A. Kadir Çüçen

The aim of teaching philosophy to children ultimately is not to teach them the history of philosophy, but rather to teach them to think, starting from philosophical concepts. This will help to develop high-level skills in children such as questioning, research, understanding and interpreting knowledge, establishing meaningful relationships between knowledge, creating original ideas, and problem-solving. Models of philosophizing with children have been developed, and systematic application attempts have been made, producing successful results in many countries of the world. According to Matthew Lipman, these skills should be developed at a very young age with use of the model of philosophy for children (P4C). Our aim is to show and explore how to develop and sustain creative thinking, which is one of the achievements of P4C. If Lipman is right, children participating in these activities will start to gain creative thinking skills from an early age and will apply this foundation in other knowledge acquisition processes at more advanced developmental stages. This presentation aims to reveal the interrelation between P4C and creative thinking activity. First P4C will be explained, and then creative thinking and the interrelation between the two will be expanded upon in the conclusion.

The problem of traditional epistemology is the relation of subject to external world. The distinction between subject and object makes possible the distinction between the knower and what is known. Starting with Descartes, the subject is a thinking thing that is not extended, and the object is an extended thing which does not think. Heidegger rejects this distinction between subject and object by arguing that there is no subject distinct from the external world of things because Dasein is essentially Being-in-the-world. Heidegger challenges the Cartesian legacy in epistemology in two ways. First, there is the modern tendency toward subjectivism and individualism that started with Descartes' discovery of the 'cogito.' Second, there is the technological orientation of the modern world that originated in the Cartesian understanding of the mathematical and external physical world.

Displaying the stages of my expedition in logic, the purpose of this essay is to admit how I have been involved in the field of logic from time to time –and how, sometimes, I have not. Therefore, starting from my undergraduate years, I shared my first acquaintance with logic and the following processes. My interest in logic has continued after my graduation and throughout my teaching life, and has never decreased. My education in logic started at the Faculty of Languages, History and Geography, and continued at the Middle East Technical University and then at the University of Pittsburgh. I have contributed to the field of logic with the courses that I instructed after finishing my PhD, and along with my studies on logic, yet my competence in this field has not always satisfied me. That is why I have always asked myself: To what degree I am a logician? This essay, which is a kind of short autobiography, also allows me to respectfully acknowledge the logicians who contributed to me. This essay, which also sheds light on the past 40 years of the logic studies in our country, demonstrates the current level of logic studies. The continuation of the studies under the umbrella of the Logic Association would provide a positive impact on the logic studies in our country.

Kant and previous philosophers in the modern philosophy have inquired into the limit of human knowledge, so the limitation of knowledge is the result of a basic view of the Critical philosophy. According to most of the modern philosophers, before one wants to attempt to know God, the essence of being, etc., he or she must first investigate the capacity of knowledge itself in order to see whether it is able to accomplish such an attempt. Hegel criticizes this view in the Encyclopedia, section 10. He claims that the task to examine knowledge before using it is based on a false analogy with tools. If one does not want to fool oneself with words, it is easy to see that other instruments can be investigated and criticized without using them in the particular work for which they were designed. But the investigation of knowledge can only be performed by an act of knowledge.