"To complete the education of young men and women and permit them to think."
Yes. Perfect. This is important, they're doing it right. I would venture to say that the specialization of the US education system, and the increased specialization especially in Engineering and Computer Sciences and in the sciences in general, is one of the largest problems in higher education today.
It's so important to learn how to think, to learn how to learn, to learn how fields are connected and interrelated even in indirect ways, and simply to learn that knowledge you cannot directly use still has value in its ability to train your mind to think about problems and make connections in new ways.
I am supremely thankful for my Bachelor of Arts in Comp Sci, for it gave me the freedom to take classes outside Engineering, in the arts. This liberal (aka comprehensive, varied, generous) arts education makes my computer science education flourish, and I believe has made me into the well-balanced person I am today.
What we need today are not people who can think intensely about one subject—we need people who can think about how to think, and apply that to anything. Well, we need both, surely, but we need some more generalists, or perhaps specialists who aren't myopic. We're getting overspecialized in the US, I think.
This is totally anecdotal, but isn't the US (especially at the college level) more focused on a "broader" education? My cousin got a BA in international relations in the US and then went and attended school in Spain. Something like only 1/4 of his credits counted towards his degree there even though nearly all of them transferred. His explanation was that they expect less of a broad education and more specialization.
Recalling my own experience I got a BA in political science and I spent something like 30 hours in my major, and 90+ in general education.
It seems as though many people on HN (and in general) talk about how we need more STEM majors, but then complain that a degree that's very highly technical isn't broad enough. If you want people to graduate in a reasonable amount of time than it almost has to be one or another.
I completely disagree. If anything we are under-specialized. We are pumping out liberal arts grads who have no skills that can pay back their loans. We have created a culture of middle managers without people to manage.
As someone who has observed European education from afar, my impression is that the Bac (more like a high school diploma in the US) is broad, but their college is very specialized. This is true in both the UK (from the source of the admiring article) and France.
This isn't to say better or worse - it's just a tradeoff.
Today I believe we stand on the edge of a new age of synthesis. In all intellectual fields, from the hard sciences to sociology, psychology, and economics—especially economics—we are likely to see a return to large-scale thinking, to general theory, to the putting of the pieces back together again. For it is beginning to dawn on us that our obsessive emphasis on quantified detail without context, on progressively finer and finer measurement of smaller and smaller problems, leaves us knowing more and more about less and less. - Alvin Toffler
Reminds me of my university (Stellenbosch University). Also had an odd combination.
Started studying a Bachelor of Commerce in Computer Science (lots of maths, financial stats, etc). Then I switched to a Bachelor of Commerce in Socio-Informatics and Marketing (less technical programming, more applied work). However, socio-informatics is actually an Arts degree (it includes courses such as management theory and systems design).
So during my time at university I did science (maths, computer science, stats, programming), finance/business (accounting, financial planning, marketing, entrepreneurship) and arts (philosophy of systems, sensemaking, organization theory).
While I have no issue with this in younger students, forcing some folks to continue to study subjects in which they have no interest, would simply have driven us round the bend and made us lose interest in education entirely.
I specialised to mathematical and scientific subjects exclusively at the age of 15, and would have it no other way. Cultural learning I can pick up informally as and when I want to.
I always find that "learning how to think" idea as an elusive concept. It is being a skepticist? An ultrarascionalist agent? A relativist?
In general it is a paradox, because educational systems would try to teach you how to think and at the end you realize that there was a hidden agenda that makes you think and combat them. While others combat you too.
I would hardly call sitting down and writing a 4 hour test "doing it right" when it comes to philosophy. In my opinion, philosophy is a mandatory subject but it should be focused on debate, not essay-writing.
(BA Philosophy here) The biggest problem is that philosophy courses, all too often, are actually "History of Philosophy" courses. Regurgitating Plato or Descartes becomes the objective, rather than applying logic and philosophical methods to modern problems.
Everyone really should take class in Symbolic Logic.
I'm currently taking the History of Philosophy podcast [1] and my major takeaway is this: even a cursory understanding of the history of philosophy deepens your understanding of Western thought as everything from art and literature to religion and politics has its roots in philosophy. Not that I would have anything against people learning symbolic logic, of course.
