[ 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: 276 KB, 1280x640, Philosophy2carosel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7108096 No.7108096 [Reply] [Original]

Why is philosophy not taught in schools? Math is, why not philosophy?
How can we blame philosophy for not being influential enough to invest time in, if we dont give people the opportunity to get interested in it?
History involves huge amounts of material but we still manage to find what to choose something to teach kids at history class.

>> No.7108103

It's useless.

>> No.7108113

>>7108096
It's taught in europe, just not in third world america where ignorance is rampant.

>> No.7108117

>>7108103
A formal introduction to logic is not useless

>> No.7108131

Philosophy is best taught in a higher learning setting. You ought be there because you want to be there. Otherwise it's a course of surface level material that won't really teach you much of anything or it's dense, unintelligible wordiness that you won't read because you have zero level of care towards what you're supposed to be learning.

Stick thirty 14 year olds in an ethical theory class and you'll have 25 students who fail and 5 who become pretentious shitheads with a holier-than-thou attitude.

>> No.7108139

>>7108131
A 14yo can be taught basic abstraction

>> No.7108145

>>7108096
Philosophy is so seemingly diverse, largely because it's neither a subject matter nor a method of inquiry, but an attitude towards wisdom or knowledge. That makes it pretty hard to teach, and the problem would be something like that you could teach the *positions* of philosophers, but that ends up being worthless without a sense of both 1) what questions they were trying to respond to and 2) how their inquiry guided them to those positions. The difference would be something like how Kant's first Critique doesn't show you how he reached the perspective of that work, but rather what that perspective amounts to outlined as thoroughly as possible.

Another example might be in something Descartes points out about the ancient mathematicians, namely, that the synthetic manner they produced their works in (i.e. starting with definitions and axioms and setting forth demonstrations that rely on and build upon those beginnings) is not truly reflective of how they actually came to develop their proofs, where their actual method was the use of analysis (assume the thing to be demonstrated is done; now work backwards removing elements of the finished demonstration to see how to present it synthetically).

A lot of works of philosophy don't really show their hand, and that seems to be on purpose. A number of the philosophers in history didn't believe everyone had an equal aptitude for philosophy, and wrote in such a way as to force those who were in fact more apt to work out the matters themselves by hints the philsophers left in their writings (Maimonides' "Guide of the Perplexed" is perhaps *the* perfect example of that approach, since it's pretty explicit about those elements).

>> No.7108157

>>7108131
You can claim this about most subjects.

>> No.7108170

Ontario incorporates an introduction to philosophy into the secondary-school curriculum. The subject matter is not too dense for high school students, and it can prove invaluable to their critical thinking skills, whether they go on to apply their knowledge in a post-secondary environment or not.

>> No.7108175

because the purpose of public schooling is indoctrination

>> No.7108182

>>7108145
>history didn't believe everyone had an equal aptitude for philosophy, and wrote in such a way as to force those who were in fact more apt to work out the matters themselves by hints the philsophers left in their writings

this doesn't make sense. if not everyone has an equal aptitude for philosophy (which is a pretty uncontroversial statement), why is there a need to "leave hints" for those who are more capable? won't the people without the right level of aptitude simply not be able to comprehend, say, kant?

>> No.7108183

>>7108131
Fucking this. It would be annoying as fuck to teach any form of philosophy to high school students. Half the students would believe it to be completely useless and never even try to read something entry level like the cave by Plato whereas the other half would be these marxist/existentialist/nihilistic assholes who think they know more than you and try to refute everything you say.

>> No.7108220

>>7108157
Most high schoolers don't even know how to do their own laundry. You think they can digest the Critique of Pure Reason?

>> No.7108297

>>7108182
A very involved question! But a good and reasonable one.

What you note is true, and I think most philosophers were fine with that (consider how Nietzsche will on occasion make a show out of how few will understand him, or how one of his greatest fears is to be understood), but (and this depends upon which philosophers we're talking about) it looks like the desire to have students or to help potential philosophers come into their own is both a kind of reflection upon philosophy (acknowledgement of those people with philosophic natures as parts of the whole that philosophers want to gain wisdom of) and a concern either for philosophy's future (Bacon and Descartes) or for the city's/man's future (Plato, Machiavelli).

