[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 11 KB, 297x317, 1328928044802.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10054252 No.10054252 [Reply] [Original]

Should we teach philosophy in schools? What variety of authors should be introduced to students?

>> No.10054258

Kids barely understand basic geometry thanks to the current system and you want to introduce them to other people's interpretations of the world around them?

>> No.10054259

>>10054252
taoism, the presocratics, romanticism, Nietzsche, Heidegger

>> No.10054260

>>10054252
Where do you live that they don't teach philosophy in school?

>> No.10054267

>>10054260
probably Murica, english lessons in there focus on diversity and white guilt

>> No.10054277

>>10054267
yes it's shit but the reasons you give are not even true

>> No.10054280

>>10054259
This sounds like a plan, let's introduce underdeveloped minds to taoism, presocratics and Heidegger so they forever find philosophy both incomprehensible and useless

>> No.10054286

>>10054252
Why teach something that's just made up?

>> No.10054291
File: 25 KB, 400x400, 6652557.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10054291

>>10054286

>> No.10054294

>>10054286
This is only ok bait

>> No.10054325

>>10054294
Not even worth a fish pic

>> No.10054376

They don't have to go in depth, but I think they should at least introduce the idea that all the current dogmas (materialism, utilitarianism, etc.) are not 100% indisputable fact and that there is a branch of study which deal with these problems.
Literally did not know this until university.

>> No.10054399

maybe just go through plato very thoroughly and pedagogically

anything later will just be too shallow at that level

>> No.10054407

>>10054277
Yeah it is totally anything else but not THAT, liberals are truly mind cucked and I say that sincerely since its just sad at this point.

>> No.10054441

>>10054280
Taoism is basic meta-metaphysical thinking. It's only confusing to us because the structure of our education (and our society in general for that matter) is permeated by a kind of positivist, materialist, structuralist(?) metaphysics. Since we're drilling that into our kids heads by proxy in everything we teach them they are blinded to the fact that thinking does not work in the same way solving a math problem or formulating an 'objectively' grammatically correct sentence does.
Like this anon >>10054376 said, we need to reintroduce the question of who we are into our society, instead of simply teaching our own preferred metaphysical answers.

>> No.10054469

>>10054441
I like this answer

>> No.10054496

>>10054441
Do you ever feel boxed in?

>> No.10054517

Yes. Marx.

>> No.10054520

>>10054496
by my own thoughts or by society or something else?

>> No.10054535
File: 26 KB, 512x512, YVWV2W5f7IPsZddewoJ1SkhWM6BPl9GrKd0CxFKlT2I.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10054535

I'm in a philosophy class right now in my senior year of high school. Learning about Aristotle right now. One thing that was really bad was that my teacher showed us a through the wormhole episode, no joke, called "Are we all bigots?"

>> No.10054539

>>10054520
By both? Do you feel like you're boxed in by the systems, and that when you aren't payong attention you follow the systems blindly?

>> No.10054542

>>10054252
No thanks, we already have thousands of retarded americans misreading basic shit like Nietzsche and polluting the internet with their nonsense, we don't need more.

>> No.10054560

>>10054252
I had a philosophy class in high school. It was more about logical thinking, writing a lot of syllogisms and essays. I liked it because i enjoy writing essays. I don't think we studied any particular philospher (though i was young and basically knew only 2 philosphers: Plato and Aristotle).
I'm taking a philosphy class this semester in college. I suspect it won't be too different from high school.

>> No.10054564

>>10054291
>>10054294
>>10054325
I'll try to improve my bait for next time.

>> No.10054593

>>10054564
The truth is never a good bait, mate.

>> No.10054600

>>10054252
>Should we teach philosophy in schools?
they already do

>> No.10054676 [DELETED] 

>>10054539
Sure, I only figured out what these texts are talking about a short while ago and it's a major paradigm shift from the more traditional western metaphysical thought I subscribed to before that (I'll never be able to look at plato the same way again). It's pretty overwhelming to be confronted with so many new questions and opinions.

Here's who I've tried to make sense of it for now: Our own construction of both our self and the world we inhabit are after all embedded in our subconscious in the form of routines, meaning that our past is the biggest part of who we are, which is both a blessing and a curse.
If we weren't directed in this way we wouldn't have any substance, and because we are we carry all kinds of baggage around with us. If we weren't aware that our existence is shaped by the way we interpret the world and the choices we make we would be no more than animals, but in becoming aware of our limits we have gained the capacity to feel trapped by them. That's the price we pay for being able to reflecting on our own existence.
We're limited and directed and limit and direct ourselves at the same time. Understanding that means feeling both lost and boxed in insofar as we are following a routine we know to be harmful to ourselves and others, but it also means feeling self-determined and free in so far as we are able to follow (read: keep finding and letting ourselves be found by) the path, reflect on and change our own behavior while still feeling moderately content with ourselves. (Having a good balance between the male and female principle is probably the key to not going insane if you're serious about the whole self-overcoming thing.)
Feeling boxed in by society is a bigger problem, because no matter whether or not you're willing to be open with yourself has no bearing on the system you inhabit, but at least you can change who you spend your free time with and how to a certain extent.

>> No.10054684

Philosophy is too abstract for most children. it's not based on solid concepts but moreso ideas and semantics. Most children will quickly lose the plot.

>> No.10054696

>>10054539
Sure I do, though it'll be difficult to put my thoughts on what that kind of thoughtlessness is (and whether it's necessarily negative) into words, because I've only figured out what these texts are talking about a short while ago. It's a major paradigm shift from the more traditional western metaphysical thought I subscribed to before that (I'll never be able to look at plato the same way again). It's pretty overwhelming to be confronted with so many new questions.

