I posted recently on the asinine move to refocus politics on the state mandated pursuit of happiness. Frank Faludi’s acerbic piece on the politics of happiness has now inspired an RMIT philosopher, apparently still quite chipper despite working in a postmodern university, to rush into print with a defence of happiness as an educational goal.
For example, Stoic philosopher Epictetus argued that it is not events in themselves that disturb us but the view we take of them. Insofar as we can learn to dispute and alter our more negative world views and interpretations, we may raise our level of happiness.
Similarly, Socrates is renowned for introducing Socratic method: a way of critically disputing claims to absolute knowledge or certainty.
If one can develop some Socratic ability, one can use it to undermine the fixity of negative world views or judgements, and so be more open-minded and flexible in one’s response to difficulties that may arise in life.
Taking this to an extreme, Socrates argued that no one can really harm true philosophers in their essential happiness. For as long as one has the ability to philosophise, one can effectively defuse the harm and remain serene, even in the face of an unjust execution – as Socrates went on to show with his own courage in facing death.
The problem with this is that it eviscerates philosophy, and strips it of its seriousness. Of its moral as well as its intellectual seriousness.
It reduces philosophy to another species of self-help or personal growth training. Socrates died because he had the courage of his convictions. His serenity did not come about because he was unfailingly smiling. The Epicureans, in reaction, turned their back on the world of events and engagement. The Greeks would not recognise this as either philosophy or happiness (a word so banal I doubt there’s a classical equivalent). Perhaps this shows that you can still dumb down education while teaching the canon. Perhaps it also shows that the assumptions that material things are not everything is one made inevitably by those quite comfortable about their level of material achievenent.
Or perhaps it shows that we need to read more unhappy philosophers. I doubt very much that Dr Miller was what Nietzsche had in mind when he predicted the arrival of the philosophers of the future.
From the article:
This is a very unsatisfactory dichotomy. One step is missing and it is the most important step of all. Informative education is really only the primary goal at primary school – the 3 Rs.
In order to change the way one perceives the world and interprets the data, one first of all has to learn *how* to perceive and interpret it. This philosopher has skipped from what is essentially rote learning to ‘normative conversion’ and totally left out ‘critical thinking skills’ which is what a good education in anything the sciences or the humanities, tries to do. One doesn’t try to convert students to Keynesianism in Macroeconomics nor does one dump Keynesianism into the head as a fact to memorise, one teaches economics as tool box with Keynesianism as one of the tools.
and what about awareness of injustice and irrationality, which philosophy surely cultivates? doesn’t that make one unhappy?
I’d just love to know what Kevin Donnelly thinks about this. I suspect he’d be caught between a rock and a hard place. But I read in the Australian Julie Bishop has commissioned a report comparing school curricula across the states. I’m sure Kevin’s writing a tender as we speak. If there are tenders. I might put one in if there are. After all, the Federal Government allocates consultancies through a transparent process and purely on merit.
On the second point, Jason, yes, indeed. That’s my beef (well, one of them). It seems to be about accustoming people to uncritical acceptance of the world as it is. Some sort of misunderstood version of Hegel’s “The real is the rational”. I also can’t see how he has moral grounds for judging money as not automatically conducive to happiness (though he’s a bit ambiguous on that – perhaps that’s why).
Yes, indeed, and Alain De Botton must surely be the philosopher of the age.
What happened to my comments here last night? It’s not like I’ve been carded or anything have I?
I’ve deleted the Strocchi vs. Pterosaur files, because they had nothing at all to do with this post. I’ve advised Jack that if he wishes to carry on that discussion, he should do it on the open Saturday Salon thread.
Ooh, sorry, Nabs, I must have taken one of yours out by mistake.
Also agree with Jason’s second point and with Mark’s comments in support.
I think a far more important issue which the focus on mandatory happiness occludes is: at what point should we reorient our aspirations away from a primarily material and quantitative focus to that of qualitative development and improvement, both individually and as a society. At what point do we decide that we’re materially comfortable enough and that the challenge now is to become fitter and healthier, better educated and informed, more broadly and deeply grounded in music and the arts, better friends, lovers and neighbours, more socially responsible citizens, more humble, civil and communicatively competent bloggers, more moderate consumers of our friends’ Scotch (in Jack Strocchi’s case), etc., etc.
Ecological and biophysical constraints may be about to impose such a reorientation upon us, but it’s worth asking whether it’s worth doing for its own sake.
