Stella Accorinti - ART, AESTHETICS AND PHILOSOPHY FOR CHILDREN
ART, AESTHETICS AND PHILOSOPHY FOR CHILDREN
Stella Accorinti
“Some educators looking to the art because it offers opportunities to move beyond consolidated texts and change human values through revitalizing symbol and artistic ritual. Art is the lie that becomes the truth. Aesthetic education helps us to understand others as humans. What it is about this form of aesthetic experience that is unique to the arts remains to be examined continuously.”
Felicity Haynes, 1999
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Aesthetics
“Aesthetics” is derived from the Greek word “aisthaesis” which can be translated as sensation, perception, feeling, and fine distinction – but also as recognition, understanding, and consciousness.
In this sense “Aesthetics” is not only the branch of philosophy dealing with beauty and taste (emphasizing the evaluative criteria that are applied to art); but it is also the branch of philosophy concerned with the promotion of art.
This kind of distinctions, perceptions, recognition, understanding, and consciousness are taken in this paper, in the sense of a look for meanings. This look for meanings aims to find connections and senses between the “parts” and “the whole”. In a first approach, this organization of meanings could be understood as beauty.
In present-day language, “aesthetics” is primarily related to what is visually pleasing, elegant, or of good taste – mainly relating to visual impressions, but sometimes it is also applied to auditory experiences (though, possibly, not to gustatory and kinaesthetic experiences).
This paper recognizes that usually Aesthetics is thought as being inside the world of the poietic[i] imagination and Logic inside the world of the reproductive imagination.[ii] However, Logic will be considered here to be inside Aesthetics. Therefore, if Aesthetics is a look for new meanings, for new forms to organize the experience, Logic should be a part of this search or it will become a death and sterile way in our lives. It does not mean that we cannot transit this way, because this way exists, and it is a useful way. However, if P4C is really that it says it is, Logic as a death path is not the way for P4C.
Intrinsic relationship:
This concept reflects a relationship that is not lateral or accessory. Concept A may not be the basis or an assumption in the relationship between A and B, but it may be so strongly linked to B that the subject of a thesis X may not exist without this kind of relationship
Consequently, c, d , f, etc., as implications from A in relationship to B may not hold if A had no intrinsic relationship to B, and B could become a different theme or issue. (At any rate, A is not a fix attribute of B).
This means that Aesthetics has an intrinsic relationship to P4C, and that P4C is what it is what it is due to that intrinsic relationship.
(Anyway, this is only a point of view, and it is true that “all of these things make sense from one point of view and no sense at all from another.”)[iii]
Critical thinking and cognitive thinking
Critical thinking has been defined variously as purposeful, autonomous, reasonable and focused thinking.[iv], [v]
In this paper Critical thinking refers to reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do: the disposition to provide evidence in support of one's conclusions and to request evidence from others before accepting their conclusions. [vi]
INTRODUCTION
Friedrich Nietzsche said in The Birth of Tragedy Out of the Spirit of Music (1871) that “Art is the human being’s truly philosophical activity”, and remarked in Attempt of Self-Criticism (1886) that his young work contained the essential of his following thoughts. My research will be basically founded in Nietzsche’s views, and my thesis could be presented as: philosophy is art; then, if P4C is philosophy, P4C should be art. Therefore, it is my interest to research which is the relationship between Art/ Aesthetics and Philosophy for Children (P4C).
There is a common agreement about Philosophy for Children: that it is an educational program centered in Logic or in critical thinking (cognitive skills). This has been the general opinion since Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery was published more than 30 years ago. This is so, despite the claims about the role of multidimensional thinking in P4C.
Despite the generalized opinion, there are elements to suspect that Art and Aesthetics may be important foundations of the P4C program.
My research will try to find out whether Aesthetics could have a deeper meaning for this educational program than usually recognized.
Some of the questions that the research will try to answer are: What is the relationship between Aesthetics and Philosophy for Children? Beyond the fact of having one book devoted to this area (Suki), does P4C have a more profound relationship to Aesthetics? Does P4C have a place for Aesthetics only in the sense of Philosophy of Art? Can we say that P4C has an intrinsic relationship with Aesthetics? If so, in which way? What would be the implications of such a relationship?
JUSTIFICATION
“Aesthetics” is derived from the Greek word “aisthaesis” which can be translated as sensation, perception, feeling, and fine distinction – but also as recognition, understanding, and consciousness.
In this sense “Aesthetics” is not only the branch of philosophy dealing with beauty and taste (emphasizing the evaluative criteria that are applied to art); but it is also the branch of philosophy concerned with the promotion of art.
The Greeks used “Aesthetics” to define the promotion of the artistic creation as well as its appreciation. Aesthetics can also be understood as a look for new meanings and new forms to organize experience. Therefore, Aesthetics and Art have in this paper the same meaning, because both are engaged not only with artistic appreciation, but also with the artistic creation.
