Augmented Reality and Pedagogical Anthropology: Reflections from the Philosophy of Education

: Philosophy of education, as applied philosophy, deals with educational issues from a philosophical point of view, including those raised by modern technology. Being a form of social interaction, education is probably one of the experiences most altered by technology; through ICTs, it has gained a myriad of options not only for accessing knowledge but also for human development. In this chapter, I will analyze some challenges that Augmented Reality presents in philosophy of education, paying particular attention to its ramifications for pedagogical anthropology. To be specific, I will explore the following human traits: lack of instincts and its influence on the development of initiative; human precariousness in the environment and ability to adapt; ontological knowledge of reality, through transmediation, and Zubiri ’ s concept of the human being as an “ animal of realities; ” and, finally, leisure understood as a non-vital human need.

proper discussion.My own interest,f rom ap edagogicals tandpoint,l ies in calling attention to ap articular reflection it inspires vis-à-vis the aims of education − that the goal dictates the path to be taken.In other words, not all roadslead to the same place, and to determine the best routeo rb est means to employ to get wherew ew ant to go,wem ust first know where we want to go.I np edagogical terms,t his means that, preliminary to all educational actions, an approach must be chosen based on the type of person we want our educational endeavors to produce (Escámez/García López 1998) − which refers us, of necessity,t oa nthropologicalt hinking on education.
Comparing the human development approach,elaborated through the efforts of MarthaNussbaum and Amartya Sen, with the economicdevelopment approach will elucidatet his idea.The latter approach, because it equates 'progress' with 'economic development',has major implications for the organizational structure of as ociety or country,i ng eneral, and the educational system, in particular.Among the most consequential of these is the weighting of the curriculum toward certain competencies and content.U nder the economic development model, for example, as ociety would place special emphasis on mathematical skills, technologicala nd financial know-how,a nd marketings trategies as the foundation of literacy − the ultimateo bjectiveb eing to make that society more competitive in the freemarket (Nussbaum 2012).Thismeans that other subjects, such as History,A rt,L iterature, and Philosophy would become subordinate, along with skills likec ritical thinking and democratic dialogue.Thus, depending on the model as ociety aspires to create, it is not difficult to shape one type of person vs.a nother type of person by the choice of curriculum content.
This is nothing new in the history of education; since the days of ancient Greece, educational thought has been linked, more or less explicitly, with anthropological thought.T oday, however,o wing to modern technology'si mpact on basic aspects of human life, we find ourselvesi nasituation that could bring about as ignificant departure from previous thinking.T hanks in large part to technological advancements, changes are taking place in the realms of employment,c ommunications,f riendship, love, responsibility,p rivacy, and education, leading us to pondercertain areas in need of an update for the digital age.This major,categorical changeinthe anthropological conception has even prompted some authorstostart inquiring into the possibility of anew stageinhuman evolution and introducing concepts such as post-humans (Bostrom2 008, Cortina/ Serra2015).Biologists like Wilson (2014) maintain thatweare in the midst of another Enlightenment that puts us in position to abandon the logic of natural selection in favoro fa rtificial selection basedo nh uman will and intelligence.Genetic manipulation would enable us to live longer and to have more robust memory,b etter eyesight,e tc.and, in this daya nd age, the Humanities would have to yield to Science and allow technology to address questions about the meaning of our existence.Philosophers likeB ostrom( 2009) arguet hat technological advances have the power to alter the human condition or human nature itself by endowing individuals with capabilities that wereonce unimaginable.In this panorama, there seems to be new meaning in Nietzsche'sS uperman; as the German thinker once declared, "Man shall be just that to the Superman: alaughingstock or ap ainful embarrassment" (Nietzsche 2000,8 ).
Not onlydoes technologyenable us to do more thingsbut the thingswecan do are quite different from what we used to do, and we are capable of functioning in new,quite diverse areas.Asfar as education is concerned, this means updating didactic methods, of course.First,h owever,a bidingb yt he logic in the dialog between Alice and The Cat,w em ust take the anthropological model into consideration so that what we do makes sense and does not become frantic activity drivenb yt he pressureo fe mpty and meaningless innovation (Barrio 2015).In other words, if anthropologya nd education are not in harmonyo n this matter,werisk becominglike achicken with its head cut off, running around aimlessly.