(MA Philosophy here) You're right that most philosophy that's taught to people not majoring in it is really more about literature and culture than it is about philosophy proper. I also agree that it might make sense to focus more on logic and philosophical methods, or on philosophical problems and how different philosophers approach them.
But do you really believe that mastering e.g. basic predicate logic is going to make anyone smarter? The same argument is often made for mathematics but invariably without proof.
Of-course a website full of programmers would recommend Symbolic Logic. I've never ever found it useful.
On the other hand classes on ethics (which illustrate how not black and white the world is) and social philosophy (which present ethical models on which to base our society) both have been invaluable.
I'd be interested to hear where you did your BA. In my experience in the UK and US, the focus is much more on using philosophical arguments than regurgitating them (sometimes even to the exclusion of understanding the context, which makes Plato and Descartes just seem like they are making terrible arguments). I've heard that in France the focus is much more historical, though.
Good article. I'm french and I did this (but in science, not literature like in the article). I've also been to US college for one semester and I had the chance to take an "Intro to Philosophy" freshman class. So I've had two formal introductory philosophy classes, in different languages, cultures and contexts, but definitely aimed at the same public (17-19 y. old). It's quite interesting to compare these two. In France the focus was definitely more on authors, philosophical theories, texts and ideas. In America the material was more on reasoning, logic and formal arguments. Never once were we presented a formal Modus Ponens layout in France. We were told never to write our own ideas in our essays --- "You'll do that if you get a master in philosophy". However the American class had too much of "learn those 10 arguments by heart" I would say. So they definitely had subtle and interesting differences.
Of course both had their share of "how the hell is this relevant to my life" reactions. But also those invaluable "ahah" moments, which make philosophy so wonderful. Hacking has this too. You walk out of the classroom with new cognitive pathways that you didn't know you had. You'll never see the world with the same eyes again.
"You walk out of the classroom with new cognitive pathways that you didn't know you had. You'll never see the world with the same eyes again."
I couldn't have put it better myself.
I came into my required undergraduate philosophy course doubting that I'd get anything out of it (having mostly finish the undergrad physics+math majors)... and I was pleasantly surprised.
Yeah, that's the biggest misunderstanding about the teaching of philosophy in France. At the start you think "Cool, I'm going to learn to think by myself!", though what you actually do is learn what other famous thinker have been thinking, and spit it out in your personal fashion.
It really has little to do with thinking by yourself, it's more about answering an open question by cleverly articulating school of thought.
Quite disappointing , but still very enlightening (even more if your teacher is cool).
My university (in USA) has a rather large set of required "core" courses, the inner core of which are a full year of literature and a full year of western philosophy. We read and discuss, in these two years, on the order of 40 classic works (!) of philosophy and literature. I personally believe that this is an excellent experience for those who have had minimal contact with the world of humanities.
As a math+physics student with a bunch of friends in my university's engineering school, I hear all too often engineers disparaging the humanities as "useless", "bullshit", etc. and it's really quite disappointing and close-minded. They simply miss out on an incredibly important and fundamental part of the human experience. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance (historical or otherwise) of philosophy and literature, to the point where I would expect anyone who considers himself an "intellectual" to have had at least brief experiences with the humanities (or at least thought about difficult philosophical questions or whatnot on his own time).
For better or worse, a great deal of humanities (especially philosophy) has been rendered defunct (i.e., it's "bullshit") due to advances in science. So before studying philosophy one should study science, so that one knows what to keep and what to discard.
There's nothing worse than listening to a young person who is an eager proponent of, say, "postmodernist philosophy" when you know that he hasn't a whit of knowledge about evolution or science in general. I usually mumble "that's interesting" and shuffle off to another conversation.
But your point is well taken: philosophy still has much to contribute - a great deal of it passes through the scientific filter unscathed. But it is important to study science first. Only then does one have a firm foundation for examining philosophy.
I would have thought "intellectuals" to be mostly (if not only) people focusing on the humanities (be it litterature, philosophy, history, social sciences...). For me (and every frenchman I think) at least, this word does not apply at all to people who are only proficient in hard sciences or engineering.
I'm french and before anyone write how wonderful this is let me explain how it goes :
We have 1 course of philosophy on our last highschool year (if you're doing a scientific baccalauréat).
