Laura D'Olimpio

It is with pleasure that we welcome new and returning readers to the third issue of the Journal of Philosophy in Schools. Our second issue, published earlier this year, has reinforced the fact that there is an enthusiastic audience for academic research and reflection on philosophy with children, philosophy in schools and, by extension, philosophy and education. As of 1st November 2015, issue 2 had received over 16,943 total abstract views, giving an average of over 2420 views per article. Total article downloads were over 5222, giving the issue an average article download of over 746. We thank you for your continued support and are excited to report that we have 1316 Facebook ‘likes’ for our page, and 528 followers on Twitter. These figures have doubled in the last six months since the last issue of the JPS was published.

This year the Journal of Philosophy in Schools kicked off with a special issue, volume 5 number 1, comprising seven invited articles that addressed the foundational question of why philosophy should be taught in schools. Deftly guest edited by Michael Hand from the University of Birmingham, the papers make a cumulative and convincing argument for why philosophy should be taught across the pre-tertiary educational curriculum. The issue makes a strong argument that may be used to defend and propagate the philosophy in schools movement. We hope it will be used pragmatically, politically, and persuasively by our readers to raise awareness and further the cause of teaching philosophy to young people and extending philosophy beyond the Academy.This issue honours one person who has dedicated his career to furthering this cause. Philip Cam is an international authority on philosophy in schools who has been a pioneer in introducing philosophy and ethics into schools in Australia. Phil completed his MA in Philosophy at the University of Adelaide and his DPhil at the University of Oxford. He is Adjunct Associate Professor in the School of Humanities and Languages at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, where he has been for over 30 years. In the various positions Phil has held at UNSW, in the Philosophy in Schools Association for NSW, and for the Federation of Australasian Philosophy in Schools Associations, he has worked hard, inspired and taught many, and contributed much to the shape of philosophy in schools across Australasia. This year, a little bird informed the JPS that Phil was retiring and turning 70, even while he continues to be productive, publishing, presenting and assisting with philosophy in schools projects and events. The opportunity thus presented itself to publish a collection of papers critically engaged with Cam’s work. Two further articles are included in this issue.

We are pleased to publish Volume 4 Number 1 of Journal of Philosophy in Schools in an open-access format. This issue contains five original articles exploring the efficacy of teaching philosophy to children in a variety of countries and cultural contexts. In this issue, we have researchers and practitioners represented from Hawai‘i, Israel, Canada, America and the United Kingdom. This international and multicultural mix serves to remind us that philosophy can be taught in any country and with children of all ages, although some local, religious and cultural considerations and sensitivities ought to be applied in relevant ways to pedagogical praxis.

Welcome to the fifth issue of the Journal of Philosophy in Schools. In April this year the Federation of Australasian Philosophy in Schools Associations held its biennial conference in Wellington, New Zealand. Organised by the then Chairperson of FAPSA, Dr Vanya Kovach, the conference was a great success and attracted many teachers as well as local and international academics working in the fields of Philosophy, Education, and Philosophy of Education. The two-day conference was supplemented by an ‘Action Day’ that saw contributing academics and practitioners facilitating Communities of Inquiry and P4C activities with students from local primary and high schools. The opportunity to listen to theoretical papers and then witness examples of praxis was a wonderful representation of the two arms of the Philosophy in Schools beast that we celebrate here at the JPS. In this issue, we are delighted to bring you five original articles that were initially presented as papers at the FAPSA conference, along with a book review.

Welcome to the fourth issue of the Journal of Philosophy in Schools. 2016 marks our third year of publishing the JPS online in an open-access forum, and we are so pleased with the support and positive responses we continue to receive for this initiative. We are delighted to offer you another five original articles in this issue that all engage with how philosophy is practiced with young people in various educational contexts. We are also steadily growing our social media presence and are excited to report that we now have 1797 Facebook ‘likes’ for our page, and 731 followers on Twitter. Our statistics in terms of article views and downloads is equally impressive. As of 1st May 2016, and taken together, the three previously published issues had received over 109,814 total abstract views, giving an average of 4,393 views per article. Total article downloads across the three issues are 38,379, giving an average article download of 1,535. This demonstrates the vitality of the audience interested in, researching, and practicing philosophy in their classrooms with students of all ages. We thank you for your continued support of the JPS and encourage you to continue to spread the word.

