Walter Kohan

Gareth B. Matthews, The Child’s Philosopher brings together groundbreaking essays by renowned American philosopher Gareth B. Matthews in three fields he helped to initiate: philosophy in children’s literature, philosophy for children, and philosophy of childhood. In addition, contemporary scholars critically assess Matthews’ pioneering efforts and his legacy. Matthews (1929-2011) was a specialist in ancient and medieval philosophy who had conversations with young children, discovering that they delight in philosophical puzzlement and that their philosophical thinking often enriched his own understanding. Those conversations became the impetus for a substantial component of Matthews’ scholarship, from which this book features essays spanning the length of his career. Contemporary contributors to the book critically evaluate Matthews’ scholarship, showing where he broke new ground and identifying developments and debates in the fields he helped to initiate. They take up pressing challenges, including biased idealizations of childhood in children’s literature; the tensions between teaching philosophy to, and doing philosophy with young people; the merits of theorizing childhood without theorizing children; and how professional philosophy at once desires and resists a return to childhood. This second volume in the Philosophy for Children Founders series is an important resource for philosophers, educators, and anyone interested in children’s philosophical thinking, developmental psychology, what it means to philosophize with children, the nature of childhood, and how children’s literature goes philosophical. It will guide and inspire those who share Matthews’ conviction that the impulse to philosophize begins in early childhood.

In this paper I introduce some of the main theoretical principles of an educational and philosophical project that is still very much alive and in process. The project Does Philosophy Fit in Caxias? Public School Bets on Thinking is housed in two public schools in the city of Duque de Caxias, a suburb of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, that may be characterized as an urban poverty zone. The project involves philosophizing with students and the creation of a teacher education agenda in which teachers study and practice the art of facilitating philosophical experiences with their students. Created in 2007, it is sponsored by the Center for Philosophical Studies of Childhood at the University of the State of Rio de Janeiro, and includes roughly 20 teachers and 400 students from ages 6 to 70—with the latter as part of an adult literacy class. We have already presented how this project works it some Conferences and publications. This paper presents some of its main theoretical principles, i. e.: “thinking experiences”; “intellectual equality”; “philosophy for children”; “a new policy”.

Percibimos órdenes dominantes y, a la vez, grietas o discontinuidades en ese mismo orden. Valores, saberes y prácticas imperan en nuestra experiencia al mismo tiempo que fisuras de ese imperio engendran asombros, dudas, moestias. De estos sentimientos se nutre el cuestionamiento y la investigación filosóficos, un intento, al fin, por superar la inmovilidad de aquellos órdenes imperantes. En efecto, la filosofía, en tanto tarea crítica, cuestiona los valores, ideas y creencias que permean las prácticas socialmente dominantes. A la vez, en tanto tarea creativa, la filosofía piensa otros órdenes, alternativos a los imperantes. Las disposiciones y métodos de la filosofía se ejercen sobre toda práctica significativa para desatar su caráter ordinario, rutinario o cotidiano. Se establecen así condiciones de posibilidad para nuevos estados de cosas. En ese doble moviento de poner en cuestión y poner en cuestión y proponer alternativas para un determinado ámbito de la realidad, la filosofía se despliega en un conjunto variado de "filosofías de... ": la mente, el lenguaje, la cultura, la religión, la educación, el deporte, la tecnología, entre otros.

Paulo Freire es una figura extraordinaria no solo para la educación brasileña, sino también para la educación latinoamericana y mundial. Sus contribuciones no se limitan a una obra escrita, mucho menos a un método, ni siquiera a un paradigma teórico; también refieren a una práctica y, de un modo más general, a una vida dedicada a la educación, una vida hecha escuela, o sea, una manera de ocupar el espacio de educador que lo llevó de viaje por el mundo entero ‘haciendo escuela. Este libro es por sí mismo un símbolo de lo que un maestro puede provocarnos y del gesto material de dar una respuesta en nombre de sus efectos y afectos.

