ABC Home | Radio | Television | News | Your Local ABC | More Subjects… | Shop

Opinion

Opinions, essays, letters and comment on issues of national interest.

Email

A day to realise capacity of youngest minds

By Kellie Tranter

Posted November 20, 2008 09:17:00

Rodin's Thinker

Philosophy gives young people a capacity for understanding that leads to real knowledge. (AFP Photo: Alfredo Estrella, file photo)

Despite continually proclaiming the importance of educating young Australians, our political leaders all seem to have overlooked the fact that today is World Philosophy Day. It is a day we should not allow to pass unmarked.

In Australia: a nation at risk, I referred to Future Directions' call to strengthen our Australian identity. They suggested that:

... given the reality that globalisation and wealth creation have ensured that society's focus is increasingly in the short term, it is essential - if Australian society is indeed to prosper as a unified nation-state until 2050 and beyond - that Australians understand how they will sustain their societal spiritual values in an environment of enormous secular pressure ... History has shown, for example, a withering of spiritual values in times of great secular distraction: rising wealth, short term focus on material gain, etc. But will society be ready to return to (or have the core memory and structures) a recognisable spiritual set of values and hierarchy when times become less easy and more challenging?

Less easy and more challenging times are now upon us, and the difficulties and challenges we face are likely to increase.

Hopelessly seduced by the carefully engineered neo-liberal push, former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher once said, "There's no such thing as society, there are individual men and women." Thatcher's polarisation of individuals and society completely failed to give any weight to culture. Regrettably, our political leaders have followed a similar, although ostensibly more moderate, neo-liberal path and they also have failed to understand what culture is, why it is important and the critical role they play in creating circumstances whereby culture can be developed and nurtured.

Faced with the worst economic conditions since the 1930s Great Depression and without cultural or social cohesion, it is no surprise that we are hearing and reading more about Australians seeking a sense of purpose. Worked over by the media and advertising, many Australians try to fabricate their own identity by having that job, buying that car, wearing that watch, or living in that house. But what happens to their sense of identity when the job evaporates and the kitty is dry? Strength is the redeeming virtue in adversity, but modern life has encouraged a nation of self-centred, consumption oriented "sheep" rather than creative and critical thinkers with real inner strength. Do people nowadays really possess the internal resources and personal skills that will allow us to face and overcome the difficulties that confront us?

The problem doesn't just affect adults. Our children see our deficiencies and feel the same uneasiness.

In their report Children's fears, hopes and heroes - modern childhood in Australia, Joe Tucci, Janise Mitchell and Professor Chris Goddard noted of children and young people aged between 10 and 14 years:

...Children's sense of their place in the world is under threat. Children are particularly concerned about the environment. Over a half of the children surveyed are worried about not having enough water. Just over four in 10 (44 per cent) are nervous about the future impact of climate change and 43 per cent of children are worried about air and water pollution. Many are also concerned about the escalating tension in world affairs. Almost a third of children (31 per cent) are worried that they will have to fight in a war when they get much older. More than a third (36 per cent) are apprehensive about terrorism. A quarter of children are so troubled about the state of the world that they honestly believe it will come to an end before they get older.

...Over a third (36 per cent) believed that adults do not care about what children think...

According to the report, children believed that adults show little concern or respect for their views and opinions. Children should be consulted about what the world should be like. And adults should listen to what they say.

Children and young people deserve that voice as much as we need their input, and to have an effective voice they need the capacity to think critically about the world and their place in it. Solutions to the problems of the 21st century will not come except from a generation of critical and creative thinkers, and with recent research showing that children learn to think critically by learning to look at and think about art, our first step must be to inculcate the arts, music and dance into the life of every child.

All prejudices and most fears are born out of ignorance. The most important catalyst for change is education, and education begins with the capacity for critical thought. The ability to read, write and think critically can empower people in this nation and all over the world. Laptop computers may be handy and entertaining gadgets but they don't teach children how to think! Philosophy does. It gives young people a capacity for understanding that leads to real knowledge, which in turn promotes the self-esteem they need to develop their interest in seeking out wisdom or meaning for themselves, rather than just accepting the status quo. It combines their curiosity with their creativity, and the results - as the statewide HSC art displays demonstrate every year - can be spectacular.

A generation of curious and creative Australians may well ask:

  • Why is war still seen as a solution in the 21st century?

  • Why is power either conceded by or taken from people?

  • Can a balance ever really be struck between the environment and economic growth?

  • How can the Maslow pyramid be inverted so that people have food, shelter and warmth and more time to think about the world we live in and how best to preserve it?

  • What did Prime Minister Rudd mean when he spoke of "a future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility"? How will he execute his plan for "a future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia"?

  • What is the right thing to do?

  • What are my real needs, and how can I best satisfy them in a responsible way?

Which brings me back to World Philosophy Day. It couldn't have a better pedigree. Ben Chifley, the famous Labor Prime Minister, led Australia to join UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation) on November 4, 1946 as one of its first UN Member States. UNESCO has instituted World Philosophy Day to take place in honour of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights.

