PDA

View Full Version : Should public schools teach philsophy?



dan020350
05-03-2007, 10:27 PM
Like the catholic school, they have a special class call religion but the public school does not have a religion class or a moral class.

Won't it be good to have a moral class that promote morality rather then having more security guards?

Aunty-lion
05-04-2007, 12:09 AM
I've had heaps of conversations around this idea. I think that all schools should have religious studies, but not the type where you only learn about "the one true God" (whatever that is!?), rather, a class to learn about the different histories and morals of all the major world religions. It wouldn't be trying to indoctrinate the srudents, but merely educate them. After all, isn't that what school is for??
I think that if we all had a better understanding of each others spiritual beliefs and cultural traditions we might suffer from a lot less conflict.
Knowledge is power (and it can also be love).

jon1jt
05-04-2007, 12:16 AM
Like the catholic school, they have a special class call religion but the public school does not have a religion class or a moral class.

Won't it be good to have a moral class that promote morality rather then having more security guards?


i think dan has a point. but maybe the class ought to be held at home and taught by the best teachers in the world, mommy and daddy. :D

Aunty-lion
05-04-2007, 01:49 AM
i think dan has a point. but maybe the class ought to be held at home and taught by the best teachers in the world, mommy and daddy. :D

Yeah, I guess morals should definately be left to the parents, but I still think religious education (in terms of history, structure etc) should be taught.
They're kinda two seperate issues.

dan020350
05-04-2007, 09:50 AM
what if you grew up with bad parents or no parents at all. Maybe you were an accident? If morals were given by parents, why are they failing? It is an advantage for moral teaching given in school plus parents.

scotpgot
05-04-2007, 10:19 AM
I guess you're talking more about a religion/morals/ethics class than a philosophy class?

Ethics classes are already taught in most business school at the university level, so I think that proves your idea has some merit.

The problem is a semester or even a year of an ethics course is not going to be any competition for what they learn at home by watching. It's going to be hard to reinforce anything in an ethics class if parents aren't home or big brother is in jail or big sis does X or the neighbor drives Hummer cause he deals drugs.

jon1jt
05-04-2007, 10:29 AM
what if you grew up with bad parents or no parents at all. Maybe you were an accident? If morals were given by parents, why are they failing? It is an advantage for moral teaching given in school plus parents.

or maybe you were an accident and had wonderful parents. :D

many of the same parents you say are failing their children are the same individuals in our public schools teaching, so i'm not so sure we ought to endow the school with such responsibility. there will be angels and there will be demons. twas always thus, and always thus will be. :D

Redzeppelin
05-04-2007, 04:01 PM
Schools should teach rhetoric, basic logic and debate - so that young people can leave school with the ability to discern a good/bad argument and articulate their own (hopefully good) arguments. With the atmosphere of "hype" that they are surrounded with, they need the ability to "sift" the hype and find the truth.

Morrisonhotel
05-04-2007, 04:21 PM
The problem with teaching morality in school is that you essentially homogenise moral thought. If we all have the same sense of what is moral or not (even if individuals don't stick to it) then debates and issues dry up.

I went to school in Scotland. I took (that should read was forced to take through the first four years at high school) Religious and Moral Education. What do you think was taught in that class? Christianity, more Christianity and even more Christianity - no hint or sign of moral teachings (except Christian ones - and even then I'm very suspicious of several parts of it) anywhere. What use is a course in Religious and Moral Education if it doesn't a)address other religions properly (i.e. more than the 3 classes on the handful of the other major world religions) and b)actually address discussions on the topics of morality (etymology, the use of morality in everyday life, the wider picture of morality, and what have you)?

hyperborean
05-04-2007, 05:44 PM
In Europe, some kids are taught Nietzsche. American teenagers aren't ready to change their way of thinking (at least in Jersey), so philosophy would be pointless.

dan020350
05-05-2007, 12:30 AM
So I guess kids in america espically poor schools are doom ! Because you all want your children to be hurt.

Hyacinth42
05-05-2007, 01:00 PM
Teaching morals may be considered a slippery slope, and some times moral beliefs differ between people, and thus teaching it to kids would be wrong... Like abortion, now, that would probably be something you shouldn't teach, but if you taught things that related to it, the parents might freak... I personally hate religion in school. Before every swim meet, we recite the lords prayer (I just stick my hand in and stay quiet out of respect), but there was this one girl who was Jewish, and it really offended her. One time she asked us not to do it, and we happened to loose the meet. She said afterwards people blamed her for the loss, saying it was her fault because we didn't pray.... That is messed up in so many ways... We kept on reciting the lords prayer, and she stood off to the side, and it wasn't fair... I started standing off to the side with her to show my support... Her mother sent an e-mail to the coach to complain, and the coach just ignored the e-mail... So, I disagree with the idea of teaching/including religion in school...

Now, another weird thing that happened in our school wich included religion, was that our Jewish theatre teacher decided to put on the play Godspell... That had my mind boggling for a long time, and I couldn't just ask him about it... But that's as far as I think religion should be allowed in school.

kilted exile
05-05-2007, 01:22 PM
I went to school in Scotland. I took (that should read was forced to take through the first four years at high school) Religious and Moral Education. What do you think was taught in that class? Christianity, more Christianity and even more Christianity - no hint or sign of moral teachings (except Christian ones - and even then I'm very suspicious of several parts of it) anywhere. What use is a course in Religious and Moral Education if it doesn't a)address other religions properly (i.e. more than the 3 classes on the handful of the other major world religions) and b)actually address discussions on the topics of morality (etymology, the use of morality in everyday life, the wider picture of morality, and what have you)?


Hang on a second, I went to school in Scotland also. I distinctly remembering my R.E/R.S classes throughout S1 & S2 encompassing all of the "major" religions. We spent as much time discussing the main tenets of Buddhism as Christianity and there was also a large focus on Islam, Sikhism & Hinduism. I had a friend who took R.S to the Higher certificate level (see A-Levels in England) and in those classes there where more of the discussions you outline in point b. The standard one hour a week R.S class is to learn about the different religions beliefs & practices in order to provide a better understanding of the beliefs of other people inhabiting this planet, not for discussion of morality itself - there would simply not be enough time to touch deeply enough on the subject.

The 1hr/wk Guidance & Personal Development class also covered some discussion of morality, though granted not to any real depth.

