Philosophy in the curriculum

[danielshrugged]

I'll go ahead and introduce this topic. To what extent should philosophy be taught in elementary, middle, and high schools? A few possible answers are:

1.) Not at all. Philosophy is very abstract, and students are not ready to consider topics such as being qua being and monadology until college.

2.) Philosophy IS abstract, and should be introduced slowly to students in other classes. In history, for example, the teacher should emphasize the role of ideas and give brief lessons about the relevant philosophers. In literature, students should be taught to think about the philosophy behind events. In math, students should learn basic logic, perhaps even learning its Aristotelian roots. However, students are not yet ready to tackle philosophy as an independent subject; this approach will prepare them for such a study in college.

3.) Philosophy should be required (or optional) late in high school. It is necessary for living, and serves to integrate everything one has learned thus far. If taught properly, students in late high school will be very ready for the abstract nature of philosophy.

4.) Philosophy should be taught earlier than late high school.

I am inclined to say, as in number 2, that the other subjects should be taught in such a way as to lay the groundwork for philosophy. I think philosophy should also be made an optional course late in high school, but I don't have enough experience with children who have gone through a proper curriculum to say whether they could all handle it, if it were required.

[AshRyan]

I am inclined to say, as in number 2, that the other subjects should be taught in such a way as to lay the groundwork for philosophy. I think philosophy should also be made an optional course late in high school, but I don't have enough experience with children who have gone through a proper curriculum to say whether they could all handle it, if it were required.

I basically agree with you, but I think that children whose prior education had been proper would definitely be able to handle philosophy. I would almost be inclined to make it a required course late in high school (perhaps junior and senior years).

If they had had some basic groundwork of philosophy already laid, in history classes or whatever, then they should be able to handle it, and already have enough context for those courses to be useful even if they were only for a couple of years.

[RationalEgoistSG]

I believe that what you stated in #2, Daniel, should be the policy in elementary and middle school. However, I believe that it would be quite beneficial for philosophy to be introduced as a regular part of the curriculum in junior and senior years as long as students were properly prepared for it as indicated in #2.

[danielshrugged]

Well, let's add a further question:

How should philosophy be taught? Should it be a history of philosophy course? Should it be a course on Objectivism? Should it be a thematic study of philosophy (e.g., study free will, then God, then empiricism vs rationalism, etc.)?

[RationalEgoistSG]

Philosophy should be taught as a history course in high school. When discussing a specific philosophical issue, the students should be given the dominant perspectives on the issue and decide for themselves which is correct.

College would be the more appropriate place, in my opinion, to discuss the merits of certain philosophies as opposed to others. Such evaluation of the dominant philosophies would be much more objective when based on a solid 2 years of history of the dominant schools of philosophy.

[AshRyan]

I don't believe that it should be introduced as a History of Philosophy class. First of all, the history of philosophy that would be at a general enough level to include for high school students could and should instead be integrated into regular history courses (since history courses would properly include the ideas behind major historical events and trends). Secondly, I'm not convinced that a history of philosophy approach is the best way to teach philosophy. It can be useful to put thinkers into a certain historical context, and that also helps to understand how various thinkers are related to one another (e.g., Aristotle being a student of Plato's), but the relevant contextual details of that kind can simply be given when studying a certain figure or issue. The kind of study that focuses on historical periods would take place at a more specialized level, in college. (And the broad historical overview could be gleaned from the history courses, in which these figures and ideas were introduced.)

That said, I think a study of philosophy at the late high school level should be structured logically rather than chronologically, something like the way OPAR is arranged. Epistemology and metaphysics would be studied first, as the basic branches, and from there ethics, maybe some esthetics, and then politics could be introduced.

[RationalEgoistSG]

Yes that makes sense.

[DavidV]

Well, let's add a further question:

How should philosophy be taught? Should it be a history of philosophy course? Should it be a course on Objectivism? Should it be a thematic study of philosophy (e.g., study free will, then God, then empiricism vs rationalism, etc.)?

Why not study it the thematic way it is initially done at OAC? That way students will get all the important issues without having to study history, which would take too much time in high school.

I don't think it can or should be presented as a course on Objectivism OPAR-style becuase that method assumes a familiarity with the issues at hand and does not stress what the important conflicts are. A systematic OPAR-like presentation would work best for someone who is already familiar and motivated about the issues at hand.

[AshRyan]

Why not study it the thematic way it is initially done at OAC?  That way students will get all the important issues without having to study history, which would take too much time in high school. 

I don't think it can or should be presented as a course on Objectivism OPAR-style becuase that method assumes a familiarity with the issues at hand and does not stress what the important conflicts are.  A systematic OPAR-like presentation would work best for someone who is already familiar and motivated about the issues at hand.

I didn't mean that Objectivism should be the only thing taught, and OPAR used as a textbook, or anything like that. I was merely suggesting that the teaching should be organized to have a logical progression, and gave OPAR as an example of how this could be done.

Presenting material topically, like the OAC, is certainly one possible way of doing this. In the OAC Intro to Philosophy course we focused on selected major topics, such as free will vs. determinism, the existence of God, and some basic epistemological positions--empiricism, rationalism, pragmatism--and then touched on ethics. This approaches the branches of philosophy in their proper hierarchy, so it fits in with what I was saying.

However, at least for a general, introductory, high-school type of course, I think more of a broad overview would be the best way to organize it, instead of just a few major topics. Although perhaps a combination of the two approaches--a broad overview, to place everything in context and give a general base of knowledge about philosophy, and then focusing on major selected topics within each branch, in order to concretize the issues and go more in-depth--would be the way to go.

[Rinku]

People differ in the age at which they can understand philosophy -- I was earlier than most, I was thinking about free will and 'what can exist outside the universe' at about 9. So I'd say philosophy could be taught to very advanced students in elementary and high school (by very advanced I mean students who obviously can think at the highly abstract level) -- either that or studied apart from school on their own, or via a private tutor.

But apart from those few who are actually *curious* about philosophy and think about it on their own, I don't think it should be a school requirement. If it were made one, either the class would be so difficult that no one would pass, or be not philosophy at all but a watered down repeating of material without understanding.

I don't know whether everyone needs to know philosophy or not. Even without learning it explicitly, a person does have it in implicit sense of life form. It does help a person think more clearly and make better decisions and is a great protective device against irrationality but there are people who get along well and can be perfectly rational and moral even without studying it explicitly.

So I'd say that those who will gain significant value from philosophy in their career, such as teachers, scientists, artists, writers, politicians, lawyers, ceo's, historians, and the like, should study it as soon as they are able to do so and have an interest in it, and that it should be optional for everyone else.

Also, I don't think that someone could fully understand philosophy in high school, even with four years of it, it's too broad a subject and requires a lot more mental work than most other subjects do. It would be like trying to go from addition to calculus in a couple of years. I'd say if a single class in it existed it should be on basic logic (the syllogism and its extensions) and the identification of fallacies in argument rather than a more topical study of the issues of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, etc.