Why does France insist on teaching Philosophy to second level students?

I suppose another question might be: Why doesn't Ireland do likewise?

Here's a BBC piece on the subject, no doubt inspired by the writer's observations of his teenage daughter's efforts to grapple with the likes of Plato, Kant, Heidegger and Sartre.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22729780

The French view of this seems to be that teaching teenagers Philosophy teaches them to think for themselves in a structured way. A criticism frequently levelled at the Irish Junior and Leaving Cert cycles is that they don't teach young people to think for themselves. Another view might be that the French thought this was a bright idea a couple of hundred years ago, but times have moved on and maybe it's not such a good idea nowadays.

So, should we be teaching Philosophy to our teenagers? And if so, how would be make room for Philosophy in an already busy (even crowded) curriculum. I have to admit I find the notion just a bit appealing, but it would take a lot of time and effort to organise and you couldn't just shovel the subject on top of what schools and students already have to do.

superb choice of username

Absolutely should. It develops such core and fundamental skills which can be used with everything else - critical thinking, analysis, logic, reasoning etc. Should be started at an early age too.

Lord TSC

I did 3 years of philosophy in Uni, and it shaped me no end. I'd try and implement it into as many English classes as I could if given the chance...

evolving_doors

The irish solution to teaching philosophy is to teach religion. Same upshot, at the end of the day nobody knows diddlysquat, and to pretend that there might be an answer is ludicrous.

Chess would have better logic and critical thinking outcomes.

Powerhouse

'Philosophy' and creating critical thinking sounds great but the problem is that it must be open to question if many second-level student have sufficiently developed cognitive abilities to grapple with often abstract concepts at that stage. That said, a decent left-of-centre debate can generate interest but a good English or History teacher should be able to challenge students and posit different arguments under the guise of those subjects if they have the broader interest and knowledge themselves to do so. The problem with teaching Philosophy is you might end up teaching them about Philosophy rather than creating critical thinkers. Then again I suppose if we believe that giving 25 points extra in the Leaving Cert to those who pass the Honours Maths paper will create a nation of Maths lovers we can probably convince ourselves of anything.

Mardy Bum

Yes I would fully agree with the sentiment in this thread. It should be taught beginning in primary school (replacing the copious hours devoted to religion). It should be an option in secondary. Religion and philosophy are fundamentally different (Philosophy is really about asking "Why" whereas religion is by and large dogmatic) so I don't think they should be mixed together.

RealJohn

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Yes I would fully agree with the sentiment in this thread. It should be taught beginning in primary school (replacing the copious hours devoted to religion). It should be an option in secondary. Religion and philosophy are fundamentally different (Philosophy is really about asking "Why" whereas religion is by and large dogmatic) so I don't think they should be mixed together.

Teaching a religion is by and large dogmatic. There's no reason teaching about religion needs to be.

There are too many subjects being taught as it is. Rather than adding more, it needs to be pared down. My preference would be to amalgamate religion, CSPE and SPHE and philosophy could be added to that mix. I would also say that it shouldn't be examined as part of the junior or leaving certificates but that the exam should be optional (but the subject should be compulsory up to say fourth or fifth year), thus reducing the tendency to teach for the exam rather than teach what needs to be learned.
There just isn't space to add philosophy as a subject in and of itself at primary or secondary level. Primary teachers are already teaching too many subjects (which in many cases, they know next to nothing about) and there are far too many subjects at junior cert as it is.

Chris68

I could be mistaken but is this not coming in as part of the new junior cycle?

yellowlabrador

I was in secondary school in Belgium in the 70's. 5th year was dedicated to poetry and prose. So for our Flemish, French, English and German classes(all mandatory) we studied literature and poetry. 6th year was dedicated to philosophy which was more the history of philosophy, from the Greeks to the modern times, using original texts. I loved it and it was one of those lessons that had the whole class involved with discussions and opinions. I was specializing in sciences and we also had 2 hours a week dedicated to scientific publications . We learned to interpret and read scientific journals and read a lot of Teilhard de Chardin.
The best years of my school life and I am really grateful.
I personally taught my children these subjects and They still love it.
We did have a much longer school day, from 7.45 to 4.30, so it was easier to fit it into the curriculum.

