Is philosophy wasted on the young?

Question

Is it futile for people under 20 to study philosophy? Do they lack the requisite experience needed to apprehend philosophical theories?

I do not doubt that there are some very intelligent young people with astronomical IQs who can parrot certain facts about philosophy. But I have begun to doubt the efficacy or productive nature of teaching philosophy to 18 year old men/women. I just believe that most lack the experience and depth to truly grasp the intricacies of the categorical imperative or the Kierkegaardian concept of Angst.

Let me add that it is not simply comprehension that is lacking in some young students. Appreciation for the gravitas of the subject also appears to be lacking. A number of young persons basically have a "who cares?" attitude. They would much rather sleep during class or text someone on their cell phones. Admittedly, however, there are some young students who are pleasant exceptions to the aforesaid rule.

Appreciate your thoughts. From my experience, however, most students are not familiar with the Platonic notion of Forms as objects of thought/paradigms; nor are they familiar with the triadic dialectic of Hegel (affirmation, negation and negation of the negation or thesis, antithesis and synthesis). But I will concede that I am surprised at times by the enthusiasm and proficiency of certain students in my class.

Answer 1

That's the same problem most educators face nowadays -- an attitude of indifference.

Perhaps somewhere someone would click and light up the whole scene, very much like a nuclear reaction.

Albeit, philosophy is a tool for people to examine their POVs, it is not the be all and end all. Yet, the earlier they start thinking about it, the earlier they could start using it. It is their choice to want to take on it. It is the school's choice of making it compulsory. That's why the 101 level classes, right?

As for the effectiveness of how it is taught, I sure would argue that some people learn differently. Some don't even feel the necessity of it at all.

In this day and age when we all hold so highly of freedom, no wonder young students have a streak of anti-establishment towards institutionalized mode of education. However, is there no possible way to let the students take the lead for a good philosophical discussion out of their interests or POVs with an instructor steering the main course?

I do feel philosophy is one of those subject that must be experienced and much less taught. How could we really teach someone to think, if that's not how they want to think? Perhaps we let them pick the paths, but leave them baits to follow the games. (So sorry for rambling on.)

Answer 2

I know 20-year-olds who have had more 'life experience' than most 80-year-olds. You don't typically find them in college classrooms, though.

And to turn the problem on its head, I have no doubt that I could easily fill a classroom with 80-year-olds who also would be bored and would rather text message their friends.

I think you are focusing on the wrong trait here. It's not being 20 that's the problem. It's being closed-minded, unwilling, or unable to learn that is the problem. It's just a LOT harder to tell if someone is one of those than if they're twenty.

I would encourage you to keep trying. You never know which seed you plant will grow into an oak, and sometimes it's difficult to tell between someone who is bored because they're not interested in the material and someone who is bored because the material is all too familiar.

Answer 3

I think that sucess at philosophic studies is linked to maturity. You could have an 18 year old and a 40 year old who share the attitude of "who cares? What's this have to do with me?" I think that "younger" philosophy students should be introduced to the logic aspect of philosophy. It is a much-needed skill (logical thinking) and when presented in situations they experience, they can at least see some of the application.

I know that for me personally, I am much more curious about and receptive to philosophy now (at 30) than I was when I was doing undergraduate studies.

Answer 4

No. I am 20 and can have an intelligent debate or conversation on most topics with anyone.

Experience may fine-tune philosophical understanding, but logic, reason, and rationality are the bases of it. These do not have an age requirement.

I may not be able to recite Kierkegaard, but I am familiar with the categorical imperative, utilitarianism, existentialism, Kantian deontology, rationalism, etc.

Answer 5

Philosophy is composed of many elements. I would shudder to think of withholding values, morality, and logic (mathematics in large part). Philosophy, the love and pursuit of wisdom, has its foundations set through education and experience. One can hardly expect them to read I.Kant's Critique of Reason, but they learn several aspects of the Universal Imperative on the playground.
Humor: Plato's mysterious cave is similar in many aspects to my teen-ager's bedroom. Any child under 18 told to go to bed is excellent in the Socratic method.

Answer 6

No because it helps to know the history of philosophical movements. Even if they don't understand right away, which is natural for most people, even adults, they will benefit from this knowledge should they one day try to understand it. It is after all, several thousands of years worth of work.

Answer 7

If a students failure to fully comprehend a subject determined whether we taught a complex subject our schools and faculties would be remiss in their duties. Why turn off the switch for the one who is enlightened in the midst of other dim bulbs? I believe that your definition of success should be redefined. Exposure to a subject is the beginning of understanding.

Answer 8

Youth itself is wasted on the young.

Answer 9

Not at all.
They are accustomed to wasting their time.