Usually, Art is considered inside the world of the poietic[vii] imagination, as opposed to Logic which may be considered within the world of the reproductive imagination.[viii]
In this paper Logic will be considered as Logic inside Art, as a form of Art, (perhaps a mummified part of Art but, nevertheless, inside of it). The relationship between Art and Logic is presented in this way because in this proposal philosophy is art, art is life and, therefore, there is nothing outside philosophy (art). The presentation of Logic as “opposed” to art refers only to an analytical, provisory way to understand the role that Logic plays in P4C, based on what it is commonly accepted.
Aesthetics is a look for new meanings, for new forms to organize the experience and in this sense an intrinsic relationship between P4C and Aesthetics would imply that P4C is looking for new meanings in education.
In this search for meanings, P4C has the capacity to produce a re-organization of our understanding of education. In doing so, P4C becomes a program with the potential to trans-valuate education, not just to transform it or to supplement some of the deficiencies of current education in the area of critical thinking and thinking skills.
Why do we propose P4C as a different educative program? There already many programs that are improving the school, or at least trying to improve it. However, P4C appears as a design closer to Aesthetics than to traditional critical thinking which, one way or another has been the basis of school since its creation.
In its search for new meanings, P4C engages in a task that is closer to interpretation than to deduction, closer to guessing than to deriving implications, closer to groping, trial, testing, and failing than to sharpening the coherence and the consistency of all elements related to logic. All this seems more in line with the ways of art that the ways of critical thinking. This approach is closer to Aesthetics than to syllogisms.
Thus, if P4C aims to develop multidimensional thinking and to the constant auto-creation of persons who are able to think by themselves in communities of inquiry, then Aesthetics/Art seems to have a more important role in P4C than usually conceded.
PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
Bibliographical research on P4C and Aesthetics
The research will be conducted following artistic and genealogist methods. Form and contents are intrinsically joined in Nietzsche’s works and this research will try to follow that approach.
In order to find answers to the questions posed in the Introduction, I plan to conduct a literature review starting back in the years when Dr. Matthew Lipman[ix] and Dr. Ann Sharp, P4C founders, wrote their respective Doctoral thesis[x].
From the beginning of his career Matthew Lipman and Ann Sharp showed a remarkable interest in researching and writing about aesthetics. Dr. Lipman´s Doctoral Thesis is centered in Dewey, the philosopher who sustained that the whole experience is art. Dr. Sharp centered her Doctoral Thesis in Nietzsche, the philosopher who said “the philosopher of the future will be an artist-philosopher”.
I expect that research on the early works of Lipman and Sharp, (so strongly based on philosophers with a high appreciation of aesthetics) would provide clues as to the initial linkage between P4C and Aesthetics.
Of course, Lipman´s and Sharp’s early interest in Aesthetics would not suffice to prove an intrinsic relationship between P4C and Aesthetics. Despite the interest that for my research may entail the constantly tossed and swept ideas[xi] they had and have in their minds, my work will not focus in their psychological paths. Instead, I will try to provide sufficient elements to sustain the thesis that since its creation P4C has maintained a profound, albeit not always identified, relationship with Aesthetics.
This relationship will be explored, in part, through the analysis of scholarly writings and books by Dr Lipman: Suki, the book of the P4C curriculum devoted to Philosophy of Art and Natasha, because both are good examples of Lipman´s work centered in Aesthetics.
In Natasha the dialogues are presented always as a meta-dialogue between fact and fiction, presenting a constant inquiry about the two issues. Although engaged with problems of ethics, in Natasha Lipman shows us, in one way or another aesthetics concerns, in the same way that it happens in Lisa. In each chapter we can see Lipman’s contradictions, fighting against clear thoughts, and tortuous ways of reasoning and traveling all kinds of paths that try to put us in front of a certain Lipman who does the entire contrary that he claims. This is a Lipman who walks all the time not only the along Logic and Critical way, but also along the Aesthetic way.
Suki, the book and the manual that received the adjectives of “Philosophy of Art” inside the traditional P4C curriculum was written in the late eighties. In doing so Dr. Lipman went back to his first book, What happens in Art, which constituted a base to develop all the instructional manual that accompany Suki: Writing, how and why. Like Natasha, Suki, and its Manual can also be read as dialogue and meta-dialogue between fact and fiction.
Gilbert Talbot’s doctoral thesis appears almost like the unique example that examines the relationship between Aesthetics and P4C, reviewing the research on Philosophy for Children.
In his doctoral thesis, Dr. Talbot sustained the position that Lipman did the inversion of the Nietzsche’s thesis: he proposes, in Talbot’s view, a “Socratic aestheticism”. Nietzsche attacked strongly Socrates’ position about transcendentalism, and all that is linked with this point of view. Nietzsche sustained that Socrates is the figure of all that is declination in the Greek world (for this reason, he called Socrates “an ugly man”, because he proposed an Apollonian version of the world, against a Dionysian one). It means that Nietzsche thought the view of a world that is under the Forms as opposed to a world that is based in vitality as a decadent mistake, because life is a constant change. This last one is a world of dance, music and celebration of life. Nietzsche sustains that Greece began its end with this kind of transcendentalist view.
