Philosophy for children?

[LarrySanger]

Hi all,

 

I'm trying to gauge how much interest there would be in a book, and maybe a course, about philosophy for elementary age children. Philosophy is a central part of the liberal arts and of classical education, yet there is very little in the way of philosophy for younger elementary-aged kids.

 

Here's the first 1.5 chapters. (Now with pictures: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0PItTarUGOTaW5NclFXRDNmbGM/view?usp=sharing) My then-6-year-old son found it accessible and interesting, FWIW.

 

It's aimed at elementary students, but it would cover many of the traditional problems of philosophy.

 

I started writing it because no other such book exists, that I know of...books like Philosophy for Kids and Philosophy Rocks have their place, but they're for older kids. Besides, my approach is different, more straightforward, but also simpler. As a philosopher myself, I wanted to expose my sons to some philosophy. There aren't any philosophy books written for that age level. You might read it to a 1st-3rd grader, and older students would be able to read it to themselves. It's actually very simply written.

 

I'm thinking of adding videos (similar to my videos here) and making it some sort of online class...but again, I'd only undertake this project with good evidence that there was a demand.

 

I think the idea would be that you'd get access to the book online (and an ebook when it's finished) for $15; a printed copy for $25; access to illustrated videos for $50; some sort of online class/interaction for $100; and private tutoring for more.

 

I'm thinking of trying this as a Kickstarter project, I just need to know if there's interest.

 

Why would I be good at doing this? I have a Ph.D. in philosophy. I'm also co-founder of Wikipedia and of two educational websites: ReadingBear.org and WatchKnowLearn.org. I've made 150-200 educational powerpoints for my son and made videos out of dozens of these. We've been homeschooling our two boys for four years now.

P.S. I just noticed there is a "Classical philosophy discussion" forum, here: http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/forum/321-classical-philosophy-discussion/ But I couldn't post there. How do I get in?

[abba12]

very interested here. I'm going to get philosophy for kids, but, like you said, its aimed more toward upper elementary/lower middle school. If this was a kickstarter project, id back it. 

 

My only criticism is, looking at the samples (and I have only briefly skimmed them over lunch), in places it seems very here and there, going on little tangents then coming back to the first point, inserting random facts, and a lot of 'this will be important later on' and such. Some kids would be great with this, and for an upper elementary age it's fine, but in referring to 1st-3rd graders, some students may struggle to remain focused on the point, remember what exactly the subject is. I can see you're going for a discussional tone, so it's needed to a point, I'd just consider being careful not to overdo it

 

Having said that, I'd still back it, because even if my little ones are too 'to the point' to follow, it'd make a great introduction in later elementary, before hitting philosophy for kids in middle school. 

[ebunny]

It looks interesting, and thanks for the link. But I'm curious to know the reason for introducing metaphysics before ethics, esthetics or logic for elementary children..

 

 

[chiguirre]

IMHO, your book doesn't seem much easier than Philosophy for Kids. I don't think it would engage kids before upper elementary. There is an online philosophy class for kids Athena's Advanced Academy. My dd did it when she was 9, but there were younger kids in the class.

 

You have a good idea, but the space already has at least one strong competitor that I know of. You'd need to make your product substantially different to gain an audience.

[LarrySanger]

Chiguirre, I thought it was much easier than Philosophy for Kids. I carefully and deliberately use much simpler vocabulary, teaching all relevant concepts as you go along. The fact that I spend so much time explaining difficult concepts in very simple terms is what makes it (I hope) clear and approachable. POK uses much more advanced vocabulary and takes a lot more for granted. It's written for middle school.

 

It's also very different from Philosophy for Kids in approach. POK is a collection of questions and strategies to get kids to think through them. This has its place, no doubt, but it strikes me as gimmicky and I'm not sure I'll want to use it with my own sons. But my book is (or will be, if I ever finish) a systematic discussion of the issues. I talk about questions too, of course, and am aiming to get kids to think through them. But I do so by explaining the problems as is more normally done in philosophy books and college texts...just made very, very, very simple, for little kids. It's actually something like Russell's Problems of Philosophy, but for 7-year-olds. I'm aiming to create a "living book" about philosophy, in the Charlotte Mason sense.

As far as the course goes, I'm actually a Ph.D. philosopher and I'd be able to charge less. I looked at the Athena's Advanced Academy class, and while it's great to know that such a class exists, what I have in mind is, well, different. More a la carte, via Kickstarter. First level = ebook. Then comes a printed book; then access to videos made as I write it; and at the highest levels would be feedback on writing and one-on-one tutoring. At this age level I'm not sure I could, or would want to, try to lead an online class discussion.