(Along with math, biology, physics, french, history/geography, english, a second langage and a third option (which can be a third langage, it was chinese for me)).
No one wants to sit through a philosophy class in High School. It was the "boring class" we had to pass. It was "too soon".
Then in university we have this mandatory SHS which means human and social science course, which is basicaly philosophy for bachelors.
(This is in a math degree)
It's not more interresting, it's just that people are more mature and are more interrested in the topic. Way better than forcing it to kids in highschool who are still living at their parents imo.
Generally speaking, I think today's philosophy courses should focus on the big historical picture with emphasis on modern philosophers, as opposed to studying tomes like The Republic in painful detail. While it's easy to get lost in a sea of infinitely regressing metaphysics, I think there's value in applied philosophy (I don't think philosophy is useful in isolation).
1. The scientific method. Starting from the logical positivist school of thought, philosophers are converging at falsifiability as the primary criterion (cf. Popper, Wittgenstein).
2. Justice. Starting with rather crude notions of utilitarianism, it is possible to construct a transcendental notion of justice that is based on fairness (cf. Rawls, Sen). It is also possible to approach it from a theory on transcendental morality (cf. Kant).
3. Consciousness. This is a rather tricky topic that can be tackled by an analytical philosopher who has studied some neuroscience (cf. Metzinger).
4. Tackling the free will problem. When tackled in isolation, there is a dichotomy between compatibilism and incompatibilism (cf. Schopenhauer). However, attempts have been made to derive it from quantum decoherence and MWI (cf. Yudkowsky on LessWrong [1]).
5. Foundations of mathematics. While there are prominent platonists (cf. Gödel), there are several alternative approaches to the problem (cf. Spinoza, Hilbert).
To conclude, I'd say that some training in philosophical thought is essential to enabling the student in thinking about various questions that pop up during her lifetime. The goal is not to get definitive answers, but to have a good consistent framework to think in.
If students are free to express their thought, and graded on how coherent an argument they put forward, then this is great.
If it's about mucking up and memorizing someone else's thoughts (that you probably don't even agree with), then it's terrible.
I don't know which of above it is; but I will say, the examples in that article are splendid ("Is truth preferable to peace?", "Does power exist without violence?", etc.) These are things students should really think about; and I think it's great that it's mandatory for everyone (if it's being done right).
I have passed the scientific variant of the baccalaureat, which only includes 5 hours a week of Philosohpy, so I can't talk for those who are in the literary variant. However, in my experience it has been mostly about coming up with a coherent reasoning, structuring it, and conveying it propely in a 4-8 pages long written argument.
History (in general) gave us a great deal of examples, but we did not study the ancient and modern philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, Nietzshe, Schopenhauer) just for the sake of knowing them.
I think it's great to do that in high school ; however a lot of students found it extremely hard and struggled to find value in it. (But then again, they struggled to find value in anything we did)
Students are perfectly free to express their thoughts. I was when I took the Baccalauréat in 2000, and I did fairly well (though it was the scientific Baccalauréat, where expectations in philosophy are not very high to begin with).
That said it doesn't mean that you shouldn't memorize anything at all, otherwise you are soon going to run short on ideas. Think about it as building software on top of existing libraries rather than rewriting all from scratch.
Take "Is truth preferable to peace?" for instance. Maybe it could bring you into a utilitarianism vs consequentialism debate (that's where I would go anyway, but I guess there are other interesting approaches). But if you've never studied these, well, good luck reinventing the wheel...
in theory it's a great idea but in practice it isn't.
for example those question aren't meant for you think about when they give these kind of question they are expecting a specific kind of things to find in your writing which have nothing to do with your opinion,answer by a yes or no and give them your arguments ,you'll get a big zero faster than the speed of light.
In general many commenters have a misconception that the mentioned French "baccalaureate" is related to the US/UK undergraduate bachelor's degree. As the article points out, and the corresponding wikipedia page hints at, this somewhat roughly translates to a high school diploma in the US, the British A-levels, the German Abitur, etc.
There is an interesting comment that illustrates the distinction between US/Europe education systems by observing that in Europe high schools are general followed by focused specific subject studies, whereas in the US there is a lot of focusing already happening in the high schools. Interestingly, though, there seems to be a general education requirement for an undergraduate degree; since I am from Europe this seems to have the purpose of ensuring that all admitted students get to the same level before specializing.
