Trust, well-being and the community of philosophical inquiry

Trust is vital for individuals to flourish and have a sense of well-being in their community. A trusting society allows people to feel safe, communicate with each other and engage with those who are different to themselves without feeling fearful. In this article, I employ an Aristotelian framework in order to identify trust as a virtue and I defend the need to cultivate trust in children. I discuss the case study of Buranda State School in Queensland, Australia, as an instance of successful school reform that reinstates trust in an educational setting. Buranda makes use of the community of inquiry (CoI) pedagogy practiced by advocates of philosophy for children (P4C). Educators may create a safe space in the classroom by using the CoI and giving children the chance to voice their ideas and build upon, as well as question, those of others in a democratic and respectful manner. Through this pragmatic dialogue, trust may be established, along with a sense of belonging that supports well-being in the classroom as well as in life

Book Review - Philosophy in schools: an introduction for philosophers and teachers

Book Review - Philosophy in Schools: An introduction for philosophers and teachers edited by Sara Goering, Nicholas J Shudak and Thomas E Wartenberg (2013). (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy) Taylor & Francis, New York, NY. ISBN: 9780415640633

Thoughts on film: Critically engaging with both Adorno and Bejamin

There is a traditional debate in analytic aesthetics that surrounds the classification of film as Art. While much philosophy devoted to considering film has now moved beyond this debate and accepts film as a mass art, a sub-category of Art proper, it is worth re-considering the criticism of film pre-Deleuze. Much of the criticism of film as pseudo-art is expressed in moral terms. T. W. Adorno, for example, critiques film as ‘mass-cult’; mass produced culture which presents a ‘flattened’ version of reality. Adorno worries about the passivity encouraged in viewers. Films are narrative artworks, received by an audience in a context, making the focus on the reception of the work important. The dialogue held between Adorno and Walter Benjamin post-WWII is interesting because, between them, they consider both the possible positive emancipatory and negative politicization effects of film as a mass produced and distributed story-telling medium. Reading Adorno alongside Benjamin is a way to highlight the role of the critical thinker who receives the film. Arguing that the critical thinker is a valuable citizen, this paper focuses on the value of critical thinking in the reception of cinematic artworks. It achieves this by reconsidering Adorno and Benjamin\u27s theories of mass art

The ethics of narrative art: Philosophy in schools, compassion and learning from stories

Following neo-Aristotelians Alasdair MacIntyre and Martha Nussbaum, we claim that humans are story-telling animals who learn from the stories of diverse others. Moral agents use rational emotions, such as compassion, which is our focus here, to imaginatively reconstruct others’ thoughts, feelings and goals. In turn, this imaginative reconstruction plays a crucial role in deliberating and discerning how to act. A body of literature has developed in support of the role narrative artworks (i.e. novels and films) can play in allowing us the opportunity to engage imaginatively and sympathetically with diverse characters and scenarios in a safe protected space that is created by the fictional world. By practising what Nussbaum calls a ‘loving attitude’, her version of ethical attention, we can form virtuous habits that lead to phronesis (practical wisdom). In this paper, and taking compassion as an illustrative focus, we examine the ways that students’ moral education might usefully develop from engaging with narrative artworks through Philosophy for Children (P4C), where philosophy is a praxis, conducted in a classroom setting using a Community of Inquiry (CoI). We argue that narrative artworks provide useful stimulus material to engage students, generate student questions, and motivate philosophical dialogue and the formation of good habits, which, in turn, supports the argument for philosophy to be taught in schools

Cultural DeCoding: A humanities program for gifted and talented high school students seeking university entrance

This article details Cultural DeCoding, a humanities based high school extension program for gifted and talented Year 11 and 12 students in Western Australia. The brainchild of Dr Annette Pedersen (UWA & John XXIII College) and Dr Angela McCarthy (UNDA), the program runs for four days across the summer holidays before the start of the school term. The program fills a gap that exists in the education of gifted and talented secondary students who are interested in the humanities. It is comprised of sessions run by academics who facilitate discussion and activities based on their area of research and teaching expertise. The group is deliberately kept small in order to give students a chance to engage deeply and respectfully with like-minded others. The intention is to give these students an experience of what university will be like, and to have a chance to think philosophically; namely, critically, creatively and morally, in collaboration with others

Where is the place for the thinking viewer in the cinema?