Morrisonhotel
05-05-2007, 02:02 PM
Hang on a second, I went to school in Scotland also. I distinctly remembering my R.E/R.S classes throughout S1 & S2 encompassing all of the "major" religions. We spent as much time discussing the main tenets of Buddhism as Christianity and there was also a large focus on Islam, Sikhism & Hinduism. I had a friend who took R.S to the Higher certificate level (see A-Levels in England) and in those classes there where more of the discussions you outline in point b. The standard one hour a week R.S class is to learn about the different religions beliefs & practices in order to provide a better understanding of the beliefs of other people inhabiting this planet, not for discussion of morality itself - there would simply not be enough time to touch deeply enough on the subject.

The 1hr/wk Guidance & Personal Development class also covered some discussion of morality, though granted not to any real depth.


Weird. Nearly everyone I know who went to school in Scotland suffered through years of Christianity with a couple of weeks where it would suddenly become apparent that there are, in fact, other religions - I've alway been convinced that the teachers themselves suddenly just woke up and realised that they hadn't taught anything else. You appear to have been taught very different things to what I was taught in my class. Besides, you have 4 years of the stuff - more than enough to begin discussions on morality in relation to both religious and non-religious belief.

I think discussion on morality in my school was practically non-existant. As I recall, in my PSD class it began and ended with: "When two people who love each other very much [...] remember and use a condom".

Also, Higher is not the Scottish equivalent of the A-level. It is the equivalent of the A2. Advanced Higher is the equivacol of the English A-level.

kilted exile
05-05-2007, 02:12 PM
Weird. Nearly everyone I know who went to school in Scotland suffered through years of Christianity with a couple of weeks where it would suddenly become apparent that there are, in fact, other religions - I've alway been convinced that the teachers themselves suddenly just woke up and realised that they hadn't taught anything else. You appear to have been taught very different things to what I was taught in my class. Besides, you have 4 years of the stuff - more than enough to begin discussions on morality in relation to both religious and non-religious belief.

I think discussion on morality in my school was practically non-existant. As I recall, in my PSD class it began and ended with: "When two people who love each other very much [...] remember and use a condom".

It may have been influenced by the school that I went to - large muslim population also, and there were a couple of race-related riots.



Also, Higher is not the Scottish equivalent of the A-level. It is the equivalent of the A2. Advanced Higher is the equivacol of the English A-level.

In that case it has changed since I was at school (left in '99). When I was there it went Standard Grade, Higher, Certificate of Sixth Year studies. However, just like universities used A-level exams for entry requirements, they used Higher results.

obesechicken13
05-05-2007, 02:49 PM
Here's a question. Are high school teaches liscensed to teach high school students. Would you ruin the childhood fun of a six year old to teach them that their place is meaningless in the metaphysical world. Would you give them the opinions of others in the hopes of forming an Orwellian world? or would you rather people think for themselves about the meaning of life and then after developing their personality, learn new philosophies?

NO PHILOSOPHY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

vheissu
05-05-2007, 03:06 PM
I still find it quite amazing how most countries have very different priorities for school subjects. I went to an italian school in Greece and did 3 years of philosophy, starting from the pre-Socratic period up to modern political philosophy. Of course, we didn't cover ALL of it and it was mainly centred on Western philosophy, but we went over the main doctrines. If I'm not too mistaken, greek schools do almost the same stuff.
We also had religion, which you could choose whether you wanted to attend or not. In our class, our teacher would bring up a topic, which was related to religion, but not specifically centred on it and we would discuss it. On the other hand, greek schools consider religion a very important subject and even examine it, which in my opinion is not very correct.
I'm very critical about religious studies at school, mainly because I don't believe that they should be mixed together. A comprehensive religious course, in which all religions are taken into account on the same level and discussed is good, but teaching only one religion when there might be students who will be uncomfortable with it is just wrong.
I think a moral/ethical/philosophical course should be considered as an important option for every school. But it shouldn't aim to either convert students or point to what is a better doctrine over another. So the role of the teacher is very important: some teachers can remain objective about their course but then there are others who might cross that line, which usually causes problems.
I've put down the italian and greek system merely as an example I experienced and I'm not insinuating that they are better than other educatiocal systems in other countries, because both had a lot of flaws as well and especially my school was far from perfect!

Morrisonhotel
05-05-2007, 04:02 PM
Here's a question. Are high school teaches liscensed to teach high school students. Would you ruin the childhood fun of a six year old to teach them that their place is meaningless in the metaphysical world. Would you give them the opinions of others in the hopes of forming an Orwellian world? or would you rather people think for themselves about the meaning of life and then after developing their personality, learn new philosophies?

NO PHILOSOPHY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS


The simple problem with leaving students to think entirely for themselves is that, well, put simply, a hell of a lot of people are stupid. Furthermore, think of any great thinker of the past or present: every single one of them has been taught, and had their ideas influenced, by either an actual teacher or, if formal education wasn't available, through books - even so, how many people over the centuries have overtly gone out of their way to intellectually better themselves by reading, and what have you? Very few notable people (i.e. nameable). We need to instill not only the capabilities of further intellectual thought but also allow access to the most basic of metaphysical ideas so that the few who are concerned with such things can be allowed to pursue them (and encourage those with a less than natural disposition to intellectual enquiry).

Bakiryu
05-05-2007, 04:22 PM
Teaching philosophy in high school is a great idea But it's not like kids are going to listen, mostly they would just fall asleep in class, leaving the students who already have a good set of morals and want to learn paying attention. Philosophy wouldn't change anything, since most people would only fail the class.

jon1jt
05-05-2007, 05:51 PM
Teaching morals may be considered a slippery slope, and some times moral beliefs differ between people, and thus teaching it to kids would be wrong... Like abortion, now, that would probably be something you shouldn't teach, but if you taught things that related to it, the parents might freak... I personally hate religion in school. Before every swim meet, we recite the lords prayer (I just stick my hand in and stay quiet out of respect), but there was this one girl who was Jewish, and it really offended her. One time she asked us not to do it, and we happened to loose the meet. She said afterwards people blamed her for the loss, saying it was her fault because we didn't pray.... That is messed up in so many ways... We kept on reciting the lords prayer, and she stood off to the side, and it wasn't fair... I started standing off to the side with her to show my support... Her mother sent an e-mail to the coach to complain, and the coach just ignored the e-mail... So, I disagree with the idea of teaching/including religion in school...

