Should philosophy be a mandatory study in grade school?

[value]

I just came across an interesting Google Talk about an interesting education initiative in the US that provides a more complete education package that includes philosophy.

"Adam Braun is a New York Times bestselling author and the Founder of Pencils of Promise, an award-winning organization that has broken ground on more than 200 schools around the world. In recent years he has been named to the Forbes 30 Under 30 List, Wired Magazine's "50 People Who Are Changing the World," and was selected as one of the World Economic Forum's first ten Global Shapers. He has also been a featured speaker at The White House, United Nations and Clinton Global Initiative. His book The Promise of a Pencil: How an Ordinary Person Can Create Extraordinary Change debuted at #2 on the New York Times Bestseller list."

https://adambraun.com/ (founder)

"MissionU is a college alternative that gives students the skills and experience needed to succeed in today’s competitive working world.

Led by Pencils of Promise founder Adam Braun, who created the company with co-founder and Chief Product Officer Mike Adams, MissionU is the only program that combines general education with specialized skills training to prepare individuals for real-world jobs.

By employing an income-share agreement model, MissionU only requires students to pay once they are earning $50,000 or more, during which they pay 15% of their income for three years back to the company."
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/missionu

[Elephant]

So, should it be taught as part of the curriculum, or kept as an elective? I know underwater basket weaving classes must be kept on the curriculum and cannot be removed ::cough:: politically motivated grooming.

For the grade school? Keep it as elective, and if no one is signing up, it means they're not ready yet for this kind of teaching. I would hate to have philosophy be a mandatory subject, due to the fact that it should come to anyone naturally. If they pursue it due to their own curiosity and affinity to the subject matter, that's a win for philosophy. My reason for this is that philosophy is a vocation that does not promise monetary, prestige, or practical rewards -- you may not be paid a billion dollars or save a life or perform in a 50,000 full capacity arena. And if despite these lack, you're still drawn to it, then that is a true test of wisdom needed to pursue this vocation and carry on the torch. The pursuit of philosophical knowledge is a test of mind, not of social or practical acceptance by others or by the entire society.

[JDBowden]

So, should it be taught as part of the curriculum, or kept as an elective? I know underwater basket weaving classes must be kept on the curriculum and cannot be removed ::cough:: politically motivated grooming.

My reason for this is that philosophy is a vocation that does not promise monetary, prestige, or practical rewards -- you may not be paid a billion dollars ...

Nothing promises monetary, prestige or rewards. We can include traditional higher education in this category if we want to go down this road... Individuals graduating with high honors, multiple degrees, professional certifications, etc. are without jobs or are horrifically underemployed are not with these things these days either. We cannot say philosophy alone does this alone. However, you mentioned some well put ideas here and raises some questions.

[Belindi]

Young children learn by playing. You don't call it philosophy you call it whatever the name of the game is, and you don't make them concentrate on it for too long before you let them run about and make a noise.

A method of teaching philosophy to older children is by way of quality science fiction. By "quality" I mean sci fi that is more than sensational action, and preferably includes characters that have feelings.

Spontaneous drama can be used for older students, drama that begins with characters wrestling with a problem and having arguments and jokes about the problem.

https://www.teachearlyyears.com/learnin ... n-thinking

[Marvin_Edwards]

I would want to see the curriculum before exposing any child to philosophy. It seems to me that academic philosophy feels it necessary to catalogue every bad idea along with every good one, without any guidance as to how to discern one from the other. The Hard Determinist, for example, would just as soon rob every child of their free will and undermine responsibility, by spreading the delusion that reliable cause and effect is some kind of prison that one must escape, but cannot. It's a forking horror story. And it is shameful to entrap children in that silly paradox with no logical ladder to climb out.

Whether we are teachers, parents, or whatever, we pass our own beliefs on to our children. We would be morally derelict if we did not. For each one of us believes that our own beliefs are right, proper, useful, valuable, etc. Therefore, we are morally obliged to pass on these beliefs to the next generation.

In this overcrowded world, there are about 8,000,000,000 different sets of beliefs. How can we choose between them? We have no access to an independent and Objective Judge, to whose opinion we might agree to defer. So what? Shall we do as you suggest? Or maybe as I suggest? Or perhaps we should ask Bolsonaro, Putin, or Trump? There are opinions of every shade out there. How shall we choose which of them to pass on to our descendants?

Well, if we are lost, then certainly our children will be lost. Therefore, we need to stop being lost, and come up with some answers that everyone can agree with.

For example: What is morality about? It is about achieving the best good and the least harm for everyone.

[Elephant]

Nothing promises monetary, prestige or rewards.

On the contrary, a lot of endeavors promise those rewards. It doesn't mean you'd be successful in those fields, but the rewards of money, prestige, and even social clout are dangled in front of everybody as a way to recruit them. Philosophy is a different matter. It's a contemplation -- especially when you're building a theory. I haven't read any biography of philosophers that did not mention lengthy isolation. And in the end, a philosopher's well-argued insight -- no matter how important -- could only be judged and appreciated by those of his peers.

[Pattern-chaser]

On the contrary, a lot of endeavors promise those rewards. It doesn't mean you'd be successful in those fields, but the rewards of money, prestige, and even social clout are dangled in front of everybody as a way to recruit them. Philosophy is a different matter. It's a contemplation -- especially when you're building a theory. I haven't read any biography of philosophers that did not mention lengthy isolation. And in the end, a philosopher's well-argued insight -- no matter how important -- could only be judged and appreciated by those of his peers.