In this chapter,Iwill use the prism of PhilosophyofEducation to analyze the relationship between technology and the wayweviewthe human being − focusing,inparticular,onA ugmented Reality.Mypoint of departure will be the characteristics that certain philosophicaland educational anthropologists have identified in the human being.¹Although these characteristics are interrelated and impossible to understand in isolation from each other,wew illview them separatelyfor purposes of this analysis.These characteristics are the lack of instincts, human precariousness in the environment,the capacityfor ontological knowledge of realitya nd for devising realities not present,a nd the human need for leisure.
 Ag lancea tt he historyo ft houghtr eveals that it is not possible to speak of au nified philosophical conception of the human being, for this idea has changedw ith the different trends and authors.F urthermore, as Scheler (2000) has stated, for some years now,wehavefound ourselvesi natime of profound difficulties in anthropological study.Sincei ti sn ot the purpose of this chapter to list them all, we will choose those that we believeare most relevanttothe characteristics of today'sd igital technology,i ng eneral, and of Augmented Reality,i np articular.

Keya nthropologicala spects of the relationship between education and technology
Education simplyw ould not be possible if we, as individuals,d id not have certain specific traits in common -as et of characteristics that allow us to speak of at ransformative influenceo nt he reality of an individual or group of individuals.This is one of the reasons that,t raditionally, the word 'education' has not been used in connection with species other thanh uman beings;c oncepts such as training or instruction are used instead.Letu si dentify some of the major anthropological traits thata re relevant to technology,a dhering to the proposals of certain scholars in pedagogicalanthropology (Wulf 2008, Barrio 2000,E scámez/García López 1998).While anthropology has been of interest to philosophers since its inception, pedagogical anthropology − from an educational perspective − is adiscipline that did not systematicallyevolveuntil the latter half of the twentieth century,especiallyinGermanyand the United States (Bouché et al.1995).

The lack of instinctsa nd itsi mpact on initiative
Strictlys peaking,h uman beingsd on ot have instincts that would cause them to behave at all timesinaspecific, stereotypical manner − this being,most likely,the resultofphylogenetic evolution and brain development.This maybebetter understood through comparison with other animal species.Whereas the members of an animal species will all be similar to each other in theirbehavior, owing to immutable, pre-determined genetic parameters, human beingss how great complexity in their behavior.This limits our ability to ascertain the shared genetic traits that would enable us to understand aspecies as awhole.Thus, although it is accepted, nowadays, thatg eneticsh as an influenceo nh uman behavior,w ec an sayt hat this behavior does not follow as trict pattern; rather, there are individual patterns created over al ifetime through personal initiative and with varyingd egrees of originality.E venm imetic abilities − an inherently human trait − should be understood as the individual embodying something he/she has observed and not just imitatingamodel; in other words, it is creating,n ot just copying ( Wulf 2008).Here we have the outcomeo ft hat lack of instincts − here, where the ability to make decisions is rooted not in genetics but in the individual'so wn will, contextualized in the here and now.R ationality and affectivity are two elements thathavea ni nfluenceo nthis will of the individual by adding aw ide array of variables that impact decision-making.A long with this, the specific context exerts anot inconsiderable influenceonthe individual.Thus, in response to agiven stimulus,h uman behavior cannot be characterized as predictable, for that response is mediated by manyfactors thatimpact the decision-making process.This is highlyr elevant to the development of modern technologyand, most especially, to its applications in education.With every advancement in hardware and software, there appears to be acorresponding increase in the centrality of the user'sr ole in applying the technology.T he transition from Web1 .0 to Web2.0 has been, perhaps, technology'smost significant conceptual shift,qualitatively speaking,f or it signaled ar evolution in the individual'sr ole − from being just an information viewer and recipient to being an information author and creatorp articipating in the informationp roduction process.It is no longer just as mall group of computer technicians who are building the Internet; roles are now distributed through as ort of digital democratization that,i na sense, reinforces the cultural democratization process that has unfolded in recent decades.At remendousa rray of possibilitiesf or human development has openedup, owing to the ease of sharing information and, in manycases, creating innovative applications that offer new forms of expression, behavior, and human interaction in cyberspace.This scenario appears to be more suitable for the anthropological trait of lack of instincts than earlier technological schemes, in that it affords open spacefor human singularization.Viewers seated in front of ascreen that sends all viewers the same informationwould seem to be consistent with ac losed,d eterministic anthropological conception, with no space for the initiative required.In contrast,g rowingt echnology-mediated participationh as expandedt he opportunities for human agency in respondingt o stimuli and has improved human'sa bility to make decisions and to create − not mere variations on am elodyw hich, accordingt oS cheler (2000), pertains to animals, but rather entirely new melodies, which puts fulfillment as a 'being of action' within reach (Escámez/García López 1998).
