
Why does France insist school pupils master philosophy? - drucken
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22729780
======
calinet6
"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.

En d'autres termes, bonne travail France!

~~~
wdewind
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.

~~~
jckt
I used to believe this under-specialisation was a good thing. That a more
general college education was better. But as I see it now, a liberal education
has mostly just given us liberally educated people, but not liberal learners.
I'd say, if you think yourself intellectually motivated, eager to learn things
outside your field already, then paradoxically you should specialise, for this
innate drive to learn will not perish after uni, and IMO unlikely to be
affected in any way by a liberal arts environment. Rather, go to someplace
more focused, and if you are not American, perhaps consider other great
schools in places that are not the USA.

Big money, big technology may be in the USA, but your average undergrad really
doesn't need too much of that.

(Of course, America has the best schools. If you're going to attend one of
those, by all means, and work hard!)

~~~
calinet6
"a liberal education has mostly just given us liberally educated people, but
not liberal learners."

I would argue this is a specific problem, and not the intention or desired
result of a Liberal Arts education. The intention is as this article states:
to learn how to think correctly across boundaries of fields and within them.
To solve problems _better_ , not just be more general.

Of course this is sort of a No True Scotsman, but arguably any kind of
education isn't working if it's not creating a positive impact on the value
and ability of the person being educated.

------
keiferski
(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.

~~~
stdbrouw
(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.

~~~
keiferski
Yeah, perhaps a straight logic course isn't the answer. The solution might be
a new type of course; something that explains a philosophical problem, shows
how philosophers have approached the problem, and then show students how to
use logic and argumentation to approach the problem in a modern context.

Or, just forget the ancients and talk about every day issues, eg abortion, gay
marriage, gun rights, etc. etc. I just lament the fact that most students get
a negative impression of the field from their required "History of Ancient
Philosophy" course, which usually focuses on Plato's metaphysics, completely
independent of context. Most students think, "This guy is completely insane
and this has no relation to my life whatsoever, time to tune out."

~~~
oddthink
It's hard to talk about philosophy. I liked my philosophy classes in college
(one overview, mostly with a Hume/Kant/Wittgenstein/modern analytic bent, and
a philosophy of quantum mechanics class), and I like reading Peter Singer, but
the older stuff just gets very woolly-headed seeming. It feels like they
always try to hide some equivocation under fancy text, starting with "we
define X as Y", then jumping through a natural-language use of X to get Z,
then assert "Z is Y".

For example, I may just be a heathen, but Nietzsche's whole style seemed to be
boldly asserting things, making fun of anyone who thinks otherwise, yet rarely
bothering to make an actual argument.

I like the idea that everyone should take a semester's worth philosophy course
somewhere along the way, but I don't know if it would do most people any good.
An actual rhetoric course, with a focus on logical argument, may do better.

~~~
nilaykumar
"It feels like they always try to hide some equivocation under fancy text,
starting with "we define X as Y", then jumping through a natural-language use
of X to get Z, then assert "Z is Y"."

This is precisely what I often found irritating. One of my friends once asked
me, "You seem to like philosophy -- why don't you do any?" My response was
essentially that certain parts of philosophy are simply TOO HARD for me in the
sense that it is often all to easy lose objectivity, logically reason about
ethics, etc.

"I'll just stick to math, thanks, where I at least know how to systematically
approach and think about problems under the framework of accepted mathematical
logic."

------
otibom
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.

~~~
nilaykumar
"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.

~~~
calinet6
Bingo. It's all about learning new ways to think about anything. It's like a
multiplier on all the knowledge you've ever had and will ever have in the
future.

~~~
im3w1l
Is there empirical evidence for this?

~~~
calinet6
Please, this is philosophy.

------
nilaykumar
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).

~~~
giardini
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.

~~~
nilaykumar
Agreed.

But keep in mind, the content is not all there is to it; the historical
context and influence on society is also an integral part of the humanities.
Or at least, that's what I think -- I try to take a historico-contextual
approach to it, especially when I know, say, Aquinas' arguments don't hold
water.

------
baby
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.

~~~
nicholassmith
You can say that about most topics. A lot of people find maths boring and
don't want to sit through it, but for some it fires a spark of emotion.

~~~
baby
Yes but I believe Math is really important to be taught at a young age.

~~~
saraid216
Why? Are trapezoids really so important that all human beings need to know
what they are?

~~~
baby
Because it's the only class where you do REAL problem solving and you don't
just learn things by heart or discover things.

Also because it solicits your brain a lot. Which is always good.

And finally because you use math every day. There are some things in math you
are not going to use yes, but most of the program is important imo. So many
people nowadays just can't do simple calculus it's worrying (especially when
we need to split the bill).

~~~
saraid216
> Because it's the only class where you do REAL problem solving and you don't
> just learn things by heart or discover things.

It's the only class that isn't below the threshold of pedagogical competence,
you mean. The response isn't "well, then everyone should learn math, and
memorize these multiplication tables!"; the response is _fix the other
subjects_.

> Also because it solicits your brain a lot. Which is always good.

If a subject doesn't solicit your brain, should it be taught at all?

> And finally because you use math every day.

Really? I don't. If you're using math every day, it's almost certainly not
math. It's a dessicated corpse slashed to pieces for easy consumption by
children. Why? Because reasons. You've given the example of splitting the
bill, for instance, but people use this example too much: stop trying to save
on quantities smaller than a dollar and just tip more.

