If you had to teach only one subject to children....

[Cephus]

English, because once they can read, they can teach themselves whatever they want

Really, native language doesn't belong in the above list because without the ability to understand language, it's not going to be possible to teach ANYTHING.

 

[Iriemon]

Really, native language doesn't belong in the above list because without the ability to understand language, it's not going to be possible to teach ANYTHING.

My focus on my kids' education is that they could read well, write well, and knew their math tables in their sleep.

Armed with those skills, there is nothing you cannot learn.

 

[Leeguana]

I'm sure they do; but that doesn't mean I'm going to be able to offer sincere respect. Now I'm guessing you don't mean the insincere type or it is not truly the golden rule. For example I would not treat child/wife/sexual abusers with respect. I won't treat anyone with respect that brought about another's downfall through lies. I won't treat anyone with respect any bullies. As you see the list could go on. My previous post points out that the reason the golden rule is cute but useless is the fact that certain lines will inevitably be drawn. The golden rule does not allow for this much diversity of "respectability" that we find in humanity.

Well maybe if people started practicing and preaching the golden rule a bit more, we wouldn't have to deal with so many of the child/wife/sexual abusers you're talking about.

 

[Summerwind]

Well maybe if people started practicing and preaching the golden rule a bit more, we wouldn't have to deal with so many of the child/wife/sexual abusers you're talking about.

If only such pipe dreams had any basis in reality, but it doesn't.

 

[disneydude]

If only such pipe dreams had any basis in reality, but it doesn't.

I know that you are cynical about it....and I agree that there is no way you are going to have 100% of the public practicing the Golden Rule. But why isn't it possible for at least the majority of people to respect each other enough to live and let live and let people in this Country have diverse points of view? I think if we start with the Children and teach them that diversity is something to encourage in our society, to respect each other and that differences of opinion are not something to be afraid of....it is possible.

 

[Summerwind]

I know that you are cynical about it....and I agree that there is no way you are going to have 100% of the public practicing the Golden Rule. But why isn't it possible for at least the majority of people to respect each other enough to live and let live and let people in this Country have diverse points of view? I think if we start with the Children and teach them that diversity is something to encourage in our society, to respect each other and that differences of opinion are not something to be afraid of....it is possible.

Based on the evidence before me currently and the evidence provided by history; I disagree with its possibility in this evolution of humanity. Hopefully we will evolve before we destroy ourselves.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Hands down, it must be: Other-philosophy. Philosophy is what generated all the other disciplines we have today. Philosophy teaches you how to think about all kinds of problems. It trains you to the precision of math (indeed, most of the philosophers I know think mathematicians are sloppy), the intuition of literature, and the erudition of history. There's no other course of study as valuable. That may be why they don't teach it in public schools.

 

[1069]

I voted for history.
In truth, though, the subject I'm probably most qualified to teach is piano.
I mean, that's the only thing I'm good enough at that people would probably pay me to teach it. I think I could teach history, but I'm sure I wouldn't be allowed to, lacking any sort of credentials for doing so.

 

[ashurbanipal]

It depends, I know a lot of philosophers and when asked to confront any aspect of actual reality, their heads just explode. Philosophers prefer to create their own worlds over amending their philosophies to fit this one.

I would freely admit that philosophy has taken some weird turns lately. I would also freely admit that philosophers tend to think about some very abstract things. I don't know many philosophers who don't have at least adequate practical sense, though.

However, I could certainly see why it would appear otherwise from the outside.

That being said, you're right, cause philosophy in and of itself should teach logic, which will bear untold dividends when genuinely internalized.

To quote Spock: Logic is the begining of Wisdom, not the end. I studied logic for 6 years, learning a wide variety of systems and reading all the great logicians. At the end of that study, I came to believe this. This is blasphemy to a lot of philosophers, but some subjects are not to be apprehended with logical analysis. Taught properly, IMO, philosophy will teach both logic and intuition.

 

[Billo_Really]

I would teach Immanuel Kant and "The Critique of Practical Reasoning".

If you have the ability to reason, the world is at your feet!

 

[ashurbanipal]

I used to think that Hume had Kant by the shorthairs, even from the grave. I've more recently come to realize that this was based on a primary misunderstanding of Kant, who truly was one of the most brilliant people ever to live. "Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics" is on my list of the ten books I would save if civilization were to collapse. The idea of the numena/phenomena distinction is both so clear and so obvious as a result of that book that it's one of a few central conflicts that remain in philosophy today. Understanding the problems that Kant grappled with and the way he reasoned through them will lay out pretty much all modern philosophy from Descartes through to Wittgenstein.

However, despite my high opinion of Kant, I think it would be a disservice to teach only Kant. It's well worth teaching Hume if for no other reason than to understand what Kant was up to. And the anti-Kantian philosophies of Moore, Husserl, Russel, Quine, Witgenstein, Heidegger, Camus, etc. all are worth grappling with.

 

[rivrrat]

English, because only with that knowledge can they learn everything else on their own. Without learning english, they would be unable to learn anything else.

