Philosophy Toolkit

Objective: To engage students.

Descriptions: 

Ethics

Think of something that’s pretty good.
Now think of something that’s better than pretty good, that’s good.
Now think of something that’s better than that, that’s really good.
Think of something that’s pretty bad.
Now think of something that’s worse than pretty bad, that’s bad.
Now think of something that’s worse than that, that’s really bad.
Now think of something that’s both good and bad.
Now think of something that’s neither good nor bad.

Epistemology

Think a big thought (about something small)
Think a small thought (about something big)
Think a really hard thought (about something soft)
Think softly. Can you?
Think a funny thought
Think a serious thought
What is a thought?

Aesthetics

Write down something that you think is beautiful and two reasons why you think it’s beautiful and write down something that you think is ugly and two reasons why you think it’s ugly.
Can something that’s beautiful also be ugly?
Something that’s ugly also be beautiful?

Metaphysics

If you had to describe yourself using only 5 words, what would they be?
Write them down.
Have class share them.

Objective: To think about the right rules or norms to guide classroom discussions. This exercise attempts to give students the opportunity to formulate rules that they themselves would choose to be governed by.

Description: 

Session 1:

Begin by talking about rules and what their purpose is. One way tol motivate the discussion is by reading Chapter 12 (“The Schoolroom”) from E.B. White’s classic, Stuart Little. In this selection, Stuart, who, in spite of being the son of human parents, looks exactly like (and is the same size as) a field mouse, has taken a one-day job as a substitute teacher. He proposes to his class that he would like to be Chairman of the World and asks them what rules they think ought to be instituted. Stuart’s students suggest rules like “No stealing,” “No being mean,” and “Don’t kill anything except rats.”

In the classroom, discuss the pros and cons of such rules, much as Stuart does in his class.

Session 2:

Pass out index cards to the students and ask them to envision a classroom in which they were bound by only one rule. What rule would that be? Students should then write down their one rule on the notecard they’ve been given.

Session 3:
Once students have formulated their rules, collect the notecards and then, after mixing them up, pass them back. Each student should now have a rule that he or she didn’t write. In groups of two, students then work to come to an agreement about which of their two rules they would choose to be bound by.

Session 4:

Before the advisory period, write on the board the rules decided on by the groups of two in the last session.The class then has to pick five rules that they will choose to be bound by for the remainder of the class. (Let them know, though, that they will always have the option of reconsidering the rules they choose; if good reasons can be given for changing them and the class can agree that changes are warranted, rules can be changed.)

Ultimately, students end up voting for the five rules they prefer; often there is some overlap among the five. For instance, “Respect others” and “Respect others’ ideas” can lead to a discussion about whether there’s a difference between respecting a person and respecting a person’s ideas; some students might think that it amounts to the same thing. Still, they may want to keep both rules.

Objective: To look at the world in ways we usually don’t. You can use it as a way to illustrate to students the way in which philosophy encourages us to examine the world from a variety of perspectives.

Description:

Session 1:

Break the class up into groups of three or four. At each group, one student is designated to write down the answer that the group as a whole comes up with.Then hold up some common everyday household item. (A favorite item to use is a rotary cheese grater, but you can also use things like an eyeglasses case, a blackboard eraser, a pencil sharpener, and even a shoe.)

The groups are then given 3 minutes to think up and write down everything they can imagine using the item for—besides its originally intended function. Encourage them to imagine themselves in different settings: for instance, what could they use the item for if they were out in the wood? If they were 3 feet tall? If they were an ant? If they lived in prehistoric times? If they were with their siblings?

Go around the room and have the students discuss a selection of their favorite answers. If appropriate, ask them to demonstrate how they would use the item in the way they have indicated. 

What is the object? Is it still a cheese grater (or whatever the object was)? What makes it so?

Objective: To think about the nature of reality and what we mean when we say something is “real.”

Description: 

Session 1: 

Break the students up into groups of three. Put the following list on the board and ask each group to come up with at least one thing that fits in each category. Make sure groups don’t discuss or share their answers as they will use these responses in a game in the next session.

