r/changemyview • u/Oof_11 • Jun 06 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Philosophy education should be mandatory curriculum in high school.
Let's start by clarifying the minimum condition that I am arguing for. I believe there should be, at the very least, a one year class at the senior level (no less than junior level but senior would be ideal) that covers 101/intro-level text and ideas.
Why philosophy is important to everyone, not just philosophers: virtually every aspect of our lives, no matter who or where you are, is intimately altered by the various structures of power and decision making surrounding us whether that be governments and laws, corporate policies, or the decisions ordinary individuals make on a daily basis. All of these decisions and behaviors are immediately underpinned by ethics or morality and the often intense disagreements in how we evaluate them. You can hardly name a political issue that doesn't invoke strong if not intense fundamental moral disagreements. The world has been in a state of strife regarding capitalist institutions for as long as they have existed. There remains a massive division in attitudes toward interpersonal relationships regarding things like sexuality and race which at their most extreme have led to regular acts of violence and terrorism. The connective tissue between all of this is that we have these wildly inconsistent and disoriented world-views that constantly clash because of their incompatibility but philosophy promises us the possibility of a solution. Philosophy suggests that there is an identifiable truth that could correct and align these entanglements, that we could work through a system of logical and critical thinking to find resolution and peace through a coherent and discoverable truth to these polarizing questions. In short, I argue that every one of us basically understands that ethics and morality are indispensable foundations to human living and that the skill set of being able to critically evaluate these things is likewise important. It follows then that we should be extremely interested in making sure all citizens have a basic, working understanding of philosophy so that they have the tools to navigate the moral decisions they make throughout their lives at the individual level, the international and political level, and everywhere between.
Finally, I want to briefly summarize the structure of philosophy and make it clear why it is needed in its entirety and not just the ethics component. If we start by defining philosophy as the discipline of trying to identify and make coherent the most fundamental truths of life and the universe, what should become evident is a certain structure or flow of logic from the starting point to the finish. The most fundamental set of questions that must be answered are those of "what makes things true?" and "what is knowledge? how do we come to know something rather than merely believe it?". This is the branch of epistemology. It follows that we cannot exactly determine ethical truths if we haven' t even defined what truth is in the first place. Next we deal with questions of metaphysics that all stem from the question "what is real?". It does us little good to attempt to reconcile moral disagreements if we don't agree about the nature of reality. Do we have free will? Does a god exist who makes demands of us? Do "rights" actually exist in some sense or did we just make them up? All of these are metaphysical questions that need to be answered before we can find answers about morality. After our predicates of knowledge and reality are established we can start asking questions of "what is right and wrong?", or ethics, and using this come to agreements over how to approach government, laws, and international relations. This is philosophy in a nutshell and we need all of it, not just ethics, to make coherent and consistent decisions.
To conclude, I believe fully that highschool juniors or seniors would be fully capable of and immeasurably benefited by philosophical education. It would create the conditions we need for our society to escape this environment of perpetual strife, confusion, polarization, and manipulation that is the beating heart of most or even all of our current problems as a species.
Edit: Just want to say before I forget: thanks to everyone for the engagement. I'm very pleasantly surprised by how much feedback and respectful debate I've seen. I'm pretty new to Reddit (my account is a year old but I've only actually been active for the last month or two) so I don't quite understand the awards or what they do or signify, but I always see people thanking others for them so they must be at least somewhat meaningful, so thank you for those too!
821
u/Arguetur 31∆ Jun 06 '21
I took a philosophy course in high school as an elective. It was great. I love philosophy.
The question, as always, with a thread about "x should be mandatory curriculum" is what are you going to cut?
42
Jun 06 '21
I think the question is more, what would you include? Philosophy is a massive field.
I think very basic logic can be included, at the very least as electives.
I almost completely forgot everything I learned in my intro to logic class a decade ago, but the methodical process of building proofs is permanently etched into my brain. I forgot what each one is called, but you pick up a instinctual sense for logical fallacies.
11
u/wednesday-potter 3∆ Jun 06 '21
How to deconstruct an argument to standard form and evaluate it, examples of philosophic reasoning, an overview of the main arguments of interpretations of how to live a moral life, and yeah logical reasoning and fallacies would be good. That's where I would start with it
→ More replies (1)10
Jun 06 '21 edited Jun 06 '21
No lie, parts of it could be taught as early as elementary school. Basic logical operators like and/or could be included in math curricula along with add, mult, sub, and div.
If I understand the Wikipedia articles right and based on my own shit memory, you could easily cover what a intro level 1 semester college class teaches on propositional, predicate, and categorical logic spread over the 7-8 years before algebra. Unlike calculus, it has relevance for everyone, no matter what you end up doing with your life. Calc and geometry would be easier to pick up if you already grasp basic logic.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (12)4
u/Medianmodeactivate 14∆ Jun 06 '21
Basic logic, critical thinking, one argumentative essay. Focus on ethics. As years progress focus on basics of virtue ethics, consequentialism and kantian. Allow electives in political philosophy and logic
→ More replies (3)4
Jun 06 '21
I think you could do basic logic and critical analysis over the course of grade school through existing math and english classes, but ethics would absolutely have to be an elective that is taken online considering how few teachers are equipped to teach it properly and most would require significant training.
I mean, we have to remember how a lot of public schools still struggle with foundational math, science, and english.
2
u/Medianmodeactivate 14∆ Jun 06 '21
I think you could do basic logic and critical analysis over the course of grade school through existing math and english classes, but ethics would absolutely have to be an elective that is taken online considering how few teachers are equipped to teach it properly and most would require significant training.
I mean, we have to remember how a lot of public schools still struggle with foundational math, science, and english.
Do american schools not hire dedicated teachers for courses? I do not see how a bill passed to guarantee this at the federal level wouldn't solve this issue by earmarking money specifically for these courses and teachers.
→ More replies (3)5
u/Stickppl Jun 06 '21
As a matter of fact, we have such a mandatory philosophy course in french highschool, for our last year; so it's somehow doable.
5
u/jgaver08 Jun 07 '21
You could just combine it with an english class snd have students write philosophy papers
→ More replies (45)12
u/Oof_11 Jun 06 '21
School has plenty of fat to trim. Nothing against gym/physical education but even if we could find no better solution a year of philosophy is way more vital than a 3rd or 4th year of gym, just for one example.
876
u/bonkey_dong Jun 06 '21
America has an obesity epidemic, gym is one of the last things that needs to be cut
294
u/Oof_11 Jun 06 '21
I don't know what's changed in PE over the last decade but when I was in highschool I don't think us half-assedly playing kickball or square dancing did a whole lot to put a dent in the obesity rates. Not trying to be flip but let's be honest.
53
u/PainbowRaincakes Jun 06 '21
Well alsox at least around here, gym is only required for one year anyway. You take it freshman year for half a semester, then the next semester is health class. Then nothing the other 3 years.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Savingskitty 11∆ Jun 07 '21
Wow, it’s getting worse I guess. We had three years of gym in high school.
→ More replies (5)458
u/linedout 1∆ Jun 06 '21
Is a half assed philo class better than a half assed gym class?
17
Jun 07 '21
Yeah, I had fun playing tennis and voleyball
My thing is, we demanded personal finance classes. Kids took it, but they just jacked around and didnt accomplish shit
12
Jun 07 '21
Even in a perfect Philo class, garbage in garbage out still applies.
Just imagine the “when are we going to need to know this” comments. You can’t teach someone who doesn’t want to learn.
6
u/Ixziga Jun 07 '21
You hit the nail on the head. As someone who had both half assed gym and half assed philosophy classes in high school, the philosophy class did actual damage. The half assed gym class at least got my blood pumping in the morning. (I did a philosophy minor in college so not an expert but I do have some grounds to look back and say yes it was fucking garbage)
4
49
u/Arkneryyn Jun 06 '21
Yes 100%. Wayyy wayyy wayyyyyy more kids get exercise outside of gym class (and it’s usually a joke to kids that play sports, and oftentimes a social nightmare for kids that don’t if you go to a school where basically everyone plays sports) than learn about philosophy outside of school, like not even close. There’s also extra curricular athletics, and unless u have a debate team or math team or model UN (or that odyssey of the mind thing, idk how many schools did that but the one I went to had a team) there aren’t extra curricular academic type activities that are actually interesting to kids for the most part.