[LarrySanger]

ebunny, good question. It's because metaphysics is conceptually the most basic branch of philosophy. To explain problems about ethics, it helps to have studied problems of free will and responsibility, for example; to understand those problems, it helps greatly to have thought first about causality; to understand causality, it helps to have studied the philosophical notion of events; and to study events, it helps to have studied objects and relations.

 

If you read what I put up, you'll see it's already the case. I frequently avail myself of earlier-introduced concepts.

 

I've taken this approach several times when teaching intro philosophy. When I say it to my fellow philosophers, they say, "Why start with the hard stuff?" But I don't find metaphysics, especially at this level, to be much harder than the rest of philosophy. In fact, the stuff about "existence" and "objects" at the beginning of the document are quite simple compared to some of the stuff in Chapter 2.

 

Basically, I think one of the more interesting yet neglected features of philosophy is how the problems of philosophy form a sort of logical progression. This text helps illustrate that.

[LarrySanger]

Any other takers? I'm not asking for a commitment, just "maybe" or "probably" or "definitely." Would it not be cool to have a simple philosophy book for elementary kids, written by a Ph.D. philosopher? And a big ol' video series to go with it? And tutoring available?

 

I'm not even going to try for a Kickstarter campaign without some more interest here, so if you might want to avail yourself of this, let me know!

[Mimm]

I have a 1 year old that is a future homeschooler and I would certainly be interested in this. :)

[JDoe]

Nice. 

 

Maybe some illustrations may be beneficial to the kids understanding [even if I can see some reasons not to, but even that would give rise to some philosophical pondering]

 

[LarrySanger]

JDoe, totally—I intend to use a few public domain illustrations in the text, and the videos would be more fully illustrated (similar to the videos in the YouTube playlist linked above).

By the way, is there any appropriate place on the WTM forums to post a kickstarter notice? Or is that a strict no-no?

[LarrySanger]

Awesome!

You can tell your daughter that a materialist is someone who believes that there are no mental things that are not material (or physical) things. There is one kind of materialism, eliminative materialism, which denies that there are any mental events at all, so there is no need to translate talk of "mental events" into talk of "physical events" at all.

 

I've looked at Sophie's World. If your nine-year-old is able to read it, she's pretty advanced for a nine-year-old. Again, this is considerably easier (especially if you start from the beginning) than that. I don't know, obviously, but I'll bet it would have been accessible to your daughter when she was five. My son thought it was quite easy when he was six.

In fact, I think I started writing this text after I looked at Sophie's World, and tried it out on my then-six-year-old, and we decided it was too advanced at the time.

[Farrar]

I think telling kids that something is "hard" over and over is probably not a winning explanation strategy. Just a thought.

 

I also think it desperately needs illustrations, and not illustrations of the public domain clip art sort. It's so specific, I think you need to find someone to illustrate it. Maybe a homeschooled teen would like the job... 

 

I do think it's at about the same level as Philosophy for Kids, just different.

[AMJ]

JDoe, totally—I intend to use a few public domain illustrations in the text, and the videos would be more fully illustrated (similar to the videos in the YouTube playlist linked above).

 

By the way, is there any appropriate place on the WTM forums to post a kickstarter notice? Or is that a strict no-no?

 

Speaking as just part of the wider audience:  Yes, have illustrations (lots of them), but be careful with them.  I'd recommend getting an illustrator instead of trying to pick and choose appropriate public domain pictures.  Public domain is okay for pictures of particular people mentioned and such, but quite a lot of elementary kids are more engaged when there are actual illustrations pertaining to the material, preferably on every page.

 

Consider:  You are asking young children to think about some pretty heady stuff here.  You don't want to overwhelm them right off the bat with a text-heavy appearance.  You want to engage them, get them thinking about things.  Pictures help this in so many ways, but only when they really fit in with the material they accompany.  Pictures that don't blend in seamlessly cause interruptions and distractions.

 

I recommend you start discussions with one or more children's authors and illustrators about your planned book.  The impression I got through my initial glance at your linked material is that it will be more acceptable to 5th grade and up, and you have competition at that level.  The rather dense wordiness strikes me as being rather off-putting for younger kids who are still focused on learning the hows of reading and gaining confidence in their ability to read.

 

Part of the battle you have set up for yourself is how to communicate your ideas and content in a written form, to kids who have not yet gained mastery of that written form yet.  Your current sample asks kids to either read or listen to someone read -- at length -- when they, the kids, are still focused on gaining the skills (reading and listening at length) that you require.

