The Philosophy Foundation E-Book

Peter Worley

• Herausgeber: Independent Thinking Press
• Kategorie: Bildung
• Sprache: Englisch

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2012

Beschreibung

Imagine a one-stop shop stacked to the rafters with everything you could ever want to tap into young people's natural curiosity and get them thinking deeply. Well, this is it! Edited by professional philosopher Peter Worley from The Philosophy Shop and with a foreword by Ian Gilbert, this book is jam-packed with ideas, stimuli, thought experiments, activities, short stories, pictures and questions to get young people thinking philosophically. Primarily aimed at teachers to use as a stimuli for philosophical enquiries in the classroom or even as starter activities to get them thinking from the off, it can also be used by parents for some great family thinking or indeed anyone fed up of being told what to think (or urged not to think) and who wants a real neurological workout. The proceeds of the book are going towards The Philosophy Foundation charity.

Leseprobe

To all the children that The Philosophy Foundation has worked with over the past ten years who have helped to stock up this shop.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to members of The Philosophy Foundation (formerly The Philosophy Shop) for providing entries and for running new contributions with classes of children to help make sure that this book is as tried-and-tested in the classroom as possible. Specialists who ‘tested’ included David Birch, Andrew Day, Steve Hoggins, Rachel Kershaw and Rob Torrington. Especial thanks go to Rob Torrington and David Birch for their close reading of the entries submitted and for their comments; to Rob for his extremely useful, last-minute proofreading efforts.

Thanks to the teachers and classes who have willingly allowed us to test many new sessions with them for the preparation of this book. I must, of course, say thank you to the children who provided some excellent questions and thought experiments of their own, many of which were included in the book (and are mentioned appropriately).

I would like to thank Professor Peter Adamson for his enlightening lecture on ‘Plato, Aristotle and Dialectic’, which I heard him deliver to the Institute of Philosophy. It was here that the topos metaphor fell into place.

The section titles were inspired by a lecture given by A. C. Grayling on the value of philosophy in which he split philosophy into just two: ‘what there is’ and ‘what matters in what there is’. I took this and ran with it.

Thanks to Ian Gilbert for his helpful guidance with the editing process and to Caroline Lenton for her encouraging words about the project and her support in helping to bring the book to print so quickly.

‘Thank you!’ once again to Tamar Levi for the wonderful cover and illustrations and for all her hard work and efficiency.

But most of all I must thank, with all my love, my wife Emma for her essential work on the project: her unofficial editorial work, her contributions, her thoughts, patience, encouragement, belief and love, without whom and without which it simply wouldn’t be.

Preface

Philosophy Shopping

‘Look at all these things I don’t need!’ the philosopher Socrates is said to have declared as he stood before the many stalls filling the marketplace of ancient Athens. In contrast to the stalls in the agora (Greek for ‘marketplace’), and by engaging the citizens there with big, philosophical questions, Socrates offered an exchange of a very different kind. His currency was ideas; a wiser, more reflective person housed within a life well-lived was his aim. This anecdote shows how one can trace the origins of philosophy – as we know it in Western Europe at least – back to shopping.

We can perhaps identify with Socrates here as we too stand amid a dizzying marketplace – albeit a much larger, global one – bombarded from all sides by promises of a better life from ‘pedlars of wares’. And we too may feel the need for an alternative kind of shop as an antidote to the pressures and promises of the modern-day agora – one that guards against the many ‘snake-oils’ on offer by insisting on an ‘account’ or ‘reason’ or logos in Greek. Perhaps we need an alternative shop such as this in order to reach that ‘better life’ by other than financial, consumerist means.

The Philosophy Shop stands as Socrates to the reader: sometimes beguiling, humorous and inspiring; other times irritating, like a gadfly, goading us into wakefulness; and sometimes frustratingly circular or inconclusive. But always – it is hoped – stimulating.

This book aims to guide the reader through it with as few words as possible and without the reader necessarily knowing what it is they want. One way I hope to have done this is through the structure – or topography – of the book. The main body has been divided into four sections, or ‘departments’, each with its own series of subheadings:

1. Metaphysics or What There Is

2. Epistemology or What Can Be Known About What There Is

3. Value or What Matters In What There Is

4. Language and Meaning or What Can Be Said About What There Is

Finally, there is a small collection of entries under the heading ‘Afterthoughts’ that may well benefit from being visited after reading through the rest of the book. That said, the entries in the book can be read in almost any order, but to help the reader/participant(s) further, I have provided a ‘Works well with …’ section at the end of each entry that aims to provide the reader with a multitude of thematic maps through the book (and beyond). The ‘Start Questions’ and the ‘Questions to take you further’ are also structured so as to guide the reader or participants (see ‘What is this book?’ on page 1 for more on this). ‘Afterthoughts’ contains some useful information and guidance on developing philosophical writing of different sorts: Dr John Taylor has provided some helpful notes on how to produce good philosophical writing for philosophy papers and projects; although written primarily for school projects many of the tips would be relevant for first year undergraduate students as well. David Birch introduces the writing of philosophical poetry to children and teachers; ideas that lend themselves to all kinds of development and variation at the hands of creative teachers and pupils.

Contents

Title Page

Dedication

Acknowledgments

Preface

Epigraph

Introduction

What is this book?

Who is book for?

