Philosophy in Secondary Schools

[The Voice of Time]

aiddon, I must ask you to take note also, that I'm one of the few here who actually has gone to secondary school in the 21st century. Most of the others here are stone-age old people, and their comments should be viewed in light of their age, and the huge differences you'd likely find between them and your would-be pupils.

I love philosophy, but philosophy-class in tertiary school was one of my most boring learning experiences ever, so unfortunate that I ditched the class (not knowing its content) where I was told they showed a movie about Neanderthals raping each other in the river. I can't remember whether it was the course "History and Philosophy" or the pure history course, think it was the later though.

[RickLewis]

Aiddon,

I'm in touch with a chap called Sean McIlroy, who used to teach philosophy at Sacred Heart Grammar School in Newry (he was head of the Religious Studies dept there). He subscribed to Philosophy Now for many years as teaching materials for his class there, and since retiring from teaching he has become head of the Religious Studies subject panel for NICCEA. His main responsibilities are writing the Philosophy A Level exam papers for Northern Ireland and also promoting the teaching of Philosophy at A Level. He runs courses and conferences for teachers, too.

I think you might find it really useful to be in touch with him. If you message me (or email me) I'll give you his email address. I'm sure he'd be happy to help if he can.

Rick

[aiddon]

Your argument is as worthy as saying "we did it yesterday, so we are gonna do the same today", completely lame thinking.

I must take exception to this you calling my thinking 'lame'. Firstly you're assuming that by linear teaching I mean doing the same as has been done in the past. That is certainly not what I was saying. To modify your logic somewhat, just because something is done in a particular way today, it doesn't mean it is the correct way. In fact, modern teachers are struggling on a daily basis to get children to 'unlearn' modern ways of doing things, i.e. spelling using text language.

Secondly, you may be a student of the 21st century, but I am a teacher of the 21st century - and let me tell you, showing movies is not considered an appropriate methodology. My job as a teacher is to teach, not to entertain.

Thirdly you are assuming, again falsely, that there is a sufficient level of philosophy in movies such as 'The Matrix'. While there are some gestures towards deep and interesting ideas, this is ultimately popular philosophy, the type perceived to have merit by the man on the street. I am sorry, but it is lazy philosophy - without depth, and frankly designed for the purpose of entertainment. I do not wish to distill philosophy down to this level. If you are aware of the philosophy of education (which you may not be), then one of the main responsibilities of a teacher is to teach the 'dominant syntax', i.e. to teach children the language and concepts of a particular field above and beyond what they encounter in their daily lives. This enables them to access power structures later in life. Therefore, I think it is more important they learn to read and critique Camus rather than watching two hours of Blade Runner.

Too often, the modern child relates virtual reality to reality (please, let's not precipitate a discussion on what is reality - this is outside the remit of the current debate, and frankly something I'm not interested in). Children are getting their cues from what they saw in a movies and video games. The modern child's perception of reality has shifted from the street to the living room. If we are to give children any chance at all, then let's cease the dumbing down of education, but rather allow them to embrace it. What's required, as with all learning, is a good teacher. Just ask Aristotle.

Aidan.

[aiddon]

Hi Rick,

Many thanks for weighing in on the conversation. I will drop you an email later and get Sean's details from you.

Interesting you mentioned Philosophy Now as source material for teaching - the back issues of PN I ordered with my subscription were partly informed by my potential teaching of philosophy. I think one issue in particular has comprehensive material on children and philosophy.

Aidan.

[thedoc]

Too often, the modern child relates virtual reality to reality (please, let's not precipitate a discussion on what is reality - this is outside the remit of the current debate, and frankly something I'm not interested in). Children are getting their cues from what they saw in a movies and video games. The modern child's perception of reality has shifted from the street to the living room. If we are to give children any chance at all, then let's cease the dumbing down of education, but rather allow them to embrace it. What's required, as with all learning, is a good teacher. Just ask Aristotle.

Aidan.