(or as the OP said, "native language")

 

[Billo_Really]

ORiginally posted by ashurbanipal
I used to think that Hume had Kant by the shorthairs, even from the grave. I've more recently come to realize that this was based on a primary misunderstanding of Kant, who truly was one of the most brilliant people ever to live. "Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics" is on my list of the ten books I would save if civilization were to collapse. The idea of the numena/phenomena distinction is both so clear and so obvious as a result of that book that it's one of a few central conflicts that remain in philosophy today. Understanding the problems that Kant grappled with and the way he reasoned through them will lay out pretty much all modern philosophy from Descartes through to Wittgenstein.

However, despite my high opinion of Kant, I think it would be a disservice to teach only Kant. It's well worth teaching Hume if for no other reason than to understand what Kant was up to. And the anti-Kantian philosophies of Moore, Husserl, Russel, Quine, Witgenstein, Heidegger, Camus, etc. all are worth grappling with.

Not to mention Kant is such a hard read...

If you're going to read Immanuel Kant, you gotta want it!

I don't think I've ever had more difficulty reading and comprehending what was stated, more than Kant. He's a very tough read.

 

[Jerry]

Ok, this is an extremely hypothetical situation.

Suppose that for some strange reason, schools were only allowed to teach one subject to children.
Nothing would prevent said children from learning other subjects on their own.

Small explanations of subjects related to the chosen subject would be allowed, but only to the extent that they explained a specific portion of the chosen subject.

The subject list is:

Math
English (Changed this to Native language in the poll for those who are not from the USA or UK)
Science
History

Somewhat broad.....but meh.

Reading, everything else can come from that.

 

[1069]

Reading, everything else can come from that.

Yeah, that's true. As long as you can read, you can teach yourself everything else you need to know.

 

[Jerry]

Yeah, that's true. As long as you can read, you can teach yourself everything else you need to know.

Even spelling?

 

[FallingPianos]

I voted other. the ability to read and think logically are more important than any single subject.

 

[1069]

Even spelling?

I taught myself every damn thing I know.
I never learned a thing in school, except how to read. If I learned any math at all, I've forgotten it. I don't recall ever taking history; I think we had social studies instead.
Nuns are big on penmanship. Penmanship, at my school, was an actual class.
I'm left-handed. My handwriting looks like a four-year-old's, for some reason, no matter how hard I try to control it. It was a fairly shameful situation; the teachers would write some poem on the board (Lewis Carroll's "Jabberwocky" or something; it seems we did that one every year). They'd tell the class to copy it. Then they'd tell me, "You only have to copy down to here." one or two sentences. I'm sure everyone thought I was retarded.
This inability to write legibly runs in my family; it's probably some form of functional dyspraxia. A lot of us also can't drive, or don't drive until late in life; can't tell left from right, and other things.
I had a shitty time in school, despite being smart.
But I did learn to read. I think that's the only thing I learned. I wasn't in school very long.
I did not learn spelling there, because they don't teach elementary school students to spell the kinds of words I habitually write.
I did learn phonics; we had phonics as a class for two years (third and fourth grades), and I think that's where I perfected my ability to sound out words.
But as far as where I learned to spell, I'm not sure. I seem to have a very acute visual memory, and if I see a word written once, correctly, I will always know how to spell it.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Kant's nothing compared to Wittgenstein. Pick up a copy of the Tractatus Logico-philosophus and give that a shot...or, you could try Soren Kierkegaard.

But compared to just about everyone else, Kant's not exactly gripping reading.

Part of the issue is the fact that he spoke and wrote in a peculiar dialect of German that doesn't readily translate to English--or so I have been told. His ideas are (again, so I am told) pretty clear if you happen to speak some weird sort of Tribal German. But try to put them into English, and it's Bedlam.

I think it took me a little over a year to get through the Critique of Pure Reason. After that, I kind-of had the hang of it, and I read the Prolegomena. I wish I'd have read that one first, but, alas, my German Phenomenalism prof was something of a hard ***. I was actually grateful to begin predicate calculus...

 

[Jerry]

I'm left-handed. My handwriting looks like a four-year-old's, for some reason, no matter how hard I try to control it.

 

[1069]

 

[buttonpsi]

I voted for language because you have to understand how to read and write to understand how to learn. I think in America we should at least learn one other language as well...just to have a dual grasp on understanding.

If we are going to get on the topic of education though we should bring into account the state-testing systems that are failing to teach kids. Every child/teenager reads the same exact books and learns the same exact things, if not even reading just a snipet of the book. My graduating class didn't read all of Hamlet, but we all read Hamlet. Even the people that make the books to teach the subject just insert parts of the book into them. They train you to only read parts of literature, and not take in the whole...as if you aren't able to do so.

With all of the time kids spend learning how to pass a freaking test, they don't understand how to learn. Schools should teach children how to learn, not what to learn. For the people that voted on history as the most important subject, how many kids learn in depth about history...
I think maybe math is the subject they learn most, but that doesn't help encourage them to research other aspects of learing on their own.

But then again, maybe we can't encourage someone to learn if they aren't ready to learn. To force a child to learn just doesn't seem right; a child should want to learn as a human characteristic. If they don't want to learn then what can we really do to MAKE them learn?