














































ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 44, ISSUE 1 (2024) 
  
 

94 
 

 

Notes from the Field  
Philosophy Workshop Experience at “Life with Children” 

Camp 
 

 
Deniz Koyuncu   
 
 

 
or six years, we have organized sleepaway camps in nature, bringing together children aged 6-12, 
their parents and adults who are curious about life with children. Our camps, which are held 3 
times a year on average, mostly take place in Antalya Geyikbayırı and last for 4 days. The camp 

is basically organized by a psychotherapist who is the founder of our camp and I as a specialist in 
'philosophy with children and community' and an average of 3 other expert instructors accompany 
our camp. We schedule our camp dates to coincide with holiday periods and announce it on social 
media. Everyone up to 12 families and 14 children are welcome to join our camp, which requires a 
certain fee. We have an average of 30 people in total each session, including participants and 
instructors. 
 

We strive to enhance the connections between parents and children, other children and parents 
present, and with the natural world, enabling everyone to gain different perspectives. This is achieved 
through joining parents and children together and the creation of holistic learning environments 
encompassing physical, mental, and emotional aspects. Our unique experiences unfold through 
various activities conducted during the camp that also involve vegetarian meals and the practice of 
refraining from using electronic devices. The activities involve both joint and separate participation of 
parents and children. The diversity of our workshops, which may vary in each camp, includes activities 
such as nature discovery walks, awareness activities in nature, music sessions, philosophy workshops, 
movement exercises, circus arts, creative arts, storytelling, and rock climbing. 
 

Doing philosophy in nature offers an embodied learning experience that integrates physical 
engagement with intellectual inquiry. Participants can incorporate sensory experiences in nature into 
their philosophical exploration, improving their understanding of philosophical concepts. Doing 
philosophy in nature presents a distinctive chance for individuals to foster a deeper connection to the 
natural world, personal development and gain profound insights (Christelle, 2022). With the support 
of natural settings throughout the different philosophy workshops, we gain insights into our 
perspectives on specific subjects, recognize beliefs accepted without much contemplation, understand 
our thought patterns, identify contradictions, and explore the possibilities of thinking differently. Our 
opinions on various subjects may evolve, becoming clearer, more uncertain, or even changing 
altogether through ideas with other participants, the examples and counterexamples they provide, and 
the questions posed by myself and participants.   

 

F 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 44, ISSUE 1 (2024) 
  
 

95 
 

During the camp, I am the sole facilitator for philosophy workshops. To accommodate various 
schedules and dynamics, we organize sessions concurrently with other activities. For instance, we 
might conduct philosophy workshops with parents while the children enjoy a nature walk. 
Alternatively, when parents participate in a music workshop, we engage with the children in a 
philosophy session. We separately organize at least 2 philosophy workshops with children and parents 
throughout the camp. Each workshop takes 1.5 hours. 

 
When we reach our upper participant limit for children, I assess group dynamics and harmony 

on the first day to determine whether to conduct philosophy workshops for children in a single group 
or divide them into two groups. This decision depends on whether their attention span is compatible. 
If the participants exhibit compatibility, we may opt for a unified workshop experience. This flexibility 
ensures that our philosophy workshops align with the specific needs and dynamics of each camp 
session. 

 
In my workshops, I employ the 'Philosophy with Children and Communities' approach, which is 

designed to cultivate critical thinking skills and foster active participation in philosophical thought 
among participants (Kizel, 2016). This approach encompasses various methods, including Nelson's 
Socratic Method, Lipman's Philosophy for Children, and McCall's Community of Philosophical 
Inquiry (McCall, 2017). In my practice, I predominantly employ McCall's Community of 
Philosophical Inquiry method. 

 
The philosophical foundation of this method is rooted in realism. According to this perspective, 

our understanding of the world is separate from the actual reality, emphasizing that our knowledge 
does not precisely mirror the world as it exists (McCall, 2013). This implies that even if consensus is 
reached on a particular point, there is a possibility of collective error. The method is designed to bring 
forth differences and disagreements, making contradictions and counterexamples visible. 