If philosophy can only be understood/appreciated by philosophers, does it really have a reason to exist?

[JDBowden]

On the contrary, a lot of endeavors promise those rewards. It doesn't mean you'd be successful in those fields, but the rewards of money, prestige, and even social clout are dangled in front of everybody as a way to recruit them. Philosophy is a different matter. It's a contemplation -- especially when you're building a theory. I haven't read any biography of philosophers that did not mention lengthy isolation. And in the end, a philosopher's well-argued insight -- no matter how important -- could only be judged and appreciated by those of his peers.

If philosophy can only be understood/appreciated by philosophers, does it really have a reason to exist?

I think we could put this with any field. For example: theoretical physics. I do not understand it (personally), so should it exist? Or professional sports. People go bananas over it, and I think it's borderline asinine. Still again, should it exist?

[Elephant]

If philosophy can only be understood/appreciated by philosophers, does it really have a reason to exist?

So are you saying that one who isn't a philosopher yet couldn't work his way to becoming a philosopher's peer?

In case you need a recap, I said previously that the philosophy course shouldn't be mandatory. It would be discovered by those who truly want to be in the field. One of the reasons I gave to JDBowden is that philosophy does not promise any rewards whatsoever. One studies philosophy or take up philosophy because it is in their nature.

So, taking it all together, say you ended up studying philosophy and devoted a lengthy time learning it, writing it, and defending it and comparing your works with the works of philosophers then you finally have become like them, you've become their peers, aren't you not in the position then to appreciate and judge the works of your peers?

Sorry, but anyone could write in the online forum, like this site, some philosophical blurbs, but it doesn't mean they have already understood a theory.

[Elephant]

I think we could put this with any field. For example: theoretical physics. I do not understand it (personally), so should it exist? Or professional sports. People go bananas over it, and I think it's borderline asinine. Still again, should it exist?

I really don't understand how "should it exist?" came up in this exchange. Was it because Pattern-chaser mentioned something unrelated to what I'm saying and you took it to be what I'm saying?

My apologies if this is sarcastic, but your example doesn't even related to what I"m saying.

[Sy Borg]

I would like to see young people taught how to distinguish valid arguments from more questionable one. That will require some basic logic, and examination of evidence. Ideally, this would be presented at least in part as groupwork projects.

I also think that wisdom, using philosophy to handle the trouble so life would be helpful, eg. stocism. The world is getting harder and people need some cushioning, to be able to contextualise and maintain some perspective.

Mental arithmetic. By the end of school, all students should be able to look at food in supermarkets and almost instantly be able to determine comparative value for money between items of different weights and cost per gram/ounce.

Etymology. noting, for instance, all English words based on the Latin word for love, amare ... amity, amiable, amorous, amigo but also explain why, say, amoeba is based on the Greek word for change.

[Belindi]

It already is, Sy Borg. Mathematics is closely related to formal logic.

Wisdom, e.g. stoicism, is already taught by studying novels, older literature, and drama.

Housekeeping and nutrition are increasingly needing to be taught and taught alongside fallacies such as we see in supermarketing promotions.

I agree a basic etymological fact is how a word is spelled is not a reliable guide to its present and historical meanings. I'd place etymology with history in curriculums. Scepticism is a necessary attitude for learning history as a modern discipline.

[Sy Borg]

Belinda, some impressions:

Math: mental arithmetic is gradually becoming a lost art

Philosophy: society in general is leaning away from stoicism and into narcissism, with attendant histrionics

Nutrition: obesity has been increasing for some time.

Whatever is being taught is not cutting through. More emphasis is needed.

[Pattern-chaser]

If philosophy can only be understood/appreciated by philosophers, does it really have a reason to exist?

So are you saying that one who isn't a philosopher yet couldn't work his way to becoming a philosopher's peer?

In case you need a recap, I said previously that the philosophy course shouldn't be mandatory. It would be discovered by those who truly want to be in the field. One of the reasons I gave to JDBowden is that philosophy does not promise any rewards whatsoever. One studies philosophy or take up philosophy because it is in their nature.

So, taking it all together, say you ended up studying philosophy and devoted a lengthy time learning it, writing it, and defending it and comparing your works with the works of philosophers then you finally have become like them, you've become their peers, aren't you not in the position then to appreciate and judge the works of your peers?


Sorry, but anyone could write in the online forum, like this site, some philosophical blurbs, but it doesn't mean they have already understood a theory.

...and it doesn't mean they haven't understood the theory in question, either.

Using myself as an example, I have no academic philosophical training/education at all. And, while I am far from a world-class philosopher, I am not a complete ignoramus either. I have a lifelong interest in serious, considered, thought (i.e. philosophy). And I have learned much. In only five or ten thousand years, I hope to achieve a usable command of the subject!

So I accept that those with some familiarity with philosophy might find it easier to appreciate some things than those who have no such familiarity. But to go farther, and claim that only philosophers can appreciate philosophy, is unjustified, unhelpful, and mistaken, IMO. For a start: how much familiarity or training is required for someone to be thought of as a philosopher?

[Pattern-chaser]

Etymology. noting, for instance, all English words based on the Latin word for love, amare ... amity, amiable, amorous, amigo but also explain why, say, amoeba is based on the Greek word for change.

[Derail] Yes, I have always been sad to see American 'simplifications' of English spelling. For the spelling, as you imply, carries hints of its origin, and of its meaning. So "centre" with the "-re" ending, hints at a French origin. And so on. That is lost when we write "center", and IMO that's an unnecessary shame.