If you want a Master of Technology in Norway, you need to take examen philosophicum at your university. In theory it's nice. I think it's a valuable thing to learn, and interesting to see the roots of the science I'm working with. However, it has some issues. Especially that when I had it, it was more a history lesson about philosophy. They are changing the subject a bit now, to be more relevant, so I hope they also change it to include more thinking and less memorizing what he or she (mostly he, unfortunately) may have meant.
So, in theory I like it, but the execution is not the best.
I think history of philosophy is very important, though.
If you don't understand Hegel you won't understand Adorno as fully, frinstance. Whether or not understanding Adorno is important is another issue entirely.
Similarly, seeing the vibrant debate as it unfolds through time prepares you for the lack of consensus and sheer vitriol among modern philosophers.
History of philosophy is essentially the history of thought itself, and as such is invaluable.
Perhaps it should be taught under the name "history of philosophy" rather than "philosophy" though?
During my studies I've been forced to learn lots of things I don't care for. BUT that's good. If school didn't force me to learn them, I would never have. Sometimes they turn out to be interesting, but not always. The good thing is that now, I'm 100% sure those particular fields are not for me. "Know your enemy." That's why I learn windows server...
Many comments underline the fact that learning philosophical theories is not philosophy, and thinking by yourself is better, and all this stuff.
I think it is very arrogant of we contemporary people to think that 17 something kids can think by themselves and should not need to dig the past to answer such important questions.
And in a philosophy class, as I received them in France when I was young, the teacher would expose contradictory positions and let you prefer the one you want. So, yes, you'd get a low score if you wouldn't name Plato on a question about idealism, but you would get the best score if you show personal and deep understanding of the topic.
>I think it is very arrogant of we contemporary people to think that 17 something kids can think by themselves and should not need to dig the past to answer such important questions.
Surely this depends on whether you are trying to imbue them with the correct answers or a deeper understanding of the question? Both are valid objectives but I could believe emphasising one would often be at a detriment to the other.
I was startled by the word "master" in the submission title, but it's in the original article title, so it's good to have that word here. I think that MASTERING philosophy is not easy, as my late dad, a chemistry major who also did extensive study of philosophy as he considered a career in researching the philosophy of science, never stopped reading about philosophy throughout his life. He quoted to me the saying from about a century ago that all Western philosophy is just footnotes to Plato, and yet the footnotes keep gaining more elaboration and nuance over time. I'm not sure that anyone really masters philosophy. My oldest son had three year-long courses in philosophy as the core courses in the Stanford University Online High School,
and he is still thinking about philosophical issues as he pursues his career as a programmer in New York City's startup scene.
That said, what has this curriculum requirement done for France? Is France dealing better with assimilating immigrants, or figuring out full employment for young people, or managing sustainable energy supplies, or doing any other kind of problem-solving in the real world better than other countries? If so, what? If not, why not? Does France indeed have a systematic educational advantage from its program of school philosophy courses, or is this just one more mandatory school requirement that many students blow off?
I saw this headline and it reminded me of a talk I went to yesterday that was held at NYU as part of the World Science Festival 2013. The talk was title "Refining Einstein: New Theories of Time" and the guests were:Paul Davies, Craig Callender, Tim Maudlin, and Max Tegmark. Tim is a philosopher, while Max is a physicist and Max kept making an analogy between the "French" speaking (like him, metaphorically and referring to physics concepts) and the "German" speaking Tim. Essentially saying that the German speaking Tim (no really, just metaphorically) constraints his understanding of time to coordinate systems, while him, the French speaking Max, does not constrain himself to that. The video may be posted at http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos at a later time and you can check it out.
In any case, what I learned is the philosophy questions everything and sometimes this is good and sometimes it can be troubling because people really believe what they think they understand - this is true in any field. However, one thing that bothers me is that history shows that just as some group thinks they have it figured out, another group/person comes and changes all that (e.g. Feynman, Einstein) and then another group rises from that thinking they are right again - the cycle continues.
One last thought is about my first philosophy class, which I very much enjoyed, but the lack of happiness of my professor's face was scary and troubling. After the class, I had so many questions about who I was, my religion, the air I breath, and the things I see/feel, etc. So much questioning cannot be too healthy for the human mind, but philosophical specialization is probably what prevents insanity (I hope).