From an educational standpoint,t here are two major consequences of this approach.First,t he prevailing technological paradigm opens up opportunities for individual initiative and, therefore, achievement rooted in ab asic anthropological trait.I na ddition, this initiativeh as, increasingly, as econd dimension that is highlyr elevant to education.Technologyo pens up not onlya venues for individual expression but alsot he opportunityt op articipatei nc reating those avenues of expression.In other words, it creates opportunities to participate in designingb oth technological devices and applications (Prensky,2 008) − designs that often include educational and Augmented Reality activities, as occurs with studio-based learning,through games or research into the surroundings (Wu et al.2 013).Second, it facilitates the designingo fi ndividualized educational pathways,which represents af resh appreciation of human singularity and humans' specific learning needs.
It would be fitting,however,topresent two thoughts on these contributions.On the one hand, excessive openness in creative spaces could lead us to encouragingwhat Thomas (1995) referred to as post-industrial society's "self-actualization through creativity",the major consequences of which include an increasing narcissism and af alse socialization of creativity,which aspires to ar einvention and persistent originality resulting,p aradoxically, in massification and social homogenization.On the otherhand,intoday'seducational milieu − and despite the paradigm shift − we still find technology-mediated schemest hat severely limit this human capability.I ne ffect,a spiring to make educational actions more systematized, efficient,a nd scientific has oftenl ed to technology being used as ac ontrol mechanism, as seen todayi nc ertain systems,s uch as certain MOOCs (Carver/Harrison 2013,Margaryan et al.2015) and even learning analytics and Augmented Reality itself (Wu et al.2 013).
ICTs have not broughta bout the educational transformation they promised, one reason being,m ost likely, that the organizational changes required did not follow the investmentsinequipment.Among those changes, one of the most crucial is student interaction and student participation in the learning process (Akbiyik 2010), which entails modifying not onlythe technology but also the instructional design.While changingt he toolsi sh ardlys imple and straightforward, changingt he model is far more complex.

Human precariousnessi nt he environment and technological transformation
As ac haracteristic specific to humans, some anthropologists, such as Arnold Gehlena nd Adolf Portmann, have pointed out that humans are poorlys uited, biologically, to their environment.T he most obvious manifestation of this is the fact that humans need adults upervision and upkeep duringt he first years of life and are limited in terms of biological specialization.Conversely, however, humans have not onlythe ability to care for and nurture their young but also the extensive intellectual developmentt hat makes it possible for them to adapt the environment to their needs.Humans are at aconsiderable advantage in that they are not bound to aspecific ecosystem, which endowsthem with great versatility and enables them to live in av ariety of surroundings ( Aselmeier 1983).The means we employ to live in thoses urroundingsa re what we refert oa sculture.
Technological advancement is the product of this intellectual capacity together with thatculture.Therefore, so is Augmented Reality − demonstrating, simultaneously, afurther step in transformingthe environment.A ugmented Reality givesusaprivileged vision of reality that could be referred to as a heightened sensorye xperience,s ot os peak, for it is am ore advanced vision thanw ec ould gett hrough our senses alone.The valuable informationw eo btain in real time enables us to make amore comprehensive and, therefore, more accurate assessment of the situation which, in turn, will facilitate effective decision-making.
Augmented Reality introducess everal innovations,h owever,with reference to the traditionalh uman experience of understanding reality.F irst,t he transforming of the environment takes place on al evel prior to the present reality itself, where there is not necessarilya ny direct impact on the environment.I n other words, the intervention is carriedout on the channel through which the environment is observedb ut does not modify what is observed − at least not initially.What is modified, actually,i st he observer'si ntellectual experience,a nd this greatlym ultiplies social-cognitive opportunities − or,t op ut it another way, the learning opportunities for ag roup of individuals.I ft he observers are spared the work of modifying the environment,t hey maye ach have am orei ntense subjective learning experience.
