




































































Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis


ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

43 
 

 

An Ecological Approach to Thinking1 

 
 
Félix García Moriyón   
 
 
The Tree of Philosophy 
 

  
n the history of Western thought there are various approaches to the classification of science 
or human knowledge. The current classification is highly conditioned by the fact that 

knowledge (more or less scientific) is grouped from within the field of academia, which introduces a 
certain bias (Goodson, 2014). It is also true that the current classifications tend to seek more 
interdisciplinary approaches and, when dealing with complex problems, research groups are also 
interdisciplinary. I leave this topic, which would take us very far off point, and focus on a metaphor by 
Descartes.  
 

Descartes compared philosophy to a tree: «Thus, all Philosophy is like a tree, of which 
Metaphysics is the root, Physics the trunk, and all the other sciences the branches that grow out of this 
trunk, which are reduced to three principal, namely, Medicine, Mechanics, and Ethics. By the science 
of Morals, I understand the highest and most perfect which, presupposing an entire knowledge of the 
other sciences, is the last degree of wisdom” (Descartes, n.d.).  It is a metaphor that has been 
interpreted in different ways, but that interests me here insofar as it offers an integrated and 
interrelated conception of knowledge and at the same time proposes that the highest level is occupied 
by “perfect Morality”, while Metaphysics (First Philosophy) constitutes the roots that sustain and feed 
the tree. The usefulness of philosophy, its most important contribution, are the fruits of those 
branches, especially the science of Morals. It can serve us as a thread for what follows about the 
program of Philosophy for Children as it was designed and elaborated by Matthew Lipman and Ann 
Sharp (Lipman & Kennedy, 2010), mainly, with a few allusions to the varied programs that have 
followed. 

 
Critical Thinking 
 

Philosophy for Children was born in the sixties in the United States—more specifically in the 
New York area—during years of profound and significant social, cultural and political transformation. 
Education was among those areas of great concern, with many people believing that important 
changes were needed. In this context, several educational proposals emerged, one of the most 
important being aimed at improving thinking, with a focus on teaching people to think—on what was 

                                                 
1 This paper is an updated and extended version of the book chapter: Un approccio ecologico al pensiero. To be published 
Propositi di filosofia n°1, Collana Passaggi, edizioni Mimesis, Milano. 

I 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

44 
 

then called critical thinking. This was the generic name that referred to a number of theoretical 
teaching resources, accompanied by evaluation instruments, all of which were aimed at teaching 
students to think critically for themselves. Undoubtedly, this movement had deep roots, which can be 
traced back to classical Greece, as well as more recent roots such as the New School movement and, in 
the United States, John Dewey’s educational philosophy, which had practical application in Chicago, 
at that university's Laboratory Schools (Hitchcock, 2018). What we now understand by critical 
thinking was first introduced into the educational field through Bloom’s taxonomies (Bloom et al., 
1956), which included six objectives characteristic of the cognitive domain. This was followed by the 
work of R.H. Ennis, who identified 13 critical thinking dispositions and 12 abilities (Ennis, 1962).  
 

Matthew Lipman’s program, which emerged in the late 1960s (he was joined by Ann Sharp in 
1970) (Lipman and Kennedy, 2010) certainly belongs to that movement (García Moriyón and 
Lipman, 2002). Lipman’s first work, written in 1969, was Harry Stottlemier’s Discovery, which was 
expressly aimed at teaching students aged 11 to 12 to think critically on their own (IAPC, 2002). This 
was the starting point of a project that would grow into a consolidated curriculum covering from 4 to 
18 years (eight novels and eight manuals for teachers). This curriculum included a teacher training 
aspect, which was accompanied by educational research on the impact of the implementation of the 
program, and eventually an international network (the ICPIC) of people involved in implementing 
the program. At present, the original approach to philosophy for children is widespread throughout 
the world, with a wide variety of alternative implementations, a large amount of theoretical research 
and many studies on the impact of the program on the cognitive and affective development of 
students during childhood and adolescence. 
 

In this paper, I will focus exclusively on how those working in philosophy for children 
understand thinking—at first critical thinking, then quickly expanding to creative and caring thinking. 
More than an extension, what has taken place during the almost four decades of intense work (1969-
2010) is a deepening of something that was already clearly present at the very beginning—the two 
creators of the program always had this holistic approach to critical thinking in mind. 

More Than Critical Thinking: A Holistic Philosophical Thinking 
 
All those who have developed critical thinking-based educational approaches, including Lipman 

himself (1987), have shown a decided interest in specifying competences or abilities—preferably 
cognitive—that can be clearly defined, applicable to education and evaluable with a certain rigor 
(García et alia, 2002). However, although these approaches coincide in many important ways, there 
are also discrepancies that, without undermining the vitality of this broad educational trend, prevent 
reaching a shared understanding of them. In other words, there is no clear agreement as to what the 
fundamental competencies or dimensions of critical thinking should be or as to the instrumental bias 
of any educational approach to critical thinking (Biesta, 2011). More generally, there is little 
agreement on what we should understand by thinking. This should come as no surprise, given the 
complexity and extension of the concept—a concept with somewhat diffuse semantic and pragmatic 
contours. Such disagreement, however, is also present in the field of the psychology of intelligence 
and personality. Yet in both fields, important agreements have been reached, for example, around the 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

45 
 

concept of intelligence or personality, with standardized tests that allow for its evaluation and 
development (Colom Marañón, 2018). This agreement does not prevent the existence of a variety of 
proposals in the areas of psychology of personality and intelligence—some of which have little 
empirical evidence in their favor, but are widely accepted—as is the case of the multiple intelligences 
proposal in the field of cognitive dimensions, or psychoanalysis, in the field of personality in general. 
These two proposals, for example, are suggestive, but not rigorous from the perspective of 
psychological research. 
 

In Lipman and Sharp’s specific contribution, the basic nucleus of their understanding of critical 
thinking and education was very clear from the beginning of the curricular development. In 1969, 
Lipman published his first novel, Harry Stottlemeier's Discovery. Over the next ten years, Lipman, 
together with Ann Sharp and Frederick S. Oscanyan, published the seminal books: four novels (Harry, 
Lisa, Suki and Mark), two instructional manuals for teachers (Philosophical Inquiry and Ethical Inquiry) 
and two theoretical books, Philosophy in the Classroom and Growing Up with Philosophy (IAPC, 2002). 
They presented the theoretical underpinnings of the program, as well as guides for teachers to 
implement the program in their schools, along with research on the results of its implementation in 
schools (Lipman, Sharp & Oscanyan, 1980, pp, 217-224). 
 

These seminal books—from which the rest of the curriculum was articulated—did not contain a 
systematic or orderly exposition of the cognitive and affective competencies or dimensions that the 
program intends to develop, but they do contain four central ideas that offer a good description of the 
program. The first of these posits that wondering (as a starting point) and the search for meaning (as a 
goal to be achieved) are central features of human learning, and that we must recover and reinforce 
them through the use of philosophical inquiry in the classroom (ibid., pp. 11, 32). Secondly, those 
works present a series of competencies linked to the central objective of becoming more reasonable 
and reflective in our deliberation and decision-making processes (although said competencies may not 
be completely coherent) (ibid., 51-129). Thirdly, they stress that all cognitive development must be 
accompanied by moral growth, that they cannot be dissociated—in the same way that the enhancement 
of cognitive and affective competencies can only be achieved when they become habits and behaviors 
(ibid., pp. 153-188). Finally, the authors consider that philosophy is the most appropriate discipline 
for achieving these ends both for its specific argumentative competences (philosophizing, or 
philosophy as an activity) and for its contents (philosophy as subject matter). 
 

It’s very important to remember that all the novels of the IAPC curriculum were written by 
taking into account the philosophical topics that should provoke philosophical inquiry in the 
classroom, although cognitive competences (good reasoning) also play a certain dominant role. 
Although cognitive (good reasons) and affective (good feelings) competencies have a certain 
predominance, content or themes that have been dealt with in the Western tradition, as well as 
“philosophical” topics from other cultural areas are no less frequent. The manuals explain to 
teachers—who are assumed to have very little philosophical training—what those issues are, along with 
their most commonly discussed and debatable aspects. This is even clearer in the teachers’ guides, 
which offer an exhaustive enumeration of the philosophical themes that are present in each chapter 
and section of the novels. A look at Lipman’s work on the sources and references used in Harry 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

46 
 

Stottlemeir’s Discovery (Lipman, 1992) and those used in Pixie (Reed and Sharp, 1996) provides good 
examples of this.  
 
         In a way, the most innovative aspect of the program is not its objective to teach critical thinking, 
nor is it to transform classrooms into communities of inquiry—something that was already being done 
in other pedagogical currents. These are, indeed, central objectives that occupy and guide the entire 
educational proposal of Philosophy for Children. Neither is it to resort to philosophy, since in 
countries of the “Latin” cultural sphere (Italy, France, Portugal, Spain, Mexico, Argentina, etc.) 
philosophy was already an important discipline, partly focusing on good thinking. The true 
innovation is to link everything (critical thinking, community of inquiry and philosophy) in a 
coherent way and to propose that it is possible to do philosophy from as early as three or four years 
old. It is an approach that shatters the Piagetian paradigm of cognitive development, which 
considered children’s intelligence as pre-operational and concrete, thus postponing the emergence of 
abstract and formal thinking to the beginning of adolescence. It also breaks with a long European 
philosophical tradition, dating back to Plato himself, for which philosophy could not be practiced 
until the end of adolescence. 

 

Higher-order and Complex Thinking 

  

The effort to expand upon and to further detail this particular educational proposal continued 
over the following years. The manuals for the following novels are a good reflection of this deepening, 
especially those written for earlier ages, from 4 to 11 years old: Pixie (1981) and Looking for meaning 
(1982); Kio and Guss (1982) and Wondering at the World (1986); Elfie (1987) and Getting Our Thoughts 
Together (1987); Nous (1996) and Deciding What to Do (1996). In the book Thinking in Education 
(Lipman, 1991), Lipman points out that an educational approach aimed at developing reason and 
critical thinking should be based on understanding rationality (being rational) as reasonableness 
(being reasonable), that is, a kind of reasoning that performs the cognitive movements that lead to the 
formulation of good judgments, to making the right decisions and putting them into practice. That is 
what Lipman calls complex, or high-level thinking, formed by the combination of critical thinking and 
creative thinking, a type of thinking that takes into account the procedures—the method (formal and 
informal logic)—and the contents, the philosophical issues on which one argues. He summarizes it in a 
very clear table in which he points out the characteristics of complex thinking or higher order 
thinking (ibid., p. 35) 

Critical Thinking Creative Thinking Complex Thinking 
Governed by criteria Sensitive to criteria 

(particularly binary) 
Concerned with both 
procedural and substantive 
considerations 

Aims at Judgment Aims at judgments Aims at resolution of 
problematic situations 

Self corrective Self-transcendent Metacognitive (inquiry into 
inquiry)  

Sensitive to context Governed by context Sensitive to context 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

47 
 

 
In the same book, he groups cognitive skills into four major groups (ibid., pp.40-45) 

1. Inquiry: a self-corrective practice with the aim of discovering or inventing ways of dealing with 
problematic situations. The products are judgments. 

2. Reasoning: orders and coordinates what has been found or invented through the inquiry, and finds 
ways of extending and organizing it. It is interested in truth. 

3. Concept formation: organizes information into clusters and analyzes and clarifies it so as to get a 
better understanding and basis for judgment. It focuses on forming principles, criteria, arguments and so 
on. 

4. Translation: carries out the meanings from one language to another in different languages and 
contexts, retaining their sense and meaning, sometimes through interpretation. It is primarily 
concerned with the preservation of meaning. 
 

It is a debatable classification of cognitive competencies, but it is evidently a well-oriented effort 
for its application in the classroom. Very importantly, it makes clear (ibid. Ch. 14, pp. 229-241) that 
all this formation of complex thinking takes place in the setting of a classroom transformed into a 
community of inquiry (never forgetting that, even if he does not explicitly say so, he is always talking 
about philosophical inquiry), a central concept in which Ann Sharp’s contributions are also 
fundamental (Sharp & Splitter, 1995, Ch. 5; Gregory & Laverty, 2018). The community of inquiry is 
the environment in which acts and mental states become epistemic moves, i.e., behavioral habits that 
manifest robust learning in critical, creative and caring thinking. This theme is further developed in 
the second edition of the book (Lipman, 2003). 
 

In this further development, he clearly lays out the idea of a third level of thinking—caring 
thinking (ibid., Ch. 12, pp. 261-272)—an idea that he had previously presented in a paper (Lipman, 
1995). It is interesting because in this approach he directly takes up what they, Lipman and Sharp, 
had already stressed in 1973-1977: the importance of meaning and of the ethical dimension of 
reasoning. Yet this time he gives it a new treatment by speaking of caring thinking. As we can see in 
the table prepared by Lipman, it is a triadic approach to philosophical thinking that has been present 
in the Western philosophical tradition, including medieval scholasticism. 

Lipman Greek 
Philosophy 

Aristotle Kant 

Critical 
Search for truth 

Truth Theory Pure Reason 

Creative 
Build meaning 

Beauty Poiesis Judgment 

Caring 
Value-oriented 

Good  Practice Practical Reason 

 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

48 
 

There are two articles from Sharp that offer a good insight into the community of philosophical 
inquiry. In one of them, she attributes an aesthetic dimension to the philosophical research 
community (Sharp, 1997a), which leads us to consider that each class is a work of art, a performance. 
In the other, she talks about each session being a religious experience, following Dewey’s ideas (Sharp, 
1997b), a topic she addressed in two other articles focused on spirituality that remained unfinished 
when she passed away. Peter Shea (2018) exposes these ideas of Sharp very well and includes a quote 
from his article (Sharp, 1997b) that correctly expresses this integral sense of education that is 
proposed in the philosophy program for children:  
 

John Dewey made a very suggestive comment in his book A Common Faith that each time a 
community gets together to engage in deliberation, active inquiry into matters of 
importance, they are engaging in a ritual, a ritual that celebrates the ideals of goodness, 
truth and beauty. These ideals do not exist somewhere in another world, but are human 
projections that regulate our inquiry and motivate us to move the actual (that which is) to 
what we think it ‘ought to be’, a world in which the ideals are incarnated. This movement 
toward the ideal is God or, even better, what Mary Daly calls “godding” (Shea, o.c, p. 165). 

 

Social Identity and Bibliographical Identity 

 

The above approach, which pays attention to the dimensions, or modes of thinking that we can 
differentiate, should not make us forget that the Philosophy for Children (P4C) approach pays 
attention to each individual person who is part of the community of inquiry. Thus, we must 
emphasize that the program states, from the beginning, that the personal growth of the students must 
be treated in a global and integral sense. From an analytical or even methodological approach, it is 
good to clearly distinguish the cognitive and affective dimensions of the personality, and also to point 
out that cognitive improvement cannot be separated from moral improvement. It is also important to 
differentiate between specific first and second-order dimensions in which both cognition and 
affectivity are manifested, something that may have some parallels with factorial studies of personality 
(Garcia et alia, 2002). However, what should be clear is that every human being is a complete entity, 
and the educational approach should always be oriented to the person as a whole. This idea is well 
illustrated by the metaphor of the chain and the cable that Lipman himself uses in the novel Lisa: the 
important thing is that we form with all our personal dimensions a well-braided and solid cable, 
because a chain will always be as weak as the weakest of its links. All our personal effort to achieve a 
full life is animated by the search for meaning (García Moriyón, 1992), which is also deeply rooted in 
the Western philosophical tradition and in other non-Western traditions. 
 

This holistic understanding of human beings also takes into account G.H. Mead’s contribution. 
According to Mead, “the self is a social process,” meaning that there are a number of actions that take 
place in the mind to help formulate one’s complete self. Mead presented the self and the mind in 
terms of a social process. As gestures are taken in by the individual organism, the individual organism 
also takes in the collective attitudes of others, in the form of gestures, and reacts accordingly with 
other organized attitudes. (Mead, 1967) This process is characterized by Mead as the I and the Me. 
The ‘Me’ is the social self and the ‘I’ is the response to the ‘Me’. In other words, the ‘I’ is the response 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

49 
 

of an individual to the attitudes of others, while the ‘Me’ is the organized set of attitudes of others 
which an individual assumes. Mead develops William James’ distinction between the ‘I’ and the ‘Me’. 
The ‘Me’ is the accumulated understanding of “the generalized other,” i.e. how one thinks one’s 
group perceives oneself, etc. The ‘I’ is the individual’s impulses. The ‘I’ is self as subject; the ‘Me’ is self 
as object. 
 

Lipman expressly takes up this vision of the self as part of a network in the novel Mark, and 
there are several activities and discussion plans in which he and Ann Sharp emphasize this relational 
sense of identity that implies a global vision of the subject. In these relations, Lipman also includes 
relations with things (Lipman & Sharp, 1980, Ch. III, id. 15). We are therefore faced with a program 
that encourages us to see the person as a whole, not as his or her specific competencies or dimensions: 
sometimes one can't see the wood for the trees. This is a synchronic approach to personal integrity, 
one that focuses on every moment of human life. 
 

There is another holistic or integral approach—the diachronic. Personal identity is also an 
unfolding of the identity along a life cycle: it is a biography, a story that we write day by day. To a large 
extent we are what we do; it is our actions that define our identity (García-Moriyón, 1992). We can 
look at the building of our personal identity as telling a story, the story of our own life. Following 
Ricoeur’s ideas about time and story, and his suggestions about the conflict of interpretations, it 
would be possible to describe personal identity as the result of intertwining both sides of the self, idem 
and ipsum (Ricoeur, 1988). Idem is something that you cannot change and you are not accountable for; 
ipsum, points to the area in which it is up to you to decide the kind of person you would like to be—  
the one that you are constructing, and how you construct it is a personal decision...no one can decide 
for you. The ipsum is the area of interpretation, where many interpretations are possible. The idem is 
the background and the limit for those interpretations: many of them are possible, but not all of 
them. As a matter of fact, you can, and ought to, make a work of art out of your personal identity, but 
you can also fail, you can deceive yourself. The hermeneutical circle is a good analogy for 
understanding how we must go from the idem to the ipsum, and then back to the idem. Thus, nothing 
is decided from the very beginning; you have to tell your story, to put together all the pieces in order 
to have your own biography. And you never can give up on the search for truth and for meaning.  

 

Comprehensive and Ecological Thinking 
 

Philosophy for Children is not the only program that talks about integral education, or that 
focuses on an integral vision of knowledge, one that is linked to an integral conception of the person. 
There are several well-founded and articulated proposals, such as that of Sternberg, who, beyond his 
triadic theory of intelligence, proposes a close relationship between creativity, intelligence and wisdom 
(Sternberg et alia, 2019), defending a balanced theory of wisdom (Sternberg, 1998). There are other 
programs such as that of complex thinking developed by Edgard Morin, which gives coherence to an 
education structured in seven knowledge areas (Morin, 2000). We also have Gardner's theory of 
multiple intelligences, which suggests teachers to accept multiple intelligences, up to 8 or 9, and 
teachers should pluralize their teaching attending to the specific strengths of each singular student. 
Jacques Delors, as President of UNESCO, led an important report produced by the UNESCO 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

50 
 

Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century (UNESCO, 1996). This report identifies four 
pillars of lifelong learning: "learning to know", "learning to do", "learning to live together" and 
"learning to be". Since that time, this report has continued to be an important influence on the 
discourse of lifelong learning and can be found in almost all official reports and education legislation 
worldwide. 
 

Philosophy for Children brings a specific approach in line with the previous educational 
projects. In this more general framework, I think we can give another name to the holistic thinking 
promoted by P4C—ecological thinking. This connects with Sternberg's concept of wisdom "defined as 
the application of tacit knowledge as mediated by values toward the achievement of a common good 
through a balance among multiple (a) intrapersonal, (b) interpersonal, and (c) extra personal interests 
in order to achieve a balance among (a) adaptation to existing environments, (b) shaping of existing 
environments, and (c) selection of new environments" (Sternberg et alia, 2019). 
 

It is clear that the term ecological has become highly relevant today due to the serious 
environmental crisis that threatens all of us. Picking up the Greek meaning of the word, oikos (οἶκος) 
—the house in which we live—ecological thinking would be that which is in charge of its own house 
and also is responsible for looking after and caring for that house, in order to ensure that our life 
becomes a full life. But care of the environment is not only centered on nature as the fundamental 
environment, but also starts from oneself, in the sense that both my physical body and mind 
constitute my own house in the strictest sense, abandoning any dualistic conception of human beings. 
This house of one's own is not a closed sphere, impermeable to the exterior, but is closely related to 
everything that surrounds it. The limits of this house expand in successive concentric circles or in a 
network of relations similar to that which Harry spoke of (Lipman, 1980, ch. 3)—thinking that our 
identity is constituted precisely thanks to this network of relations without which we could not speak 
of a personal self. 
 

The first circle is constituted by our individual being, our body and mind, our affective and 
cognitive dimensions. Hence the importance of metacognition, that is, reflecting on one's own 
thinking. Caring for our thinking implies thinking well in the double sense: thinking according to the 
rules of good reasons, without biases, fallacies or prejudices; thinking with good information and 
avoiding bad and harmful thoughts. The main guiding question for this area of ecological thinking is: 
what kind of person do I want to become? In this sense, the program's priorities are for people to 
think for themselves and make well-argued and well-founded autonomous decisions. And to become 
good people, people who seek a fulfilling and meaningful life (García Moriyón, 2018). 
 

The second circle of this wide network of relationships is the family and, what is fundamental in 
an educational approach, the classroom and the school as a space for educating and learning together.  
Clearly aware of the importance of this context, the program aims to transform the classroom into a 
community of inquiry and the entire school into a democratic school. It is in this environment that 
the development of behavioral habits should be encouraged, both cognitive and affective, to generate 
a relationship in which problems are faced cooperatively, trying to reconcile different proposals, based 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

51 
 

on different convictions. Thus begins the step towards the second fundamental question—what kind 
of world do we want to live in, as we become aware that what we want to become is closely linked to 
the world in which we live. This requires us to take care not only of our own individual person but 
also of the community, starting with the two immediate ones—the school and the family—then moving 
on to more and more extensive areas that end up encompassing the whole world. As both Lipman 
and Sharp and practically all the people involved in the program insist, it is a strong and radical 
commitment to democracy  (Daniels, 2003, c. III; Sharp, 1993).   

 
Conclusion: The Metaphor of the Tree of Philosophy 

 

I return to Descartes’ tree. If we had to present an image that could serve as a metaphor for the 
way to understand the improvement of thinking that the philosophy for children program proposes, 
Descartes’ tree of philosophy would be a good one. What matters is the whole, without neglecting the 
parts. If we look at the aims of the curriculum, fostering higher order thinking, the whole is ecological 
thinking: an attentive philosophical reflection on oneself, one's community, and the entire world, in a 
continuous and fallible search for truth, beauty and goodness. 
 

In the face of the cognitive dispersion that can result from an education fragmented into diverse 
disciplines, it is fundamental to defend some roots, along with the sap that gives sustenance and 
coherence to all the branches that will grow later on. That is indeed the contribution of philosophy to 
the curriculum—the development of high-level complex thinking. It requires its own space and time, 
but it must also vivify all the disciplines that are being learned, disciplines which must also include 
philosophical reflection in its own domain. A living tree, properly nurtured, ends up bearing its 
highest fruit, Descartes said, in morality, that is to say, contributing to the growth of fulfilled people in 
a world worth living in.  
 

The tree becomes a metaphor for the program in a double sense: it represents the unity of 
human reflective activity that encompasses all the dimensions of knowledge and personal identity. At 
the same time, we can compare the pedagogical proposal to gardening, so that the classroom as a 
philosophical community becomes a garden, in which each plant must receive from its always 
attentive, careful and patient gardeners all that is necessary for it to grow according to its specific and 
unique personal configuration (Hannam, 2017; Biesta, 2015, ch. 1). 
 

There is yet a third way of interpreting the comparison between Descartes' tree and philosophy 
for children. A good article by Sharp in 1995 (and carefully edited by Gregory and Laverty) captures 
very well that integral sense of the education of higher-level thinking in the title: the role of intelligent 
sympathy in the education of a global ethical consciousness (Sharp, 1995). The tree of philosophy for 
children, which sinks its roots into rigorous philosophical activity, points towards its most valuable 
fruit: a global ethical conscience that takes its place within oneself, then the immediate community 
(the neighbor), those that are near (the polis) and those that are distant (the whole planet Earth). 
From this point of view, once again following Sharp (1997 a and b), philosophy for children is linked 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

52 
 

to a global consciousness that is similar to another classic philosophical current, the so-called 
philosophia perennis—in search of a universal and universalizable wisdom, which is open to the influence 
of other cultures (Leibniz and Huxley). Interesting as it is, this last step takes the risk of going beyond 
philosophy to a different level, more mystical than philosophical. 

References 
 
Biesta, G. (2011). Philosophy, Exposure, and Children: How to Resist the Instrumentalisation of 

Philosophy in Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education. Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 305-319 

— (2015). The Beautiful risk of education. Boulder: Routledge. 

Bloom, B. S., M. D Engelhart, E. J.Furst, W. H. Hill, and D. R. Krathwohl. (1956). Taxonomy of 
Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, New York: David McKay. 

Colom Marañón, R. (2018). Manual de psicología diferencial. Métodos, modelos y aplicaciones. 
Madrid. Pirámide 

Descartes, R. (n.d.). Selection of the Principles of Philosophy, Translated by John Veitch, LL. D. 

Daniels, M.F. (1992). La philosophie et les enfants. Montreal. Editions Logique 

Ennis, R. (1962). “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching 
and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability.” Harvard Educational Review, 32(1). 81–111. 

García Moriyón, F. (1992). En busca del sentido. Aprender a Pensar, nº 5, págs. 29-39 

— (1996). Personal Identity Story and Interpretation. in Reed, R.F. & Sharp, A.N. (ed.). Studies in 
Philosophy for Children. Madrid: De la Torre, 1996. Chapter: 15, pp. 209-220 

— (2018). De los pensamientos al destino en García, F; Duthie, E. y Robles, R. (Ed.). Parecidos de 
familia. Propuestas actuales en Filosofía para Niños / Family ressemblances.Current proposals in 
Philosophy for Children. Madrid. Anaya. 423-434 

— y Colom Marañón, R.; Lora Cerdá, S.; Rivas Vidal, M.; Traver Centaño, V. (2002). La estimulación 
de la inteligencia racional y la inteligencia emocional. Madrid: De la Torre, 2002 

García Moriyón, F. y Lipman, M. (2002). Matthew Lipman: una biografía intelectual. En García 
Moriyón, F. (ed.). Matthew Lipman: Filosofía y Educación, Ediciones de la Torre, Madrid. Págs. 17-
46 

Goodson, I. (2014). Context, curriculum and professional knowledge. History of Education: Journal of 
the History of Education Society, 43:6, 768-776, DOI: 10.1080/0046760X.2014.943813 

Hannam, P. (2017). Teachers as gardeners: thinking, attentiveness and the child in the community of 
philosophical inquiry. Childhood & Philosophy, rio de janeiro, Vol. 13, No. 28, set.-dez. 2017, pp. 
605-614. DOI. 10.12957/childphilo.2017.29987  

Huxley, A. (1945). The Perennial Philosophy. New York. Harper. 

IAPC (2002) IAPC Timeline. Upper Montclair, NJ. IAPC. Accessed 2020 01 10 on 
https://www.montclair.edu/iapc/iapc-timeline/  



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

53 
 

Gregory, M.R. and Laverty, M.J. (eds) (2018).  In Community of Inquiry with Ann Margaret Sharp: 
Childhood, Philosophy, and Education. Routledge. Pp. 264. 

Lipman, M. (1980). Mark. Montclair, New Jersey. IAPC 

— (1987). Critical Thinking: What Can It Be. Analytic Teaching, Vol 8, No. 1, pp. 5-12 

— (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge. Cambridge Univ. Press. 

— (1992). Sources and references for Harry Stottlemeir’s Discovery. En Sharp, A.M. and Reed, R. 
(eds.). (1992) Studies in Philosophy for Children: Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery. Philadelphia: Temple 
University Press. Pp.189—266. 

— (1995). Caring as Thinking.  Inquiry: Critical Thinking  Across the Disciplines, Autumn, Vol.  15, No. 1, 
pp, 1-13. 

— (1996.) Sources and references. In Reed, R.F. & Sharp, A.M. (ed.). Studies in Philosophy for Children. 
Pixie. Madrid: De la Torre. Chapter: 15, pp. 209-220. 

— (2003). Thinking in education. Cambridge. Cambridge Univ. Press  2nd. Ed. 
Lipman, M. and Kennedy, D. (2010). Ann Sharp’s contribution. A conversation with Mattew Lipman. 

childhood and philosophy, 6 (11). 11-19. 

Lipman, M. and Sharp, M. (1980). Social Inquiry: Instructional Manual to Accompany Mark. Montclair, NJ. 
IAPC 

Lipman, M., A. M. Sharp & Oscanyan, F.S. (1980). Philosophy in the Classroom (Philadelphia: Temple 
University Press, 1980. 2nd ed.) 

Hitchcock, David, “Critical Thinking”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), 
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/critical-
thinking/ . 

IAPC (n.d.). IAPC Timeline. Consultado el 10/09/2019 en https://www.montclair.edu/iapc/iapc-
timeline/  

Mead, G.H. (1967) [1934]. Mind, Self, and Society, edited by C. W. Morris. Chicago: University of 
Chicago. 

Morin, E. (2000) Éduquer pour l’ère planétaire, la pensée complexe comme méthode d’apprentissage dans 
l’erreur et l’incertitude humaine, Paris, Balland. 

Ricoeur, P. (1988). L’identité narrative. In Esprit, No. 140-141 (Paris, juillet-août 1988) pp. 295-304. 

Sharp, A. M. [1993]. The Community of Inquiry: Education for Democracy. In (Gregory and Laverty, 
2018, app. 241-250). 

— [1995]. The role of intelligent sympathy in educating for global ethical consciousness. In Gregory 
and Laverty, 2018, pp. 230-240).  

— (1997a). The Aesthetic dimension of the Community of Inquiry.  Inquiry. Critical Thinking across the 
disciplines. 17,1. Pp. 67-77. 

about:blank
about:blank
about:blank
about:blank


ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 41, ISSUE 1 (2021) 

  
 

54 
 

— (1997b). The sacred as relationship in the Community of Inquiry. In H. Pálsson; B. Sigurodardóttir 
& B. Nelson (Eds.). Philosophy for Children on Top of the World. Proceedings of the Eight 
International Conference on Philosophy with Children. University of Akureyri, Iceland. 

Sharp, A.M. and Reed, R. (eds.) (1992). Studies in Philosophy for Children: Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery. 
Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 

Sharp, A.M. and Splitter (1995). Teacher for Better Thinking. Melbourne. ACER. 

Shea, P. (2018). Do we put what is precious at risk through philosophical conversation? En (Gregory 
and Laverty, 2018, pp. 161-173). 

Sternberg, R.J. (1998). A balance theory of Wisdom. Review of General Psychology Vol. 2, No. 4, 347-
365. 

Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Roberts, A. M. (2019). The relation of creativity to intelligence 
and wisdom. In J.C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (2nd Ed) 
(pp. 237-353). New York: Cambridge University Press. 

UNESCO (1996). Learning: the treasure within; report to UNESCO of the International Commission on 
Education for the Twenty-first Century. París. UNESCO. 

 

Address Correspondences to:  
Félix García Moriyón,  
Profesor Honorario. Dpt. Didácticas Específicas,  
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. 
Email: felix.garciamoriyon@gmail.com 


	More Than Critical Thinking: A Holistic Philosophical Thinking
	References
	Biesta, G. (2011). Philosophy, Exposure, and Children: How to Resist the Instrumentalisation of Philosophy in Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education. Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 305-319
	— (2015). The Beautiful risk of education. Boulder: Routledge.
	Bloom, B. S., M. D Engelhart, E. J.Furst, W. H. Hill, and D. R. Krathwohl. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, New York: David McKay.
	Colom Marañón, R. (2018). Manual de psicología diferencial. Métodos, modelos y aplicaciones. Madrid. Pirámide
	Descartes, R. (n.d.). Selection of the Principles of Philosophy, Translated by John Veitch, LL. D.
	Daniels, M.F. (1992). La philosophie et les enfants. Montreal. Editions Logique
	Ennis, R. (1962). “A Concept of Critical Thinking: A Proposed Basis for Research on the Teaching and Evaluation of Critical Thinking Ability.” Harvard Educational Review, 32(1). 81–111.
	García Moriyón, F. (1992). En busca del sentido. Aprender a Pensar, nº 5, págs. 29-39
	— (1996). Personal Identity Story and Interpretation. in Reed, R.F. & Sharp, A.N. (ed.). Studies in Philosophy for Children. Madrid: De la Torre, 1996. Chapter: 15, pp. 209-220
	— (2018). De los pensamientos al destino en García, F; Duthie, E. y Robles, R. (Ed.). Parecidos de familia. Propuestas actuales en Filosofía para Niños / Family ressemblances.Current proposals in Philosophy for Children. Madrid. Anaya. 423-434
	— y Colom Marañón, R.; Lora Cerdá, S.; Rivas Vidal, M.; Traver Centaño, V. (2002). La estimulación de la inteligencia racional y la inteligencia emocional. Madrid: De la Torre, 2002
	García Moriyón, F. y Lipman, M. (2002). Matthew Lipman: una biografía intelectual. En García Moriyón, F. (ed.). Matthew Lipman: Filosofía y Educación, Ediciones de la Torre, Madrid. Págs. 17-46
	Goodson, I. (2014). Context, curriculum and professional knowledge. History of Education: Journal of the History of Education Society, 43:6, 768-776, DOI: 10.1080/0046760X.2014.943813
	Hannam, P. (2017). Teachers as gardeners: thinking, attentiveness and the child in the community of philosophical inquiry. Childhood & Philosophy, rio de janeiro, Vol. 13, No. 28, set.-dez. 2017, pp. 605-614. DOI. 10.12957/childphilo.2017.29987
	Huxley, A. (1945). The Perennial Philosophy. New York. Harper.
	IAPC (2002) IAPC Timeline. Upper Montclair, NJ. IAPC. Accessed 2020 01 10 on https://www.montclair.edu/iapc/iapc-timeline/
	Gregory, M.R. and Laverty, M.J. (eds) (2018).  In Community of Inquiry with Ann Margaret Sharp: Childhood, Philosophy, and Education. Routledge. Pp. 264.
	Lipman, M. (1980). Mark. Montclair, New Jersey. IAPC
	— (1987). Critical Thinking: What Can It Be. Analytic Teaching, Vol 8, No. 1, pp. 5-12
	— (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge. Cambridge Univ. Press.
	— (1992). Sources and references for Harry Stottlemeir’s Discovery. En Sharp, A.M. and Reed, R. (eds.). (1992) Studies in Philosophy for Children: Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Pp.189—266.
	— (1995). Caring as Thinking.  Inquiry: Critical Thinking  Across the Disciplines, Autumn, Vol.  15, No. 1, pp, 1-13.
	— (1996.) Sources and references. In Reed, R.F. & Sharp, A.M. (ed.). Studies in Philosophy for Children. Pixie. Madrid: De la Torre. Chapter: 15, pp. 209-220.
	— (2003). Thinking in education. Cambridge. Cambridge Univ. Press  2nd. Ed.
	Lipman, M. and Kennedy, D. (2010). Ann Sharp’s contribution. A conversation with Mattew Lipman. childhood and philosophy, 6 (11). 11-19.
	Lipman, M. and Sharp, M. (1980). Social Inquiry: Instructional Manual to Accompany Mark. Montclair, NJ. IAPC
	Lipman, M., A. M. Sharp & Oscanyan, F.S. (1980). Philosophy in the Classroom (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1980. 2nd ed.)
	Hitchcock, David, “Critical Thinking”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/critical-thinking/ .
	IAPC (n.d.). IAPC Timeline. Consultado el 10/09/2019 en https://www.montclair.edu/iapc/iapc-timeline/
	Mead, G.H. (1967) [1934]. Mind, Self, and Society, edited by C. W. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago.
	Morin, E. (2000) Éduquer pour l’ère planétaire, la pensée complexe comme méthode d’apprentissage dans l’erreur et l’incertitude humaine, Paris, Balland.
	Ricoeur, P. (1988). L’identité narrative. In Esprit, No. 140-141 (Paris, juillet-août 1988) pp. 295-304.
	Sharp, A. M. [1993]. The Community of Inquiry: Education for Democracy. In (Gregory and Laverty, 2018, app. 241-250).
	— [1995]. The role of intelligent sympathy in educating for global ethical consciousness. In Gregory and Laverty, 2018, pp. 230-240).
	— (1997a). The Aesthetic dimension of the Community of Inquiry.  Inquiry. Critical Thinking across the disciplines. 17,1. Pp. 67-77.
	— (1997b). The sacred as relationship in the Community of Inquiry. In H. Pálsson; B. Sigurodardóttir & B. Nelson (Eds.). Philosophy for Children on Top of the World. Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Philosophy with Children. Univer...
	Sharp, A.M. and Reed, R. (eds.) (1992). Studies in Philosophy for Children: Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
	Sharp, A.M. and Splitter (1995). Teacher for Better Thinking. Melbourne. ACER.
	Shea, P. (2018). Do we put what is precious at risk through philosophical conversation? En (Gregory and Laverty, 2018, pp. 161-173).
	Sternberg, R.J. (1998). A balance theory of Wisdom. Review of General Psychology Vol. 2, No. 4, 347-365.
	Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Roberts, A. M. (2019). The relation of creativity to intelligence and wisdom. In J.C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (2nd Ed) (pp. 237-353). New York: Cambridge University Press.
	UNESCO (1996). Learning: the treasure within; report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century. París. UNESCO.