Such aspirations, arguably even more so than material ones, necessarily involve an element of discontent with who we presently are and a willingness to commit to activities which can be stressful, frustrating, risky and/or involve deferred gratification, yet will make us better for it.
Jeez I hate it when people derail threads…oh, I see Jackerstrocchi’s been redcarded. Knock me down with a Birdfeather.
Back on topic: Mark, you’re quite wrong about the utility of philosophy, stoicism and the Greeks’ approach to philosophy.
There’s nothing banal about using philosophy to understand the self and one’s interaction with the surrounding physical and social environment. Ethics, in its broad sense, was a core part of Greek philosophy, and “self-help or personal growth training” were integral to a “Greek” education. And, yes, “happiness” was enormously important to the aristocracy living in (relatively) luxury, and was studied closely by philosophers. And by that I mean the REAL philosophers, not the McConvills of the classical world. One of them was Socrates, who valued virtue above his own life. He thought this, not surprisingly, because he’d had a good think about what made him happy. That’s not as banal a statement as you might think.
But it’s the following line that really floored me:
Either you haven’t studied stoicism or you’re confusing it with cynicism, because that’s simply untrue. Stoicism was enormously popular in Athens and the Roman republic amongst the MOST engaged citizens, i.e. the aristocracy, and actively promotes engagement with society.
In our contemporary world, materialism=happiness. Because of the failure of education (it is primarily vocational training now) people don’t think to question anything.
Resultantly they are easily manipulated by politicians and capitalists. Philosophy should be taught from kindergarten onwards.
Interesting discussion of an interesting article. However I think this might be a case of shouting “Kill the messenger” after misreading the message.
On the subject of “transformative education”, Miller says (having stated Tal Ben-Shahar’s position, not necessarily his own):
… this seems uncomfortably similar to saying, for example, that a teacher who happens to be a Marxist, or a Christian, should set out to make students Marxists or Christians. Perhaps [Ben-Shahar] needs to allow for a middle position: education is not merely about information, nor about transforming students in a directive way (even if we personally think it would be for their own good). It is about exhibiting and examining the strengths and limits of the logic and reasoning behind any position. Then one stands back and lets students make up their own minds about what to take up for use in their own lives.
His conclusions are worth noting too:
If we are going to teach in this controversial area, we would do well to recognise that not everyone agrees that happiness is the goal of life or education, and to allow this to be up for debate also.
A more open-ended philosophical type of inquiry seems called for that discusses the issues from different angles and does not assume from the outset that a modernist “positive psychology” type of happiness – based on secular values or empirical reasoning and research – is the obvious goal to aim for in life or the right method to use to “transform” students. [my emphasis]
Sorry, but I’m having a bit of trouble accepting that Miller’s article is a defence of happiness as an educational goal.
My apologies, Count Zeno, I meant the Epicureans who refused on principle to participate in public affairs.
I quite agree about ethics and the Greeks, but I don’t think what Miller is suggesting is what they had in mind. However, perhaps he’s constrained by the op/ed format.
I guess as soon as the word ‘Philosophy’ is used, the bulk of the crowd vacates the scene, goes to something more important like State of Origin or Sex and the single Lesbian…
The most important thing any human can achieve in their lives is to closely examine who and what they are. Once they understand that, then they can live their lives meaningfully.
The Ancient Greeks got us started on the right road but we seem to have been waylaid, turned into little better than intellectual sheep.
BAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!
daniel: “…Philosophy should be taught from kindergarten onwards.”
So should chess. And yoga. And music. (not just an instrument, but the way it works, and the quasi-mathematical formal properties it’s built on.)
Chess could be viewed as an engagement with simple forms of philosophy w/r/t space vs. time, rule-based systems, understanding that actions provoke counter-actions, that some courses are smarter than others, etc. Good stuff for kids to know about.
Yoga = a species of philosophy w/r/t one’s own body. Don’t need to swallow all the Sanskrit stuff; the fact that the postures have inner logic and also produces results, oughta be enuf. The kids who don’t like yoga can learn boxing instead. Same difference, plus it comes in handy.
Music = introduction to philosophy w/r/t aesthetics, form, and, in a way, math.
Oh, and plus I forgot — computers for the kids, too, yes? I read somewhere that they’ll be important in the future…
I like jpz’s suggestion, except for the yoga bit. And instead of teaching philosophy which one is really only suited to read once one has come of age, let’s stick to more fundamental things – Logic and Statistics.