A quick guide to runing an enquiry

The Shop Part IMetaphysics or What There Is

Metaphysics: Ontology (or Existence)

A Knife Idea (ontology, words and things) Peter Worley

The 2 Square (ontology of numbers) Peter Worley

Doughnut: Experiments with a Hole (the ontology of holes) Alfred Archer

Immy’s Box (a priori space and time) Peter Worley

A Hole Load of Nothing (ontology of darkness/nothing) David Birch

The Sound of Silence (ontology/phenomenology of sound) Peter Worley

A Heap of Exercises? (vagueness) Peter Worley

Across the River and Into the Trees (identity) Angie Hobbs

Dis-ingenious (the paradox of omnipotence) Peter Worley

Just Testing! (relational concepts/quantity) Peter Worley

A Pageful of Nothing (the ontology of nothing) Sophia Nikolidaki

BURIDAN’s Asteroid (logic, freedom and identity) Robert Torrington

Phil and Soph and the Ice Cream (the nature of things) Philip Cowell

Introducing Pencil Person (mereology) Peter Worley

Disappearing Pencil Person (existence) Peter Worley

Pencil Person Meets Pencil Person! (type/token identity) Roger Sutcliffe

Metaphysics: Time

Thoughting: A Birthday Surprise! (time travel paradox of meeting yourself) Peter Worley

The Time Diet (ontology of time) Peter Cave

Empty (time and space) Peter Worley

Superbaby Time! (movement of time) Peter Worley

The Telly-Scope (time and the speed of light) Peter Worley

A Poem By You? (the paradox of origination) Peter Worley

The Time-Freezing Machine (phenomenology of time) Peter Worley

Time-Stretching (phenomenology of time) Peter Worley

The Non-Existent Hero (the grandfather paradox) Peter Worley

The Big Time Experiment (time/measurement of time distinction) Peter Worley

Thoughting: The Time Machine (the nature of time travel) Peter Worley

The Girl from Yesterday (ontology of time) David Birch

The Butterfly Effect (temporal causation) Peter Worley

Metaphysics: Freedom

The Queen of Limbs (determinism) Peter Worley

Prisoner (the nature of freedom) Georgina Donati

Are There Cogs Beneath the Wind? (determinism and chance) David Birch

The Clockwork Toymaker (complexity and free will) Peter Worley

Immy’s Interesting Invention (freedom and morality) Peter Worley

The Otherwise Machine (contingency) Peter Worley

What Zeus Does When He’s Bored (free will and contingency) Peter Worley

Metaphysics: Personal Identity

Identity Parade

Identity Parade (1): Memory (the role of memory in personal identity) Andrew Routledge

Identity Parade (2): Body (the role of material change in personal identity) Andrew Routledge

Identity Parade (3): Body Copy (the role of body in personal identity) Andrew Routledge

Identity Parade (4): Brains (the role of the brain in personal identity) Andrew Routledge

Identity Parade (5): Cloning (the role of uniqueness in personal identity) Andrew Routledge

Identity Parade (6): Change (the role of change through time in personal identity) Andrew Routledge

Backtracking (origin of the self) Peter Worley

Who Do You Think You Are? (selfhood and self-knowledge) Nolen Gertz

All That Glistens … (memory, personal responsibility and identity) Emma Worley

Whose Bump? (memory and identity) Peter Worley

The Copying Machine (cloning and identity) Peter Worley

Not Half the Man He Used To Be (numerical/material identity) Peter Worley

Metaphysics: Philosophy of Mind

Pinka and Arwin Go Forth (1): Of Macs and Men (human/animal/machine dichotomy) David Birch

Pinka and Arwin Go Forth (2): Making Up Their Minds (mind/body identity) David Birch

Thoughting: Can I Think? (subjectivity and AI) Peter Worley

Trying to Forget and Not Bothering to Remember (the nature of forgetting) Robert Torrington and Peter Worley

Mind the Planet (consciousness) Peter Worley

Revelation (AI and identity) Dan Sumners

Only Human (AI and love) Peter Worley

Metaphysics: Fiction

Wondering About Wonderland (truth value in fiction) A. C. Grayling

I’m Glad I’m Not Real (ontology of fictional entities) Amie L. Thomasson

Fictional Feelings (emotional responses to fiction) Berys Gaut and Morag Gaut

Feelings About Fiction (paradox of fiction) Anja Steinbauer

Phil and Soph and the Stories (the nature of fiction) Philip Cowell

The Shop Part IIEpistemology or What Can Be Known About What There Is

Epistemology: Knowledge

Pinka and Arwin Go Forth (3): Different Animals? (gender classification) David Birch

Tina’s Ghost (belief) Philip Gaydon

The Confession (Occam’s razor) Peter Worley

The Adventures of Poppy the Bear (knowledge, evidence and cognitive bias) Lisa McNulty

The Pencil (inference and knowledge) Michael Hand

The Flying Man (knowledge) Peter Adamson

The Traffic Light Boy (1) (causation/constant conjunction) Peter Worley

The Traffic Light Boy (2) (causation and ‘if and only if’) Peter Worley

The Traffic Light Boy (3) (autonomy of belief) Peter Worley

Jean-etic (correlation and causation) Saray Ayala

Knowing Stuff (knowledge and justified true belief) Peter Worley

Phil and Soph and the Meeting (knowledge, memory and writing) Philip Cowell

The Broken Window (causation, necessity and the problem of induction) Emma Williams

Little Thea’s Tricky Questions (justification and explanation) Peter Worley

What Goes Up … (the principle of sufficient reason/induction) Peter Worley

The Butterfly Dream (epistemological scepticism: the dreaming argument) Peter Worley