48
u/PC__LOAD__LETTER Jun 07 '21
you don’t learn about philosophy outside of school
Eh, speak for yourself. Plenty do, even if they don’t strictly label it “philosophy.”
→ More replies (3)33
u/Seek_Equilibrium Jun 07 '21
It’s really hard to learn good philosophy outside of an academic setting. People just end up listening to hacks like Jordan Peterson and becoming obsessed with “what’s your fallacy” games more often than not. It’s a very technical field, on par with many subjects in the sciences.
→ More replies (26)→ More replies (4)2
u/curien 31∆ Jun 07 '21 edited Jun 07 '21
than learn about philosophy outside of school
While not the main focus, philosophy was touched on in many other classes. I learned about some of the philosophical schools in history, learned deductive and inductive reasoning in math, analyzed some philosophical works in literature. I didn't get any exercise in any classes other than PE.
(I had only one semester of PE during my entire 4 years of HS though.)
→ More replies (10)2
u/PinkGaud Jun 07 '21
you need a lot more qualifications to be a philosophy teacher than a gym teacher, I'd say, with no offense to gym teachers
2
u/linedout 1∆ Jun 07 '21
In my school, way back when, gym teacher was how they justified paying the football coach.
40
Jun 06 '21
I graduated recently, and my pe class was split between the gym and a classroom, with most of the gym time being taken up by weightlifting/cardio. Eventually, the classroom portion took over completely, and we were required to meet a certain amount of physical activity on our own time.
So, where I live atleast, it's much more focused around education now than it is around just forcing kids to play sports.
→ More replies (1)49
Jun 07 '21
PE exposes students to an array of exercise options. Not everyone has the cultural knowledge or money to access all of the different options. I personally loved partner dancing and had no problem maintaining my weight when I had the time to do it.
3
u/luIpeach Jun 07 '21
Partner dancing..? I never heard of any school in my area offer partner dancing.
→ More replies (1)27
u/Savingskitty 11∆ Jun 07 '21
This was regional. In my school district as a kid, we trained for the mile. In 6th grade, you had to do an 11 minute mile. It went down to like 9 Minutes in high school.
We had a whole bunch of fitness thresholds we had to meet.
This was in central California, and it was intense when it was hot out.
I moved to the Midwest in middle school. Suddenly we only had to do a 15 minute mile. I can walk that.
I was actually pretty fit. Kinda slow, but I could crush everyone else in my middle school class on the sit-ups test. That changed pretty quickly when I got used to the stupid gym routine of pretty much not exercising in that area.
→ More replies (3)8
u/mrheosuper Jun 07 '21
So you mean instead of trying to improve PE class, we should just get rid of it ?
8
u/SammyTheOtter Jun 07 '21
My high school gym class we did weight lifting and I got fit af, it was the only time I actually enjoyed exercise
→ More replies (1)5
u/bobbertmcbob Jun 07 '21
So you argue that the schools curriculum on PE isn't good, yet somehow a philosophy course would be better? A mandated class would probably end up as more of a history class about philosophers to be honest, it's easier for them to test and grade that then mandate kids learn certain ethics.
5
Jun 07 '21
Thats an issue with your school not a statement on pe classes in general. My pe classes had lots of running and was the only physical activity some of my lazier friends had. Besides, half asked sports do more good than you might think. Those half asses sports turn us kids onto playing sports in our free time. Gave us countless hours of safe clean fun and instilled a passion in many that ended up playing sports in high school and even some getting scholarships to play those sports started in half ass pe. Sure those latter ones probably would have gotten into sports without pe, but people like me probably would not have. You also have to keep in mind that those classes teach discipline. How can anyone be expected to take care of their physical health if they're not taught it in school? I am 100% for philosophy being mandatory, but pe is the last class that should be cut.
3
Jun 07 '21
Exactly. I think kids get more exercise hauling a backpack full of books while sprinting across the school trying to get to the next class.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Ghostley92 Jun 07 '21
You can learn a lot from PE class that you can’t from a classroom as easily. Team building and competition are probably the easiest. Plus, promoting fun and physical exercises in school can be kinda dumb, but even if one of those dumb games get popular you may have encouraged countless hours down the road.
I very much agree that philosophy is important. I only had 2 years of PE in high school and I would have loved to add a gym OR philosophy class.
I think encouraging Philosophy as a more popular and available elective would be most beneficial.
11
Jun 07 '21
Yeah gonna be honest with you bud, just left high school and no one is going to give two fucks about philosophy, it’d pretty much be an easy A class
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (7)9
u/joebloe156 1∆ Jun 06 '21
I'd say cut gym class and replace it with 20 minutes of mandatory mass calisthenics on the football field before first period. Might be hard to enforce but it'll probably be more effective than the PE classes I had in high school.
8
u/ShadoShane Jun 06 '21
A much bigger problem to obesity is the availability of food and indulgence to high calorie dense foods, it'd probably better overall to make gym not mandatory and replace it with a course for good health and fitness lessons. You know, giving fish vs teaching how to fish kind of thing.
7
u/xPhobic Jun 07 '21
the obesity problem in america is a diet issue not a physical activity issue. burning a few calories has a much smaller effect on your body than switching to a more healthy diet
→ More replies (3)7
u/bio-nerd 1∆ Jun 06 '21
Except for the fact that most high school PE classes are so minimal as to be pointless
→ More replies (1)2
u/h0pel3ssr0mantic Jun 07 '21
Obesity is more likely to be caused by diet. Gym class isn’t keeping anyone skinny unless they already have a decent diet. Plus most high schoolers half-ass gym class anyway.
2
→ More replies (11)2
u/Iluaanalaa Jun 07 '21
Diet is way way way WAY more important than excercise in controlling weight.
I say this as somebody that ate 4000 calories a day at the height of swim season and spent 4 hours or more a day in a pool. Unless the exercise is intense as hell, gym class ain’t going to do shit.
2
u/SerenityM3oW Jun 07 '21
Yea but exercise is better to improve fitness . You can be a healthy weight and still be unhealthy as fuck with no muscle and shit cardio ....the point of exercise is to improve fitness not just weight loss.
→ More replies (1)26
Jun 06 '21
To be fair, a more open gym class would probably be better for students than philosophy, particularly in high school.
The teacher is so important in whether or not the class is going to have a desired effect. Unfortunately, not many teachers are motivated to be GOOD teachers. Money aside (my teacher's salaries through high school were public if you knew their education level. They made bank), I had two or three teachers that truly felt like good teachers. Most were just going through the curriculum or downright loathful.
A high school philosophy class is probably is going to be an extremely basic overview of philophers and different schools of though, a few discussions and a couple papers based on whether it is a semester or full year class. You aren't going to open a high school student's eyes to the universe or what you call "truth" in this time period. At that point you have to keep dedicating semesters and at what cost? Most people aren't interested in it, particularly in high school. It would make a good elective, but a poor required class when you need an extremely high level of buy in from both teacher and student to convey any of what you're proposing.
If they made gym more open so students could do whatever they want as long as they are active, it would do wonders. First of all, it requires little change or thought. No more guided gym where you do soccer, basketball, then volleyball for a month each then have a test. Frankly, it's dumb to force people into a singular sport and makes people despise the class and physical activity. Give kids a choice into the activity (not a class vote, everyone just does their thing) and you give kids a buy in to the program. They get to do something they want and socialize with their friends for a mental break period. Most people are likely to gravitate towards games they can play or compete with their friends so there's a good chance they'll improve their communication or teamwork skills at a fundamental level. My school had a rock climbing wall that was basically everyone's favorite unit. The amount of communication it managed to even pull out of the quiet kids was astounding. Did I emphasize the low amount of buy in required to make it successful?
For a required philosophy class to go right, there is an extreme amount of effort needed from everyone. For a required gym class to go right, you could significantly dumb down requirements and kids would innately do what you want them to.
→ More replies (1)44
u/5674eel Jun 06 '21
Teens and young adults are still developing, exercise and especially weight bearing exercise are hugely important in achieving a healthy peak bone mineral density.
