In her recent blog post on You're the Teacher, Professor Hendricks shared several key questions and comments which came up during a small conference on education and philosophy. These prompters prompted me to think systematically about various issues surrounding the teaching of philosophy.
There are two types of issues at stake in philosophy education: 1) issues intrinsic to teaching; 2) issues external to teaching.
1) Under the first heading, there are questions such as: What are the requirements for entering into philosophy? What would be the appropriate curriculum? Which works of philosophy ought to be considered as canonical?
2) Under the second heading, questions such as the following arise: How would institutions be able to receive the funding necessary to hire teachers and provide teaching material for the class? What is the distinction between thinking philosophically and studying philosophy proper?
There are several responses to these questions which seem like a starting point for making concrete practical decisions.
1. I would say that the first priority is to distinguish between non-philosophy and philosophy in the clearest possible terms. Such a distinction does exist in mathematics, in economics, in the natural sciences, in political science, and in literature. The last example, namely literature, is especially telling. "Just reading" is not the same as doing research in literature, since in the latter case there is a systematic and methodological way of explicating the meaning of a text in terms of the text's history and its contemporary reception, and moreover a way of evaluating how aesthetically pleasing or politically effective the text was or is. In the same way, philosophy cannot simply be "thinking philosophically" or "having discussions." Therefore, it is important that philosophy teachers be clear on just what the restrictions and methods of philosophy are which ought to be honoured by teachers and students alike.
Now this does not mean that one ought to look at the entire body of philosophical literature and then see if there is any "common rule" which can be abstracted from all this. As in all areas of research, and especially in the confusion that is contemporary philosophy, there are bound to be publications which follow an unsound, nonconstructive, and unprofessional style of thought. At the outset, I would just like the suggest three requirements which any philosophical study ought to fulfill: (i) it ought to be backed up by linguistic analysis and historical research; (ii) it ought to be dialectically conceived, i.e. it ought to sketch out the relation between all possible perspectives on the question under consideration; (iii) it ought to be both descriptive and normative, in the sense that the study also tells the reader something about how the question ought to be approached.
2. Philosophy proper requires discipline, and the great value of philosophy to the general public is that philosophers are specialists in selecting the best way(s) of thinking about a given question or issue. This is the reason why philosophy programs in schools ought to receive funding, so that students do not neglect key questions which inevitably come up in the course of their personal and public lives. Examples of such questions are: What should I aim to achieve in my personal life, and what am I actually doing as a result of pursuing that aim? How are my thoughts and actions politically relevant? Why should I join public institutions? Which institutions ought I to join, and what actions ought I to take upon joining? Why and how should I get married or raise a family? etc.
Again, if philosophy is not a well-bounded, well-defined discipline, and if the basic attitude of philosophy is that "people ought to think for themselves," then philosophy defeats its own purpose. Precisely because people cannot think these issues "for themselves," philosophy is valuable. Unfortunately, the prevailing ideology which drives the government is that people can make up their own minds "freely." As long as this mind-set continues, philosophy cannot receive funding. Therefore, philosophers, if they are serious about securing the funding necessary to keep their programs running, have the duty to effectively criticize this ideology and attitude. Exactly how to do this is a very interesting and yet urgent question. One wrong answer to give here is that "for the time being" philosophers should "strategically" assimilate themselves with the other sciences - but more on this in the next paragraph.
Currently, some countries (such as Canada and the members of the EU) are leaning towards cutting funding for philosophy and redirecting those funds to other, so-called "practical" disciplines. There are other countries (such as Japan) where philosophy is most of the time not even taught in high schools and universities. As a reaction to this situation, some philosophers have taken the step to try and assimilate philosophy to psychology or to business - an example of this is "experimental philosophy." This does not help! Rather, this approach only tightens the collar on philosophy. If philosophy is really psychology or business administration, then there is no reason why governments should fund philosophy programs, since psychology departments and business schools achieve better the goals which philosophy aims to achieve. It is therefore once again absolutely crucial that philosophy defines itself as a unique area of study. As to whether or not philosophy is itself instrumental to certain public or private aims is an entirely secondary and possibly superfluous issue, since this is not a path that philosophy can afford to take if it were to justify to the public its own value.
