Search results

The correspondence recently in the T.L.S., rising from a reader's failure to get a certain work of fiction from a branch library in a great city, raised once again the charge that the public librarian was a censor, an office for which, it was indignantly assumed, he had neither capacity nor authority. The subsequent letters reiterated the arguments with which every experienced librarian is only too familiar: that public librarians operate with limited funds and “select” books of which they know their readers have need. They cannot provide every book. It is always fiction that raises this hubbub from the reader who assumes that he should be provided with anything his fancy suggests at the expense of his fellow ratepayers, many of whom may greatly dislike the book in question. As Mr. O'Leary, in his part of the symposium wrote, any form of censorship may not only be wrong ; it may be fatuous. The whole history of literature indicates that. But librarians are trusted by the community to give what is best to the greatest number of people and, if they do not stock particular books, this, as another correspondent points out, is not censorship if the book can be got through any bookseller or at the subscription libraries, although the latter were compelled to experiment some years ago with a form of exclusion. That is not unreasonable seeing that thousands of readers come upon books as it were by accident and are often displeased at what they find ; and it is useless, to be quite practical, to point out that no one need read a book he finds to be offensive, and all should at least try to determine the character of any book they intend to read. Obviously, as we have long known, the question is complicated and these and many other factors have to be borne in mind in practice.

Introduction Relativism of all shades and kinds is in fashion. For some decades, it has been trying to enter the very bastion of the academic heartland by questioning the prevailing cognitive realism in the philosophy of science (Kuhn, Feyerabend). More recently a somewhat different and stronger version of relativism has made some extraordinary advances in literary criticism (the movement of “deconstruction”) and spawned some controversy in the field of law (critical legal studies). The same tendencies have now emerged in architecture (Jencks). More alarmingly, perhaps, in the social sciences we observe a brand new interest in so‐ called “post‐modern” perspectives: post‐modern ethnography in anthropology (Tylor), new voices in sociology (Lash and Urri), and, of course, also the novel ideas representing economics as discourse with a distinctly post‐modern flavor (Amariglio; Rossetti; Milberg; Ruccio).

ELSEWHERE in this number we list libraries which have Esent us copies of their annual reports which we are glad to have. Now and again we are able to elaborate on these, but in the present issue that has not been possible. We would say, however, that these reports are deserving of the attention of librarians generally, and of students at the library schools. They are records of work in progress, and they do suggest the development of library policy. The best of them are of textbook value.

The purpose of this paper is to compare Swami Vivekananda’s conception and development of human being with those of Bertrand Russell. The author also discusses Vivekananda’s conception of the human being in more detail and his methods for the development of human nature so that one can attain the ultimate goal of life.

Vivekananda’s view of human development is not to be equated with richness of material possession or with knowledge about the empirical world, which are sometimes necessary for the successful performance of virtuous actions. Vivekananda has instead emphasized the apprehension of truths, not only for our intellects but also for our hearts.

The oneness of Advaita Vedanta can, according to Vivekananda, be realized in our life in this world.

Vivekananda has shown not only how to apply the Advaita Vedanta in our life for our development but also how to achieve the ultimate goal of life, which is freedom from all types of suffering, and harmony in life.

This chapter focuses on accountability and accreditation policies and practices in teacher education in the United States, England, Wales, and China. Despite the differences between countries, issues and problems of teacher education from country to country are remarkably similar. As a profession, we must examine where we are and where we need to be to meet the needs of our global society. We can begin by defining quality teaching and the essential skills for 21st-century teachers and students. As part of a global profession, teachers and educators must not work in isolation. It will be up to the leaders in the profession to educate political and accreditation bodies by sharing models that will meet the needs of our changing world. Can we give up the nostalgic notions of education and provide assistance to education preparation professionals to move toward new rapid-change models?