Bat-Girl (phenomenal consciousness) Andy West

Become a Sceptic in Three Steps (scepticism) Milosh Jeremic

The Three-Minute-Old Universe (falsifiability) Peter Worley

Epistemology: Perception

How Many Dogs? (representation) Georgina Donati

Rose-Tinted Speculations (primary and secondary qualities) Guy J. Williams

More Colour Conundrums (primary and secondary qualities) Peter Worley

The Duck and Rabbit (perception and meaning) Harry Adamson

The Shop Part IIIValue or What Matters In What There Is

Value: Ethics

Teenage Angst (family resemblances) Andrew Day

Perfect People (post-humans and perfection) David Birch

Thoughting: The Wicked Which (moral motivation) Peter Worley

Bobby the Punching Bag (harm and respect) Phillip Gaydon

Not Very Stationary Stationery (moral principles) A. C. Grayling

Classroom Punishment (fairness and punishment) Michael Hand

Nick of Time (determinism and moral responsibility) Peter Worley

A Bad Picture (politeness and truth) Peter Worley

Lucky and Unlucky (moral luck) Peter Worley

Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap (acts by omission) Peter Worley

Ooops! (unintended consequences) Peter Worley

The Good Daleks (unintended consequences) Peter Worley

The Ticklish Grump (need for others) David Birch

The Grumpiest Poet in The World (relationship between happiness and sadness) Peter Worley

The Tadpole and the Pike (change and friendship) David Birch

Phil and Soph and the Egg (looking after things) Philip Cowell

Jemima or James (nature of gender differences) David Birch

The Pill of Life (ethics of immortality) Miriam Cohen Christofidis

Charlie’s Choice (moral dilemma) Peter Worley

Arete and Deon (virtue and duty) Peter Worley

Louis’ Goodness Detector (moral facts) Peter Worley

Thoughting: Gun (force and arguments) Andrew Day

The Salesman (game theory and egoism) Peter Worley

Value: Aesthetics

Louis’ Beauty Detector (objectivity/subjectivity of beauty) Peter Worley

Much Ado About Nothing (nature of art) Peter Worley

‘Music To My Ears!’ (nature of music) Peter Worley

The Piano Music (ontology of music) James Davy

Value: Politics

Who Gets What and Why? (distribution of wealth) Anja Steinbauer

The Magic Crown (who should rule?) Peter Worley

Happiness and Truth (experience machine and amenities) Anja Steinbauer

The Magician’s Misery (immortality and egalitarianism) David Birch

A New World (rules) David Birch

The Sky’s the Limit (private property) David Birch

Property Thus Appalled (private property) David Birch

A Fairer Society (Rawls’ veil of ignorance) Martin Pallister

Of Fences (origin of private property) Peter Worley

Acorn (ownership) Emma Worley

The Shop Part IVLanguage and Meaning or What Can Be Said About What There Is

Phil and Soph and the Funny Photo (nature of humour) Philip Cowell

Thoth and Thamus (philosophy of writing) Claire Field

The Questioning Question (reflexivity, meaning and understanding) Grant Bartley

Green Ideas (relationship between thoughts and language) A. C. Grayling

Thoughting: Said and Unsaid (implication and illocutionary force) Peter Worley

Thoughting: It Started in the Library (words and things) Andrew Day

Thoughting: Tralse (bivalence and law of excluded middle) Peter Worley

Zeno’s Parting Shot (Zeno’s ‘Stadium Paradox’) Peter Worley

Dizzy! (frames of reference) Peter Worley

Phil and Soph and the Three-Legged Race (vagueness in language) Philip Cowell

Phil and Soph and the Numbers (meaning, sequences and rules) Philip Cowell

A Random Appetizer (randomness, meaning, probability and chance) Peter Worley

Negative Nelly (negative expressions, logic and intention) David Jenkins

The Accidental Confession (negative expressions, logic and intention) Peter Worley

The Txt Book (vagueness in language) Peter Worley

Thoughting: Itselfish (Grelling–Nelson paradox) Peter Worley

C’est de l’or (words and things) David Birch

What We Talk About When We Talk About Words (purpose of words) David Birch

Some Sums with Zero (undefined terms) Peter Worley

Jack’s Parrot Peter Worley

Wind-Spell Peter Worley

After Thoughts

Who’s the Philosopher? (nature of philosophy) Nolen Gertz

Philosophical Poetry David Birch

Writing a Philosophy Project John L. Taylor

Further Reading

About the Authors

Copyright

We should set aside a room, just for ourselves, at the back of the shop …

From On Solitude by Michel de Montaigne

But, then, is this a fair exchange that you propose? You seem to me to want more than your proper share: you offer me the merest appearance of beauty, and in return you want the thing itself, ‘gold in exchange for bronze’.

Socrates speaking in the Symposium by Plato

O dear Pan and all the other gods of this place, grant that I may be beautiful inside. Let all my external possessions be in friendly harmony with what is within. May I consider the wise man rich. As for gold, let me have as much as a moderate man could bear and carry with him.

Do we need anything else Phaedrus? I believe my prayer is enough for me.

Socrates’ prayer from the Phaedrus by Plato

Introduction

What is this book?