Second, as we were pointing out,eventhough humans' intellectual capacity enables them to modify the environment without having to modify themselves significantlyortodevelop specialized defense or survival organs, thereisafeedback effect that happens with Augmented Reality.This is because the human intellect is capable of generating new,a ugmented ways of understanding the environment that enhance the options for adaptingi tt oh uman needs.In short, if my intellectual ability makes it easy for me to understand the environment, Iwill be better able to transform it and adapt it to my needs.But if my intellectual ability develops new ways of understanding the environment that are qualitatively superior to the traditionalw ays, Iwill be able to act upon the environment even more efficiently and more intelligently.This was demonstratedw ith the previous point,w hich enables me to act upon it and obtain knowledge of it without ever modifying it,through subjective experiences Ishare with several individuals.
Third, while heightened sensory experience refers to seeing and hearing, mainly, it is worth stressingt hat there is ag rowingi nteresti ni ncluding other senses that would provide aw ell-rounded experience.Fore xample, we now have theaters wheremovies are projected in four dimensions, includingthermal effects, wind, heatand cold, even rain and various scents, like wet earth or flowers thatappear in am eadow before us, afreshlybaked cake, big city smog,etc.The sense of touchdeserves special mention, especiallyinlight of the upsurge in 3D printers, which can produce and reproduceo bjects thatc an be not only viewed likeapicture or photograph but also handled.
Human beingsare areality open to the world and remain that waythroughout their existence.Of the conditions that make learning and education possible, this is the most obvious − known alsoa sm alleability,u nfinishedness or,inamore specific sense, educability.Along this line, Barrio (2000) has stated that the more human beingsk now,t he more they grow as individuals;w hat's more, they incorporate what they know in such aw ay that it becomes part of them.This, in turn, impliest hat the potential for growth is determined by the opportunities for learning and understandingw hich, to ag reat degree, depend upon the context in which the individual is found.A ne nvironment wheren ew information that could become knowledge is lacking and wherethereislittle opportunity to access resourceso ri nteract with people would be an environment that is not very favorable to human development.I nc ontrast, am ilieu rich in information networks, with connections to different resources and av ariety of people, constitutes as ituation very favorable to steadyg rowth.
Augmented Reality is located in the latter type of environment,which is enriched because it supplies not onlyinformation − which, generallyspeaking,the Internet also supplies − but also specific information linked with the structuring of the information the user receives.Even though the individual chooses where to cast his/her eyes in am ixed observation of reality,there is, in fact,apre-established architecture that arranges the hyperlinksand connections.The upshot of this pre-set design is am ediated navigation that could deprive individuals of autonomy; they should be aware of this and develop what Burbules (2004) has called criticalh yper-reading.Once we accept,h owever,that therei sn on et neutrality,the Augmented Reality experiencem ay be thought of as training in evaluation of online content − which is preciselyone of the principal thingsE ducation demands of the Internet (Esteban/Fuentes 2015).

Ontological knowledgea nd the animal of realities
The philosopher Xavier Zubiri( 1986) attributes to human beings, vis-à-vis their relationship to reality,anumber of unique characteristics that distinguish them from other living beings.We will point out two of these here.On the one hand, he states that humans are capable of af ar deeper understanding of the environment than animals, for animals perceive the environment onlyi nt erms of stimuli, whereas humans are able to grasp its true reality.A sB arrio (2000) puts it,t his is an ontological type of knowledge,i nt hat humans are able to grasp and comprehend the entire scope of theirr eality.A ugmented Reality en-hances this ontological knowledge,a nd that has major ramifications for education.
When we visit ac ity and access information about ab uilding thatc an be acquired onlyt hrough Augmented Reality,w ea re enriching our knowledge of the environment.T he sameh appens when we visit am useum wherew es ee paintingsa nd, simultaneously, access information about the artists, the society in which they lived, the meaning of the symbols and colorst hey used in their work, etc., thereby enhancing both the experience and our knowledge.Likewise, this is how we turn the viewing of apainting into atransmedia learning experience (Fuentes 2015), for we can not onlyv iew it but also listen to an audio narration about its context; read atext; watch avideo; compareitwith other works by the samea rtist or othera rtists of thatp eriod, thus comparing two schools of painting;and even debate perceptions of the painting with other people.We can listen to the music that the artists listened to or that inspired them while they werep ainting;w ec an have an interpretive guide for each part of ap ainting.All of this contributes to our ontological knowledge of reality in thati te nables us to comprehendm ore fullyw hat the painting means, its socio-historical context,and even the perspective that influenced how the artist proceeded with the work.