Given Prime Minister Rudd's call for a responsible and egalitarian future, what is our Labor Government doing to promote World Philosophy Day and the importance of philosophy in the lives of every Australian?

I think we've reached a critical mass. My suggestion is that today, our political leaders, and indeed all Australians, should read the UNESCO study, Philosophy: A School of Freedom, and make an immediate long term commitment to encouraging our children to be curious and to think critically.

Kellie Tranter is a lawyer and commentator. This article has also been published online at Online Opinion.

Tags: community-and-society, education, world-politics, children, philosophy-education, australia

2008 Year In Review

ABC News Online takes a look at the big stories from 2008.

Comments (78)

Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.

  • BJ:

    20 Nov 2008 9:46:35am

    I wonder if Kellie has actually spoken to children herself in forming this synopsis ? I think that she'd be very surprised about the breadth and depth of questions being asked by children, rather than presenting survey results merely revealing their fears.

    The author must live in a different Australia to me. I, and many of my contempories, have found a very real and defining sense of purpose in volunteering in addition to our full-time jobs and families. One-third of the population volunteers, and youth comprise a good proportion of that.

    It is far to easy to stereotype and dismiss the modern Australian as only treasuring material assets. I think that's only a myth the tabloids would have us believe.

    I will say, however, that the one big bonus of the defeat of the former Howard Liberal Government is the thorough repudiation of the reprehensible me, me, me, what's in it for me, me, me attitude so fervently promoted by that government.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • BB:

    20 Nov 2008 9:47:16am

    One way to begin would be to teach philosophy in schools, beginning as early as possible, and my own opinion is that kindergarten is not too early. Many will argue that five year olds are too young to cope with anything as abstract as philosophy but I do not agree. Five year olds are already attending and presumably coping with scripture classes and religion is considerably more abstract than philosophy and potentially much more dangerous.

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • tom:

        20 Nov 2008 10:49:16am

        Hey BB, do a small bit of reading on what the developmental psychologists say about age 5, while children develop quite quickly and have amazing capacities, probably ramming anything down their throats like religion or philosophy is a bit much, and both would probably just boggle their minds.

        However i do agree that definately by High School when teens are most vulnerable to emotional influences (which is why religion is such a draw card for some) they should be able to explore philosophy as it can offer the same closure as religion without the need to appeal to some great unknown entity.
        Not saying that religion is bad or shouldnt be offered, i just like the idea of 'choice' (an issue canvased by both religion and philosophy as beneficial)

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • BB:

            20 Nov 2008 11:18:55am

            It is not my failure to read developmental psychology that informs my views. In fact I suspect that failure to read these, varied and contradicting views, would be more likely to encourage respect for them.

            I can understand, what I presume is your aversion to ramming received opinion down the throats of young children, but I fail to see why you include philosophy in this category. Philosophy encourages people to think for themselves and we are never too young to begin doing this.

            Agree (1) Alert moderator

              • Spooky:

                20 Nov 2008 11:56:16am

                But the problem is that a lot of philosophy contradicts one another. They act as world views, rather then a single discipline.

                Capitalism and Communism. Atheism and Theism. Ethics and Morality. Positivism and Natural Law. Eudemonia and Nietzscheism.

                All of these views are conflicting. The problem is ensuring that both sides of these aspects of philosophy are taught. They also require a proper understanding of the world around you, something that kids (and sometimes teenagers) lack.

                How can we teach a child about capitalism when he doesnt know what a tax is? How can we teach ethics when a child does not know right from wrong?

                The reality is that we dont expect children to understand, we expect them to obey. We teach them a behaviour we think is correct, to indoctrinate them.

                We dont teach them ethics. We simply force them to conform to our expectations (such as not stealing or bullying).

                Philosophy is a pursuit for adults. When you can finally realise that there other world views to explore, you have grown up.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • BB:

                20 Nov 2008 12:03:33pm

                I think we can trust the teachers to give the kids the logic n ethics and spare them the propaganda.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • Spooky:

                20 Nov 2008 1:27:29pm

                All I am saying is that when philosophy is taught, both sides need to be explored. Propaganda is when you push one to the extent of the other.

                Which is correct out of communism or capitalism? Both are correct. Capitalism looks at the economic affects of social behaviour. Communism looks at the social effects of economic behaviour.

                So for a true understanding of society, you should learn both.

                And I am saying that children will understand neither.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • BB:

                20 Nov 2008 1:56:21pm

                There are more things in life than the stale old argument between communism and capitalism. They can be left to the so called grown ups. What the kids need is anoppertunity to explore the art of THINKING.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • Spooky:

                20 Nov 2008 2:44:49pm

                That stale old argument is one of the major subjects in the school of philosophy.

                If kids cannot understand it, then they will not understand any of the other concepts I mentioned.

                I think you are actually advocating the teaching of critical thinking. That is totally different to philosophy, which requires critical thinking to understand (something children lack).

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • BB:

                20 Nov 2008 2:59:11pm

                You still do not get it.

