2.1 Philosophy in the school space

Philosophy is a compulsory subject in high school, public and private schools. But how effective your teaching? What is underpinned theoretically your insertion in school every day? Far from being a know established in a restricted set of knowledge and “truths”, Philosophy, by your specificity, by your radicalism, is always a dynamic and infinite, in which the man interrogates himself, the world and his own Philosophy. The Dialogic perspective in which the philosophy, as ^{Cerletti (2008}) requires an interactive posture between Philosophy and didactics.

Starting from the assumption that Philosophy is amalgamated with Sociology, History and Geography in the area of knowledge of Humanities and its Technologies, the fact of being related to other disciplines does not deprive Philosophy from its singularity in high school. There is a double frame delimiting Philosophy- time and concept. Chronologically, the philosophical questions are put from the classical antiquity in Greece: who are we? How do we operate? What do we think? Conceptually, answers vary in history of Philosophy according to the historical, political and moral contexts (^{ROCHA, 2008}). It is so necessary that Philosophy, by its own essence, awaken critical citizens beyond time and concept.

Therefore, there is a philosophical singularity in the questions and in the answers, since “the answers of Philosophy are always an opening act, because they are related to the way we deal with our deepest conventions”. (^{ROCHA, 2008}, p. 35). Once clarified that Philosophy is unique and has its own questions and explanations that don’t mix methodologically with other disciplines (although there are points of contact, functional couplings, there’s always a frame of disciplines - the objectivity of each one of them) include some interface issues with school discipline.

A first point to be considered is the obligation to criticality of Philosophy in High School. In NPCs (PCNs), according to ^{Rocha (2008}), appear the categorization of Philosophy as a missionary discipline to build citizenship by critics to thought and action. Well, thought and action can be parameterized by any discipline or even by a life philosophy.

A second point to be discussed is a result of the obligation to the critical interdisciplinary installment in high school. After all, what should we teach to achieve philosophical knowledge? To give Philosophy the mission of “a critical reflection about the knowledge and action, from the analysis of the assumptions of thinking and of acting and, therefore, as a theoretical foundation and critique of knowledge and practices” seems to drive the philosophizing to a didactic-pedagogic abyss. (BRAZIL, 2002, p. 41).

In relation to the curricular organization, the weekly workload limited compared to other disciplines (Physics, Chemistry, History and Geography) compromises the rhythm that a group conceptual elaboration, rigorous and radical demands. There is, in Brazil, a legacy of the organization placed on curricular component hierarchically designed to keep certain isolation and indifference to the teaching of Philosophy. If the “school is the place of valuable and complex learning, it requires a careful, systematic work, time consuming”, it is necessary to claim, from school, a larger space for philosophical practice. (^{ROCHA, 2008}, p. 114).

Nowadays, in public and private schools, in particular, in the big cities and in their metropolitan areas, there is a tension - with regard to the contents and curricular component studied - caused by the results of the National High School Exam (ENEM). In the impacts of that tension, often, those schools are designed for higher load time for Philosophy and Sociology in the last year of High School, since the evaluation of Humanities and its Technologies have matched progressively the number of issues on which the knowledge objects of the four subjects appear divided equitably.

The presence of Philosophy in school makes multiple issues emerge, among them: What is the place of Philosophy in school? How do we teach it? Why do we teach Philosophy? We establish, as well, another challenge to Philosophy: to promote the formation of citizenship, implementing the debate and critical analysis in social and political spheres that permeate the 21st century.

This calling to transformation prints to Philosophy in school the need of an insertion in social aspects, including man as a political animal. This inherent relational need requires of man in Philosophy, present at school, a dedication that overcomes the boundaries of universe. For this reason, it is necessary to develop reflection, designed by ^{Arendt (1993}, p. 39) as a finish to the action, i.e.

[...] a complex process, which never produces clear results. It is a never-ending activity, whereby, in constant change and variation, we learn to deal with our reality, reconciled with it, that is, we feel at home in the world. The understanding is endless and therefore cannot produce final results; it is a specifically human way of being alive.