There is a traditional debate in analytic aesthetics that surrounds the classification of film as Art. While much philosophy devoted to considering film has now moved beyond this debate and accepts film as a mass art, a subcategory of Art proper, it is worth reconsidering the criticism of film pre-Deleuze. Much of the criticism of film as pseudo-art is expressed in moral terms. Adorno, for example, critiques film as ‘mass-cult’, mass-produced culture which presents a ‘flattened’ version of reality. Adorno worries about the passivity encouraged in viewers. Films are narrative artworks, received by an audience in a context, making the focus on the reception of the work important. The dialogue held between Adorno and Walter Benjamin post-Second World War is interesting because, between them, they consider both the possible positive emancipatory and negative politicization effects of film as a mass produced and distributed storytelling medium. Reading Adorno alongside Benjamin is a way to highlight the role of the critical thinker who receives the film. Arguing that the critical thinker is a valuable citizen, this paper focuses on the value of critical thinking in the reception of cinematic artworks. It achieves this by reconsidering Adorno and Benjamin’s theories of mass art.

Splitter commences this book by telling the reader that it was a pedagogical incident that led him to write it. Presenting a philosophical seminar series on the topic of ‘identity’ to bright undergraduate students in America from a range of disciplines heightened his realisation that we don’t all use the word in the same way to refer to the same thing. We wouldn’t normally think too much about it, assuming that identity, especially one’s own, is an obvious, assumed entity. However, it is not, really, the closer you examine the concept. Which is precisely what Splitter goes on to do.

As social and political beings, we are able to flourish only if we collaborate with others. Trust, understood as a virtue, incorporates appropriate rational emotional dispositions such as compassion as well as action that is contextual, situated in a time and place. We judge responses as appropriate and characters as trustworthy or untrustworthy based on these factors. To be considered worthy of trust, as an individual or an institution, one must do the right thing at the right time for the right reasons, and the action should have its intended effect. By focussing on character, including a moral agent’s emotional disposition, virtue ethicists offer a more holistic account of trust than that explained by a deontic adherence to one’s duty as governed by a social contract. I will apply this understanding to educational institutions, particularly primary and secondary schools that serve a vital role in society. One of the main roles schools perform is to assist in character formation so that students, through practice, learn to be trusting and trusted citizens of society. I offer the philosophy in schools’ methodology of the community of inquiry as one example of how such practice may be facilitated in the classroom.

This article reflects on the ‘Philosophy and Gender’ project, which introduced the pedagogical technique known as the ‘Community of Inquiry’ into an undergraduate Gender and the Law course at the University of Western Australia. The Community of Inquiry is a pedagogy developed by Matthew Lipman in the discipline of Philosophy that facilitates collaborative and democratic philosophical thinking in the context of teaching philosophy in schools. Our project was to see if this pedagogy could advance two objectives in Gender and the Law at undergraduate level: ‘reflexive thinking’ and ‘standpoint thinking’. We conclude that the Communities of Inquiry had a significant influence on the development of ‘reflexive thinking’ but appeared to have limited influence on the development of ‘standpoint thinking’. Here we provide a practitioner reflection on an exploratory new approach to teaching in a tertiary setting, with a view to setting an agenda for more systematic research in the future.

Following neo-Aristotelians Alasdair MacIntyre and Martha Nussbaum, we claim that humans are story-telling animals who learn from the stories of diverse others. Moral agents use rational emotions, such as compassion which is our focus here, to imaginatively reconstruct others’ thoughts, feelings and goals. In turn, this imaginative reconstruction plays a crucial role in deliberating and discerning how to act. A body of literature has developed in support of the role narrative artworks (i.e. novels and films) can play in allowing us the opportunity to engage imaginatively and sympathetically with diverse characters and scenarios in a safe protected space that is created by the fictional world. By practising what Nussbaum calls a ‘loving attitude’, her version of ethical attention, we can form virtuous habits that lead to phronesis (practical wisdom). In this paper, and taking compassion as an illustrative focus, we examine the ways that students’ moral education might usefully develop from engaging with narrative artworks through Philosophy for Children (P4C), where philosophy is a praxis, conducted in a classroom setting using a Community of Inquiry (CoI). We argue that narrative artworks provide useful stimulus material to engage students, generate student questions, and motivate philosophical dialogue and the formation of good habits which, in turn, supports the argument for philosophy to be taught in schools.

