The Value of Philosophy

by Zoe Cohen

At some point along the line in our philosophical musings about the point of existence, language, logic, our interactions with our environment, and so on, we must ask ourselves, what is the point of philosophy in the first place? It is easy to fall into the trap of nihilism when you think too hard about why we do anything, but especially so when asking yourself why you bother asking questions about asking questions. Measuring success in philosophy is not so simple and straightforward as in many other occupations or school subjects, if it is measurable at all. A doctor can tangibly identify how many patients they have cured, and an athlete can see improvement in their stats. In school, success in english class can be measured by words spelled correctly or reading comprehension. Success in math can be measured quite clearly because either the student produces the correct answer or they do not. Philosophy does not generally produce such clear, empirical data as do many other subjects. Because of this not so apparent virtue, the pursuit of philosophy is not of obvious value to the general public.

The goal of this paper is to address philosopher Bertrand Russell’s explanation of why philosophy is worth teaching in his paper The Value of Philosophy through the lens of working with the students of Eastwood Elementary School. If Russell’s arguments are correct, people who incept social change are philosophers. If we compare Russell’s view to examples of the discussions of the Eastwood students, we can identify the value of philosophy among subjects like math and english in the school curriculum. The main question is, must someone have a full grasp on societal conventions in order to challenge and transcend them?

PHITS stands for Philosophy in the Schools, and is a program in which students from Oberlin College worked with first and second grade classrooms once a week, with a philosophy curriculum based on several children’s books. Among those books were The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein, A Bad Case of the Stripes, by David Shannon, ‘Dragons and Giants’ in Frog and Toad Together, by Arnold Lobel, Knuffle Bunny, by Mo Willems, and several others. As our class time progressed, it was clear that the students grasped the concept of dissent, as they often took the opportunity to say “I disagree” and, oftentimes without probing from facilitators, would provide an explanation to back up their statement. This is already a challenging concept to grasp because in the traditional school setting the lesson plans are not up for debate. In subjects like math and spelling, as Russell himself concurs, there is a definitive answer. In addition to telling the students it was good to disagree and they needed to give reasons for their opinions, we gave them several other guidelines for philosophy discussions. These included to be open minded, challenge yourself, ask “why?” and to encourage them to speak to each other instead of just addressing the facilitators, we had them call on each other by passing around a stuffed animal.

To address whether the students engaged in philosophy in Russell’s view, let us first determine clear guidelines based on Russell’s definition of philosophical activity. It would be advantageous to discuss what the value of philosophy is not before taking on what it is. Philosophy is unlike the physical sciences because one person’s pursuit of a science can directly impact a large population of people who may be completely ignorant to such studies. For example, a vaccine can benefit exponentially more people than those involved in its development, and they need not know anything of the process of creating the vaccine nor the disease it protects them against to reap said benefit. Russell says that philosophy, on the other hand, has great impact on the the philosophy student, but any effect on other individuals is only indirect. I have some disagreement with this point, as will be discussed later. Another thing philosophy does not provide, to Russell, is any definitive answer. On the contrary, as soon as something can be definitively known it fails to qualify as philosophic. For example, the study of the human mind that used to be considered philosophy now belongs to the science of psychology. Also, the science of astronomy used to be categorized as philosophy.

The value of philosophy can be found in its own uncertainty. (10) To not question one’s own beliefs is at best vain and at worst oppressive. As stated in the Socratic paradox, “The only thing I know, is that I know nothing." To break away from assumptions and common sense is to be liberated. Understanding that one has the ability to dissent and be skeptical of their own thoughts and the thoughts of others is the first step to achieving this liberation. As stated earlier, the Eastwood students dissented to a degree that Russell would be pleased with some topics and less so with others. Interestingly enough, one could gather which “life lessons” and “morals” had and had not been asserted to the children. As to be discussed further later, things like lying and hurting someone’s feelings were unanimously determined to be naughty and thus the discussions around them were less rich.

An example of a moral that elementary school kids are not universally lectured on is the role of artists in society. This discussion came up after the reading of the book Frederick by Leo Lionni. In the story, there is a community of mice who are doing heavy lifting and walking back and forth from the fields to their den carrying supplies for winter while one mouse, Frederick, seemingly sits around with his eyes closed, doing nothing. When asked what he was doing by the other mice Frederick responds that he is collecting colors, sunlight, and words for the cold winter days. The other mice seem to accept this answer, and when the mice are huddled inside their hole during the winter, Frederick presumably is allowed as much food as the other mice. When they are out of food, it comes time for Frederick to offer his contribution to his community and he tells them a poem, which gives them joy. The first grade students were asked whether or not Frederick was doing work, to which they gave varied answers. Some students were adamant that Frederick was not working because, they said, only heavy lifting qualified as work. The same students, were probed whether this meant that they thought their teacher was working responded after some thought that no, what their teacher does would not qualify as work. It was plain to see what morals their parents and the school had and had not yet instilled into the children based on how open they were to disagreement and different points of view.