A good deal of books written to introduce the reader to philosophy are instructive. Either straightforwardly so, in that they explain the problems of philosophy and then take the reader through the traditional debates, or they are instructive with the appearance of being exploratory. This is partly due to the limits of the written word: however exploratory the author would like her book to be, and however many questions she may raise, the lack of interaction seems to demand that the author provide answers of one sort or another at some point. As Plato said, real philosophy cannot be done through the written word as books can’t reply to questions or clarify what is not understood. The irony of Plato’s words lies in that he said them, or rather had Socrates say them, in one of his written dialogues – the Phaedrus – and today these dialogues are the only way we know of Plato’s philosophy. His written critique of written philosophy encapsulates a tension of which Plato was all too aware: we can’t do philosophy properly with the written word, but it seems we can’t do without it either. Plato’s own answer to this is his lack of one. Many of his dialogues end inconclusively and the invitation this presents for the reader is to continue with the discussions that Plato had begun. The implication which I take from this is that Plato is saying that philosophy is a continuous, ongoing dialogue.

The conversational book

This book responds to this problem in a conversational, Platonic spirit. Questions are raised by the use of a controversy brought out by a story or scenario, poem or activity; yet, unlike Plato, a dialogue is not written but left to the reader or class engaged with the problem to think through for themselves. In this sense the book is meant to be interactive. For this reason, I shall refer to the reader as the ‘participant(s)’ from now on when referring to either class or group situations because this captures both the lone reader and the classes of children that may be read to. There is another sense in which I wish the book to be interactive. At the end of each section, and where appropriate, you will find a note on the source of the entry and also the key philosophical topics, ideas and the philosophers’ names associated with them. These have been included to allow the interested reader, teacher or class to pursue some of the ideas and to find out more about the philosophers that have thought on these questions and topics throughout history. Wikipedia has some very helpful introductory entries on many of these key words but there are also some very good, more specialised philosophy websites which can be consulted, such as The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. See the back of this book for useful addresses.

Seeing controversies

It is often said that the primary and intrinsic value of doing philosophy with children is that it is enjoyable. This, of course, depends on the fact that children do enjoy doing philosophy. And on the whole I am happy to report, from my own experience and observations, that this is true. But what about those who don’t enjoy philosophy? I have noticed that many of those who claim not to enjoy philosophy are unable to stop themselves engaging with a philosophical problem, once they recognise it as a problem.

The frames

In this book we have tried to find a ‘frame’ for each of the entries that is presented to the participant. The frame is the narrative or literary context in which the philosophical idea or problem is presented. Sometimes it is a short story, a thought experiment or scenario, a poem, image or even an activity. The frame helps to achieve the following:

It aids understanding of what are often quite difficult ideas. Philosophy can never be made to be easy – it is by its very nature a difficult pursuit – but it can be made accessible, as well as enjoyable.

It contextualises the philosophical issue so that the participants are not lost in abstractions.

The frame engages the participant(s) in an enjoyable way with the problem or idea.

It gives meaning to the problem; the frame provides a context that shows why the problem, and thinking about it, matters. This may, in a direct way, show how it matters to the participant or in the real world, or it may simply show why it matters ‘in the story’; either way it connects the problem with value for the participant.

The frame motivates the participant to solve the problem, often for narrative reasons of one kind or another. By thinking about the problem they may be helping a character or they may simply be providing the basis for the continuation of the story. It should be pointed out that many of the frames are incomplete (see ‘What Goes Up…’ on page 167) and this is because the sense of unresolved mystery often helps to intrigue the participant and to keep them thinking about the problem in some way.

The frame adds colour to what could be very dry and colourless. Some have touches of humour here and there to give an extra element to enjoy.

And sometimes the frame itself contains aspects of philosophy or it adds, in some way, to the philosophical problem in a special, integrated way. In other words, if the frame were not there, then neither would some aspect of the problem (see ‘What Zeus Does When He’s Bored’ on page 88).

Each frame has been designed to try to illuminate the problem so that the participant can recognise it as a problem. It remains possible that not all the problems will be clear to all the participants all of the time, but sometimes all that’s needed is some more time to mull over the frame until the problem comes into focus. At The Philosophy Foundation we have found that exploring the multiplicity of different perspectives afforded by a class or group is often the best way to reveal the tensions, and therefore the controversies, in these little philosophical appetisers.

Thoughtings and philosophical poetry

You will notice that some of the frames, or stimuli, for the entries in this book are in verse. Not quite poems and not quite not poems, they are called Thoughtings, as they have been written to stimulate thoughts and thinking on specific topics or problems (see the Further Readingsection where you can find more Thoughtings). Children enjoy ideas presented in verse and they learn them remarkably quickly. Also, see David Birch’s entry in ‘Afterthoughts’ on Philosophical Poetry (on page 299) for some inspiring ideas on how to get children writing their own philosophical poems.

Thought experiments

I mentioned that the frame may contain thought experiments. But what is a thought experiment? It’s a device used by philosophers to get us thinking about a particular issue or concept under a certain, very specific set of conditions. It is precisely because of the way in which they attempt to control the variables using thought alone that they have been given the name ‘thought experiment’. They are not used exclusively by philosophers; there are many famous thought experiments in science too, such as ‘Newton’s bucket’, cooked up by Newton in an attempt to show that space is absolute. Even though associated with philosophers, and even though thought experiments have been used for millennia, the coining of the term itself has been credited to the scientist Ernst Mach. Sometimes the thought experiment is presented in its unembellished, original form (see ‘The Flying Man’ on page 152), other times the thought experiment has been wrapped up in a story (see ‘Bat-Girl’ on page 170).