Now, another weird thing that happened in our school wich included religion, was that our Jewish theatre teacher decided to put on the play Godspell... That had my mind boggling for a long time, and I couldn't just ask him about it... But that's as far as I think religion should be allowed in school.

Assuming you attend a public school, your school may be violating federal law. my understanding of USSC rules governing school prayer is that students may pray during off-hours only, where membership and participation is strictly voluntary. sports is an extension of the school day.

if you live in Texas or any of those other states, i'm not surprised because many there don't believe that federal law applies to them. :)

Nightshade
05-05-2007, 06:45 PM
Also, Higher is not the Scottish equivalent of the A-level. It is the equivalent of the A2. Advanced Higher is the equivacol of the English A-level.

Umm the A2 is the A-level :nod: unless you do your A2 then you only achieve an AS whic is a half A level, you acquire your A2 to have a full a level...and in fact your A2 exams are called your Alevel exams as far as Ive seen anyway, but I d know the IGCE system which is the international version differntiates between them. where if you A levl you do both in the one year ( and can I just say it is a nightmare and I advise everyone to steer clear of this option unless they are repeating the AS part its just to much to do in one year.

:D

~Cellar_Dore~
05-05-2007, 06:49 PM
It's all a nice idea, but can you imagine the arguments and disunity it would create?
Students arguing with students, students arguing with teachers, and the worst... parents arguing with teachers.

It's a type of class that you would need a highly objective person to teach, and being that it is a subject that has historically been difficult to be objective in, such a person might be hard to find.

One could argue that the topics that would be discussed depend too much on each individual's perspective and cannot be positively proven like math, science or languages--so why teach them at all?--that's some what of an extreme though.

There needs to be some kind of moral reference wherever children can find it, either school or at home.
There are some kids though, who simply will never get that kind of education at home. Which leaves a dilemma.

Aunty-lion
05-05-2007, 07:52 PM
Hang on a second, I went to school in Scotland also. I distinctly remembering my R.E/R.S classes throughout S1 & S2 encompassing all of the "major" religions. We spent as much time discussing the main tenets of Buddhism as Christianity and there was also a large focus on Islam, Sikhism & Hinduism. I had a friend who took R.S to the Higher certificate level (see A-Levels in England) and in those classes there where more of the discussions you outline in point b. The standard one hour a week R.S class is to learn about the different religions beliefs & practices in order to provide a better understanding of the beliefs of other people inhabiting this planet, not for discussion of morality itself - there would simply not be enough time to touch deeply enough on the subject.

The 1hr/wk Guidance & Personal Development class also covered some discussion of morality, though granted not to any real depth.

Thankyou!!
This is exactly what I was suggesting at the start of this thread. What a cool school it must have been.

I am feeling proud of my Scottish ancestors.:D

Turk
05-05-2007, 09:22 PM
Public schools can't teach philosophy.

motherhubbard
05-05-2007, 09:41 PM
I would love for the public schools to teach philosophy! Sadly, I donít think thatís going to happen in America. First of all many would be concerned that teachers would influence a students religion. Secondly, there arenít enough hours in the day as it is. But the BIGGEST reason is that philosophy would encourage a young mind to actually think and question and grow. Thatís not good for the average public school student who merely needs to be a good consumer who doesnít complain about making minimum wage. This is why it is so important for parents of children who attend public schools to fill in the gaps.

Thatís my very cynical opinion anyway.

Aunty-lion
05-05-2007, 09:47 PM
Public schools can't teach philosophy.

Do you want to expand on this thought??
I'm curious to know why...
Lack of resources, moral restrictions, lack of authority?

Turk
05-05-2007, 10:39 PM
Ministry of education will say we have philosophy classes in schools. Teachers will think they are teaching philosphy. Students will think they are learning philosophy.

But in truth, all will be history of philosophy. Philosophy originally comes from ancient Greek word "philo" means "love" and "sophia" means "knowledge". So the one who's going to learn and teach philosophy should love to think, try to find answers. Philosophy is not something you can learn, it's something you can understand. If public schools teaches "philosophy" teachers would tell; "Kant said this, Hobbes said that". And students will learn "Kant said this, Hobbes said that". But they won't try to find and learn WHY a philosopher defended a thought. And i can't blame people for that, because to understand Marx you should know Hegel too, to understand Hegel you will have to learn political and social conditions of 18.-19. centuries of Germany too. Also many philosophers was so effective in their days, but today their thoughts has almost no meaning. So it's not just hard to teach and learn, it's also lose of time for %99,999 of society.

If public schools have to teach something, it should be "Logic". This will teach people how to develop their thoughts at least. On the other hand i honestly don't believe western countries, especially super states like USA, wouldn't like to have a thinking society. In fact controlling a really thinking public would be really hard. They just wants people who thinks they are free and they are able to think independent but actually completely dependent and biased (in developed countries people are less free to think independently, i honestly believe that, minds of publics such as Americans are actually dominated by media and government).

Oh anyway, it's getting mixed, also i don't know English so good but i think you are able to understand what i am trying to say.

Aunty-lion
05-05-2007, 10:55 PM
Ministry of education will say we have philosophy classes in schools. Teachers will think they are teaching philosphy. Students will think they are learning philosophy.

But in truth, all will be history of philosophy. Philosophy originally comes from ancient Greek word "philo" means "love" and "sophia" means "knowledge". So the one who's going to learn and teach philosophy should love to think, try to find answers. Philosophy is not something you can learn, it's something you can understand. If public schools teaches "philosophy" teachers would tell; "Kant said this, Hobbes said that". And students will learn "Kant said this, Hobbes said that". But they won't try to find and learn WHY a philosopher defended a thought. And i can't blame people for that, because to understand Marx you should know Hegel too, to understand Hegel you will have to learn political and social conditions of 18.-19. centuries of Germany too. Also many philosophers was so effective in their days, but today their thoughts has almost no meaning. So it's not just hard to teach and learn, it's also lose of time for %99,999 of society.

If public schools have to teach something, it should be "Logic". This will teach people how to develop their thoughts at least. On the other hand i honestly don't believe western countries, especially super states like USA, wouldn't like to have a thinking society. In fact controlling a really thinking public would be really hard. They just wants people who thinks they are free and they are able to think independent but actually completely dependent and biased (in developed countries people are less free to think independently, i honestly believe that, minds of publics such as Americans are actually dominated by media and government).

