ABSTRACT. In general, when we say “crossing boundaries”, we assume that there exist several boundaries, and several domains divided by those boundaries. And we often put these domains into a schema of contraposition. Then we often raise questions such as “How can we cross these boundaries?” or “How can we bridge these divided domains and bring these opposites into harmony?”. Moreover, there has been one old-and-new question that across all academic disciplines. That is, the question of how we can cross boundaries between “theory” and “practice” and harmonize these opposites. Especially in the discipline of education, it has been recognized as an urgent subject. This urgency has been felt among scholars on philosophy of education who worry the recent “decline” in their discipline. Those scholars presuppose “philosophical wisdom” and “practical knowledge” as opposites. Therefore, they ask this question of how to bridge and harmonize them, that is – the question of crossing philosophical boundary. However, is “philosophical wisdom” really an opposite of “practical knowledge”, first of all? In this article, I would like to examine this preposition itself, and reconsider the assignment of bridging and harmonizing them. I will adopt “translation theory” as a framework for my argument. By utilizing translation theories of Antoine Berman, Naoki Sakai and others as a framework of analysis, I would like to reconsider the contraposition between philosophical wisdom and practical knowledge. Thus I would like to reconsider the meaning of crossing the philosophical boundaries in the discipline of education. pp. 40–50

Keywords: crossing philosophical boundaries; translation theory; heterolingual address; mutual translating; boundary-probing