Talbot, in an interesting path, sustains that Lipman offers in P4C the contrary that Nietzsche observed in Socrates’ perspective:
“À l’origine de la tragédie, chez Nietzsche, il y a la musique dionysiaque, qui fusionne avec l’image apollinienne. Cependant, chez Lipman, à l’origine de la pensée, il y a une image, un schème mental, non une musique. La poésie est la première discipline de l’esprit à capter cette image et à la mettre en mots. Et avec l’image poétique, vient la musique. Y aurait-il donc une voie inverse à celle qu’entrevoyait Nietzsche, non pas un socratisme esthétique qui soumet le symbolique au rationnel, mais un esthétisme socratique qui ferait, à l’inverse, surgir la raison de l’imaginaire ? Ce chemin, c’est celui qu’a suivi le jeune Matthew Lipman au sortir de la guerre, pour en arriver à produire ses programmes en philosophie pour enfants.”
Gilbert Talbot cited a Lipman’s text, “On writing a Philosophical Novel”, in Studies in Philosophy for Children, to show the sources for the idea about the existence of an aestheticism in Lipman’s view:
“Lipman nous confirme ainsi les sources de son esthétisme, chez Diderot et Dewey bien sûr, mais aussi chez les présocratiques, chez le Socrate de Platon et ses précurseurs tragiques, Euripide et Sophocle. Nietzsche, auparavant, avait lui aussi rapproché les noms de Socrate, Euripide et Sophocle, pour montrer leur connivence dans la mort de l’art dionysiaque, jeté dans les bras de la raison.”
Talbot’s position shows us an interesting and beautiful point of view, albeit one that deserves a different foundation. If Talbot's thesis could demonstrate that Lipman inverted the Socratic ‘assassination of pre-Socratic Greece’ (in Nietzsche’s view), it would imply that P4C is a program that proposes that reason is born from poetry. However, this is not the explicit proposal of P4C, neither in the theory nor in the practice.
The second point is that if Lipman´s proposal would indeed do this inversion, by adding the "Socratic” adjective to "aestheticism", the substantive would become part of the Socratic world, as soon as the inversion is performed. It is true that Lipman shared his pre-Socratic and narrative sources in some of his writings , but this doesn’t demonstrate that P4C did the inversion of a Platonic-Socratic model.
Talbot´s arguments are based in Nietzsche. However, it is worth noting that in Nietzsche’s view, doing an inversion means taking the wrong path, since the only path for a “new world” is trans-valuation. The German philosopher explicitly opposes all kinds of inversions, since inversions imply a continuation of the same values.
In preparation for this paper I reviewed periodicals devoted to P4C from around the world. The review included 219 articles in Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children ; 103 research texts compiled by Dr. Felix García Moriyón, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain and all the published volumes of APRENDER A PENSAR, Revista Internacional de los Centros Iberoamericanos de Filosofía para Niños y CrianÇas, 24 volumes, from 1990 to 2000 (this journal is now discontinued).
During those 12 years, there are no articles in Thinking dealing with the relationship between Aesthetics and P4C, exploring the thesis that Aesthetics/Art are foundations for P4C. A few papers deal with Aesthetics but from the point of view of how P4C could aid and improve the teaching of music, literature, etc. Aprender a Pensar includes only one article that could be seen as devoted to the relationship that we are researching. However, the article, published as “practical paper”, neither presented a thesis nor included a conclusion.[xii]
My review included the traditional P4C curricula, as well as the new curricula developed around the world, among others, in Australia, the United States , Argentina and Spain. New curricula developed by the IAPC, for example Thinking Trees and Laughing Cats were reviewed, and also Dr. Ann Sharp’s new texts written between 1990 and 2004. The reviewed literature did not provide any papers or books on the subject of my thesis.
Bibliographical research on P4C and Education
Research about Aesthetics and P4C also implies asking about the relationship between P4C and education. If P4C were strongly centered in critical thinking, we could certainly say this is a program to reform the formal education (school), since the school is mainly based in critical thinking. From its creation a little over 200 years ago the school has ignored the possibility that education could be, in its heart, artistic.
An intrinsic relationship between P4C and aesthetics would mean that P4C is looking for a new meaning in education (because Aesthetics is always a search for meanings), it means that each new search could give us a new meaning (by “new” I imply a re-organization or a new organization of this meaning).
Actual Western Education is a world linked with Plato’s paradigm and the world of logical hierarchies that it supposes. However, if P4C has an intrinsic relationship with Aesthetics, this program presents itself as a different paradigm, one that not only proposes to invert but that also to trans-valuate[xiii] Plato’s model and with it, education like it is known from the French Revolution: the school artifact.[xiv]
In the foucaultian view, the school artifact is a punishment artifact[xv] based on logic, neither on art nor on aesthetics.