 
The successful implementation of this method relies significantly on the facilitator's expertise in 

philosophy and logic (McCall, 2017). A facilitator well-versed in these domains is crucial for guiding 
participants through the process of uncovering diverse perspectives and encouraging rigorous 
thinking. Given my background as a graduate of the philosophy department, I value the significance 
of philosophical and logical knowledge in implementing the approach. Moreover, I endorse the 
adoption of a realistic perspective when questioning concepts, which is why I typically employ this 
method in my workshops. 

 
In terms of content, our camp structure revolves around specific concepts and elements assigned 

to each day. The founder of the camp had decided these concepts and elements based on their 
relevance to the overall goals of the camp. Each day, we focus on specific concepts, consisting of 'self', 
'other', 'togetherness', and 'nature', and concurrently the elements of 'water', 'earth', 'fire', and 'air'. We 
think that investigating these concepts along with essential elements of the natural world is crucial for 
gaining an understanding of nature and human existence within it. To create a cohesive experience in 
the camp, all daily activities, including our philosophy workshops, are closely tied to a designated 
concept and element that serves as the theme for that day. 

 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 44, ISSUE 1 (2024) 
  
 

96 
 

During the philosophy workshops, I integrate the element of the day into our warm-up game 
and utilize the daily concept as the focus of our main inquiry. This intentional thematic alignment 
ensures that each day offers a unified and immersive exploration of the chosen concept and element, 
creating a holistic and interconnected experience for participants. 

 
On the first day of the camp, in the philosophy workshop, we start with a warm-up game focused 

on the element "water." An example of this game is asking participants, "What kind of water would 
you rather be?" Following the warm-up activity, we move into the main inquiry focused on the concept 
of "self". Through thought-provoking stimuli on "self", we delve into questions such as "Who am I?" 
and "What makes me who I am?" 

 
On the second day, we begin with a warm-up game centered around the element "earth". During 

this game, I may ask participants to consider what object another participant in the circle would be if 
they were an object, and to provide reasoning behind their choice.  Following the warm-up, we 
transition to the main inquiry focused on the concept of the "other". Through thought-provoking 
stimuli on the "other", participants deliberate on whether a person can live alone, the necessity of 
living with others, the meaning of 'we,' and the role of rules in social life. Participants explore 
questions that delve into the relationship between the "other" and the "self." 

 
On the third day, we start with a warm-up game centered around "fire". For this game, I might 

place pictures of fire and a group of people in the center and ask participants to establish a connection 
between them. After the warm-up, we move into the main inquiry focusing on the concept of 
"togetherness." Through thought-provoking stimuli on "togetherness," participants explore questions 
regarding whether a person can live alone, the necessity of living with others, the meaning of 'we,' and 
the role of rules in social life. 

 
On the fourth day, our warm-up game focuses on the concept of 'air.' I might lay a rope in the 

center to divide the area into "I agree" and "I disagree" sections and introduce Anaximenes' idea that 
"Air is the source of all things." I then ask participants to take a stance based on this proposition. 
Following the warm-up, we transition to the main inquiry focusing on "nature." Through thought-
provoking stimuli on "nature," participants ponder the meaning of nature, the distinction between 
nature and environment, and the importance of protecting nature. In this way, I facilitate the 
philosophy workshops, creating cohesive inquiry throughout the camp. 

 
We organized a camp last year, and now I focus on the first philosophy workshop with children 

that took place during this camp, which consisted of 8 children. Thus, we can see the initial impact of 
doing philosophy with children in a natural setting nature. On the first day of the camp, our 
philosophy workshop with children unfolded as follows. 

 
We gathered in a circle in a place where we could easily realize our activity under the trees. I 

initiated the session by placing a bowl of water in the center of our circle and posed the question, 
"What comes to mind when we look at this water?" In this way, I would both connect with the 
element of the day and prepare the participants for the main discussion by encouraging them to think 
creatively. Following this, I introduced an engaging activity where the children were tasked with 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 44, ISSUE 1 (2024) 
  
 

97 
 

collecting branches from nature to construct a ship that would float on the water. The children 
dispersed, gathering 30 short branches over a 15-minute period. Once they reconvened, I instructed 
each child to build their own ship using 15 branches. After creating their ships, we collectively 
envisioned embarking on a cruise. It is thought that allowing students to use the resources they found 
to construct their own boat strengthens the bond between themselves and nature as well as 
strengthens their discussions about themselves and others. After the boat was completed, I started to 
tell the Ship of Theseus story, encouraging the children to replace parts of their ships with the 
remaining 15 branches they also collected. 