                I am talking about basic bread and butter elements of philosophy like logic which kids can and do understand.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • rafnics:

                20 Nov 2008 4:07:42pm


                It's about empiricism. It's about cause and effect and not getting these mixed up. It's about the authority fallacy, and any number of other types of standard mistake (which is why I would be surprised if the teachers as a group were able to do this without slipping in all sorts of propaganda). It's about the problem of induction. The nature of rhetoric. The fundamental nature of the story, the power of words, the heros journey. The Greeks. Astronomy. How the word was a hundred years ago; how it might be in a hundred years time (and spare the kids the current crop of doomsday dribble). It's about the great religions. It's about geometry. Poetry. It's about that picture of the earth hanging in the blackness of space and just what that means.

                And it's also about how we think of our own individual existence and place within society; about the need for society and some of it's rules and strictures. It's about history and the fact that there used to be slaves but we now have a world view that views human dignity as paramount. It's about optimism; about strength and resilience. It's about evolution. It's about the laws of physics. It's about the beauty of geometry. It's about the nature of ideologies (good and bad).

                When is there a better time than in early childhood to (joyously and impartially) cover this sort of material? It provides the base that so many of us spend later years trying to retrofit.


                Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • BB:

                20 Nov 2008 4:27:54pm

                Thank you.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • Spooky:

                20 Nov 2008 4:48:30pm

                I tip my hat to you, rafnics. Well done.

                While we all firmly stand by our logic (which is based on assumptions, and thus subjective), I think we can agree that this thread was more interesting then most.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • mars:

                20 Nov 2008 3:51:26pm

                Spooky,
                you are coming at BB's idea from the perspective that teaching philosophy requires teaching students all about different ideas, be they capitalism, communism or any of the others you have mentioned. This need not be the case.
                I think it is important for children be taught what philosophy is, rather than let it be a scary word which they avoid as they grow up because they've been told it is too hard for them.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • Id:

            20 Nov 2008 4:30:30pm

            The Jesuit founder,Ignatius of Loyola is attributed with the saying "Give me a child until he is seven and you can then have him".
            Sunday schools, Moslem mosques, Buddhist schools,football clubs and the like all seek four and five year olds to indoctrinate them.That is where the fanatics originate.
            Children need to be allowed to develop their imaginations. They do not need dogma, be it religious,sporting or commercial.

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Mark:

    20 Nov 2008 9:47:52am

    When I was a child, I was distressed that adults didn't care about what I thought.

    Now that I am an adult, I can see why they didn't care.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • L:

    20 Nov 2008 9:54:29am

    I appreciated her hinting at questioning the thinking that got us into the current financial crisis.

    Why are we trying to get out of it by using the same thinking that got us into the problem in the first place? It's like realising you've dug yourself into a hole and then trying to dig upwards.

    Do you think military expenditure is not involved? Why do we need to spend billions invading countries to find non-existant WMDs. If an invasion isn't a WMD I don't know what is. Why did the people of Iraq need to have a WMD unleashed upon them? Saddam was bad, but this is worse.

    Why do we need to build a bunch of submarines and airwarfare destroyers when we don't have enough water? Isn't that a bigger problem? Shouldn't we address that first? Why would anyone want to invade a land you can't survive in....and who is the "enemy" we are building these things to protect us from anyway?

    Shouldn't we be more worried that we surpassed the Earth's ability to sustain us back in 1982 (according to Ecological Footprinting), and have been sailing ahead in the same unsustainable direction ever since?

    What do we need to realise we can't keep externalising the externalities of our choices?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Spooky:

        20 Nov 2008 11:36:33am

        Well lets try to answer some of those basic questions.

        First the economic crisis. A recession is as natural as a boom. This particular recession was three years overdue, and the slightest event would have set it off. The banking crisis was merely the spark which set of the tinder. Basic economics.

        Next the war. Saddam had an entire year to move them out of the country or disable them. The war was also a key part of controlling the middle east. Once Iran is taken out, the entire gulf will no longer pose conventional threat. This will also reduce Russian influence in the region.

        Plus there is the terrorist issue (last time I checked, suicide bombs were killing all the civilians in Iraq)

        Next the building of ships. Nuclear submarines are the wild card of nuclear warfare. The reason nobody will ever push the button is because one submarine has enough weapons to wipe out an entire nation.

        Air warfare boats are the most sophisticated way of shooting down missiles, which will be shown in the Iran war.

        Finally the overpopulation problem. You are absolutely correct. There are far too many people living in third world nations. These nations exist on the sufferance of the rest of the world. In the next decade, there is going to be a fuel and food crisis.

        The developed world will need to stop feeding third world nations, in order to maintain its own standard of living. While the results will be tragic, the effects on the developed world will be mitigated.

        The answers are there for all of us to see. The only problem is that we dont like them, so we pretend we dont see them. We also start getting angry, and complain when we dont like what is happening.

        In that regard, children and adults can be quite similar.

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

          • L:

            20 Nov 2008 12:12:08pm

            I appreciate you taking the time to respond but respectfully disagree with some of your assumptions.

            I think that the problems in the Middle East occured around the end of WWI. What had been a complex milleu of tribal regions and principalities were bundled together and declared "countries" to be administered in western fashion by western powers because it best suited their interests to do so.