Oh anyway, it's getting mixed, also i don't know English so good but i think you are able to understand what i am trying to say.

I can understand what you're saying. You're right. Schools would certainly not be teaching Philosophy in practice, they would be teaching the History of Philosophy. I for one, however, think that in itself would be a useful place to begin. And of course you would never be able to fit a full and comprehensive study of even that into the school curriculum, but I really do believe that something is better than nothing. After all, nothing that is taught in schools is totally comprehensive and all-encompassing (perhaps nothing in life can be said to be that).

In terms of Western countries not wanting their public to be free-thinking, maybe you are right about the USA. I've never been there, but I do get that impression too. However, my country is classified as a western country, (even though it is in the south pacific) I suppose because (like America) we are a country that was colonized by Britain. The ethnic makeup here is similar to that of the USA - although we don't have very many Latin Americans or African Americans (obviously) and we have a lot more Polynesians.

Anyway, I would just like to say that after traveling all over Europe and to Africa, I think that New Zealand is a comparatively liberal and free-thinking country and I do not believe that we are mostly "dependent and biased" here.

In the long run though, I must say that I think every government wants their public to be at least somewhat dependent, Western or not.

By the way, your English is perfectly understandable and it was a complex point to put across, so don't worry about that.:thumbs_up

Turk
05-05-2007, 11:07 PM
In the long run though, I must say that I think every government wants their public to be at least somewhat dependent, Western or not.

That's right. That's why i am telling a stronger governments is worse than weak government and people of super states are much controlled by their government even though they more educated people than 3. world people. For example take Iraq war, almost all of American people thinks they did something good in Iraq. Some of them telling America should leave Iraq, but it's not because they thinks it's not fair, it's because American soldiers dying. Almost all the world sees this war is dirty but American people can't, why? Because they are so stupid? No, but their government is so strong. It reminds me Nazi state of Germany, all Germans was believed they are supreme, and they are doing something good by invading other countries.

But i believe a government doesn't have to be that way. If moral values changes, state changes too. Right moral values will bring right governments. I believe that. It will happen someday.

Woland
05-05-2007, 11:16 PM
Schools should teach rhetoric, basic logic and debate - so that young people can leave school with the ability to discern a good/bad argument and articulate their own (hopefully good) arguments. With the atmosphere of "hype" that they are surrounded with, they need the ability to "sift" the hype and find the truth.

Nonsense. The corporations will tell us what to do!!

JBI
05-05-2007, 11:31 PM
Whatever they teach the ultra-orthodox religious zealots will complain for some reason or another. Best not to teach anything at all in a public school.*sarcasm)

On a serious note, I do not support the current look at school systems in Canada, and think the curriculum and set up needs serious reformation. People should have opportunity to learn anything they want, even if it is controversial.

blackowl
05-05-2007, 11:42 PM
Do you want to expand on this thought??
I'm curious to know why...
Lack of resources, moral restrictions, lack of authority?

Pls forgive me i am not turk but as i know turkey, let me answer this questions: Turkey fed up with this matter. They have secular sytem which is trying to be destroyed by US to start their Big Middle-east project to control all over mid-east countriest to exploit all pertrol and minnings (esp uranium). this conflict made turkish people to search everythink verywell esp history of religion.
we must keep all religion as part of our culture but not to teach at schools because i may understand to teach history of religions but not to teaching of religion! In turkey there are a people who call themself 'alevi'. This alevi culture coming from anatolian history and they are atheist. They are about 22 million both from kurd's and Turk's. so they gone to E.U courts to stop giving religion lessons to their children (They won the case) but turkish government still going on.
when we start to understand religions history: we understand how people and nations become anemy and we can understand how people slaughtered eachother. also we can understand what has happened in africa and latin america. we can understand what happened to maya's and their divine places which were fully decorated with gold. Also pls check how many tons of gold been took to Europe and pls pls check what happened to people who were not accepting to be christian. let start what muslims and other did
...... (nearly same)
we have saying: one gypsy warned another gypsy: Hey your face is black. other answerd: your face is black than mine!

I am atheist and alevi. and I do belive we must keep our religions as our culture and must teach to our children. but not in school. first education place of children is home. if we are not able to educate them, of course we will be like americans. for me, reason at another place not at 'school' or 'religion'. let me give some clue: when some thing become loss or valuduate another thing become exist. we are destroying all rules of las societies and not creating new ones especialy at societies moral and familes moral rules. our rule: run riot.
I am run riot only at organic laws and law created by organization but not for moral rules

when creating new generation, SYSTEM keep under control all societies not to create good thinker people. with this purpose metaphysic mind is most importand. when student understand this at scholl, mosque or church, this mind strengthen with movies and social life (dream fortunetelling).,

people must stay away from materialist thinking which is most dangerous thinking method for system and religions!!!!!

Scientific has found a dead baby body under ices which is 10.000 years old. they checked baby's brain and they understood it's capacity same with today's babies. so.... are we using our brain. are we education ourself with our knowledge. if brain capacity is same, what makes today people's modern!!!!!!!!!

Aunty-lion
05-05-2007, 11:43 PM
But i believe a government doesn't have to be that way. If moral values changes, state changes too. Right moral values will bring right governments. I believe that. It will happen someday.

Wow. I like to consider myself an optimist, but you just 'out-optimismed' me!

I can't help but believe that power will always corrupt, so I worry for our little world... I can't think of a totally ethical Government, ever.

However, I sincerely hope you are right my friend. Come on world...:)

Aunty-lion
05-05-2007, 11:47 PM
when we start to understand religions history: we understand how people and nations become anemy and we can understand how people slaughtered eachother. also we can understand what has happened in africa and latin america. we can understand what happened to maya's and their divine places which were fully decorated with gold.

I also believe that we all need to understand each other better. War is often misunderstanding. That is natural I suppose.
The reall sad thing is when war springs out of wilfull misunderstanding...:(

Morrisonhotel
05-06-2007, 04:31 AM
Umm the A2 is the A-level :nod: unless you do your A2 then you only achieve an AS whic is a half A level, you acquire your A2 to have a full a level...and in fact your A2 exams are called your Alevel exams as far as Ive seen anyway, but I d know the IGCE system which is the international version differntiates between them. where if you A levl you do both in the one year ( and can I just say it is a nightmare and I advise everyone to steer clear of this option unless they are repeating the AS part its just to much to do in one year.