Philosophy, therefore, in this scenario, it’s an odd instrument... Its constant unrest resulting from its own nature covered with questions and inquiries, is always dissatisfied, always in search of something else ... This incompleteness generates the certainty that “all I know is that I know nothing” and determines, so scathing, the permanent question. Thus, with the return of Philosophy to high school are the inquiries of the modes and forms through which it is established in that level of education.

Thus, to say about Philosophy and its description means walking on the intricacies of the interaction among the various factors that make up the professional acting faculty of Philosophy and its vicissitudes, wrapped in cultural and social networks in which reality is built. The way in which each teacher structures their education plan is, in some ways, linked to the way that means their professional practice and their own Philosophy.

2.2 Philosophy in its pedagogical practice: challenges of teaching

The understanding of how Philosophy is being taught and learned in high school from the teaching experience leads to reflection on the importance and complexity of that area of its return to the high school. Whereas the “teachingness” of Philosophy permeates (and surpasses) the relations established in the teaching-learning process, consider the questions related to this discipline is, therefore, a difficult task. According to ^{Carrilho (1987}, p. 44),

school acclimates students to learn, to acquire stable content of knowledge. If the teaching of philosophy conforms to that general feature, there would be no particular problem. But this is not the case: the problems that arise with the teaching of philosophy stem from fundamentally what you plan to teach, that is, of the very nature of philosophy, the fact that it couldn’t offer those contents and therefore be learned strictu sensu, but only to propose, to exercise learning to philosophize.

So, meet philosophically is to enhance the vision set of reality (because the problem should not be considered in isolation from the surrounding context), a radical investigation of the problems dealt with (because it is deep reflection in search for the essence of things), to reach the rigor of the analysis (because of reflection that rigorously, with method).

Philosophy fulfills role within the school space. However, this paper is in itself controversial in the sense of concern in not just the essence of Philosophy to a pragmatic action imposed by the educational systems and/or teaching professionals. In this perspective, it is therefore important to make the world understand, explaining, exploring, questioning the concepts already received, by swapping with reality other possible meanings.

More than a place of content presentation, Philosophy classes are a space for conceptual creation, namely, the classroom is a laboratory where the confrontation of different realities creates a real movement of criticality. Whereas this lab is always a dialogic space of creation that turns to a subjective reality (and the teacher) and objective (of reality, the world of the company), has, therefore, the continued dialogue between the poles constituting the knowledge, in which the inner and outer reality is impermanent, since it offers always new. Then comes, therefore, to foster the critical conscience and citizenship.

In other words,

[...] teaching philosophy is a call for diversity, perspectivism; is an exercise of access to key issues for human existence; it is an exercise in openness to risk, creative search, a thought always fresh; is an exercise of the question by the distrust of the easy answer. Anyone not willing to such exercises hardly will find pleasure and success in the adventure of teaching philosophy, learning philosophy. (^{GALLO, 2004}, p. 199).

It is worth mentioning that criticality is essential for the student-citizen, is not exclusive of Philosophy, on the contrary, “applies also to the work of scientists, physicists, chemists, biologists, historians, sociologists, geographers, artists, writers” (^{ROCHA, 2008}, p. 53). Criticality is, therefore, a challenge for all subjects, since it is not possible to form a critical, ethical and politically engaged student only by studying Philosophy.

In this sense, Philosophy is not only tariffed by criticality, as there are more elements to be considered by the school in teaching Philosophy, which are not essentially polarized between ethics and politics. Generally speaking, philosophical knowledge takes place in the interaction between teacher-learner and, therefore,

[...] one of the philosopher-educator’s functions is to provide elements for the student to examine critically the certainties are received and to find out the prejudices often obscured that permeate it. Moreover, to reflect upon the assumptions of science, technology, arts, politics, moral behavior, the philosophy helps the learner to launch another look at the world and to turn the experience into an included experience. (^{MEC/SEMTEC, 2002}, p. 45).

In this conception of Philosophy (that it is not restricted and can be taken at other disciplines without fear of losing its uniqueness of objects of knowledge), that knowledge is a magnified view of the object of study, enabling interactions in chaining logical with other areas, with other life realities.