            Until this is recognised and adequately addressed (to the satisfaction of those involved) there will always be unrest.

            What we call Iran is the oldest continuous "developed" culture in the world. They had a civilisation thousands of years ago that has continued to develop in sovereign fashion, on the same patch of land. I think the only way to change that is to blow it off the face of the earth, but I think that is pretty pointless and would be extremely sad.

            I still don't think all those billions of dollars spent on submarines would be better spent on developing sustainable practices. We will stand to benefit greatly from this technology and knowledge as life gets more difficult *read unsustainable*.

            I think that we simply need to be better at how we make decisions. I don't think we've fully accounted for the externalities with current economic assessment tools such as cost-benefit analysis. We need to make better decisions so we need to demand that of our policy makers, and contribute to the implementation however we can.

            Either you're part of the solution or you're part of the precipitate.

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • Spooky:

                20 Nov 2008 12:51:15pm

                The problem is that you are assuming that the wrong choices have been made.

                Take war for example. You are assuming that war itself is a mistake. Yet it remains the most effective way of ensuring that certain people achieve certain goals. Is it a mistake in the eyes of those people?

                The current global situation is because of an emerging struggle between global powers. The Middle East nations are simply the battleground. This struggle will continue until one power accepts domination by the other, an event which may never happen.

                The nation of Iran is far from continuous. I can think of both the introduction of Islam and the Iranian Revolution.

                While you obviously have a view on how the world should be, I encourage you to reflect on the complexities of the world as it is. Your solutions go against both politics and economics.

                You also assume that people are ignorant to the externalities of their decisions. On the contrary, these externalities are well known. The externalities are the effect of a decision. It is just that you believe externalities should be a cause, not an effect.

                And when the need for a sustainable existence becomes needed, you can expect the developed nations will take the steps required. The third world will be left to starve.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • L:

                20 Nov 2008 1:55:14pm

                I believe I am reflecting on the world the way it is. I am just questioning the rational and methodology of policy makers. I hardly think that challenging one proposed policy or suggesting another go against politics and economics.

                Economics is, by definition, the allocation of scarce resouces amongst limitless possibilities. I am questioning the allocation of scant resources, how is that not economics?

                Politics is how the decisions are made to allocate those scarce resources. How is challenging the decision making framework against incongrous with this concept?

                You appear to accept war as necessary. I accept that it occurs, but I don't accept it is necessary. I think it should be regarded as a last resort in politics (which has not been the case lately; if so, where are the WMD's and where's Osama?). I think war is admitting that politics fails. I think it is a gross misallocation of resources and extremely wasteful. I believe history supports me on this all the way from Pyrrhus to the invasion of Iraq.

                As for "when the need for a sustainable existence becomes needed", that was in 1982 when we crossed the point that the Earth could not continue to support the way we chose to live (according to Mathis Wackernagel's Ecological Footprinting methodology). Actually it would probably be a bit before that, but we have past the point at which we need to exist sustainably. Perhaps the externalities of that haven't been understood or noticed yet, but I think it's best to apply the precautionary principle with that one.

                I understand causality (cause and effect), correlation, and externalities are all distinctly different terms with different meanings. I don't think externalities are causes, I'm not sure what you're on about there. Externalities of one policy/decision can be determining factors or influence another problem/policy issue, which would subsequently be addressed by a policy/decision. I feel I'm quite clear on this, I'm not sure what you mean.

                I think your reference to a dominant developed world and a sunserviant developing world a bit Dickensian.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • geoff:

                20 Nov 2008 3:03:51pm

                mathis wackernagel-what a brilliant name. i think he should get a nobel prize just for that. also i would like him to be prime minister-a country where you can say 'our leader is prime minister wackernagel' could never go wrong.

                ps L-most of what you say is exactly right. people who are obsessed with money can't see anything else. war, exploitation, environmental degradation-these are all great money-makers.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • Spooky:

                20 Nov 2008 3:15:43pm

                Externalities are the consequences of economic decisions on non-related parties.

                You believe that these consequences are unknown to the decision maker. I am arguing that they are, and that those making these decisions are fully aware of the consequences.

                Perhaps one day we will find some cornucopia to provide us with unlimited resources. Until that day, people will benefit at the expense of others.

                And if for some reason I am wrong, and fifty years from now we live in a utopia, then you will receive my sincere apologies.

                Until then, I will look at the world with a humble and realistic outlook.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • L:

                20 Nov 2008 4:39:50pm

                I don't think the systems that we currently use to determine the externalities are as good as they should be. If we're lucky an extremely subjective cost-benefit analysis will be done (usually with an arbitrary discount rate). Why isn't game theory routinely used?

                Cheer up though Spooky, there's plenty that you can do to make the world a better place.
                -pick up that piece of rubbish and put it in a bin
                -visit your mum/dad/grandparents and cheer them up
                -visit someone else's
                -give a donation of school books to a school you'll never visit in a country you'll never go to (makes a great out-of-the-blue present for a loved one)
                -volunteer for something you are passionate about
                -go for a walk in the nearest park

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • Oz:

                20 Nov 2008 2:32:17pm

                Some decisions go against economics? If by a narrow free market economy defenition maybe, yet socialist states like Norway seem to do alot better than us.