Where that desire to have *some* contact with other people comes from still eludes my own understanding (Plato might have some hints about it in both his extensive emphasis on dialogue, on man's desire for immortality in the Symposium, and the cave passage in the Republic). I suppose if there were an argument for it, it might go something like: If philosophy is man's peculiar excellence/virtue compared to the other living beings, then to be a philosopher is to be the most perfect example of man as such. There would then be nothing more noble or beautiful (from this perspective) than to philosophize. But this is not possible for most men. So then there would be nothing more noble or beautiful for the philosopher to achieve than to turn others to philosophy, as far as that is possible.

That argument has a lot that could be argued with (duh), but that might be something like what the philosophers in providing such hints in their texts think.

>> No.7108308

>>7108131
>>7108183
These.

Plato and Aristotle both made claims about the possible dangers and limits of teaching philosophy to young people (Plato in the Republic, and Aristotle in the Ethics). Young people don't have enough experience to understand the import of a good deal of what philosophy is after or results it. Its not necessarily hard to teach someone dialectic, but it is hard to teach them it without it resulting in little shits that prefer to contradict everyone for their own pleasure. Plus, you always risk them turning into little psychopaths if they really push and pursue their habit of disproving any and all values.

>> No.7108313

>There would then be nothing more noble or beautiful (from this perspective) than to philosophize. But this is not possible for most men. So then there would be nothing more noble or beautiful for the philosopher to achieve than to turn others to philosophy, as far as that is possible.

i don't understand this. you say that to philosophize is best. then you say that most can't philosophize, which doesn't seem to have a bearing on the preceding statement. then you say that to get other people to philosophize is best.

>> No.7108326
File: 46 KB, 339x398, Schopenhauer.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7108326

>No child under the age of fifteen should receive instruction in subjects which may possibly be the vehicle of serious error, such as philosophy or religion, for wrong notions imbibed early can seldom be rooted out, and of all the intellectual faculties, judgment is the last to arrive at maturity.

>> No.7108330

>>7108326
why dis nigga look like a gremlin lmao

>> No.7108336

>>7108313
Firstly, I'd just like to note that this is what I think the philosophers might argue. I don't have any definitive understanding on the matter myself.

>you say that to philosophize is best. then you say that most can't philosophize, which doesn't seem to have a bearing on the preceding statement.
If philosophy is the best, then one runs into a problem when one notices that most people can't or won't philosophize. The observation doesn't take away from the claim that to philosophize is best, but the claim is still one about the best human nature, and the one that seems to be the exemplary case of being human.

>then you say that to get other people to philosophize is best.
Insofar as such would result in the perpetuation of the best human nature.

Like I said, I don't think it works by itself without a very complete demonstration, and none of the classical philosophers ever explicitly worked out such a proof. That argument is just as best as I can gather of what seems to be their perspective.

>> No.7108414

>>7108131
Who wants to teach them ethical theory?
Just a small introduction to logic and rationality would be great. Apart from that, a small introduction to the most influential, or better yet, relevant philosophers and fields of philosophy would work very well. It'll change their lives.

>> No.7108420

>>7108117
Formal logic is not part of philosophy and most children cant even grasp a concept of math properly that is easier than formal logic because it doesn't use words.

>> No.7108422

>>7108414
>Just a small introduction to logic
that's what they did in the middle ages, fam

>> No.7108426

>>7108414
>physics, chemistry, math aren't logical or rational

>> No.7108429

>>7108414
>Just a small introduction to logic and rationality would be great. Apart from that, a small introduction to the most influential, or better yet, relevant philosophers and fields of philosophy would work very well.
The former is fine. Logic and rationality have applications in areas apart from philosophy.

The latter however runs into precisely the problem I noted at >>7108145. The positions of philosophers are surely interesting, but the positions themselves don't make up philosophizing as an activity. Additionally, students might just hold the philosophers in contempt on the basis of positions. How many people know of Plato as that guy that came up with the stupid "theory of forms" that seems so incredible? Philosophy requires skill in questioning rather than in asserting. Knowing the right questions is simply hard to teach, and you maybe end up with a lot of parrots instead.

>> No.7108432

>>7108326
Nobody is trying to force answers in their heads. At least giving them important philosophical questions to think about and walking them through what others have thought about the same questions would be a start.

Moreover, things like logic, critical thinking, preliminary ethics, etc. can be considered to be based on solid enough foundations such that they can be trusted to not be vehicles of serious errors. These things can actually help the children evaluate the vehicles of serious error that they encounter in their lives.