Media and Moral Education demonstrates that the study of philosophy can be used to enhance critical thinking skills, which are sorely needed in today’s technological age. It addresses the current oversight of the educational environment not keeping pace with rapid advances in technology, despite the fact that educating students to engage critically and compassionately with others via online media is of the utmost importance. D’Olimpio claims that philosophical thinking skills support the adoption of an attitude she calls critical perspectivism, which she applies in the book to international multimedia examples. The author also suggests that the Community of Inquiry – a pedagogy practised by advocates of Philosophy for Children – creates a space in which participants can practise being critically perspectival, and can be conducted with all age levels in a classroom or public setting, making it beneficial in shaping democratic and discerning citizens. This book will be of interest to academics, researchers and postgraduate students in the areas of philosophy of education, philosophy, education, critical theory and communication, film and media studies.

Philosophy in Schools: An introduction for philosophers and teachers edited by Sara Goering, Nicholas J Shudak and Thomas E Wartenberg. Taylor & Francis, New York, NY. ISBN: 9780415640633. The edited collection Philosophy in Schools: An introduction for philosophers and teachers is exactly that; an introduction to the central ideas of the Philosophy in Schools movement, with tips and strategies as to how to implement Philosophy for Children in your classroom or educational space. With 25 chapters, this handy edition includes the writings of 31 academics and well known practitioners of P4C worldwide. While all the voices contributing to this volume are positive and optimistic as they exalt the benefits of P4C, the diversity comes in the form of the various ways in which the numerous authors have practiced philosophy with participants of different ages, cultural and socio-economic backgrounds. There is a mix of theory and pedagogy, with a focus on the pragmatic reality of doing philosophy with young people.

It can hardly be denied that play is an important tool for the development and socialisation of children. In this article we argue that, through dramaturgical play in combination with pedagogical tools such as the Community of Inquiry (CoI), in the tradition of Philosophy for Children (P4C), students can creatively think, reflect and be more aware of the impact their gestures (Schmid 2000b) have on others. One of the most fundamental aspects of the embodied human life is human interaction that is based on expressions, what Schmid calls gestures. Through self-reflection, one’s set of gestures can be developed into a deliberate ‘life-performance’; a conscious, selected and coherent work of art (Schmid, 2000b, p. 332). Drawing on Nietzsche’s idea of living artistically, we explore how Schmid’s philosophy of the art of living, P4C and the liberal arts, with a focus on drama education, can work together to develop (self-) reflective, reasonable citizens who are able to develop their own art of living while respecting and supporting the development of the good and beautiful life of others.

Trust is vital for individuals to flourish and have a sense of well-being in their community. A trusting society allows people to feel safe, communicate with each other and engage with those who are different to themselves without feeling fearful. In this paper I employ an Aristotelian framework in order to identify trust as a virtue and I defend the need to cultivate trust in children. I discuss the case study of Buranda State School in Queensland, Australia as an instance of successful school reform that reinstates trust in an educational setting. Buranda makes use of the community of inquiry (CoI) pedagogy practiced by advocates of philosophy for children (P4C). Educators may create a safe space in the classroom by using the CoI and giving children the chance to voice their ideas and build upon, as well as question, those of others in a democratic and respectful manner. Through this pragmatic dialogue, trust may be established, along with a sense of belonging that supports well-being in the classroom as well as in life.

The Affect of good artworks can be difficult to explain or describe, particularly in relation to conceptual art. The experiential process of engaging with an artwork involves the spectator perceiving the physical art object as well as receiving a concept. For an aesthetic experience to result, or for the viewer to be affected, the artist must be skilled and the receiver must adopt the relevant attitude. Many theorists argue that the correct attitude to adopt is one that is objective and ‘disinterested’. I argue that a ‘loving’ attitude, in the Iris Murdoch / Martha Nussbaum sense derived from an ethics of care / virtue ethics framework is also appropriate when engaging with art in order to achieve an aesthetic affect. This open, caring attitude requires the receiver to be receptive to the concepts contained within the work as well as its formal features. If the concepts implored are ethical or social, a disinterested attitude may impede the appropriate up-take of intended affect. Therefore, I argue that pure aesthetes are misguided when they take their ‘disinterested’ attitude too far and argue that ethical judgements do not apply to art qua art. If the artist is making an ethical point, or if the concept involved relies on ethics, then a caring critique is not a contradiction in terms; the viewer is encouraged to adopt multiple perspectives in order to get closer to an objective whole. I will explore the notion of affect through the art of a contemporary, conceptual Western Australian artist, Steven Morgana.