In the world of Philosophy for Children (P4C), the word “method” is found frequently in its literature and in its practitioner’s handbooks. This paper focuses on the idea of community of philosophical inquiry (CPI) as P4C’s methodological framework for educational purposes, and evaluates that framework and those purposes in light of the question, what does it mean to bring children and philosophy together, and what methodological framework, if any, is appropriate to that project? Our broader aim is to highlight a problem with regards to the concept of method in P4C, and to question the consequences of that concept in the practice of philosophical dialogue with children. To better situate the concept of method within P4C (which, we think, will help to clarify some of the dialogues and debates within P4C as a philosophical field), we will identify two different historical understandings—represented by Rene Descartes and Hans Georg Gadamer—of the concept, and suggest new possibilities for understanding philosophical practice with children in light of their difference.

This work aims to consider philosophically the issue of the method in philosophical practices with children. It analyzes some influences received by the creators of Philosophy for Children, Matthew Lipman and Ann Margaret Sharp, like the pragmatism of J. Dewey. It describes the meanings of three similar expressions in Lipman's work: methodical, methodological and method. It offers some criticisms of method: Hans-Georg Gadamer, but especially Henri Bergson and Gilles Deleuze. Finally, he questions the need of a method for doing philosophy with children or, more broadly, for thinking childishly in education. Este trabajo tiene como objetivo pensar filosóficamente el tema del método en las prácticas filosóficas con niñas y niños. Analiza algunas influencias recibidas por los creadores de Filosofía para Niños, Matthew Lipman y Ann Margaret Sharp, como el pragmatismo de J. Dewey. Describe los significados de tres expresiones similares en el trabajo de Lipman: metódico, metodológico y metodológico. Ofrece algunas críticas del método: Hans-Georg Gadamer, pero especialmente Henri Bergson y Gilles Deleuze. Finalmente, cuestiona la necesidad de un método para hacer filosofía con niñas y niños o, más ampliamente, para pensar infantilmente en educación. Este trabalho busca pensar filosoficamente a questão do método nas práticas filosóficas com crianças. Analisa algumas influencias recebidas pelos criadores da Filosofia para Crianças, Matthew Lipman e Ann Margaret Sharp, como o pragmatismo de J. Dewey. Descreve os sentidos de três expressões afins na obra de Lipman: metódico, metodologia e método. Oferece algumas críticas a leituras do método: Hans-Georg Gadamer, mas sobretudo Henri Bergson e Gilles Deleuze. Finalmente, problematiza a necessidade de um método para fazer filosofia com crianças ou, de um modo mais geral, para pensar infantilmente na educação.

In this paper, I present an experience of philosophical dialogue with small children in a public school in Bari, Italy in the context of the Philosophia Ludens for Children project. I present the experience, including the transcripts of six conversations with several groups of children, and then draw some inferences concerning the importance of the relationship between Universities and schools; the philosophical strength of both children’s commitment and philosophical ideas and their positive understanding of childhood.

Neste dossiê nós apresentamos dez textos que, desde diferentes perspectivas, pensam a infância. Oito deles foram selecionados entre as comunicações apresentadas no IX Colóquio de Filosofia e Educação, cuja reflexão traz “Filosofia e educação em errância: inventar escola, infâncias do pensar”, ocorrido na Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro entre os dias 1 e 5 de outubro de 2018. Desses textos, dois procedem do fluxo normal da revista. Independentemente de sua procedência, quer dizer, de sua postura e da disciplina a partir da qual desenvolvem os seus argumentos, bem como das práticas que os alimentam, etc., todos eles se entregam à tarefa de “estar à escuta” da infância, de ficar tendidos a ela. Desejamos aos leitores-escutadores que este dossiê lhes deixe boas e estimulantes ressonâncias; que os deixe ser rompidos pela infância que convida à escuta de si e do outro num corpo só que comporta toda a diversidade que este dossiê convida.