Unfortunately, they don't take economics as seriously. The combination of economics and philosophy is, in my opinion, far more empowering in terms of better decisions (both personally and politically) than any other coursework I have ever had. But at least they get the philosphy...we get fact memorization for test taking.
From a casual reading of the wikipedia article it appears that there are Baccalauréat qualifications (professional, technology) that you can obtain without a philosophy test.
So philosophy seems a requirement for the general Baccalauréat.
I agree, I've been saying it for years that there should be two mandatory modules on every university course: Philosophy and Physical Education. The baseline of requirement is a formed body and a formed mind.
Universities in Poland do at least PE and in most cases have an introduction to philosophy in first year. I moved to England to study and I was shocked to discover they don't care about this at all.
Philosophy and personal finance are two extremes that should be covered in K-12 but are not part of any standardized test so no public school is going to use resources for them. As a result we are at great risk overall of having a nation of shallow-minded, debt-enslaved consumers.
It is also compulsory if you follow the International Baccalaureate program, under the name of Theory of Knowledge. I think this is extremely useful for future social / natural scientists and engineers.
[+] [-] calinet6|12 years ago|reply
Yes. Perfect. This is important, they're doing it right. I would venture to say that the specialization of the US education system, and the increased specialization especially in Engineering and Computer Sciences and in the sciences in general, is one of the largest problems in higher education today.
It's so important to learn how to think, to learn how to learn, to learn how fields are connected and interrelated even in indirect ways, and simply to learn that knowledge you cannot directly use still has value in its ability to train your mind to think about problems and make connections in new ways.
I am supremely thankful for my Bachelor of Arts in Comp Sci, for it gave me the freedom to take classes outside Engineering, in the arts. This liberal (aka comprehensive, varied, generous) arts education makes my computer science education flourish, and I believe has made me into the well-balanced person I am today.
What we need today are not people who can think intensely about one subject—we need people who can think about how to think, and apply that to anything. Well, we need both, surely, but we need some more generalists, or perhaps specialists who aren't myopic. We're getting overspecialized in the US, I think.
En d'autres termes, bonne travail France!
[+] [-] jsonne|12 years ago|reply
Recalling my own experience I got a BA in political science and I spent something like 30 hours in my major, and 90+ in general education.
It seems as though many people on HN (and in general) talk about how we need more STEM majors, but then complain that a degree that's very highly technical isn't broad enough. If you want people to graduate in a reasonable amount of time than it almost has to be one or another.
[+] [-] wdewind|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mathattack|12 years ago|reply
This isn't to say better or worse - it's just a tradeoff.
[+] [-] draggnar|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simondlr|12 years ago|reply
Started studying a Bachelor of Commerce in Computer Science (lots of maths, financial stats, etc). Then I switched to a Bachelor of Commerce in Socio-Informatics and Marketing (less technical programming, more applied work). However, socio-informatics is actually an Arts degree (it includes courses such as management theory and systems design).
So during my time at university I did science (maths, computer science, stats, programming), finance/business (accounting, financial planning, marketing, entrepreneurship) and arts (philosophy of systems, sensemaking, organization theory).
Loved it!
[+] [-] Nursie|12 years ago|reply
I specialised to mathematical and scientific subjects exclusively at the age of 15, and would have it no other way. Cultural learning I can pick up informally as and when I want to.
[+] [-] wslh|12 years ago|reply
In general it is a paradox, because educational systems would try to teach you how to think and at the end you realize that there was a hidden agenda that makes you think and combat them. While others combat you too.
[+] [-] otibom|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cheez|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] keiferski|12 years ago|reply
Everyone really should take class in Symbolic Logic.
[+] [-] arkitaip|12 years ago|reply
[1] www.historyofphilosophy.net/
[+] [-] stdbrouw|12 years ago|reply
But do you really believe that mastering e.g. basic predicate logic is going to make anyone smarter? The same argument is often made for mathematics but invariably without proof.
[+] [-] temp453463343|12 years ago|reply
On the other hand classes on ethics (which illustrate how not black and white the world is) and social philosophy (which present ethical models on which to base our society) both have been invaluable.