A good teacher is only half of what is required, the student must be ready and willing to learn. I was a teacher many years ago and I could not comprehend that students didn't want to be in my class, and there were well over half that felt and acted that way.

[The Voice of Time]

A good teacher is only half of what is required, the student must be ready and willing to learn.

What thedoc said. Studies show that the motivation in pupils are more important than the teacher him- or herself. By personal experience, this is also very true.

So back to my position: you need to find something that reaches the pupils, because when you've reached the pupils, they'll do the rest themselves (and of course, a simple movie is not doing that by itself, but it's a good start if you couple it with a relevant study).

[The Voice of Time]

Firstly you're assuming that by linear teaching I mean doing the same as has been done in the past.

You said it, not me, you indicated that because it had been done in the last 2000+ years that there was a reason to continue doing it. As if because technology didn't exist before you shouldn't use it today when it does exist and is ready to aid you ^^

That is certainly not what I was saying.

At least that's good that you didn't mean to say what you did say, or whatever you mean that you aren't saying what you did say.

To modify your logic somewhat, just because something is done in a particular way today, it doesn't mean it is the correct way.

It's not done very widely. Many people just do what they've always done, although schools in many countries are more and more adapting towards a more informationized and multimedia world. But it is a constant process of transition, as technology develops faster than the entirety of people can learn how to use it.

In fact, modern teachers are struggling on a daily basis to get children to 'unlearn' modern ways of doing things, i.e. spelling using text language.

The teachers just need to "learn" to catch up x) Remember, English, and my mother tongue Norwegian, was quite different in many words 100 years ago, the spelling has changed. The precarious thing about the modern age is that the process of change is so fast and culture so quickly developing in all directions. I welcome text language and hope it stays, it is very efficient and very sophisticated, everybody should learn to use it.

Secondly, you may be a student of the 21st century, but I am a teacher of the 21st century - and let me tell you, showing movies is not considered an appropriate methodology. My job as a teacher is to teach, not to entertain.

Why do you have to keep those things separate? If you focused on being an entertainer instead of an educator, you would indeed miss the point, but if you were an educator with entertaining values, that's just double beneficial. You sound unhealthy stubborn and blind when you talk like that, have a joke never caught your attention to a situation before? Stand-up comedy is not what is asked for, only that you try to reach the hearts and minds of your students to open them up for that teaching. There's no use in teaching to closed hearts and minds.

Thirdly you are assuming, again falsely, that there is a sufficient level of philosophy in movies such as 'The Matrix'.

That is subjective opinion by personal preference, full of bias. Just because you say it's false doesn't make it so, just because you think so, doesn't make it so. How are you even able to "quantify" philosophy like that? Again, I'm not asking you to just show the movie expecting people to learn anything from it, but to relate the history of philosophical ideas to the content of the movie, the context in question was epistemology. The whole series is an epistemological story, if anything. It is all about how knowledge has come to be false or true and the chains of stages that leads something to reach your mind and be perceived as true. Throughout the movie knowledge is not explicitly always questioned, but always there's a kind of wonder about knowledge and the interesting use of the aspects of knowledge, even at some of the more traditional drama situations when that one guy becomes a traitor to the rest of the crew on-board the ship he says "he doesn't want to remember anything", even that is a wondrous question: "if we could erase knowledge, would we want to do it?". In our daily lives there are some many times we seek out ways to forget and repress and there's been numerous people who has described this desire and its consequences for good and bad. I'm sure I could go on and on about the philosophy of the movie, but that is gonna give you a lot to read, and I don't know enough quotations of authors to give you direct links to what famous philosophers have said that relates to the content of the movie.

While there are some gestures towards deep and interesting ideas, this is ultimately popular philosophy, the type perceived to have merit by the man on the street.

Are we pretending to be superior to the man on the street? Why would your philosophy be so much more important than their philosophy?

I am sorry, but it is lazy philosophy

In what way? The philosophy is as complicated and complex as any other philosophy, nothing lazy about it.

without depth

That is your personal opinion again, has nothing to do with reality, unless you have more solid arguments to support that simplistic belief.

and frankly designed for the purpose of entertainment.