                The push towards socialism is scary because most people associate it with communism and think "dictatorship". Despite communism and socialism are similiar in economic terms, its very easy for a socialist state to exist in countries that have some of the most free individuals.

                People have made the stupid mistake of saying "the freer the market the freer the people" yet one of the worlds most free markets is also one that has Guantanimo Bay and the Patriot Act. Australia has a free market yet follows totalitarian ideas like internet censorship.

                In reality modern socialist states are very democratic and some like Sweeden and Norway enjoy more individual freedom than us. Your "boom/bust" cycle is caused by greed by both businesses and individuals, they get too greedy during a boom and dont save money, so when the excess runs out everyone is screwed.

                In the states regulation kept on decreasing, trying to get the industry to self regulate and just like the great depression, we see why that is a bad idea, because of G-R-E-E-D!

                As far as Iraq goes, its was absolutly stupid to go there, your conspiricy theories about WMD's has been shown to be as silly as 911 "inside job" theories.

                The bottom line was 9/11 happened because the US govt were asleap not because they were evil. Saddam was by no strech of the imagination a nice guy, yet he was an enemy of Al'Queda. The war in Iraq CAUSED the damage not repaired any.

                There were plenty of warnings against it, but Bush didn't even know about different muslim sects. The Iraq war was one of the biggest screw ups in the history of the US and that says quite alot. You had 8 years with a group of bimbo's in charge of one of the worlds most powerful nations and now

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • John Michaels:

                20 Nov 2008 3:42:20pm

                It's hard to be better at making decisions when the planet seems to be run by professional politicians that only care about a 30 second soundbite on the nightly news. People have a choice when they vote in an election. Vote for somebody that actually represents your community rather than voting for someone who is only interested in following the party line.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Mark:

    20 Nov 2008 10:37:17am

    My primary school age son attends Buranda State School in inner Brisbane where philosophy is taught in every class from prep to grade 7. It is the principal reason we decided to send him there.

    The results of this program are astonishing. The children are taught how to think not just what to think. They are taught to think things through and understand consequences by doing thought experiments and practical philosophical discussion that is age appropriate. As a result, boys and girls have equal educational outcomes in the classroom and in most subjects the children perform at higher than the state or national average.

    They still behave like little kids and they are not all geniuses but they all seem to really enjoy the philosophy class. It spills over into other subjects of course so that what may seem obscure or difficult in maths or English can be tackled with the philosophic tools they are developing.

    These tools are vital if children are to be able to apply critical analysis to everyday experiences and not just accept things because of authority. In other words, philosophy can help our children become responsible adults in a participatory democracy and that is important for the future of Australia and the globe.

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • BB:

        20 Nov 2008 11:04:15am

        Three cheers for Buranda State School. Hopefully others will follow.

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • John Paul Satay:

    20 Nov 2008 10:51:12am

    Renee Descarte
    Was a drunken fart
    Old Aristotle
    Was a bugger for the bottle



    I really don't think there's much else I could add - because I have forgotten the other parts of the song

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • PShaw:

        20 Nov 2008 12:17:44pm

        Emmanuel Kant
        Was a real pissant
        Who was very rarely stable.

        Heidegger Heidegger
        Was a boozey beggar
        Who could drink you under the table.

        David Hume
        Could outconsume
        Schopenhauer and Hegel

        And Wittgenstein
        Was a boozy swine
        Who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

        ...
        There's nothing Neitzche couldn't teach yer
        About the raising of the wrist

        Socarates himself
        Was permanently pissed...
        ...
        Aristotle Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle
        Plato they say could stick it away
        Half a crate of whisky every day

        ????

        Rene Descartes
        Was a drunken fart
        Who said, "I drink therefore I am."


        That's the best I can do. Who said culture was dead!

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • John Paul Satay:

            20 Nov 2008 12:34:51pm

            Muchas Gracias - saves me going home and trying to find my old Python VHS stash - must remember to update to DVD ..

            Thanks, mate - I will be singing this all day now , to my ex-parrot.. while indulging in some cheesy comestibles, of course.........in between nailing my children's heads to the ccofee table - I am a cruel but fair parent...but failing Philosophy at school is something that requires a commensurate punishment.

            ..

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • PShaw:

            20 Nov 2008 3:30:54pm

            After the second ...

            John Stuart Mill of his own free will
            On a half a pint of Shandy was particularly ill.
            Plato they say, could stick it away
            Half a crate of whisky every day
            Aristotle Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle
            Hobbes was fond of his dram
            Rene Descartes was a drunken fart
            Who said, "I drink therefore I am".
            Socrates himself is particularly missed
            A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.

            How's that for a memory?

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • dragon:

    20 Nov 2008 10:59:35am

    Human nature ..... here are a few reasons:

    A generation of curious and creative Australians may well ask:

    Why is war still seen as a solution in the 21st century?

    2 Neighbours fight over the colour of their fence !

    Why is power either conceded by or taken from people?

