h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

""

I think philosophy is a bit deep to teach in school in the brief time that would inevitably be allocated to it. I suggest thinking and reasoning skills would be adequate. These would be immediately useful and would sound less daunting and 'dry' to the majority of pupils.

In effect this would be diluted philosophy with bits of De Bono's psychology, the structure of arguments and a little about logic. This would give interested students a taste of each of these subjects and might encourage a few to pursue one of them in greater depth at university too.

F

If philosophy is all those subjects then it isn't needed.

Like I said they can do it at college.

"I think philosophy is a bit deep to teach in school in the brief time that would inevitably be allocated to it." let's not forget that they're thinking about less hours... again.

Can God create a stone he can't lift?
Either he can create the stone, or he cannot.
If he can, he's not omnipotent, because he can't lift it.
If he can't he's not omnipotent, because he can't.
Therefore God cannot be omnipotent.


There we go. Do kids really need that? And if you /do/ philosophy anyway then why teach it?

'If philosophy is all those subjects then it isn't needed.'

Thinking philosophically about all these subjects is philosophy.

Not thinking philosophically about all these subjects is not philosophy.

'There we go. Do kids really need that?'

Not necessarily that example, but it exercises the brain and helps one develop reasoning abilities.

'And if you /do/ philosophy anyway then why teach it?'

So as to learn to do it.

HPB, demonstrating that you would not make a good philosophy teacher does not mean philosophy teaching cannot be good

*rolls eyes*

Hmm, I've heard the 'all paths lead to philosophy' arguement a few times before, but with the names of other subjects in the place of philosophy.

Maybe it's holistic.

(Meaning by 'it' the process of leading by all roads, or the process of learning and acquiring understanding.)

You people didn't learn philosphy at school. I presume you're all none the worse for it.

'I presume you're all none the worse for it.'

How could we tell?

That's why I presumed.

What use is the presumption in this debate?

" if people like me are to be forced to do P.E. then why not force the unphilosophical into philosophy?"

Excellent! I can see it now... all the kids lined up shivering, bluff philosophy teacher with whistle around neck. A large, nobby boy with scuffed knees and a suggestion of stubble holds out a note from his mum asking that he be excused P.E. (philosophical education) on the grounds that his brain is delicate. The rest of the class laugh at him, and the teacher immediately blows his whistle and screams at them to ennumerate Kierkegaard's modes of Being right around the field, twice, just to warm up...

"You people didn't learn philosphy at school. I presume you're all none the worse for it"

I *did* learn philosophy at school. I just didn't realise it at the time because there wasn't a single lesson on the timetable labelled "philosophy". I was just lucky that I had teachers who were not forced to simply stick to a specific syllabus in a book, but were free to step back occasionally and engage the class with intriguing questions which went beyond simply "what must we know" and into "why should we know this?", "how do we know this" and then "how do we know ANYTHING?", etc. And I was very much the better for it, thank you very much.

I can vividly recall several teachers who stepped beyond the bounds of their specialist subjects and into the philosophy of what they taught - although I doubt such creativity would be encouraged in the modern results-obsessed educational environment.

Okay, to put it more abstractly: if there exists some subject x such that there exist good reasons for requiring all pupils to partake of lessons in x, and those not naturally suited to partaking in lessons of x are nonetheless required to do so, what would be a consistent basis for not requiring those not naturally suited to philosophy to partake of it, if it is the case that there exist good reasons for requiring all pupils to partake of lessons in philosophy?

How about expressing it as: if there exists some subject x such that there exists rationale y for requiring all pupils to partake of lessons in x, and those not naturally suited to partaking in lessons of x are nonetheless required to do so, what would be rationale z for not requiring those not naturally suited to philosophy to partake of it?

Member,

Well, when I asked about teaching philosophy at school (within the new 'religion, philosophy, morality education' programme) I was thinking more along the lines of talking and teaching about various philosophies, including atheism, not specifically teaching any particular school of philosophy. Showing children how they in fact use philosophy all the time without even realising it.

az

So, to return to the topic;

What on earth is the point of teaching 'atheism' (a waste of time if ever there was one) when practical atheism is lived and practiced all the time by teacher and pupil alike anyway?

The whole world teaches wicked antichrist values, and the kids are taught them as a general thread that runs through all education, that leaves out Almighty God, whilst they are on His Earth, breathing His air, and living by His say so. The media pump out continuous demonic propaganda. Pop music is unceasing dirt by and large. Films are all depraved, and deny any decent value. Why teach kids about that which they are utterly immersed in anyway? Is that not to teach them how to breathe? Is that not to teach them how to be a human being? Surely they 'do atheism' all the time anyway?

Kids need to be taught about the one thing that they never get to hear; that there is a God, and He gave His Son's life to deal with their separation from Him.

J.

No. They should not be taught any belief view-point as fact in school.
They should be a liberty to religious instruction from non-state-sanctioned sources.

Education is not atheist. You seem unable to differentiate secularism and atheism.