Philosophy in Schools

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

I’ve thought for some time that philosophy should be taught in school from a young age. A recent Discover blog post reinvigorated this conviction (there is probably some selection bias at work, but many of you can anecdotally affirm that philosophy is causal of good writing and verbal reasoning skills).

One problem I see with it though, and the reason I post this in the Religion forum, is that philosophy treads on a lot of the same ground as religion. In fact, this is a big part of why philosophy is so necessary. As the developed world secularizes, religion is no longer taught anywhere, neither in school nor at home nor in church or temple or mosque or what have you. But many of the concepts of religion are valuable: ethics, metaphysics, and “the meaning of life” are all part of what religions teach. Say what you will about the specific teachings, but the general message that these fields of human activity are important is something that is being lost along with religion. Philosophy education could maintain that broader message.

However, how does a philosophy class cover the question of God? Or the soul? Particularly in the US, such discussions would be a nonstarter in public schools. It seems here that “freedom of religion” would act to deter philosophical understanding as well.

A solution is to borrow a line from the US creationist movement: “teach the controversy.” We have real controversy, and while it’s not possible to avoid discussing religious ideas, it is possible to present both sides of the case fairly. Compare Aquinas to Russel, and Searle to Hofstadter, and you have brilliant philosophers taking strong opposing positions.

This suggestion may be polarizing. In many places, it would be a vehicle for religion into the classroom. In others, it would be the ultimate secularization of schools. But the value of the dialogue would likely outweigh these possible downsides.

2

Not in preschool. Not k-6. Too much basic stuff to learn. We should teach ps-6 about the consequences of inappropriate behavior by having consequences.

3

Why not very young students?

Once my brother asked my niece and nephew (about 6 and 8 at the time, respectively) if snow was more like sand or more like peanut butter. They immediately took opposing positions, and after saying why they took their positions, started arguing with each other, trying to make a case that snow was like sand or like peanut butter.

Clearly, young children aren’t going to read Kant, but a question like the one above is philosophical in that it teases basic concepts, and can engage even young kids in reasoned arguments. With an adult to mediate and steer the discussion, getting kids thinking this way can help them to digest information and understand the world. It doesn’t depend on any more concepts than those of snow, sand, peanut butter, and similarity, and examining these concepts trains them in examining concepts generally.

4

You are correct. It already is done by some teachers. It is not called philosophy. Not enough time for a course. Public school has all kinds of problems Since they are teaching to pass standard tests, what philosophical questions would you ask?

5

I’m for it as long as we don’t turn over the syllabus to professional philosophy students. They’ve done enough damage already by spreading their gospel of relative moralism. And we don’t have to teach philosophy OR religion to younger students. Just teach them to think reasonably–but then the m/r secularists and the clerics would probably howl since that would necessarily undermine their indoctrination programs.

6

Good post Carleas. Firstly just to clarify though, what is the current teaching situation where you are? For example philosophy is introduced in some schools at about 16ish, and some (few) schools still teach christianity.

But I think you might be right with the problem of religion being prevalent. There is still to much power in religion at the moment, and until it falters much more significantly (this may never happen) ideas of the enlightenment can’t be taught, because most aspects of philosphy clash with theology.

Secondly, I’m not sure children that young are capable of grasping many of the ideas of philosophy. Christ, I mean a couple of people in another thread can’t even grasp a metaphor. Obvs Kant would be inaccessible, but I’d argue that the nature of metaphysics and existentialism may be a no-no altogether. I’m not a child psychologist though.

Lastly, some ideas of philosophy may be even dangerous to children! If we have children learning about nihilism before we have them learning about Santa Claus, what chaos would ensue? Would we really want to rob a child of a traditional childhood and their imaginitive, playful minds?

Though it may seem like it from my points, I am pretty much with you in principle though. I’ll teach any kids I have philosophy as soon as I can.

7

Turtle, I agree that public schools are in serious trouble, and maybe this is not the best place to start :laughing: And a lot of philosophy gets worked into the current curriculum. But just as we don’t exclude math though it is used extensively in science, we should exclude philosophy just because it may arise tangentially elsewhere. Indeed, the fact that it comes up elsewhere demonstrates its importance, and that a solid philosophical foundation would have benefits in other areas.