In its relationship with Aesthetics, P4C could appear as a paradigm of re-edification of the culture (in its development of the multidimensional thinking inside communities of inquiry) including education, better than a part of the triumphant educational paradigm. Under this paradigm P4C entails a trans-valuation of actual education more than its reform.
This approach seems to show how P4C, through its relationship with Aesthetics, emerges as an antithetical model to the paradigm of vigilance, punishment and panoptical culture[xvi]. In the latest edition of Thinking in education Lipman introduces a third kind of thinking, caring thinking, which puts P4C closer to aesthetics than creative thinking did. I propose that caring thinking can be characterized as a kind of thought that includes art as a lifestyle, and I will use my literature review to try to sustain this thesis.
In this way, review an ineludible book will be reviewed: John Dewey’s Art as Experience. The educational implications of this book were ignored by Dewey himself. The same way was taken by Lipman. The power of art to be transformative and significant is presented by Dewey as the fundament of all experience. Lipman based his first book in Dewey, and, after this, the entire program P4C was based in deweyan concepts, despite the continental philosophy sources that were mixed in the birth and growth of P4C. Just like the school founded by Dewey was a laboratory and not a studio, P4C seems to be a laboratory of critical thinking and not a studio to create and re-create the experience as a whole. “Learn by doing”, Dewey’s school motto marks P4C. However, learning by doing does not necessarily include thinking about how we experience our lives, how can we draw, paint, write and tell our lives, how can we create our lives, and how can we take care of our lives.
P4C claims to be a program to live our lives differently. It sounds so far from critical thinking alone, or accompanied by certain kind of creative thinking, and, from 1992, caring thinking. In fact, the schools only pay attention to the first kind of thinking, and P4C does the same in practice, accommodating its goals more and more to the schools’ goals. It is true that P4C says that it is not a program centered only in reason, but in reasonableness. If people engaged in P4C cannot demonstrate these words are realized in the facts, these are only flatus vocis. Education founded in art-centered experience is certainly a different way that education founded in the statements that developed the school from its beginnings.
If it is true that Aesthetics and P4C have an intrinsic relationship, P4C could have the elements to provide an education founded in art-centered experience, as a permanent creation of our lives, therefore, of the entire world. If so, P4C could be seen as a different paradigm, far from the punishment artifact, criticizing it, and turning this critique into action.
ADDENDA
SOME EXAMPLES OF PROPOSED ANALYSIS ABOUT THE REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF THE RESEARCH LITERATURE
Lipman, M. (1996). Natasha: Vygotskian dialogues. New York, Teachers College Press and Suki. Writing, How and why? (1980), New Jersey, IAPC, MSU and Lipman M., Suki (1978), New Jersey, IAPC
“For all that, my mind is not on the resplendent scenery but on the unpleasant implications of Boris’ phone call. Yet I refuse to consider the possibility that if Boris’ allegations are correct, there might be something ominous in the wind. I prefer to think that it is somehow a case of mistaken identity.
The only point about which I do feel somewhat aggrieved is an aesthetic one. The whole thing sounds like it has been taken from a fourth-rate Russian novel. Even the names –Boris and Natasha, no less- are stagy and stereotypical!”[xvii]
These two paragraphs could be used to exemplify the tension in all of Matthew Lipman’s works. The precedent paragraph synthesizes Lipman’s character concerns: in Natasha, Boris, one of the characters, called Lipman (the character who is interviewed by Natasha) and said that Natasha has hidden her “real” identity. Lipman thinks she may be a spy. He thinks, immediately, that for some people the Cold War is there. It sounds like strong words against this kind of people, however, in open contradiction, one that we can trace all over the book, the situation shows us Lipman, in the name of Aesthetics (finding the meaning of the situation) , doing exactly the same that he criticizes:
“Some people can’t seem to put the cold war behind them, I tell myself, as I fidget at the typewriter, waiting for Natasha to show up.
Her scheduled time of arrival comes and goes. It must be that her bus is late, I reason. When she gets here, I think, no more of this Sherlock Holmes stuff. Back to the ascent from the abstract to the concrete.
