“To philosophize is to seek, is to affirm that there is something to see and say” (Merleau-Ponty).
Introduction
Nobody escapes from Philosophy. Sooner or later, the human being ends up facing what Jaspers calls “fundamental questions of life”. At that time, the private sciences are silent. The mere opinion, alien to the “whys” of men and women, does not give a single word. Philosophy, on the contrary, “seeks” and seeks to “see” in order to have something to say.
Furthermore, if it is true that the “human” is a work of education, it is also true that philosophical knowledge can contribute a lot to this process. But, many insist that Philosophy is “incompatible” with the training offered at the level of basic education. Among countless arguments that "support" this vaunted "incompatibility", at least two are very interesting: the “unpreparedness” and the “inaptitude” of students from this period of education formal.
Bearing in mind the fact that this type of occurrence is commonplace, this article continues to reflect on these arguments, rehearsing a slight discussion on philosophical knowledge and citizenship. First, however, he looks at history and notices that the “exclusion” of Philosophy from Brazilian basic education is not a recent thing, but that it has been dragging on since the discovery (?) of Brazil.
The coming and going of philosophy in the basic education curriculum
Philosophy has always been treated in the context of Brazilian basic education as a refined product, accessible to the elite. Decanted in official speeches, but mistreated in educational practice, its history is marked by exclusion. Already in the Jesuit period, between 1553 and 1758, only white colonists could study it. Meanwhile, Indians, blacks, mestizos and the poor received a second order catechetical-religious education. From then on, the “reforms” that took place in teaching will begin to account for their constant coming and going in the school curriculum.
In 1891, for example, Benjamin Constant did not favor it in his educational reform. In 1901, the Epitácio Pessoa Reform introduced the discipline of logic in the last year of secondary education. The Rivadavia Reform of 1991 did not even refer to Philosophy. Carried out in 1915, the Maxiamiliano Reform provided for optional courses in logic and the history of philosophy, but these never came to fruition. With the Rocha Vaz Reform, in 1925, which took place under the climate of liberal ideas, Philosophy reappeared as a mandatory subject in the fifth and sixth years of secondary education. In 1932, the Francisco Campos Reform divided secondary education into cycles: primary and complementary, with five and two years respectively, with Philosophy being introduced only in the curriculum of the second cycle.
From 1942 to 1958, Philosophy had its programs constantly changed. In 1961, the year in which the Law of Guidelines and Bases of National Education, number 4,024, comes into effect, meeting the bureaucratic-technicist objectives of the new conception of education, Philosophy is excluded from basic education. In 1969, when this purge was regulated, in compliance with the principles of agreements signed between Brazil and the United States, disciplines such as Moral and Civic Education began to take the place of Philosophy.
Until 1980, Philosophy was not present in basic education, with some honorable exceptions. From 1985 until now, several essays to introduce Philosophy have been taking place in elementary and high school today. The Law of Guidelines and Bases of National Education, of 1996, generically predicted the return of Philosophy, at least in high school. Recently, the Ministry of Education, the Chamber of Deputies and the Federal Senate issued documents in which they establish the mandatory teaching of Philosophy and Sociology in high school. Seeing it effectively implemented and contributing to the constitution of a philosophical culture within formal education still seems to be a challenge.
Unpreparedness? Disability?
As far as Philosophy is concerned, it is as a tragedy that history has repeated itself. While some believe that Philosophy in Basic Education has no affinity with Brazilian students, others understand that the students themselves do nothing to deserve it. What is said is the following: “Brazilian basic education students are not very weak and are not prepared for Philosophy”.
Apart from the absurdity of this statement, here it is a case of asking: What does it mean to be prepared for Philosophy? Certainly it is considered “prepared” for philosophical knowledge that individual who attended excellent schools, could receive a careful family and social education in the pre-school phase of life.
This is a curious vision of “unpreparedness”, as it is known that the Brazilian educational system, as it is proper also to capitalism, it has always maintained a school for the elite and another for the popular layers of the society. The “unpreparedness” argument only serves to reinforce this deplorable kind of elitism.
Do not stop now... There's more after the advertising ;)
By arguing that “basic education students are very weak”, this is enough to subtract their philosophical knowledge, those who are against Philosophy in basic education show the fragility of this type of argument. Are not the “weakest” the ones who most need to strengthen the curriculum content of the school education they receive? If the school doesn't dedicate itself to educating those who don't know, to whom it will dedicate itself. In fact, isn't it precisely the existence of those who don't know what justifies the existence of the school and the teachers?
It is not because of an alleged “cultural lack”, an idea that, by the way, expresses a deplorable prejudice, that the State and educational institutions are free to teach Philosophy to students of education basic.
Those in the classroom know how urgent it is to awaken in students creativity and criticality necessary for the elaboration of a consequent representation of the world, society and human life in the world. Therefore, the contribution of Philosophy becomes decisive. Paradoxically, however, there are those among us who still hope that the basic education student will “prepare” and then learn to philosophize.
Another argument that is frequently heard is that of the “unsuitability” of these students for Philosophy. According to this idea, few would be “ready” for Philosophy, since most were “not born” for this type of knowledge. Plato was a believer in this idea. At this point, to be sure, the disciple of Socrates is already overcome. However, the false idea that philosophical knowledge is intended for “special minds”, as it turns out, still survives.
This “readiness” for Philosophy would be something a natural vocation, a gift, an inner aptitude with a strong individual propensity to think. However, I do not believe that this exists, since if everyone has the ability to think, then everyone, can devote themselves to understanding Philosophy, as well as studying Physics, Chemistry and disciplines similar.
Philosophical knowledge and citizenship
It is not unpreparedness, much less ineptitude. The problem is different and is related to the real conditions of life in our country. If people lived decently, most of the educational problems would be solved, including those related to access to Philosophy. However, the issue of dignified life, as a condition for the exercise of citizenship, is still a problem that the current capitalism in our country is not able to solve.
However, without appropriating material, symbolic and social goods, men and women do not become fully human and have their dignity compromised, which places them in a situation of non-citizenship. Now, Philosophy, a socially produced good, is part of the symbolic heritage that cannot be treated as a strictly personal belonging, it must be within the reach of all students, of all levels. More: it must be available to all citizens, as it contributes to education that humanizes men and women.
In this way, under philosophical knowledge no prejudice can take shelter. More: to condition it to “prerequisites” as those mentioned above is to pervert its nature of instituting knowledge at its root, which can enhance freedom. Furthermore, appropriating Philosophy is an inalienable right of every individual, much more so it will be for students of basic education in our country.
Conclusion
The coming and going in the “reforms” marks the history of Philosophy among us. As a modeling mass in the artist's hands, Philosophy has gained the most different forms in national curricula, less, however, that of a socially produced and fundamental knowledge. As mass remains mass under the power of the provisional form printed on it, philosophical knowledge remains what it has always been: important knowledge, but claiming its full place in the sun. Or will there still be schools and colleges that will try to deny the obligatory philosophy that it has now achieved by force of law?
references
JASPERS, K. Introduction to Philosophical Thought. São Paulo: Cultrix, 1971.
COSTA, M. Ç. V. Teaching Philosophy: Reviewing History and Curriculum Practices. Education and Reality. Porto Alegre, no. 17, v. 1, Jan.-Jun. 1992, p. 49-58.
MERLEAU-PONTY, M. Philosophy Praise. Lisbon: Idea Nova/Guimarães Editores, 1986.
Per Wilson Correia
Columnist Brazil School
Brazil School - education