Indeed, it's an instance where it'd be useful to teach "mental math" by
telling kids to memorize this Wikipedia page:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_calculation> Which is _precisely_ the
kind of memorization and thoughtless spoon-feeding you decried.

------
artagnon
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.

[1]: <http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will_(solution)>

------
winter_blue
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).

~~~
Jacqued
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)

~~~
johnchristopher
> includes 5 hours a week of Philosohpy

Which is more than twice the hours a Belgian student is exposed weekly to the
topic whatever her cursus is.

------
sb
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.

------
maaaats
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.

~~~
James_Duval
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?

------
AlexanderDhoore
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...

------
gbog
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.

~~~
Djehngo
>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.

------
tokenadult
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,

<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
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).

------
saosebastiao
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.

------
senthil_rajasek
The title is misleading.

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
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.

------
chris_wot
How would one undertake to study the International Baccalaureate without
having to take the exams? I'm 34, and this sounds pretty awesome!

~~~
AlexanderDhoore
When I studied philosophy, the first row in the aula were all very old men,
who (I think) weren't really students. They just came in, sad down and
listened. I think I'll sit there again one day. When I'm old and full of
philosophical questions :)

------
OldSchool
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.

------
thelittlelisper
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.

------
bsaul
<shameless plug> Maybe time to repost an old link of mine:
<http://codosophia.blogspot.fr/> </shameless plug>

------
balabaster
I applaud the French for this approach - of course there may be direct
repercussions of teaching the masses to think and learn... and be smart.

------
xyzzy123
> Is truth preferable to peace?

Mu.

> Does power exist without violence?

This one, I like.

------
LBarret
Philosophy is the thing I turn to when I am sad/stressed/troubled. Best course
the french schools gave me.

------
kafkaesque
A rant:

When I was a teenager, I agreed with the French model as presented in this
article. But as I continued on to university (in Canada), my 'inner discourse'
turned into "How practical and valuable do employers see my education?" This
turned out to be what I preoccupied myself with the most right before
graduating university (around three years ago) and even now that I am in the
US.

Well, it turns out North American employers don't see humanities or liberal
arts degrees as creating critical thinkers. Or at least they don't believe
people with either of these degrees are capable of _enough_ critical thinking
to come up with solutions to business problems. This means they are less
valuable. They are lower on the critical-thinking ladder, so to speak. The
only notable exception is philosophy majors, but even those are approached by
employers sceptically at first. Anyway, because of this, it seems like your
character, personality, and interests are key in deciding if you're a right
fit. But this kind of opens up a complicated discourse on social dynamics,
interview double-speak, and so on and so forth. Basically, more prejudices are
at play, I believe.

This French model is good for personal growth, for creating a virtuous
citizen, and a knowledgeable, cultured person, which was the point of
educational institutions in part of the Middle Ages and, ultimately, in the
Renaissance. France has a history of this stuff. Many writers in the 1900s
spoke of how learning the French language meant learning about culture,
philosophy, art, etc. Stuff that would sound "sophisticated" nowadays. So if
you wanted to be cultured, you learnt French. What was the opposite? English.
Learning English was many times looked down upon by liberal arts and
humanities folks, because most people learnt it to conduct business. Learning
English did not include learning about art, culture, and literature. Of
course, there are very few exceptions, but this holds even in modern times.
Most people learn English for business. To quickly trace its origins and
demonstrate how old this concept has been in place (and how it is now phased
out, which should tell us something about adopting it in its entirety), the
concept of being "cultured" was associated with a specific type of curriculum
that created "well-rounded" citizens. Being "worldly" came from the idea of
"homo universalis" (man of the world, universal man) that was used in the 15th
century. It came from the most notable example, Renaissance Italy.
Renaissance, as in "rebirth". And it was called as such because in this time,
it was a return to even older emphasis on classical notions of what was
important for a society, which originated many, many centuries before 15th
century Renaissance Italy. I don't think the answer lies in this type of
curriculum.

 _My point_ : All this sounds fine and dandy, but how does this translate into
getting employed, which seems to be the focus of our civilization these days?
This is a rhetorical question (for me): it doesn't translate. The critical
thinking part of this type of curriculum has already been put in place in
other more technical degrees (such as Engineering and CS) that offer a better
employment rate with higher pay. It is what our society has deemed more
important and values more and rewards. We are ultimately to 'blame' for things
being like this. I spent many years hoping for this French model to work and
for people to change their prejudices and have people with humanities or
liberal arts degrees live a decent life with a decent job, working in what
they love, and being able to afford to start a family.

These days, I am lucky that I work my 9-to-5 crappy writing job (which is not
sustainable, by the way, and for which I had to move to a different country to
find) and cannot even think about renting my own apartment, starting a family,
or indulging in a few things here and there. I go to work by day, and work on
learning technical skills (programming, a few CS concepts here and there) at
night and sometimes on weekends, when I'm trying to make myself available to
my immediate family, so as to avoid getting them upset by my estrangement.

Yes, if I move out to the middle of nowhere I can probably find something with
slightly better pay. But as someone with a liberal arts degree, I can't say
cows and hay inspire me to continue living.

~~~
gaius
It's not that getting employed is the focus. It's that if you can't get
employed, then your degree will only make you miserable (not least because you
are saddled with a load of debt). There needs to be a balance between the
student's short term interests and society's long term interests. And that
means - whatever else you learn as well - at college you _must_ learn a
saleable skill.

------
Millennium
To impress whatever philosophy is currently most fashionable.