Standardized tests are a problem, and philosophy certainly isn’t something we would want to test via scantron. But what I’ve read suggests that standardized testing is highly corrupting of education in general, and is not an effective way to ensure educational success.

TPT, I would want as little gospel as possible. As I said, teach the controversy. Reasonable people disagree about morality, whether or not it is relative, and what we should do whichever answer we give. Should we lie to kids and tell them that no one anywhere gives moral relativism any credence?

I agree that we should teach kids to think reasonably, but I think part of that has to be something like philosophy or religion. Part of thinking reasonably is holding consistent beliefs from bottom to top, having rational ethical standards, a coherent metaphysical model of reality, etc. I don’t see how we could achieve that (at least not well) without intentionally teaching it.

Cheegster, where I live (the US, DC to be precise), there’s no philosophy or religion in public schools that I am aware of. There may be some districts that include philosophy, or charter schools, but I don’t think religion is ever taught (ReligiousTolerance.org has a lot of specific information about religion in US schools). Personally, I went to a catholic high school, so I functionally had philosophy all four years in the form of ‘religion’ class, which covered a lot of scripture, but dabbled in metaphysics, ethics, and world religion (that last was a little surreal).

Child psychology should be a factor in curriculum development, but we should be careful not to underestimate kids. I don’t think that telling kids falsities about the worlds leads to better imagination. There’s plenty of truth in the world to imagine about, and as long as we don’t intentionally shut down their dreams, we probably won’t do any harm by telling about the way the world is (the issue with Santa Claus comes from the lie that he exists, but the blame is placed on the truth that he does not because that’s when the child is hurt/disillusioned; if we never lied in the first place, it wouldn’t be a problem). Again, age should be a consideration, but kids start trying to understand the world from a very young age, and we should build curricula that formally shape that process.

8

Oh right, I’ll definitely take a good look at that site. Just FYI I’m from southern england which is a very much secularised place (particularly out of London).

I do pretty much agree with you though, I’m still gunna offer a different view thouggh just for discussion. I think secondary school time (11 onwards) would be a good time to introduce philosophy. What sort of stuff could you teach though I wonder? Ethics is the easiest basic idea of philosophy I think and the most common, but that is already taught really.

The reason I mentioned about children not physically being able to comprehend some things until a certain stage ( I learnt this sort of stuff in the limited psychology I learnt a few years ago). Piaget was a child psychologist - here is one of his experiments http://social.jrank.org/pages/660/Three-Mountain-Task.html - Obviously this is a very short description, and of course is not analogous here in any way, but it demonstrates that children don’t learn to think in particular ways until they are at a certain age. If children really believe in santa (which I did) can they really be trusted to understand many of the ideas of philosophy?

9

I don’t think attempting to teach philosophy is a very good idea. Very few schools are attempting to teach their students HOW to think. Almost all schools are teaching WHAT to think. The idea that we could teach children how to think is wonderful, but flies in the face of anyone with a religious agenda.

It would be great if we could teach children to think about sex education as well, but that won’t happen either. Teaching Johnny how to read, write, and cipher is tough enough without introducing controversial issues that actually prompt children to think and ask those difficult uncomfortable questions.

10

Dunno. Debating skills yes - how to support an opinion, how to anakyse what other people say for weaknesses or plain simple wrongness etc. sure, but actual philosophy, beyond its basic history, might be a bit much.

11

Cheegster, I suppose you’re right. Before 11 the current curriculum does about the same thing a philosophy-inclusive curriculum would do.

That Piaget study suggests an interesting lesson: set up a camera and a TV monitor showing what the camera sees. Let the kids play with the camera (which they will probably do without prompting), and then introduce ideas of perspective: let the children watch from the camera’s perspective while a treat is hidden under one of two boxes, and ask them to locate it. Let them keep guessing. Have them do coordinated movements in front of the camera, i.e. “lift your right arm,” and then ask them why it looks different from the camera’s perspectives. Let them take turns standing with the camera behind them and in front of them, so they can see from a similar perspective. etc.

