Should Classes in Philosophy be taught instead of History

[Lyx]

Also, Philosophy is about as useful in life as being stabbed. You want philosophy? Go read some Confucius. I hear he has some good stuff.

Are you trying to be funny? Philosophy is more than just "cogito ergo sum". It's everywhere you look; politics, religion, science, ethics...the list goes on.

That depends on what one understands under "teaching philosophy":

- A history course of famous philosophers? Then i agree, mostly useless and perhaps even harmful.
- A verbal sports-game where people disagree over trivialities for the sake of a verbal fight? Then i again agree - mostly useless and perhaps even harmful
- A way to train logical thinking and flexibility (also intuitively) to understand things? Basically training how to figure out things, and how to check statements (also own ones) for errors and deceptions? Learning about different popular mindsets and their advantages and pitfalls? Perhaps even a sound understanding about how one rates stuff (criterion, references, etc), and what good and bad actually is? GO AHEAD! The most universally useful thing you'll ever learn!

 

[McNinja]

Also, Philosophy is about as useful in life as being stabbed. You want philosophy? Go read some Confucius. I hear he has some good stuff.

Are you trying to be funny? Philosophy is more than just "cogito ergo sum". It's everywhere you look; politics, religion, science, ethics...the list goes on.

Yes, the part that you quoted was not meant to be entirely serious. However, I do not think philosophy should replace history. I'm not really familiar with what a philosophy class entails, so I'$ not one to say if something sucks or not. Heck, I don't even know what philosophy specifically means... Like someones specific philosophy? Like obama's pre-election philosophy? Or like a company's mission statement? Like I said philosophy never appealed to me so I can really say either way. But I am majoring in history, so I will defend history and its usefulness.

 

[Thedayrecker]

I'm taking a Philosophy class at my high school, and the class focuses more on history than a traditional philosophy class (or what I imagine one would be like). In fact our "textbook" is A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Western_Philosophy

 

[Kryzantine]

Philosophy should probably replace English at 12th grade, maybe 11th, or be offered as an elective; and even then, it should be focused on one particular philosophical theory (because really, you'd be surprised how many other ideas get mentioned when discussing just one). 11th grade, in our Early American Literature class, we simply had to become involved in transcendentalism, and right now, I'm taking an existentialism elective class. They're great replacements for the regular English classes I had my 1st and 2nd year in HS.

The thing is, schools in general should offer more elective classes earlier. People go off to college and they discover they're paying their first year money for a bunch of AP classes they could have taken in HS, but didn't (or did, and the school didn't let them skip the first year courses). I go to a HS that makes the first 2 years of college look like a joke. We got writers, we got philosophers, we got the science freaks of nature that do O-chem and Physics C for fun, we got the people who are learning their 3rd or 4th language. The one thing all of us agree on, basic classes are a fucking joke and a waste of time. Give the students challenges in all of their classes: if they don't do well in any of their courses, then they don't deserve to go to college. Let them go to a trade school. Soon, corporations will run their own schools; these would be ideal students. If these students find a subject with which they can deeply associate with (me with writing and history, one of my friends with neurobiology, another with math, another with comp sci, etc), then their attention should be diverted to that.

Instead, our current system ensures that the gifted students that are out there and in regular high schools are rotting. I can say that I am a lucky person. I go to a HS that is the definition of gifted, and the material reflects that. I go to one of those schools that can't report class ranking because there are a ton of people in the bottom 50 that deserve to go to college. But I have to realize that most schools aren't my own. There are plenty of schools out there where long, repetitive work is equated with intelligence. These are schools where most people do not take AP classes and where most people are disinterested in learning.

It's pathetic.

 

[Toaster Hunter]

As a History Major, I am against anything that would take away the greatest subject ever! I would encourage both, but to remove History entirely is a mistake.

 

[x434343]

The major argument for teaching History, which most people believe doesn't teach us any real life skills is this, for those people who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. It makes sense but another quote, in which I am probably butchering because I don't know who said it or the exact wording, "History is written by the Victors" which to me means, it doesn't matter what idea is right or wrong, the stronger side wins. Learning history comes with a degree of bias, Liberals think JFK was the best president in the past 60 years while Conservatives would say Reagan.