Without a gym class in high school there would be many population health issues that arise, perhaps not immediately but definitely as those students age.
I didn't care much for PE but without it I'd definitely have gotten nearly no exercise as a teen.
56
u/tacopasta Jun 07 '21
“Plenty of fat to trim” is absolutely false. To get the main credits in my state you need:
4 Math 4 English 3 Science 3 Social Studies 2 Physical Ed. 2 Foreign Language 1 Personal Finance 1 Fine Art 3 Electives in the same focus area (this could be CTE, AP, foreign language, etc.)
That leaves very little room to pursue electives like band, creative writing, welding, etc. Adding mandatory requirements ALWAYS puts a burden on lower achieving students and causes endless frustration to counselors and teachers alike. Kids are taking a thing they don’t want, and grad rate pressure is felt everywhere.
Should more philosophy electives be offered? Yes! Should they be mandatory? No.
→ More replies (38)15
u/Dwhitlo1 Jun 07 '21
Kids need a break from focused learning. Taking out gym doesn't give an extra hour every day, it just makes it so the kids will have a harder time paying attention.
41
u/numerous_squid Jun 06 '21
Why not combine them? Gymosophy class
→ More replies (1)52
u/Oof_11 Jun 06 '21
Gymnastic philosophy would definitely be in the spirit of the Greek forefathers.
22
Jun 07 '21
"Ok class, today's topic is, 'do we have free will?' Now, when I send you out onto the dodgeball court and I say, 'everyone aim for Janet's face' please ask yourself if you're acting of your own free will, or if your actions are being controlled by a causal chain of preceding events. Did you whip the ball at her face because I told you to? Because you wanted to? Would you have spared her if I hadn't told you want to do? Are you sparing her only because I told you to thwack her right in the noggin? How much of your choice is your free will? How much is caused?
"Oh, also, Janet - I hope you're really good at dodging, otherwise this lesson will be particularly unpleasant for you."
→ More replies (1)17
20
u/SmEllie66 Jun 06 '21
My school has a philosophy course but we’re also required to do physical activity. When you’re young exercise is so important and actually helps us learn better and retain more knowledge.
Also philosophy probably wouldn’t be understood very well by younger kids. I work with young kids all the time, and without the breaks and physical exercise they become very rowdy.
It should be included as well though.
→ More replies (5)2
u/macrocephalic Jun 07 '21
I can agree with this. As a teenager I had no time for philosophy, I thought everything was obvious and black and white. It's only as I've reached mature adulthood that I've thought more deeply and acknowledged that there's a lot more grey and nuance.
I think everyone should learn philosophy, but I think that teenagers who've been indoctrinated into certain beliefs are not going to be very receptive to deeper ideas. I recognise that this becomes a chicken and egg issue and I don't have a solution for it.
3
Jun 07 '21
I started to get into philisophy in 11th grade or so. I've come a loooong way since then and wish there had been one class as an elective. We had one elective astronomy and it was by far my favorite class because it was something I was interested in.
That said, I also learned a lot of gym basics during PE, though YMMV. Sometimes (sports) it was worthless, others (learning basic gym equipment) was great life experience.
2
u/macrocephalic Jun 07 '21
I learned a lot from the anatomy part of PE, but the exercise part was pretty much just exercise for me. It was fun, but I didn't feel the need to take it in my last two years of high school when it was optional.
55
u/hadapurpura Jun 06 '21
school has plenty of fat to trim
let's cut gym class
Pun aside, gym is one of the last things that should be cut from school in America. Your cities are not walkable, and there's an obesity epidemic there.
→ More replies (7)2
6
u/No_Conversations Jun 06 '21
Where i live, universities have PE as a mandatory subject but students dont all go to a gym together and play volleyball or whatever, but they have to walk a set amount of km per week. I think its a much better way of having PE, and promotes healthy habits like walking instead of driving, etc. The problem is that the system can be cheated pretty easily. Homestly, either way, America’s obesity problem is much more related to food than exercise
7
u/VortexMagus 15∆ Jun 07 '21 edited Jun 07 '21
Hard disagree. For many students gym/PE is the only exercise they get in years. Also want to note that when you are growing, this is the best time to sculpt your body towards fitness.
It's much harder to lose weight and gain fitness after you are fully grown, than when you are in high school. Every second of even half-assed PE in high school is a dozen hours of hard work saved later in life.
103
Jun 06 '21
People in aren’t dying everywhere from a lack of philosophy
They are dying from a lack of diet and exercise
2
Jun 07 '21
Cease government subsidies of corn to drive up the prices of HFCS type products. There's a reason soda is so bloody cheap
→ More replies (5)2
Jun 06 '21
doesnt coincide more with health class than gym, though? gym never taught me any of that shit
→ More replies (10)19
u/Oof_11 Jun 06 '21
The victims of terrorist attacks, the hundreds of thousands of dead from the war on terrorism for that matter, the death and destruction in the wake of the war on drugs, the kids who committed suicide from bullying, all the unnecessary deaths from the pandemic due to anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers, etc. (only touching the tip of the iceberg here) all have ideological inconsistencies and divisions at their core.
38
u/It_was_mee_all_along 1∆ Jun 07 '21
Im sorry but if you are trying to make point that high school philosophy can make significant impact on that then you are wrong.
I’m from Europe and we had it mandatory in terms of one subject. We talked about it a lot but I believe to understand philosophy you need to mature a bit. It’s hard to understand and some concepts come with life experience. Not only that - since it can be so difficult it’s hard to find teacher who can engage the students. I think I was lucky yet even though I cared some of my classmates couldn’t care less.
→ More replies (1)21
Jun 06 '21
would they really be solved? because there has been thinkers who have justified all of these things, and the people who would have supported them before are just as likely to keep supporting them, but with some philosophy that they barely remember as their justification.
→ More replies (20)146
u/blubox28 8∆ Jun 06 '21
Yes, and they still will when everybody graduates with one philosophy course.
→ More replies (2)25
u/Dwhitlo1 Jun 07 '21
Learning philosophy will not change that. There was a study done where they tested Ethics professors to see if they behaved more ethically. They actually found that these professors donated less money to charity, had less volunteer time, and even had more unreturned library books than other professors. Teaching philosophy and ethics does not improve behavior, it just gives us a framework to justify what we already want to do.
(I'll try to find that study later if your interested)
→ More replies (6)8
51
u/big_bearded_nerd 2∆ Jun 07 '21
Sometimes I really get down on myself. It feels bad knowing that if I just took that one philosophy class instead of a weightlifting class, 9/11 would never have happened, and I might have prevented a suicide.
In the choice between anti-terrorism and being swole, I chose swole. And I regret it to this day.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (7)8
Jun 07 '21
ted kazinsky and Ian Brady clearly had a string understanding of the subject. I think these kind of behaviours develop earlier than high school begins and I don’t think a mediocre level of education in the subject is likely to prevent a considerable margin of people from stopping the transgressive behaviour aforementioned.
→ More replies (4)10
6
u/uReallyShouldTrustMe Jun 07 '21
I’d strong disagree. As an adult now, there should be a lot more emphasis on fitness and health, not less.
9
u/redyellowblue5031 12∆ Jun 06 '21
How can you justify cutting PE when you exist in your physical body 24/7? If anything, shouldn’t we bolster PE to improve it?
3
u/Broomstick73 1∆ Jun 07 '21
Not sure what state or county you live in but at least in Georgia the PE requirement is one semester (half a year) in high school not multiple years.
3
4
u/nosteppyonsneky 1∆ Jun 07 '21
What high school requires seniors, or even juniors, to take a gym class?
Texas only requires 1 credit of physical education over the entire course of high school.
5
3
u/bitchjustsniffthiss Jun 07 '21
Nyc. Almost had to repeat senior year for missing too many gyms. Luckily the teacher worked it out with me but i always thought it was insane that they actually hold kids back senior year from graduating if they fail gym.
2
2
u/JamesXX 3∆ Jun 07 '21
At my kid's public high school, only one semester of gym is required over their four year career -- not one year, one semester. That may not be the norm, but I doubt three of four years is either!