    Because most people are either apathetic or indifferent !

    Can a balance ever really be struck between the environment and economic growth?

    No ! Most whinge about the carbon but will have 2 plasma tv's in their homes. Humans are consumers !

    How can the Maslow pyramid be inverted so that people have food, shelter and warmth and more time to think about the world we live in and how best to preserve it?

    Humans are too busy collecting material wealth.

    What did Prime Minister Rudd mean when he spoke of "a future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility"? How will he execute his plan for "a future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia"?

    Humans are great when it comes to bigotry and caste systems.
    Pollies will never stay in power long enough to implement these social changes. The government that gets in is the one that promises the pensioners an extra $30 per week.

    What is the right thing to do?

    From who's perspective is the right thing judged ?
    Adolf Hitler thought that he was right too !

    What are my real needs, and how can I best satisfy them in a responsible way?

    My real needs do not correspond to my neighbour's and so my responsible behaviour would be deemd by other's with opposite views as callous.

    The point is this utopia will never be realised when humans are involved !

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • I stink therefore i man:

        20 Nov 2008 11:23:45am

        A Utopia is a very subjective thing. It doesn't matter what conditions you place upon it, human or otherwise, one man's utopia is another's Ramsay Street.

        It sounds so cliche but the only true path to happiness and hence your own personal utopia is from within.

        A Utopian society? who'd want one anyway? I imagine it would be quite boring after a while.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • dragon:

            20 Nov 2008 11:30:58am

            " A Utopian society? who'd want one anyway? I imagine it would be quite boring after a while."

            BINGO !

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • J:

                20 Nov 2008 12:07:10pm

                A philosophy course would do the Utopian-society bashers a lot of good.

                A Utopia is defined as a world, state of affairs or society in which everyone has the greatest amount of happiness possible.

                Do you think you would be happy if you were bored? A Utopian society, by definition, would not be boring after a while.

                Of course, you might say a Utopia is physically impossible to achieve, but that's a different argument.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • John Paul Satay:

            20 Nov 2008 11:34:13am

            I agree - the best kind of Society, in my opinion, should be much like the one we have in Australia ( and most other "democratic" countries.

            Tolerance, free enterprise, freedom of thought and expression and sexuality ( consensual, although I draw the line at bestiality, it's not for me, but I won't speak for anyone else), and general mutual respect - among other things, this is only a tiny list.

            However, as The Fire Breathing One above pointed out, how to get EVERYONE to play the game?

            Probably impossible - totalitarianism , or even legislation, NEVER works - Stalin and Mao et al tried, but surprise, surprise, they found they couldn't kill everyone.

            Perhaps this is why, as you said, many seek and find their own Utopia - for me this has meant that mostly I live by my own rules, I have great faith in my "moral " ( I hate that word, but can't think of an alternative ) compass . I do accept the laws of the land ( most of them), but am quite prepared to pay the consequences of any transgressions in the eyes of Society .

            As Bob Dylan sang:
            To Live Outside The Law, you must be honest...

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • holly:

                20 Nov 2008 12:06:43pm

                Be wary JPS of total faith in your own moral compass. The equipment should be checked periodically and always open for improvement.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • John Paul Satay:

                20 Nov 2008 12:30:25pm

                Holly, I totally and unconditionally agree - I am a big fan of "fallibility" - and not in the inane religious sense.

                I don't know everything - I learn as I go along, and try to keep an open mind. But, I admit and accept that I have prejudices, like anyone else-

                I ALWAYS include myself in the great mass of wonderful bits and pieces of flesh, blood and thought that comprise Sapiens Homo -

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • Spooky:

            20 Nov 2008 11:42:43am

            I think the best we can hope for is eudaimonia, as quoted by Plato:

            "The happy life is thought to be one of excellence; now an excellent life requires exertion and does not consist of amusement. If Eudaimonia, or happiness, is an activity in accordance with excellence, it's reasonable that it should be in accordance with the highest excellence, and will be that of the best thing in us"

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • CoorongDan:

            20 Nov 2008 12:01:14pm

            I would have thought Ramsay Street was Utopia!

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • Rufus T Firefly:

            20 Nov 2008 12:07:33pm

            You're right - a utopian society would be boring, but so too is 'utopia from within'. As you so rightly point out, such 'true paths to happiness' are simply (empty and superficial) 'cliches'; the sort of notion of 'subjectivity it is built on is specious nonsense (can you tell I've 'been there fallen for that!?)

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Richard Bender:

    20 Nov 2008 11:29:13am

    Surprise, surprise, yet another person taking Mrs Thatcher's quote out of its context. I can't be bothered looking up the exact quote, but the general gist of what she said was: "We quite rightly provide assistance to those who genuinely cannot find work or housing, but there are people who seem to think they don't need to work because society will look after them. But what is society? There is no such thing, only individual men and women paying taxes. It's not society that's supporting you, but your neighbours. And if you are able to work, you owe it to them to look for it."