This paper deals with two forms of education—Platonic and Socratic. The former educates childhood to transform it into what it ought to be. The latter does not form childhood, but makes education childlike. To unfold the philosophical and pedagogical dimensions of this opposition, the first part of the paper highlights the way in which philosophy is presented indirectly in some of Plato’s dialogues, beginning with a characterisation that Socrates makes of himself in the dialogue Phaedrus. The second part details Plato’s condemnation of writing in the Phaedrus, and draws on the critique by Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze to establish what is at stake in this condemnation. In the third part, the pedagogical and political implications of this condemnation are reviewed, and Plato is placed in a surprising position in relation to his own teacher, Socrates. Finally, through a comparison between childhood and philosophy, the educational value of putting childhood and philosophy together is questioned. Through a number of questions, the paper ends problematising the pedagogical, political and philosophical value of placing the practice of philosophy in the realm of childhood citizenship education. It also recovers the value of philosophy—as a form of questioning and unlearning what we know and affirming the value of not knowing—in a childlike education.

At the very least, even though Chinese schools do not look very different from those in the West, China offers an opportunity for Philosophy for Children to question its basis, its methodology, its aims. It seems to be expressing a different cultural voice, and to be disposed to the kind of dialogue we are more used to claiming than practicing. Both Kunming and Shanghai provide, in their own ways, formidable contexts: the deep, strong and disciplined educators of Railway Station School of Kunming and the scholarly, sophisticated and committed members of the Shanghai institute for Research in the Human Sciences seem determined to take Philosophy for Children, not just beyond their own limits as Chinese, but beyond the limits Philosophy for Children has already established for itself in the West. Philosophy for Children in China, then, looks like a wonderful opportunity to think ourselves--what we are as educators engaged in the practice of philosophy--again. An invitation to think ourselves again. Is this not what dialogue and philosophy are about? It’s up to us to accept the invitation.

This conversation offers a discussion of the meaning, sense and social function of school, both as an institution and as a time-space for the practice of schole . It also discusses the different types of Greek time : Schole is, as aion or childhood, a further emergence, a radicalization of school as an experimental zone of subjectivity and of collectivity. Schole is, as aion or childhood, a further emergence, a radicalization of school as an experimental zone of subjectivity and of collectivity. The source of this radicalization is philosophy, to the extent that the philosophical impulse turns us inward upon ourselves in the interest, not of techniques for the enhancement of productive time, but of an emergent new brain: in the interest of new values, new sensibilities, new capacities, new connections, new centers of meaning, new bodies. Today we are in a global situation—the situation of late capitalism and late empire—in which school turns upon and ruthlessly suppresses schole, which distorts their relation almost beyond recognition. There is a struggle between school as a more efficient, far-reaching vehicle for the technical transformation of the chore curriculum, and schole as utopia. The paper also examines the place of childhood in educational discourse, and some critiques of the practice of community of philosophical inquiry in schools are considered as well as the role of questions and questioning in both philosophy and schooling. Finally, it problematizes the role of philosophy in school and in scholé: if the role of philosophy in schole is an active one, even an activist one, then the role of the child in producing dikaiosyne in school as scholé should be no less active. The conversation ends with some questions: in what way is the philosophical life preferable to the political life? Why are the politics of philosophy worth any more than the politics of the political order?

The present narrative describes and problematizes one year of Educational and philosophical work with illiterate adults in contexts of urban poverty in the Public School Joaquim da Silva Peçanha, city of Duque de Caxias, suburbs of the State of Rio de Janeiro during 2008. The project, “Em Caxias a Filosofia En-caixa?!”, consists of a teacher education program in which public school teachers study and practice the art of composing philosophical experiences with their students, and the realization of actual experiences of philosophy in classrooms with children and students in an adult literacy class. This narrative is concerned with the latter aspect of the project, more specifically experiences working with adult students practicing philosophy. The thirty students and three teachers involved in the course do not study the history of philosophy, nor do they create philosophical systems or theories. Rather they participate in a philosophical experience that might best be able to understand by examining Pierre Hadot’s concept of philosophy “as a way of living”.