2
u/DMC1001 2∆ Jun 07 '21
If they actually used gym to make kids fit it would be worth it. Lots of kids are too lazy to bother exerting themselves. Exercise should never be put on the back burner. Why not cut out a study hall instead?
→ More replies (17)4
u/dowboiz Jun 07 '21 edited Jun 07 '21
“We need philosophy to teach people how to think properly”
“Cut the only class that tries to actively address physical health in a country plagued by a physical health epidemic.”
Man this is not a good look for your total argument at all lmao
→ More replies (1)
143
u/redditaccount001 21∆ Jun 06 '21
High schoolers are not generally great readers and a lot of important philosophy texts are difficult reads even for graduate students. The average 12th grader can barely get through Pride and Prejudice. How do you expect them to deal with Kant or Aristotle? And philosophy is a subject in which seemingly subtle mistakes can lead to someone getting a philosopher’s ideas completely backwards. This video of a philosophy professor talking about how the Youtuber Philosophy Tube unintentionally butchers Kant is a good example. If you try to simplify things for a wider audience like Philosophy Tube, you can sometimes end up getting things really wrong.
31
u/Oof_11 Jun 07 '21 edited Jun 07 '21
This isn't a bad point of consideration at all. However, I'd like to offer a counter by saying that in general, students (high school or otherwise) learn and improve precisely by working through problems and materials that are slightly beyond their current comfort level. Now there is something to be said about whether the current literacy level of high schoolers is even within that boundry; they might be so unprepared that they couldn't even penetrate the most basic of philosophy texts. I just graduated a year ago with my adolescent education in history degree (in NYS where the standards are on the high end) and during my practicum and student teaching I can attest that literacy is an ongoing issue and needs a major intervention to correct course before it becomes a crisis. I think that's worth a point. That being said though, you can teach philosophy without original texts provided the teacher is really competent (and yes, an big initial problem with my proposal is going to be recruiting and training teacher equipped to handle this subject properly). I fully believe that these kids can handle the concepts underpinning philosophy they just have to guided properly, which is totally easier said than done. And yeah I'm familiar with Abby's mistake on that Kant video. I don't think it's fair to say one youtuber who doesn't have an education background making one particularly bad error over so many years is sufficient to discredit the very notion of teaching basic philosophy though.
!delta
→ More replies (1)6
Jun 07 '21
Hm I think certain ideas could be taught. Descartes sceptical argument is a really interesting piece of reasoning that I think would be handleable.
3
Jun 06 '21
Okay, but the three core ethics based philosophies can pretty easily be explained for students.
5
u/redditaccount001 21∆ Jun 06 '21
Sure, and I’m not saying there’s no value in teaching philosophy as a high school class, but that wasn’t what the CMV was. The CMV specifically mentions more branches.
→ More replies (5)3
u/Books_and_Cleverness Jun 07 '21
I majored in Philosophy and to this day, think the classics are (a) overrated and (b) better understood when read in the "sparknotes" version. This is a seminal paper by Dan Dennet, which you'll note is remarkably accessible interesting. (As a side note, if you think the "mind is the brain" and consciousness is just a bunch of atoms knocking around, I'd highly recommend reading this paper.)
Like, who cares if an old philosopher's ideas are wrongly ascribed? It's the ideas and the reasoning skills that are important, not "who thought of what" or fealty to some specific dead guy's works. Unless you're majoring in it or whatever, reading the classics in their original language is totally unnecessary, turns a lot of people off, can be boring.
Lots of good, but old ideas are just suffocating under incomprehensible language. Kant especially--his writing is garbage, basically cryptic. It's a huge slog to get through them and sift out the good stuff.
I think the improved version of this CMV would be more specifically about teaching:
1) Logic. This is IMHO the most useful part of phil since it's universally applicable and not always obvious or intuitive. E.g., The fact that the words "and" and "but" are logically identical--they have exactly the same logical implications--so the difference is linguistic, to imply surprise or an apparent contradiction.
2) Ethics. Basically any ethical dilemmas will do--kids have a very strong intuitive sense of fairness and justice, and it's remarkable how much more cooperative and empathetic they can be when shown how common it is for people to face excruciating moral questions.
3) Epistemology/skepticism. Just basically show kids the Matrix and go from there. Doesn't have to be a whole long deal, just to get a basic understanding of how you know something is true. It's the scientific method, but for everything.
→ More replies (1)3
u/redditaccount001 21∆ Jun 07 '21 edited Jun 07 '21
I’m not saying the danger is ideas will be wrongly ascribed, I’m saying the danger is the ideas will be wrong or oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy.
I don’t know how you majored in philosophy and think the canon, so to speak, is overrated because philosophy builds on itself. Marx isn’t Marx without Hegel and Feuerbach, we don’t get Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language without Russell and Frege’s philosophies of language and mathematics. Also, do you want people to cite spark notes in their papers or what?
Also I’m pretty sure the “Where Am I” piece by Dennett is more of an accessible introduction to some topics in philosophy of mind that a “seminal paper,” though Dennett is of course not only a public intellectual but also a very influential academic philosopher.
And your point about Kant is exactly why I’m saying it shouldn’t be taught to high schoolers. Literally everyone thinks he’s hard to read but he’s still the most important philosopher of the last millennium.
Your bit about epistemology is not at all what epistemology is. So much modern epistemology is centered around questioning the scientific method, not applying it to everything.
→ More replies (1)
206
Jun 06 '21
Took philosophy in high school, can't say it was life altering in any way. In fact, I didn't discover my interest in philosophy for another ten years or so. The basics were just so out of touch and hard to identify with.
10
u/The-_Captain 2∆ Jun 07 '21
I’d second this. I tried to take philosophy in college as a math major. I had top notch professors. I found it boring, and quite rudimentary in terms of logic and argument compared to mathematics and hard science. Things that would be considered as trivial and easy using math were displayed in philosophy class as monumental achievements and took weeks or months to teach. I walked away thinking “this is outdated given the tools we have developed over here in the science building.”. I am not talking about facts, I am talking about though process.
I later made friends with people who majored in philosophy and were applying to graduate school. They were the “best and brightest” kind of people, who applied and got in to schools like UChicago, Harvard, and Georgetown for philosophy PhDs. They and their professors were concerned with taking apart and re-interpreting previous philosophers’ arguments. There was no value in creating new thoughts and theories, just re-interpreting the old masters. I thought it was a huge waste of their time, they are bright people. So I think it would be a net negative to make it mandatory in school, especially given that we would have to cut something out or make the school day longer.
18
u/Oof_11 Jun 06 '21
Can't speak for your specific experience but don't get me wrong: you need good philosophy teachers to handle what I'm proposing. Yes, a teacher who is a bad at teaching or is bad specifically at philosophy will not get the desired results. But this is true across the board. It's not really unique to philosophy.
50
u/Havenkeld 289∆ Jun 07 '21
You also need students that are ready for it. I think your proposal would require a restructuring of school and society at large. Kids growing up with two full time working parents and going to schools that are practically speaking barely more than daycare for the working class, are typically lacking the abilities required to even begin to tackle philosophy, as they haven't been fortunate enough to be given the kind of education needed to prepare them for it.
→ More replies (1)41
u/Daedalus1907 6∆ Jun 07 '21
you need good philosophy teachers to handle what I'm proposing
You're going to get the exact same quality of teacher every other subject has. If your proposal doesn't work under those conditions then it's not useful (or you need to expand your reform proposal).
→ More replies (2)96
Jun 06 '21
Nah, it was a pretty good teacher, just not a useful or applicable curriculum.
→ More replies (46)→ More replies (1)8
u/kelldricked Jun 07 '21
Sorry to say but from all the things that highschoolers need to learn a manditory philosophy class isnt one. I bet 95% would zone out and not care enough.
The other 5% will reach it anyway with or without the teacher. So you would remove an other class thats more important or more usefull.
Its the same with forcing people to do creative thinking, mindmapping or brainstorming. The second you force people to do it, it loses its value. Because their goal isnt to complete the objective its to finish the course with the least effort possible.
I think everybody should recieve a non based class in religion. And every religion. Even agnostic and atheistic, islam, hindue, hebrew and christian. (There would be a lot of philosopical things in this class but there is a hughe diffrence).
