Marjan Simenc

The article is based on the criticism of philosophy for children being considered as part of the culture of therapy. This criticism claims that PFC treats children as “fragile and vulnerable” and that the PFC programme, which primarily aims at enhancing social and emotional skills, in fact contributes to the dependency and frailty of children. The article comes to the defence of PFC by presenting arguments against this reproach and goes on to analyse the concept that is in the heart of this criticism, i.e. the relationship between philosophy and therapy. In this context, a reference is made to Wittgenstein’s concept of philosophy as therapy which proves to be instrumental in reflecting on the relationship between academic philosophy and philosophical practices as well as in considering the fundamental goals of philosophy for children.

L’article traite des différents rôles de l’identité dans l’enseignement de la philosophie. La première partie de l’examen se concentre sur l’identité en tant que matière à apprendre, c’est-àdire l’identité en tant que contenu des théories philosophiques enseignées à l’école. La deuxième partie traite de l’identité en tant qu’objet de recherches, ce qui a trait avant tout au quotidien des élèves et aux identités qu’ils s’assignent ou qu’on leur assigne. La troisième partie examine l’identité qui n’est pas là – une identité absente, qui laisse un vide à combler. Tous ces différents aspects soulignent une nature à multiples facettes du concept d’identité ; c’est pourquoi l’un des objectifs de cet examen est d’offrir une réponse à la question de savoir si l’identité peut encore être considérée aujourd’hui comme l’un des concepts clés de la philosophie ou s’il a été réduit à un aspect marginal de la compréhension de la condition humaine actuelle

Projekt filozofije za djecu bio je radikalna inovacija. Povezao je djecu, školu i filozofiju na način koji je do tada bio nezamislivim. Karakteristična obilježja filozofije za djecu su njeno naglašavanje dijaloga te koncepcija mišljenja temeljena na uvjerenju u ljudsku pogrešivost. Pitanje je, međutim, je li i sam pokret filozofije za djecu dijalogičan i samo-korigirajući. Ovim radom nastoji se pokazati kako je pokret filozofije za djecu oblikovao otvoren prostor dijaloga u kojemu se može odvijati rasprava o novim filozofskim usmjerenjima. Međutim, Lipmanov kurikulum za filozofiju za djecu nije uključen u dijalog; posljedica je da taj kurikulum gubi na relevantnosti unutar filozofskoga istraživanja i riskira postati pukim povijesnim dokumentom.The Philosophy for Children project was innovative insofar as it established a new link between children, school and philosophy which was previously unthinkable. The characteristic emphasis of Philosophy for Children is on dialogue and on a conception of thinking based on a belief in human fallibility. The question, however, is whether or not the Philosophy for Children movement is itself dialogical and self-corrective. This article tries to show that Philosophy for Children as a movement has formed an open dialogical space in which the discussion of new philosophical orientations can take place. However, the Lipman curriculum for Philosophy for Children is not included in the dialogue; as a consequence this curriculum is losing its relevance within philosophical inquiry and it risks becoming solely a historical document

Filozofija za djecu veoma je uspješan program poučavanja filozofije, čija metoda se sve više upotrebljava i u drugim područjima, posebno u poučavanju kritičkog mišljenja, moralnog odgoja i građanskog odgoja. Autor pokušava pokazati da učinkovitost metode ne proizlazi samo iz premještanja težišta s učitelja na učenika, i s učenika na zajednicu, nego zasluge za široki spektar učinaka ovog programa treba prije svega pripisati posebnoj ulozi učitelja u zajednici istraživanja, koja omogućuje uspostavljanje procesa u kojem i samo znanje dobiva status bitnoga popratnog rezultata.Philosophy for children is a highly successful programme of teaching philosophy, the method of which is also used in other fields, particularly in teaching critical thinking, and moral and civil education. The author attempts to show that the effectiveness of the method does not issue from transferring the focus from the teacher to the student and from the student to the community alone; rather, the merits of the wide array of the advantages of this programme should primarily be ascribed to the special role of the teacher in the research community, which facilitates the establishment of a process in which knowledge itself gains the status of an important by-product