[+] [-] voyou|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] specialist|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] protomyth|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acous|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] otibom|12 years ago|reply
Of course both had their share of "how the hell is this relevant to my life" reactions. But also those invaluable "ahah" moments, which make philosophy so wonderful. Hacking has this too. You walk out of the classroom with new cognitive pathways that you didn't know you had. You'll never see the world with the same eyes again.
[+] [-] nilaykumar|12 years ago|reply
I couldn't have put it better myself. I came into my required undergraduate philosophy course doubting that I'd get anything out of it (having mostly finish the undergrad physics+math majors)... and I was pleasantly surprised.
[+] [-] chevreuil|12 years ago|reply
Quite disappointing , but still very enlightening (even more if your teacher is cool).
[+] [-] nilaykumar|12 years ago|reply
As a math+physics student with a bunch of friends in my university's engineering school, I hear all too often engineers disparaging the humanities as "useless", "bullshit", etc. and it's really quite disappointing and close-minded. They simply miss out on an incredibly important and fundamental part of the human experience. It is almost impossible to overstate the significance (historical or otherwise) of philosophy and literature, to the point where I would expect anyone who considers himself an "intellectual" to have had at least brief experiences with the humanities (or at least thought about difficult philosophical questions or whatnot on his own time).
[+] [-] giardini|12 years ago|reply
There's nothing worse than listening to a young person who is an eager proponent of, say, "postmodernist philosophy" when you know that he hasn't a whit of knowledge about evolution or science in general. I usually mumble "that's interesting" and shuffle off to another conversation.
But your point is well taken: philosophy still has much to contribute - a great deal of it passes through the scientific filter unscathed. But it is important to study science first. Only then does one have a firm foundation for examining philosophy.
[+] [-] Jacqued|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] charlieflowers|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baby|12 years ago|reply
We have 1 course of philosophy on our last highschool year (if you're doing a scientific baccalauréat).
(Along with math, biology, physics, french, history/geography, english, a second langage and a third option (which can be a third langage, it was chinese for me)).
No one wants to sit through a philosophy class in High School. It was the "boring class" we had to pass. It was "too soon".
Then in university we have this mandatory SHS which means human and social science course, which is basicaly philosophy for bachelors.
(This is in a math degree)
It's not more interresting, it's just that people are more mature and are more interrested in the topic. Way better than forcing it to kids in highschool who are still living at their parents imo.
[+] [-] nicholassmith|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacalata|12 years ago|reply
Except, presumably, those kids who choose to do the philosophy bac?
[+] [-] artagnon|12 years ago|reply
1. The scientific method. Starting from the logical positivist school of thought, philosophers are converging at falsifiability as the primary criterion (cf. Popper, Wittgenstein).
2. Justice. Starting with rather crude notions of utilitarianism, it is possible to construct a transcendental notion of justice that is based on fairness (cf. Rawls, Sen). It is also possible to approach it from a theory on transcendental morality (cf. Kant).
3. Consciousness. This is a rather tricky topic that can be tackled by an analytical philosopher who has studied some neuroscience (cf. Metzinger).
4. Tackling the free will problem. When tackled in isolation, there is a dichotomy between compatibilism and incompatibilism (cf. Schopenhauer). However, attempts have been made to derive it from quantum decoherence and MWI (cf. Yudkowsky on LessWrong [1]).
5. Foundations of mathematics. While there are prominent platonists (cf. Gödel), there are several alternative approaches to the problem (cf. Spinoza, Hilbert).
To conclude, I'd say that some training in philosophical thought is essential to enabling the student in thinking about various questions that pop up during her lifetime. The goal is not to get definitive answers, but to have a good consistent framework to think in.
[1]: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will_(solution)
[+] [-] winter_blue|12 years ago|reply
If it's about mucking up and memorizing someone else's thoughts (that you probably don't even agree with), then it's terrible.
I don't know which of above it is; but I will say, the examples in that article are splendid ("Is truth preferable to peace?", "Does power exist without violence?", etc.) These are things students should really think about; and I think it's great that it's mandatory for everyone (if it's being done right).
[+] [-] Jacqued|12 years ago|reply
History (in general) gave us a great deal of examples, but we did not study the ancient and modern philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, Nietzshe, Schopenhauer) just for the sake of knowing them.