Empirical evidence advancing the theory of anthropogenic climate change and resultant policy action has been framed through the perspectives of scientists, economists and politicians; the ultimate objective being to minimise the risk of dangerous climate change through the reduction of GHG emissions. However, policies designed to reduce carbon pollution have utilised cost benefit analysis, largely ignoring ethical implications of such actions. This has resulted in a climate debate that sidelines the moral and social considerations of the suggested actions designed to reduce the impact of dangerous climate change. Special interest groups have focussed on subjective interpretations of objective statistics, resulting in an extreme polarisation of viewpoints, pitting climate change deniers against politico-economic rationalists, with climate scientists largely sitting on the sidelines. There has, however, been a recent shift in the science of climate change acknowledging that, “many profound ethical questions are hidden in scientific and economic arguments about various climate change policy proposals” ‘White Paper on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change’, Rock Ethics Institute, Penn State University). We wish to promote an inter-disciplinary approach to the ethical considerations of climate change and situate the debate within a ‘real world’ context to enable people to link evidence and resultant policy to their own moral responsibility as ‘global citizens’. By placing reliable scientific information within a holistic framework, scientific outcomes with a high level of certainty may be conveyed within a wider perspective that includes ethical and social considerations, resulting in a stronger claim for practical outcomes with respect to climate change solutions. This can be used to support policies that are practical as well as moral.

Ethical debate about the use of animals in science is argued within different ethical frameworks; mainly utilitarianism, deontology, relativism or emotional ethics, with some debaters preferring particular frameworks. Stakeholders to the debate are veterinarians, scientists using animals, animal welfare groups and the general public. To estimate the balance of ethical frameworks used, we ran a discourse analysis of written texts by each stakeholder. The discourse analysis targeted the description of animals, instances of emotional language and language associated with utilitarianism, deontology and relativism. Frequencies were compared using ANOVAs and Tukey tests. All stakeholders used words associated with all frameworks but emotional language was the most used followed by utilitarian, relativist and deontological language. Emotional language was used in texts from the general public more than in texts from veterinarians and scientists and animal welfare representatives. Animals were mainly described in a utilitarian way, more frequently by scientists than the general public. All stakeholders preferentially used negative emotional language when referring to animals than positive, and all stakeholders prioritised human interests over animals. Not surprisingly, a mixture of ethical frameworks were used to assess the ethics of animal experimentation. However, the language used in texts from animal welfare groups and the general public suggest that those two groups preferentially build arguments with emotion rather than utilitarianism, a framework that is privileged by veterinarians and scientists since they primarily use animals.

In Australia, the ethics of the use of animals for scientific purposes are assessed by Animal Ethics Committees that are comprised of the four major parties involved in the animal experimentation debate: veterinarians, scientists using animals, animal welfare representatives and members of the public. AECs are required to assess animal experiments as ethical based on a cost/benefit analysis, suggesting the use of consequentialist ethics. However, people are more likely to use a mixture of frameworks when making ethical decisions. Therefore, we hypothesised that AEC members will make their decisions using argumentation relying on multiple frameworks, including ethical relativism, deontology and emotional ethics; frameworks commonly used in the public debate about animal experimentation. The language used by AEC members, examined using discourse analysis techniques, can indicate which ethical frameworks they rely upon. Using a role playing method, representatives from each of the four AEC categories discussed the ethical value of eight fictional protocols involving animal experimentation. The discussions were recorded and analysed using Nvivo for instances of emotional and ethical language. Data were analysed using ANOVAs and Tukey tests. Emotional language was more common than ethical language (p.