Do you know if Piaget did any work trying to get kids to overcome this inability? It’s clearly something that we learn about as we grow up, why not explicitly teach it?

Tentative, this is definitely an idea that gets bogged down in practicalities :slight_smile: But you seem to agree that the dialogue on what we’re teaching should be shifted from “what” to “how.” Perhaps teaching philosophy is a long-term goal, and we need a less ambitious “wedge” by which we can gradually introduce how thinking (it’s amazing to me how much of my strategy on this comes from creationism). What would be a good step?

It seems as though part of the problem is really that parents want to maintain control over their children, and philosophy basically trains them to identify the irrationality in parental edicts. That makes the problem a vicious cycle where parents who haven’t learned to think are afraid to let their children learn to think, and ultimately raise a new generation of parents that can’t think.

12

So teaching kids to think, reason, and question ought to take a back seat to complacency? It seems to me that the extra effort would justify itself with the results. Not to mention that in getting those difficult questions out of the way directly and honestly [early on], we would allow a much quicker progression of thought as students grow.

I remember discrete math, specifically proofs, which never came easy to me. I always did well on the tests, though, because the correct answer was only determined a portion of your grade. The rest was based on your rationale, and how well you documented it. I would picture philosophy classes operating in a similar way – rather than posing a “right” or “wrong” methodology, teachers would simply provide a proposition and relevant variables. The goal is not to get the students to come to similar conclusions as the teacher, or a text book, but to teach and observe how one employs ‘reason’ and refines his/her understanding.

But is that learning curve imposed by habituation [or methodology on the teaching side], or imposed by nature?

This is almost a perfect summation of what I would consider the down side to philosophy-inclusive teaching. Parental control, or a general appeal to authority, is coveted out of fear. Could you imagine the mass resentment that would occur among families if children were taught to reason with their parents [rather than “shut up and listen.”]? Or if students were given occasion to openly debate with teachers and question what they were taught?

13

i agree. it would be very easy to use the opportunity to not just teach the kids about philosophy, but to make it into a biased program about learning a specific philosophy, a specific philosophy which may very well be incorrect, and which is invariably going to be pro-war/pro-military (we know for a fact that the whole public education system backs the military strongly as it is, and they would certainly continue that tradition into the philosophy program).

14

Hmm, I don’t remember enough about it to offer a good argument on it to be honest, I might do a little research and get back to you in a da or two though. Hoooowever…

I do remember that the result that was gained (i’m not sure if this is still a prominent paradigm in the world of psychology, again I’ll look it up) meant thhat children learnt by nature, genetically I guess. Like in the same way babies can’t speak until a certain age. I think that’s a good analogy anyway.

I suppose also the danger might be that if philosophy is ‘taught’ at schools it will just become dogma like religion hhas become in schools, teaching children ‘this is what you should think about the world because some important people said so’. But I would be ALL for teaching them how to think, critical thinking is a great skill.

15

Ah, this was basically what I wrote in my last point actually.

16

Since I was a young’en I became incredibly frustrated when somebody ordered me to do something and when I asked why, they always said ‘because I said so’. I only wanted a reason for doing it, then I would have been happy. But I guess they were just trying to shut me the hell up haha, I was hyperactive.

17

Shit, good point. If the students did not also find variety in teaching styles [or philosophical positions], they would almost inevitably be exposed to biases, and prejudice just the same.

18

to be able to specialize in anything you feel drawn to early would be a big improvement. I don’t consider a well balanced education one to remember.

remember philosophers have tried to educate people on the street and been killed for it.

thinking is not doing, or not doing enough, and right now doing makes money.

19

The very fact that we have to be wary of such a concept like this, or the concept of theological history, in public academia is an outrageous example of just how infested religion has become in systems that are supposed to be neuter.

I teach my daughter, who is 4, philosophy and physics already.
She understands much more than people think kids should understand.

People greatly underestimate the capacity of children.
She knows the basic rules of critical logic and thermodynamics.

20

I think this is a worthwhile statement. I was lucky enough to attend a high school which offered a philosophy course and I would say it’s at least partially responsible for me being able to perform actual logical operations.