:D

I meant in terms of how UCAS assimilate the scoring system - after all they are the best source to judge the comparability. As it is, an A at Higher in Scotland is worth slightly more than A at AS level (72 compared to 60) - clearly both are accredited qualifications regardless that the AS is half (I know, for example, people at my University who did 4 A.Ss in 5th year and 3 A levels and an AS in their final year). However, an A grade at Advanced Higher and A level is the exact same (120).

Morrisonhotel
05-06-2007, 04:46 AM
To bring it back to Russell for a bit: it seems apparent that if morals are to be taught in school, we have to define good moral behaviour - i.e. Bentham being a wicked man, and all that. How do we define what is good moral behaviour from bad moral behaviour (of course, anything that is detrimental to the well-being of an another individual is obviously deemed bad moral behaviour - unless it is to the detriment of the well-being of all society)?

Am I gleaming from this discussion that American schools do not allow Philosophy elective courses? As it appears that this discussion did not start on such a declaration - just dove straight in to questions of moral teaching in schools.

Turk, I'm interested to know your opinions on your own country. I have a couple of Turkish relatives. By all accounts (both familial and from media sources), Turkey is horribly oppressive to freedom of speech/thought/action - in fact, it seems that Americans live in a far far more freer society than Turkish people do.

Turk
05-06-2007, 06:19 AM
Blackowl, i am sorry but things you have said mostly inaccurate and hard to understand even for me. Although this is unrelated to topic i should post this so people won't get wrong informations. Beside many other unreal things, especially things you have said about Alevis is completely unrealistic. First of all, Alevi people believes Allah and prophecy of Muhammed (SAV). So it's impossible to be materialist and Alevi in same time. Also i didn't understand most of your words.

Turk
05-06-2007, 06:51 AM
Am I gleaming from this discussion that American schools do not allow Philosophy elective courses? As it appears that this discussion did not start on such a declaration - just dove straight in to questions of moral teaching in schools.

Turk, I'm interested to know your opinions on your own country. I have a couple of Turkish relatives. By all accounts (both familial and from media sources), Turkey is horribly oppressive to freedom of speech/thought/action - in fact, it seems that Americans live in a far far more freer society than Turkish people do.

First of all i should say, theres differences between two kinds of freedom and two kinds of oppression. One is real freedom, the other one is simulacrum and one is clear oppression the other one is secret oppression. Secret oppresion creates simulacrums to control people, that kind of governments are mostly developed governments and they use the most stealthy way to control their public; staying behind the curtain. Clear oppression is generally used by underdeveloped countries such as Iraq, Syria or China. Since clear oppression creates a really big reaction in society developed countries knows they can't use that method.

And about Turkey, as we said before, all governments wants to control their public and as far as economy and capitalist system getting stronger in Turkey, oppression method is becoming secret oppression. But here i should say level of oppression in Turkey has never became really bad, if you are a honest person with positive feelings to Turkey nobody can oppress you.

Also i should tell, most of those oppression news are lies. European media is exaggerating things, maybe because their ancestral hostility against Turks and people like Orhan Pamuk are exploiting this (he told some west press "Turks killed 1 million Armenian and 30.000 Kurds"). They are trying to show themselves freedom fighters etc. and the only thing they do is repeating thoughts of imperialists (and btw most of those "intellectuals" didn't have any opinions about politics, for example every educated man in Turkey knows Orhan Pamuk comes from a really rich family and has nothing to do with politics). And also west is biased, when African immigrants started riots in Paris French government took really harsh decisions, also after terror events British government decided to be really harsh and oppressive too. But when Turkey apply less harsh precautions and laws they all start to sing same song: "democratic rights" (to me Democracy is the biggest simulacra and threat to real freedom in modern world).

Few things i can say about your question are them, if this answer is not enough, you should clarify what kind of oppressions you heard?

One last thing, in past, countries was far from each other and didn't know each other very well. Today we have developed ways of communication, and still don't know each other.

Silvia
05-06-2007, 06:59 AM
In Italy public school students are thaught both Philosophy and Religion but you can choose whether to attend Religion classes or not.
Personally, I do not believe in God but I have decided to join Religion classes all the same, since they deal with religion in a very laic way.
Catholicism has always been part of the culture of my country and it is important, in my opinion, to have at least a general panorama of it as well as of the other main religions. What's more, Catholicism offers values and behaviours universally acceptable by both religious and non-religious people.
I mean, Religion is part of the world we live in, why shouldn't it be thaught in schools?
..and then again,I don't know about the situation in the United States, but I don't understand what the big difference between private and public schools is that would prevent Religion and Philosophy to be part of the programme in the public ones...

Logos
05-06-2007, 04:16 PM
General Mod Note to All:

Posts have been deleted for not adhering to the forum rules. Yes there are rules here in case you didn't read them :)

Please do not quote flames, insults, etc. Please don't discuss current politics. Please don't discuss each other. Please discuss the topic.

obesechicken13
05-06-2007, 08:16 PM
The simple problem with leaving students to think entirely for themselves is that, well, put simply, a hell of a lot of people are stupid. Furthermore, think of any great thinker of the past or present: every single one of them has been taught, and had their ideas influenced, by either an actual teacher or, if formal education wasn't available, through books - even so, how many people over the centuries have overtly gone out of their way to intellectually better themselves by reading, and what have you? Very few notable people (i.e. nameable). We need to instill not only the capabilities of further intellectual thought but also allow access to the most basic of metaphysical ideas so that the few who are concerned with such things can be allowed to pursue them (and encourage those with a less than natural disposition to intellectual enquiry).

Perhaps basic metaphysical ideas could work, but teaching entire philosophies, this would be dangerous.

For the simple reason that people are stupid, they will follow the first ideas that they hear with stubborn resiliency to their deathbed.
It's probably better for college professors to teach the students who want to learn it.

If you believe teaching the same philosophies to everyone is good however you are probably thinking that your own will be the one adopted.

~Cellar_Dore~
05-06-2007, 08:46 PM
Just to balance out the cynicsm in my earlier post--Since some homes are dysfunctional to the point where the children living in them are not taught good morals at all, there should be something taught at schools about morals, perhaps with a philosophy bent. As for teaching information about different religions, I'd stick to just the basic tenets of what all the religions believe, and not go any deeper than that.
But how many religions do you teach? There's so many and someone might get mad if theirs isn't taught.
For me the basic list is something like: Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, and Shinto.