 

To work your book will need to present itself differently.  You must find a way for young kids to see it in pieces, and preferably in 2-page spreads.  The kids need a chance to get a bit and digest it, then turn the page and get another bit to digest.  It's not enough to just talk at the kids and expect them to understand.

 

I am not an author, nor an elementary school teacher, nor a publisher, nor an editor.  I am a mother of growing kids and an aunt to even more.  I am a bookaholic, and addicted to good kids' books.  I have read many kids books over the years, and even incorporated some analysis of children's literature into my undergraduate studies.  My experience with young children is not limited to just my own kids, either.

 

You can take my input or leave it; it's your choice.  I offer it here in hopes it will be helpful to you.  You have a nice idea, but to develop a marketable book on philosophy for young kids I feel you need a much better understanding of crafting children's literature.  Get with some children's books experts.  It's not enough to come up with the content.  You need to learn how to present it successfully.

 

 

As for whether I'd be interested in acquiring such a book:  My own kids have outgrown your target audience, but I have a niece and some nephews who are younger and might be interested, if the book is presented well.  It is really hard to say whether I'd be interested in buying such a book until I see the actual presentation of the material, since the presentation would quite literally make or break the book where these kids are concerned.  My ability to sit with these kids over such a book is limited, and their parents already have overly full days.  The presentation would need to engage the kids right off, and be simple enough for a tired parent to go through with the kids without study beforehand or any prior knowledge of the philosophy it contains.  If your book becomes such a product I would be very interested in acquiring at least one, and probably multiple copies.

[idnib]

Thanks. I like the book and I think my kids would like it too but I don't have enough background knowledge to provide as much constructive criticism as others here.

 

I'll just leave a link for another philosophy program by RFWP. I think yours is easier, but you might want to take a look at other competition.

[Farrar]

Thanks. I like the book and I think my kids would like it too but I don't have enough background knowledge to provide as much constructive criticism as others here.

 

I'll just leave a link for another philosophy program by RFWP. I think yours is easier, but you might want to take a look at other competition.

 

Have you used that one? There are no samples on the RFWP page that I could find...

[idnib]

Have you used that one? There are no samples on the RFWP page that I could find...

 

I tried using it with DS and he wasn't that into it. I still need to try DD. It's a program with philosophical questions for kids to discuss and puzzle out. The K stuff is fairly straightforward and includes ideas like fairness and such. I have the foundation volume and at the time I bought it there were some ancillary materials I don't see on the web site now. If you're interested I could dig it out of the garage. 

[Farrar]

I tried using it with DS and he wasn't that into it. I still need to try DD. It's a program with philosophical questions for kids to discuss and puzzle out. The K stuff is fairly straightforward and includes ideas like fairness and such. I have the foundation volume and at the time I bought it there were some ancillary materials I don't see on the web site now. If you're interested I could dig it out of the garage. 

 

That sounds super similar to Philosophy for Kids. I was mostly curious about the student books for middle school. We're going to do a philosophy unit this year (6th grade) and I had previously noticed the series and thought about getting it, but lack of reviews and no look inside (good grief, RFWP, how do you expect to sell anything without a look inside!) at all meant I had sort of pushed the thought aside.

[ebunny]

ebunny, good question. It's because metaphysics is conceptually the most basic branch of philosophy. To explain problems about ethics, it helps to have studied problems of free will and responsibility, for example; to understand those problems, it helps greatly to have thought first about causality; to understand causality, it helps to have studied the philosophical notion of events; and to study events, it helps to have studied objects and relations.

 

If you read what I put up, you'll see it's already the case. I frequently avail myself of earlier-introduced concepts.

 

I've taken this approach several times when teaching intro philosophy. When I say it to my fellow philosophers, they say, "Why start with the hard stuff?" But I don't find metaphysics, especially at this level, to be much harder than the rest of philosophy. In fact, the stuff about "existence" and "objects" at the beginning of the document are quite simple compared to some of the stuff in Chapter 2.

 

Basically, I think one of the more interesting yet neglected features of philosophy is how the problems of philosophy form a sort of logical progression. This text helps illustrate that.

 

Ok. I understand where you're coming from.

 

IMHO, there is a market, so to speak, for philosophy curriculum aimed at early grades, but I think it needs to be presented appropriately.  You've received some excellent suggestions up in the thread. I agree strongly with AMJ who suggested minimizing the wordiness, it looks verbose for a *typical* elementary aged child. (fwiw, I've taught children of diverse abilities). You could always insist that your product is for advanced readers, but that's a much smaller audience.