 
A moment arose when all the ship's components were replaced with new ones. I told them 

"Here's the same ship as the one at the beginning!" After that, I prompted the children to reflect on 
whether there was anything surprising or interesting about this new ship. Subsequently, I organized 
the participants into pairs for a 4-minute session, instructing them to formulate one perplexing or 
thought-provoking question related to the activity. This question should be thought-provoking, have 
more than one answer, and open to discussion. Following this, children in pairs formed their 
questions in a group discussion and then announced these questions to the entire community. 
However, most of their questions were questions that have one correct answer or in which answers 
can be easily guessed or imagined, rather than discussed and reasoned about; thus, the children were 
largely unable to stimulate philosophical discussion. Considering the importance of having thought-
provoking questions for stimulating further discussion, I, as the facilitator, aided the children and 
selected what I regarded as the most thought-provoking question among those provided. 

 
The question which we selected is: "How can the first ship and the last ship be the same ship?" 
 

After discussing the selected question in pairs, participants extended their reflections to the broader 
community. I instructed them to articulate their thoughts with supporting reasons, urging them to 
engage with others' ideas using expressions like 'I agree with…, because...' or 'I disagree with…, 
because...'. This fostered the development of individual perspectives and initiated a collective 
philosophical dialogue among the children. I took some notes at that workshop and now reproduce 
our conversation based on these notes.  
 

Child1: Of course, it's the same ship because it looks the same... 
 

Child2: I disagree with Child1, it may appear the same, but the parts of the ship changed so the 
ship is different. 

 
Child3: For example, I have friends in my class, they are twins. They look the same, but they are 

different people. 
 
Child1: How do you differentiate between twins? 
 
Child2: Their names are different. 
 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 44, ISSUE 1 (2024) 
  
 

98 
 

Child4: I don't agree with what Child2 said last. After all, there are people with the same name. 
So, if twins have the same name, will they be identical? 
 

Child3: No, of course they won't be the same. 
 
Facilitator: Child3, you just said that I distinguish them from their names. 
 
Child3: Yes, I'm changing my mind. I realized that the name was not enough. I have to think a 

bit. 
 
Child2: I agree with Child4. I think what separates the twins from each other may be their 

behavior. For example, if one of them does not get angry while the other gets angry immediately, we 
can distinguish them even if their appearance and names are the same. 

 
(The group reached a consensus on this idea.) 
 

Facilitator: Well, couldn't there be a situation where their behavior is the same? 
 
Child3: Oh! He can imitate it. One may behave like the other. 
 
Child4: But how much will he do the imitation? At some point, I think he stops pretending and 

acts like himself. 
 
The central question "How can the first ship and the last ship be the same ship?" sparked a 

continuous discussion revolving around the concept of identity and change. It was initially argued that 
the ship remains the same because it looks the same. This reflects a basic understanding of identity 
based on appearance. However, this notion was challenged by pointing out that the ship's parts may 
have changed, suggesting a more deliberative understanding of identity as contingent on underlying 
components. An analogy with twins was introduced to further explore the concept of identity. This 
analogy highlights the distinction between appearance and essence, emphasizing that individuals can 
share physical traits but possess unique identities. This demonstrates a recognition of identity beyond 
superficial characteristics. The significance of names was brought up in determining identity, noting 
that people can share the same name without being identical. This prompted a reconsideration of the 
role of naming in defining identity and suggested a need for deeper analysis. It was suggested that 
behavior can serve as a distinguishing factor in identity. This insight expands the discussion beyond 
physical appearance and names, recognizing behavior as a dynamic aspect of identity influenced by 
individual traits and experiences. At this point, the group reached a consensus that behavior can be a 
key determinant of identity. Reaching a consensus is not imperative, however, it reflects a collective 
process of critical thinking and reflection. The discussion highlighted the complexity of identity and 
the multitude of factors that contribute to it. By exploring different dimensions of identity, such as 
appearance, names, and behavior, the children demonstrated an expansion of their understanding on 
the multifaceted nature of human identity. Overall, the discussion exhibited the children's ability to 
engage in critical thinking, carefully consider different viewpoints, and collaboratively construct 
knowledge about a complex philosophical concept like identity. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 44, ISSUE 1 (2024) 
  