3. As to issues intrinsic to the teaching of philosophy, again the most important issue is to be clear on the canon of philosophy. In higher education, the aim ought to be that students acquire the skills necessary to critically interpret certain canonical texts in philosophy. Needless to say, this does not mean that students are altogether prohibited to express their own thoughts. I am only arguing that the study of the canon of philosophy is a priority for the student. Why? Because these texts set an example of disciplined thinking. A classical text of philosophy does not give definite answers to questions. Rather, they show the readers how to put each question into context and perspective. Now at a certain level, students are naturally able to do this without the help of this canon. However, beyond a certain point, and especially when the questions become broader and broader, there comes a point where students need an example to follow. To clarify this point, perhaps it is good to think of an analogous situation in mathematics or business administration. When one is focused on a particular problem such as theorems concerning prime numbers or procedures for hiring the right people for a given business project, one does not have to study the history of mathematics or of entrepreneurship. However, if one wants to think about which question in mathematics is truly worth pursuing, or of deciding what is the biggest issue in the contemporary business world, then one cannot avoid studying each discipline in a holistic way. And how is a student going to study the discipline as a whole if not by reading the examples of previous thinkers in the field who have already tried to do just that? This is the reason why it is so important for philosophy to be clear on which classical philosophical text truly represents a model for thinking holistically about individual philosophical questions.
To avoid misunderstanding, I am not suggesting here that texts dealing with particular questions are useless. All I am saying is that students who are entering higher education ought to be given the opportunity to choose which particular question to pursue within their field, and that in order to make the right choice, students need to be familiar with the field as a whole. In order to be familiar with the field as a whole, students have to read at least one body of classical philosophy texts in order to understand what it is to conceive philosophy as a whole.
There are many beneficial side-effects which will spring from this holistic approach in philosophy education. For one thing, it will provide a basis for students to maintain a long-term intellectual cooperation. If students delve into particular questions right away without being able to put their positions into context, then it is quite likely that students won't even understand what others are doing. I personally believe that this is exactly the situation which many professional scholars face in the contemporary world, not just in philosophy but in all areas. It is therefore important that intellectual cooperation be restored by letting future scholars and professionals have an idea of the whole in their minds. Finally, this "whole" absolutely does not have to be some harmonious, totalitarian One. The important thing is that each person understands the questions which others are interested in. Whether each person agrees with others is a totally different issue, but the question of disagreement cannot even prop up if there is no mutual understanding.
4. To sum up the previous three points, the most important issue for philosophy education is to be clear on just what philosophy is as a special academic discipline. In the above, I have outlined several more detailed issues which ought to be addressed in order to give a satisfactory answer to this broad question.
5. On a final note, outside academic institutions, I think that individuals who are trained in philosophy ought to do their best to provide as many opportunities as possible for prospective students of philosophy to study philosophy outside academic institutions. After all, this "underground" aspect has always been a key component of philosophy education. At certain times, including the present one where funding is being cut, philosophers should organize reading groups and seminars independently of academic institutions. This, I think, is one of the biggest challenges for philosophers, since they are called to make an effort to do something which makes no money. The test here is whether a philosopher really believes that what he or she is doing is intrinsically valuable. Of course, there needs to be full-time philosophy teachers/researchers if philosophy is to maintain its status as the "queen of all sciences." However, if conditions are not ideal for teachers and researchers, then at least they need to do something to keep the discipline alive. It is ridiculous to think that one ought to necessarily be affiliated to an academic institution in order to make a contribution to philosophy. Again, once the discipline that is philosophy is clearly defined, and once the qualifications for being a professional philosopher are clearly made explicit, then there is no reason for such qualified professionals to not run these public seminars and reading groups, even if they are free.