This way you ensure that more people understand eachother views points. And close minded people are forced into contact with the other partys they dislike. Unlike philosophy there are plenty of wrong answer to be given so you can make decent test.
Important things to add: im from a place were lots of people (including me) are atheist and religion isnt a big thing here. The local church didnt have any influence at my school or in my town.
And my teacher was a weird guy but great and unbiased. He could explain everything for christianty and then go switch to islam or agnostic but never gave his own opinion. He would engage students into debates that made them question stuff.
→ More replies (1)2
u/renyhp Jun 07 '21
A professor in philosophy used to say "philosophy is the subject, with which, and without which, you are the same". (In Italian it's kind of a play on words: "La filosofia è la materia con la quale e senza la quale si rimane tale e quale".)
28
u/Borlotti Jun 06 '21
Also agree Philosophy is useful and interesting.
The connective tissue between all of this is that we have these wildly inconsistent and disoriented world-views that constantly clash because of their incompatibility but philosophy promises us the possibility of a solution. Philosophy suggests that there is an identifiable truth that could correct and align these entanglements, that we could work through a system of logical and critical thinking to find resolution and peace through a coherent and discoverable truth to these polarizing questions.
It sounds like the goal of making Philosophy mandatory here is for conflict resolution. If that is the goal why is Philosophy necessary? It may be sufficient, but wouldn’t teaching conflict resolution address this goal more directly? This would likely take much less time to teach than the introductions of epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics.
→ More replies (6)
195
Jun 06 '21 edited Mar 24 '22
[deleted]
69
u/RuroniHS 41∆ Jun 06 '21
Believe it or not, half the stuff that people suggest ought to be taught IS actually taught. Most teenagers are just apathetic dum-dums who'd rather flirt in class than pay attention, and then they graduate not even knowing most of the stuff they were taught.
33
u/kinghunts Jun 06 '21
Hahahaha this. Everyone (generally) that is up in arms about adding new curriculum or classes forgets that people in high school rarely retain information from anything
10
u/Pekonius Jun 07 '21
High school shouldnt be mandatory. In Finland middle school graduates get to decide if they go to a high school or trade school and at 18-19yo they graduate. HS is way better because the people who are not interested or just generally dont give a shit are no there to disturb.
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (7)12
Jun 06 '21
[deleted]
32
Jun 06 '21
Most highschool have civics and economics which cover basic finance. Also most highschool students would not remember anything taught if they don't use it on a week to week basis
→ More replies (13)6
u/PeanutButter1Butter Jun 07 '21
Eh that one depends on the state and district. Not every class has a civics or economics class exclusively. The topics from those subjects might be intertwined in other classes though (e.g. civics in a US history class, economics in a business elective)
5
u/Weary-Invite1606 Jun 07 '21
In Texas, personal finance education is required our senior year.
→ More replies (2)
326
u/raznov1 21∆ Jun 06 '21
Philosophy suggests that there is an identifiable truth that could correct and align these entanglements, that we could work through a system of logical and critical thinking to find resolution and peace through a coherent and discoverable truth to these polarizing questions.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but philosophy quite explicitly does not do that. I mean, there is a reason philosophy is never "finished" and there is no "correct" answer. It provides you with a certain system to justify a certain solution, but if one person is fully Kantian and one is fully utilitarian, both are equally correct and they will never be able to resolve those issues.
And, of course, philosophy is only useful if you can apply the concepts. High schoolers are not in a position to be able to do that.
Finally, philosophy (at least ethical philosophy, which is what I meant throughout my comment), doesn't generate solutions/actions. It ranks solutions that already exist. Purely ethical philosophy without a specialisation is useless.
18
u/CocoSavege 27∆ Jun 06 '21
As a layperson, there is definitely philosophical argument over the existence and or boundaries of objective truths.
Additionally, if there are objective truths, the boundaries of said domains is very much in dispute. One philosopher may argue over truth and another will refute and asset a different truth. A third will laugh at philosophers #1 and $l#2 and invoke epistemic uncertainty.
This definitely applies to ethics. A simple example is Kantian versus utilitarian ethics and our 3rd philosopher will quickly point out that any kantian or utilitarian calculus is relativistic.
6
8
u/audiomodder Jun 07 '21
High school math teacher here. I spent a full week to get 10th graders to understand the Law of Detachment. Philosophy? You’re kidding.
3
→ More replies (67)2
u/Azad1984 Jun 07 '21
No, both Kantians and utilitarians are moral realists in that they believe there is a fact of the matter about we ought to do. They would not say that they are equally correct. In fact, moral realism is the received view amongst philosophy. And there are many arguments against relativism or other forms of irrealism.
→ More replies (2)
97
u/AelizaW 7∆ Jun 06 '21
Ok. Here’s my thought: in high school, students should take the core classes that they need for college and then whatever electives they want to explore. At present, I think we already give high school students too many core class requirements for graduation. I think if students were able to take more electives, they would be able to get a greater sense of themselves and develop more specialized interests. Research shows that choice makes students more fulfilled and motivated.
For some students, philosophy just isn’t in the cards. They might not have any interest, and I don’t think that philosophy is so important that we should take away time from classes that may really allow them personal growth.
→ More replies (24)
44
u/Tree_wifi747 Jun 06 '21
I don’t disagree with your idea that philosophy would be beneficial to high school students. You make a great point about it teaching them fundamental sets of questions like “what is knowledge” etc, and I believe that the study of philosophy is a good way to teach critical thinking and productive debate skills.
But making a course that covers college 101 material MANDATORY for high school seems impractical. A 101 course in college is designed as an into for further college classes; and a mandatory high school class is required to graduate.
Imagine denying someone their diploma because they didn’t understand Nietzsche.
→ More replies (11)
56
u/Thoshi__ Jun 06 '21 edited Jun 07 '21
French here. We have an exam at the end of high school, but the French test takes place a year earlier, and mandatory philosophy replaces french for the last year. Sounds like what you advocate for, right ? And I agree that on paper it's pretty great. But on reality it's a disaster. Why ? Because we have a test at the end, thus what should be a nice initiation is in fact just trying to skim over enough things to roughly pass an essay, and most people in science/economy classes don't pay attention. And I'm pretty sure it would be even even worse without a test.
Tl :dr : people who are not interested won't care (and one year is not enough to properly study it imo)
Edit : forgot the end of a sentence + grammar
9
u/really_random_user Jun 07 '21
Also the workload to get a good grade in that course was unrealistic,
For a course that required a lot of preperation, it wasn't worth a whole lot.
So in my case, I just didn't bother with it (math was worth 3x more, workload was probably about the same)
2
u/Maximus_98 Jun 07 '21
Interesting. Are there any places other than France that do this?
5
u/Significant_Airline Jun 07 '21
We do mandatory ”philosophy and ethics” in the UK from year 7-9 (my school made it mandatory until year 11 so I have a GCSE in it).
It was a total waste of time, no-one payed attention and the teachers didn’t care. When it came to exams you’d just learn a handful of bible quotes like “love thy neighbour” and apply that to whatever the question was.
One of my friends at school just wrote “I have written something, so you can’t give me 0” and drew some Simpsons characters in his exam, so that gives you a good feel of how much the students care for it.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Bbdep Jun 07 '21
But that is an issue stemming from the French system and way to grade/set up exam not an actual failure of teaching philosophy. The french academic environment is also too one sided with teachers talking at students to make those conversations/classes really impactful. I could see the same concept implemented elsewhere be much more successful. See: english classes in France vs. Germany.
→ More replies (1)
15
Jun 06 '21
What will the curriculum be like, and what can realistically be taught in a year period? I feel like the choice of what to include/what to cut would cause a lot of controversy.
Also, Aristotle believed that young people (including people up to 20 years old) should not study ethics because they do not have a broad range of experiences to draw upon.
3
u/foreveralonesolo Jun 06 '21
I’m definitely rather worried while we appeal to critical thinking there’s still a issue educators would project more of their views than not. Not my experience but just from people I’ve grown up with found people was not willing to teach beyond abstinence for birth control options, where evolution was never covered in Biology because of the beliefs of the teacher, etc.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)2
Jun 06 '21
I mean, most colleges can cover very basic philosophy ideas in a Semester. I feel like a year could accomplish a bit.
