The inaugural speech with which the author opened the symposium on the aims of aesthetic education held at Brno in November 1969 (at Brno University of J. E. Purkyně) proceeds from two basic theses: the thesis of the broad conception of aesthetic relationships and aesthetic acquisition, and the thesis of the primariness of aesthetic education in the present- day development of society. The author recalls Whitehead’s polemic with Read, in which Whitehead also advocates a broad conception of aesthetic education against education through art. After clarifying the starting points of functional and methodical education, the paper deals with the content and significance of creativeness in aesthetic education. Researches dealing with the comparison of creativeness with intelligence have shown the complexity of the relationship between the two qualities. The author believes that tendencies making a radical distinction between the two qualities (Getzels — Jackson) cannot be accepted; all the less so, because various conceptions of intelligence include factors forming essential conditions for the development of creativeness. Among the aspects referred to in the paper, the following are of special significance: the share of receptivity in creativeness, the relationship of interests and affects to the development of creativeness, the problem of tolerance and authoritativeness, the confrontation of creative and traditional dimensions in the process of acquisition. The paper makes an assessment of the American experiment of Bloom and Krathwohl’s team on the taxonomy of educational aims in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor fields, analyses the hierarchy of categories and their further internal divisions, and takes note of the mutual relationships between the first two fields. The basis of these relationships consists in the conditional nature of cognition and emotive experiences in perceiving a work of art and they can be further traced in studying the content of individual stages of the process of acquisition — in the field of cognition and emotion. The hierarchy of cognitive educational aims — knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation — are matched in the affective field by the following stages: reception, reaction, evaluation, organization and characterization by a value or a complex of values. The central concept of the affective structure of aims is internalization — the adoption of ideas, actions, norms and values from outside and using them as one’s own. The author quotes Krathwohl’s classification of the results of the cognitive and affective aspects of the teaching process and underlines the temporary and provisional significance of those variants which link the negative and positive qualities of the two fields. A look in the working process preparing the taxonomy of the aims of the psychomotor field is provided by the structure of this field put forward by R. Dave in May 1967 at the Berlin conference on tests. Categories of the psychomotor field proceed from imitation, by way of manipulation, pinpointing and breaking up the activity, up to naturalization. The subcategory of the highest degree as designated by Dave is automatization and interiorization. The taxonomies of educational aims presented here are based on changes in human behaviour and they pre-suppose structures of media by which these changes can be determined and evaluated. In spite of the fact that Western pedagogy has large and manysided sets of tests at its disposal, it will nevertheless be necessary to adapt the tests to the hierarchical structure of the taxonomy, which actually means the task of making new extensive systems of tests according to educational contents. The Czechoslovak syllabi of educational character-shaping work, the implementation of which in educational practice, after they have been made concrete in the Outline of Communist Education, has so mewhat receded, are based on educational qualities, that is to say on the content of education. The author draws attention to the Soviet discussion on the syllabi of educational character-shaping work, the results of which have been partly realized in the conception of the Czechoslovak syllabi. In the discussion referred to special attention was drawn to the necessity of linking up educational qualities with organizational forms of educational work, by means of which the qualities are not only developed also manifested. If we are now facing the task of newly organizing in our schools a further stage of the educational work proper, it seems only natural that we should draw a lesson from the results of American taxonomy: the viewpoint given by the structure of educational qualities and organizational forms should be supplemented by the view point of checking up on the results achieved. If our work done so far helped tea chers to grasp the structure of social educational objectives, the American ef forts aim at enabling us to follow the results of educational work in individuals and social groups.