But where do you draw the line between major religions you should teach and minor ones you can skip over? I'm not really sure myself...

But to end with a positive, yeah, I agree some kind of morals should be taught.

AiculŪk
05-14-2007, 07:54 AM
In Slovakia, kids at elementary school (age 6 - 14) have either Ethics or Religion lessons. It is true that at Religion, they learn about Christianity, but this is because 86% of population are Christians (at least officially...). As far as I know, children after 5th grade hate both of them equally. :)

Then at high school (age 14 - 19) there is lesson called "Study of Society" - during all 4 years, basics of Philosophy, Ethics, Economics and Politics are studied there (and even I think a bit of Aesthetics - quite useless stuff). It was quite interesting (well except Economics and Politics part, which was deadly boring :sick:).

Ethics was real fun, we discussed current questions in society, the teacher would just bring out the theme (e.g. Role of women in advertisement - can it be seen as sexual abuse? - that one caused quite hot discussions) and let us discuss it ocassionaly asking questions. Philosphy was also interesting, but terribly difficult - especially things like Samuel Alexander and his "emergent evolution".

badaxxe
05-14-2007, 09:27 AM
I am an American supposidly the "Land of the Free" but after 911 we are losing our rights more and more each year. I believe American TV has destroyed the moral fabric of this country. All major religions should be gone over in school to show the parallelizms and the good. Whats the easiest way to take over the majority teach them how to hate, fight amongst themselves and keep them high on drugs. Those in power here are in a win win situation. Did you know the Land of the Free has more people locked up than any other nation? A joke here is "Want a job that you will always have? Become a Corrections Officer Answer to teaching philosophy how about just teaching how to read and write? Instead of whos the next American Idol.

dan020350
05-14-2007, 11:06 AM
you don't say badaxxe,
In the mundane babble or a general chat, which you think it is a free chat and talk about anything you want. But it is not possible because it is the authorities that makes you what to think or behave or what you ought to have. Can you be free of that?

We like to talk about freedom we don't want freedom. We want to talk about philosophy for school, but we don't want phillsophy in our school

badaxxe
05-15-2007, 04:09 PM
dan020350 wrote:

you don't say badaxxe,
In the mundane babble or a general chat, which you think it is a free chat and talk about anything you want. But it is not possible because it is the authorities that makes you what to think or behave or what you ought to have. Can you be free of that?

We like to talk about freedom we don't want freedom. We want to talk about philosophy for school, but we don't want phillsophy in our school

dan020350 are you talking to me directly or in general. Many individuals use "you" instead of "one"

How does one teach anything if the pupil does not want to learn. If an individual does not have good reading skills (understanding what was read) then how does one teach philosophy? Many younger people don't care for Shakspeare because its difficult to grasp for many. American TV has ruined many peoples' way of thinking. "I am a product of my environment" I picture the 1920s in Black and White.
I personally don't watch television or listen to the corporate news as we are told what "they" want us to know. Philosophy makes one have to think, "Tit for Tat we can't have that" it seems to me that the majority of people are getting dumber (ask any High School teacher)as the years go by. Its easier to watch televison than read a book. I prefer a book and let my imagination show me the pictures.


"We like to talk about freedom we don't want freedom."

Is that a oxymoron? Who is "we"?

kathycf
05-15-2007, 08:02 PM
you don't say badaxxe,
In the mundane babble or a general chat, which you think it is a free chat and talk about anything you want. But it is not possible because it is the authorities that makes you what to think or behave or what you ought to have. Can you be free of that?

We like to talk about freedom we don't want freedom. We want to talk about philosophy for school, but we don't want phillsophy in our school
If you are referring to the general chat section of this forum, I think you are missing the point is that there are rules. A privately owned and run message board is not a "say whatever you like board", as it is privately run. If there were not enforced rules, things would quickly degenerate into chaos, and what would be the point of that? A message board full of flaming, and other assorted nastiness? I know as fact that in order to sign up for this forum you have to agree to abide by the rules.

So, it is hard to draw a connection between what is allowed in a message board and what ought to be taught in schools. One doesn't necessarily relate to the other, and in point of fact I think you would have to visit thousands and thousands of schools to confirm your belief that "we don't want philosophy in our school". It is one thing to draw an assumption or state an opinion, it is another to state something factually.

I took several philosophy classes in high school, all though that was many years ago...don't quiz me on it! :D

hipwr3
05-15-2007, 10:59 PM
What teacher alive today would be worthy of teaching Philosophy. What syle would they teach. Could they onistly teach all without bias. We all tend to look for evidence to support our beliefs, The Govt. Should not teach Philosophy, they should stay out of higher education, they should stay out of education all together.

dan020350
05-16-2007, 12:06 AM
KAthy have sparked me to response on this thread today.

When one lives in society he is enforced or sign the contract of gov't tacitly.
What about the native Americans, why push them and enforce them to American custom? Especially the east and the third world country?

Rules are rules, to be blindly ruled by them is ignorant. Members and citizens alike.

kathycf
05-16-2007, 02:37 AM
KAthy have sparked me to response on this thread today.

When one lives in society he is enforced or sign the contract of gov't tacitly.
What about the native Americans, why push them and enforce them to American custom? Especially the east and the third world country?

Rules are rules, to be blindly ruled by them is ignorant. Members and citizens alike.
I didn't say all rules should be followed blindly. I didn't say I went through life blindly following rules. I think you see things in people's posts that aren't there. I said this particular website had rules...because it seemed that you thought otherwise, or that members here thought they were free but really weren't. I am a bit miffed at you implying that I'm ignorant. I don't know, dan, honestly sometimes you are a little confusing. :)

Some "rules" (laws, legal rulings...whichever) have been historically unjust, yes. You won't get any argument from me about that....but still, you can't relate one argument to another. Unjust rules/laws have little bearing on whether philosophy should be taught, or whether society pays lipservice to wanting philosophy to be taught but they really don't.


in point of fact I think you would have to visit thousands and thousands of schools to confirm your belief that "we don't want philosophy in our school". It is one thing to draw an assumption or state an opinion, it is another to state something factually.