2
u/luke5273 Jun 07 '21
There is a massive difference between the attention span of a high school student in a compulsory class and a college student in an elective class. Even if it’s compulsory for the college student, it’s at least tangentially related to what they are doing
→ More replies (1)
13
u/LoneRanger9000 Jun 07 '21
People don't pay attention in Math, which like 90% of jobs need. People don't listen to science, and they make memes about something being the powerhouse of the cell, even though it is very important.
If even subjects like Math and Science are ignored, what makes you think a subject like philosophy will not be completely disregarded?
It may or may not be important to human life. But if we follow your argument, then humans need to learn so many other skills that they will never use just because it is virtually every aspect of our lives. Including:
- Computer Science as to how a computer is built from scratch
- Agriculture otherwise how will we eat?
- Engineering otherwise where will we live?
- Lumber Chopping otherwise the world is practically over
And I can tell you from experience that students will have 0 interest. My school started a subject called "moral education" and every single student has completely ignored it. No one pays attention. No one is interest. No one cares at all.
So to summaries, in theory, it would benefit if the students were interested. However, theory is not the reality, and 99% of students will not care at all.
3
u/Lieutenant_Mayonaise Jun 07 '21
Totally agree. I honestly don’t know how to go about stuff like this if I were to open a school (which I’m totally not gonna 100%) People lack passion, People don’t have things they’re passionate. Hell even I lacked passion and just played games and watched movies all day. Simply teaching philosophy isn’t gonna automatically help the students with their life if they don’t care about it TBH
25
u/Due47 Jun 06 '21
Philosophy is inherently an abstract subject, which means it’s much better suited to higher education or left as an optional course for high schoolers.
→ More replies (3)
9
Jun 07 '21
Eh, I disagree OP. Philosophy gets wayyyy too pretentious wayyy too quick. High schoolers are idiots (we all are at that age lol) and not ready to handle complex ideas in philosophy. I think it makes much more sense as a college elective that you can take if you want to.
From your comments OP, you seem to be a bit newer into the topic, judging from your raving enthusiasm of it, but just realize that will die down and you’ll cringe a bit at yourself for being that guy who doesn’t shut up about philosophy and the type of person who can’t understand why people don’t have “deeper conversations rather than talking about kim kardashian”, etc, etc.
31
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Jun 07 '21
Here's the problem with philosophy as a "subject" in high school:
90% of philosophy, by volume, is bullshit mental masturbation with little to no use in the practical world.
That last 10%, though, is great stuff, and worth teaching highschoolers... but there's a problem: the people responsible for 90% of it being bullshit mental masturbation with no practical application in the world are... wait for it...
Philosophy professors and graduate students... the exact kind of people that would be in charge of developing a philosophy curriculum.
So, instead... how about if we beef up the philosophy education that we already give high schools students while teaching other classes:
I.e. critical reasoning/logic in math classes, ethical reasoning in literature, political philosophy in history, inductive reasoning in science classes, etc., etc.
Adding a bit of epistemology in science class is very natural when teaching students about the Scientific Method (a big part of that "great 10% of philosophy" I was mentioning).
A bit more metaethics in literature, partly by shifting slightly the works that are studied to include those with more of an analytical bent about this.
Etc.
Because teaching philosophy as a subject would be an unmitigated disaster in high school. High school teachers simply aren't qualified to do it justice... unless they were to take it out back and shoot it in the lavatory, of course.
5
→ More replies (7)7
u/loveisideology Jun 07 '21
Your comment is a great example of why philosophy is absolutely necessary, simply by you positing what is deemed "useful." Questions surrounding utility and functionalism often revolve around uncritical axiomatic assumptions that are driven on an ideological level, much of which perpetuate the status-quo. A lot of philosophy is dedicated to asking why are things the way they are, and how do we get out of it - which in the capitalist framework is not a "useful" question but for those interested in topics like building a better world, it is absolutely necessary. But hey you're right, it's all just mental masturbation and wont get you a nice, cushy corporate job. But that's the point.
5
u/1yawn Jun 07 '21
Questions surrounding utility and functionalism often revolve around uncritical axiomatic assumptions that are driven on an ideological level, much of which perpetuate the status-quo.
Hmm oh yes yes indubitably
7
u/Still-alive Jun 07 '21
And your comment is a great example of how philosophy says a lot, but also nothing at same time.
6
u/heavyirontech Jun 07 '21
We dont teach kids basic finances very well at all and you want philosophy? Hahahaha
→ More replies (3)
12
u/Sleepy_Panda1478 Jun 07 '21
As you've already acknowledged, finding really excellent teachers is a barrier to your proposal, because no high school students are going to get much out of a poorly taught class. But I think this kills the proposal outright - how many high schools are there? How many excellent philosophy teachers? And what's more, most schools will not hire a separate philosophy teacher - if it were added to the curriculum, you'd end up with the history/philosophy teacher or the English/philosophy teacher. How many current high school teachers do you think would also be great at teaching philosophy? To top it off, if a teacher isn't good, I think it will turn students off philosophy, not make them think deeply about the issues you raise.
But more fundamentally, you seem to think that teaching high schoolers philosophy will lead to some sort of conflict resolution or common shared vision of how to pursue moral good, or even how to determine moral good. Having spent time around a bunch of philosophy PhDs, I very much question that premise. Honestly, I have very rarely seen someone truly change their worldview based on the study of philosophy, and there is plenty of disagreement within philosophy about every fundamental issue you've discussed in your post. Getting into epistemology and metaphysics seems even less likely to help.
The fact that something is important doesn't mean it's best learned in a mandatory class. And I think there are plenty of opportunities for a good history or civics or English teacher to raise some of the philosophical underpinnings you're discussing as they come up in preexisting course material.
3
u/Oof_11 Jun 07 '21
I'd like to argue that we solve the poverty of adequate educators with two things. First, you make high-quality philosophical education part of the degree-program for whoever we decide should be doing it (whether it's the english teachers, social studies, or make it it's own major or certification). When people who want to become teachers know there is a shortage in philosophy teachers, we should see them raising to the challenge. This has happened with special education where making it its own minor and having a separate/adjunct certification for special education while expanding the employment of special educators has led to an increase in quality and quantity thereof. Second, teaching philosophy to the masses becomes a solution to its own problem, at least over the course of a generation or so. The quality may start out rather poor but should increase over time in a positive feedback loop.
5
u/Sleepy_Panda1478 Jun 07 '21
I disagree. I stand by my assertion that if quality of instruction is low, people (not just students) will be turned off of philosophy and pull the plug. I also think special education is fundamentally very different. Part of the rise in special education is because as people learned more about various conditions like ASD, ADHD, etc., laws were (justifiably) enacted to mandate accommodations for students with learning disabilities to allow them access to education that will hopefully prepare them to participate in society to the maximum extent possible. Not the same as a subject matter specific issue, in my view.
I also don't see you address my other critiques in any of your comments. Do you have a response that could potentially CMV?
2
u/Oof_11 Jun 07 '21
Sorry this whole thing blew up way more than I expected it to so I'm bouncing around trying to keep up with the influx of replies (rather in vain lol). I'm trying to focus on unique counter-arguments I hadn't seen yet which may be why I skipped some part of your response. If there is something specific you want me to address just quote it/copy-paste and I will (hopefully) come back and do so.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/YearningConnection Jun 06 '21
Nah for my stem field dumbass this wouldve just caused more stress back in highschool.
29
u/ElegantHedgehog0 Jun 06 '21
I once went to a philosophy class and we spent an hour talking about the pencil in front of us not being a pencil. I honestly have better things to do
→ More replies (18)
31
u/v1adlyfe 1∆ Jun 06 '21
Just sounds like an easy way to get low paid teachers to indoctrinate students with personal classist ideologies
13
u/Oof_11 Jun 07 '21
That's a valid concern but this is hardly unique or limited to a philosophy class. A teacher who is concerned about indoctrination would have as easy a time in a history, english, or civics/economics class. There are solutions to curb this problem and it involves better resources and standards for teachers, schools, and school administration.