In specific lines, we can affirm that philosophical knowledge has a starting point that is the problem, since the object of Philosophy, from which it must deal with, is what drives men to seek wisdom, namely, the problems they face in the course of their existence in the world (^{SAVIANI, 1973}, p. 17-30).

This dynamism in (re)meaning realities and things lies in the fact that, as deals with ^{Deleuze and Guattari (2010}, p. 10-13), only the Philosophy produces concepts.

Philosophy is the art of creating, inventing, manufacturing concepts [...]. The philosopher is the friend of the concept, its concept. I mean that philosophy is not a simple art form, inventing or manufacturing concepts, because concepts are not necessarily forms, findings or products. Philosophy, more strictly, is the discipline that consists in creating concepts.

If concept is what matters in Philosophy, the student is not part of the process of philosophizing: take ownership of a concept from another philosopher to himself is to give it a new meaning, to recontextualize it, to recreate it. So,

[...] if philosophy is an activity, it is not enough that we know it in a passive way. We need to try it out. If philosophy is an activity, we only learn philosophy when we experience, when we practice the philosophical activity [...] Each student and all students in philosophy classes need to make the experience of dealing with philosophy. It is therefore that that class should be like a laboratory, or as we said after a workshop. (^{ASPIS; GALLO, 2009}, p. 40-41).

Thus, the classroom can be conceived as a laboratory of experiences revealing for the thinking subject, since

[...] the real subjects of our time are the martyrs who went through the hell of suffering and degradation in their fight against the conquest and oppression, no more characters in the popular culture, inflated by advertising. Those heroes who nobody sang exposed their individual existence to consciously destruction suffered by others without being aware of it, as victims of social processes. The anonymous martyrs of the concentration camps are a symbol of a fight for humanity come to light. The function of philosophy is to translate what they did in words that men can hear, although their mortal voices have been reduced to silence by the tyranny (^{HORKHEIMER, 2002}, p. 40, emphasis added).

In this sense, the development in the classroom of a philosophical rationality in conjunction - educators and students - is contrary to individualistic instrumental rationality that raises the constant process of alienation, blind, meaningless repetition of action in the world, the loss of ability to think with autonomy and elegance.

Finally, it is worth noting that the knowledge of the professor regarding his/her pedagogical practice is the foundation of education, since the way to learn and to teach a particular programmatic content approaches the student to the teacher. In addition, this dynamic relationship offers clues to a better understanding about the wonder of the area and about the way the current generation seizes differentiated knowledge and put them in dialogue with life. In this sense, decided to listen to those people as regards the pedagogical practice of this complex content that demand knowledge and philosophical attitude.

3.1 Points and counterpoints - prospective analysis

The controversial field in which Philosophy is part of the school institution is not new. Consequently, the choice of subject licensed to that discipline in different years of experience intends to realize, on the other hand, how this complex situation, sometimes presented as uncomfortable, appears in teaching practice and how teachers deal with it; and, on the other hand, presents the choice of Philosophy teachers between teaching themes or History of Philosophy, an approach of teaching practice that links to its training and the form philosophizing.

With regard to educational programs and textbooks adopted, the testimony of the participants show the tendency for the permanence of programs and certain philosophical themes in the History of Philosophy or even the choice by themes of random Philosophy. The philosophical themes are those classics like: myth, ethics, politics, freedom, language, religion, sexuality, among others. The usually random are related to interdisciplinary projects, such as: abortion, drugs, diversity, violence, education, media, communication, among others.

In relation to the controversial presence of Philosophy in the school space, subjects indicate, in their statements, the difference of the pedagogical practice of the teaching of Philosophy and other disciplines and challenges in relation to students, to other professional colleagues and mainly, for professionals who administer the school.

As shown by a deponent

There is a difference in the mode of working the contents of Philosophy. There is a different didactic way; it assumes that end up reflecting on questions of other areas of knowledge. Such a perspective generates a nuisance, because the school works with certainty of something already given. The philosophizing deposes this knowledge of certainty³.

