Philosophy Now Forum

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

Ever heard of Sophie's World? For pre-adults it is a very good introduction to philosophy, written in a story-format. I'm Norwegian, and in Norway we teach philosophy at the children's school level, but not the youth school (or secondary school, as is more correct to call it in English). Sophie's World was written by a Norwegian called Jostein Gaarder and was published in 1991, according to Wikipedia: "The novel was later translated into fifty-three languages, with over thirty million copies in print."

The book was adapted to a movie in 1999, and "An English-subtitled DVD was released in 2005 in the UK". I highly suggest you watch the movie and consider to show it at the first day of class. Thereafter, you might consider using the book further to build on in your teaching. There are numerous organizations and people all over the world which have written on the subject of teaching philosophy to children, and countless books are out there (although quality can be hard to find).

I further suggest you use as many movies as you can to bring up philosophical subjects and show how they relate to our shared philosophical history. For instance, showing the first Matrix movie might be used as a way to delve into first Platon (and his cave example), the sceptics (and their assumption of the impossibility of knowledge), then Descartes and as such build up a history of epistemology.

Thereafter start with logic and some philosophy of science: first Inception and then Sherlock Holmes. Inception to explain why paradoxes are so important, and Sherlock Holmes to introduce formal logic in an informal way and bring up the subject of causation (which is one that is very interesting in Sherlock Holmes, because his thinking is perceivably so far-fetched that even if it is logically correct it seems unlikely to be causally correct because the world just usually isn't very dependable unless you have some kind of control over everything). Ancient Greece was filled to the brink with logicians, of course Plato and Aristotle being the most famous, but also many others both earlier and later such as the Stoics. Between that and the 19th century I suddenly don't remember much logicians however in the 19th century things speed up really fast and there are tons of logicians playing with formal logic everywhere and people discussing science in a philosophical twist. Among philosophers of science you have Francis Bacon of course a pretty early guy, Emile Durkheim (the founder of social science as you of course know), Karl Popper with his famous falsifiability and after that the list goes on and on with less and less important figures.

As for ethics, there are two ways you can teach it, likely you should do both. What happens when ethics goes wrong, and what happens when ethics go right. So you should choose, from the x-million amount of exemplary movies on the subject, a movie that shows how things can go very wrong and give rise to dilemmas (World War 2 or the African wars of 20th century are good alternatives, several movies about Germans who found themselves in deep shit and about African wars you have "Lord of War" for instance where there's at least one very difficult and strong choice that happens in the movie with a guy risking his life to avoid a massacre, however loosing in his attempt, also I think perhaps "Hotel Rwanda" might be good but I can't remember how the movie goes), and a movie that shows how things can go right such as movies about mercy, forgiveness, patience... I think I have just the movies in mind, the "Gandhi" movie from 1982, and the Nelson Mandela movie "Goodbye Bafana" from 2007.

About ethical preachers the list is not short, virtually every philosopher has an interest in ethics and certainly every religion. But I suggest that you focus more on modern ethics and less on ancient ethics as modern is much more relevant, although you should give some basic insight into the divide between virtue ethics, deontology and consequentialism, which will require some brief history. As for modern ethics, I must say that you should bring up the problem of the Naturalistic fallacy, it is very good to show youth just how problematic and many-sided ethics can be, the Naturalistic fallacy comes from G. E. Moore's Principia Ethica book from 1903, it's virtually the only really famous thing from the book. I also suggest you give them a peek at "Existentialism is a Humanism" by Jean-Paul Sartre, it makes a good point about good being things that you do and not merely things that you think about, which can put real perspective and be a nice treat for the mind. Beyond that, applied ethics has several widely known subjects, the point is not to just bring them up though, but to show examples of sophisticated argumentation from all major standpoints about the issues to make the youth think more broadly about the topics, such as abortion, euthanasia, ethics of warfare, business ethics and environmental ethics.

About political philosophy the topic is much more a "pick what you like" situation unfortunately, and almost everything is a bias towards something. But "V For Vendetta" is a good movie you could start with, it brings up a lot of political questions that are not obvious but lingers. The questions of the value of anarchy, mass movement, individualism, distribution of goods throughout society, the role and obligations of citizens, political participation and emancipation and so forth. All those topics hide behind the scenes in that movie, either because of their unusual appearance or their unusual absence.

