Teaching Philosophy and Political Ideological Diversity

Introduction

One of the questions that arise in relation to the theme of political-ideological diversity concerns the current state of modern schools. For some, we are, in other words, it inculcates some political-ideological values in the students. This is why neutrality is demanded. Where this idea of neutrality comes from, we need to know. It makes sense that the school and especially its teachers should not follow any political-ideological current. So what? We can begin by investigating whether this book makes sense: Are there political-ideological tendencies in schools today? Finally, we learn information that indicates a positive answer to the question. For example, teachers who publicly defend certain positions in the classroom, on issues around which the national political struggle takes place, demonstrate their preference for a particular political party, and even try to convince their students that their position is correct. We are also aware of situations in which school activities are paralyzed to drive civic action or public debate, which is in fact a de facto assembly organized by political parties and other similar institutions. There are also reports of students who say they are encouraged by teachers to express certain political-ideological views verbally or in writing in the classroom to avoid embarrassment and negative evaluation. But, being separated from a society, can neutrality do any good to the society at all? Let us start from here.

Aristotelian Nicomachean Ethics, Al-Farabi’s, Intellectual Happiness, and Saadia Gaon' Theory of Knowledge are our paramount sources. We then moved into Kant, Bacon, John Dewey in seeking the root of modern education and up to the current time. Kant is obviously not referring to the public school teacher, as it did not really exist then. But some of your ideas may be taken into consideration. The essential point here is the following: When appointed to public office by the state, a teacher is not in the public sphere, as Kant calls it. On the contrary, he is in the private sphere, in the sense that he undertakes the task of fulfilling a specific social mission. Logically, the limits imposed by this social mission in a democratic society cannot simply be determined by the government or power group of the moment. They must be the result of a democratic decision-making process, in which the teacher himself is able to participate. But, in any case, the sphere in which he has complete freedom of expression is not the private sphere of his professional activity, but the public sphere, where, in principle, no limits can be imposed on him (although, on the contrary, this aspect has been modified in recent times). Thus, for Kant, the inevitable limitation of freedom of expression in the private sphere of professional activity is offset by absolute freedom in the public sphere. In it, the teacher finds his authentic peers: adults who are already literate.