 

99 
 

After each philosophy workshop in the camp, children evaluate themselves and the dialogue by 
posing questions such as: "Did we listen to each other carefully? Did everyone have an opportunity to 
speak? Did we adhere to turn-taking or interrupt each other? How much did we contemplate today? 
Did we provide reasons for our thoughts? Did we ask thought-provoking questions? Did we generate 
new ideas or change our ideas?" This process enables the children to review and evaluate the 
effectiveness of their communication, comprehension, and critical thinking. 

 
Concerning my evaluation of the workshops in the camp, I have a framework for evaluating 

doing philosophy in nature. My present evaluation is based on engagement levels of participants, their 
communication, critical, creative thinking skills, respect for others and the improvement of the 
understanding of the concepts explored at the camp. Generally, during the first philosophy workshop 
at all camps, children often express excitement about being in nature, but they may initially feel 
unfamiliar with engaging in philosophical inquiries. This first workshop with children outdoors in 
nature was similar to the previous first workshops with children in the other camps. In particular, the 
excitement of collecting branches and building their own ships contributed to all of them discussing 
philosophy with enthusiasm. On the other hand, despite my invitations, some participants remained 
silent during the discussion. However, as evident in the dialogue, four children actively participated, 
contributing to a deepening and enhancement of their understanding of the self. For future camps, I 
aspire to conduct a more comprehensive and longitudinal evaluation. 

 
I now focus on the third philosophy workshop with parents as an example from the last camp. 

This allows us to see the impact of philosophy with parents in a natural setting, some of whom had 
experienced our 'philosophy with children and community' approach previously. The example comes 
from the third day of last year’s camp and involved seven parents, most of whom were single parents. 
Our philosophy workshop with parents unfolded as follows. 

 
We gathered in a circle in a place where we could easily realize activity outdoors. I noticed that 

the participants were in need of some enjoyment and physical activity. Thus, as a warm-up activity, I 
set up a rope, designating one side as 'yes' and the other as 'no.' Then, I posed a question: "Do you 
think fire is good or bad?" Participants were asked to position themselves along the rope based on 
their answers. Each person took a stance in line with their opinion, providing explanations for their 
thoughts. As they shared their reasons, some individuals reconsidered their positions, leading to a 
change in their stance after listening to others.   
 

Following the warm-up game, we gathered in a circle, and I read Kafka's story 'Gemeinschaft' to 
the participants for 2 minutes. This short story is about a group of five friends who respond to a man 
who would join them as a sixth. Subsequently, I prompted them to reflect on any surprising or 
interesting aspects of the story. To further engage them, I paired participants for 4 minutes and tasked 
them with formulating a perplexing question about the narrative. Once prepared, they shared their 
questions with the entire group.  In general, participants may not know exactly which question will 
lead us to philosophize in the first workshop of the camp. After the first or second workshops, I prefer 
to leave the question selection to the group, if I think that the group can choose a question that is 
more suitable for philosophizing. Given that it was the third day of the camp and participants had 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 44, ISSUE 1 (2024) 
  
 

100 
 

gained more experience in the philosophy workshop, I introduced a voting system for them to 
collectively choose which question they would discuss.  

 
The question that parents formed and voted to discuss is: Why didn't they include the sixth 

person in their group of five?  
 
Following the sharing of their initial thoughts within the pair thinking groups, participants 

extended their ideas to the entire community. I directed them to articulate their thoughts along with 
reasons and encouraged them to engage with the ideas of others by expressing agreement or 
disagreement using phrases like 'I agree with…, because...' or 'I disagree with…, because…'. This 
approach facilitated the participants in constructing their own philosophical dialogue. I took some 
notes at that workshop and now reproduce our conversation based on these notes. 

 
Parent1: The exclusion of the sixth person might be attributed to concerns about potential 

disharmony with their community. 
 
Parent2: Is it a prerequisite for a community to be harmonious? 
 