When it comes to philosophers, you have the Utopianism tradition which starts with Plato, goes up to Sir Thomas More's Utopia, into the French social philosophy tradition (I'm a little uncertain who said what and to what degree, so I'll leave that open) and into the Marxist tradition and further into futurism. Then you have the "Natural State" tradition (which I named it right now), where the problems and management and origins of the political state is more discussed. Aristotle's book "Politics" is very in-depth about this, then you Machiavelli of course and Hobbes' Leviathan and on the more positive side you have Rousseau and his ideas of forcing citizens to be free, you also have the separation of concerns in the state between the 3 branches and a lot of boring stuff that'll just make your youth fall to sleep. I think whatever time you invest in this part should be focused on the movie so that bringing up philosophers is something you do as an example of thought about the issues that the movie indirectly brings into question. For instance, don't just dryly teach about the 3 branches of political society, but show how in the movie for instance that law is subject to the authoritarian government and what problems this pose to the public and even their ability to shoot people on sight. Also discuss the absence and consequences of not having universal suffrage, discuss the problems of authoritarianism versus anarchism versus moderation (the last of which isn't present in the movie), bring up the Leviathan and discuss whether or not a single authority should be in place (for instance a monarchy or a presidency) to give unity and avoid civil war, compare the question with the movie and ask whether the authoritarian policing avoided a civil war by suppressing discontent or whether it was the sole reason for one (as bad political management could also be a reason for civil war, and not all dictatorships are authoritarian states, some dictatorships are even anarchies). From a Marxist perspective of course you have a ruling class, and from the capitalist perspective (Adam Smith) you have the argument about the lack of freely floating goods and services leading to an inefficient and insufficient society.

Thanks for that comprehensive reply and the movie list. I am familiar with much of the history of philosophy as you outlined, but my question was more specifically about teaching methodology. Showing a lot of movies is perhaps not what I had intended, even though they are fine movies. As a teacher it is important to actively teach children.

That was my point, teaching methodology, but I got a bit caught up in all the subjects.

My point was that you have to start with good engaging examples. Movies are good engaging examples because they reach people, especially young people, in ways that merely speaking or showing texts rarely ever do.

So I put up the movies to show that those movies are good ways to contextualize what you are talking about, and that you use the movies as anchor-points from which you can expand upon your history lessons and bring out philosophical personalities and discuss ideas they've written about to expand the teenagers' minds. I promise you, old fashioned linear teaching is not gonna reach any typical teenager, they'll either fall asleep or catch 20% of what you are saying (if you are lucky). And philosophy is all about in-depth understanding and inspiration, so you'll not be able to just teach them to memorize anything either.

This lot might help you.
http://www.philosophy-foundation.org/members/register
Good luck with your task.

I have two ideas:

1. You could make a "quizz". You divide the class into two groups, more or less equal, putting a dividing line somewhere in the middle.
Then each "half" in turn has a chance to answer a question and if the answer is correct they get a point, noted on the board.
Our history teacher did this and we loved it.

2. Some philosophical question can be put on the board and people can contribute arguments.
The teacher will have to accept the substantial ones (and refuse the non-substantial ones) and put them in a structured way on the board, and will have to express them in a brief way in order to save space.

The human interaction is fueled here and this is the main point. Apart from the competitive spirit and the effort to make oneself understood.

The Voice of Time wrote:... I promise you, old fashioned linear teaching is not gonna reach any typical teenager, they'll either fall asleep or catch 20% of what you are saying (if you are lucky). ...

Depends what you mean by teaching philosophy. If you mean degree level stuff then sure you'll get no-where until they have learnt to concentrate and think and write for extended periods but if you mean teaching basic philosophical thinking then 'linear' talking is just fine as all have questions and thoughts about life and it's meanings.

Arising, I wouldn't count on it. If people really were very interested in philosophy, we'd have surges of people seeking it out on their own, however, the amount of people who do that before he age of 20 I think is fairly limited and nothing like widespread. People can be very satisfied with simplistic answers to life, and linear philosophy just shows them how much they don't need philosophy and how abstract and unreal it is.