She has hardly gotten her coat off when I ask her how long she’s been doing freelance work.” [xviii]
All this stuff sounds like if Dr. Lipman, the person “for real” -like Elfie said -[xix] were in a constant battle between his words, always in defense of critical thinking and cognitive skills, and his thoughts and preferences, which lean towards the aesthetical side trough the poems, paintings, jokes, and look for meanings in almost all of his works. I am doing this difference between “his words and his thoughts” in the sense that the public side shows us, I mean, the books, the curriculum, and the foundation of P4C as a “cognitive program”, as well as certain aspects of the “private” side that show us the Lipman who is a poet, a painter, and an humorous person, as the character “Lipman”, that in Natasha, without any reason ( Art and Aesthetics not necessarily need it) began to tell jokes, laughing at philosophy itself.[xx]
In Natasha Dr. Lipman says that in those years of P4C first steps (1968-1974) he was concerned about the cognitive skills. These were the years of Summerhill and the Woodstock generation, which put its finger on the issue of the importance of affective skills. They did not care, assumed the author, about the cognitive skills. This is one of the reasons why he paid attention to cognitive skills and decided to focus on the development of logic and cognitive skills for children of Elementary Schools.[xxi] (Years after, together with Dr. Ann Sharp, Dr. Lipman developed P4C for all Elementary Schools. )
In Natasha the characters oscillates between fiction and facts: in the book a character called Matthew Lipman, is married with a woman who has the same name as the author’s real wife. This literary game is played in books, Natasha and Suki (and its manual), as the central component of two texts that are looking for meanings.
Natasha appears as a novelistic examination of the capacity of children to think philosophically, because Dr. Lipman, the character, is pushed all the time to think by himself by an energetic and always enthusiastic Natasha. In each chapter we can see Lipman’s contradictions, fighting against clear thoughts, and tortuous ways of reasoning and traveling all kinds of paths that try to put us in front of a certain Lipman who does the entire contrary that he claims. This is a Lipman who walks all the time not only the Logic and Critical way, but also along the Aesthetic way. He looks like the living example of that little girl in Moscow, during a session of P4C: “Tuesday, October 9 [1991]. The day begins with another Pixie session in School # 91. It seems to meet that it goes equally well. When the discussion turns to thoughts and I ask if all one’s thoughts need to be supported by reasons, one girl remarks, ‘Only those you express, not those you think’.”
Between lines, and between words, in the entire curriculum of P4C, including the manuals written between Dr. Lipman and Dr. Sharp, and almost in all of Dr. Lipman’s articles and books, we can perceive this tension between the reason that we must offer in public, and the reason that we don’t need to offer in a private way. This a-rational[xxii] portion of our lives (which we could term “a-rationality” or “extended reasonableness”, provisory) could be allowed by the Aesthetics, which find meanings not necessarily using only formal or informal logic rules.
Lipman, M. and Montclair State College. Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children. (1974). Harry Stottlemeier's discovery. Upper Montclair, N.J., Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children Montclair State College.
There is a common agreement about Harry Stottlemeier’s’ Discovery, the first book of the program inaugurated in 1969 by Dr. Matthew Lipman that it is a book centered in Logic or in critical thinking (cognitive skills). From the beginning, the general opinion has been that the most important element in P4C is the critical thinking. To talk about the “center” of P4C, or similar figures, is a paradox, because P4C is a de-centered program –in the sense that it is an educative program that is designed in spirals, where the subjects are repeated again and again under the students’ interests. This point of view about the importance of critical thinking was reinforced during almost 30 years by the founders of P4C, Dr. Matthew S. Lipman and Dr. Ann Margaret Sharp.
Harry is one of the characters in Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery. He usually presents the rational arguments, based in Aristotle’s Logic, and his opinions are mainly based on critical thinking. Harry is presented as a boy who is not so much interested in art, someone who does not understand the meanings of art, and who sometimes shows a depreciative behavior about this field. Moreover, in Chapter 1 of Suki, is depicted as someone who is ungifted for Aesthetics.
Since the title of the book contains the word “Harry”, and since he is one of the characters in the text, it could be said that Harry is the principal character. Thus, the tendency is to think his opinions and his arguments, his reasons and his presentation of the world tend to be the most important focus in the book. The pun about the name of Aristotle in the title is another strong push to think of this book as a text about Logic. Moreover, Harry “discovers” the rules of Formal Logic in the first chapter.
However, from the beginning of his career Dr. Matthew Lipman a remarkable interest in researching and writing about aesthetics. So did Dr. Ann Sharp. Both of them wrote their doctoral dissertations around the subject of Art/Aesthetics. Dr. Lipman thesis is about Art; Dr. Sharp thesis is about Nietzsche.[xxiii] Of course, it is possible for an author to have a great interest in an issue, and yet to write the texts for the public on another issue. It is possible that Dr. Lipman was interested in art, but, at the same time, he was worried about education. Perhaps, it could be said that Dr. Lipman did not connect education and art. Maybe he, worried about the problems that his students at Columbia University presented in Logic, decided to focus on educational problems in Logic. Did Dr. Lipman’s common sense and studies push him that he should “put his finger inside the hurt” creating an educational program centered in Logic?
In this point, I need to say that my research is not focused in the ways, or any kind of psychological paths that Dr. Lipman and Dr. Sharp had in their minds when they decided developed the curriculum of P4C. It does not mean I am not interested in the constant tossed and swept ideas[xxiv] that they had and have in their minds, I only want to say that my suspicion is that, from the beginning, and there was a profound relation between P4C and Art/Aesthetics.