Transmediation also findsac onnection with the two anthropological traits previouslym entioned − specifically, heightened sensory experience and initiative.T he opportunity to participatea nd interact,i np articular, is one of the basic features of transmedia narratives( Fuentes et al.2 015;J over et al.2 015) − mainlyt hose defined as frameworko ro pen transmedia (Pence2 012), which are freelyc reated by multiple users producing visions of ap articular world, as opposed to experience or closed transmedia,w hich are producedb yasingle agent.I nt his regard, as spaces suitable for transmediation − largely because of their association with mobile devices (Rojas 2013) − Augmented Reality schemesm ust take into account the setting in which it is desired that they be implemented; in the educational sphere, consistent with the anthropological trait of lack of instincts, this calls for ag reater degreeo fo penness to user creation and participation.
On the otherhand, Zubiri defines the human being as an 'animal of realities' in that individuals are capable of devising ar eality that transcends their immediate environment.Inother words, humans can have acosmovision withouthaving to be physicallypresent in all the places thatshape it − or,toput it another way, can shift from one scene to another without actuallyh aving to appear in anyofthem.This anthropological trait is more evident in the context of technology.Let us consider twoexamples.First,communication with people far away is possiblew hen the speaker is contextualized.It is not enough just to receive the message; acoherent contextualization − the environment wherethe messageoriginated, the circumstances that gave rise to it,etc.− is required to understand the messagep roperly.As Polaino (2008) explains, this is why, when we have a cell phone conversation, we usuallys tart by asking, 'Where are you?' − simply because we need to situate or contextualize the other person.When we call a known landline, this is obviouslyn ot necessary because contextualization precedes the call.What makes this possible, as Zubiri describes, is our ability to grasp several realities simultaneouslyw ithout the need to be physicallyp resent in them.
The second example has to do with Augmented Reality,t hrough which we sidestep the actual reality and shift to other realities not present that, though not exactlyt he same, are associated with the reality we are seeing;t hey are other superimposed realities thatc omplement the original one.This ability to shift,h owever,i st emporala swell as spatial; using Augmented Reality devices, atwelfth-century castle'sdimensions and features throughout its history maybe projected onto the actual view of it,i ncludingt he peculiarities of the different cultures and the wisheso ft he various generations who have resided there.In this sense, the human being is not onlya n'animal of realities' but alsoa n' animal of times'.Naturally, we could think of this ability as being prior to Augmented Reality,f or both the memory that attends conscious existencei tself and the narrativeo fH istory − in books, films, art,a nd other formats − enable us to be conscious of different temporal realities.T here is no doubt,h owever,t hat Augmented Reality can playavery important role with regard to the confluence of multimedianarrativesand the actual physical presenceofanaturalorartistic object.
Another angle on this anthropological trait that is worth consideringfrom a pedagogicalstandpoint is the spaces and times for education, in the institutional sense of the word − formal schooling,inotherwords.Cuendet et al. (2013) have sounded awarning about the restrictions placed on school spaces to accommodate Augmented Reality designs,r ecommending thatt hese be tested in both a laboratory and in an actual school environment to ensure their effectiveness.It is also worth reflectingu pon the opposite, however − that is, if ah uman being is an animal of different realities and times, and if modern technology like Augmented Reality exaggerates this trait,t hen there is the possibility of ubiquitous learning (Burbules2012), and we would call into question the physical restrictions of formal schooling and, therefore, call attention to how this would effectively limit the development of ab asic anthropological trait and the opportunities for human progress that technologyo ffers.