Much of the current philosophy of film literature follows Walter Benjamin’s optimistic account and sees film as a vehicle for screening philosophical thought experiments, and offering new perspectives on issues that (may) have relevance to everyday life. If these kinds of films allow for philosophical thinking, then they are like other so-called ‘high’ artworks in that they encourage social, political and economic critique of social norms. Yet, most popular films that are digested in large quantities are not of a high aesthetic or moral quality. Theorists who conceive of cinema as a means of thinking must firstly reply to the objections that most films simply do not encourage active, intelligent, imaginative participation. Prior to the publication of Deleuze’s cinema books, theorists such as T. W. Adorno feared the advent of the Hollywood Studio film as akin to Nazi propaganda. Dismissed as elitist, their concern was that mass produced and distributed artworks portrayed the depicted social norms as immutable reality. If the imagination cannot enter and engage with the messages depicted through the filmic medium, i.e. through montage or similar ‘shock’ techniques, then viewers cannot critique the moral and social status quo screened; instead, they simply receive it, and it is reinforced. If we consider how passive cinematic viewers are, voyeuristically ensconced in a darkened theatre, we can see the concern here. If only some films allow for critique of social, political and economic norms in society, and these films are attended by those viewers who are already critical viewers, then how is film more generally a tool for thinking? If we are to honestly discuss the filmic medium, we must acknowledge the Hollywood blockbusters that stifle imaginative engagement with their narratives and often depict stereotypes. I argue that we need to read Adorno alongside Benjamin, in order to acknowledge the positive as well as negative attributes of films. In doing this we see the need to focus on the critical attitude of the viewer, as well as the moral messages of the film, particularly when we consider what the majority of consumers willingly ingest uncritically. Adorno and Benjamin both offer a historical account of art whereby their aesthetics require audience reception and are linked to experience. The way art is tied to human experience and the world of sensory perception is through language. Language allows the communication of ideas or referents which convey meaning via signs that contain some kind of ‘truth’ in the form of a cognitive component that must be interpreted. While there are many different stories being told in contemporary culture, the focus on the critical thinker, the interpreter of the narrative, is vital

The Conditions of Visibility: The Affect of Conceptual Art

The Affect of good artworks can be difficult to explain or describe, particularly in relation to conceptual art. The experiential process of engaging with an artwork involves the spectator perceiving the physical art object as well as receiving a concept. For an aesthetic experience to result, or for the viewer to be affected, the artist must be skilled and the receiver must adopt the relevant attitude. Many theorists argue that the correct attitude to adopt is one that is objective and ‘disinterested’. I argue that a ‘loving’ attitude, in the Iris Murdoch / Martha Nussbaum sense derived from an ethics of care / virtue ethics framework is also appropriate when engaging with art in order to achieve an aesthetic affect. This open, caring attitude requires the receiver to be receptive to the concepts contained within the work as well as its formal features. If the concepts implored are ethical or social, a disinterested attitude may impede the appropriate up-take of intended affect. Therefore, I argue that pure aesthetes are misguided when they take their ‘disinterested’ attitude too far and argue that ethical judgements do not apply to art qua art. If the artist is making an ethical point, or if the concept involved relies on ethics, then a caring critique is not a contradiction in terms; the viewer is encouraged to adopt multiple perspectives in order to get closer to an objective whole. I will explore the notion of affect through the art of a contemporary, conceptual Western Australian artist, Steven Morgana