At least that I can agree with, but it's not the end of its utility.

I do not wish to distill philosophy down to this level.

Why would it be "down"?

If you are aware of the philosophy of education (which you may not be), then one of the main responsibilities of a teacher is to teach the 'dominant syntax', i.e. to teach children the language and concepts of a particular field above and beyond what they encounter in their daily lives.

I've heard this before, so although I'm unfamiliar with the term "dominant syntax" I know what you mean (btw, syntax is the arrangement of words in the sentence, and as a teacher you should know it has nothing to do with "vocabulary", which I suppose you really meant since "syntax" doesn't make sense to talk about).

This enables them to access power structures later in life. Therefore, I think it is more important they learn to read and critique Camus rather than watching two hours of Blade Runner.

Now you're using a straw man, because obviously I would not choose Blade Runner among my suggested collection of teaching material, there's a stark difference between The Matrix and Blade Runner in this regard which should be very obvious anyone who has seen both movies. As for "dominant vocabulary" (I took the liberty to change that), I never said anything about not teaching vocabulary, but to talk jargon with teenagers seems to be a way of shooting oneself in the foot. I'd say wait for high school before you start going down that road. You can teach vocabulary in secondary school as well, but if it becomes a priority people are just gonna find it boring, and as soon as they've learned it, they'll forget most of it (simply because most jargon isn't used in ordinary life and you'll find it hard to convince people to keep it in memory or practice it). All jargon comes with a circumstance that gives rise to a need for the word, and if you want to teach people the word, then give them first the circumstance in which it makes sense to have the word, in the same way as I said you should have a situation or circumstance for philosophical ideas before you present them, which is what movies like Matrix and V For Vendetta is about (often philosophical jargon is closely related to philosophical ideas as well, so those two problems relate and are solved equivalently).

Too often, the modern child relates virtual reality to reality

And why shouldn't they? You think all virtual reality is a lie or portraying things in deceptive manners? More personal opinionizing and little hard-value argumentation.

(please, let's not precipitate a discussion on what is reality - this is outside the remit of the current debate, and frankly something I'm not interested in).

Agreed.

Children are getting their cues from what they saw in a movies and video games. The modern child's perception of reality has shifted from the street to the living room.

In some countries, the living room has a way better portrayal of reality than the streets have, also, the streets are dangerous, many cars there and reckless drivers. Let's not suppose that because you're not facing reality that the understanding of reality you get is bad, if the street is hell on earth trying to steal your soul, then it's way better you sit at home and face hope and retain your soul and be a bit more hopeful and good-spirited for the rest of your life.

If we are to give children any chance at all, then let's cease the dumbing down of education, but rather allow them to embrace it. What's required, as with all learning, is a good teacher. Just ask Aristotle.

Aidan.

This was answered by thedoc and I answered thedoc in turn.

[HexHammer]

I am currently trying to get the subject of philosophy on the curriculum of the school in which I teach. I am a physics and mathematics teacher in a secondary school in Cork, Ireland. Philosophy is not taught to secondary school children in Ireland, so I was aiming to get a pilot syllabus set up - something short and basic, yet covering all the major aspects of western philosophy. My school principal has shown interest, due largely to an article I wrote for a regional newspaper: http://aidanodonoghue.com/2013/09/06/learning-to-think/

I was wondering if anyone on the forum has tried something similar, and if so how did they design the syllabus? How can you get kids engaged quickly?

I'm usually very must against philosophy and philosophers in general.

Usually they endulge in navel gazing and totally irrelevant topics.

They can't solve anything and are glaringly ignorent about very very basic facts of life.

I always see the usual topics "what is time", "what is truth", "what is free will", everything has been answerd decades ago, when posting the answers they are totally ignored and the cozy chat continues as philosophers wants answers filled with beautiful rethorics and exorbiant metaphors.

Besides most branches of philosophy are outdated.

Edit: Zchspellinxeroororx!!

[aiddon]

Hello Hexhammer. Perhaps a philosophy forum is not the place to be then?