Leisure as an on-vital human need
One dimension of the human being that is scarcelya ddressed in pedagogical anthropology but is of growinginterest in today'ssocieties and closelyassociated with technologyand with education is the human need for leisure.Heidegger has made us more aware of the fact thatindividuals are temporalbeingswhose existencei sm easured not onlyi nt erms of years, months, and days but also in terms of theira ctivities.Since human beingsh avep hysical and mental limitations, work cannot take up all of their available time.So, theyh avef ree time, as well − periods when there are no obligations, no requirements, and no particular activity associatedw ith it − in conjunction with which we have leisure, explaineds ome years agob yP edró (1984) as constituting as pecific activity of an invigorating nature,with no financial, utilitarian, or proselytic aims, the purpose of which lies solely in happiness-and pleasure-oriented activities.Thissimple definition, however,places serious restrictions on activities that we routinely engageinbut mistakenlythink of as leisure.Aweekend outing to the mountains, for example, could erroneously be considered leisure, if the goal is to recover physical or emotional strength after astressfulweek.In this case, the rest or recuperation of energy is for the purpose of returningtowork, which harks back to Marxist logic in which leisure is nothing more thanthe motor forceofproductivity.The wealth of examples of this type that we could mention should be cause for reflection − and such reflection should also be applied to the innumerable continuinge ducation activities we undertake and categorize as leisure.T he seemingly harmless confusion on this point highlights acharacteristic of today's society − it'se xtreme utilitarianism, which has am ajor impact on how the human being is understood.
It appears that the human need for leisure and its relationship first to technique and latert ot echnology have existed in most societies since prehistoric times.Accordingt oP edró( 1984), we have evidence of ludic activities in widely diverse cultures goingb ack 6,000 years.However,i tw as not until the development of farming and ranching techniques − am ajor technical advancement − that as edentary life was possible.Then, when some were producing more than they needed for themselvesa nd others could spend less time working, leisure gotasignificant boost.This excess production of subsistence foods also led to the emergence of social classes, however,w ith am inorityi np ossession of most of the goods contracting with the majority to perform the work.This pattern − aminorityfree to spend time on non-productive activities with aspecific purpose, in and of itself,and no obligations attached − was destinedtoberepeated in manylater eras.Starting with the Athenians' array of recreational, philosophical, artistic, and sports activities thate njoyed the support of philosophersl ike Aristotle, who viewed leisure as as uperior activity,i tc ontinued with Rome, wheret he games democratized ludic activities, in as ense, but the elite still had am uchm ore refined, much less cruel and bloodyl eisure thant he Roman games,which werealso critiqued by philosophers, like Seneca, for their political component and for being 'bread and circuses' entertainment for the masses.The Middle Ages and the Renaissance left asimilar pattern, with various specificities; duringt he Industrial Revolution, workingh ours weree stablished − quite lengthyatfirst and later reduced − which allowed the idea of freetime to spread to the entirep opulation and openedu po pportunities for leisure.
Even though extendingleisuret om ostoft he population was am ajor innovation, leisure still retains some of its more negative features from previous periods in history that make it difficult to see it as such.First,the strongdifferentiation of social classesi sa lso marked by leisure, which represents an inherent contradiction.Leisurea ctivity,which has no purpose other than enjoyment,i n and of itself, is useda sameans of distinctiona nd not as pure enjoyment.S econd, the 'escape' natureofleisureistwo-sided, in thatitisfor alleviating stress but would also be used, Roman-style, to escape social and political reality.The proliferation of low-cost leisure harks back to the free games in the Coliseum, as portrayed in TheHunger Games.Moreover,inthis series of novels and films, the methodst hatm ake leisure possible are improved, thanks to technological advances and to the cultureo fs pectacle − elements that are connected in that the latter feeds on the grandiose products of the former.L astly, capitalist logic, rooted in infinite economic growth, has had at wo-fold impact on leisure: a) it has integratedl eisurei nto its structure, whether as rest that is absolutely necessary for the activity we werem entioning aboveo ra sa ctivity that entails af inancial cost − low,i ns ome cases, but ac ost thath elps to sustain the mercantile system − and b) it has stretched the concept of usefulnesst oe xtraordinary limits, thus reducing the anthropological vision of the human beingt oi ts homo faber dimension.
In contrast,l eisure supports am uch more comprehensive vision of the human being (Dumazedier 1968) by reinforcing the concept of homo faber − not in the foregoings ense but in the sense of craftsmanship production.The final resultofthis maybethought of as awork in itself,wherethe singular contribution is observed and one is distracted from the feelingo fb eing part of the mechanism of as ystem that Chaplin masterfullyp ortrayed in Modern Times.It also strengthens the homo ludens dimension, alluding to play as ak ey but not uniqueaspect of leisure − and not limited to children but available to the entire population.Leisure also makes it possiblet os peak of an imaginary man as a sign of the present-day rationalist insufficiencya nd the need that humans have to spice up their monotonous existenceb yv isualizing dreams.I tb rings to life adimension of homo sapiens that is related to accessing information for no reason other than adesire to know and the enjoyment of learning,and where the Internet and social networks playavital role.Lastly, leisure allows us to speak of a homo socius,i nt hat leisure has as ignificant social and community-oriented component.