1. Something that isn’t real but seems to be real
2. Something that is real but seems not to be real
3. Something you can’t tell if it’s real or not
4. Something that has to be real
5. Something that is both real and not real
6. Something that it doesn’t matter if it’s real or not real

Session 2: 

On day 2, make sure students are in the same groups. Each group takes turns reading aloud one of their items, with the students in the other groups having to guess in which category the item belongs. Points are given for the correct guesses, and the group with the most points at the end wins the game. If a group guesses wrong and wants to challenge the other group’s category choice, they can explain why they think the item should be in another category and see if they can convince the group they are right. If they successfully do so, they are given the point.

Objective: To think about the differences between what it means to “know” something and what it means to “believe” it.

Description: 

Session 1: 

Ask the students to write down three things they know and three things they believe. Once everyone has their statements, have them talk in pairs about their claims and why they put them in the category they did. This should get them started on the difference between knowledge and belief. Then have the whole group come together and have the pairs offer examples of what they agreed were beliefs and what they agreed counted as knowledge. List them on the board under Knowledge and Belief.

Session 2:

Ask the group:

1. Do they agree with all the statements as listed? Why or why not?
2. What does it take for something we believe to count as knowledge?
3. Can we know something we don’t believe? Why would we say we don’t believe it?
4. Can we ever know things? Can we be wrong about the things we thought we knew?

Objective: Thinking about and practicing careful communication.

Materials: A blackboard or whiteboard to draw on, blank pieces of paper for students to draw on, crayons or colored pencils if possible.

Description: 

Session 1:

Pair students up, and then have them arrange their chairs back-to-back so that one of the members of the pair faces the board and the other faces away. The student who faces away from the board needs to have a surface to draw on (usually a notebook), a blank piece of paper, and something to draw with. A crayon or marker is ideal since students will eventually display what they draw to their classmates, so something bright and easy to see from across a classroom works best.

The explanation of the exercise goes something like this: “The way this exercise works is that the person facing away from the board is a painter, but you cannot see anything except what you are painting. The good news is you have a set of eyes to help you, the person who is facing the board. I am going to draw a picture on the board and you, the painter, will try to recreate it. However, you can’t look at what I’m drawing; only your “eyes” can do that. Your “eyes” will have to describe to you what I’m drawing. You need to keep in mind two rules: first, the “eyes” cannot look at your paper, and second, the painter cannot look at what I am drawing. Students should feel comfortable engaging in a discussion with each other, but do so in a kind of “stage whisper” since, with many students talking simultaneously, the room can get loud.”

Commence drawing a picture on the board. Do so slowly, one or two lines at a time, so that the pairs of students can keep up. Any picture is fine, but something simple works best, for example, a simple little scene with a house and a mountain and a tree — the sort of drawing a small child would make.

When the drawing is completed, make a box around the whole picture to indicate that it’s finished. Invite the painters to look at what has been drawn and to see how close their drawing is to the original. Ask all the painters to come to the front of the room and display their drawings. Then facilitate a question-and-answer session about what worked and what didn’t and how, perhaps, painters and “eyes” could do a better job of communicating and listening.

Typically, painters commend their “eyes” for giving precise instructions, especially for describing what to draw in terms of recognizable shapes, like triangles, squares, and easily identifiable objects like clouds and letters. The most common complaint is that their “eyes” gave confusing information about the placement — right, left, up, or down — of items in the drawing. Brainstorm together about how to build upon what worked and improve upon what didn’t for the next go-round.

Session 2:

Students get back into their pairs, with the former “eyes” now playing the role of painter and vice-versa. This time around, it’s interesting to draw a much less easy-to-follow drawing. (Usually, we draw a cartoon head. Unlike the first drawing, this one doesn’t have easily identifiable objects like trees and houses. Typically, therefore, students have a far more difficult time recreating the drawing.)

At the conclusion of this drawing, again invite the painters to compare their works to the one on the board. Ask them to come to the front of the room and again display what they’ve done. (Without fail, the drawings are more interesting this time around, even though they tend not to look very much like what was drawn on the board.)