As Russell describes, one major aspect of philosophy is to challenge information that we take for granted. He describes the situation of a person who never flirts with philosophy as “imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason.”(10) Such a person does not see the irony in criticising the ideals of past generations of humanity which are so confidently deemed erroneous in the modern day, while failing to be critical of their zeitgeist. For example, anyone today could say slavery is bad or that women deserve to vote but to say so requires little thinking of one’s own. These people cannot comprehend how people in the past could have accepted so readily the inferiority of women and people of color, yet they fail to question modern assumptions and beliefs. These are likely the same people that would have mindlessly and passively allowed such inequalities to persist. If we take what Russell says about philosophy to be true, it is the philosophers who failed to be lulled into accepting the zeitgeist at face value and challenged it to the point where they created social change. As Russell says, philosophy does not empirically tell us what is right, but it tells us what may be right, and also what is wrong. If we assess Russell’s breakdown of the value of philosophy, it appears he downplays the level of significance it can have. As stated earlier, Russell says that unlike science, philosophy generally only impacts the individual practicing such thought. However, based on Russell’s definition, should we assume it as true, we could claim that all people who create social change are engaging in philosophy. Teaching children not what to question, but how to question it, is how you create future leaders.

Children are in the process of learning societies assumptions and preconceptions. This could take a children’s philosophy course in many different directions. It is possible that a child’s lack of assumptions makes it easier for them to open their mind and transcend beyond what a normal adult attempting to be sceptical of what they take as given can reach. On the other hand, they may not be ready to challenge these rules they are so newly acquainted with.

What I observed in the children at Eastwood is that they had a difficult time challenging the rules they were just learning for the first time. Take, for example, our discussion with Mrs. Frieda’s first grade class about the book A Bad Case of the Stripes. In the book, a girl named Camilla Cream loves lima beans but does not eat them because she thinks she will be ostracized. As a result of this, she starts turning colors and morphing into shapes at the whims of the people around her. The kids in her class shout different colors at her and watch her skin go polka dotted and striped, and an environmental therapist tells her to pretend to be “one with [her] room” causing Camilla to literally turn into her room, with windows as eyes and a mattress for a mouth. Many specialists come to suggest their cure and each one only worsens Camilla’s condition, each leaving her less like a girl than the last one. Ultimately, the thing that turns her back into human is by eating lima beans. In our discussion with the kids, we primed the conversation to be one about identity and sense of self. We helped the students understand that the reason why lima beans cured her is because she was finally being true to herself and not pretending to be something she was not. The concept of being yourself was something all the students were familiar with. We asked why it was good to be yourself they responded with things that were mostly reiterations of the question itself. For example “you should be true to yourself because no one else is like you.”  It was clear that adults had taught them that it is good to be true to yourself, but the explanation of why begs the question. This is one assumption that adults probably do not challenge themselves. In some cases it is better to not be yourself, especially when doing so can cause harm to others. Children are seldom taught the exceptions to rules, they are just given the rules alone and accept them as such into adulthood.

In the same lesson, another word triggered the rules that the children had been taught. To deepen the discussion of being yourself we had the kids consider the following scenario: Imagine your friend bakes you a pie and is really proud of it. You go to take a bite of it and it tastes awful. Is it okay to pretend you like it so you don’t hurt their feelings? Would pretending to like it qualify as not being true to yourself? In response to these questions, the students seemed to lean towards pretending to like it to avoid hurting their friend’s feelings as being the right choice, having been taught that hurting someone’s feelings is a bad thing to do. However, at one point one of the facilitators used the word “lie” to describe the action of saying the pie was yummy. The use of the word “lie” clearly triggered a switch to be flipped in their heads and they all started to say that they would tell their friend the pie was bad. When asked why, their responses were along the lines of “because lying is bad.” Once the word “lie” was mentioned, the conversation shut down and most of the students would not agree to tell their friend the pie tasted good. When we restated “but your friend’s feelings will be hurt if you say it tastes bad” the children seemed to have a hard time processing it. These two rules that adults had repeated to them innumerable times could contradict themselves in certain scenarios.

As Bertrand Russell argues, philosophy has much value to the individual studying it. If we feel it is important for children to understand that lying is bad, we cannot simply hope they accept it at face value with no other explanation beyond “because I said so.” If we avoid teaching children philosophy out of fear that they will disobey we deprive them of expanding their thoughts and breaking away from the “tyranny of custom.” (10) It is one thing for a kid to tell the truth because mom will get mad if she finds out they lied, but this is not true understanding. To truly grasp why something is bad, one must flirt with the possibility that it is not bad, before rebuilding it and coming up with their own explanation as to why they do not want to lie. A child who learns to question societal norms becomes an adult who can question codified injustices and inequalities. As witnessed in class with the Eastwood students, it is important to, among the laws of math and rules of english, allow for them to learn philosophy: So that they may decide within themselves what is important to them, and how they would like to conduct their lives.