Anthropos 56 (2): 251–253 | issn0587-5161 | e-issn 2630-4082
On the Necessity of Teaching
Philosophy
Tomaž Grušovnik
University of Primorska, Slovenia
tomaz.grusovnik@pef.upr.si
© 2024 Tomaž Grušovnik
Philosophy is always at the crossroads of thought, and its role is often
questioned. In ancient Greece we already read reports of people being
sceptical about the business of philosophers: just think of the famous
anecdote of Thales’ olive presses and of Callicles’ appearance in Plato’s
Gorgias. Even in Buddhism, the usefulness of philosophical reflection is
often questioned. In modern and postmodern times, however, the role
of philosophy in school curricula has become even more controversial,
mainly because in the nineteenth century many sciences that were usu-
ally considered ‘philosophy’ (such as physics, biology, psychology, or so-
ciology) branched off from the love of wisdom and became sciences in
their own right, mostly based on empirical methodology. The nominal
scope of philosophy thus became smaller and smaller, and the increasing
pressure on schools from market societies has questioned the existence
of purely theoretical forms of knowledge. Indeed, the pressure is some-
times so great that philosophy does not appear as a compulsory subject
in many schools in many countries. In fact, unesco felt the need to es-
tablish a special day –unescoWorld Philosophy Day – to highlight the
importance of philosophy for the development of human thought and
democracy.
But what are the concrete uses of philosophy in a school curriculum,
and why should it not be reserved for elite thinkers? Unfortunately, this
is often the view of many people, even intellectuals. Recently I was ap-
proached by a full professor of economics who tried to persuade me that
philosophy is ‘not for themasses’ and that itmakes sense to study philoso-
phy only in highly specialized environments, such as academies of science
and art. I, of course, vehemently disagreed, pointing out that there are at
least two ways to think about philosophy today: we can think of it as an
academic discipline that develops like any other science, or we can think
https://doi.org/10.26493/2630-4082.56.251-253
Tomaž Grušovnik
of it as a conceptual toolkit that enables us to be better citizens, more re-
sponsible in social and political contexts, aswell as flourishing individuals
in private life. In the first sense, philosophy should definitely be cultivated
in specialized institutions, but in the second sense it should be our second
nature; thus philosophy is not optional, but obligatory for every human
being. Indeed, as I often say, we are all philosophers, since being human
means having questions about the meaning of life, the nature of the uni-
verse, and so on. But in fact, we are rarely good philosophers unless we
dedicate part of our lives to philosophy. So our task is not just to become
philosophers, because that is what we are by nature; our task is to become
good philosophers, and we can only do that in dialogue with others and
with the tradition.
Let us return to the question of the use of philosophy and, conse-
quently, the reasons why it is a compulsory subject in schools. One of
these reasons is purely instrumental, and therefore favoured even bymar-
ket economies. It is called ‘critical and creative thinking.’ By doing philos-
ophy, we begin to observe ourselves, our beliefs, and thus our world, in
a different way. Philosophy teaches us to examine our opinions in a way
that makes them stronger and truer. In this sense, philosophical practice
is not unlike the general scientific method, which tries to get us closer to
the truth and helps us to get better at reading and understanding mathe-
matical concepts.
But this instrumentalist understanding of the role of philosophy is also
problematic, for two reasons. The first is that it is not clear why we should
impose philosophy on students. After all, do not mathematics and lan-
guage contribute tomathematical and general literacy just as successfully,
if not more so, than philosophy? The second problem has to do with the
nature of instrumentalist thinking as such. If philosophy is to be worthy
of its name, it must also be critical of instrumentalist approaches, not just
try to develop them. To be ‘instrumental’ is in fact ambiguous, despite to-
day’s urge to be ‘useful.’ For in order to understand the value of the tool,
onemust first observe and evaluate the value of the goal that the tool seeks
to achieve. In fact, something may be very useful for a particular activity,
but that activity itself may be problematic. Consider, for example, the use
of chemicals in food production.
Thus, what some advocates of philosophy point to is the emancipatory
potential that seems to be unique to philosophical thought. Philosophy
should not only enable students to survive in the job market, but also to
become free subjects. But in order to do this, individuals must be able to
252
On the Necessity of Teaching Philosophy
go beyondmere instrumentalist thinking and become critical of social in-
stitutions as such. In fact, as Richard Rorty used to say, philosophy is not
so much an attempt to solve puzzles as it is an attempt to dissolve them,
to understand the concepts and frameworks that give rise to the prob-
lems and thus to evaluate their meaning. More specifically, what is often
needed for social progress is a Foucauldian (andRancièresque) transgres-
sion of boundaries, which in the first place exposes them. In this sense,
the practice of philosophy is crucial for any democratic society, and when
we talk about the value and necessity of this subject in the curriculum, we
should not overlook this moment.
Because of these complex and pressing issues related to philosophy as a
subject in different curricula, the present issue of Anthropos is dedicated
to reflecting on the role that philosophy can play in schools. More specif-
ically, the issue wants to shed an international, cross-cultural perspective
on the subject. Only in this way can the role of teaching philosophy in
schools be properly assessed.
253