    To the main point of the article, I agree with a wider focus on philosophy. John Locke's "Two Treatises on Government", or at least the second treatise, should be compulsory reading for all politicians upon election to a parliament. Time for governments to know their place.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • BruceTheGoose:

        20 Nov 2008 2:07:13pm

        Quite right - the full text of Maggie's quote is here:
        http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=106689

        I also agree that there should be a wider focus on philosophy. As others in this forum have commented, philosophy is about critical thinking. What could be more important in education than training people to think?

        Whether this leads to 'a return to [a]... spiritual set of values' as suggested in the article is a bit dubious - it suggests that when people think hard about their lives and values, they'll choose to believe in the bloke upstairs. I think it is the very point of 'having faith' that there isn't enough evidence to believe in a god without some faith. Teach people to think harder will teach them to question more.

        Return to spirituality or not, if philosophy is taught more at least people will be better able to make rational choices about their lives.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Margo:

    20 Nov 2008 11:44:43am

    Yes, once upon a time, not so long ago, there was a poorly-funded but potentially important Philosophy in Schools program that should have been more widely adopted. It encouraged children to think 'philosophically' about issues that were relevant to them, giving them skills in critical analysis and and understanding of the moral bases of human actions. We could do a lot worse that include programs such as this as part of the Government's much-heralded 'education revolution.'

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • holly:

    20 Nov 2008 11:48:35am

    Encouraging philosophy in early education could also be stimulated with a debating in schools policy of sorts. Debates on ideas in a formal contest setting are wonderful vehicles for critical thought. With Australian culture so nestled in sports, debating contests may stand a good chance of just encouraging philosophy and discussion skills that will carry through to adulthood. A love of debate is not prevalent in Australia. There is as much (?) desire for games with balls than games with ideas. But is this the result of childhood encouragement? Our heros are the footballers, not the debaters.

    As for the question of where policy is going, I think we must be prepared for the promised education revolution to be cut or at least delayed in the face of the financial crisis. I don't like that one bit but I think it will be one of the first or second things to be announced that "under the circumstances...."

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • biffo:

        20 Nov 2008 1:04:07pm

        Holly, go read the united nations philosophy link that is provided in the article. In italy their world philosophy day discussion is about sport and the relation to a making of society.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Reds word:

    20 Nov 2008 11:50:20am

    Parents are at fault. For a generation there has been gross corruption of the education system by parents who do NOT see its purpose as building the nation, but rather a market place that exists for the purpose of delivering their child a much elevated result in comparison with their peers. What this means is that dull or mediocre students of the rich are given positions of management and leadership in our community and workforce, rather than brighter sparks that are from lower socio economic groups. These parents arent interested in philosophy, only status and its sad to see the rich uni studnets out of their depth academically and the poor ones with merit out of their depth financially. Fall of Roman Empre situation

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Robert:

    20 Nov 2008 11:54:02am

    I'm not a big fan of Thatcher, but I'm also not so keen to dismiss her remark about individuals. (I think the British can speak more acutely about the disintegration of a culture, a society, more than many other nations!)

    I suspect we are rapidly becoming a collection of individuals rather than a "society". The article doesn't attempt to show what culture is and why Kellie Tranter believes we have a 'culture'.

    The surveys that are explicated seem to suggest that our society, or our culture, is in fact disintegrating as our children become more fearful and more satiated by material gain.

    Do we have a culture? Do we even have a society anymore, or are we on the same road that Britain took in the 80's and 90's? The road to Eliot's Wasteland.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Social Anathema:

        20 Nov 2008 7:35:19pm

        Our "culture" is the way we think, and why we think like that.
        It is about our underlying assumptions.
        Philosophy is about examining those assumptions.
        For example, much of our current culture is based on what I call "fundamentalist individualism."
        The underlying assumption of this is that we all have an individual free will, which has a number of consequences in our practical lives.
        There are other underlying assumptions that also direct our thinking, and our cultures.
        By recognising and questioning these assumptions, we can change our culture.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • John:

    20 Nov 2008 11:56:57am

    Thatcher's comment "There's no such thing as society, there are individual men and women" has interesting parallels in physics.

    For years scientists thought the world could be completely described in terms of fundamental particles. If you could reduce the world to its smallest particles and understand them then you would have a complete description of the world, to the extent of being able to predict the future. The had a Thatcher like view.

    At the beginning of last century they began to discover that they were wrong. Things like the uncertainty principle and chaos theory came to light. Not only are the fundamental building blocks important, but so are their INTERACTIONS. If you leave the interactions out you have an incomplete picture of the universe, that is less rich than reality. Today it is being realised that what we experience in our everyday physical world is as much a product of interaction between particles as the particles themselves. In an almost magical way the interactions give rise to macroscopic structures that are not present at the microscopic level. It all revolves around the statistics of large collections of interacting particles. Look up the "theory of nothing".

    People are like particles. Our interactions (society) give rise to large scale effects and structures that cannot be traced back to any one person. You have to examine society, not just people, to understand how humanity works.

    In time smart politicians will come to the same conclusion about people. Not only are individual people important but so are their interactions. These interactions are what we call society. You cannot separate people from society without losing both.

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • holly:

        20 Nov 2008 12:02:45pm

        Yes! Parachutes and truffles!