Much of the current philosophy of film literature follows Walter Benjamin’s optimistic account and sees film as a vehicle for screening philosophical thought experiments, and offering new perspectives on issues that have relevance to everyday life. If these kinds of films allow for philosophical thinking, then they are like other so-called ‘high’ artworks in that they encourage social, political and economic critique of social norms. Yet, most popular films that are digested in large quantities are not of a high aesthetic or moral quality. Theorists who conceive of cinema as a means of thinking must firstly reply to the objections that most films simply do not encourage active, intelligent, imaginative participation. Prior to the publication of Deleuze’s cinema books, theorists such as T. W. Adorno feared the advent of the Hollywood Studio film as akin to Nazi propaganda. Dismissed as elitist, their concern was that mass produced and distributed artworks portrayed the depicted social norms as immutable reality. If the imagination cannot enter and engage with the messages depicted through the filmic medium, i.e. through montage or similar ‘shock’ techniques, then viewers cannot critique the moral and social status quo screened; instead, they simply receive it, and it is reinforced. If we consider how passive cinematic viewers are, voyeuristically ensconced in a darkened theatre, we can see the concern here. If only some films allow for critique of social, political and economic norms in society, and these films are attended by those viewers who are already critical viewers, then how is film more generally a tool for thinking? If we are to honestly discuss the filmic medium, we must acknowledge the Hollywood blockbusters that stifle imaginative engagement with their narratives and often depict stereotypes. I argue that we need to read Adorno alongside Benjamin, in order to acknowledge the positive as well as negative attributes of films. In doing this we see the need to focus on the critical attitude of the viewer, as well as the moral messages of the film, particularly when we consider what the majority of consumers willingly ingest uncritically. Adorno and Benjamin both offer a historical account of art whereby their aesthetics require audience reception and are linked to experience. The way art is tied to human experience and the world of sensory perception is through language. Language allows the communication of ideas or referents which convey meaning via signs that contain some kind of ‘truth’ in the form of a cognitive component that must be interpreted. While there are many different stories being told in contemporary culture, the focus on the critical thinker, the interpreter of the narrative, is vital.

This article explores the meeting of two approaches towards philosophy and education: the philosophy for children approach advocated by Lipman and others, and Schmid’s philosophical concept of Lebenskunst. Schmid explores the concept of the beautiful or good life by asking what is necessary for each individual to be able to develop their own art of living and which aspects of life are significant when shaping a good and beautiful life. One element of Schmid’s theory is the practical application of philosophy through the notions of Bildung, reflection, prudence and practical wisdom, as well as the requirement for each individual to take responsibility for actively shaping their life as an artwork. In this sense, each person is the artist responsible for living their own beautiful life. We argue that there are useful parallels between Schmid’s concept of the art of living and P4C, such as the ideal of a holistic philosophy that is “lived.” The pragmatic approach of P4C focuses on the embodied learner who practices critical, caring and creative thinking. Both P4C and Schmid’s theory are reminiscent of the Aristotelian notion of practical wisdom, which allows for an approach to an education for life that prepares students to develop their own art of living.

This article details Cultural DeCoding, a humanities based high school extension program for gifted and talented Year 11 and 12 students in Western Australia. The brainchild of Dr Annette Pedersen and Dr Angela McCarthy, the program runs for four days across the summer holidays before the start of the school term. The program fills a gap that exists in the education of gifted and talented secondary students who are interested in the humanities. It is comprised of sessions run by academics who facilitate discussion and activities based on their area of research and teaching expertise. The group is deliberately kept small in order to give students a chance to engage deeply and respectfully with like-minded others. The intention is to give these students an experience of what university will be like, and to have a chance to think philosophically; namely, critically, creatively and morally, in collaboration with others.

There is a traditional debate in analytic aesthetics that surrounds the classification of film as Art. While much philosophy devoted to considering film has now moved beyond this debate and accepts film as a mass art, a sub-category of Art proper, it is worth re-considering the criticism of film pre-Deleuze. Much of the criticism of film as pseudo-art is expressed in moral terms. T. W. Adorno, for example, critiques film as ‘mass-cult’; mass produced culture which presents a ‘flattened’ version of reality. Adorno worries about the passivity encouraged in viewers. Films are narrative artworks, received by an audience in a context, making the focus on the reception of the work important. The dialogue held between Adorno and Walter Benjamin post-WWII is interesting because, between them, they consider both the possible positive emancipatory and negative politicization effects of film as a mass produced and distributed story-telling medium. Reading Adorno alongside Benjamin is a way to highlight the role of the critical thinker who receives the film. Arguing that the critical thinker is a valuable citizen, this paper focuses on the value of critical thinking in the reception of cinematic artworks. It achieves this by reconsidering Adorno and Benjamin 's theories of mass art.