At this point, lead a discussion about why this time around was so much trickier and what could have been done to make it easier for the painters to match the drawing on the board. (Sometimes, a discussion about the nature of art emerges here. Students often want to talk about whether the pieces in the second round — which admittedly look little like what was drawn on the board — aren’t, in fact, more interesting works of art than those in the first round.) Often students want to talk about whether a painter has “failed” if his or her artwork doesn’t match the original picture. Occasionally, some students get very exercised about their drawing (or their partner’s) not looking like what the teacher has drawn. From time to time, this can lead to a rich discussion of whether it was fair that the second time was so much harder. A teacher might put this up for grabs as a topic to inquire about: is it fair that some people face harder challenges than others? If so, why? If not, why not? What if facing those challenges leads to superior outcomes (like more artistic drawings?) Would you rather be an expert at something simple or a novice at something complex?

Objective: Learn to support claims with reasons.

Description: 

Session 1:

Hand out two or three index cards to each student. Then ask them to write their names on each of the cards and then to write on each card one claim they believe in. Ask that at least one of these claims be a normative claim. Talk with the students beforehand about what normative claims are; the idea is to write down something they believe people ought or ought not to do, or something that is right or wrong. Once they’ve written down the claims, ask them to write down, on the other side of the paper, three reasons they have for believing the claims to be true.They have about 10 minutes to do this and can appeal to whatever outside sources of information they want during this time. Tell them to make sure they give three different reasons for their belief. Encourage students to not share their claims or reasons with others as they will be used to play a game in the next session. Collect the cards.

Session 2:

Before class, divide the cards in half and then divide students into two teams based on the two piles of cards. You keep the cards, making sure to keep the cards from the two teams separate from each other. Then tell them the rules of the rest of the game. The goal is for students to be able to guess what the claim is from the reason(s) cited for believing it.

Starting with Team One, read the team one of the three reasons from the one of the cards from Team Two. They have a minute or two to decide together on a guess for what the claim might be. If the students can guess the claim from the first reason, Team One gets 3 points. If they guess it after hearing the second reason, they earn 2 points, and if they need all three reasons to guess the claim, they earn 1 point. If the students can’t guess correctly, the team earns no points. If the guess is close but not exactly right, sometimes they can earn a half point.

The game is fun and lively. Students enjoy trying to guess claims from the reasons offered for them. And they generally do a pretty good job of it. Sometimes disagreements arise about whether a reason offered for a claim is a good one. This is great — encourage discussion about it.

Objective: To think about the relationship between appearance and reality, and the value of authenticity.

Description:  In his book Anarchy, State and Utopia, American philosopher Robert Nozick developed the thought experiment, The Experience Machine: Suppose there was an experience machine that could give you any experience you desired. Your brain would be stimulated when hooked up to the machine so that you would think and feel that you were doing anything you wanted to do: playing on a major league sports team, being a famous actress, skiing on a fabulous mountain, being the lead in a famous rock band, writing a great novel, etc. When you’re hooked up to the machine, you won’t know you are – you’ll think that it’s all actually happening. Your experience will feel just as real and vivid as your experiences feel to you now. 

Would you map out how you would like your life to go and then hook up to the machine for the rest of your life?

Objective: To think about the ethics of taking something that doesn’t belong to you. 

Description: This is a thought experiment from The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten (2005, p.40) by Julian Baggini.

When Richard went to the ATM, he got a very pleasant surprise. He requested $100 with a receipt. What he got was $10,000 with a receipt – for $100.

When he got home, he checked his account online and found that, sure enough, his account had been debited by only $100. He put the money in a safe place, fully expecting the bank swiftly to spot the mistake and ask for it back. But the weeks passed and nobody called.

After two months, Richard concluded that no one was going to ask for the money. So he headed off to the BMW dealership with the hefty down-payment in his pocket.

On the way, however, he did feel a twinge of guilt. Wasn’t this stealing? He quickly managed to convince himself it was no such thing. He had not deliberately taken the money, it had just been given to him. And he hadn’t taken it from anyone else, so no one had been robbed. As for the bank, this was a drop in the ocean for them, and anyway, they would be insured against such eventualities. And it was their fault they had lost the money – they should have had safer systems. No, this wasn’t theft. It was just the biggest stroke of luck he had ever had.