My suspicion is reinforced because Dr. Sharp centered her Doctoral Thesis in Nietzsche in 1973, while she and Dr. Lipman were working together developing the first manual inside the program: exactly Philosophical Inquiry, the manual that accompany Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery. Dr. Lipman choose Art for his Doctoral Thesis, and he was centered in Dewey’s thoughts. This path show us Ann Sharp centered in Nietzsche, the philosopher who said “ the philosopher of the future will be an artist-philosopher”, and also show us Matthew Lipman centered in Dewey, who said that the whole experience is art, in his famous book Art as Experience.
REFERENCES
Lipman, M. and Montclair State College. Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children. (1974). Harry Stottlemeier's discovery. Upper Montclair, N.J., Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children Montclair State College.
Lipman, M., A. M. Sharp, et al. (1979). Philosophical inquiry : an instructional manual to accompany Harry Stottlemeier's discovery. Upper Montclair, N. J., Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children, Montclair State College.
Lipman, M. (1996). Natasha : Vygotskian dialogues. New York, Teachers College Press.
Lipman, M. and Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children. (1978). Suki. Upper Montclair, N.J., Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children, Montclair State College.
Lipman, M., A. M. Sharp, et al. (1980). Writing : how and why : an instructional manual to accompany Suki. Upper Montclair, N.J., Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children, Montclair State College.
Lipman, M., (2003) Thinking in Education, second edition, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press.
Lipman, M. (1967), What happens in Art, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Sharp, A., (1975), The Teacher as Liberator: Nietzsche’s View of the Role of the Teacher , Doctoral Thesis, Boston, University of Massachusetts.
Sharp, A.M. “Nakeesha and Jesse”. Thinking , v. 16 no. 2 (2002) p. 4-8
Sharp, A.M. (comp.), The second issue of Thinking devoted to the theme of women, feminism and Philosophy for Children. Thinking v. 13 no. 1 (1997) p. 1
Sharp, A.M., “Philosophy for Children and the development of ethical values.” Early Child Development and Care v. 107 (1995) p. 45-55
Sharp, A., “Inspecting an infant classroom” [from the Handbook for inspection of schools]. Child Education v. 71 (July 1994) p. 54-9
Sharp, A.M. “Feminism and Philosophy for Children: the ethical dimension.” Thinking v. 11 no. 3-4 (1994) p. 24-8
Sharp, A.M., “What is a community of inquiry'?. Journal of Moral Education v. 16 (January 1987) p. 37-45
Sharp, A.M., “Is there an essence of education?”. Journal of Moral Education v. 15 (October 1986) p. 189-96
Sharp, A.M. , “Philosophical teaching as moral education.” Journal of Moral Education v. 13 (January 1984) p. 3-8
Sharp, Ann (1997), “The Aesthetic Dimension of the Community of Inquiry”, ICT, Montclair State University, Vol. XVII, No. 1
Talbot, Gilbert, (September 1998), L’esthétisme socratique de Matthew Lipman. Thèse de doctorat, présentée à madame maria teresa de la garza, directrice du programme doctoral de philosophie pour enfants , Doctoral Thesis, Universidad Iberoamericana , Mexico
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APA Statement on Research Philosophy
( In http ://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/governance/statements/rankings.html)
APRENDER A PENSAR, Revista Internacional de los Centros Iberoamericanos de Filosofía para Niños y CrianÇas, 24 volumes, from 1990 to 2000. (This academic magazine devoted to P4C, in Spanish and Portuguese, was discontinued).
Barrett, Terry (2000), “Evaluating Photographs”, in Criticizing Photographs. An introduction to understanding images, Mayfield Publishing, 3rd Edition, Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data, pages 116-139
Chapman, L.H., “No Child Left Behind in Art?.”, Arts Education Policy Review , v. 106 no. 2 , (November/December 2004) p. 3-17.
Hagaman, S. “The community of inquiry: an approach to collaborative learning. “, Studies in Art Education, v. 31 (Spring 1990) p. 149-57
Hamrick, W.S. “Philosophy for children and aesthetic education.”, The Journal of Aesthetic Education, v. 23 (Summer 1989) p. 55-67.
Haynes, Felicity, (1999), “Aesthetic Education”, paper submitted to Encyclopaedia of Philosophy of Education, editors M. Peters, P. McLaren, P. Ghiraldelli, S. Accorinti.
Jackson, Philip (1998), John Dewey and the lessons of Art, London, Yale University Press.
Dannatt, A. “Pop art's shiny, happy person [Interview with Jeff Koons]”. Art Newspaper v. 14, (April 2004) p. 34-5
Nietzsche,F. , Sämtliche Werke. Kritische Studienausgabe in 15 Bänden, Hrag. von G. Colli und M. Montinari, Berlin-New York, Walter de Gruyter-DTV, 1980.
