Hedonism and Education

Kim made a recent blog post in which she posited some ideas about how to make learning more fun in an attempt to create lifetime self-educators. This idea that learning must be made fun to engender some kind of appreciation of it might be misguided. There are times when learning is certainly fun. However, we cannot forget to engender in students an understanding that to learn also involves rigorous hard work and self discipline. This is not to imply that we ought to be scaring children into thinking education is a constant exercise in grueling monotony and work, but that it is an inescapable aspect of good education. You must work at it.

So it would seem that just as important as engendering an appreciation for the fun of learning is engendering an appreciation for the hard work that is involved. There is a pleasure received from completing some difficult task that is inherently different from the kind of simple fun that one might infuse into learning. A good teacher must attempt to show their students this feeling. Otherwise there is a danger of engendering  hedonism in students that will not serve them well in their further academic pursuits.

 It it possible for a teacher to engender this feeling in students, or must it be arrived at internally?

Philosophy for Educators

Brittany posited a question regarding educators having a philosophical background. It seems essential that a good teacher would be versed in some form of philosophy.

Anyone studying to be an educator ought to be taking classes in or independently studying pedagogy. Pedagogy is a sub-field within philosophy. Therefore, any educator who has properly pursued their education has already done philosophy. Pedagogy just as stepped in philosophical thinking as any other branch. Philosophy fosters independent thought, and healthy skepticism. These are traits that good educators ought to strive to engender in their students.So it would follow that an educator who does not possess these traits would not be very successful in engendering them. Studying philosophy could prove a corrective to this.

This is not to suggest, however, that to be an independent thinker one must necessarily have an interest in studying philosophy. The value of the philosophical background comes from a practice in critical thinking, which can be achieved without pursuing an education in philosophy. So a good teacher would necessarily be a good critical thinker.

Ought we to make critical thinking part of an educator's professional development?

Good Teachers and Rebellion

Mary wrote an interesting post regarding rebelliousness in the classroom. However, I'm uncertain that rebelliousness is what we actually find laudable here. I think the core of this appreciation for rebelliousness is that it stems from the mind of an independent thinker. Helping to foster and facilitate independent thinking (and critical thinking, which goes along naturally with independent thinking) ought to be one of the primary goals of any good educator.

So, what of rebelliousness in the classroom. In Drew Warner's response to Mary he cited things that he rebelled against in high school, which were typically the poor pedagogical processes of his teachers. This, and I beg Drew's forgiveness if I am incorrect here, was likely born from constrictive teaching methods clashing with his autonomy as an independent thinker. If this is indeed the case, as I suspect it is, then a good teacher ought to create a format of education that satisfies and fosters independent thinking in all students. Thus, the class would have little to rebel against. The laudable aspect of a rebellious nature would still be present without the potential detriments it could have on the class.

This is not to say that rebellion is necessarily out of place in the classroom. There ought to be forums for students to enact change in their school and their society when they see wrongs they want to correct. However, a good teacher should never need to be rebelled against, and would foster independent thinking, and provide a constructive outlet for challenging authority. Can a teacher be an authority figure while truly fostering skeptical independent thought about authority figures?

Philosophy vs. Philosophical Thinking (Critical Thinking)

An interesting discussion began in class the other day regarding the terms philosophy, critical thinking, and philosophical thinking. A few members of the class posited the idea that they are to be used interchangeably, and I would agree to a certain extent, but feel need to draw a distinction between philosophy and critical thinking.

I will start be agreeing that critical thinking and philosophical thinking are one and the same. That to engage in critical thinking is a necessary aspect of 'doing philosophy'. I would also agree with Jake's point that simply learning the theories of philosopher's long dead is more of an exercise in intellectual history than philosophy. This does not mean that these have no value, but simply that engaging these topics isn't engaging in philosophical thinking. They are still part of philosophy. An understanding of philosophical concepts and ideas aids the philosopher in philosophical thinking. This leads me to think that critical thinking is the kind of thinking that a good philosopher engages in. However, to simply call critical thinking "philosophy" ignores the intellectual concepts that philosophers can engage in that augment their critical, or philosophical thinking.

This then has direct implications on what teaching philosophy to children might entail. The fear of the class was that the students would simply be taught the intellectual history of philosophers and their theories. I share this fear that it is all they will be taught, but I do not see it as valueless content. As it augments philosophical thinking, and also can add important context to disciplines like history. For example, teaching the philosophical underpinnings of the enlightenment aids in the understanding of the historical movement, and aids in spurring critical thinking.


Ought the curriculum  to include these intellectual histories of philosophers even if the curriculum does not include critical thinking, or philosophical thinking?