Do you think people are all complete and utter mindless sheep? Wait....nope....don't answer that. I *think* I know how you might respond. ;) See, I think when you start generalizing, making assumptions and slapping labels on people, it draws the level of debate down. :nod: I think it is probably too late for me to make a coherent argument...I am very tired, and have not had much sleep.

hipwr3
05-16-2007, 06:10 AM
The question in not if Philosophy should be taught but by whom, Public schools are basicaly an arm of the government and they will tend to teach things that will further there causes. I am sure you can understand this Kathy, believe me when I tell you you dont want the public schools teaching anything that may alow them to instill their misguided beliefs on others. If you controle Education, the monitary system, The military and the media what do you have. Some things should be left to the private citizen, the teaching of philosophy I think should be one of them. One should seek out the different philosophys on ones own. :brickwall

Lote-Tree
05-16-2007, 07:50 AM
Death to Philosophy because it makes you depressed :-)

Enjoy Life - get a women/man - and enjoy Life :-)

dan020350
05-16-2007, 10:53 AM
Death to depressing philosophy and embrace life giving or fullfilling philosophy.

kathycf
05-16-2007, 08:50 PM
The question in not if Philosophy should be taught but by whom, Public schools are basicaly an arm of the government and they will tend to teach things that will further there causes. I am sure you can understand this Kathy, believe me when I tell you you dont want the public schools teaching anything that may alow them to instill their misguided beliefs on others. .... Some things should be left to the private citizen, the teaching of philosophy I think should be one of them. One should seek out the different philosophys on ones own. :brickwall
Hmmm. I am not sure I agree with you about this hipwr3. How do you suggest a child with no other means to education besides a public school ever learn about these things? Suggesting they seek it out on their own is all well and fine, but supposing it doesn't occur to a child to even do so? That is what education is for...to guide the uninitiated. I am afraid I don't share your view on the dangers of public education and public school teachers. There are probably quite a few bad teachers I am sure. I happen to firmly believe there are also many fine ones. I know....I was taught by several. I learned a little about philosophy in school....public school. I think nothing wrong of it, quite the contrary. Those teachers no more spread propaganda then my dog does. Most of the teachers I had in school were fellow members of my community...I saw them in the grocery store, the library and at bake sales. I attend a state run college and while I have disliked some of the professors, I could hardly call them "agents of state propaganda" or anything of the kind. Some are not even from the US.

So, no offense...I just don't happen to agree with you. :)


Death to Philosophy because it makes you depressed :-)

Enjoy Life - get a women/man - and enjoy Life :-)
:lol:


Death to depressing philosophy and embrace life giving or fullfilling philosophy.
A good idea.

hipwr3
05-16-2007, 09:17 PM
Death to Phylosophy and find a girl.

Now see, thats a form of Phylosophy rite there. Good for you now your learning.:yawnb:

Thats ok Kathy I like your onisty. I dont believe in public education, I beilieve education should be seprate from any Govt. agency. I have met some good teachers in public shcool as well but they have been the exception instead of the norm. How would you suggest they teach the subject. do you think they could be fair. Would they teach Kant or maybe MS. Rands Objectivism, Do you think they coud teach without pushing them one way or the other. I think the teachers may push Altruism, What do you think. ;)

chunwing
05-17-2007, 08:28 AM
I am definitely for teaching philosophy at school.

The reason why it is not feasible most of the time is that we live in a society governed by politics.

In politics, everything needs to be measurable. One government needs to be able to say, "We have put in these blah blah policies, and AS A RESULT we have got xyz results." And when you teach philosophy, it is just difficult to do that.

If you poured money into science, you can get results like cure for cancer, more nobel prizes from your country, human landing on Pluto etc. If you put more money into maths, you get the above, plus more investment strategies leading to more $$$ etc. But if you put money into philosophy, you can't exactly get something directly correlated.

What you do get from teaching philosophy are possibly things like people are nicer to each other, less school massacres, less wars. But then even so these can't be guaranteed, because it is very easy to misinterpret philosophy.

The dilemma is, if you don't teach at school, when else would you teach it? The only people who would learn it are people who voluntarily do it at uni. And who are those people? They are the people who are already interested in philosophy itself and I trust these are quite sensible people already. That means philosophy probably isn't reaching the sort of people it should reach! It's not reaching troubled families, it's not reaching gangster kids, it's not reaching drug addicts etc.

How do we rectify the situation? I actually think rote learning is the way to go. The way Asian schools have traditionally taught is that they get kids to memorise everything. And 99% of students just do that and don't understand what they're memorising.

People criticise it, but personally I've found it very useful. This is because most of the time, even though the kids can't understand such complicated things, but for quite a lot of people, years down the track, after they absorb more life experience, they will eventually come to appreciate it. I know A LOT of my friends' fathers and mothers who can memorise things they have memorised for exams 30 years ago! That is not the product of their hard work back then, it is the product of them gradually coming to terms with the value in what they have learned.

I say go back to good old days of rote learning, then at least there is more chance that people will eventually appreciate it.

dan020350
05-17-2007, 08:30 AM
As I once said Chun. We like to talk about it but never do it.

Philosophy for elementary grad or high school offers opportunites for the kids and philosophy majors.

Lote-Tree
05-17-2007, 08:38 AM
Death to Phylosophy and find a girl.

Now see, thats a form of Phylosophy rite there.


There you have it. And you don't have to think hard with it. In fact it does not involve any thinking at all :-) ;-)

Annamariah
05-17-2007, 10:25 AM
An interesting conversation you have here...

In Finland children will either study religion (lutheran or orthodox) or "elšmšnkatsomustieto", which could be translated into "ethics". Religion teaching concentrates pretty much on christianity, but other religions like islam, hinduism, buddhism, judaism etc. are also told quite a lot about. Teaching is more about sharing information about religion than trying to make people believe in God and creation and stuff.

In high school one course of philosophy is compulsory. That course is about history of philosophy and some most important philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Nietzsche, Marx, Kant, Wittgenstein etc.) If students are interested in learning more, they can take some optional philosophy courses.

kathycf
05-17-2007, 02:21 PM
The dilemma is, if you don't teach at school, when else would you teach it? The only people who would learn it are people who voluntarily do it at uni. And who are those people? They are the people who are already interested in philosophy itself
Yes. I think exposure to the subject is a key thing.