Philosophy in the (gender and the law) classroom

To engage not only with what one thinks but also how one thinks, is to think philosophically. A student’s capacity to think philosophically strengthens their ability to learn and the depth of her or his understanding. This praxis research project was aimed at developing students’ capacities to ‘think philosophically’. The Community of Inquiry is a pedagogy developed by Matthew Lipman in the discipline of Philosophy that facilitates collaborative and democratic philosophical thinking in the context of teaching philosophy in schools. We introduced a Community of Inquiry module into teaching at tertiary (post-secondary) level in the context of gender and the law studies. This field of study was an appropriate context in which to introduce the Community of Inquiry because ‘philosophical thinking’ is required to understand gender relations and their impact on laws. Here we provide a practitioner reflection on an exploratory approach to teaching in a tertiary setting, with a view to setting an agenda for more systematic research into the incorporation of philosophical method into substantive fields of tertiary study

The Ethical Considerations of Climate Change: What Does It Mean and Who Cares?

Empirical evidence advancing the theory of anthropogenic climate change and resultant policy action has been framed through the perspectives of scientists, economists and politicians; the ultimate objective being to minimise the risk of dangerous climate change through the reduction of GHG emissions. However, policies designed to reduce carbon pollution have utilised cost benefit analysis (e.g., Stern and Garnaut reports), largely ignoring ethical implications of such actions. This has resulted in a climate debate that sidelines the moral and social considerations of the suggested actions designed to reduce the impact of dangerous climate change. Special interest groups have focussed on subjective interpretations of objective statistics, resulting in an extreme polarisation of viewpoints, pitting climate change deniers against politico-economic rationalists, with climate scientists largely sitting on the sidelines. There has, however, been a recent shift in the science of climate change acknowledging that, “many profound ethical questions are hidden in scientific and economic arguments about various climate change policy proposals” (Brown D, Tuana N, Averill M, et al. (2006) ‘White Paper on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change’, Rock Ethics Institute, Penn State University). We wish to promote an inter-disciplinary approach to the ethical considerations of climate change and situate the debate within a ‘real world’ context to enable people to link evidence and resultant policy to their own moral responsibility as ‘global citizens’. By placing reliable scientific information within a holistic framework, scientific outcomes with a high level of certainty may be conveyed within a wider perspective that includes ethical and social considerations, resulting in a stronger claim for practical outcomes with respect to climate change solutions. This can be used to support policies that are practical as well as moral

An analysis of ethics and emotion in written texts about the use of animals for scientific purposes

Ethical debate about the use of animals in science is argued within different ethical frameworks; mainly utilitarianism, deontology, relativism or emotional ethics, with some debaters preferring particular frameworks. Stakeholders to the debate are veterinarians, scientists using animals, animal welfare groups and the general public. To estimate the balance of ethical frameworks used, we ran a discourse analysis of written texts by each stakeholder (5 per stakeholder). The discourse analysis targeted the description of animals, instances of emotional language and language associated with utilitarianism, deontology and relativism. Frequencies were compared using ANOVAs and Tukey tests. All stakeholders used words associated with all frameworks but emotional language was the most used (39.4%) followed by utilitarian (26.7%), relativist (14.4%) and deontological (4.88%) language. Emotional language was used in texts from the general public (64.5%) more than in texts from veterinarians (24.9%) and scientists (17.8%; p = 0.0028) and animal welfare representatives (50.1%). Animals were mainly described in a utilitarian way (31.6%), more frequently by scientists than the general public (p = 0.025). All stakeholders preferentially used negative emotional language (6.6%) when referring to animals than positive (3.6%), and all stakeholders prioritised human interests over animals (6.7%). Not surprisingly, a mixture of ethical frameworks were used to assess the ethics of animal experimentation. However, the language used in texts from animal welfare groups and the general public suggest that those two groups preferentially build arguments with emotion rather than utilitarianism, a framework that is privileged by veterinarians and scientists since they primarily use animals