Should Philosophy be Required?

[speed]

I was reading Ravelstein, a tremendous final opus by Saul Bellow that fictionalized the life of Allan Bloom, when i immediately decided to create this thread. Mr. Bloom was a philosophy prof at U Chicago, who wrote rather extensively on philosophy. Knowing nothing about MR. Bloom other than he translated and wrote a lengthy introduction to my copy of Plato's Republic, I decided to pick up his famous, and at the time scandalous, book, The Closing of the American Mind. In it, he claims the total lack of higher education in philosophy, coupled with university policies to promote cultural sensitivity, and the poor teaching methods and topics covered by almost all philosophy professors, created a vacuum (he includes great lit and humanities with philosophy), in which Americans no longer have the power to question the most important thing: themselves, and life itself.

I couldnt agree more with MR. Bloom. I may disagree with some of his decidedly Platonic thought (which is weird seeing anymore), etc.; but I do agree with the thesis that he presented almost 20 years ago: higher education has failed, and impoverished the souls of todays Americans.

Here is a quick excerpt from wikipedia. Another longer but good one can be found on Amazon.

The Closing of the American Mind, by Allan Bloom (published 1987 ISBN 5551868680), describes "how higher education has failed democracy and impoverished the souls of today's students."
The book's lengthy introduction delineates two kinds of "openness". Bloom criticizes the openness of cultural relativism, in which he claims:
"the point is not to correct the mistakes and really be right; rather it is not to think you are right at all." In line with Plato, whom he quotes periodically throughout the book, Bloom believes that it is incumbent on the individual to search for truth in order to have any hope of a higher life. He believes it is the unique obligation of the university to point students in this very direction.
Like Tocqueville and Nietzsche, Bloom asserts that democracy--by valuing the opinion of each citizen equally--is not an environment in which genius excels. It is therefore the university that needs to lead the lost art of living the good life.



What do all of you think?

 

[NeverIsForever]

Honestly...you could require students to take philosophy, but if they didn't care about it somewhat I really don't think they'd get anything out of it in the long term. The current school system rewards achievement, not interest level, so people will learn what's necessary to pass the class, move on, and forget it all, unless of course they have some outside interest in it.

 

[Cythraul]

Should philosophy be required? Yes it fucking should! Actually, I think it's a requirement to take at least one phil class at my school but not many people get much out of it. I don't understand these people. They have a chance to think about some questions that are very central to the human condition, but they just go in there and listen to crap music on their fucking ipods.

I'm not familiar with the nature of this guy's complaints regarding higher education, and your summary doesn't elucidate enough for me. Maybe I'll read some of his stuff. I have no complaints about my college education so far. I think the smart people get something valuable out of higher education. It takes interest and dedication. The dumbasses (and there are a lot of them at my school, and many other schools) just want to graduate so they can go make money. Nothing wrong with making some money I guess. But seriously, I feel like I live in a cultural and intellectual wasteland. I have only met a few individuals who are interested in learning, thinking, art, philosophy, etc.

Sorry for the rant. I'm a bit fed up with seeing these people (I use the term "people" loosely) piss away their education and treat college like it's a fucking social event.

 

[Justin S.]

That the question "should philosophy be required?" must be asked, testifies to our state of affairs. This becomes more apparent when the cheap aura of the word "philosophy" fades and we understand its meaning as open thinking (in contrast to the other disciplines which have prescribed bounds, and often, goals).

Should thinking be required? This question strikes us oddly, mainly because we claim man as the thinking, rational creature- isnt this our natural state? Cognition, certainly, but what we mean by thinking is something entirely different than mere calculation or electrical activity.

As Ive said before, philosophy (as an academic discipline) still exists due to its self-imposed impotence, and by luck. Its essence is the antithesis to the forces of scientific rationalization (taken to limits, global capitalism).

In many ways, I think the universal education system is a disaster for mankind. We do not need more of the uneducated proclaiming how informed they are. What education has done is not raise the level of discourse, but virtually annihilate it by oppressive saturation (total sensory fatigue). Of what rigor is our thinking when all ideas are immediately swarmed and exhausted by endless noise and activity?

To answer your question: A forceful no- The last thing we need is more righteous fools convinced of their Weltanschauung. Millions of barely functioning "citizens" who wield their mass-produced certificates of "superior intellect" with a tyranny more complete than any despot (in contrast to the fantasies of such leaders, the power of acculturation is omnipresent)

Philosophy should remain buried and forgotten. If there is any hope of retrieval of its force, it must (can) be discovered only by those that authentically give pause, passed over by societies whose only possible relation is corruption, misunderstanding, and merciless exploitation.