Shouldn't we instead be teaching students to make there own decisions based on there own logic, maybe using history as a reference point, talking to them about what they would have done instead of what actually happened, Or are such tragic events such as the Holocaust too black and white that we should enforce the idea on students that there is no middle ground on any genocide that would be deemed acceptable.

Oh fuck you. I'm gonna get a History major.

Plus, there's, well, knowing history. Know your origins, events, etc.

As for only one set of history, well, a lie is a lie. Just because they write it down and call it history does not mean its true. That's what historians tend to work towards: Finding the real history. Record combing.

Plus, there's some things that are common knowledge that are not taught in history that I've only found by curiosity of the history books. For example, the Battle of Mogadishu. I got that from wondering US Foreign Policy since 1975. It shows that Somalia has been like it is... well, for a while. This context breeds a knowledge of urgency: Should we send food aid to Somalia, or to the nation just entering a drought?

Finally, bias is in the classroom anyways. I have my Economics teacher talking about how Henry Ford was a wonderful socialist (He was really a Fascist), and how Republicans are worse than the Nazis for deregulating the economy in the 80's. Philosophy tends to be about... well, why?

 

[TheLaofKazi]

I don't think philosophy should be taught instead of history, but I want to see history classes be much, much less of "this is what happened," and spend more time examining different points of views of what happened. The history that is taught is so narrow, limited and biased in school that it could almost be called brainwashing.

I would like to see something like this: Say the class is studying a certain time period, or a certain general movement, theme, anything like that. Keep it open, not too limited. Then give the class time to go off on their own and research anything related to the general time period, event or topic, and then at the end, everybody contributes whatever they discovered and the whole class learns and interprets it. It would be a sort of forum for learning. That would give students the opportunity to follow up with their interest, it would encourage them to find out things on their own, instead of being fed information and being told to remember it. And if people want to draw some sort of philosophical theme or lesson from history, then sure, why not? Why should we needlessly separate everything into limited categories? That's not how real life works. Everything is related in some way, and if a student manages to make those connections to form a bigger picture of how things work, then that student should be encouraged, not discouraged.

And it would also give annoying, socially and politically conscious douchbags like me to bring up all sorts of controversial takes on history to get people to think and question what is looked at as historical fact.

The goal of education should be to support and nurture self-driven exploration and und3erstanding of the world, because what better way to learn then to do it yourself? Our current way of teaching does just the opposite, it's based on rigid process, instruction and obedience to both those instructions and the so-called facts taught in school.

 

[Nieroshai]

History may be written by the victors, but philosophy is written by the slyest bastard in the room. And like in history, he may be lying.

 

[ceeqanguel]

In Canada it doesn't matter anymore if the kid has a high IQ, works hard, gets the grade for a frikkin' Phd. We are not a meritocracy anyway.

Case in point:
1- Any stoner pre-teen can flunk ALL his classes,
2- Grow to be a worthless piece of lazy teenager with zero culture, obedience to his/her parents or open-mindedness whatsoever,
3- At around 17, take some "idiot-grade equivalency test" (sorry for lack of better word, but yeah: you don't need elementary school knowledge to take these tests),
4- GET GOVERNMENT FUNDINGS UNTIL HE SWIMS IN IT! (No. He won't have to repay any of it like I did my college and university loans... 8 years of debt. *sigh!*)
4- Get an impossibly high-paying job like construction worker, oil rigger or machinist (75-120 grands a year. You go and prove me wrong...)

You think I am painting a wrong and biaised portrait here? Think again. How many of you graduates had to rethink their careers simply because they couldn't find work?

I sincerely apologise to all the over-educated carpenters (like myself) and raise a fond middle finger to all the idiot finance analyst, doctors and crooked lawyers out there (awww you ain't all like that, just the lawyers), but when it comes to hard money and successful career, teaching about wonderful, useful, powerful things like philosophy, mathematics, hard science, history, culture, litterat... No! JUST READING A SINGLE BOOK IN THEIR ENTIRE LIFE does seem rather useless...

 

[Kurokami]

I don't really have a story for this question, I saw a thread about which is more important math or history which got me thinking.

