Philosophy Now Forum

aiddon wrote: Hey, we're all oddballs. That's why we are here. Those things you are interested in are very fine pursuits indeed. Unfortunately I cannot supply with you the name of that note as I cannot read music. It is something my ear picks out each time I hear it - and my heart thumps that bit louder. I will ask my wife on your behalf, who plays the Marche funèbre for me from time to time. Beats sitting watching television.

I only watch a very little TV, mostly PBS. If your wife could specify the movement, and measure, and note that gets your attention, it would help me find it. If it is in the 1st or 3rd movement it will probably reoccur several times, and the 2nd repeats phrases several times.

aiddon wrote:Here I must agree with you somewhat, but also disagree in another sense. Yes, there is much that is archaic with medieval religious philosophers, but surely you cannot argue that it is all dangerous? As I said, I am not religious, but I am not so stubborn as to think that religion has nothing to offer in terms of philosophy. Ultimately religion is a particular stance on the meaning and origin of existence - surely that entitles it to be considered as philosophy, no? It is false to say that there is religion and there is philosophy - both are tied up with each other, attempts at an ultimte explanation. Much of non-religious philosophy (am I permitted to use that term?) can also be misleading and dangerous, so I think it is important to separate your distaste for religion (as I said already, I am not religious either) and see that it has a certain legitimacy given its centrality in human culture for so long. Irrespective of whether God exists or not, much of religion is concerned with how we should live, what is our place in the world, what is the meaning of my existence - the very same things that all philosophers are concerned with. Just because religious philosophers claim to know the answers, doesn't preclude them from the debate.

You'll have to ignore me then, because so much text is too tempting to answer, I can't help it! Call it a compulsion... And it's certainly relevant, because it does say something about what value religion shall have in your final view on the weight of teaching of religious people who have speculated in philosophy.

So to medieval philosophy, no, not all are "dangerous", but there is fairly little to show for still. You can build up a history of ideas, but it's also a lot of waste of time because the "philosophical part", which is different from the "history of ideas part", is not so interesting in that period, as the ideas that are strong enough to survive into usefulness only get their full form and good looks in later works by later philosophers, and much of that period was a period for commentary on ancient works as well, and fairly little really interesting original thinking, except perhaps the later period and into the renaissance.

Religion can be taught certainly, but not in a philosophy class, which should be about philosophy. Indeed there is much bad philosophy out there as well, but plenty of good philosophy, and no need to mix it up with theologians and their theological work. This is not saying religious people have never done good philosophy, the point is to separate their philosophy from their theology. In some people like Augustine or Thomas, I'm fairly sceptical there is much philosophical worth saying as they were heavily theologians and deeply into religion and whatever philosophy they did have is very redundant, while in people like Kierkegaard, it's a difficult but highly profitable work to actively separate theology from philosophy, because he has some very philosophical ideas very relevant to the present time hidden in a theological language.

Immanuel Can wrote:

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?

Thanks,
Aidan

I know a lot about this. We should talk about it off forum, if you want to.

Hi:

I’d also like to get looped into any discussion. I teach secondary biology and chemistry and have this year started a one semester class on philosophy mainly to help students become more thinkers, than listeners. So far, we’ve covered fallacies and are into a text by Doug Erlandson, Philosophy Basics.

I like the text because it is not a survey course of the usual suspects, but an examination of the key components (epistemology, etc) with a smattering of readings. Right now, we’re going through Hume’s Dialogues on Natural Religion. Like Shakespeare, it took a little time to settle into Hume’s style, but the kids are getting into it. I cn already see their thinking process has changed over the past three months.

Thanks,
Mike

aiddon wrote:

The Voice of Time wrote: The religious perspective? The religious perspective isn't a philosophical one, it's a religious one. There is a philosophy of religion, which is what happens when a philosopher discuss religion, but the religious perspective is a theology of philosophy, and doesn't belong to philosophy itself. It's teaching religion, not teaching philosophy.

Yawn. You're starting to bore me now, Voice of Time. Quit trying to be cleverer than everyone else here. You knew exactly what was meant by the religious perspective. Go and find the religion forum and babble away there to your heart's content.

I am more concerned with actually getting a philosophy course started for children. If you have nothing useful to say, don't say it. Thanks.

