Tutor HuntResources Philosophy Resources

The Nature And Value Of 4c Thinking And How This Framework Can Be Made Useful To Students In Their Learning And Their Lives.

Masters Pedagogy essay (2015), Grade A++

Date : 28/07/2018

Author Information

Robbie

Uploaded by : Robbie
Uploaded on : 28/07/2018
Subject : Philosophy

The 4C Thinking (4CT) framework for group philosophical enquiry has been influenced by educationalists and philosophers such as Vygotsky, Piaget and Dewey, but in this essay I shall discuss its nature and value in relation to the philosophy of Aristotle. My thesis is that the pedagogy can be thought of as an Aristotelean ethic of philia or friendship. I will foreground this argument with a discussion of the relationship between justice and philia in Aristotle`s thought, which offers some useful insights into the context in which 4CT is practiced today. I will then examine the correspondence between the critical, creative, caring and collaborative thinking of 4CT and the main components of what Aristotle considers to be the best sort of philia. Finally, I will draw on this analysis to look at some aspects of applying 4CT pedagogy in secondary schools through the subject of Religious Education.

A guiding assumption in Aristotle`s discussion of philia and justice is the formative power of contexts.[1] The root cause of injustice is pleonexia, the over-grasping nature of the vicious person`s devotion to scarce external goods, such as wealth, power and prestige, which leads to competition, conflict and the desire to dominate others. Human beings become deformed in this way by the mores of unjust political regimes and the households under their influence, which do not give due care to the sort of character formation justice requires. For Aristotle, the cure for injustice requires a personal reorientation cultivated through shared activities that have as their mode of being the sorts of non-zero sum goods found in friendships and filial relationships.[2] Aristotle`s conception of philia distinguishes two types of friendship, those focussed on external goods and those concerned with internal goods. In friendships valued as a means to acquiring scarce external goods such as wealth, prestige and physical pleasures, partners insist on equality as they seek to protect themselves from exploitation.[3] The second kind of philia is not concerned with equality of things given or received, since the goods exchanged are incommensurable and do not diminish in the sharing. Aristotle has in mind goods such as generosity, fairness, practical wisdom and loyalty, goods that are virtues of character which for Aristotle constitute and enable human flourishing or eudaimonia. Aristotle identifies three main factors that contribute to bringing the right sort of philia into being: a mature self-love that values the shareable goods of character rather than the scare external goods sought by immature self-love& the complementarity that is of value when one person has a quality that is lacked and needed by another& and a beloved good that is held in common, such as when a husband and wife have and raise a child.[4] Aristotle uses philia as an analogical concept for reflecting on the characteristics of a just community. Philia and justice are for him related ideas since both friendships and just societies are undermined when immature self-love overreaches for external goods, both thrive on and make the best of the complementary qualities of different sorts of people, and both depend on a vision of the good shared with others. Although he is pessimistic about the prospect, Aristotle thinks a just society may be possible if individuals seek the sorts of goods that are valued in `right` philia in their relations with others in society at large. This reorientation can only come about if families and political regimes pay due attention to the character formation of human beings.

In the following discussion I will not argue that 4CT pedagogy has as its aim the reorientation of participants to a certain conception of the good society. Nevertheless, even if we think in more modest terms, Aristotle`s insights do resonate in two important ways. Firstly, in considering the social context of 4CT practice today, Aristotle`s diagnosis of the source of injustice as excessive devotion to scarce external goods appears no less true today then it presumably was in his day. It is interesting that the theme of equality features so strongly in contemporary conceptions of justice, whether in terms of social goods like dignity, perhaps the modern equivalent of honour, or the material goods that make up or enable our privatised notions of the good life. On the liberal view, a failure to be other-regarding and a lack of sensitivity to other people`s notions of the good is the main source of injustice.[5] However, liberalism`s focus on equality may be symptomatic of the wrong sort of philia at the heart of a society organised around the attainment of external goods.

If this is granted then the second possible relevance of Aristotle, the connection between 4CT and the right sort of philia, would position the pedagogy against the prevailing culture. However, the potential reorientation of individuals implied in this view of 4CT, need not be thought of as radical. A `subversive` ethic of philia should be of practical value to any corporate activity today that organises individuals around a common purpose, whether in business, public service or private life. Therefore substantiating the suggested correspondence between 4CT and the right sort of philia, I think, offers a useful way to reflect on the nature and value of the framework. To do so, I will look at how the 4Cs of caring, collaborative, creative and critical thinking relate to the main features of right philia: mature self-love, complementarity, and love of a common good. Two general points are worth noting at the outset. Aristotle s three components of philia can be thought of as both necessary conditions for fruitful 4CT and formative outcomes of repeated successful practice. Secondly, the 4Cs appear to relate to Aristotle`s components in many different possible ways, combinations and degrees, so to simplify matters I will highlight only the main connections as I see them.


[End of Sample]

[1] Thomas Smith, Aristotle on the Conditions for and Limits of the Common Good , The American Political Science Review, 93 (1999), pp.626, 631

[2] Thomas Smith, Aristotle on the Conditions for and Limits of the Common Good , p.628

[3] Thomas Smith, Aristotle on the Conditions For and Limits of the Common Good , p.629

[4] Thomas Smith, Aristotle on the Conditions for and Limits of the Common Good , pp.630-633

[5] Thomas Smith, Aristotle on the Conditions for and Limits of the Common Good , p.626

This resource was uploaded by: Robbie

Other articles by this author