I disagree, Jason. I think philosophy is a civilising and liberalising discipline and should be taught from a young age. It is also good mental gymnastics- kind of like yoga for the brain.
I’m with Jason – teaching “philosophy” before kids have critical and logical thinking skills will most likely lead to more people misunderstanding what philosophy actually is and what it is for. You can teach children to question – but you have to do it carefully, lest they come away thinking you should never believe anything.
Well, if we’re going to teach kids philosophy we should start with one of our homegrown philosophers
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2006/05/03/deductive-bivalent-exactitude-versus-rightful-certitude/
If you was gonna teach kids philosophy, I reckon the best way to start would be to make them read “Nancy” comics. Ernie Bushmiller was the Wittgenstein of the comics world! Sure, early “Peanuts” is funnier, but “Peanuts” only *talks about* philosophy, whereas Nancy and Sluggo and Aunt Fritzi *are* philosophy!
It’s also an interesting philosophical conundrum just to try and explain *why* “Nancy” is so fucking funny.
From there, you could go on to the more advanced pursuits, like “Krazy Kat” and Elzie Segar’s original “Popeye.” If Ernie Bushmiller is Wittgenstein, then maybe George Herriman is –I dunno, who?– maybe Heidegger; or maybe Teilhard de Chardin. But Segar is more of a grand old-fashioned type, like Kant or something.
’scuse me, all this krazy talk has now given me the “urge” to go “throw” a “brick”…
Anna says: lest they come away thinking you should never believe anything.
But surely, Anna, that is the point of philosophy, to question everything, take nothing for granted. If you start small children thinking that everything you tell them is true, then they never think to question.
Of course, power-hungry politicians, religious rorters, and capitalist crooks don’t want questioners!
Actually, teaching children philosophy is well established. My brother (who’s now 18) had experience of it when he was in year 6. I think it’s mostly getting kids to reflect on ethical questions and to work through these.
When I was in high school, we did 2 years of a subject called “Logic” in years 11 and 12 which took us through symbolic logic, arguments & critical thinking and some ethical and moral philosophy.
Some info on philosophy for kids here:
http://philosophy.arts.unsw.edu.au/contacts/associations/p4c/p4c_nsw.htm
I believe it’s also big in the States.
Well if teaching Logic and Statistics as part of a program of teaching critical thinking skills is what Daniel means by philosophy then that’s fine with me. But I hope he’s not imagining teaching them some potted summary of Plato or Nietzsche because that’s what I was alluding to when I said I thought that sort of thing was only suitable after you’d done enough reading over a long period of time. Also I read from Daniel’s comment that:
“The most important thing any human can achieve in their lives is to closely examine who and what they are”
that he saw philosophy as some self-help, introspective narcissism thing which is precisely what we want to avoid. Basically education should be about equipping people with intellectual toolboxes. The normative stuff should be up to them as much as possible.
Mark, if the teaching of philosophy and its questioning dimension is bigtime in the U.S., how come Americans elected Bush?
Jason, how do you disentangle the tools of thinking from the substance of vital questions about who and what we are and how should we live?
Seems to me like acquiring a box of tools but not using the tools to make anything.
That’s a bit simplistic, Daniel, in two ways. First, what I meant was that I’d read that the movement for teaching philosophy in school is growing in the US. That’s to be welcomed. Secondly, Bush won by about 3 points. It’s wrong to stigmatise Americans for not questioning things – many do, and the same accusation could be made against Australians since we elected Howard. But of course not all of us voted for him, and lots of us question things.
Americans certainly question things. They questioned Kerry, and he was found wanting. My guess is that many of the people who voted for Bush did so with a heavy heart, simply because they felt the alternative was not a good idea. And that they came to this decision having, y’know, reasons.
I love that people must be “stupid” if they don’t choose the same things the “smart” people would like them to. Which ‘philosophy’ has Daniel been reading — Glorious Mao Zedong Thought?
I divide people, not into smart or stupid, but those who question and those who don’t.
How come kids who begin life so intensely curious about everything typically end up as non-thinking adults? Instead of throwing silly labels about, let’s ask some pertinent questions about our educations system.
My point, Daniel, is that you have to be very careful when you tell kids to “question everythingâ€? – you need to teach them how to question, and when to accept things.
Kids are at school to learn things, but they won’t get very far if they are not able to distinguish between questioning astrology, and questioning their maths teacher.
There’s a danger that if we teach kids a simplistic “question everything� theme before they have the skills to find the answers they’re looking for, then it’s going to be difficult to get kids to learn anything at all.
