increased and Revised edition), Tokyo: Keiso Shobo,
pp.187-191.
Murai, M., 1976, Kyoiku-gaku Nyumon, Jokan (An Introduction to Pedagogy, vol.1),
Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Noddings, N.,-1984, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education, California:
University of California Press.
-2002, Starting at Home: Caring and Social Policy, California: University ofCalifornia Press.
Ozaki, H., 2021, “‘Kyoiku-mokuteki’ wo ‘Kankei-sei’ kara tou koto no Igi (Why Should
We Discuss ‘Aims of Education’ From the Standpoint of ‘Relationship’?),” Forumon Modern Education, vol. 30, pp. 1-12, History of Educational Thought Society.
Peters, R. S., 1966, Ethics and Education, London: Allen &Unwin.
Schaeffler, I., 1960, The Language of Education, Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Shinagawa T., 2007, Seigi to sakai wo sessuru mono (Justice and Bordering Things),
Kyoto: Nakanishiya Publishing.
Suzuki, Y., 2018, Kyoshi no “Senmon-ka kyodotai” no Keisei to Tenkai (The Formation
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 9, 2024

48

H. Ozakiand Development of the "Professional Community" of Teachers), Tokyo: Keiso
Shobo.
Tokunaga, T., 2021, Seigi to Kea no gendai tetsugaku (Contemporary Philosophy ofJustice and Care), Kyoto: Koyo Shobo.
Yamaguchi H., 2023, “Peters (Peters),” in Philosophy of Education Society (ed.), Kyoikutetsugaku jiten (Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education), Tokyo: Maruzen
Publishing, pp.402-403.

Symposium: Thinking about Education through Examining Human beings