Last year, after I got approval from the principal to teach my philosophy course, I began promoting it in my other classes. One slogan was, “Learn to argue more effectively with your parents.” Of course, I didn’t mean quarreling, but debating in a rational sense. I had more students sign up for my class than the other two classes in that curriculum section combined. Fallacies with some philosophical vocabulary thrown in is a fun way to start and draw their interest. Then when you introduce more complex stuff they feel equipped to handle it.

So far, three months later and no complaints from the parents.

aiddon wrote:

The Voice of Time wrote: The religious perspective? The religious perspective isn't a philosophical one, it's a religious one. There is a philosophy of religion, which is what happens when a philosopher discuss religion, but the religious perspective is a theology of philosophy, and doesn't belong to philosophy itself. It's teaching religion, not teaching philosophy.

Yawn. You're starting to bore me now, Voice of Time. Quit trying to be cleverer than everyone else here. You knew exactly what was meant by the religious perspective. Go and find the religion forum and babble away there to your heart's content.

I am more concerned with actually getting a philosophy course started for children. If you have nothing useful to say, don't say it. Thanks.

I have to agree with Voice of Time on this issue.
Religion is the very antithesis of all Philosophy.
It may have taken many years to reach this conclusion, but at least for the last 200 years, there has been a significant and widening gap between philosophy and religion to a point there the the vestiges of religion have no place in philosophy.

If philosophy for kids is about anything, it is about making them think, not about teaching faith.

The faithful are asked to leave their brains outside.

aiddon wrote:

marjoramblues wrote: Really, you hadn't thought of the aspect of 'mood' as important - then that too might be a useful jump-off...given the hormonal mood swings of teenagers.

I'm not sure I understand your point? What is a 'jump-off?'

To recap:
I was replying to your doubts as to using your article, about friends disagreeing about artistic merit, as a basis for teaching philosophy to teenagers.
I was suggesting that you could indeed use the emotional angle - and the sense of distancing - was he part-android - as a way-in to discuss e.g. relative 'taste'.
Moving on to the 'mood' aspect; I was surprised when you wrote: [see emphasis]

‘It is beautiful,’ my friend said of the Nocture No. 6, ‘but I didn’t move me in the same way. I guess you have to be in the mood.’

Of course I had hitherto never considered one’s mood as being of any importance in art. The subjectivity of art. Is there not a universal aesthetic to which we can all subscribe regardless of the day you’re having?

Now this was either a writer's ploy to bridge the personal exchange to the more theoretical side ( subjectivity and objectivity of art), or you really hadn't considered the importance of mood before.

Either way, I thought using 'mood', together with potential emotional arguments about taste, from a personal point of view ( both yours and students) could be a useful point of initial engagement.

The 'jump-off' - hmm - my word which escaped from my brain without heed. Let's see what did I mean. Well, definitely not as per my dictionary: 'a deciding round in a showjumping competition' - but then again...one could get creative there...
Nor was it an evolutionary suicidal leap from a cliff - as per Skip's haiku.
Although, it could be 'evolutionary' in the sense of a leap from the known to the unknown, or from the personal to the theoretical...or v.v.
Being able to articulate from emotion to reason; that kinda thing. I guess.

thedoc wrote:

aiddon wrote: Hey, we're all oddballs. That's why we are here. Those things you are interested in are very fine pursuits indeed. Unfortunately I cannot supply with you the name of that note as I cannot read music. It is something my ear picks out each time I hear it - and my heart thumps that bit louder. I will ask my wife on your behalf, who plays the Marche funèbre for me from time to time. Beats sitting watching television.

I only watch a very little TV, mostly PBS. If your wife could specify the movement, and measure, and note that gets your attention, it would help me find it. If it is in the 1st or 3rd movement it will probably reoccur several times, and the 2nd repeats phrases several times.

Why don't you try a youtube rendition; you can specify the exact time, minute and second.

MMasz wrote:

aiddon wrote:

The Voice of Time wrote: The religious perspective? The religious perspective isn't a philosophical one, it's a religious one. There is a philosophy of religion, which is what happens when a philosopher discuss religion, but the religious perspective is a theology of philosophy, and doesn't belong to philosophy itself. It's teaching religion, not teaching philosophy.

I am more concerned with actually getting a philosophy course started for children. If you have nothing useful to say, don't say it. Thanks.