1. What should Robert do? Return the money or buy a new car?
2. If Robert keeps the money, does it matter how he spends it?
3. Is Robert stealing? What does it mean to steal?
4. Does it matter that the money is from a bank? What if it was from an individual?

Objective: To think about the differences between what we need and what we want.

Description:

Session 1: Describing Wants and Needs 

Give the students a worksheet with the following questions:

1. What are some things you want?
2. What are some things you need?
3. What is the difference between what you want and what you need?
4. Do all people have the same wants?
5. Do all people have the same needs?
6. What should we do if what one person wants conflicts with what another person needs?

Give the students sufficient time to think about their responses and write them on their worksheets.

Session 2: Distinguishing Wants and Needs 

Make two lists on the board: wants and needs. Ask the students to suggest items for these categories from their worksheets. This generally spurs a discussion about the difference between wants and needs and whether something that is a want for one person could count as a need for another. What is the difference between wanting something and needing something?

Objective: To think about what makes music beautiful or not

Description:

Session 1:

Ask students each to choose one or two songs they think are beautiful, and one or two songs they think are ugly, and to think about why. Then ask them to share their songs and their reasons for choosing them in small groups of 4. Invite students to ask thoughtful questions to other group members about their song choices.

Session 2:

Facilitate a large group song share. Invite student volunteers to first say a little about one of their songs and why they think it’s beautiful or ugly, and then play a minute or so of it, and perhaps sometimes the entire song. 

This leads to a discussion of what makes something beautiful and/or ugly, what it means for something to be beautiful or ugly, why music is so meaningful to us, and other issues of aesthetics, but it also allows students to see one another in new ways and to share something of themselves that often ends up being very personal.

Objective: To think about what makes someone a good person.

Description:

Session 1:

Think of someone you know who you think of as a good person. What makes this person a good person? List at least three qualities of the person. In small groups, share your lists and generate a list of 3 qualities that the group more or less agrees upon. They don’t have to reach consensus as there will be an opportunity to discuss with the full class.

Session 2:

In a large group share, list each group’s qualities on the board and facilitate a discussion on whether any, some, or all of these qualities make someone a good person. Check with the class if they can think of any qualities that are missing from the list and why they might be important. This can lead to a rich discussion on what it even means to be a good person.

Objective: To think about hopes and dreams.

Description:

What is your hope? Show this short video and ask students to answer the prompt, “What is your hope?”

Objective: To think about personal identity.

Description:

Session 1:

1. Write down something you know about yourself.
2. Write down something you don’t know about yourself.
3. Write down something pretty much everyone who knows you knows about you.
4. Write down something hardly anyone who knows you knows about you.
5. Write down something that you think is important that people know about you.

Encourage students to share their answers (to the extent they are comfortable) in small groups asking them to notice any patterns in people’s responses.

Session 2:

Facilitate a whole group discussion about the questions discussed in small groups in the previous session.

Objective: To reflect on gratitude and what it means to be grateful.

Description:

This is an exercise that works well in the weeks just before the winter holiday break.

You’re given a sweater for your birthday that you don’t like. 

• Should you be grateful?
• Do you always have to be grateful for a gift even if you don’t like it?
• Are there limits to gratitude?
• Does  it count as being grateful to express gratitude you don’t genuinely feel?

Objective: To reflect on aspects are salient to your personal identity

Description:

Go through the thought experiment Staying Alive with your students. At each stage, ask them what choice they would make to stay alive, which is the aim of the game. After students share their choices (a quick poll can be helpful here), ask them their reasons. Each round of the thought experiment can be done in one session, making this a three-session lesson.

Objective: To encourage students to consider what makes something art, and to examine the issue of intentionality in art.

Description:

Have each student draw two pictures. One drawing must be a drawing they would call art, and the other one they would not call art.

Once the students have finished drawing, ask them to share their pieces and explain what makes one art and the other not. Ask the students listening to the sharing student: Do you think this (intended not to be art) piece could be art? Why or why not?