Parent3: We should delve into our understanding of harmony. Some might equate it with 

uniformity, but I see harmony as a willingness to agree and compromise. 
 
Parent2: I disagree with Parent3; because his definition seems more about a desire to harmonize 

than harmony. To me, harmony is about the ability of similar or different elements to coexist. Being a 
community requires harmony, albeit not always in agreement. 

 
Parent4: I agree with Parent2 about the definition of harmony. A community, in my view, is a 

structure capable of standing together and acting in unison. Particularly when we're diverse, desiring 
harmony becomes crucial to coexist and act collectively. Harmony and desire to harmonize are 
interconnected yet distinct concepts. 

 
The question ‘‘Why didn't they include the sixth person in their community of five?’’ sparked a 

thoughtful discussion and provided parents with an opportunity to critically reflect on the definition 
of a community and what constitutes the conditions for being a community. They discussed the 
concept of harmony within a community, leading to a deeper understanding of its complexities and 
implications for collective well-being. They seemed to realize that harmony involves more than mere 
agreement or uniformity and encompasses notions of diversity, cooperation, and collective action. 
Additionally, there was recognition of the interconnectedness between harmony and community 
cohesion, as well as the distinction between the concept of harmony itself and the desire to achieve it.  

 
At the end of every discussion, I invited participants to evaluate themselves and the discussion 

regarding active listening, effective self-expression, and reflective thinking. Thus, they conducted a 
review of their dialogue processes guided by these inquiries. 

 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 44, ISSUE 1 (2024) 
  
 

101 
 

Concerning my evaluation of the workshops with parents in the camp, the content of my 
evaluation is identical to that used for the children's workshops. On the third day of the workshops, 
all parents had formed bonds with each other, appearing relaxed and familiar with the approach. 
Based on the notes I took during the workshops, over the course of the camp days, it is seen that the 
participants became adept at formulating more thought-provoking questions and distinguishing them 
from other types of questions. Moreover, specific to the third day of the camp, I evaluate whether 
their understanding of "community" has improved. As evident in the dialogue, parents actively 
participated in the discussion and contributed to a deepening and enhancement of their 
understanding of the community. They fostered the exploration of thoughts, reflected on each other's 
ideas, and developed new insights. 

 
After the workshops, I frequently witness that parents especially continue the discussion with 

each other. Moreover, I recall moments when one child asked their parent what they talked and 
thought about in their philosophy workshop, and this led to a fruitful discussion. I can say that I 
observe that the workshops support meaningful dialogue and bonding between both parents and 
children and parents with other parents. At the end of the camp, we always hold a closing circle, and 
all participants share their evaluations about the camp and our shared experience together for 4 days. 
  

As in past camps, in this last camp a considerable number of parents and children expressed 
how our camp benefited them physically, mentally, and emotionally, and how they wished that our 
camp would last longer and that we could meet again sooner. Furthermore, we, as organizers, have 
come to see that extending the duration of the camp, and conducting another camp experience 
specifically for those who have participated before, will serve our purposes better. Through regularly 
holding these kinds of philosophy-nature camps, we can strongly support the practice of doing 
philosophy in a natural setting, as an embodied learning experience that integrates the appeal of the 
natural world with intellectual inquiry. Taking this approach allows us to promote continuous 
improvement in fostering a deeper connection with the natural world and to facilitate personal 
development through reflecting on profound philosophical concepts. 

 
References 
 
Christelle, A. (2022). Philosophy in nature as a kind of public philosophy. In Lee C. McIntyre, Nancy 

Arden McHugh & Ian Olasov (eds.), A companion to public   philosophy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-
Blackwell. pp. 280–289. 

Kizel, A. (2016). Philosophy with children as an educational platform for self-determined learning. 
Cogent Education 3(1):1244026. 

McCall, C. C. (2013). Transforming thinking: philosophical inquiry in the primary and secondary classroom. 
Routledge. 

McCall, C. C. (2017). Düşünmeyi dönüştürmek (Transforming thinking). (K. Gülenç & N. P. Boyacı, 
Trans.) Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık. 

 
Author Information: 
Emine Deniz Koyuncu - Independent Researcher 