The major argument for teaching History, which most people believe doesn't teach us any real life skills is this, for those people who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. It makes sense but another quote, in which I am probably butchering because I don't know who said it or the exact wording, "History is written by the Victors" which to me means, it doesn't matter what idea is right or wrong, the stronger side wins. Learning history comes with a degree of bias, Liberals think JFK was the best president in the past 60 years while Conservatives would say Reagan.

Shouldn't we instead be teaching students to make there own decisions based on there own logic, maybe using history as a reference point, talking to them about what they would have done instead of what actually happened, Or are such tragic events such as the Holocaust too black and white that we should enforce the idea on students that there is no middle ground on any genocide that would be deemed acceptable.



Footnote: I do think genocides of all kinds are wrong, I was just using it as an example.

Philosophy isn't particularly useful, history is, you learn about what people did to deal with certain situations, that could atleast grant some practical information, Philosophy is what you discuss with friends or ponder to try and give yourself some validation on shit that doesn't do more than 'refine' your character.

(I do philosophy btw)

 

[crazyguy668]

I'm suggesting that if you're forced to make budget cuts in this economy, and your choices are to cut a gifted/talented program vs. a disabled students program, you spend your scarce resources where they will do the most good. In a perfect world we get both, but this is not a perfect world.

Wouldn't it make more sense to raise taxes by a very low amount to pay for both programs? Growing up in San Bernardino,CA where there was no programs for disabled students. It was frustrating at times to get any kind of real learning other then your deaf so sit up front with the blind kid. I would hate to see that spread throughout the entire nation.

Plus how would you pick who got into the gifted or talented programs? Through good grades or by doing standardized tests,IQ tests? It seems it would be a hard to pick out the top 10% of students in 7th grade and not rely on the flawed standardized testing; Which I agree is heavily flawed and makes schools needlessly test focused.

It would make more sense to raise taxes to pay for essential public services, but try telling that to the taxpayers. I have always said that the biggest problem with America is Americans---they want unlimited government services but they expect tax cuts to go with them, then they complain about deficits! Said Winston Churchill: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute chat with the average voter."

you would make mopre money with lower taxes, because that would promote buying/selling, starting new businesses, and growing businesses that would lead to higher sales tax income andmore money overall. thats why Reagan improved the economy so much, and we didn't have a giant deficit

PS nice quote, lol

On Topic:no. history should be taught with some philosophy mixed in, but not replaced. Victors do, to an extent, write history, but there still is german and confederate historians etc. and we learn the mistakes of the past in history.

 

[cynikles]

History and Philosophy have more than a few tie ins. I mean, I learned Historical Philosophy when I was at High School. That is, the different philosophies applied to historical method and the like.
Understanding history and it's different perspectives is a big factor looking at my current way of critical analysis. I like to know the history of something in order to create a vision of the present. Besides, I find history incredibly intriguing as it really does show the way the nature of man truly hasn't changed all that much.

Philosophy is definitely worth teaching as it does help with critical analysis and the like, but I don't think there's many High School kids out there that would really realise what benefits it has. History I think is more important for the younger generations in particular as it gives some people a better sense of identity. Philosophy almost has the opposite effect sometimes, better left to University.

 

[SimuLord]

I'm suggesting that if you're forced to make budget cuts in this economy, and your choices are to cut a gifted/talented program vs. a disabled students program, you spend your scarce resources where they will do the most good. In a perfect world we get both, but this is not a perfect world.

Wouldn't it make more sense to raise taxes by a very low amount to pay for both programs? Growing up in San Bernardino,CA where there was no programs for disabled students. It was frustrating at times to get any kind of real learning other then your deaf so sit up front with the blind kid. I would hate to see that spread throughout the entire nation.

Plus how would you pick who got into the gifted or talented programs? Through good grades or by doing standardized tests,IQ tests? It seems it would be a hard to pick out the top 10% of students in 7th grade and not rely on the flawed standardized testing; Which I agree is heavily flawed and makes schools needlessly test focused.

