Should we teach philosophy in schools? What variety of authors should be introduced to students?

Not even worth a fish pic

They don't have to go in depth, but I think they should at least introduce the idea that all the current dogmas (materialism, utilitarianism, etc.) are not 100% indisputable fact and that there is a branch of study which deal with these problems.
Literally did not know this until university.

maybe just go through plato very thoroughly and pedagogically

anything later will just be too shallow at that level

Yeah it is totally anything else but not THAT, liberals are truly mind cucked and I say that sincerely since its just sad at this point.

Taoism is basic meta-metaphysical thinking. It's only confusing to us because the structure of our education (and our society in general for that matter) is permeated by a kind of positivist, materialist, structuralist(?) metaphysics. Since we're drilling that into our kids heads by proxy in everything we teach them they are blinded to the fact that thinking does not work in the same way solving a math problem or formulating an 'objectively' grammatically correct sentence does.
Like this user said, we need to reintroduce the question of who we are into our society, instead of simply teaching our own preferred metaphysical answers.

I like this answer

Do you ever feel boxed in?

Yes. Marx.

by my own thoughts or by society or something else?

I'm in a philosophy class right now in my senior year of high school. Learning about Aristotle right now. One thing that was really bad was that my teacher showed us a through the wormhole episode, no joke, called "Are we all bigots?"

By both? Do you feel like you're boxed in by the systems, and that when you aren't payong attention you follow the systems blindly?

No thanks, we already have thousands of retarded americans misreading basic shit like Nietzsche and polluting the internet with their nonsense, we don't need more.

I had a philosophy class in high school. It was more about logical thinking, writing a lot of syllogisms and essays. I liked it because i enjoy writing essays. I don't think we studied any particular philospher (though i was young and basically knew only 2 philosphers: Plato and Aristotle).
I'm taking a philosphy class this semester in college. I suspect it won't be too different from high school.

I'll try to improve my bait for next time.

The truth is never a good bait, mate.

>Should we teach philosophy in schools?
they already do

Philosophy is too abstract for most children. it's not based on solid concepts but moreso ideas and semantics. Most children will quickly lose the plot.

Sure I do, though it'll be difficult to put my thoughts on what that kind of thoughtlessness is (and whether it's necessarily negative) into words, because I've only figured out what these texts are talking about a short while ago. It's a major paradigm shift from the more traditional western metaphysical thought I subscribed to before that (I'll never be able to look at plato the same way again). It's pretty overwhelming to be confronted with so many new questions.

Here's how I've tried to make sense of it for now: Our own construction of both our self and the world we inhabit are after all embedded in our subconscious in the form of routines, meaning that our past is the biggest part of who we are, which is both a blessing and a curse.
If we weren't directed in this way we wouldn't have any substance, and because we are we carry all kinds of baggage around with us. If we weren't aware that our existence is shaped by the way we interpret the world and the choices we make we would be no more than animals, but in becoming aware of our limits we have gained the capacity to feel trapped by them. That's the price we pay for being able to reflecting on our own existence.
We're limited and directed and limit and direct ourselves at the same time. Understanding that means feeling both lost and boxed in insofar as we are following a routine we know to be harmful to ourselves and others, but it also means feeling self-determined and free in so far as we are able to follow (read: keep finding and letting ourselves be found by) the path, reflect on and change our own behavior while still feeling moderately content with ourselves. Subroutines aren't evil, becoming a slave to them is. (Having a good balance between the male and female principle is probably the key to not going insane if you're serious about the whole self-overcoming thing.)

Feeling boxed in by society is a bigger problem, because no matter whether or not you're willing to be open with yourself has no bearing on the system you inhabit, but at least you can change who you spend your free time with and how to a certain extent.

You should listen to Cat Stevens, if you dont already, you might like him.

Personally I think its more effective to teach about philosophy, if you are teaching about it through an actual other subject. Does that make sense? I mean learning about Plato and Aristotle can be pretty boring, but if you apply philosophy to say, color perception, or number systems, its a tangible system that people can grasp and be interested in. In general, people aren't crazy about "learning about learning"

It's a part of samsara, overcoming that while being virtuous is the big test.

Thanks for the suggestion user. (Also, boy did I mess up that last sentence. Instead of talking about the joys of not letting myself be controlled by harmful subroutines I'm going to go get some sleep now.)

>You should listen to Cat Stevens
Not him, but why?

A lot of his music is about surpassing societal and individual barriers in order to see truth. I think he is influenced by eastern ideology.

I don't think we should ruin there childhoods anymore than we already do by telling them there is no meaning to anything and that none of them are really special at all.

Recommend me an album and a song. I've already listened to Tea For The Tillerman and my favourite song of his is
Father And Son.

>white guilt
>not talking about Europe

Tillerman is my favorite album of his, and Miles from Nowhere is my favorite song on it. Budda and the Chocolate Box is a good album, too. I like the song Trouble the best, though

>thinking does not work in the same way solving a math problem or formulating an 'objectively' grammatically correct sentence does

Are you implying grasping truth doesn't require syntax?

They do that in my country. Our equivalent of grammar schools is the default secondary education if you intend to go to a university, and there we are taught one year of logic and one year of history of philosophy.
Surprise, surprise - most of us hate logic and find philosophy uninteresting and don't gain anything from it. People only got invested into it when religion came into play. In those cases, they were provoking and being edgy (the residential atheist) or were comically butthurt (christians after reading Nietzsche or Sartre). Fuck, nobody even cared about medieval theology and proofs of God, the most devout christians were nearly completely silent during those classes.

But that's not philosophy...

they should teach some basic things and early philosophy in social studies classes for a semester; socratic dialogue, anselms's ontological argument for god, the epicrueans + stoics, maybe some rationalism. Just some things that would get some students interested in seeking out further knowledge without introducing them to anything too over the top

came for the pic of batman, left because it isnt.

In mexico highschools have this subject called "methodology" which is an intro to the scientific method, Plato and Aristotle (first time i read the story of the cave was in this class). Though it's more like a warm-up to the chemistry, biology, etc

So, no; it don't matter if kids read philosophy. The ones that stick with it were always messed up

ya its that guy from the 90s who had the mantis, sometimes i had to watch that show when i smoked weed with plebs, oh god even stoned it was dumb

Space Ghost Coast to Coast was an awesome show.

They teach it here in France during the last year of highschool.
They usually bring up a notion such as liberty or desire and explain the different viewpoints of the philosophers.
In the final exam you are asked to write a dissertation on 2 questions or explain a text. The question i chose was " Is art necessarily beautiful ?". I got 18/20.

Philosophy led me directly to crime and drugs, among other things. Who gives a flying fuck what's taught in schools? Good people ignore all that and pursue who reaches them.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't try to formulate your sentences properly. The problem is that what is and isn't 'proper' language can't be defined in an empiricist manner because language is a living, evolving system. It doesn't just exist as some kind of metaphysical entity which we have to accept as a matter of fact.
Sure, thinking requires structuring thought in a certain way, and textbook grammar is a conventionalized form of what that structure might looks like in a certain community at a certain time. But simply teaching "how things are done" completely glosses over the glaring question of where that system comes from and what our relation to it is.