Good point, Anna. Children of course need certainty in some things otherwise they become anxious. Jason’s point about not letting them become involved with the heavy ‘intellectual’ philosophising is also valid.
As with all things, there is a delicate line to walk. But, given the chaotic state of our world, we need to do something quickly. People who question are not easily manipulated.
Daniel: “…those who question and those who don’t…”
Fair enough, bro.
Anna — Yeah, makes sense. Did kids ever walk around in Oz wearing those imbecilic ‘Question Authority’ buttons? I always wanted to see one that read, ‘Question the People Who Question Authority, Too.’
Quis inquiriet ipsos inquisitores?
This might be a regression but there was a good piece in the SMH today and in a deliciously incestuous twist it comes from a co-editor of Arena.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/recipe-for-happiness-a-subjective-matter/2006/05/24/1148150325451.html
Key line – “Beyond the obvious, such as reducing inequality and ensuring people have access to decent services, happiness is a hopelessly inadequate guide to what we ought to do.”
I’m still a defender of happiness as a political goal, but not in any sense that would bring about a society fixated on Tenacious D and ignorant of Joni Mitchell and Billie Holiday, Chopin and Radiohead (see the article.) To plug back into the topic, how should/do we introduce music to the little ones. It could be an opportunity to combat short attention spans.
Happiness. Maybe the term’s too loaded. So what then? I don’t know. Maybe an examination of melancholy might be an interesting place to start
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195129628/102-8640876-0123338?v=glance&n=283155
I think we are underestimating kids and also underestimating the constructors of curricula for (especially) primary schools. All branches of philosophy were taught at Buranda State School where Mark’s brother attended Years 5-7 from 1998-2000. And to (‘with’ is a better word) all age levels.
Certainly there was emphasis on ethics as they integrated it with their Behaviour Management program. Real-life problems were taken back into the classroom for discussion, analysis and reflection.
As far as I know there was no studying of the works and thought of great philosophers. Rather they were thinking and discussing in a philosophical manner concepts that were rooted in their experiential reality. As a parent I attended a demonstration lesson conducted by Dr Phillip Cam of the University of NSW. The topic of the day was ‘change’ (chosen in discussion with the children.)
One 12 year-old boy was arguing vigorously the notion that we change every minute, every second, because of the chemicals, the atoms and molecules within us or that we are comprised of. A girl was arguing equally strenuously that we have constant identifying features, that I am still me and still have the same name etc, so everyone can see it and everyone knows it. The rest were eagerly listening or throwing in comments. The session ended with one of the children giving a summary of the discussion. Then they did an evaluation of how well they went that day.
Even superficially I thought the kids learnt at least three things:
1. That you need to have solid reasons for your views and opinions and support them with logical argument if challenged.
2. To listen.
3. To respect the views of others.
The Buranda program got a lot of support from Phillip Cam. At that time the Catholic Education Office in Queensland was also promoting Philosophy in Catholic primary schools, probably still are.
The Principal at Buranda told us that research had shown that the academic performance of all kids (not just the gifted) was enhanced by the incorporation of Philosophy into the primary curriculum and that the advantages carried through into secondary school even if the study of philosophy didn’t.
The Principal told me that our bloke had gained a lot of respect from the other kids through his contributions and had become much more confident in expressing his ideas.
I kanow they did some formal logic, but I’m not sure how it was taught. I also know from chat between our bloke and the other kid I used to drive across town to the school that they were quite keen on the philosophy program.
j_p_z, I always liked those 80s bumper stickers that said:
Just sayin…
Going back to the original post before laying my head to rest, I did hear an American talking about this on Life Matters recently and I don’t see teaching happiness as having much or anything to do with philosophy.
But if anyone can teach kids that all actions have consequences, that if you are pleasant to people they usually respond pleasantly to you, and beyond that if you concern yourself with genuinely contributing to the happiness of others (as distinct from being a busy-body) you’ll probably feel better yourself, it would do no harm.
It seems that if you want to teach manners and civility you have to convince kids that they will themselves gain thereby.
When I was in India there was a school in Sarnath that taught primary school kids not only what letters of the alphabet and numbers meant but also that these letters/numbers themselves are just made up from lines. In turn these lines were made up of dots and these dots were made up of….down to never being able to find an actual starting point.
They were then taught that although the students caught find any absolute existance for the alphabet letters/numbers, they still existed because their minds perceived them as existing, and more importantly they functioned logically in their society.