Last year, after I got approval from the principal to teach my philosophy course, I began promoting it in my other classes. One slogan was, “Learn to argue more effectively with your parents.” Of course, I didn’t mean quarreling, but debating in a rational sense. I had more students sign up for my class than the other two classes in that curriculum section combined. Fallacies with some philosophical vocabulary thrown in is a fun way to start and draw their interest. Then when you introduce more complex stuff they feel equipped to handle it.

So far, three months later and no complaints from the parents.

Hi there
I was wondering how difficult it is for a teacher to remain objective when dealing with a whole host of views and backgrounds. Mike, I read this from your Introduction:

As a Libertarian, I subscribe to ideas of extremely limited government, personal freedom, unfettered capitalism (no government allowance of monopolies, corporate welfare, etc), legalization of marijuana. I am not supportive of radical change, but want to awaken sheeple from their state of comfortable numbness.

On the "conservative" side I am pro-life, don't support gay marriage, but understand that marriage is a social contract- not necessarily a religious event and generally sympathetic with the TEA party.
Neither the Repubs or the Dems are suitable parties.

It made me also wonder about the student-mix at perhaps a specialist or private school. The aims of a particular school; and if this meant the narrowing of a philosophy course to what might be deemed acceptable.

I would love to hear what has been offered to Aidan by any authorities on the subject. But so far, it has been kept hidden.

Voice:

Showing movies still means you are gonna be engaging with them, but you'll have a place to engage from, a mutual experience to talk about, and not the psychological/emotional distance that random history produce.

Showing entire movies in a classroom situation would take up far too much time. Perhaps suggested clips to look at via youtube.
However, I agree about the importance of having an immediate and engaging shared experience of life; might lessen any perceived gap between teen-agers and stone-agers.

Monty Python: Always look on the bright side of life. Discuss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I have to agree with Voice of Time on this issue.
Religion is the very antithesis of all Philosophy.
It may have taken many years to reach this conclusion, but at least for the last 200 years, there has been a significant and widening gap between philosophy and religion to a point there the the vestiges of religion have no place in philosophy.

If philosophy for kids is about anything, it is about making them think, not about teaching faith.

The faithful are asked to leave their brains outside.

Religion and philosophy, of course, have taken divergent courses, however, when teaching philosophy to kids you must remember that most of them are coming to it with a set of pre-defined values mostly gained through what they learn at home and in primary (junior) school. Now, in Ireland at least, much of that is derived from religious education. I agree that this is far from ideal, but it is the situation whether I like it or not. To suddenly teach kids philosophy and completely ignore their 13 or so years of religious upbringing (or some may prefer the term indoctrination, but I think that may denote a sinister element to it), in my opinion, will only confuse them. Yes, I believe religion and philosophy should be taught independently - as it happens, I'm not even sure religion should be taught at all, and that pehaps it is better as an extra-curricular subject if one so wishes. Trust me, I have no inclination or desire to teach religion as part of philosophy - that would be paradoxical. My point is that I still think the religious perspective, given its pervasiveness across the world, is one that any open-minded teacher should give. Likewise, mathematics and philosophy should be taught independently, but that doesn't mean I can't teach Logic, which is a cornerstone of both subjects? The thing is, non-religous people are frightened at the taught of anything approaching religion be taught in the classroom? It's a very paranoid stance. Okay, I agree that for many centuries religious education was dogmatic and very closed-minded, but let's not go down that same road as teachers of philosophy. Yes, since Darwin we are much more enlightened about the origins of our existence, but for many it does not satisfactorily prove or disprove the existence of God (for me personally, I am satisfied that it does, but ultimately that is only my reasoning based on evidence - I do not ultimately know the answer). Your comment that the faithful should leave their brains outside is an unfair one. You imply that all those who believe in God are stupid. Despite 200 years since Darwin, have we become so intolerant all of a sudden? As a teacher, I will mostly be teaching kids who do believe in God - as a result of their upbringing. If I start on the premise that they are stupid, then I'm in the wrong job. Is it not better that I put in front of them the history of ideas, the arguments for and against theism, and allow them to make up their mind? An old teacher of mine, a believer himself, happens to have one of the most powerful intellects possessed by anyone I know. Even though we have differing views on religion, just because he believes in God does not suddenly wipe out his entire intelligence.

Teaching philosophy needs to be done in an objective manner. Of course, it will be coloured by own values, therefore you could argue that pure objectivity is impossible. But, hey we have to start somewhere. Show me someone who doesn't offer some degree of subjectivity?