The topic questions: Start, Further and Central

For Plato and Aristotle, ‘where you start’ is very important in a philosophical enquiry, and – continuing with the ‘place’ metaphor (or topos in Greek, where the English ‘topic’ comes from) – ‘where you go’ and ‘how you get there’ are just as important. Plato and Aristotle both used the visual image of a chariot racecourse to illustrate the progress of philosophical enquiry. An important part of helping to find your place, reveal the controversies and navigate around them, are the carefully chosen questions that will be found accompanying the stimuli. I have divided these into three kinds: the Start Question followed by a series of Questions to take you further – from now on to be referred to as ‘further questions’ – amongst which are the Central Questions.

The Start Question is designed to take the participant(s) straight to the problem by asking the question that has proved, in the classroom, to best illuminate the problem in the context of the stimulus. The Start Question is usually linked to the frame; it is the question that the participants are, overall, trying to answer and it begins the discussion by being asked explicitly. You should think of the Start Question as being like a ‘you are here’ arrow on a map or floor-plan and as you explore the terrain it is helpful to return to this point frequently. It allows you (or the participants) to find your bearings and once you know where you are, you need to know where to go.

The further questions are then presented as questions into the problem or issue and often proceed gradually out of the story or stimulus (although it should be pointed out that you should not feel that these questions need all be asked or that they should be asked in order). Beginning with the Start Question and moving to the further questions enables the discussion to begin reasonably concretely, but to move gradually towards more abstract thinking and discourse. For example, in ‘Who Gets What and Why?’ on page 235, the Start Question is: ‘How much of the cake should each child get?’ But then among the last of the further questions is: ‘What is fair?’ The further questions are often the deeper, more hidden questions that lie behind the more explicit Start Question. The further questions have been chosen carefully to guide the participants and are informed by the debates, positions and arguments around that topic to be found in the standard literature. By way of analogy, if the stimulus is what you find displayed on the door, the Start Question enables you – and invites you – to open the door into the puzzle or problem; and the further questions then guide you deeper into the puzzle or problem so that you don’t lose your way. It should be noted, however, that losing your way is a perfectly natural part of the philosophical process, so if you do get lost, it’s often a sign that you are doing philosophy, not that you are failing to do it, as is often thought.

Perhaps the most central questions of all those among the further questions list are the ‘What is …?’ questions, such as ‘What is beauty?’ or ‘What is belief?’ These are traditionally known as Socratic Questions because of the crucial role they play in Socrates’ method, his philosophical pursuits and concerns. However, in order to follow the Start and further questions, and remaining with the ‘place’ metaphor, I have called them Central Questions because of how philosophically fundamental they are. They are highlighted (in bold) to stand out in the list.

At some point during any of the discussions around the entries in this book it is often helpful to examine a Central Question such as ‘What is beauty?’ This can be done by simply asking the question and discussing it. However, you will notice that the children, especially the very young ones, will often say something like ‘beauty is when something is beautiful’. To help them avoid this kind of circularity, employ a strategy I’ve called ‘Break the Circle’ (see TheIf Machine: Philosophical Enquiry in the Classroom by Peter Worley) and add the stipulation, when asking them a Central Question, that they must not say the word they are examining in their answer. So, can they say what the word ‘beauty’ is, or means, without saying the word ‘beauty’ or ‘beautiful’ in their answer? This is a beginner’s version of what philosophers call conceptual analysis.

A note to teachers, chairs and facilitators

As a teacher, chair or facilitator it is crucial to read through – but more importantly to think through – the further questions, as these provide an overview of the ‘thinking landscape’ mapped out by the scenario. It is not important to necessarily ‘have the answers’ to the problems in this book but it is of the utmost importance to have thought about them for yourself to most effectively use this book with your class or students and to help them navigate their way around the topics. If you do want ‘answers’, then the best you can do is to learn the various lines that inhabit the canonical debates on these issues, so that you refrain from saying what you think is the answer but at least provide some information on what the various voices have contributed to the debate. It should be noted that you should try, as much as possible, to avoid giving any answers when chairing a Philosophical Enquiry. At The Philosophy Foundation we have noticed that the natural diversity of ideas that the children are capable of is dampened when the teacher or facilitator shares their own views. Once the children know what the teacher thinks then it is likely that they will repeat different versions of this view. Giving answers may also spoil the interactive aims of this book.

Space to think

I have also left space for your own questions and notes where you see the heading ‘Your Questions’. This enables you to grow your list of further questions based on your own thoughts and reflections and/or those of the participants involved in the discussions.

Works well with …

There is also a list of suggested companion entries that should work well with the entry that is being used, depending on the direction that the group takes. This helps to build lesson plans and schemes of work based on themes and related topics. But it should also be invaluable to the teacher if a particular entry is not working with a particular class. Maybe the issue just isn’t ‘biting’ for them or maybe it’s a little too advanced; or maybe you just need to read a new entry to keep up the pace of the session or to keep them interested. If so, then a quick glance at the ‘Works well with’ section should direct you to another suitable entry. The ‘Time’ section is a very good example of how this should work, as many of the entries are designed for short enquiries and they will easily lead on to one other. So, if you start with ‘Superbaby Time!’ the children are very likely to refer to something to do with the direction of clocks and the direction of time; in which case introduce ‘The Big Time Experiment’. This section will also help with differentiation between groups of differing levels of ability. So if your theme is ‘time and time travel’ then you should be able to find entries that groups of differing levels of ability should be able to meet. In this way you may well cover three, four or more entries in one session, possibly at the same time. The ‘Works well with’ list should make this approach to using the book much easier for the teacher or facilitator.

Who is this book for?