 

[Norsemaiden]

In an ideal world, some sort of introduction to the ideas of all the main philosophers would be on the curriculum, but not too much detail. It would continue to be an option for those who were genuinely interested. Most people just haven't got the kind of mind that lends itself to philosophy. The herd, by definition, doesn't doesn't consist of free thinking individuals.

In reality, the only way the government would approve of teaching philosophy in schools must be if it is done in such a way that leads to people accepting the government's agenda. They wouldn't want to encourage the questioning of things. The reason it is not widely taught must be that it doesn't serve the agenda.

 

[Cythraul]

The reason it is not widely taught must be that it doesn't serve the agenda.

When is the last time you were at a university? I'm pretty sure any university worth its salt has a philosophy department.

 

[Pull The Plug]

In an ideal world, some sort of introduction to the ideas of all the main philosophers would be on the curriculum, but not too much detail. It would continue to be an option for those who were genuinely interested. Most people just haven't got the kind of mind that lends itself to philosophy. The herd, by definition, doesn't doesn't consist of free thinking individuals.

In reality, the only way the government would approve of teaching philosophy in schools must be if it is done in such a way that leads to people accepting the government's agenda. They wouldn't want to encourage the questioning of things. The reason it is not widely taught must be that it doesn't serve the agenda.

I agree with philosophy being optional. I'm pretty sure philosophy is already being taught in university though.

Whats the point of forcing people who aren't interested in it (nor do they need to be), when you could have a much smaller class with only those interested and no disruptions (ipods I think I read back there)?

 

[Norsemaiden]

When is the last time you were at a university? I'm pretty sure any university worth its salt has a philosophy department.

Of course. I thought we were talking about high school, "requirement" implying a compulsory subject. Philosophy is not a requirement for all students at university yet it is nearly always there as an option isn't it? The government has less say over the subject matter at university level and can't be seen to be so tyranical as to ban or otherwise dictate the teaching of philosophy in academia.

One subject that should be compulsory in high school is ecology. Students should be taught about the importance of planting trees, trying to be the cause of less pollution and respect for wildlife, etc.

 

[Cythraul]

Whats the point of forcing people who aren't interested in it (nor do they need to be), when you could have a much smaller class with only those interested and no disruptions (ipods I think I read back there)?

You get disruptive and disinterested people in every class that's a general requirement. They're in the science classes, math classes, etc. College freshmen and sophomores generally don't take their education seriously.

If you don't see any point in forcing people to take classes they're not interested in then why just stop with philosophy? Hey, if someone's not interested in their general requirement science class, why should they have to take it? Why don't the universities just drop their general requirements altogether? Philosophy is a legitimate academic discipline. I see no good reason why people should be forced to take math and science classes and not philosophy. Also, most people don't even know what philosophy is, so who are they to say they're not interested? Believe me, you'd be surprised at the ridiculous questions people ask me about philosophy.

 

[Cythraul]

Of course. I thought we were talking about high school, "requirement" implying a compulsory subject. Philosophy is not a requirement for all students at university yet it is nearly always there as an option isn't it? The government has less say over the subject matter at university level and can't be seen to be so tyranical as to ban or otherwise dictate the teaching of philosophy in academia.

Right. Well, it would be nice if they offered philosophy classes in high school. I would've loved that! People don't understand how important it is to have the kind of skills that are only gained from studying philosophy. I guess high school isn't really the proper environment for critical thinking or questioning assumptions.

One subject that should be compulsory in high school is ecology. Students should be taught about the importance of planting trees, trying to be the cause of less pollution and respect for wildlife, etc.

I agree.

 

[derek]

Philosophy is offered as a course in the final two years of High-School in Great Britain. It's a reasonably one dimensional course, but it does exist.

Futhermore, I agree with the original ideas expressed by Speed in his post. The philosophy department I attended left me feeling empty towards a subject I once loved. I experienced bland teaching and poor choice of topics, not to mention a watering down of subject matter beyond my belief. I believe I was taught to remember chunks of Plato or Descartes without every questioning anything. Thankfully, I switched to Classics and the rest is history, yet I still find it difficult at times to muster any real enthusiasm for philosophy

 

[Smoof]

Philosophy should not be forced upon anyone. It is by far my favorite subject I've ever encountered in my short life, but people should really not be forced to take it. The simple matter is, If people are going to take Philosophy, it's a matter of if them being interested in it and intelligent enough to take it seriously. Too many take a Philosophy class in college thinking it will be some sort of easy A with questions like, "If a tree falls in the woods..."