[HexHammer]

Hello Hexhammer. Perhaps a philosophy forum is not the place to be then?

Maybe I should elaborate.

I consider myself an actual philosopher, whilst most others can be considerd cozy chatters.

Philosophy needs to be rewritten to modern terms so it has relevance in our society, instead of being a mere pass time.

[aiddon]

I'm usually very must against philosophy and philosophers in general.

Usually they endulge in navel gazing and totally irrelevant topics.

They can't solve anything and are glaringly ignorent about very very basic facts of life.

I always see the usual topics "what is time", "what is truth", "what is free will", everything has been answerd decades ago, when posting the answers they are totally ignored and the cozy chat continues as philosophers wants answers filled with beautiful rethorics and exorbiant metaphors.

Besides mods branches of philosophy are outdated.

Actually I am in full agreement with you about some of your points. Philosophy in recent times has fallen into the hands of pseudo-intellectuals, who claim (without any training) to know the answer to almost anything. It reduces to who can argue better, mostly resulting in vitriol. Vitriol is the last outpost of ignorance - and something that has reared its ugly head since the advent of the internet. Everyone nowadays has an opinion, and that opinion must be heard at all costs - it's a symptom of our instant gratification culture spurred on by the internet. Hence my point about philosophy in movies - much of which is watered-down, populist philosophy. I also agree that many of the philosophical ideas that preoccupied earlier philosophers are now redundant thanks to science and enlightenment ideas. Many amateur philosophers ultimately argue over semantics and are more focused on tripping you up than actually delving into problems in any serious way.

[uwot]

Hello aiddon. I used to run the debating society at a secondary school in London. It was a great way to engage children with critical thinking, philosophical reasoning and ideas, public speaking; helps build confidence, teamwork, leadership etc. etc. and as extra curricular it is easier to set up and is useful to gauge and promote interest in potential courses. Over here, there are borough, regional and national championships, I'm sure they have the same thing in Ireland; if not the door is open for you. Good luck with whatever you do.

[aiddon]

Hello aiddon. I used to run the debating society at a secondary school in London. It was a great way to engage children with critical thinking, philosophical reasoning and ideas, public speaking; helps build confidence, teamwork, leadership etc. etc. and as extra curricular it is easier to set up and is useful to gauge and promote interest in potential courses. Over here, there are borough, regional and national championships, I'm sure they have the same thing in Ireland; if not the door is open for you. Good luck with whatever you do.

Thanks for that uwot. I am looking forward to getting it up and running.

[aiddon]

Voice of Time. When I say dominant syntax, I mean dominant syntax. I don't mean dominant vocabulary. Please do not assume you knew what I meant. It is incorrect and it is condescending. You may not know this but the words syntax does not just mean the arrangement of words. It also relates to the rules and principles of language. This is what children need to learn. Do not disagree with established principles of educational and social philosophy. Currently you have reduced this discussion to refuting every single point of everyone else's opinion. I do not come to this forum to enagage in squabbling over the finer points of language - this is what gives philosophy a bad name. I am more interested in the exploration of ideas, which involves taking on board other opinions, not just using it as a platform to give my twopence worth. If you cannot accept criticism of the things you say, well then philosophy is not the subject for you.

Lastly, you lose a large degree of credibility in any argument when you demean others on this forum for being 'stone age'. (A) It is a wild assumption (B) If the average age happens to be above a certain threshold, then so what? (C) I prefer to take wisdom from someone who has seen a lot of life than a 'student of the 21st century'.

[The Voice of Time]

As you wish (and you are the one who obviously can't take criticism ^^ You are free to criticize me as much as you want, as should I be able to criticize you), but at least consider taking my very serious arguments in consideration and in hindsight of whenever you've completed a class, check how much they remember, check how much your class benefits them, check how much they truly learn, check how much they think you did a good job... and if you managed to reach a significant amount of people, then you've succeeded and you can disregard me for having said what I said. If you are a total failure, then please don't let pride stand in the way for truth.