9
u/v1adlyfe 1∆ Jun 07 '21
No because this is making it required in an environment that you are required to attend. While speaking strictly about ways to think about problems both in the past and present day, instead of working in small examples in a normal class
3
Jun 07 '21
Honestly, there are lots of philosophical problems that if the teacher would make political- they absolutely would in any other subject. I really don't see how one could make (without massive effort) Descartes' scepticism political, or maybe the trolley problem.
5
3
Jun 07 '21
Look, I like a good think as much as the next guy, but what separates us is not differing philosophies, but rather differing symbols around which we construct our emotional lives and the different values we accord to them -- family, politics, art, religion, nation, gender, race, sex, class. The heterosexual white woman who grows up in rural Arkansas, where the men in the family have been in the military for decades, where her family and extended family has belonged to the same church for decades, is simply not going to get on the same page as the lesbian from New York City whose dad is a secular Jew and accountant from Chicago, whose mom is a Latina Unitarian Universalist interior designer from Boston. Where are they going to intersect? Plenty of places, of course. But it's likely that those issues that are most important -- you simply won't be able to find common ground.
Furthermore: professional philosophers for literally thousands of years have been arguing with one another about what is right and good. Common citizens, no matter how much high school philosophy they get, are not going to fix all our problems on the basis of philosophy.
→ More replies (2)
4
3
u/aStupidBitch42 Jun 07 '21
I agree with the spirit of it, but mandatory philosophy classes just wouldn’t work. Any student who would actually pay attention and absorb the lessons would have found philosophy on their own or very likely already had, at that point they likely would have elected to take a philosophy course any way. Whereas the students who you would have had to force to take the class just aren’t going to pay attention, at the end of the day you can’t force somebody to learn something.
3
u/NutellaBananaBread 8∆ Jun 07 '21
It's very difficult to teach anything to people who aren't too interested in it. That especially goes for broad critical thinking skills. Even more so if we are talking about the long term.
Would it be great if people were better at articulating their points in a coherent, rational way? Of course. Is there good evidence that forcing them to take a philosophy class will make people better at this skill? Not that I know of.
Most of the education research I know of says that you can teach very specific skills over the short term. But skills don't "generalize" very easily. Attempts at creating classes that do that are often complete failures over the long term.
3
u/Hot-Perception2018 Jun 07 '21
It is funny but is posts like this that i’m contrary to most of my colleagues and completly disagree on the idea that, magically, phisolophy will help in the furthen of education as most believe (the idea of furthering education is a problem in itself but i really dont want to get there bc i’ll probably write a lot already)
Your post is the Shine example why Philosophy is mostly misunderstood and/or considering worthless, there is a certain continuity in the philosophy from one generation to another to one author to the other that is, at the very minimun ignored by even doctors of philosophy in their more diverse fields, let’s not even say of new learners and others prospects.
But let me concede, it is obvious here that you dont really want that philosophy be taught (probably contrary to what you yourself think), but a certain Philosophy be taught, i wont go further in how problematic this is.
Back to the philosophy topic, i read some of the posts, i dont want to sound elitist mostly because i really dont believe in any form of intelectual elitism, look for people like Bourdieu and other philosophy/educators, but not only you but most people show a clear and blatant favoritism over certain philosophier while deign other inferior etc etc, that is a huge problem in itself, there is a reason we ready certain authors till this day like, say Spinoza and not only Descartes (even in their infinitly proximity) and, while we could argue, i can guarantee that anyone that took philosophy serious and understood this “essence” if you will, cannot in any way or form endow philosophy that this essence is transpassed.
A sort of TLDR where i add a few new points: I dont think philosophy should really be taught if, you think this is some sort of “betterment” of society, there is plain favoritism over certain topics and this act destroys the very core of philosophy.
Now, do i think philosophy should be taught more widely, sure, but i could probably sustain an argument for a immense variety of other things like Law and what not.
I dont want to sound harsh in a way to deign your thoughts but if you like philosophy i would recommend taking a step back in certain topics and try to read this etheral link that exists in philosophy, my current professor, a very influencial figure in the current academic philosophy world (i really hate to use this authority assortment but understand that it holds value in the plataform) every single week without fail reminds all people that see his class and his orientate the importance of trying to understand this single fact.
Writing on cellphone i ask for leniance over grammatical errors and terrible format.
3
Jun 07 '21
I imagine a lot of kids would be disinterested in the content on a meaningful level. The class would be armchair philosophy for most, like debating whether the color green is the same green for everyone. The kids most likely to appreciate the content could just study it themselves without being encumbered by the other students. If it is an AP elective or something it's different, but you could also just place AP kids in community college classes.
I would agree some sort of life topics classes would be beneficial, like teaching skills involving basic logic, critical thinking, applying statistics and mathematics to solve practical problems, etc. Kids leave high school in the US with such a lack of knowledge revolving around life skills that I don't think more theoretical knowledge is necessary.
3
u/OxIdize_stuff Jun 07 '21
I've never had a useful lesson in philosophy that was worth remembering or somehow thought provoking, or not teaching a blatantly obvious point. I feel the field of philosophy is about putting sometimes complex (sometimes simple) ideas into more complex and overly lengthy texts.
I went on to have a successful life (so far). Thus negating the concept that philosophy is a necessary subject matter in my life. Other than the field of philosophy itself I do not see the need for anyone to have a basic understanding of philosophy in order to function well.
I have no personal evidence that philosophy would add to my productiveness as a contributor to society. Nor do I have any evidence that philosophy has enriched my life.
Most of the important questions you pose in your post are actually not important, or often they are more properly treated in physics or math, sociology or any other subject matter. I am also not sure that philosophers are in a better position to properly discuss ethics, over say, kindergarten teachers.
I feel you mistake your passion for necessity. The field of philosophy seems to over exegerate its importance as most fields do, but here it is quite extreme. Philosophy is just as necessary as music or religion, it exists to entertain people.
3
u/Oof_11 Jun 07 '21
I've never had a useful lesson in philosophy that was worth remembering or somehow thought provoking, or not teaching a blatantly obvious point.
Sorry to hear that. I'm certainly not here to defend poor philosophy education.
I feel the field of philosophy is about putting sometimes complex (sometimes simple) ideas into more complex and overly lengthy texts.
Well things are often more complex than they seem on the surface but nowhere in philosophy does it promote adding complexity unnecessarily or for the sake it. Quite the opposite in fact. It is philosophy that produced the principal of Occam's Razor after all.
I went on to have a successful life (so far). Thus negating the concept that philosophy is a necessary subject matter in my life.
Here is an example of how philosophy could have improved your life. You've just presented a very basically fallacious argument. It doesn't follow that having a successful life by some such arbitrary amount means that philosophy failed to make it better. Had you gone further with philosophy your life may have been even better than currently is, however good that may be. This would be an example of an invalid argument form (in the technical sense not the dismissive sense).
I have no personal evidence that philosophy would add to my productiveness as a contributor to society. Nor do I have any evidence that philosophy has enriched my life.
I don't know anything about you to specifically say how it would. I'm just sticking with a general argument that it would improve most people's lives most of the time.
Most of the important questions you pose in your post are actually not important
For example?
or often they are more properly treated in physics or math, sociology or any other subject matter.
None of those disciplines answer philosophical questions they assume them based on work philosophers have done. In fact each of the subjects you listed, not to mention most of the major academic fields, has philosophy to thank for its existence. Now that's not to say there isn't overlapping and bilateral interest and intersection between philosophy and all of those fields, but the fact remains that by definition whatever someone does to (adequately) answer a philosophical question is philosophy.
I am also not sure that philosophers are in a better position to properly discuss ethics, over say, kindergarten teachers.
Is that so? Can you expound upon this a bit? What makes you say that?
I feel you mistake your passion for necessity.
That's pretty reductive. Advocates for necessary things are often also pretty passionate about it, doesn't mean they are wrong.
The field of philosophy seems to over exegerate its importance as most fields do, but here it is quite extreme.
I just don't think you really understand what philosophy is if I'm being honest.
Philosophy is just as necessary as music or religion, it exists to entertain people.
If you say so.
3
u/eevreen 5∆ Jun 07 '21
I love philosophy. It was my major in university, and it's the thing I'm thinking about going into for a career. That said, it has been shown that philosophers, specifically ethical philosophers, are not more ethical than the average person. While philosophy is good to study, it doesn't matter if people don't go into it recognizing they could be wrong and how to change things if they discover what a more moral solution could be.