Giving them good and engaging examples like movies are absolutely necessary in the 21st century.

aiddon 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

Hello Aidan
Your article is excellent; if the principal has been hooked by it, then that would be a basis, would it not.

Also, makng it relevant to the students; it is they (and their imaginations) who have to be gripped.

I enjoyed your article re Facebook:

http://aidanodonoghue.com/2010/08/31/un ... etworking/
Excerpt:

A month ago this writer... de-activated his Facebook account. As I sat at my computer, bracing myself to be jerked out of my seat at any minute, back to the 18th century, I had the distinct feeling that somehow, I would not yet be cut off from the rest of the human race. On the contrary, I sensed I was clawing something back into my life – time, respite from brain-fry, privacy. Privacy – it’s almost a dirty word nowadays. Never before has the bastion of privacy been so threatened. One time it was a right, today it seems it is a right to take it away.

I can imagine the young thinking that they could not live without it, or their mobile phones!

It strikes me that you have an immediate and clear way of expressing ideas. How exciting for you and your students in exploring issues such as friendship, community of enquirers, knowledge, philosophy as a way of life.

Please keep in touch and let us know how the short pilot works out; may the creative force be with you


All the very best.

PS
When ending my last post, I thought of the Irish Blessing:

May the road rise up to meet you.
May the wind always be at your back.
May the sun shine warm upon your face,
and rains fall soft upon your fields.
And until we meet again,
May God hold you in the palm of His hand

Would you want to bring religion into your discussions; somehow, it seems unavoidable.
If things get really heated, you know you are doing summat right
Take a torch!

Thanks for your kind words majoramblues. And glad to see you like my blog. Regarding teaching religion as part of philosophy, yes I think it is hugely important as much of religion, when stripped of dogma, is grounded in the moralistic and ethical ideas that most rational people subscribe to. Not being of a religious persuasion myself I can still see how it is an attempt to explain existence and being...one which màny people lean on.

Arising_uk wrote:

The Voice of Time wrote:... I promise you, old fashioned linear teaching is not gonna reach any typical teenager, they'll either fall asleep or catch 20% of what you are saying (if you are lucky). ...

Depends what you mean by teaching philosophy. If you mean degree level stuff then sure you'll get no-where until they have learnt to concentrate and think and write for extended periods but if you mean teaching basic philosophical thinking then 'linear' talking is just fine as all have questions and thoughts about life and it's meanings.

I tend to agree with Arising. Sometimes enquiry and discussion can only come about through "linear teaching" (a term that confuses me). Showing one movie can be beneficial, but as an experienced teacher I know that movies can be very disengaging for students. A good teacher should be able to rely on his or her skills in getting the most out of students rather than a screen doing it. After all it worked for two thousand or so years so far.

I always considered it an insult when a teacher made us watch a film in class.

Dialogue is better than monologue.
Socrates and Plato knew it.

A new idea:

the teacher could practice the Socratic method with one student at a time (a volunteer or one who takes a piece of paper with a cross from a hat), while other students can watch and comment or help.
Or take notes and prepare a transcript for later rebuttals.

What kids need is healthy drama.

aiddon wrote:After all it worked for two thousand or so years so far.

Aye, but there's a difference between teaching that works and is "adequate" and teaching that is real good. There's a difference between seeing profits (more gain than loss of investment) and experiencing great profiting (huge surplus). Your argument is as worthy as saying "we did it yesterday, so we are gonna do the same today", completely lame thinking.

Linear teaching means typical "from ancient to present" teaching without paying respect to what really reaches the pupils and instead just trying to cover ground (and often asking questions without giving pupils a proper chance to give good answers, such as when things are discussed abstract, historically and out of context with our world, the real world). I think the way it is done is similar to producing a lot of goods without paying respect to what people actually like and want to buy. It's wasteful and at worst can be meaningless if it turns sufficiently dry.

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.

duszek wrote:I always considered it an insult when a teacher made us watch a film in class.

Dialogue is better than monologue.

You're probably thinking about documentaries here. Matrix is not a monologue because it doesn't talk about the subject, instead it's like a picture for which you make intelligent remarks about and discuss. I don't think documentaries are very good either (should be used very sparsely, at least in this field), but my suggestion is very different from that, they are nothing like monologuing documentaries.