Philosophy should be kept to those who really appreciate it, because in the end, as previously stated, those who don't care and are forced to take it, wont care anyway.

 

[derek]

I think the point was more that the ability to question and think be taught from an early age and be as crucially mandatory as mathematics is seen to be.

I think those of you saying philosophy should not be forced upon people have missed the point, slightly.

 

[speed]

I think the point was more that the ability to question and think be taught from an early age and be as crucially mandatory as mathematics is seen to be.

I think those of you saying philosophy should not be forced upon people have missed the point, slightly.

Thank you for clearing that up. Thats clearly the thesis of Bloom. Philosophy must be taught according to Bloom, because it makes one question the world, life, the status quo; and it also compels and deals with the search for meaning in life. Without it, we become unquestioning fools, who are sated with our bourgouise( i can never spell this damn word) material goods and jobs, and thus we fail ourselves and our world.

 

[Smoof]

But some are content to live life without questioning it and thus, do not care at all for those aspects of Philosophy. I'm one of the first in my family of blue collar Catholics to question religion and life in general. I found Philosophy and immediately became completely enamored with it.

I guess my standpoint would be that, sure, you can teach it at an early age, but not everyone is going to grapple onto it and hold it dear to them. Some people just don't care, or just don't have the thinking ability to really have Philosophy be apart of their life. My idea here all comes from my family I believe. Beyond my Father, I don't think anyone in my family would ever be interested in philosophy no matter what age they began learning about it.

Perhaps we should adopt a society as Plato describes? Of course, I don't mean that seriously, but I think there is possible SOME truth to that idea. But, I can't really say much more, as work is almost over and I need to go home a rest a while...

 

[War_Blade]

One subject that should be compulsory in high school is ecology. Students should be taught about the importance of planting trees, trying to be the cause of less pollution and respect for wildlife, etc.

hell no, screw the earth, i'll be dead before it is gone to hell anyways. I'll use all the damn aqua net i want, faggot ozone layer blocking out all the sun's rays.

 

[derek]

But some are content to live life without questioning it and thus, do not care at all for those aspects of Philosophy. I'm one of the first in my family of blue collar Catholics to question religion and life in general. I found Philosophy and immediately became completely enamored with it.

I guess my standpoint would be that, sure, you can teach it at an early age, but not everyone is going to grapple onto it and hold it dear to them. Some people just don't care, or just don't have the thinking ability to really have Philosophy be apart of their life. My idea here all comes from my family I believe. Beyond my Father, I don't think anyone in my family would ever be interested in philosophy no matter what age they began learning about it.

Again, I don't think that was the point of the thesis. It was not aimed at forcing philosophy upon everyone, whether they like it or not, but rather to engage real methods of teaching within schools and universities. I.e. Teach kids and students to think rather than just remember and spit out passages in exams.

In this context don't think of philosophy as teaching the inner workings of Kant or Hume, but rather just a introduction to philosophical methods and how teaching these skills should be as core to an education as mathematics. Of course not everyone embraces the subject, but look at anyone who has had a reasonable education, they can surely add and subtract, divide and multiply, even if in simple terms, right? Well, if the ability to think, that philosophy can teach, would be as inbuilt as that then I believe we'd possibly have a much better society.

 

[Øjeblikket]

Should philosophy be required?

Life does not revolve around a college campus. I don't see any indication that higher education has failed anything by reserving philosophical thought for those drawn towards it.

asking that others possess a characteristic of smart that is ideal rather than real is also forceful.

 

[Pull The Plug]

You get disruptive and disinterested people in every class that's a general requirement. They're in the science classes, math classes, etc. College freshmen and sophomores generally don't take their education seriously.

If you don't see any point in forcing people to take classes they're not interested in then why just stop with philosophy? Hey, if someone's not interested in their general requirement science class, why should they have to take it? Why don't the universities just drop their general requirements altogether? Philosophy is a legitimate academic discipline. I see no good reason why people should be forced to take math and science classes and not philosophy. Also, most people don't even know what philosophy is, so who are they to say they're not interested? Believe me, you'd be surprised at the ridiculous questions people ask me about philosophy.

...

Things like literature, math and so on are forced to be taken because you actually need them to function properly in daily society. You don't need philosophy to do that.

Most people don't know what many of the subjects are at their university, college etc... Should they be forced to take these too? If so how would an obscene amount of classes fit into their schedules?

You are far too biased as to how important and required philosophy actually is.

 

[derek]

I feel the need to reiterate, yet again, that its not philosophy as a SUBJECT but the skills philosophy can TEACH YOU which are being seen as required here.

Also, I'd argue the ability to think and question should be MORE important than the learning of mathematics and literature.