Thanks for the replies. I like the idea, but I'd be concerned we'd end up teaching young people to recite lists of definitions in the field of Philosophy rather than expecting them to critically apply the concepts. I can see how teaching about Philosophy could work in the Junior cycle, leading to a more in-depth approach at Leaving Cert. But I still can't see how we'd create space for the subject. No disrespect to anyone's views, but there's no point in saying we could elbow out religion, because that's just not going to happen in Ireland any time soon.

I also get the comment made by one poster about what teachers of English and History can do - but IMO the system (and that includes students and parents) won't really thank teachers for doing that in the middle of a points race. It's a pity, because some of the most interesting times I can recall from my own school days were inspired by teachers who took a left-field approach to English, Religion, History and Geography. It was often unstructured, but it left quite an impression. That said, only a small percentage of us in those days were ever going to go on to higher education, and maybe that in itself created the space for a bit of experimentation by our teachers.

yellowlabrador

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks for the replies. I like the idea, but I'd be concerned we'd end up teaching young people to recite lists of definitions in the field of Philosophy rather than expecting them to critically apply the concepts. I can see how teaching about Philosophy could work in the Junior cycle, leading to a more in-depth approach at Leaving Cert. But I still can't see how we'd create space for the subject. No disrespect to anyone's views, but there's no point in saying we could elbow out religion, because that's just not going to happen in Ireland any time soon.

I also get the comment made by one poster about what teachers of English and History can do - but IMO the system (and that includes students and parents) won't really thank teachers for doing that in the middle of a points race. It's a pity, because some of the most interesting times I can recall from my own school days were inspired by teachers who took a left-field approach to English, Religion, History and Geography. It was often unstructured, but it left quite an impression. That said, only a small percentage of us in those days were ever going to go on to higher education, and maybe that in itself created the space for a bit of experimentation by our teachers.

My impression of the Irish system is to describe it as compact learning. A lot is covered but it's all geared to exams, with lots of time taken by preparing for the exam and less time to the teaching. I found that a lot of time was also spent on going to matches, involving whole afternoons and sometimes days spent in travelling to support the team. I felt that this should be after hours as in the end most teenagers are just spectating instead of participating.
I would also go for a longer school day and as you said, let the teachers introduce more discussion. My children seemed to get a lot out of the lessons of the teachers who took a left field approach, as that is what they would talk about when asked about their school day.
In Belgium we had exams every term end, and you had to pass the whole year with 50% minimum. Any subject scored less, resulted in a resit in August and if you failed that, you had to repeat the year.
We all had 4 languages, maths,history, geography,sciences, religion and gym as core subjects and then we specialised in classics, economics, maths or sciences on top of that. To enter university, you had to research a set subject, write an essay and present your findings to an audience .I chose 'La Fronde' as I chose a French subject.
I find the Irish system very egalitarian and children from disadvantaged backgrounds can do extremely well.
I think teachers should also encourage students to check out the internet and study independently.

ironcage

Powerhouse wrote: »

...The problem with teaching Philosophy is you might end up teaching them about Philosophy rather than creating critical thinkers...

Valid point, which for me points to problems in the practices of education in general. I think introducing critical thinking is essential for a functioning democracy but what is likely to happen if philosophy is just introduced is that it will become one more alienating (and even elitist) subject. I think part of this is due to the manner in which all knowledge in secondary is top-down, standardised and instructive. Critical thinking requires the necessary dispositions to be elicited.

