{"ops":[{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Abstract"},{"insert":"\n\nIn this paper, originally part of “Philosophy and Cognitive Psychology,” Paul argues for the power of philosophy and philosophical thinking for intellectual autonomy. He claims that even children have a need and right to think philosophically and are very much inclined to do so, but are typically discouraged by the didactic absolutistic answers and attitudes of adults. Consequently, the inquiring minds of children soon become jaded by the self-assured absolutistic environment which surrounds them.\n\nThe potential of children to philosophize is suggested in a transcript of a 4"},{"attributes":{"script":"super"},"insert":"th"},{"insert":" grade classroom discussion of a series of abstract questions. Following the transcript, Paul illustrates a variety of ways in which traditional school subjects can be approached philosophically. He closes with a discussion of the values and intellectual traits fostered by philosophical thought, the skills and processes of thought, and the relation of philosophical to critical thought.\n\n"},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"Introduction"},{"insert":"\n\nIn this paper I lay the foundation for a philosophy-based, in contrast to a psychology-based, approach to teaching critical thinking across the curriculum. I lay out the general theory and provide some examples of how it could be used to transform classroom instruction and activities. Nevertheless, I want to underscore the point that I lack the space to cover my subject comprehensively. Interested readers must independently pursue the leads I provide, to see the power and flexibility of philosophy-based approaches to critical thinking instruction. I must content myself with modest goals, with a few basic insights into philosophical thinking, with a few of its advantages for instruction.\n\nThere are three overlapping senses of "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"philosophy"},{"insert":" that can play a role in explicating the nature of philosophical thinking: philosophy as a field of study, philosophy as a mode of thinking, and philosophy as a framework for thinking. In what follows, I focus on philosophy as a mode of and framework for thinking and will say least about it as a field of study. Nevertheless, some characterization of the field of philosophy is useful.\n\nPhilosophy is steeped in dialogical and dialectical thought. Philosophy is an art rather than a science, a discipline that formulates issues that can be approached from multiple points of view and invites critical dialogue and reasoned discourse between conflicting viewpoints. Critical thought and discussion are its mains instruments of learning. More so than any other field, philosophy requires all participants to think their own way to whatever system of beliefs ultimately constitute their thought within the field. This entails that all philosophers develop their own unique philosophies.\n\nIn contrast, science students are not expected to construct their own science. Sciences have emerged because of the possibility of specialization and joint work within a highly defined shared frame of reference. Its ground rules exclude what is not subject to quantification and measurement. Sciences are cooperative, collaborative ventures whose practitioners agree to limit strictly the range of issues they consider and how they consider them.\n\nPhilosophy, on the other hand, is largely an individualistic venture wherein participants agree, only in the broadest sense on the range and nature of the issues they will consider. Philosophers have traditionally been concerned with big questions, root issues that organize the overall framework of thinking itself, in all domains, not just one. Philosophers do not typically conduct "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"experiments"},{"insert":". They rarely form "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"hypothese"},{"insert":"s or make "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"predictions"},{"insert":" as scientists do. Philosophical tradition gives us a tapestry rich in the development of individual syntheses of ideas across multiple subject domains: syntheses carefully and precisely articulated and elaborately argued. There is a reason for this basic difference between the history of science and that of philosophy.\n\nSome questions, by their nature, admit of collaborative treatment and solution; others do not. For example, we do not need to individually test for the chemical structure of lead or determine the appropriate theory of that structure; we can rely on the conclusions of those who have done so. But we cannot learn the structure of our own lives or the best way to plan for the future by looking up the answer in a technical manual or having an answer determined for us by a collaborative scientific effort. We must each individually analyze these questions to obtain rationally defensible answers. There is a wide range of ways human lives can be understood and a variety of strategies for living them. Rarely, if ever, can answers to philosophical questions be validated by one person for another.\n\nThe method of philosophy, or the "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"mode"},{"insert":" of thinking characteristic of philosophy, is that of critical discussion, rational cross examination, and dialectical exchange. Every person who would participate in that discussion must create and elaborate a framework for thinking comprehensively. This discipline in the mode of thinking characteristic of philosophy has roots in the ideal of learning to think with a clear sense of the ultimate foundations of one’s thinking, of the essential logic of one’s thought, and of significant alternative, competing ways of thinking.\n\nConsider philosophical thinking as a framework for thought. When one engages in philosophical thinking, one thinks within a self-constructed network of assumptions, concepts, defined issues, key inferences, and insights. To think philosophically as a liberal, for example, is to think within a different framework of ideas than conservatives do. What is more, to think philosophically, in this sense, is to "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"know"},{"insert":" that one is thinking within a different framework of ideas than other thinkers. It is to know the foundations of liberalism compared to those of conservativism.\n"}]}