Stud 300 ies i~n Philosophy and Education
while." My argument on pages 12-18 about the "descriptive" and the "evaluative" uses of education makes nonsense of Kazepides's claim that I "did not suspect that the word education might behave differently in different contexts." Komisar's article, "Teaching: Act and Enterprise," reached Australian shores too late for me to discuss it in my book. I think a lot more work has to be done on what is meant by an "intellectual teaching act" and on the grounds for accepting Komisar's account of this "very special use as being "the strictest, the basic, the keenest concept of teaching we have." Kazepides's claim that Peters and Scheer are assuming this distinction in their analysis of "teaching" seems to me to have no foundation, and Kazepides characteristically offers no evidence to support the claim. If the distinction was already implicit in what Peters and Schemer wrote, it is not easy to see why Kazepides is so "thankful" to Komisar for "pointing it out." Even Kazepides's conclusion that professors of education will flnd my book useful for their introductory courses seems to me to be inconsistent. If what he says in his review could be substantiated they should be advised to steer clear of the book. My thanks, then, to Studies for giving me the opportunity to suggest that whatever weaknesses there may be in my book they are not identified in Kazepides's review.