For another deponent also with over five years of teaching: “the most critical youth training becomes the goal of the discipline. Such criticism, when seized by the students in the form of questioning, is causing nuisances to other teachers”.

Such a perspective is highlighted by ^{Carvalho and Santos (2010}, p. 15), when, to make a balance of the last 50 years of teaching Philosophy in Brazil, they claim that:

These little period of more than 50 years, the teaching of Philosophy caused several controversies. In the period of the dictatorship, it was considered harmful to the formation of young people, because it could lead to critical thinking, associated to communism by the military. Then, the discussions which resumed the discussion on its mandatory insertion in high school brought up the vision of intellectuals who defended the obligation of teaching Philosophy. The essential argument: Philosophy is not a discipline, nor can be, as it is a critical attitude to thought, and there is no pedagogical model they account for its nature, or you can set limits for its teaching.

The most experienced teachers, included in the above period of five years of teaching, as regards the choice between teaching the course organizing it for themes and/or the history of Philosophy, present the merged these trends, using a program of history of Philosophy, sometimes thematic approaches. For them, what is essential is learning to doubt and the exercise for a critical view of reality.

According to the deponents, initially, this criticism becomes complex, considering that, in the way in which the school is organized, the requirement is for similar content to the practice of other disciplines, which means teaching knowledge that, in many cases, repeat the vertical posture and the schooling process. When this occurs, the schools, with their pedagogical project, or want to, on one hand, to cast the singular method of Philosophy, or, on the other, they want to be in the service of the content related to the human rights and citizenship. For teachers, this situation leads to a field of tension, which, at various times, becomes of difficult solution.

By a requirement and demand of the legislation for a citizenship training, the output for that problem has been to contemplate, in the program and in the teaching Philosophy, ethics training for citizenship with a critical view and controversy, which, in the opinion of the research subjects, continues to generate a malaise among colleagues.

In the understanding of some deponents, students of the last year of high school seize a way of perceiving the world critically and end up asking the attitude of some teachers facing controversial issues discussed in the discipline. Teachers have cited, as an example, the question of drugs and abortion. “Students understand critically and moralistic not these issues are set forth in some pedagogies of projects.” According to the view of the research subjects, in some other areas/disciplines, those themes are seen as moral and not reason for criticism.

Among the studied subjects, the issue of ethics always appears as a requirement and a need. For one of the deponents, such a situation is addressed in order to explore the question of “ethics in politics due to the political moment”. For another, “the question of politics comes at a specific demand of the study of Greek authors and modern ones.” Those positions in the field of ethics and politics are not always well seen in the educational field, since what the school expects of the teaching of those teachers “is ‘almost new salvation values’ which contemporary society took over and not in the exercise of criticism and in formation of a subject “.

Apparently so, according to the data collected, it is as if the school wanted standards without reflection about the origin of those same standards and principles from where they originate. What is on stage and appears so constant is almost a denunciation of the school institution in its prescriptive character.

As the pedagogical practice of Philosophy teachers is differentiated in relation to other areas, the inherent conflict in the philosophizing is evident, most of the time, when nature interdisciplinary projects occur. Interdisciplinarity in high school is desired and dreamed of; and when it occurs, teachers who participate in it and make a difference with students are, commonly, those of Philosophy, in view of the nature of the knowledge area in which discipline is committed.

Commenting on those projects, the subjects researched indicate that school is not yet prepared enough for that type of methodology, configuring the disciplinary character of education. However, even with that complexity, teachers turn to the projects related to ethics, citizenship and the inclusion policy. What they claim is that students show what they learn in class in terms of the philosophizing “method”.

The differential pointed to those teachers about teaching of the discipline is limited to the type of school that is through dialogue and requires strict reading of the authors. In the case of public school, for some of the teachers, the absence of the habit of reading and not textual understanding leads to a difficulty to exercise with the students a critical class. According to a deponent: “to teach the student to read and to understand the written text, which, for its time, assists in other disciplines facilitating its understanding.”

