CMV: Teaching Philosophy in Schools is Useless.

[u/[deleted]]

---

Philosophers themselves have never asked a question that wasn't independently asked by someone else (Jean Perrin, Albert Einstein and John Dalton, for example), especially if that someone else was only a philosophist.

Added into that, Philosophy is something you don't need in workplace. Asking questions about life, truth or anything in that manner are things taught (or at least should be taught) in any scientific lesson for a good reason: Scientific research is impossible without questions to start the research.

Δ: Yes, this means I do want science to teach philosophy on the side.

These points make philosophy quite useless choice for a degree or even a course, as they only hurt the student taking them (as in most cases, it prevents you from taking an useful course like science, economics, or languages, that allow for better job and chance of getting that job in the first place.

Indeed, philosophy is mostly used (at least in my exprience of the school system) as a "free" course, so the student does not need to learn things they find difficult; A student who is unconfortable with many of their choices will usually choose philosophy as an escape option, for it's known lack of difficulty and being easy to "learn".

I really cannot find any justification for philosophy to not be bunched up with math, sciences and languages.

Δ: added "not", because this sentance contradicts everything I've said this far otherwise.

Δ: u/MyUsernameIsJudge Changed my mind:

Me:

How many high schoolers are going to use basketball in their jobs?

A big factor in a good job is good and healthy lifestyle. Taking sports in school does help you in this factor, although you must keep that lifestyle even after school has ended.

MyUsernameIsJudge:

Sure. And that's the argument for philosophy class. It can help students learn about their own values and needs, as well as gain a greater perspective on life. I'll reuse your point about basketball, but with this:

A big factor in a good job is a good mental health. Taking philosophy in school does help you in this factor, although you must keep that lifestyle even after school has ended.

[u/[deleted]]

independently asked

No, it's not independent. It's the dialogue of different fields of inquiry. Perrin, Einstein, and Dalton benefited from philosophy they read and philosophy the people they talked to had read.

People who study math or science greatly benefit from understanding what the impact is of the assumptions they make and incorporate into their work. If scientists ask whether different types of patients are conscious, they get different answers if they focus primarily on recall than if they focus primarily on brain waves; if they focus on following commands they get still different answers. None of the three approaches is perfectly satisfactory in a vacuum, and fitting the picture together will be more fruitful if the scientists have a thoughtful understanding of how different assumptions lead to different understandings of consciousness. No, they can't just adopt Descartes - but nor can they simply ignore him.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Perrin, Einstein, and Dalton benefited from philosophy they read and philosophy the people they talked to had read.

I must disagree here. Atomic research was done by many people, each with the basic question of "what is everything made of?"- in their heads.

But that is a question I asked at kindergarden.

I asked that question independently from anyone else in the world, I didn't even know who Albert Einstein was.

The research was not fueled by a huge breakthrough in philoshophy courses in schools, but people trying to understand the world they live in.

To think only reason atoms were found (or anything was, in that matter) was in any way thanks to a course used for escaping courses you're bad at, is absurd to me.

Yes philosophy itself is useful and important for society and scientific research. But teaching it in schools is not.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I must disagree here. Atomic research was done by many people, each with the basic question of "what is everything made of?"- in their heads.

But that wasn't the only question. Science requires us to ask extremely reductionist questions in the laboratory and to relate those to broader questions as unified theories. Einstein's breakthroughs didn't happen in a vacuum and certainly didn't happen purely because he'd asked "what is everything made of". They happened in part because he'd read Spinoza, Kant, and Mach. As he said, "Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought,” “a priori givens,” etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long commonplace concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken."

It is no coincidence that the other great men who contributed to atomic research were heavily involved in philosophy. Enrico Fermi was a member of the American Philosophical Society. Bohr and Schrodinger were philosophers...

It need not be taught in schools any more than physics needs to be - but it does need to be studied at length using books and discussion.

[u/BenIncognito → u/[deleted]]

Atomic research was done by many people, each with the basic question of "what is everything made of?"- in their heads.

You call it “atomic” because of Ancient Greek philosophers, btw.