This book is for anyone who picks it up and then wants to read on. It is for those who prefer the active engagement with ideas over the passive receipt of information. The book includes entries for a wide range of ages – the starting age for each entry has been included under the title. Some have been written for young children in primary school (such as the various adventures of Phil and Soph) and some would only be appropriate for older participants (such as ‘Gun’ on page 223) but there are plenty of examples that, though written to include younger children, do not preclude the participation of older people. I challenge any-aged reader to read ‘Bobby the Punching Bag’ (on page 189) without becoming engaged on one level or another. We have sometimes included the label ‘Advanced’ in entries that are thought to stretch the young mind just that little bit further. These would be suitable for able classes, groups of gifted and talented children or groups and classes that have become familiar with and adept at doing philosophy. But don’t be afraid of trying more advanced entries; your class may surprise you.

There may also be more specific audiences for whom the book will be of interest.

Teachers and classes

There are a number of ways of doing philosophy with children but what they all share is the use of enquiry that is open-ended – extended discussions using questioning and reasoning – for engaging classes. Some recommend enlisting the children to formulate and select questions (Philosophy for Children, or P4C) and others recommend the use of carefully constructed questions that are put to the children, such as the start and further questions in this book. The Philosophy Shop can, in some cases, be used in either way but it should be noted that many of the examples have been carefully selected for their philosophical focus. By allowing the children to choose their own questions the focus may be lost. Having said that, many more interesting philosophical questions may be discovered by the children when they formulate their own questions based on their concerns and interests. Many of the more fleshed-out stories, such as ‘The Girl from Yesterday’ (see page 69), have a good deal more going on than is covered by the prepared questions. A balance between the two approaches is probably the best, so that the focus is preserved but the participants guide the discussion within the remit of the focus. Use the ‘Your Questions’ section in the book to write down questions that come up during discussions. The Philosophy Foundation has devised its own method of philosophical enquiry known as PhiE that attempts to achieve that balance. A short description of this is included on page 10 (for a fuller explanation of the method see The If Machine: Philosophical Enquiry in the Classroom by Peter Worley).

Philosophy courses, university seminar groups and tutorials

One way to introduce a philosophical topic, and the way that most philosophy courses opt to do so, is to explain the topic (e.g. epistemological scepticism) and then to set readings by philosophers who have made important contributions to the debates surrounding the topic (e.g. Descartes’ Meditations). However, The Philosophy Foundation advocates a different approach. We recommend presenting the students with a stimulus that captures one or more of the essential concepts or problems contained in a philosophical topic. For instance, Chuang Tzu’s ‘Butterfly Dream’ question (see page 169) introduces the concerns of epistemological scepticism (particularly the dreaming argument). The students are encouraged, first of all, to engage by themselves with the stimulus, thus providing a context of the students’ own thinking on the topic. This enables the course leader to then place the ideas and philosophers into the context of the students’ own thinking. This way, the students are already philosophically engaged when they meet the philosophy and philosophers. This book provides plenty of examples of stimuli for use in this way, many of which have been written by philosophers who are experienced in engaging students with philosophical problems and topics at university level.

Philosophy reading groups or discussion groups, youth groups and church groups

Many people enjoy getting together through the excuse of discussions around books. Philosophy groups, where the excuse is ideas, are also on the increase as they find favour with many people keen to think together. If a philosophy group appeals to you, then this book is the perfect resource as the entries are stimulating for all ages, but also accessible; they are designed to help anyone ‘get to the philosophy’ as quickly as possible without having to wade through pages of written text. That said, groups are also encouraged to use the suggestions at the end of the entries to follow up any ideas or discussions that have particularly captured the group’s interest with primary source material – that’s the philosophy written by the philosophers that lies behind, and which inspired, the entries in this book.

Parents with their children and after-school philosophy clubs

At The Philosophy Foundation we are often contacted by parents who would like to find resources so that they can encourage philosophical thinking in their children. There is a plethora of books for teenagers which they can read on their own and there is a reasonable amount of resources for younger children in classrooms, but there doesn’t seem to be anything for younger children which would be suitable for parents to use. The Philosophy Shop aims to change that. Though the content of this book is wide ranging in terms of the age of the reader/participant(s), many of the entries are suitable for young children, and in some cases, very young children. You will find a recommended ‘starting age’ at the top of each entry underneath the title. It is recommended, however, that because of the wide-ranging material contained herein, that the parent use the book selectively with their child; it is not advisable for a parent to leave the book with their child for them to read on their own. Any parent using this book with their child will do well to note that philosophical discussions with children are often more fruitful when there is a group of children than when there is just one child. This, of course, will depend very much on the child. Parents should also take a look at the ‘Quick guide to running a PhiE’ (below). One way to use The Philosophy Shop would be to get a group of parents to run an after-school philosophy club. Combined with some games (see The Philosophy Foundation members website www.philosophy-foundation.org for game resources), and possibly some cakes and drinks, a philosophy club could be a great and fun way to get your children started on thinking philosophically.

The lone, interested reader

But don’t think this book is only for groups. It should also appeal to anyone who likes to think, or who wants to think more, particularly those who like to do so without having to wade through pages of text and information. Think of each example like a Japanese haiku, but perhaps with a more European flavour. Open it up, read an entry, look at the questions, let them roll over your mind. Take it on journeys and dip in; open it up whilst waiting for a bus or sitting on the Underground, leave a copy in the loo, or use it to steer dinner party or family gathering discussions away from the same old topics. But to get the most out of this book, the lone reader is encouraged to use it to stimulate their own investigations and to pursue their own lines of enquiry. This way the reader is invited to write the second half of the book themselves.