Thanks for your input nonetheless.

marjoramblues wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/education/te ... es-schools

Thanks for that majoramblues. Very useful.

In response to your comments on my aesthetics article, I see the point you were making. Yes, I was making the point that it had not occured to me that something so transient as one's mood can actually define the aesthetic merit of art. It is something that genuinely puzzled me. And still does. A depressing painting or piece of music should be beautiful no matter how you're feeling, but somehow it doesn't work like that for everyone.

marjoramblues wrote:Voice:

Showing movies still means you are gonna be engaging with them, but you'll have a place to engage from, a mutual experience to talk about, and not the psychological/emotional distance that random history produce.

Showing entire movies in a classroom situation would take up far too much time. Perhaps suggested clips to look at via youtube.
However, I agree about the importance of having an immediate and engaging shared experience of life; might lessen any perceived gap between teen-agers and stone-agers.

Monty Python: Always look on the bright side of life. Discuss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo

Aye, I thought about that as well, or simply show the movie in parts, since showing the whole movie would take up a lot of school hours. Like, you show 20% or 25% of the movie and then discuss the philosophical bits, before you go on to the next part. Showing only clips could make problematic the understanding of the story and make comparisons difficult because the point could be deeper than its appearance (that is, the point appears in a 2 minute clip, but runs much deeper throughout the story and so the 2 minutes might not make enough understanding), but one should just try and see what's best. But likely, yes, showing the whole movie at once could be too much movie and too little to the point of the philosophical material, so one would have to find the best combinations.

Here's a nice version, and you can watch his hands while he plays, not as slow as some others I've heard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiWg0sYc4t0

The second section is about the tempo that I play, but I leave out the small flourishes and trills.

[quote="marjoramblues”]

MMasz wrote:

aiddon wrote:

The Voice of Time wrote: The religious perspective? The religious perspective isn't a philosophical one, it's a religious one. There is a philosophy of religion, which is what happens when a philosopher discuss religion, but the religious perspective is a theology of philosophy, and doesn't belong to philosophy itself. It's teaching religion, not teaching philosophy.

I am more concerned with actually getting a philosophy course started for children. If you have nothing useful to say, don't say it. Thanks.

Last year, after I got approval from the principal to teach my philosophy course, I began promoting it in my other classes. One slogan was, “Learn to argue more effectively with your parents.” Of course, I didn’t mean quarreling, but debating in a rational sense. I had more students sign up for my class than the other two classes in that curriculum section combined. Fallacies with some philosophical vocabulary thrown in is a fun way to start and draw their interest. Then when you introduce more complex stuff they feel equipped to handle it.

So far, three months later and no complaints from the parents.

Hi there
I was wondering how difficult it is for a teacher to remain objective when dealing with a whole host of views and backgrounds. Mike, I read this from your Introduction:

As a Libertarian, I subscribe to ideas of extremely limited government, personal freedom, unfettered capitalism (no government allowance of monopolies, corporate welfare, etc), legalization of marijuana. I am not supportive of radical change, but want to awaken sheeple from their state of comfortable numbness.

On the "conservative" side I am pro-life, don't support gay marriage, but understand that marriage is a social contract- not necessarily a religious event and generally sympathetic with the TEA party.
Neither the Repubs or the Dems are suitable parties.

It made me also wonder about the student-mix at perhaps a specialist or private school. The aims of a particular school; and if this meant the narrowing of a philosophy course to what might be deemed acceptable.

I would love to hear what has been offered to Aidan by any authorities on the subject. But so far, it has been kept hidden.[/quote]

Good observations, majoram. I teach at a Christian school, but offer a balanced approach to topics in an effort to help the student develop their reasoning skills in order that they might properly apply them in life. On topical assignments I expect the student to provide adequate and rational support for whatever position they choose to present. If it leads them to alter some of their beliefs, then so be it.

One thing I am out to do is demolish the inane, anti-intellectual mindset of many, if not most, Christians whose validation of their faith comes from their emotional experience. For example, skepticism tends to be frowned upon by many especially when dealing with matters of the faith, yet the Bible commends skepticism. The study of philosophy also tends to raise eyebrows, yet the apostle, Paul, quotes Greek philosophers when speaking to the intellectuals at the Areopagus in Athens.