 

Lastly, if I were buying a philosophy curriculum my DD (who's used to Matthew Lipman and Jostein Gaarder)  would prefer 1) legible and/or standard font and size  2) narrative instead of dialogue 3) succinctly presented concepts.

 

ETA: Count me as interested in your philo curriculum.

[LucyStoner]

Have you considered teaching philosophy classes aimed at young kids locally? It would give you a testing ground for material and a sense of what works and doesn't for actual children. My son takes a philosophy course once a week and I prefer that to a book.

[Rosie_0801]

I'm wanting to cover some philosophy with my dd who has a few relevant LD's (language and logic) in about two years time. I would buy your book before I'd buy 'Philosophy for Kids.'

 

My dd's personal gripe would be that when you're talking about brains, you don't say which part of the brain. She likes brains, lol.

[LarrySanger]

Here's the sample video!

[LarrySanger]

Yes, I have thought of teaching a class locally. I'd be open to it. But frankly, I do everything online, and it's so much easier to get a wide variety of feedback online than offline (at least for me) that that's what I'm more inclined to do at least at first. I have written texts (for philosophy and for fiddle) while teaching meatspace classes, and it's doable, it's just quite a bit of work.

 

The video above took me about two hours to construct out of the basic chapter (it's just me reading the first section of the first chapter, with lots of illustrations—58 powerpoint slides), then another hour to record, process, and upload.

In my opinion, philosophy is inherently wordy, if you're doing it "right." It's about words, or concepts anyway, to a very great extent. Basically, the text is what it is. If people don't like it because it's wordy, too bad for me. I didn't set out to write the best possible philosophy text for children, but just one that I would be inclined to write for children, and for my boys in particular. We do follow a classical approach but with a lot of book-reading, preferably of "real" books a la Charlotte Mason. That's why it's so easy for me to get excited about a chapter book about philosophy for children.

 

(Still, I do want to add some illustrations in, approximately one per page. It's unlikely I'd go to the time and expense to hire a professional illustrator. Maybe if the book is popular enough in a self-published form, I'll do that before publishing it with a real publishing house.)

 

I really appreciate all the advice, but the point of posting the chapter here is to see whether people would like what they saw enough to maybe buy it/support it and maybe videos, etc. The question is about the actual book I'm writing, not about the best possible way to write an elementary-level philosophy book. I'm not even saying this is the best way to approach the subject with children...I'm just saying it's the way I'm inclined to do, because it's easy for me and seems to work well with my boys. Besides, there is method to my madness: if they read this, they're getting an introduction to the sort of language and narrative that they'd encounter when they read books like Philosophy Rocks (my favorite middle-to-high-school text so far) and the history of philosophy. That's not so much the case with some other children's philosophy books I've seen.

I don't talk about which part of the brain: yeah, well, I'm trying to keep it restricted to minimal necessary details. My approach is to explain everything very slowly and carefully, and giving details about brain science would be very difficult to make as clear as I make the rest of the stuff. Besides, the details of brain science are not strictly speaking necessary to understand to grapple with the more purely philosophical issues. (Although they do help, of course!)

[LarrySanger]

Chapter 1, now with pictures!

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0PItTarUGOTaW5NclFXRDNmbGM/view?usp=sharing

[Farrar]

You chose good clip art, but books that say things like "figure 3" really aren't typically aimed toward kindergarteners. I still think if you're going to market this to early elementary that it needs to be less wordy and include original illustrations.

[Bluegoat]

I felt like the text was really all over the place, and probably not that accessible to most lower elementary school aged kids.  It almost had a sort of stream-of-thought quality.

 

I'm probably not your market audience though.  I'm interested in philosophy but I don't think it is something that needs to be taught formally in elementary school, and I'm not even sure if it should be taught in that kind of systematic way for that age group.  I would tend to use poetry for talking about those kinds of questions with kids.

[FairProspects]

I felt like the text was really all over the place, and probably not that accessible to most lower elementary school aged kids.  It almost had a sort of stream-of-thought quality.

 

I'm probably not your market audience though.  I'm interested in philosophy but I don't think it is something that needs to be taught formally in elementary school, and I'm not even sure if it should be taught in that kind of systematic way for that age group.  I would tend to use poetry for talking about those kinds of questions with kids.

 

Yes, this. Philosophy would come up in our literature, poetry, and history discussions at that age but I would not invest in a separate curriculum. Not because I don't think philosophy is worthwhile, but because there are many other subjects to focus on at this age and we could easily incorporate it into our daily life.