>> No.7108435

>>7108414
It's a time waster. I've taken intro philosophy courses and it feels like little more than an art class. You learn concepts and names without exploration and application. It's not something that can just be taught and picked up. If you don't have an invested interest and willingness to dive in, that intro class isn't going to serve a purpose.

>> No.7108438

>>7108432
>Nobody is trying to force answers in their heads
Have you ever been to school?

>> No.7108443

>Why is philosophy not taught in schools?

It is.

>> No.7108949

>>7108096
I did Philosophy A Level (UK) at a grammar school (ie selective, so everyone is pretty bright, at least allegedly). Around 15-20 in my year (of 120 odd) did AS (first year), but I think only 5 of us continued to A2. We had a great teacher, but the fact is that even at a grammar school, most people are not cut out to do philosophy.

>> No.7109362

>>7108096
Philosophy is an absolutely necessary component of general knowledge on the merit that it is the only [effective] source of intra-paradigmatic criticism.
A curriculum without philosophy amounts to a shallow comprehension across the board, as observed in our current educational systems omitting philosophy.
It is not a coincidence that contemporary generations feel they cannot question authority as well as having no deeper sense of meaning in their lives. Philosophy would clarify the structure of established institutions (and consequently respective authorities) particularly in epistemology while continental philosophy at the very least supplies a framework for dealing with spiritual well-being.
Knowledge without wisdom is madness.

>> No.7109364

>>7108096
>Why is philosophy not taught in schools? Math is, why not philosophy?
Because it's dangerous to teach the masses how to think.

>> No.7109373

>>7109364
this is true

>> No.7109395

>>7108096
'Philosophy' at my secondary school (high school for you burgers) was literally just Religious Education + babby tier scenarios and questions.

Didn't even start with the greeks fam. You're better off learning by yourself than doing that shit in school.

>> No.7109427

>>7109395
You realise how much of a non-argument this is? Everything in school is arguably shallow nonsense and social programming relative to the current state.
Regardless of this, we may want to replace something mildly irrelevant to the curriculum with something significantly relevant like philosophy. Even if the philosophy remains as poor in quality as the rest of the teachings.
The point is not so much to import established knowledge in my opinion, rather to ask questions that open new doors.

>> No.7109438

I took philosophy on HS, but honestly it didn't do much for me besides giving me a fairly solid dialectical and logical basis to understand what I now read by myself.

Everything is usually digested to a point where you are just trying to memorize arguments instead of thinking about them in HS, the way of teaching philosophy is wrong in its core. And it was like that in the 2 countries I've studied at, so I'd guess it to be a pretty universal problem.

>> No.7109574

>>7108096
The government has to breed minimum wage cows to serve as a labor force for the critical thinkers to write about.

>> No.7110135

>>7108326
This is bullshit though because they do receive instructions one way or another, might as well try to allow them to be more open minded and critical of all instructions.

>> No.7110142

>>7108443
Oh haha. I obviously meant consciously.

>> No.7110149

>>7108096
>Why is philosophy not taught in schools?

But it is.

>> No.7110151

>>7110149

see

>>7110142

>> No.7110554

>>7110151
I had philosophy class in school

>> No.7110564

>>7108096
It's taught in Uruguay during the last three years of high school.

>> No.7110697

Because it doesn't serve the government.

>> No.7110717

>>7110142
It is. There are plenty of schools that teach classes on philosophy.

>> No.7110721

>>7108096
It's taught where i live (europe)

>> No.7111741

>>7108096
ITT: stem circle-jerker butthurt about his retardation

>> No.7111749

>>7108420
Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

>> No.7111754

>>7111749
what dude?

>> No.7113046

>>7108420
>Formal logic is not part of philosophy
Tell that to Peter of Spain.

>> No.7113056

>>7108426
Every subject uses logic, that doesn't mean every subject teaches logic you fucking retard.

>> No.7113061

>>7110717
I mean as mandatory schooling, like math.

>> No.7113081

How about reading his books on cinema?

>> No.7113129

>>7113081
What?

>> No.7114721

>>7108175

Exactly. The last thing the state wants is free thinking individuals of all classes. That is why the current Prussian system was introduced in the first place.

>> No.7114727

It's pointless for most jobs and that's what schools are concerned with the most. It's a niche field. Hell my school didn't even other philosophy when you got to pick your subjects, although part of that is just my school being utter shit,