It would make more sense to raise taxes to pay for essential public services, but try telling that to the taxpayers. I have always said that the biggest problem with America is Americans---they want unlimited government services but they expect tax cuts to go with them, then they complain about deficits! Said Winston Churchill: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute chat with the average voter."

you would make mopre money with lower taxes, because that would promote buying/selling, starting new businesses, and growing businesses that would lead to higher sales tax income andmore money overall. thats why Reagan improved the economy so much, and we didn't have a giant deficit

PS nice quote, lol

On Topic:no. history should be taught with some philosophy mixed in, but not replaced. Victors do, to an extent, write history, but there still is german and confederate historians etc. and we learn the mistakes of the past in history.

Except the only balanced budget America has had in my lifetime followed a major tax INCREASE, under Bill Clinton. Once I figured this out I stopped being a Republican.

 

[crazyguy668]

I'm suggesting that if you're forced to make budget cuts in this economy, and your choices are to cut a gifted/talented program vs. a disabled students program, you spend your scarce resources where they will do the most good. In a perfect world we get both, but this is not a perfect world.

Wouldn't it make more sense to raise taxes by a very low amount to pay for both programs? Growing up in San Bernardino,CA where there was no programs for disabled students. It was frustrating at times to get any kind of real learning other then your deaf so sit up front with the blind kid. I would hate to see that spread throughout the entire nation.

Plus how would you pick who got into the gifted or talented programs? Through good grades or by doing standardized tests,IQ tests? It seems it would be a hard to pick out the top 10% of students in 7th grade and not rely on the flawed standardized testing; Which I agree is heavily flawed and makes schools needlessly test focused.

It would make more sense to raise taxes to pay for essential public services, but try telling that to the taxpayers. I have always said that the biggest problem with America is Americans---they want unlimited government services but they expect tax cuts to go with them, then they complain about deficits! Said Winston Churchill: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute chat with the average voter."

you would make mopre money with lower taxes, because that would promote buying/selling, starting new businesses, and growing businesses that would lead to higher sales tax income andmore money overall. thats why Reagan improved the economy so much, and we didn't have a giant deficit

PS nice quote, lol

On Topic:no. history should be taught with some philosophy mixed in, but not replaced. Victors do, to an extent, write history, but there still is german and confederate historians etc. and we learn the mistakes of the past in history.

Except the only balanced budget America has had in my lifetime followed a major tax INCREASE, under Bill Clinton. Once I figured this out I stopped being a Republican.

yes, because when the taxes were raised, it was higher taxes on the economy that at that time and point was still expanding due to earlier tax cuts it will take about a year for the thing to really affect the economic growth.

 

[unoleian]

History serves an important role, but it shouldn't be presented as a laundry list of facts and dates. History is important in context, and the cause-effect relationships between events and the fallout/outcome of those events is the important aspect of a solid history lesson.

Unfortunately, a lot of history classes fail miserably in providing context for events. And, by context, I mean providing a survey of all aspects of life at the time. It's not enough to say "On so-and-so date, this happened. Next year, this happened, and ten years later, this happened. Moving on to the next century...."
What is needed is an understanding of all aspects of the social and cultural climate of the time. These aspects provide a why for the how, and by critically comparing various aspects of popular belief, social mores, cultural expectations and the like of the time, can there even be an understanding of what the causal relationship between event A, event B, and outcome C even is. Events need to be examined through various lenses, not simply associated with a number. And, ideally, these lenses include examining philosophical explorations or norms of that time as well. History is mildly interpretive, but as long as multiple viewpoints are broached and a solid contextual grounding is provided, History is certainly a very important foundation in being world-aware and grounded in the relationships of causation and outcome.

Philosophy is indeed also important, but really, any Literature surveys or humanities programs worth a damn will do a study into philosophy during the course of its program. Actually, through the simple act of critically examining a group of authors from a certain period of time or movement in literature provides a basic understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of the time. Philosophy is also extremely mutable and highly interpretive.

Ideally, there is no one or the other, but both, as opposed to an "instead" mindset, it's much more important to take both disciplines and explore them in their "wholeness," deciphering how one relates to the other and how they have interchangeably shaped each over time. Then a real understanding of our human past begins to take shape.

One without the other is a part and parcel education. It leaves holes in our consciousness like so much emptiness in a block of Swiss cheese.