Here's how I've tried to make sense of it for now: Our own construction of both our self and the world we inhabit are after all embedded in our subconscious in the form of routines, meaning that our past is the biggest part of who we are, which is both a blessing and a curse.
If we weren't directed in this way we wouldn't have any substance, and because we are we carry all kinds of baggage around with us. If we weren't aware that our existence is shaped by the way we interpret the world and the choices we make we would be no more than animals, but in becoming aware of our limits we have gained the capacity to feel trapped by them. That's the price we pay for being able to reflecting on our own existence.
We're limited and directed and limit and direct ourselves at the same time. Understanding that means feeling both lost and boxed in insofar as we are following a routine we know to be harmful to ourselves and others, but it also means feeling self-determined and free in so far as we are able to follow (read: keep finding and letting ourselves be found by) the path, reflect on and change our own behavior while still feeling moderately content with ourselves. Subroutines aren't evil, becoming a slave to them is. (Having a good balance between the male and female principle is probably the key to not going insane if you're serious about the whole self-overcoming thing.)

Feeling boxed in by society is a bigger problem, because no matter whether or not you're willing to be open with yourself has no bearing on the system you inhabit, but at least you can change who you spend your free time with and how to a certain extent.

>> No.10054703

>>10054696
You should listen to Cat Stevens, if you dont already, you might like him.

>> No.10054704

>>10054252

Personally I think its more effective to teach about philosophy, if you are teaching about it through an actual other subject. Does that make sense? I mean learning about Plato and Aristotle can be pretty boring, but if you apply philosophy to say, color perception, or number systems, its a tangible system that people can grasp and be interested in. In general, people aren't crazy about "learning about learning"

>> No.10054716

>>10054696
It's a part of samsara, overcoming that while being virtuous is the big test.

>> No.10054721

>>10054703
Thanks for the suggestion anon. (Also, boy did I mess up that last sentence. Instead of talking about the joys of not letting myself be controlled by harmful subroutines I'm going to go get some sleep now.)

>> No.10054822

>>10054703
>You should listen to Cat Stevens
Not him, but why?

>> No.10054893

>>10054822
A lot of his music is about surpassing societal and individual barriers in order to see truth. I think he is influenced by eastern ideology.

>> No.10054943

>>10054252
I don't think we should ruin there childhoods anymore than we already do by telling them there is no meaning to anything and that none of them are really special at all.

>> No.10055055

>>10054893
Recommend me an album and a song. I've already listened to Tea For The Tillerman and my favourite song of his is
Father And Son.

>> No.10055100

>>10054267
>white guilt
>not talking about Europe

>> No.10055123

>>10055055
Tillerman is my favorite album of his, and Miles from Nowhere is my favorite song on it. Budda and the Chocolate Box is a good album, too. I like the song Trouble the best, though

>> No.10055152
File: 1.48 MB, 294x233, 1458438667675.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10055152

>>10054441
>thinking does not work in the same way solving a math problem or formulating an 'objectively' grammatically correct sentence does

Are you implying grasping truth doesn't require syntax?

>> No.10055172

They do that in my country. Our equivalent of grammar schools is the default secondary education if you intend to go to a university, and there we are taught one year of logic and one year of history of philosophy.
Surprise, surprise - most of us hate logic and find philosophy uninteresting and don't gain anything from it. People only got invested into it when religion came into play. In those cases, they were provoking and being edgy (the residential atheist) or were comically butthurt (christians after reading Nietzsche or Sartre). Fuck, nobody even cared about medieval theology and proofs of God, the most devout christians were nearly completely silent during those classes.

>>10054943
But that's not philosophy...

>> No.10055193

>>10054252
they should teach some basic things and early philosophy in social studies classes for a semester; socratic dialogue, anselms's ontological argument for god, the epicrueans + stoics, maybe some rationalism. Just some things that would get some students interested in seeking out further knowledge without introducing them to anything too over the top

>> No.10055510

came for the pic of batman, left because it isnt.

>> No.10055737

In mexico highschools have this subject called "methodology" which is an intro to the scientific method, Plato and Aristotle (first time i read the story of the cave was in this class). Though it's more like a warm-up to the chemistry, biology, etc

So, no; it don't matter if kids read philosophy. The ones that stick with it were always messed up

>> No.10055747

>>10055510
ya its that guy from the 90s who had the mantis, sometimes i had to watch that show when i smoked weed with plebs, oh god even stoned it was dumb

>> No.10055762

>>10055510
>>10055747
Space Ghost Coast to Coast was an awesome show.

>> No.10056483

They teach it here in France during the last year of highschool.
They usually bring up a notion such as liberty or desire and explain the different viewpoints of the philosophers.
In the final exam you are asked to write a dissertation on 2 questions or explain a text. The question i chose was " Is art necessarily beautiful ?". I got 18/20.

>> No.10056520

>>10054252
Philosophy led me directly to crime and drugs, among other things. Who gives a flying fuck what's taught in schools? Good people ignore all that and pursue who reaches them.

>> No.10057461

>>10055152
I'm not saying that you shouldn't try to formulate your sentences properly. The problem is that what is and isn't 'proper' language can't be defined in an empiricist manner because language is a living, evolving system. It doesn't just exist as some kind of metaphysical entity which we have to accept as a matter of fact.
Sure, thinking requires structuring thought in a certain way, and textbook grammar is a conventionalized form of what that structure might looks like in a certain community at a certain time. But simply teaching "how things are done" completely glosses over the glaring question of where that system comes from and what our relation to it is.