Still, with human beings,leisure has aspecific and even more profound role − wherein lies its primary educational benefit.This is revealed through aphilosophical analysis addressing the concept of usefulness.Pieper (2006) noted this in as tudy of festivities as an element of leisure, recognizingf estivities as away to decompress from menial labor and an absenceofthe 'for what' or 'for whom' in this type of human activity thati mparts meaning to af ull life.
These reflections on leisure highlight its importance in today'sworld that is striving to put into practice Nussbaum'seconomic development model, in which autotelic activities are considered useless.Technological innovations can delve more deeplyi nto this wayo fu nderstanding reality while, at the same time, affordinga no pportunity to rethink leisure.A ugmented Reality,i np articular, should be viewed not justi nt erms of its role in education or instruction but also as away to enjoyaproperly-understood leisure.Bearing this in mind, Augmented Reality cannot be used simplyasaself-paced method of accessing more information more quickly;r ather,i ts hould help one to experience reality in a more leisurelym anner.Experiencing it this wayh as to do with contemplation, which involves an on-interventionist,n on-manipulative,a ttentive attitude that enables one to acknowledge what is observed exactlya si ti s, with no intention of transformingit.Only in such tranquility can one discover the profound reality of things − the ontological knowledge we werem entioning in the previous section − and to moveonfrom arelative vision to abroader,more general perspective (Pieper 2006); otherwise, augmenting reality could become just another pointless,s uperficial activity.
This does not contradict what has been said previously, when we were speakingo fh uman initiativea nd the lack of instincts, wherep articipation and interactivity wererecognized as positive.Onthe contrary:inhuman beings, contemplation and intervention should be recognized as complementary activities.Moreover,this transforms leisure itself to an educational activity,g iven that educationisthe humanizing of the person, in Kant'sterms,and leisure allows that humanitytobemade reality − which goes beyond financially-motivated production.In other words, education strengthensthe idea of person,also part of Kant's conception, which envisionsthe non-exploitable dimension of persons and calls for them to be treated not onlya sameans but also as an end in themselves.
As we have seen, technological advances madeleisure possible at the beginning of human history and remaina ti ts coret oday, for the majority of leisure activities involvet echnology.There is one very important role thatl eisure plays in education, however,a nd it has to do with the individual'se thics education.An anthropologythat makes no reference to ethics is ahalf-baked anthropology (Millán-Puelles 2007);and, as Da Vinci wrote( 1995,2 64), "Them an who does not control his instincts lowers himself to the level of beasts".This is the reason for calling attention to the ethical potential of leisure,properlyunderstood, for it facilitates integrating the non-exploitative treatment of other people into the understandingo fr eality.I ndividuals who are in pursuit of financial gain across their entire rangeo fb ehavior will be capable of pursuing advantage onlyf or themselves − not for other individuals around them.The contemplative aspect of leisure also allows other individuals to be recognizedasr eality,thus precluding manipulative attitudes.This means accepting others as something good, and this suppresses transformative attitudes destined, inevitably, to become actions (Thomas 1995).
One clarification should be madeh ere, for education is usually understood − particularlyb yt he socio-critical paradigm − as at ool for social transformation.Nothingc an be built,h owever,w ithout identifying something of value upon which to build.Ifhope is education'sengine,confidence is its indispensable ally.
