From the APA: philosophy for children?

It has always struck me as bizarre that in the United States philosophy is taught only at the college level, and even then it is considered a form of intellectual masturbation for pointy-headed intellectuals. As if somehow learning about what some of the greatest thinkers in history had to say about morality, reality, knowledge and beauty, to name but a few of the areas covered by philosophy, was not essential to shaping a mind capable of critical thinking. Then again, perhaps that’s the point: our society doesn’t want critically thinking citizens, they may start asking uncomfortably probing questions about the status quo.

This is why I am attending a session on teaching philosophy at the pre-college level at the annual meeting of the American Philosophical Association (Eastern Division), which is taking place at the “crossroads of the world,” in Manhattan’s Times Square.

[Note to my philosophy colleagues: please, please get out of the awful habit of simply reading your papers, especially in a monotone. If you are not a Shakespearian actor, use a computer presentation, we will all follow you so much better...]

Michael Burroughs of the University of Memphis talked about his experiences in introducing philosophy discussion groups in local high schools in Tennessee. Predictably, the main obstacle is going through the red tape that it takes to convince administrators that this is a good idea, even when someone volunteers to do so on his own time and therefore at no cost to the school. Burroughs suggested two approaches to “selling” philosophy in high schools: on the one hand, its emphasis on critical thinking and logic may be of direct help to students in preparing for standardized tests and other horrors of modern education; on the other hand — once one is already inside the school system — it is possible to emphasize the benefits of philosophy for its own sake, as a way ofexpanding students’ minds and facilitate their understanding of complex issues.

Burroughs often approaches his students in a way similar to the many philosophy cafes that have sprung up all over the country in recent years: begin with a broad question that is both intrinsically interesting and about which students have something to say even without any background in philosophy. I mean, who is not interested in exploring the issue of “what is a good life?” The interactions between students and teacher are modeled as a community where people exchange ideas in person and on a blog, but where there is as little top-down lecturing as possible. Philosophy, in other words, is not a spectator sport.

The following speaker, Paul Thomson, is the “philosopher in residence” at the Columbia Secondary School for Math, Science, and Engineering in New York — an unusual title to be sure! He uses the time-tested method of dialogues to introduce students to philosophy. Again, though, the emphasis is on participation: not only is each topic presented by means of a dialogue from a book, but students are then instructed to write their own dialogues on philosophical issues.

Incidentally, Thomson’s program has 96 slots available for students, and the astounding thing is that they get about 1000 applications each year. Who says kids are not interested in philosophy?

The last speaker of the session was Wendy Turgeon of St. Joseph’s College (Long Island), who takes the different approach of teaching the teachers about philosophy. One of the major obstacles she has to overcome is a widespread attitude that doing philosophy simply means having an opinion, and after all everyone has opinions, right? (Yes, but most of them are ill-founded in either fact or argument.)

The problem, according to Turgeon, is that while children are naturally curious — something that makes them open to both science and philosophy — philosophical (or scientific) thinking requires the sort of rigor that does not come naturally (to either children or adults, for that matter). It is simply not true that children are “natural philosophers” or that “there are no wrong answers” to a philosophical question.

Turgeon also noted that teachers have trouble distinguishing between philosophy and religion, or even psychology, often not grasping what it is that makes a question philosophical rather than scientific. To some extent, I would argue, this is a legitimate issue, considering that the borders between these and other fields are in fact permeable. But I suspect that the major problem is that people are much more familiar with religion, science, psychology and so forth than they are with philosophy and philosophizing.

There are a couple of problems that were evident from the APA session: first off, judging from the low number of attendees, philosophers themselves do not care enough about this issue. This is no different from scientists, many of whom put only a nominal value on public outreach and early science education. The predictable lack of results is similar: just as a large number of Americans reject evolution, vaccines and global warming, I doubt that most Americans would be able to distinguish between utilitarianism and virtue ethics, or to stay away from common logical fallacies. The second issue is: why do we so often equate pre-college education with high school? Is there a reason why primary school children could or should not be exposed to philosophy (or science, for that matter)? Religionists know better: the Jesuits famously say that if you give them a child of seven in a few years they will mold a man of faith out of him. And then it takes the rest of us a lifetime to undo the damage.