A quick guide to running a PhiE (Philosophical Enquiry)

Whether for a discussion group at the pub, a university seminar or a classroom of primary school children, it is useful to have some hints and tips handy on how to conduct a group discussion. First of all somebody needs to be appointed ‘chair’ of the discussion (also known as ‘the facilitator’) and it is often best if the facilitator makes a commitment not to join in the discussion but to allow – and aid – the participants to follow their own discussion based on the stimulus presented. So here is a quick guide to running an enquiry around the entries in this book:

1. Present the stimulus Read or tell the story, poem or instructions to the participants. Perhaps read or tell it more than once, using different modes of presentation if necessary and if you are able to do so with the stimulus in question (see ‘Dizzy!’ on page 269 for an example of different modes of presentation based on auditory, visual and kinaesthetic learning styles; see also ‘Not Very Stationary Stationery’ on page 191 for the use of drama to help with understanding; and see ‘Introducing Pencil Person’ on page 41 for the use of props to help bring a stimulus to life). These entries act as examples; you should be creative about how else you can help to better communicate other stimuli in the book using these entries as models.

2. Allow comprehension time if necessary Particularly with younger children, it may be necessary to have the participants say back to each other what they think is going on in the stimulus. For instance, if you have read ‘Arete and Deon’ (see page 217) you may want to begin by asking the children to list as many (salient) features of the two children in the story as they can. It may also be helpful to list the features as they are recalled under the names ‘Arete’ and ‘Deon’ on the board. This means that not only have the children processed the story better, but they will also have the important information about the characters in view throughout the discussion. This is something you may want to do with many of the entries in this book.

3. Ask the Start Question The facilitator should make sure that they ask this question clearly. It should be written up for all to see. The exact wording of the question should be preserved as carefully as possible until the dynamic of the discussion moves towards another question. But very often if this happens it will still serve to answer the Start Question better. So keep returning to it.

4. Allow talk time Once the group have been presented with the stimulus and have had the Start Question put to them, they will need to have a few minutes to think/talk it through with the person or people next to them. This should be done in pairs or in small groups.

5. Run a group enquiry on the Start Question Once asked, answering the Start Question will be the main task of the discussion, but to help keep things focused the facilitator should refocus the discussion fairly regularly by restating the Start Question. Sometimes the discussion will naturally move to one of the further questions as the focus and, in this case, refocus the group to that question instead. Some of the entries are designed to be fairly short enquiries (see ‘Dizzy!’ on page 269 or ‘Negative Nelly’ on page 278) whereas others are written to be able to extend into longer enquiries (see ‘The Clockwork Toymaker’ on page 81).

6. Be mindful of the further questions The facilitator should listen out for signs that the group has moved – or is moving – towards one of the further questions. Someone may say, ‘But, what is beauty anyway?’ in a discussion around ‘Louis’ Beauty Detector’ (see page 227) clearly indicating a need to stop and consider the further question (also a Central Question), ‘What is beauty?’, before returning to the Start Question.

7. Introduce the further questions only as and when necessary Do not see the further questions as questions to be gone through in order, like a list; they are there for guidance only. You should let the discussion determine which of the further questions to introduce, and do so only where the discussion invites it.

Fill in Your Questions At the conclusion of the discussion, note down any new questions that have occurred to you or that were introduced by the participants in the discussion.

8. Works well with … See what other entries in the book would provide good follow-on discussions. For instance ‘Phil and Soph and the Meeting’ (see page 161) works really well as a starter activity for ‘Thoth and Thamus’ (see page 256). Many of the entries in the ‘Time’ section work well as part of a pick-and-mix approach for one session based on what direction the discussion takes. You may well end up including three or four of the ‘Time’ entries in one session.

9. Research the philosophy that can be found at the end of each entry For instance, after discussing ‘Empty’ (see page 52) or ‘Immy’s Box’ (see page 20) then find out more about Newton and absolute time/space, Leibniz and relational time/space, or Kant and psychological time/space.

Although this will serve to get you started, if you are a primary or secondary classroom teacher you may feel that you want to find out more about how to conduct discussions effectively. So, for a much more detailed description of how to conduct a discussion or enquiry see The If Machine: Philosophical Enquiry in the Classroom by Peter Worley where you will find out more about speaker management, facilitation skills and strategies for getting more good thinking in your classroom, as well as 25 more extensively detailed lesson plans. The Philosophy Foundation also provides training in questioning and enquiry skills. See www.philosophy-foundation.org for more details and more resources.

The Shop Part I

Metaphysics or What There Is

Metaphysics: Ontology (or Existence)

A Knife IdeaPeter Worley

Starting age: 10 years

A caveman called Ug has recently found a mammoth that has died naturally and so doesn’t have the characteristic puncture wounds that sabre-toothed tigers leave. Winter is drawing near. He needs the skins and the meat but is unable to cut the mammoth open because knives haven’t been invented yet.

Later that day whilst Ug is collecting stones to make a fire – fire-making has been invented! – he cuts himself on a sharp rock (a rock we now call ‘flint’). This gives him an idea: he takes the sharp-edged rock and uses it to cut open the mammoth. This enables him to get to the meat and, with the help of his new tool, to remove the skin.

The following day he uses another harder type of rock to chisel the flint into a shape that has one very sharp side making his new tool even more efficient. With his new tool he is able to make himself all sorts of other things – as yet uninvented – such as bowls, a stool and a table. Later he learns how to make more of his cutting tools, which he uses either to replace them when they break or to exchange with other cavemen for goods. Soon all of his tribe has the new tool and they give it the name ‘knife’.