One of the reasons why all secondary subjects are alienating is the obliteration of the local and the failure to entice student ownership of their education. In subjects like history or geography the focus is towards national and international contexts. Surely there is room to link up local history with transformations in society at the national and global level - i.e., how these impact on local developments (or even vice versa - people power). Furthermore the use of projects chosen by students towards identifying such linkages can provide the perfect opportunity for applying critical thinking skills - similar to the manner in which sociology makes use of philosophy in analysing and implementing empirical work.

I agree with one of the other respondents above on amalgamating philosophy into other subjects; after-all the subjects are part of artificial distinctions to begin with. If critical thinking or philosophy teaches us anything it is that the world is interconnected. Therefore philosophy (I prefer sociology) can be used in all subjects to allow students the capacity to define the nature of truth-statements which are uncritically disseminated within the current system - again facilitating some student ownership of their education.

Anyway none of this is likely to happen within a political and economic order which continues to reduce education to the subservient role as the handmaiden to the economy.

robp

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Yes I would fully agree with the sentiment in this thread. It should be taught beginning in primary school (replacing the copious hours devoted to religion). It should be an option in secondary. Religion and philosophy are fundamentally different (Philosophy is really about asking "Why" whereas religion is by and large dogmatic) so I don't think they should be mixed together.

Well to be honest there is far less dogma in religion than you suggest. Certainly religion tends to leave people asking why.

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose another question might be: Why doesn't Ireland do likewise?

Here's a BBC piece on the subject, no doubt inspired by the writer's observations of his teenage daughter's efforts to grapple with the likes of Plato, Kant, Heidegger and Sartre.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22729780

The French view of this seems to be that teaching teenagers Philosophy teaches them to think for themselves in a structured way. A criticism frequently levelled at the Irish Junior and Leaving Cert cycles is that they don't teach young people to think for themselves. Another view might be that the French thought this was a bright idea a couple of hundred years ago, but times have moved on and maybe it's not such a good idea nowadays.

So, should we be teaching Philosophy to our teenagers? And if so, how would be make room for Philosophy in an already busy (even crowded) curriculum. I have to admit I find the notion just a bit appealing, but it would take a lot of time and effort to organise and you couldn't just shovel the subject on top of what schools and students already have to do.

If you look at the religion course that involves leaving cert exams there is a lot of philosophy involved. Socrates et al. I did that course and it is a very stimulating subject to participate in. 100x better then the non examined curriculum IMO.

Mardy Bum

robp wrote: »

Well to be honest there is far less dogma in religion than you suggest. Certainly religion tends to leave people asking why.

Do not want to get into a debate here but to say that the vast majority (if not all) of religions are not dogmatic is wrong. Look up the definition of dogma. After you ask "why" it doesn't mean you can go changing the principles of the religion.

robp

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Do not want to get into a debate here but to say that the vast majority (if not all) of religions are not dogmatic is wrong. Look up the definition of dogma. After you ask "why" it doesn't mean you can go changing the principles of the religion.

I should have been more clear. There is far less dogma in Irish religious education then suggested. It probably would be drifting to start a debate on the meaning of dogma but etymologically it just means a 'philosophical tenet or even a 'philosophical opinion'. It stills mean this, as well as meaning established religious truth.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=dogma


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma

hsianloon

They'd have to cover a fairly broad range of philosophy to make it useful, else it's just brainwashing kids into believing a certain brain of thought. After all, many great leaders have been influenced by different schools of thought and philosophy.

I personally like Henry Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, but probably not something the Irish government would encourage.

Btw, I think we should all be thought basic tenets of law and financial know how. Too many people begin life after schooling with no idea how to manage themselves, and are too stubborn to learn how later

hsianloon

While posting I accidentally clicked report on someone's post by accident... Sorry phone was lagging as I was scrolling to the post reply button.

spurious

hsianloon wrote: »

While posting I accidentally clicked report on someone's post by accident... Sorry phone was lagging as I was scrolling to the post reply button.

No problem. It happens.