Mohamad Reza Vaez Shahrestani

This fieldnotes article documents the design and implementation of a Philosophy for Children (P4C) lesson aimed at introducing children aged 8–12 to the ethical dimensions of Artificial Intelligence (AI), with a particular focus on data privacy. Drawing on the Community of Philosophical Inquiry (CoPI) methodology— specifically the “Plain Vanilla” model associated with Thomas Jackson and disseminated by the IAPC (Yarmel & Gregory, 2023)—the session employed an illustrated narrative stimulus, “Liam’s Secret Base,” followed by student-generated dialogue and a collaborative “Safe Sharing Scenario” activity. These components were designed to foster critical, creative, and caring thinking (Lipman, 2003) about digital life. This article demonstrates that engaging young learners in ethical inquiry about AI technologies is both timely—given the global call for age-appropriate AI-ethics education (UNICEF, 2021; Dabbagh et al., 2025)—and feasible, since most children already interact with AI-mediated platforms. Classroom reflections showed that the lesson supported higher-order reasoning, metacognitive awareness, and collaborative dialogue in a supportive environment, outcomes consistent with reported benefits of P4C (Adams et al., 2023; Ab Wahab et al., 2022). Rather than prescribing a list of “don’ts,” educators used open-ended questions and realistic digital-life scenarios to nurture children’s autonomy in ethical decision-making, echoing participatory design approaches from the MIT Media Lab’s AI + Ethics curriculum (Wu, 2020; Williams et al., 2022). We conclude that P4C—co-founded by Matthew Lipman and Ann Margaret Sharp (Gregory & Laverty, 2017)—provides an effective pedagogical framework for integrating digital-ethics learning into childhood education, enabling students to become thoughtful, informed, and responsible digital citizens capable of navigating an increasingly data-driven world (Floridi, 2023/2024; Turner, 2019).

Este artículo examina la relación entre las máximas del entendimiento humano común de Immanuel Kant y la Comunidad de Investigación Filosófica (CPI). Las tres máximas de Kant—pensar por sí mismo, considerar las perspectivas de los demás y mantener la coherencia lógica—son fundamentales para el razonamiento filosófico y la educación. El enfoque pedagógico de CPI, desarrollado por Matthew Lipman y Ann Margaret Sharp, promueve el pensamiento crítico, creativo y colaborativo en los niños. El estudio analiza cómo CPI se alinea con los ideales kantianos al fomentar la autonomía intelectual, la toma de perspectiva y el razonamiento sistemático en la educación. Inspirado en el pragmatismo de John Dewey y la visión de Walter Benjamin sobre la imaginación infantil, el artículo destaca cómo CPI combina el pensamiento independiente con el diálogo colectivo para cultivar la reflexión crítica y la conciencia ética. Además, el artículo argumenta que la CPI puede ser un modelo educativo efectivo para abordar desafíos contemporáneos como la desinformación, la polarización política y la falta de compromiso cívico. Mediante debates abiertos, los estudiantes aprenden a evaluar críticamente la información, cuestionar supuestos y desarrollar responsabilidad social. Al aplicar los principios de CPI en la educación, los docentes pueden crear entornos de aprendizaje inclusivos que fomenten la investigación filosófica, la integridad intelectual y la participación democrática. Esta síntesis demuestra que los principios kantianos, aplicados a través de la CPI, pueden fortalecer la educación moderna, preparando ciudadanos que piensan de manera racional y actúan con responsabilidad social.

Turing does not provide an explanation for substituting the original question of his test – i.e., “Can machines think?” with “Can a machine pass the imitation game?” – resulting in an argumentative gap in his main thesis. In this article, I argue that a positive answer to the second question would mean attributing the ability of linguistic interactions to machines; while a positive answer to the original question would mean attributing the ability of thinking to machines. In such a situation, defending the Turing Test requires establishing a relationship between thought and language. In this regard, Davidson's no-priority theory is presented as an approach for defending the test.

In the article of Bueno titled “Davidson and Skepticism: How Not to Respond to the Skeptic,” he intends to demonstrate that although Davidson’s theory of Coherence holds many attractions, it does not entail a response to any kinds of skepticism including Global, Lottery, and Pyrrhonian. In this study, the goal is to criticize the work of Prof. Bueno in connection with two criticisms raised by him over Davidson’s anti-skeptical strategy. Further, by giving some reasons in favor of Davidson’s anti-skepticism argument, it will be shown that neither the above stated criticisms nor the global skepticism response could undermine the validity of anti-skepticism argument.