Ross-Degnan, L. “Great lessons in art.”, Montessori Life v. 13 no. 1 (Winter 2001) p. 30-1.
Ricoeur, P., La metáfora viva, trad. G. Baravalle, Buenos Aires, Megápolis, 1983.
Seigfried, C. H. (1996). “Who Experiences? Genderizing Pluralistic Experiences,” Chapter 7 of Pragmatism and Feminism: Reweaving the Social Fabric (University of Chicago Press), pp. 142-73.
Seigfried, C. H. (1996). “What’s Wrong with Instrumental Reasoning? Realizing the Emancipatory Potential of Science,” pp. 174-201.
Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children, (1992 -2004), New Jersey, IAPC, MSU.
Wersma, W. (2000). Identification of research problem. In W. Wersma (Ed.), Research Methods in Education (pp. 27-51). Boston: Allyn and bacon.
Wersma, W. (2000). The review of literature. In W. Wersma (Ed.), Research Methods in Education (pp. 52-81). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES
[i] I am using the Greek word “poietic” (from “poiesis”) with the meaning that this word has as “production of meanings”.
[ii] The concepts productive (poietic ) imagination and reproductive imagination , are taken from Paul Ricoeur’s La metáfora viva (Live Metaphor in the translation from French to English). Ricoeur considers human understanding to be cogent only to the extent that it implicitly deploys structures and strategies characteristic of textuality. It is Ricoeur's view that our self-understandings, and indeed history itself, are fictive, that is, subject to the productive effects of the imagination through interpretation. For Ricoeur, the human subjectivity is primarily linguistically designated and mediated by symbols. He states that the "problematic of existence" is given in language and must be worked out in language and discourse. The concepts of "muthos" and "mimesis" in Aristotle's Poetics form the basis for Ricoeur's account of narrative “emplotment”, which he enjoins with the innovative powers of the Kantian productive imagination within a general theory of poetics. In this way, it could be says that “ when we say something is ‘disorganized’ [maybe] we merely mean that we don’t understand it, and when we say it’s ‘organized’ we merely mean that we understand it[..]”, as we can read in Writing: How and why, page 383,
[iii] M. Lipman, Natasha. Vygotskian Dialogues, Seventh Visit, page 79.
[iv] Halpern, Diane F., 1996, Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. , Mahwah, New Jersey Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
[v] Elder, L. and Paul, R. "Critical Thinking: Why we must transform our teaching." Journal of Developmental Education 18:1, Fall 1994, 34-35.
[vi] Kathleen Cotton , 2001, “Teaching Thinking Skills”, in School Improvement Research Series , Portland, Oregon, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
[vii] I am using the Greek word “poietic” (from “poiesis”) with the meaning that this word has as “production of meanings”.
[viii] The concepts productive (poietic ) imagination and reproductive imagination , are taken from Paul Ricoeur’s La metáfora viva (Live Metaphor in the translation from French to English). Ricoeur considers human understanding to be cogent only to the extent that it implicitly deploys structures and strategies characteristic of textuality. It is Ricoeur's view that our self-understandings, and indeed history itself, are fictive, that is, subject to the productive effects of the imagination through interpretation. For Ricoeur, the human subjectivity is primarily linguistically designated and mediated by symbols. He states that the "problematic of existence" is given in language and must be worked out in language and discourse. The concepts of "muthos" and "mimesis" in Aristotle's Poetics form the basis for Ricoeur's account of narrative “emplotment”, which he enjoins with the innovative powers of the Kantian productive imagination within a general theory of poetics. In this way, it could be says that “ when we say something is ‘disorganized’ [maybe] we merely mean that we don’t understand it, and when we say it’s ‘organized’ we merely mean that we understand it[..]”, as we can read in Writing: How and why, page 383,
[ix] Lipman’s Dissertation (1948) was entitled Problems in Art Inquiry, and was published under the title What happens in Art. (Lipman, M. (1966). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.)
[x] Sharp, Ann Margaret (1973), The teacher as liberator: an analysis of the philosophy of education of Friedrich Nietzsche. Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Massachusetts, 1973.
[xi] I am writing about “tossed and swept” ideas paraphrasing Robert Frost poem, "Tree at My Window", using this metaphor to indicate the artistic thinking:
“Tree at my window, window tree,/ My sash is lowered when night comes on;/
But let there never be curtain drawn/ Between you and me./ Vague dream-head lifted out of the ground,/And thing next most diffuse to cloud,/ Not all your light tongues talking aloud/ Could be profound./ But tree, I have seen you taken and tossed,/ And if you have seen me when I slept,/ You have seen me when I was taken and swept/ And all but lost./ That day she put our heads together,/ Fate had her imagination about her,/ Your head so much concerned with outer,/ Mine with inner, weather.” (Poem included in Suki, Chapter I. Suki reads the poem to Harry and to his comment “I like the truth of the facts”, she replies, “I like the truth of the poetry”.)