How would you suggest they teach the subject. do you think they could be fair. Would they teach Kant or maybe MS. Rands Objectivism, Do you think they coud teach without pushing them one way or the other. I think the teachers may push Altruism, What do you think. ;)


In high school one course of philosophy is compulsory. That course is about history of philosophy and some most important philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Nietzsche, Marx, Kant, Wittgenstein etc.) If students are interested in learning more, they can take some optional philosophy courses.
Annamariah describes something similiar to what I had in school. The required class was more of a "survey" or introduction and then there were a few voluntary classes for further study. I think the majority of study for philosophy does take place at a college or university level, which is fine. I don't think high school level students in general need more than an introduction and they can take it further if they like.


As I once said Chun. We like to talk about it but never do it.


You're generalizing again. I have already stated that I took classes on philosophy in highschool, so obviously somebody did more than just talk, don't you think?

:)

Scheherazade
05-17-2007, 07:09 PM
Enjoy Life - get a women/man - and enjoy Life :-)It is highly advisable that you first get their consent before you get them though...

:p

dan020350
05-17-2007, 10:29 PM
You're generalizing again. I have already stated that I took classes on philosophy in highschool, so obviously somebody did more than just talk, don't you think?

:)
Your over reacting again, the natural reaction of a woman. :yawnb:
Your high school maybe, but not my high school.

There are poor and rich schools.
There are dumb and enlighten schools.
Democratic is mix, it leaves to chances.

kathycf
05-18-2007, 10:28 AM
dan020350 are you talking to me directly or in general. Many individuals use "you" instead of "one"

"We like to talk about freedom we don't want freedom."

Is that a oxymoron? Who is "we"?



We like to talk about freedom we don't want freedom. We want to talk about philosophy for school, but we don't want phillsophy in our school


As I once said Chun. We like to talk about it but never do it.


This is the sort of thing that needs to be clarified, dan. It seems to me that you are making generalizations with these statements. It seems is if you are speaking for vast groups of people by all these "we like to talk about stuff, but never do it" statements. The reality is, you can only "speak" for you, and only you. Just as I can only speak for me. Unless I have something to back my statement up, it can only be offered as opinion.



Your high school maybe, but not my high school.

There are poor and rich schools.
There are dumb and enlighten schools.
Democratic is mix, it leaves to chances.

Correct, and NEITHER one of us can speak for schools across the nation, now can we? Do you see the point I was trying to make? You didn't like when I used my experiences to speak for everybody elses, so how do you think people react when you do that?

Don't get me wrong, I am not picking on you. It just seems you have a tendency to make these "we" statements. WE refers to a group. :)


Your over reacting again, the natural reaction of a woman. :yawnb:

:lol: Ooooh, burn! :lol: ;) You might have a point there, buddy.

dan020350
05-18-2007, 11:03 AM
I love kathy, and one day the moderators will close this thread because of me.
You speak of generalization, our gov't is base on generalization, it has no right to represent all the citizens and to the ones who didn't vote.

The next statement that intrigue me is the "back up statements, speaking for yourself only" there is a problem with this. Either you are fooled or you are not, with or without evidence. What is evidence?

kathycf
05-18-2007, 02:38 PM
What I mean is that when people throw out a lot of "WE" statements it seems to me that is generalizing.

"We like to talk about freedom we don't want freedom."

"We like to talk about freedom we don't want freedom. We want to talk about philosophy for school, but we don't want phillsophy in our school"

"As I once said Chun. We like to talk about it but never do it."

Who is the "WE" that you are referring to? To me, when somebody makes a statement of WE they are including ME in it...as in me, Kathy. It puts my back up, because it seems to be presuming quite a lot. Since you don't know ME how are you coming to the conclusion that I am doing "nothing" about anything? Where is your proof that I am not doing anything? Either me personally or anybody else that is included with the WE statements. Participating in a forum is not any sort of proof to how people spend their time when they are NOT in the forum.

Now, this is why I laughed when you said I was over reacting again. . Maybe I am completely over analzying your use of the word "WE", when to your mind, you are putting out a purely hypothetical statement. That is why I am curious to know who the "WE" is in your earlier quotes. :)


I'm not discussing goverment, sorry. :D

dan020350
05-19-2007, 12:21 AM
The "we" is you.

If you are really doing something to change humanirty or society you would not be in the forum, you would be out there. But since you are here that means you talk about it still.

If we are not talking about it , what are we doing?

Basil
05-19-2007, 03:28 AM
Dan, are you a member of the Judean People's Front or the People's Front of Judea?

kathycf
05-19-2007, 12:42 PM
The "we" is you.

If you are really doing something to change humanirty or society you would not be in the forum, you would be out there. But since you are here that means you talk about it still.

If we are not talking about it , what are we doing?
That is absurd. Participating in a forum for an hour out of one's day does not account for the other activities that anybody does for the rest of the day. Since you have no way of knowing what I or anybody else does in our lives, your conclusion is somewhat illogical and completely without merit. Since you are a member here and partcipate here, be sure to include yourself in your assumption of "doing nothing". ;)

If you want to discuss the opening subject of SHOULD philosophy be taught in schools, that's fine. But if you are going to throw around ill-founded assumptions...well, I don't understand what merit there is in discussing assumptions.

No offense intended nor taken, dan. Have a great weekend.

Tuesday
05-19-2007, 05:41 PM
I'd love to see philosophy be taught at schools. I once had a math teacher who told us that math was like jogging for the brain because it kept you mentally fit and taught you how to think. And since I think math is just philosophy with numbers instead of words, I guess it could only be helpful ;)

dan020350
05-19-2007, 11:34 PM
That is absurd. Participating in a forum for an hour out of one's day does not account for the other activities that anybody does for the rest of the day. Since you have no way of knowing what I or anybody else does in our lives, your conclusion is somewhat illogical and completely without merit. Since you are a member here and partcipate here, be sure to include yourself in your assumption of "doing nothing". ;)

If you want to discuss the opening subject of SHOULD philosophy be taught in schools, that's fine. But if you are going to throw around ill-founded assumptions...well, I don't understand what merit there is in discussing assumptions.

No offense intended nor taken, dan. Have a great weekend.

We are all geniuses !!!!!!!!!!!!! I say what I say to point out the absurdity and the ignorance that you or we all are doing.

Brady10
06-02-2007, 04:24 AM
Philosophy is not something to be taught, but something to be studied. You can study the philosophy of other people, then choose to agree or not to agree, but you can not be forced to agree with someone else's personal philosophy.

My opinion is that philosophy should be left to be studied by those who are interested, rather than forcing students to study philosophy that they may not agree with.