I think it's great to do that in high school ; however a lot of students found it extremely hard and struggled to find value in it. (But then again, they struggled to find value in anything we did)
[+] [-] Xixi|12 years ago|reply
That said it doesn't mean that you shouldn't memorize anything at all, otherwise you are soon going to run short on ideas. Think about it as building software on top of existing libraries rather than rewriting all from scratch.
Take "Is truth preferable to peace?" for instance. Maybe it could bring you into a utilitarianism vs consequentialism debate (that's where I would go anyway, but I guess there are other interesting approaches). But if you've never studied these, well, good luck reinventing the wheel...
[+] [-] boulem|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sb|12 years ago|reply
There is an interesting comment that illustrates the distinction between US/Europe education systems by observing that in Europe high schools are general followed by focused specific subject studies, whereas in the US there is a lot of focusing already happening in the high schools. Interestingly, though, there seems to be a general education requirement for an undergraduate degree; since I am from Europe this seems to have the purpose of ensuring that all admitted students get to the same level before specializing.
[+] [-] maaaats|12 years ago|reply
So, in theory I like it, but the execution is not the best.
[+] [-] James_Duval|12 years ago|reply
If you don't understand Hegel you won't understand Adorno as fully, frinstance. Whether or not understanding Adorno is important is another issue entirely.
Similarly, seeing the vibrant debate as it unfolds through time prepares you for the lack of consensus and sheer vitriol among modern philosophers.
History of philosophy is essentially the history of thought itself, and as such is invaluable.
Perhaps it should be taught under the name "history of philosophy" rather than "philosophy" though?
[+] [-] AlexanderDhoore|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gbog|12 years ago|reply
I think it is very arrogant of we contemporary people to think that 17 something kids can think by themselves and should not need to dig the past to answer such important questions.
And in a philosophy class, as I received them in France when I was young, the teacher would expose contradictory positions and let you prefer the one you want. So, yes, you'd get a low score if you wouldn't name Plato on a question about idealism, but you would get the best score if you show personal and deep understanding of the topic.
[+] [-] Djehngo|12 years ago|reply
Surely this depends on whether you are trying to imbue them with the correct answers or a deeper understanding of the question? Both are valid objectives but I could believe emphasising one would often be at a detriment to the other.
[+] [-] tokenadult|12 years ago|reply
http://ohs.stanford.edu/courses.html
and he is still thinking about philosophical issues as he pursues his career as a programmer in New York City's startup scene.
That said, what has this curriculum requirement done for France? Is France dealing better with assimilating immigrants, or figuring out full employment for young people, or managing sustainable energy supplies, or doing any other kind of problem-solving in the real world better than other countries? If so, what? If not, why not? Does France indeed have a systematic educational advantage from its program of school philosophy courses, or is this just one more mandatory school requirement that many students blow off?
[+] [-] thehme|12 years ago|reply
In any case, what I learned is the philosophy questions everything and sometimes this is good and sometimes it can be troubling because people really believe what they think they understand - this is true in any field. However, one thing that bothers me is that history shows that just as some group thinks they have it figured out, another group/person comes and changes all that (e.g. Feynman, Einstein) and then another group rises from that thinking they are right again - the cycle continues.
One last thought is about my first philosophy class, which I very much enjoyed, but the lack of happiness of my professor's face was scary and troubling. After the class, I had so many questions about who I was, my religion, the air I breath, and the things I see/feel, etc. So much questioning cannot be too healthy for the human mind, but philosophical specialization is probably what prevents insanity (I hope).
[+] [-] saosebastiao|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] senthil_rajasek|12 years ago|reply
From a casual reading of the wikipedia article it appears that there are Baccalauréat qualifications (professional, technology) that you can obtain without a philosophy test.
So philosophy seems a requirement for the general Baccalauréat.
Here is the wikipedia link to the Baccalauréat qualification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baccalaur%C3%A9at
[+] [-] dreen|12 years ago|reply
Universities in Poland do at least PE and in most cases have an introduction to philosophy in first year. I moved to England to study and I was shocked to discover they don't care about this at all.
[+] [-] chris_wot|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OldSchool|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thelittlelisper|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bsaul|12 years ago|reply