I tad different from my primary school education!
oops
“caught” should read “could not” (in the above post)
cal, that’s very impressive!
Problem with educational institutions teaching philosophy is that they work on a learn-regurgitate-reward system. Questioning, whic should be the basis of all philosophy, is somewhat inimical.
How you solve this problem is a big issue!
Cal — sounds like an extrapolation of the old Hindic cosmology, wherein the world rests on an elephant’s back, and the elephant is standing on a tortoise, and the tortoise is standing on… well, nobody knows, precisely.
It’s that “nobody knows” part that has always made me respect the intellectual heritage of India. Strangely, in a world of terra-centric cosmologists, old Indian Buddhists (and were there Brahmins, too? does anyone know?) seem to have been the only ones to infer that maybe the earth *wasn’t* at the center of things, maybe it was just an anonymous speck in a greater cloud of chaos… so they were the only ones to get it right. How they managed, is anyone’s guess. Still, three cheers for them!
I find Brian’s above comments on his experience of philosophy in primary schools enthusing.
I agree very strongly that there is a tendency to under-estimate what children can do. I think Anna’s alarmist comments about kids refusing to do math after a philosophy lessons because it might not have any truth content is unrealistic. It is an argument on the same level as “Oh my, little Johnny might jump off a bridge if he sees Roadrunner push the Coyote off the cliff.”
There is a tendency in the West to rap children up in cotton wool that you don’t see in other cultures. Let’s get over it.
As to the “question everything” strand of thought, we can question things as much as we like but nonethless we must also make assumptions about reality in order to go about our daily lives. We cannot live and choose to do otherwise, as David Hume pointed out. I’m sure a normal ten year old is capable of grasping this concept.
Daniel, that describes philosophy as it was taught at university when I was there. By contrast there was none of that at Buranda when my youngest was there, not in philosophy at least. And all the rewards were intrinsic.
Educators in school have long sought to adopt an enquiry approach to learning. The best teaching involves a lot of it, even in upper secondary where there are formal mastery requirements which are examined at exit.
It is a fact that in the last year of primary school my bloke spent a fair bit of his maths time with another kid solving problems they got off the net.
Brian: “…and all the rewards were intrinsic.”
He shoots, he scores! Best goal of education at the end of the day (maybe even the only goal), I’d say. I’m sure the Greeks had a saying or two on the subject, but I’m far too lazy a man to check on it.
btw, Brian… clean our clocks in tennis? Dust our brooms at golf? Like to see it, AFL or not. Probably you could kill us at swimming, though… what with the necessity for your poor blokes to swim 1,800 miles or so across the Pacific just to get a whiff of a proper civilization…
j_p_z I’m tired and I’ve gotta go to bed.
But do you know that Australians have won 25% of the golf tournaments on tour this year? So OK, that’s probably our quota for the year.
In tennis I’m afraid that the glory days are over. But it’s Europeans rather than Americans, men and women, that I see grabbing most of the glory.
I’ll let the civilisation crack go through to the keeper. (That’s a saying from cricket, so it may only be understandable in British empire countries.)
Cheers
I could be rude and point to Steve Munn as an example of why philosophy should be taught well, or not at all.
Or I could reiterate once more that what I said was not that we shouldn’t reach kids philosophy, but that we should teach it in an appropriate way, lest it mean that kids are “taught” in such a way that they don’t actually learn anything, ever.
I would love it if we could have schools like the one Brian describes. But we have to be very careful about how it’s done. Otherwise we end up with people who thinks it’s clever to ask “but why?” whenever anyone says anything, without the skills to actually find the answers for themselves.
Brian, I’ve got a boy who is in year 7. He’s never had the type of learning that you talk about even though he attended an opportunity class in Primary school for two years and is now in A-stream classes in High School.
Fortunately, he get lots of exposure to practical philosophical thought (not the abstract, intellectual-wanking type) at home.
I agree with Anna. Wish I’d attended such a school. But then, at University, I was lucky to find a Professor who was brilliant.
Btw I’m not saying there isn’t a role for expository teaching. One of the most inspiring bits of my university education was a lecture from a visiting scholar on the early English novel. He just paced up and down in front of the podium looking down most of the time and seemed to be thinking aloud.
You could hear a pin drop in the largish auditorium apart from the sound of his voice.
Anna Winter says: “I could be rude and point to Steve Munn as an example of why philosophy should be taught well, or not at all.”
What? You being rude? Now that would be completely out of character.