The Manual to accompany Suki, which name is Writing: How and why, was constructed following the chief concepts contained on Dr. Lipman’s doctoral thesis.
(Dr. Lipman wrote and writes not only texts about education and Philosophy, but also poems. Moreover, Lipman is a painter).
[xii] S.A., “Philosophy in the country. Doing philosophy with Suki”, 1996, vol. 6, pp. 14-27
[xiii] It could be said, using Richard Rorty thesis, that P4C is a program to edify, not to educate. This concept was used by Dr. Nina Yulina in her conference at IAPC, November 2004.
[xiv] In this text “School” means all of the scholar artifact, starting with Kindergarten and including the University.
[xv] Vide Michael Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. In this book the French philosopher said the prison, the school and the hospital are the same kind of artifacts. He observed that the panoptic point of view reign inside the three models of punishment. This system of control has, arguably, been aided in our own culture by new technological advancements that allow federal agencies to track your movement and behavior (the internet, telephones, cell phones, social security numbers, the census, ATMs, credit cards, and the ever increasing number of surveillance cameras in urban spaces). By jail’s culture, Foucault refers to a culture in which the panoptic model of surveillance has been diffused as a principle of social organization, affecting such disparate things as the university classroom (some classroom auditoriums resemble a prison school); urban planning (organized on a grid structure to facilitate movement but also to discourage concealment); hospital and factory architecture; and so on. People know this, in unconsciousness way, and this generate fear in them.
[xvi] Lipman, M., 2003. Thinking in education. 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press.
[xvii] M. Lipman, Natasha, Fourth Visit, page 51.
[xviii] M. Lipman, Natasha, Fifth Visit, page 53-54.
[xix] “Dummy!” If you can wonder, you must to be thinking! And if you’re thinking then, no matter that [X] says, you’re for real.”, M. Lipman, 1988, Elfie, IAPC, Chapter II, last paragraph.
[xx] Natasha, pp. 51-52.
[xxi] “‘What do you know about Soviet educational psychology in the twentieth century? I mean, what have you read? [Natasha asked to Lipman –the character- ]’
‘Not all that much, I ‘m afraid. I’ve read Vygotsky Thought and Language. I’ve read the major portion of Davydov’s Problems of Developmental Teaching. An I’ve dipped into a good portion of Amonashvili’s Hello Children, although that’s a work I really don’t want to discuss/’
‘Why not?’ Natasha asks innocently, thereby managing to get me to do precisely what I have just proclaimed I don’t want to do.
‘Because it’s a throwback to the affective education of the 1960s, to A.S. Neill’s Summerhill, and to the Woodstock generation. It stresses the ethical and creative sides of education but neglects a fragment of truth masquerading as the whole truth. I can see why Soviet printers can’t keep up with the demand of Amonashvili’s ‘humanistic education’ approach and why Western educators flock to attend his conferences in Georgia. But the problem is to make education cognitive as well as affective, critical as well as creative, social as well as individual, and so on.’ I pause and then add, lamely, ‘You’ve made me give a speech.’
‘I didn’t make you do anything you didn’t already want to do.” [Natasha replied]
“For the past quarter-century the theories of the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky and his disciple V. V. Davydov have shaped Russian and American education. During the same period, Matthew Lipman’s unorthodox Philosophy for Children approach has taken Vygotskian themes, such as classroom thinking and the conversion of the classroom into a community of inquiry, and put them into practice in real classrooms”. L.B.C. (1996). Book notes. Review of Natasha. In Harvard Educational Review. 66: 889.Reviews the book `Natasha: Vygotskian Dialogues,' by Matthew Lipman.
[xxii] I am using “a-rational” to emphasize a concept that is different from “irrational” which is generally opposed to rational. A-rational could contain rational and irrational, like in Carlos Fuentes’ example: “Logic is an island in the wisdom sea.” In the same way, some Pedagogic lines in America Latina speaks about “an-exact” frontiers between disciplines, saying that the boundaries could be exact, inexact, or an-exact. This last one contains both, the exact and the inexact. (Alicia de Alba, Curriculum in the Postmodern Condition, UNAM, Mexico, 2001, unpublished)
[xxiii] One of the central theses in Nietzsche’s works is that the philosophy of the future will be centered in the artist-philosopher. He rejected the idea of the philosopher if the person is not an artist, in the sense of a researcher of new meanings. He also refused the idea about a philosopher who only studies the history of the philosophy and does not produce new meanings to construct a new world. Dr. Sharp maintained his interests in Nietzsche’s thoughts, as shown her vita: almost ten years after her thesis, The Teacher as Liberator: Nietzsche’s View of the Role of the Teacher (1975) the subject appeared again at Paedagogica Historica, volume 15, no 2, December; Education for Autonomy (1983) in The Great Year of Zarathoustra (1881-1981), edited by David Goiccechea, University Press of America, Maryland.