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Spooky:

        20 Nov 2008 12:11:06pm

        The scientists were wrong? I beg to disagree. You are confusing chaos theory with ignorance.

        The moment you throw a coin, the result is preordained. The force you put in the coin, taking into account gravity, motion and resistance, can only lead to one inevitable result.

        The only reason we cant predict the coin result, is because we are ignorant of the forces at work. Scientists are attempting to find out about the interactions of these forces. When this understanding is reached, we will be able to predict the coin every time.

        Also known as the theory of everything.

        Likewise with society. If we cannot predict what society does, it is due to a lack of understanding of the forces at work. People are far more predictable then you give them credit for. Otherwise we wouldnt have economics and politics.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Robert:

        20 Nov 2008 12:20:00pm

        John, I looked up the Theory of Nothing... there was nothing there!??

        Excellent remarks though re. physics. I suppose I would add that such a study of society by an individual would involve the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and would render such a study, well... uncertain?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Social Anathema:

        20 Nov 2008 7:02:46pm

        Yes.
        We have an "interactive will" rather than an individual "free will".
        It's a philosophy thing.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Another view:

    20 Nov 2008 12:17:53pm

    Yes, philosophy should be taught to children.

    However, in line with many other things, I do not believe that this is the exclusive responsibility of the education system.

    I do believe that parents should ignite in their children the innate curiosity to question rather than accept, to consider rather than to merely "do", to listen to the views of others rather than to merely accept their own views.

    This should be a part of growing up. We as adults practice many of these traits on a daily basis. When was the last time you did something merely because you were told to? Did you not question it? Did you not consider the impact of that action upon yourself, your workmates, or the environment?

    Philosophy, and the analytical/theoretical process which it follows, can be applied to many, many situations in our daily life. And I for one am convinced that judgements, actions, and decisions taken after due consideration is made, are far better than those taken "on the fly".

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • James:

        20 Nov 2008 12:41:39pm

        My best teachers at school were the ones who allowed us to think about the facts being presented. The worst were the ones who simply wanted us to regurgitate those facts.

        We're getting an entire generation now of children who don't question things at all. They're happy to accept what they're being told. Worse still, these youngsters will grow up and some them will become teachers, repeating the cycle.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

          • biffo:

            20 Nov 2008 1:12:17pm

            massive generalisation james.

            All those little kiddies that 'don't think' voted for the first time and changed the government they grew up under.

            kudos kiddies.

            Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • John O:

                20 Nov 2008 1:59:12pm

                Maybe but I think it more likely only 60% voted to change and a good bunch of them voted for the Greens and not Labour which they voted for by default.

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

              • Jayy:

                20 Nov 2008 2:29:48pm

                Yes, and see where that got us...

                Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • John Michaels:

    20 Nov 2008 3:25:24pm

    There's not much to look forward to as a child. All that seems to happen is that bad news gets shoved down your throat everywhere you go. If it's not bad news then it's the encouragement of the image as everything which leads to mass consumption in order to please some other persons creation of what is meant to be. It's hardly surprising that mental illnesses are growing in number when young people are presented such a divided schizophrenic view of the world. If philosophy can help them to develop critical thinking then that can only be a good thing.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Rosie:

    20 Nov 2008 3:52:03pm

    Philosophical studies at university level involves the study of political systems, poverty, binary oppositions and other aspects of philosophy that are stereotypical. Philosophy involves much more than that.

    We do teach it to children. From birth they are taught the social norms, and attitudes they will carry with them forever. This is also philosophy. When parents tell their children that they should respond violently to violence from others, they teach them the philosophical concept of 'an eye for an eye' (not an Australian ideal by the way).

    It is never to young to start learning about how we think and learn; and it does not require little children to be taught mature vocabularies. We teach concepts such as sharing and evaluating ourselves through games and activities.

    Children have so many philosophies shoved at them, including religions and they need help sorting the good ideas from the bad and relevant from the extremist.

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Jane Smith:

    20 Nov 2008 4:24:53pm

    not only young children but teenagers and university students... it's amazing that we have forgotten what universities used to be , not just getting a job, but a place of free thinking & exploration... it's how we pulled outselves out of the dark ages... we may end up back there if we don't allow a place for people to think, legitimately, rather than being indoctrinated. Have you ever noticed that people who come out of university these days, don't have a well rounded education or seem to think too deeply other than the bottom line of there job???

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • JoeR:

    20 Nov 2008 4:37:28pm

    I think this article shows what can be presented, try this:

    ...Children's sense of their place in the world is not under threat. Children are not worried about the environment. Over a half of the children surveyed are not worried about having enough water. Just over five in 10 (56 per cent) are not nervous about the future impact of climate change and 57 per cent of children are not worried about air and water pollution. Not many are concerned about the escalating tension in world affairs. Almost a two thirds of children (69 per cent) are not worried that they will have to fight in a war when they get much older. Almost two third (64 per cent) are not apprehensive about terrorism. Three quarter of children are not troubled about the state of the world and they honestly believe it will be fine as they get older.

    ...Almost a two thirds (64 per cent) know that adults do care about what children think...