Also for some of those teachers, the question of Philosophy requires the written text to better understand the issues the world is facilitated to the private school in which the student, to be required reading in the question, follows/participates in more and better methodology for dialoging or dialogical classes. As stated above, although that reading the text differential, perceived as fundamental to the pedagogical practice of the teaching of Philosophy was evidenced, however, by the subjects researched that the absence/increasingly of interpretative elements from act of reading, do not prevent the exercise of philosophizing.

Philosophy requires time and school time is prescriptive, pragmatic, measured. The teachers as some of the problems related to their professional practice, the reduced number of Philosophy classes and the pragmatic character of the school to consider results and not processes. Such conceptions, sometimes demarcated under such procedural character, positivist philosophy in considering the time of long duration in the act of philosophizing.

This situation reflects, in some moments, the choice for the History of Philosophy, as opposed to a thematic approach, and such an option eventually settle on a charge for content. However, in most cases, the choice of teachers has been by the syllabus which merges themes and History of Philosophy. With regard to the themes with which students identify themselves in those years of experience of teachers, the recurrence of themes: ethics, politics, myth, sexuality.

Textbooks now adopted and consulted for research purposes were⁴: Invitation to Philosophy- Marilena ^{Chauí (2010}); Themes of Philosophy- Maria Lúcia Graça ^{Aranha e Maria Helena Pires Martins (2005}); and, Fundamentals of Philosophy - Gilberto ^{Cotrim (2010}). According to the teachers, the choice between using or not the book is made depending on the class. However, in most cases, the classes are based on these books by the fact they present a more didactic character. It is worth mentioning that the teachers establish criticisms to all books.

The criticism of the teachers from public schools present that the book by Marilena Chauí is more complex for students and ends up requiring adaptations to make a language more comprehensible to students; on the other hand, Gilberto Chowdhury and Maria Lucia’s are superficial. In addition to using the books, in some cases, teachers develop their own material, which is made in the form of a book or single texts in an attempt to get out of that complexity of the book Invitation to Philosophy and superficiality of the books Fundamentals of Philosophy, by Cotrim and Themes of Philosophy, by Aranha. For a deponent with an experience of more than 20 years:

[...] After meeting the class in the first year when Philosophy is introduced, I start dosing slowly with texts of philosophers, learning with students to formulate from different places, which reminds me my graduate training in the area: a need to philosophize with philosophers.

Teachers’ considerations on the use of books corroborate what ^{Aspis (2004}, p. 12) says:

[...] There are no manuals for Philosophy classes. It is not possible to make a manual for something that has not yet come to be. There is, in publishing, books for the teaching of Philosophy. But those may not be used for anything other than, at most, to bring elements to create fresh and each teacher for each class. Which is to say that the teacher must be the creator of instruments and strategies. Every different group, each different year or school, it is necessary to invent the supporting characters of our classes.

Even with a good education, respondents complain about the difficulty of the students in the interpretation of philosophical texts, which requires new ways of teaching and differentiated strategies in daily practices, the way advocates ^{Aspis (2004}). For a deponent, “the biggest gratification is when students learn to put into life the learned, saying he/she learned to philosophize philosophizing.”

In this sense, the Philosophy teachers are building their classes with texts in different contexts, choosing themes and pedagogical strategies to better open up possibilities for philosophizing. The teaching of Philosophy linked to philosophize fosters a conducive environment to critical thinking and, at the same time, helps in a better interpretation of texts.

Teachers point out that, in recent years, with the requirement of Philosophy in tests and questions of interpretation of texts in Enem, has been presented a differential in the recognition of Philosophy, not only by the students but also by other teachers, has increased. However, the respondents answer that this so-called recovery is still not enough to consider the specificity of that area of knowledge and its methodology of critical questioning of reality.

The research contributes to the reflection about the teaching of Philosophy in basic education. Considering the constant social and political transformations that pertain to the construction of school spaces and the formation of knowledge and their subject, to think Philosophy and its teaching is always a necessary exercise, fundamental to the construction and maintenance of the opening to the citizenship and criticality - able to contribute elements for a fair and just society.