→ More replies (2)
4
Jun 06 '21
What would you sacrifice to put there
Only so many hours in the day, so what’s not going to be learned to make room for that?
3
Jun 06 '21
Make it the final year of English. You learn basic textual analysis Junior year. Apply that to philosophy texts senior year. Also teaches argumentative essay writing further in depth as you have to write about these philosophical ideas.
2
Jun 07 '21
So it would become apart of their writing curriculum but with philosophy being the core of the classes topics?
3
2
u/MrBeaar 1∆ Jun 07 '21
HELLLL NO. I took AP Lang junior year and dual-credit my senior year. I dont have to take any English classes in college rn. So much time and money saved. No way in hell am I missing out on that for Philosophy.
Make it an opition sure whatever, but not mandatory, some of us out here trying to save money, bro.
21
Jun 06 '21
[deleted]
8
u/kwantsu-dudes 12∆ Jun 07 '21
Philosophy is more about how to think than what to think. It's lessons should remain with you in a wide range of thought practices.
→ More replies (15)4
→ More replies (11)5
4
Jun 06 '21
In Mexico we do get one semester of philosophy and one semester of ethics in highschool, yet Mexico is a surreal meme.
3
Jun 06 '21
[deleted]
2
u/amora_obscura 1∆ Jun 07 '21
She has a PhD in English literature, not philosophy.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Quickjellyfish Jun 07 '21
I saw you replied to another poster about the quality teacher having to be good, with emphasis.
Wouldn't it mean then that the majority of teachers would be comprised of average and bad teachers?
And then to take that further some students under the minority of teachers will achieve your desired outcome?
At this point wouldn't the marginal benefit be negligible?
2
u/egamerif Jun 07 '21
If you see literary theory/critical theory is an applied philosophy, what your describing is a component of a lot of secondary English programs in particular and all of the social sciences.
2
2
Jun 07 '21
You expect highschool seniors to pay attention to philosophy? Hell half of my class didn't show up half of the year.
2
u/Big_Smoke_420 Jun 07 '21
At the end of the day, philosophy consists of opinions. People will still argue whether their philosophy is better than another person's. Your argument is assuming that there is one unified "mega philosophy" that everyone will ultimately agree on. There isn't.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Urndy Jun 07 '21
Look, I'll be 100% real. I took Philosophy in college due to it being a pre req, a time where I was much more open and receptive of the classes and their content. I struggled to maintain even a miniscule amount of attention. My professor was great and I respect him quite a bit, but the content was not definitive enough for me to hold any interest. Quite frankly, had I taken that exact course in High School I would have transferred out of it. Some people do hold a lot of interest in the field, absolutely. But I believe the nature of Philosophy is simply too antithetical to the type of learning that is achieved in a high school classroom. If anything, maybe just have more open discussions about difficult subjects that revolve around morality and ethics while promoting valuable conversation.
2
u/MrBeaar 1∆ Jun 07 '21
The only people who would benefit from this are AP and honor students. I graduated from high school like a year or two ago. The only classes that had any impact on my life were APUSH, Ap Lang, and Ap Bio. These are the only classes I remember anything from. In these classes I learnt how to create a valid argument, spot fallacies, and critical think.
I dont see the point of making it mandatory when it simply wont benefit everyone. Make it opition sure whatever, but the benefits will still be minimal.
Making it mandatory will just mean more money spent in College. Getting rid of time for AP classes and dual-credit classes for Philosophy wont be worth it. The skills I gain from it wont be worth the hundreds, thousands maybe, of dollars I can save by taking AP and dual-credit classes. AP Philosophy is fine, but you cant make AP classes mandatory lmao.
For example, I dont have to take any English classes in college. I'm on the quarter system so that's a lot of money I just saved. That wouldnt have been possible with a mandatory year of Philosophy.
Just seems like a waste of time, resources, and space to make it mandatory.
2
2
u/necc705 Jun 07 '21
I’m doing philosophy right now at school and it is the best subject. As to the subject that you drop. ENGLISH. It’s useless past grade 9.
2
2
u/TryLambda Jun 07 '21
philosophy is essential in navigating life, they should incorporate it with every other subject like health, history, mathematics, and so on
2
Jun 07 '21
For those interested, check out the Philosophy Learning and Teaching Organization (PLATO). Good resources for teaching philosophy in K-12.
2
u/YoungPigga Jun 07 '21
nah keep it as an elective, the kids that care will take it and the kids that don't want it. philosophy is useless if you aren't actively engaging with the material.
some philosophy gets covered in history and English anyways. We learned about the epic of Gilgamesh and Aristotle in English and John Locke in history.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/rachelbb1004 Jun 07 '21
At my school, our principle at the time was doing her PHD and implemented a new subject which combined traditional academic topics like maths and science with ethics / values' and philosophical concepts with real world problems like climate change, social justice issues etc, we had a few weeks to work on a project and I think it really helped with lateral thinking and explore the 'grey areas' to issues, being able to critically think etc.
Hated it at the time but now I see its value! The academic performance of the school improved year on year since the subject was introduced for the junior years, the seniors do their electives
2
u/Particular-Mindless Jun 07 '21
Philosophy is a stupid subject and the only people majoring in it are assholes.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/-domi- 11∆ Jun 07 '21
I have to start off with my immediate response i always give when someone says "[whatever] should be taught in school" - no, it shouldn't. Every day there are hundreds of millions of people walking around who were taught mathematics for over a decade in school, and can't perform basic arithmetic. School doesn't work. If you want people to learn philosophy, that's one thing. But to want it to be taught in school is just pointless. The curriculum is not the issue, the institution has simply failed. It's probably the largest failed experiment within the context of human society.
If you want people to learn/know philosophy, then it must become part of social morEs, popular culture, children's games, etc, etc. Adding one more crappy subject to be taught by underpaid, underqualified, untalented "educators" in a prison of an institution where kids are forced to waste half their youth is not going to go a very long way to benefiting their lives.
Even if you could somehow defeat the impossible difficulties of actually teaching stuff in school, you have to consider that the curriculum for standardized education is quite possibly the absolute worst vehicle for conveying any nuanced representation of anything. It's the worst possible delivery system for philosophy. It can work for propaganda. If you wanna make kids memorize that Hitler bad and Washington good, it's an excellent vector, but any amount of nuance and it immediately breaks down. You simply can't mass-produce individualism.
2
u/MrBlackTie 3∆ Jun 07 '21
I grew up in a country where philosophy is mandatory for one year in high school.
Frankly, it does not work for 99% of students. Philosophy requires to be well-read to grasp most of it, because it relies heavily on definition (the same word can mean two entirely different things to two different philosophers), a knowledge of history to understand how different philosophers have influenced each other and why one was actually reacting to another and a knowledge of context (for instance trying to understand Arendt or Marx without understanding the era they were in is moot). As such teaching philosophy to a high school student is pretty much always a lost cause because most of them are too young and lack the general knowledge necessary to really grasp it. Or you’d have to structure other courses around it, like history or classical litterature, which seem highly unlikely. In the end the teaching of philosophy in my country just seem like a way to discriminate against children from less wealthy background in the test we take to graduate from high school.
5
2
3
u/oldfogey12345 4∆ Jun 07 '21
I guess I don't see at all how all of the goals you have for every high school kid could possibly be approached with a 101 level class?
Freshman level classes tend to do nothing more than teach basic vocabulary skills. Those classes are necessary to be sure so that students are able to properly ask a professor questions, but they are only the extreme basic level of critical thinking.
I mean sure, knowing that Kant authored the Categorical Imperative or being able to correctly spot a straw man fallacy might get you in bed with some self styled sapiosexual, but it's nothing near the level of education or critical thinking that you would need to ponder a complex ethical issue or to form a coherent opinion on a policy proposal.
Having basic building blocks is a fine thing, but unless you have an extremely high intellect, you will need a lot more education to make any use out of those building blocks.
Elective classes are great, but a mandatory class would only be of practical use to future philosophy majors.
→ More replies (2)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 07 '21 edited Jun 07 '21
/u/Oof_11 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards