
































































Teaching Philosophy with Picture Books


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

  
 

96 
 

 

Teaching Philosophy with Picture Books 

 
 

Wendy Turgeon and Thomas E. Wartenberg   
 
 

Introduction 

 
  
rom its inception, the Philosophy for Children Movement has questioned the use of picture 
books to begin philosophical discussions among young children. This trend has its roots in 

the work of the movement’s founder, Matthew Lipman. Lipman believed that philosophical novels 
written with the express purpose of engaging children in philosophical discussions were better suited 
than picture books to the task of introducing philosophy into elementary school classrooms because 
only they could actually teach children how to think, the goal of the philosophy for children 
movement. And while there have always been advocates for the use of picture books in the P4C 
community, the relationship between the Lipman P4C curriculum and picture books has been an 
uneasy one. 
 

As practitioners who have, for many years, used picture books in our philosophical interactions 
with children, the two of us believe the use of picture books in philosophical inquiries is 
fundamentally sound and an excellent path to encourage children to engage in philosophical enquiry. 
In this paper, we will consider objections to this use of picture books in order to show that they have 
limited or no validity. On the other hand, we will canvas a range of objections against the use of 
expressly designed philosophical novels to engage children in philosophical discussions. 
  

Our position is not that one method for engaging children in philosophical inquiry is better 
than the other, but that each has important virtues as well as drawbacks. Our goal is to defend picture 
books from unjustified criticisms made against their use in philosophical dialogues; but we do not 
categorically reject the use of specifically designed philosophical novels either. We hope this balanced 
account will get practitioners to give picture books their due.  
  
1. The Critique of Picture Books in P4C 

 

We begin by canvassing some of the central arguments cautioning against the use of picture 
books to teach philosophy to young children. The first “Lipmanian” argument against using these 
sources notes the danger of ruining an imaginative story by treating it in too utilitarian a manner, say, 
by mining it for philosophical ideas. Literature should not be used for philosophy discussions, the 
argument goes, because that is not its “job.” The function and beauty of literature will be lost if it is 
used simply as a jumping off tool for philosophical discussion. In response, Karin Murris claims that 
Lipman creates a divide between literature which is intended for imaginative play and entertainment, 

F 



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

  
 

97 
 

and that which is directly constructed to provoke and encourage philosophical thinking.1 In his 
seminal works on philosophy with children, Philosophy in the Classroom and Growing up with Philosophy, 
Lipman argues that what is needed is a carefully crafted and integrated curriculum to both guarantee 
genuine philosophical growth in the children and to support teachers unequipped with a background 
in philosophy.2  
 

Lipman also suggests another problem with the use of picture books. He claims that, if we wish 
children to be thoughtful, we need to employ stories in which children are shown to be thoughtful.3 
To do this, we must have a new form of literature, “philosophical stories.” Lipman himself has created 
this literary form, beginning with Harry Stottlemeyer’s Discovery (1971), in which he attempted to realize 
this narrative structure. Subsequently, Lipman wrote a series of novels in which children are presented 
as engaged in the types of philosophical discussions Lipman wanted the students in his class to engage 
in. He was open about them not being great works of literature, but that was not his goal. He believed 
that the stories help children take part in philosophical discussion because the characters in the story 
did just that.  

 
It certainly is true that the philosophical novels that Lipman wrote are not great works of 

literature. They portray children learning important philosophical lessons, such as the validity of basic 
forms of inference4, the meaning of words and classification schema5, and concepts of fairness as 
equity vs equality.6 

  
However, Lipman’s assertion about the advantage of using expressly written philosophical novels 

is not entirely justified. It is not at all self-evident that the most appropriate way to teach young 
children to philosophize is to have them read novels in which the characters are shown engaging in 
philosophical discussions. Can’t children learn to be thoughtful from their interactions with each 
other in philosophy discussions even if the stories they read do not provide a model of such 
thoughtfulness? We see no reason to deny this possibility and we join our voices with others who have 
advocated for the introduction of picture books to promote robust philosophical inquiry. And, 
indeed, we have found that the children we have worked with using picture books do become more 
thoughtful as a result of their interactions with their peers under the guidance of a facilitator. It is also 
true that the characters in certain picture books are depicted as engaged in philosophical discussions, 
so that there is less of a difference than Lipman believed. 

                                                 
1 As summarized by Khosronejad and Shokrollahzadeh, “From silencing children’s literature to attempting to learn from 
it: changing views towards picturebooks in p4c movement”, Childhood & Philosophy, May 2020, p. 12. They reference 
Haynes’ and Murris’ Picturebook, Pedagogy and Philosophy (New York and London, Routledge, 2012). 
2 See Lipman, Sharp, Oscanyan, Philosophy in the Classroom, Temple University Press, 1980: chapter 5 and Lipman, 
Philosophy Goes to School, Temple University Press, 1988: chapter 11 and pp. 182-185 where Lipman argues for the necessity 
of specifically designed philosophical literature to support teachers untrained in philosophy and to promote development 
in the philosophical skills of the students.  
3 Matthew Lipman, Philosophy Goes to School (Philadelphia, Temple University Press: 1988), pp. 186-87. 
4 Harry Stottlemeier’s Discovery (Montclair, NJ: Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children, 1971). All of the 
novels written by Lipman and his sometime collaborator Ann Margaret Sharp can be found via the IAPC. 
5 Pixie (Montclair, NJ: Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children, 1981). 
6 Lisa (Montclair, NJ: Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children, 1976). 



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

  
 

98 
 

In their 2020 article charting the evolution of children’s literature’s relationship to philosophical 
inquiry, Morteza Khosronejad and Soudabeh Shokrollahzadeh develop such criticisms of Lipman’s 
view. 7 They argue that Lipman’s position implicitly limits philosophy to logical/rational discourse and 
misses the rich depths of the role of imagination in making meaning.8 Not only does this do a 
disservice to literature, they say, but it also involves too narrow a concept of philosophical inquiry.  

 
This criticism echoes one made by Karin Murris. She criticizes Lipman for positing what she 

calls “the ideal ‘abnormal’ child, the thinking child.”9 Her claim is that the children depicted in 
Lipman’s novels are not ordinary children who are acting the way children normally do, but rather 
idealized children who fit Lipman’s own norm of how philosophically sophisticated children will 
behave. From her point of view, Lipman prioritizes a very specific notion of philosophy, academic 
Analytic philosophy,10 thereby failing to do justice to his own goal of creating genuinely reflective 
children. 

 
While we would not want to equate philosophy with the Analytic or even Pragmatic traditions, 

we do not believe Murris’ own posthuman approach is necessarily superior or even more respectful 
towards children than others. Exploring how language works and what concepts are is a primary 
activity of the young child and Lipman’s approach does focus on this. That said, we also recognize a 
tendency within education to ignore the real child as a person and substitute some model from 
psychology or educational theory and Murris argues persuasively why that fails to honor the very real 
capabilities of children to reflect on their experiences. Additionally, there are recent examples of 
specifically written “philosophical novels” which are linked to alternative models of philosophy, such 
as phenomenology and continental philosophical in general. One example is David Kennedy’s novel, 
Dreamers.11  

 
A different argument against the use of picture books in philosophical discussions is offered by 

Laurence Splitter and Ann Margaret Sharp.12 They claim that the pictures and illustrations in 
children’s books foreclose the cognitive options of the children engaged with them. The idea is that 
the illustrations in picture books do “work” that is properly left to the children themselves by filling in 
the text with images that the author and illustrator deem appropriate.  

 
Adults tend to assume that children need pictures in their books. Many children’s books are as 

well-known for the illustrations as for the actual story and in some cases the images overpower the 

                                                 
7 Morteza Khosronejad and Soudabeh Shokrollahzadeh, “From silencing children’s literature to Attempting to learn from 
it: changing views towards picturebooks in p4c movement”, Childhood & Philosophy, May 2020, pp. 1-30. 
8 Ibid., p. 13. 
9 Karin Murris, “The Philosophy for Children Curriculum: Resisting ‘Teacher Proof’ Texts and the Formation of the Ideal 
Philosopher Child,” Studies in the Philosophy of Education (2016), 35: p. 63. 
10 It is more likely that Matthew Lipman adopted a deeply pragmatic view of philosophy based on his use of Dewey and 
Pierce in his theoretical works and in the many taped interviews with him. 
11 The book can be downloaded at: 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336312912_DREAMERS_A_Philosophical_Novel_for_Children. Another 
recent set of contributions can be found in the site for the P.E.A.C.E. project in Europe: 
https://peace.kinderphilosophie.at/index.html 
12 See Sharp and Splitter’s text, Teaching for Better Thinking (Melbourne, AU: Australian Council for Education, 1995).  

about:blank
about:blank


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

  
 

99 
 

story itself and create a parallel magic allure. Since Alice in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland is depicted 
as blond and blue-eyed girl, it might be difficult for someone who does not share those properties to 
imagine herself as the questioning Alice.13 Lipman was worried philosophy lessons using such imagery 
might appeal to only a small subset of the students he was interested in reaching. This was one reason 
he eschewed illustrations for his own novels and often used names that did not clearly signal a 
character’s gender. Lipman wanted all children, whatever their race, gender, etc., to envision 
themselves in the story or picture the characters in the story as sharing their “look.”  

  
This is important. In some of the Lipman novels you are not even sure whether the protagonists 

are girls or boys, although there are clues that can help you sort that out. Or can you? Likewise, the 
characters ethnic background are vague and open to interpretation. However, the characters, unlike a 
vast number of stories for children, are human (for the most part—the giraffe in Nous is the only 
exception). This facilitates, according to the classic P4C approach, a more porous and open 
identification between readers and the characters in the novels.14  

 
The omission of pictures on the Lipman/Sharp novels has drawn criticism on the grounds that 

children expect and want pictures; otherwise they will find the books boring or not engaging. To give 
them credit, in our experience children are astonishingly tolerant of the lack of pictures in the Lipman 
novels and relish seeing the children in these stories through their own ethnic and cultural lens. 

  
Although there is a history of picture books failing to include human characters other than 

white and middle-class ones, recently there have been many attempts to be more inclusive. One 
prominent example is Matt de la Peña’s Last Stop on Market Street, in which the main characters are 
both African American. Such books invite their readers to identify with these characters and to 
explore cultures that may not be familiar to them. Another wonderful example is Julian is a Mermaid 
(2018) by Jessica Love that features a young Latino boy who likes to dress up in beautiful clothes and 
his understanding grandmother supports his choices. These recent picture books point to a trend that 
will defang any criticism of picture books based on the absence of non-Caucasian characters.  

 
In response to these criticisms from the Lipmanians, we suggest that these philosophers betray 

an inability to come to terms with the wonderful illustrations that grace the pages of picture books. It 
seems inconceivable that anyone who has read books by Dr. Seuss (Theodore Geisel) and looked at 
his wildly imaginative drawings could think that a child’s imagination would be stunted by seeing the 
image of a Star Bellied Sneetch or the Cat in a Hat.15 The same holds good for the delightful images 
that grace Where the Wild Things Are by Maurice Sendak. It makes more sense to see such images as 
stimulating children’s imaginations rather than hindering them. 

 

                                                 
13 Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye (New York: Vintage, 1970) captures the alienation experienced by a young African 
American girl who longs to be like the dolls she desires:  blue-eyed and blond.  That is offered to her as ideal beauty and 
ideal personhood and excludes her from that experience of being valued and being loved.  
14 There are many contemporary picture books that feature non-white protagonists, so the force of this objection has been 
blunted by developments within picture books themselves. We discuss some of them in a moment. 
15 The fact that some of Dr. Seuss’ books have racist pictures does not affect our claims about his work in general. 



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

100 

Recently, Darren Chetty has offered a new criticism of the use of some picture books.16 While he 
does not attempt to undermine the use of picture books tout court, he is concerned that certain picture 
books don’t provide children with an adequate understanding of important and complex issues such 
as the nature of race and racism. He expresses concern that they might trivialize or dismiss such 
important and nuanced issues. Among his targets are Murris and Haynes’ use of David McKee’s Tusk 
Tusk in their classic text, Picture Books, Pedagogy, and Philosophy.17 Murris and Haynes think the abstract 
and decontextualized nature of this book allows children to develop an understanding of racism. The 
black and white elephants in the story fight one another and eventually kill each other off. Their grey 
offspring return from the forest to which they have fled, only to find themselves hostile to the other 
elephants who do not have the same size ears as they do. Because this story avoids providing any 
specific historical or social context, Haynes and Murris think it allows for a good philosophical 
discussion of the nature of racism. 

Chetty disagrees. He thinks that the abstract nature of the story presents a skewed 
understanding of racism according to which racism is an inherent feature of human beings (and, we 
suppose, elephants). But this view is clearly false. Chetty argues that we need to use books with more 
culturally specific and nuanced content if we hope to have adequate discussions of racism with 
children.  

Murris responds by reasserting the validity of using books that do not have clear social and 
cultural contexts.  

I argue…that it is indeed the abstractness (independence of history) of the concepts 
embedded in such picture books that connect with children’s own ideas and interests and 
therefore challenges adult-centered ontology and epistemology. Enquiries with children 
about the meaning of abstract concepts make it possible for adults to hear young children’s 
metaphorical, imaginative, and philosophical contributions to the pool of knowledge.18  

Murris is critical of Chetty for assuming that he knows what the appropriate theory of racism is 
and attempting to get children to come to accept it. A discussion shaped by an adult’s conception of 
what the outcome should be for children fails to grant children the autonomy that is the proper goal 
of philosophical discussions. 

In an article entitled “Philosophical Dialogues with Children about Complex Social Issues: a 
Debate about Texts and Practices,”19 Steve Williams recounts Chetty’s critique of Haynes and Murris 
use of the picturebook Tusk Tusk that we have just discussed. Chetty claims that this is a good example 
of a complex topic reduced to simplicity and that using such a story to teach racial peace is both 

16 Cheety, D. “The Elephant in the Room: Picturebooks, Philosophy for Children and Racism” Childhood & Philosophy, v. 
10, 2014, number 19, pps. 11-31. 
17 Haynes, Joanna and Murris, Karin, Picturebooks, Pedagogy, and Philosophy, pp. 115-16. 
18 Karin Murris, “Posthumanism, Philosophy for Children, and Anthony Browne’s Little Beauty,” Bookbird (2015) 53.2, p. 
60. 
19 Childhood & Philosophy, July 2020, pp. 3-28. 



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

  
 

101 
 

inappropriate and falsifies the complexity of these societal issues.20 Chetty argues that, to the contrary, 
one must “read against” the text. As Williams parses this criticism:21 

 
Chetty’s argument seems to be that it is not likely that children’s picture books alone, 
particularly in the form of fables, can present this level of complexity and “blending.” I take 
him to imply that other kinds of picture books and alternative materials-or combination of 
materials-might be more suitable for exploring complex social issues with historical 
dimensions. 

 
Williams goes on to critique Murris’ recent position on picture books. As he describes it, Murris 

maintains that picture books are the ideal and perhaps only way for introducing children to 
philosophizing. She seems to want to avoid contextualizing stories in time, culture, and place, and 
make the locus of philosophical activity the matrix of “text, educator, and learners.”22 

 
Williams builds an argument which acknowledges the concerns raised by Chetty about either 

simplifying complex phenomena and ideas or de-historicizing them but stops short of rejecting the use 
of such books in philosophical discussions. He suggests that books such as Tusk Tusk can be used so 
long as they are supplemented with other materials from non-fiction as well as fictionalized accounts 
set in specific historical and social contexts. He offers a book by Jaqueline Woodson, The Other Side, as 
an example of a book that is located in a very specific social context, namely the deep South during 
segregation. The two girls in the story overcome the “rules” set by their mothers in a way that suggests 
that children are not bound by the same racist norms that affect their parents.  

 
Williams continues by offering concrete suggestions on how a facilitator might “read against the 

text.” This would involve inviting evaluative judgements, questioning implied and imbedded concepts 
(for example, sharing is good in the Rainbow Fish and hatred is natural in Tusk Tusk), and using 
carefully constructed reflective dialogues, both within and without the group setting.  

 
Implicit throughout Williams’ article is the critical point that philosophical dialogue and 

exploration of problematic concepts does not automatically happen.  Without guidance, for 
facilitators and from facilitators to participants, these tools of philosophical dialogue can fail or 
perhaps even become tools of indoctrination. This speaks to one of our central concerns about using 
children’s literature and picture books for philosophical dialogue. Will the teacher/facilitator be able 
to envision the ways in which the text and image can be used to engage in a genuine philosophical 
exploration but also be able to allow the children to raise unexpected questions and issues? If the 
facilitator has the tools to approach children’s literature in ways which create a philosophical 
community of inquiry, then there is no reason, and perhaps every reason, to include picture books 
and familiar works of children’s literature in the P4C canon. 

 
 

                                                 
20 Ibid., p. 6. 
21 Ibid., p. 7. 
22 Ibid., p. 11.  However, based on her recent writings, we would expect she would be careful to not in any way imply that 
the educator has any privileged position in the dialogue.  



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

  
 

102 
 

2.  A Survey of the Use of Picture Books for Philosophical Discussion 

 
Despite the admonition of Lipman and his followers not to use picture books in elementary 

school philosophy discussions, many practitioners—the two of us included—have ignored this warning 
and found picture books to be an excellent way to introduce young students to the practice of 
philosophy. In their recent article, Khosronejad and Shokrollahzadeh trace the changing relationship 
between the picture book and philosophy for children, practitioners, and theorists. They offer a 
helpful tour of how children’s literature has been incorporated into philosophy classes with children 
in a variety of different ways; but they also critique what they see as missed opportunities. 

  
Early on Gareth Matthew used familiar children’s stories like the Frog and Toad readers to 

explore rich philosophical topics like friendship, loyalty, and self-image.23 David Kennedy has used the 
Beatrix Potter stories about Peter Rabbit to likewise engage children into thoughtful and extensive 
conversations.24 The two authors also discuss how Thomas Wartenberg developed an entire approach 
to doing P4C using only examples from children’s literature.  

 
Their main interest, however, is to investigate the extent to which the images in picture books 

are themselves taken to be objects suitable for philosophical inquiry. They label Matthews and 
Wartenberg as instrumentalist since they see them as focusing solely on the storyline itself, paying 
insufficient attention to the images and the story they might tell on a parallel or even conflicting track. 
They do acknowledge that Kennedy encourages the viewing of the pictures as a catalyst for discussion 
but stops short, they argue, in actually exploring the holistic relationship between word and image in 
the picture book genre. They wish to suggest that the nature of a picture book is multivalent and 
needs an articulated and systematic exploration of how the text and images work together to offer 
opportunities for philosophical reflection. 

  
It is not clear what the charge of instrumentalism amounts to. The philosophers who are 

criticized as instrumentalists were not seeking to develop a philosophical account of picture books—a 
philosophy of the picture book, if you will—but only to use the books to get children involved in 
philosophical discussions. In practice both of us have included the visual images as part of the 
philosophical project. Khosronejad and Shokrollahzadeh appear to conflate their own interest in 
developing an account of the nature of picture books that focuses on the interplay of text and image 
with the use of such books to teach children philosophy. 

 
Murris and Hayes are two practitioners who have been using picture books successfully for many 

years and their own account of how these imaged texts “work” in a philosophical dialogue has grown 
and evolved over the decades. Khosronejak and Shokrollahzadeh are particularly complimentary of 
their approach as well as their criticism of Lipman’s disavowal of these stories: 

 
The reasons why Murris and Haynes have found contemporary picturebooks rich materials 
for philosophizing are that they bend, stretch or break the rules (39); open up space 

                                                 
23 See, for example, Matthews, The Philosophy of Childhood (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), pp. 104-05. 
24 David Kennedy, “Using ‘Peter Rabbit’ as a Philosophical Text with Young Children,” Analytic Teaching, 13 (1992), pp. 
53-58 



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

  
 

103 
 

between the “real” world and other possible worlds which encourages a free exploration of 
philosophical ideas; employ postmodern devices that disturb the reader’s expectations; and 
hold up a mirror for the adult, encouraging a self-critical stance.25   

 
In recent writings, Murris has adopted a posthuman stance which seeks to disrupt binaries at all 

levels. Particularly troubling to her are those binaries associated with developmental theory about 
children and any distinction between adult/child that might be seen as privileging the adult and 
his/her perspective. Her critical focus is on the over-rationalization of the Lipman approach as well as 
what she sees as an imposition of adult ideas onto children, thereby disenfranchising them from 
owning their own ideas, as we discussed earlier.  

 
Other approaches to the use of picture books were developed in England by Robert Fisher, 

Roger Sutcliff, Steve Williams, and Peter Worley. These thinkers share an embracing of the picture 
book genre along with children’s literature in general but with a more “analytical” bent. In their 
review of Fisher’s work, Khosronejak and Shokrollahzadeh put him in the camp with Murris and 
Haynes but we would suggest he, and the others mentioned here, are not in the postmodern tradition 
(an oxymoron?) of decentering all dialogue. Khosronejak and Shokrollahzadeh do note that Fisher’s 
attention to literary theory opens up a door for cross-fertilization from literary studies and they 
welcome this as a way to plumb the depths of the image/text relationship. They ultimately argue for 
an alternative way of considering children’s literature as offering opportunities for philosophical 
reflection that have moved way beyond the limits of the Lipman novels. One point on which they are 
quite insistent is the recentering of the image in picture books to explore precisely how illustrations 
(from cover to title page to the end cover) function as narratives in their own right.  

 
We offer an example of what this might mean. In Boodil, My Dog (1992), a delightful picture 

book by Pija Lindenbaum, the young girl who narrates the story of her amazing Bull Terrier sings his 
praises and touts all of his virtues: courage, steadfastness, curiosity, and joy. However, the illustrations 
raise serious doubts as to the stellar and brilliant nature of Boodil and the humor they involve is not 
lost on child or adult. The reader sees the real Boodil while the child narrator sees her dog through 
the lens of love. This contradiction between the content of the written text and the meaning of the 
illustrations can be used by the facilitator to get children to see how the images and the text can 
function in tandem in a variety of ways.26 

  
Many stories include a whimsical use of pictures to suggest such a second narrative as a 

supportive and enhancing account of the verbal story or perhaps even a sub/contra-text. As a result, 
you can use the images themselves as a parallel track for philosophical inquiry. Khosronejak and 
Shokrollahzadeh champion this multifaceted way to engage with pictures/text. Among the questions 
that would result from such a focus are: Why did the illustrator choose just that event or depiction to 
include? How does a picture take us beyond the written text to suggest questions, ideas, humor? We 
suggest that many of the advocates of picture books reviewed by Khosronejak and Shokrollahzadeh in 

                                                 
25 Op Cit., pp. 14-15. 
26 For another example, see Turgeon’s article, “Deconstructing the Artistic Impulse through an Examination of David 
Wiesner’s Art and Max,” Analytical Teaching and Philosophical Praxis, Vol. 37, No. 2, July 2017, p.36-40. 



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

  
 

104 
 

practice do include discussion of the images in the books as seeds for philosophical inquiry with the 
children. 

 
3. Difficulties Involved in Using Picture Books 

 
Having given a quick survey of the inclusion of picture books to initiate philosophy discussions, 

we now turn to a range of criticisms that have been put forward about using picture books in this way, 
specifically by parents and teachers. Their concerns may connect to some of Lipman’s original ones. 
Most teachers at the pre-college levels are not themselves well versed in philosophy, its concepts, and 
tools of analysis. Using children’s literature may be difficult without a lot of support, either in terms 
of guiding documents that highlight potential philosophical avenues for discussion or the presence of 
an experienced P4C practitioner who can help shape the dialogue, along with the teacher.27 The 
stories while rich in potential, may lack the sequencing of ideas and the building of schema whereas 
stories written specifically for philosophical dialogue are created to do this. Ann Gazzard has criticized 
Wartenberg on precisely this point.28 
 

The difficulty that teachers may experience using picture books may result in their reverting to 
the more familiar use of the stories in a typical language arts manner: as reading exercises, vocabulary 
builders, and yes, pleasurable entertainment, rather than as springboards for philosophical discussions 
that can legitimately take the group beyond the story altogether. The Great Books program is 
structured in a way that any comment or analysis of the text by the participants must be grounded in 
the text itself and is highly controlled by the facilitator. Philosophy for Children, on the other hand, 
seeks to develop discussions that move away from the text in order to explore where the ideas 
themselves lead. 

  
Another challenge for teachers is letting go of the control they are used to having in their 

classrooms. One of the basic tenets of Philosophy for Children is to let the children determine the 
direction the discussion is to take. The idea is to encourage the children to explore their own ideas 
through interactions with their peers. In order to do this, the teacher needs to be self-effacing, that is, 
they must refrain from putting their own ideas into the mix or shutting down an avenue of inquiry 
because it was not what they had planned. There remains a strong role for them as the discussion’s 
facilitator, but the idea that the children can generate “the lesson” may rest uneasy on them in these 
times of accountability.  

 
This is a departure from the standard way in which teachers normally interact with their 

students. In addition, since many teachers lack philosophical background, they are put in a position of 
teaching a subject about which they lack specialized knowledge. This can be difficult and represents a 
real challenge and perhaps frustration to teachers. One of the advantages of the traditional Lipman 
curricular materials is that it provides a clear path for teachers to recognize the philosophical potential 

                                                 
27 See Wendy C. Turgeon, “The Place of ‘Philosophy’ in Preparing Teachers to Teach Pre-college Philosophy—Notes for a 
conversation”, Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 68-74. 
28 Ann Gazzard, “Do You Need to Know Philosophy to Teach Philosophy to Children? A Comparison of Two 
Approaches,” Analytic Philosophy and Philosophical Praxis, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 45-53. 



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

  
 

105 
 

in the novels, provides examples of ways that can engage their students, and a solid method of the 
community of inquiry. 

 
Another potential problem raised by using classic children’s stories is that such stories are often 

didactically constructed to teach lessons. Many of the Grimms Brothers’ fairy tales end with a 
cautionary admonition to follow the rules. The dangers Little Red Riding Hood faces are caused by 
her talking with a stranger—the wolf—against her parents’ warning and Charles Perrault ends his 
version with a very pointed warning to young ladies to beware of those wolves who often resemble 
nice young men. As a result, teachers using such works may see their role as getting their students to 
all agree on a moral, such as that “honestly is the best policy” or “sharing is always the right thing to 
do.”  

 
Or consider a picture book, The Rainbow Fish, that is hugely popular both because of the 

beautiful images and the inclusion of holographic scales on the fish. The real interest teachers have in 
this book is its ability to teach children that sharing is always desirable. But there are many 
problematic aspects to this particular story. Should the fish be asked to share part of himself? When 
we are all the same, is that so desirable? Is this The Communist Manifesto in disguise? Unless the teacher 
is well prepared to problematize a story, they might quite normally revert to seeing stories as teaching 
moral lessons. Although that might be useful in some contexts, it is not the open inquiry Philosophy 
for Children wants children to participate in.  

 
Of course, this is precisely where the notion of reading against the text (or “grain”) gains 

traction. A skilled teacher can ask the children if they agree with what the book says about sharing, 
initiating a discussion of the virtues and limitations of sharing.29  

 
The problems we have just canvased make us aware that using picture books for elementary 

school philosophy discussions is not without its problems. But we still join the advocates for  picture 
books as a useful means for getting young children excited about and conversant with philosophical 
topics. We turn now to some suggestions for minimizing the problems we have just see in the use of 
picture books. 

 
4. Picture Book Philosophy: A Positive Account 

 
We believe that teachers who want to use picture books to introduce philosophy to their 

students do not face insurmountable challenges. Since teachers are required to use some picture 
books in their classroom, this method of teaching philosophy relies on materials that the teachers are 
familiar with, even if they are not used to teaching those texts in the way that we are recommending. 
The use of such stories might render the activity of philosophical dialogue as more readily integrated 
into the existing curriculum. There are no reasons why teachers need to feel that picture books are not 
appropriate to use to teach philosophy. 

                                                 
29 See Claudia Mills, “Slave Morality in The Rainbow Fish,” in Philosophy in Children's Literature, edited by Peter Costello, 
(Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2012), pp. 21-40. 



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

  
 

106 
 

One important fact to remain aware of is that a teacher’s knowledge of philosophy is not 
something that is set in stone forever. Although a teacher may be able to begin teaching philosophy 
without having a great deal of previous knowledge, they will generally acquire a better understanding 
of philosophy through facilitating discussions in their classrooms. Philosophical knowledge is 
therefore not a possession that a teacher has that is set once and for all; we need to treat philosophical 
knowledge as something that is acquired through a dynamic process. 

 
There are a wide range of materials that teachers can use to acquire greater knowledge of 

philosophy in general and of the more specific issues raised by a particular book. In the book that he 
wrote to help teachers use picture books, Big Ideas for Little Kids: Teaching Philosophy Through Children’s 
Literature, Wartenberg includes discussions of the philosophy contained in eight picture books that 
are suitable for use with young children. The idea is to provide teachers with enough philosophical 
background that they will be comfortable facilitating discussions of abstract concepts. In addition, his 
website—teachingchildrenphilosophy.org—presents both a short discussion of the philosophy 
contained in the more than 150 picture books featured as well as questions to use to initiate a 
philosophy discussion in their classrooms. In a relatively old article,30 Turgeon outlines ways that 
teachers and professional philosophers can craft manuals to accompany works of children’s literature. 
And with the expansion of new materials for doing philosophy with children, one can find a wealth of 
support material and new ideas from scholars around the world. In her recent book, Philosophical 
Adventures with Fairy Tales,31 she provides support both in terms of suggestions for philosophical 
themes and techniques to use to promote philosophical enquiry. There are also websites, such as that 
of the International Council for Philosophical Inquiry with Children, that can offer information 
about theory and practice.32 And the PLATO site can likewise provide valuable support for teachers 
and parents. 33 

 

Teachers are not limited to materials expressly designed for philosophy for children sessions. 
There are many books that are available to introduce philosophy to the general public. The “for 
beginners” and the Oxford short guide series, for example, attempt to make philosophy accessible to a 
wide range of people, not just college students. Teachers may find these helpful in providing them 
with the background they feel they need in order to facilitate philosophy discussions in their 
classrooms. 

 
The world wide web has also made it very easy to access useful information. In addition to 

Wartenberg’s website,34 there are many sites dedicated to introducing people to philosophy. In 
addition, many college and university philosophy home pages provide links to websites that introduce 
philosophy to non-philosophers. 

                                                 
30 Turgeon, Wendy. “Developing Philosophical Manuals for children’s Literature,” Philosophy for Children on Top of the 
World: Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Philosophy with Children, Hreinn Palsson, Brynhildur Sigurdardottir, 
and Barbara B. Nelson (editors,) 1997. 
31 Turgeon, Wendy C. Philosophical Adventures with Fairy Tales, Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield: 2020. 
32 See https://www.icpic.org/our-research/  for links to materials and new publications. 
33 See https://www.plato-philosophy.org/  
34 See the updated version: https://www.prindleinstitute.org/teaching-children-philosophy/  

about:blank
about:blank


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

  
 

107 
 

All of this suggests that a teacher interested in using picture books to teach philosophy has many 
resources available to them that can make their job easier. While they can easily begin to teach 
philosophy with only a minimum amount of preexisting knowledge, they have many options for 
developing their philosophical understanding. Although getting some training in how to teach 
philosophy might be ideal, teachers who don’t have access to such courses can nonetheless acquire the 
knowledge they need by using the materials we have just outlined. Indeed, PLATO might be able to 
put them in touch with an experienced mentor who can guide them in their own mastering of both 
philosophy and philosophical dialogue.  
 

The main points we wish to emphasize are: 
 

1. A teacher’s store of philosophical knowledge is constantly developing as they use picture 
books with their students. Even if they begin with only a passing acquaintance with 
philosophy, they stand to develop more knowledge through their classroom activities. They 
will experience the excitement and pleasure of thinking along with their students about 
the big ideas. 

2. There are many resources teachers can avail themselves of to gain greater acquaintance 
with philosophical theories and ideas. While these may not be necessary for a teacher as 
she begins to introduce philosophy into her classroom, they are there for them to use as 
they feel the need and can be invaluable to make them more confident in noting 
philosophy when it appears in the comments of their students. 

3. There is likewise lots of support for teachers on methods for forming a philosophical 
community of inquiry and tools to use to engage students in active philosophical 
explorations. 
 

As a result, we do not believe that the problems that teachers face as they introduce philosophy 
into their classrooms are insurmountable. They can use picture books without feeling that they lack 
the appropriate background for guiding a philosophical discussion.  

 
We have not yet discussed some of the advantages of using picture books for philosophy 

discussions. A primary one is the delight that children have in being read aloud to. Many adults find 
abstract discussion of philosophy topics dull and uninteresting. When a topic is introduced through a 
picture book, however, the children have already been prepared to find the discussion interesting. 
Consider the following: Essentialism is the doctrine that every object has a set of properties that it 
cannot lose and still be the same thing that it is. In order for something to be a knife, for example, it 
has to be able to cut, for that’s what knives do. But you could paint the handle of a knife, changing it 
from black to red, say, without affecting the object being a knife. While the ability to cut might be an 
essential property of a knife, having a black handle is not. 

 
Asking children to say whether they believe that objects have essential properties is not likely to 

peak their interest. But asking the same question after reading Margaret Wise Brown’s The Important 
Book is likely to have a different result. That’s because the list of “important things” (a.k.a. essential 
properties) of things like the sky and rain presented in the book are so obviously flawed that students 
are excited to criticize the book. Using a picture book like this gives the children entrance into a 



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

  
 

108 
 

genuine philosophical topic by presenting problematic examples for them to discuss through the 
engaging lens of a narrative. 

 
The fact that you can begin a philosophical discussion by asking a question about a picture 

book’s narrative means that children are slowly introduced to the abstract level of discussion necessary 
for philosophy.35 When discussing the Frog and Toad story “Dragons and Giants,” for example, you 
might begin by asking the children whether they thought Frog and Toad were brave despite the fact 
that they are trembling from their adventures climbing a mountain. This is a question that employs a 
philosophical “big idea,” i.e. bravery, but only in the specific context of the story. Instead of starting 
out by asking an abstract question—Can someone be brave and scared at the same time?—a 
philosophical discussion of a picture book starts much more concretely, thereby enabling students to 
see how the abstract questions that preoccupy philosophers are rooted in experiences that they 
themselves have encountered. Of course, you might discover that the children want to go in a 
completely different direction from the one you suggest. But this only reveals the power of 
encouraging children to question and explore ideas that interest them. 

 
Conclusion 

 

In this paper, we have considered a range of objections to using picture books to teach 
elementary-school children philosophy. We have seen that these objections are not fully justified, that 
there is no reason for educators to avoid picture books in their philosophy lessons. 

 
At the same time, we have explored an alternative method for teaching philosophy to young 

children, namely using novels specifically designed for this purpose. Once again, a range of objections 
has been canvassed. While we do not think that these objections are completely convincing, we see no 
reason to prefer philosophical novels to published children’s literature as a means of introducing the 
young to philosophy.  

 
Children as well as most adults find picture books imaginative and intriguing. For this reason, 

they are a good resource to use to introduce them to philosophy. Despite a history of questioning the 
inclusion of such books from some philosophy for children practitioners, we hope to have shown that 
these wonderful books can be an exciting resource in the elementary-school philosophy classroom.  
 
Address Correspondences to:  
 
Wendy Turgeon 
Professor and Chair of Philosophy, 
St. Joseph College, Long Island, NY. 
Email: turgeon@optonline.net 

Thomas Wartenberg 
Professor of Philosophy Emeritus, 
Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA. 
Email: twartenb@mtholyoke.edu 

 

                                                 
35 If we are honest, are adults any different?  The power of movies and stories in general is that they invite us to reflect on 
the big ideas through a concrete situation.  But adults quickly come to a realization that fiction like Shakespeare’s King 
Lear, the movie A Few Good Men, and Virginia Woofe’s The Waves are about far more than a myopic king, soldiers 
following orders, and a group of people aging.  