Also, as Unamuno (1967, 73)s howed, education is not justm ethod,n or does it achievei ts objective with "barometers, thermometers,r ain gauges, wind gauges, dynamometers, maps,diagrams, telescopes, microscopes, spectroscopes:f or wherever youl ook, your eyes are steepedi ns cience".E ducation is also love, and loveisanessential component of leisure, for without loveneither contemplation nor enjoyment,inand of themselves, would make sense.In short, Augmented Reality designs can help to promotet his ethical-educational concept of leisure, insofar as,t echnologically, they occupy ag ood portion of people'sf reet ime.Schools and educators have ak ey role in this, consistingo f not limiting its use in the natural sciences and alsoe xploring the wide world of opportunities afforded by the social sciences and the humanities.Thisw ill also prevent another of the negative effects that have attended leisure throughout history:t hat it distinguishess ocial classes, with the lower classes of society being denied high culture.To be specific, some current studies have shown that there is adigital divide separatingyoungpeople who are in social difficulty from other social groups and that it resultsfrom the formerhaving no access to highquality content and uses such as Augmented Reality (Melendro et al.2016), their use of technologyb eing extremelyl imited and of very little educational value.But if the educational system aspires to become society'selevator,itmust ensure that all students − especiallythose most vulnerable − have access to the highest forms of culture, which put us closer in touch with our most human side (Stein-er/Lajdali 2006) and,i nt he words of Schopenhauer (2015), comfort,a lleviate, and strengthen us, which mayhelp us to transform Augmented Reality into cultivated reality.The ninth ability on the list suggested by Nussbaum (2011) names enjoyment and playa se lements thati mpart value to ah uman life.Although none of the other abilities involvet he use of technology,the author'so penness to updating makes it reasonable to suppose that an ability of thattype will soon be added to the list.That would have some major ramificationsfor education, in that it is dependentu pon the State as advocate for public policies.

Conclusions
The case of South African athlete Oscar Pistorius mayc ause us to reflect upon the paradox of human progress through technological advancement.W hile his prosthetic legs were evidence of achievementsi nt he evolution of human thoughti no ne of its dimensions, the fact that his fiancé Reeva was murdered by four shots fired in his own home shows thatt he concept of human improvement must go beyond the studyo fa pplied technologya nd is directlyr elated to educational action, as avalid strategyfor shaping the ethical aspect of the individual.
Like ag eneral analysis of technology,apedagogical analysis of Augmented Reality should lead us to consider whether using it will gett he resultt hat Kant attributed to education -humanization − particularlyw hens ome philosophers like Bostrom (2009,5 51) are saying that, even beyond natural disasters, "[t]he most severe existential risks of this century derive from expectedt echnological developments".
In this chapter,weh avea ttempted to contribute to these reflections beginning with four anthropological elements that are key to education: the lack of instincts and its impact on initiative,w hich plays ac rucial role in the current technological model; human precariousness and the ability of humans to adapt the environment,w hich takes on ap eculiar form in Augmented Reality, in that the environment is not substantiallymodified and offers aprivileged perspective with feedback on intellectual capacity;t he ontological knowledge of reality through information obtaineda nd the opportunityf or interaction and transmediation; and leisure, which maintains strong ties to technology, facilitates ac omprehensive vision of the human being,a nd plays am ajor role in human ethical education − because of which it should be taken into account for Augmented Reality designs,e speciallyt hose in the social sciences and the humanities.
The complexity of human beingsa nd the importance of their relationship with technology are matters thatc all for ongoing,i n-depth studye xploring other significant anthropological traits.Among these, sociability stands out, for we have known since Aristotle'sd ay that humans need other people − not onlyt os urvive but alsot ol iveh umanely.Likewise, as ac ulturale lement,technologyrepresents ajointendeavor.To be more specific, far from being limited to experiencesafforded by visual devices for individual use − and in keepingwith the social nature of the Internet − Augmented Reality is comingtobeusedmore and more on ag roup and shared basis, which is of great educational value, as well.
As we educators and pedagogues tackle the challenges of using technology in our daily endeavors, there will be manyq uestions we cannot avoid.Among them, and in connection with the subject of this chapter,the following seem pertinent to me: Are robotized human beingsthe anthropological ideal?Should educations witch to mechanizationa si ts path to human development?Couldw e stop using technology so that we can be technology?A sonm anyoccasions,l iterary and audiovisual narrativeshelp to light the path to the answers.Inachapter of the series Black Mirror,certain issues are raised with regard to coexistence in af uture when ocular implants enable us to record everything that passes before our eyes − thus tremendouslye xpanding our memory capacity,a long the lines of what some authors have suggested as ac haracteristic of post-humans.Pedagogicala nthropology,a long with philosophya nd ethics, must address questions not onlya bout the possibility of changing the term 'human being' but alsoabout whether that would take us closer to what we wish to be as aspecies.