Start Question When did the object become a knife?

Think about the Start Question before looking at the suggestions below.

Was it…

1. When the rock he would make it from was lying on the ground?

2. When he cut himself on the rock?

3. When he had the idea?

4. When he chiselled it into shape?

5. When he first used it?

6. When it was first given the name ‘knife’?

7. Or at some other time? If so, when and why?

Questions to take you further

When does something become what it is?

What exactly is a knife? Can you define a knife?

Is Ug’s tool a knife or not?

Does a knife have to be a certain shape?

If ‘the knife’, ‘the bowl’, ‘the stool’ and ‘the table’ don’t yet have names, what are they?

What is existence?

What does ‘exist’ mean?

Your Questions

Works well with

The Philosophical Adventures of Pencil Person pages 41–46

Phil and Soph and the Ice Cream

Just Testing!

A Heap of Exercises?

Of Fences

The If Machine: The Chair1

Philosophy: Ontology, existence, being, sense and reference, Aristotle, Wittgenstein, Frege.

The 2 SquarePeter Worley

Starting age: 7 years

2222

Start Question Take a look at the 2s above. How many numbers do you think are there?

Questions to take you further

How many different answers can you think of?

If someone said that there are no numbers there, can you say why they might say that?

What is a number?

Are numbers real or made up?

Are numbers invented or discovered?

Where can numbers be found?

Are the symbols that you see in ‘the 2 square’ numbers?

If not, what are numbers then?

Draw a number 2 on a blank piece of paper. Now stare at it for a few minutes. Does it still look like a 2? Turn it around and look at it from different sides. What does this exercise make you think?

Your Questions

Works well with

A Pageful of Nothing

Phil and Soph and the Numbers

Doughnut

A Hole Load of Nothing

Some Sums with Zero

Thoughtings: Number Wonders2

Source: A lesson plan on Plato’s Forms by Rob Torrington.

Philosophy: Philosophy of maths, fictionalism, Plato, Aristotle and Forms.

Doughnut: Experiments with a HoleAlfred Archer

Starting age: 5 years

Props

(Optional) A doughnut-shaped object such as a children’s toy. Or a doughnut (could be a bit messy!).

(Optional) A packet of Polo mints.

Alice holds a doughnut in her hand. She thinks about the hole in the middle of the doughnut. She asks herself a series of questions and performs some ‘experiments’. Here are her questions and experiments for you to try.

Start Question Does the hole in the doughnut exist? Or (depending on the age of the participants) is the hole in the doughnut something or nothing?

Questions to take you further

Is the hole part of the doughnut?

Is the hole an object?

Is the hole something, or is it nothing?

What is a hole?

Experiment 1: If you move the doughnut around, does the hole move too?

Experiment 2: If you eat the doughnut, do you eat the hole?

Experiment 3: Could you eat the hole without eating the doughnut?

Experiment 4: If you break the doughnut in two where does the hole go?

Can you have a whole hole?

Can you have half a hole, or an incomplete hole?

Your Questions

Works well with

Immy’s Box

Empty

The Sound of Silence

A Hole Load of Nothing

A Pageful of Nothing

Thoughtings: A Disappearing Riddle

The If Machine: Thinking About Nothing

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/holes/

Philosophy: The philosophy of holes, ontology, epistemology, reference, entia representationis (‘as-if’ entities, fictions).

Immy’s BoxPeter Worley

Starting age: 10 years Advanced

Immy has a box and he wants to empty it. But he wants to empty it completely and utterly. First he opens the box and finds bits and bobs in it such as a pencil, a rubber and some little toys.

[If you are doing this with a class then use a real box with some bits and bobs in it.]

He takes each thing out, one at a time. Finally he has taken all the objects that were in the box out of it. But is it empty?

Start Question 1 Is the box empty?

Questions to take you further

Can you think of something that might be in it?

Is ‘empty’ the same as ‘nothing’?

Can the box be full of nothing?

Is the inside of the box inside the box?

What is emptiness?

Immy will remove whatever you can think of that is still in the box. So, what can you think of? List it, or them (for example, the group might suggest finger prints, germs or atoms) and Immy will remove it, or them.

Once he has removed whatever you can think of, is the box finally empty? Or is there something else that is still in the box?

Keep going until you think Immy will be satisfied that it is finally completely and utterly empty. Can you do it?

Start Question 2 Will the box be able to be emptied completely and utterly?

Questions to take you further

Is it even possible?

Is there something that can never be removed?

The definition of a vacuum is ‘space entirely devoid of matter’. Devoid means ‘completely without’ and matter means ‘physical stuff’. If you manage to achieve a vacuum in the box would the box be completely empty then? Or would there still be something you can’t remove?

What about the space the box is in – can Immy remove this?

What would happen if Immy removed the space as well?

What about the time the box is in – can Immy remove this?

What would happen if Immy were able to remove time as well?

Is the box in time?

Your Questions

Works well with

A Pageful of Nothing

A Hole Load of Nothing

Doughnut

Empty

Phil and Soph and the Ice Cream

Thoughtings: Space, Time and Other Weird Things

The If Machine: Thinking About Nothing

Source: Thanks to Ben Jeffreys and Claire Field for thinking of ‘Kant’s Box’ as a way of introducinga priori space and time to classes.

Philosophy: Kant’s a priori space and time.

A Hole Load of NothingDavid Birch