What is a philosophical discussion in the P4C classroom?

What are the constituents of a philosophical discussion? Let’s start with the properties a philosophical discussion does not have:

• Closed questions
• Questions with quantifiable answers
• Shouting
• Personal insults
• Speaking over others
• Ignoring others’ points
• Dismissing particular viewpoints
• Making inappropriate assumptions
• Inability to change/adapt or admit mistakes

A philosophical discussion, then, possesses (among others) these attributes:

• Open questions
• Questions which require deliberation
• Students take turns speaking
• Consideration of others’ views/opinions/positions
• Respect for others’ viewpoints or perspectives
• A back and forth discussion where interlocutors debate the best version of the other’s position
• Students are able to change their positions on a question or issue over the course of a discussion (at least some of the time)

These attributes fall into two main categories: question quality and participant behaviour. The first category is something the teacher can be directly responsible for. In the beginning of teaching using P4C, I recommend modelling the types of questions students might ask given a certain stimulus/provocation. With experience, the students will learn to ask the types of questions which result in productive philosophical discussions. The teacher, as facilitator of the discussion, will also have to ensure the discussion stays on topic and stays philosophical. Children, like all people, can get sidetracked, and though it’s an interesting question who the best hockey player on the Vancouver Canucks is, it’s not a philosophical question. Keeping students within the bounds of what might be called “philosophicalness” is a key skill a P4C teacher needs. Teachers must be careful not to stifle children’s thoughts or opinions, even when they’re off topic; however, the discussion should be directed back to philosophy as soon as possible. Sometimes a joke or quip can be a great way of encouraging kids to get back on topic (“Reya, philosophical questions are supposed to be open-ended; everybody knows Elias Pettersson is the best Canuck!”).

Mutual respect is a huge part of philosophical discussions. You could set rules for discussions beforehand, or co-construct the rules with the students, or you could incorporate rule-making itself into a P4C lesson. For example, John Rawls’ concept of the original position behind a veil of ignorance provides a great exercise for students. Behind the veil of ignorance, no one knows their privilege or abilities in life. In this position, Rawls argues, the principles of justice can be derived. This could be used to come up with rules for philosophical discussions in the classroom. Given that students do not “know” whether they are quiet or loud, confident or not, excitable or loath to interject, they can come up with rules for discourse. For instance, “don’t talk over others” is a rule students may come up with. Though this is to the rhetorical disadvantage of the loud and confident students, it is in the best interests of those in the original position who don’t know whether they are loud or confident. Even if rules are not set out beforehand, they often come about organically since philosophical discussions tend to engender a keen sense of fairness and justice among students.

A productive philosophical discussion will also result in the change of positions or opinions among some students. Whether through recognition of their own logical errors, or the convincing rhetoric of a peer or peers, the potential to adapt is critical to philosophical discussions. Students who are steadfastly attached to a position in opposition to both logic and the arguments of their peers are detrimental to the discussion. These students lack humility (which, as I’ve previously written, is fundamental to philosophy). For this reason, I believe a good starting point with P4C is a lesson on epistemology – i.e. what we know, how we come to know, and whether we can know anything at all. With this lesson behind them, students are less epistemically calcified, as they realize what they “know” to be certain (even 2+2 = 4) can be doubted.

Resources:

John Rawls’ Original Position https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/

Tiffany Poirier, Let’s Teach Kids Philosophy: https://thetyee.ca/Views/Teacherdiaries/2007/11/27/KidsPhilosophy/

Thomas Bigglestone, P4C: Seven Steps To Sharpen Your Session: https://www.thephilosophyman.com/blog/p4c-sharpen-session