Childhood & philosophy é uma revista que está esperando por nascer pelo menos desde que Sócrates ocupou um lugar singular (pelo menos para nós) na pólis do século v a. C. e fundou uma disciplina. A concepção dessa revista se sustenta, muito mais tarde, no providencial encontro histórico entre a educação da infância e a filosofia. Esse encontro, por sua vez, teve que esperar pelas proféticas declarações de Rousseau no Emílio, enviadas qual manuscrito posto numa garrafa à revolução iminente e pelo lento desenvolvimento, ao longo dos séculos XIX e XX, de um adulto realmente capaz de ouvir as crianças, senão de escutá-las. Para isso foi necessária a desconstrução romântica de tal adulto (masculino) vivamente esclarecido quem, devemos admitir, fez possível a revolução

La filosofía de la educación ocupa un lugar paradójico en el campo de los saberes. Diversas producciones teóricas - de filósofos y pedagogos - convergen en señalar este carácter problemático. Siendo un área temática propia de la filosofía, resulta un espacio en general poco disputado entre los filósofos, como si la educación no estuviera entre las grandes preocupaciones filosóficas de nuestro tiempo. Por el contrario, suelen ser pedagogos quienes llevan a cabo investigaciones y publicaciones en el área y, más aún, quienes ofrecen la disciplina en universidades e institutos de formación. Por lo menos en la inmensa mayoría de las universidades de América Latina, filosofía de la educación, como disciplina, ya no pertenece a los Departamentos o Facultades de Filosofía sino a los de Ciencias de la Educación o Pedagogía. En filosofía de la educación, el “de” ha pasado de indicar materia y tema, aplicación de la filosofía, a señalar pertenencia a la educación. En los Congresos de Filosofía no suele siquiera conformarse un área de la materia. Con reticencias, algunas veces los filósofos admiten discutir cuestiones de didáctica de la filosofía.

We lead off this issue of Childhood and Philosophy with a collection of testimonies, homages, and brief memoirs offered from around the world in response to the death of the founder of Philosophy for Children, Matthew Lipman on December 26, 2010, at the age of 87. To characterize Lipman as “founder” is completely accurate, but barely evokes the role he played in conceiving, giving birth to, and nurturing this curriculum cum pedagogy that became a movement, and which has taken root in over 40 countries, from Iceland to Nigeria to Taiwan to Chile and everywhere in between. The movement itself is broader than the program, which has in fact experienced multiple transformations in multiple contexts over its half-century of life. In fact, as many of the testimonies below either state outright or imply, the movement is an emancipatory one and thus implicitly political, infused with all the long-suffering hope for our species inspired in us by the fact of natality, and by our own intuitive faith in the transformative power of reason—or as Lipman came to call it, “reasonableness.” For those seized by its educational possibilities, it presents a sudden influx of sunlight and fresh air into an institution long stultified by its own rigid habitus, and promises the reconstruction of schooling in the image of authentic democratic practice that recognizes and honors the unique capacities of children. As Philosophy in the Classroom—Lipman’s first and now classic statement of educational philosophy--puts it, the movement promises a re-orientation of the goal of education from information (or “learning”) to meaning, and inaugurates the dialogue with childhood and children that follows from that. Lipman was not just founder of this movement but creator, inventor, developer, convener, organizer, faithful soldier, ambassador, apologist, polemicist, propagandist, and, finally, undying optimist.

In this paper, we present a compendium of excerpts of Plato´s dialogues on childhood. We have collected the major references to children and childhood through Plato’s opus, and divided them between those categorizations of children which can be as small as phrases which use “child” as an example of a certain kind of disposition or character; and those passages which deal with the education of children. Of course the two books in which Plato speaks most of children and childhood—Laws and The Republic—are both devoted in varying degrees to systematic education, and space does not permit us to include any but the most salient elements of his very broadly conceived scheme, which naturally extends backwards into the procreation of children, and before that, the management of union between the sexes, and the purposes of procreation. As for Plato’s attitude towards children, we will leave the reader to evaluate that, but we offer several questions: 1) What does Plato’s view of childhood imply about his view of adulthood? 2) Can Plato be understood to have held views of childhood any different from his contemporaries? 3) What are the political implications of Plato’s views of childhood—especially given his frequent association of children with women, slaves, and the “ignorant multitude”? 4) What do Plato’s views of childhood matter to his philosophy as a whole? 5) And finally, what do they matter to the understanding of children as philosophers themselves?