Como nos tornamos os professores que somos: uma problematização da herança estruturalista nas práticas de ensinar e aprender filosofia
Carregando...
Arquivos
Data
2019-03-23
Autores
Rodrigues, Augusto [UNESP]
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
O objetivo da presente dissertação é reconstituir as heranças formativas que, por um lado, são responsáveis por modelar o professor de filosofia que nos tornamos e, por outro, sustentam as práticas de ensinar e aprender filosofia no ensino médio. Esse objetivo se construiu no tensionamento de nossa experiência de iniciação à docência, através do Programa Institucional de Iniciação à Docência (PIBID), da convivência com o Grupo de Estudo e Pesquisa em Ensino de Filosofia e do nosso próprio percurso na licenciatura em Filosofia. Na iniciação à docência, o que nos chamou a atenção era que a compreensão da história da filosofia, cerne das práticas de ensinar e aprender, talvez não fosse suficiente para contemplar os objetivos da disciplina no ensino médio: pensar as questões do presente em interlocução com a tradição filosófica. Embora o conhecimento das doutrinas filosóficas pudesse oferecer localização histórica para os estudantes na discussão de temas contemporâneos, esse exercício não parecia ultrapassar o conhecimento sobre aquilo que os filósofos produziram. Porém, questionar a centralidade da história da filosofia no ensino era enfrentar os pressupostos em nós enraizados. De certa forma, acreditávamos que a impossibilidade de ultrapassar o conhecimento sobre as filosofias fossem uma etapa consequente do próprio processo formativo. Afinal, não precisaríamos, primeiramente, conhecer os clássicos da tradição para adquirimos as bases para nossas próprias reflexões? Anos depois, esse pressuposto seria problematizado através das experiências de nossos colegas de grupo de pesquisa – também docentes em filosofia. O que eles diagnosticaram era que, por um lado, da maneira como a disciplina estava organizada, não se forneceriam as bases para reflexões filosóficas futuras, e sim apenas um conhecimento sobre a produção filosófica. Por outro, o problema não estaria somente na institucionalização do ensino de filosofia no ensino médio, mas na própria relação que nós, docentes, tínhamos com a filosofia. Mesmo longe dos vínculos institucionais, teríamos dificuldades em estabelecer outras práticas com a filosofia que não se aproximassem do exercício compreensivo da história da filosofia. De fato, não teria como ser tão diferente: desde os primeiros momentos na licenciatura, nos habituamos a uma série de práticas, predominantemente hegemônica, centralizadas no conhecimento da história da filosofia, isto é, na compreensão/explicação das doutrinas filosófica segundo as verdadeiras intenções do autor. Assim, ante a problemática que se construía e dada à confluência entre o ensino de filosofia na universidade da educação básica, indagamos: por qual razão se ensina e aprende filosofia dessa maneira? Nossa hipótese era que essas práticas eram consequência de uma herança formativa consolidada na década de 60 no curso de Filosofia da Universidade de São Paulo (USP). A fim de reconstruir essa herança formativa dividimos nossa investigação em três capítulos. No primeiro, analisamos a constituição disciplinar da filosofia na educação básica, perpassando os Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais: Ensino Médio, Orientações Curriculares para o Ensino Médio e os textos de Franklin Leopoldo e Silva – autor fundamental para entendermos a sustentação filosófica de tais práticas. No segundo capítulo, o foco permaneceu nos textos daqueles que são considerados os patronos do fazer filosófico na USP: Martial Guéroult e Victor Goldschmidt. No terceiro, verificamos a recepção dessa herança na USP, de modo a mostrar como ela constituiu os professores que nos tornamos e ofereceram sustentação à disciplina de filosofia no ensino médio.
The aim of this dissertation is to reconstruct the formative heritage that, on the one hand, are responsible for shaping the philosophy teacher that we have become and, on the other hand, support the practices of teaching and learning philosophy in high school. This objective was built on the tension of our experience of initiation of teaching through the Programa Institucional de Iniciação à Docencia (PIBID) with the coexistence with the Grupo de Estudo e Pesquisa em Ensino de Filosofia and our own course in the degree in Philosophy. In the introduction to teaching, what caught our attention was that the understanding of the history of philosophy, the core of the practices of teaching and learning, might not be enough to contemplate the discipline of goals in high school: think of these issues in interlocution with the philosophical tradition. Although this knowledge of philosophy could offer historical location for students in the discussion of contemporary issues, this exercise did not seem to go beyond of knowledge about what philosophers have produced. But to question the centrality of the history of philosophy in teaching was to confront our own assumption rooted. In a way, we believed that the impossibility of overcoming knowledge about philosophies was a consequent step in the formative process itself. After all, would we not need to know the classics of philosophy to get the basis for our own thoughts? Years later, this assumption would be problematized through the experiences of our research group colleagues – also professors ins philosophy. What they diagnosed was that, on the one hand, in the way the discipline was organized hat they diagnosed was that, on the one hand, in the way the discipline was organized, it would not provide the basis for future philosophical reflections, but only a knowledge of philosophical production. On the other hand, the problem was not only in the institutionalization of philosophy teaching in high school, but in the very relation that we, teachers, had with philosophy. Even away from the institutional ties, we would have difficulty establishing other practices that do not come near to the comprehensive exercise of history of philosophy. In fact, there wouldn’t have to be so different: from the first moments in degree, get used to a lot of practice, predominantly hegemonic, centralized knowledge of the history of philosophy, that is, understanding / explanation of the philosophical doctrines according to the true intentions of the author. Thus, given the problem that have been built and given the confluence between university and high school practices with philosophy, we ask: why is philosophy taught and learned in this way? Our hypothesis was that these practices were the consequence of a formative heritage consolidated in the 60's in the Philosophy course of the Universidade de São Paulo. In order to reconstruct this formative heritage we divided our investigation into three chapters. In the first one, we analyze the disciplinary practices for philosophy in basic education, passing through the Parâmetros Curriculares: Ensino Médio, Orientações Curriculares para o Ensino Médio and the texts of Leopoldo e Silva – a fundamental author to understand the philosophical support of such practices. In the second chapter, the focus remained in the texts of those who are considered patrons of practical philosophy at the USP: Martial Guéroult and Victor Goldschmidt. In the third, we will verify the reception of this inheritance in the USP, in order to show how they constituted the teachers that we became and would support the discipline of philosophy in high school.
The aim of this dissertation is to reconstruct the formative heritage that, on the one hand, are responsible for shaping the philosophy teacher that we have become and, on the other hand, support the practices of teaching and learning philosophy in high school. This objective was built on the tension of our experience of initiation of teaching through the Programa Institucional de Iniciação à Docencia (PIBID) with the coexistence with the Grupo de Estudo e Pesquisa em Ensino de Filosofia and our own course in the degree in Philosophy. In the introduction to teaching, what caught our attention was that the understanding of the history of philosophy, the core of the practices of teaching and learning, might not be enough to contemplate the discipline of goals in high school: think of these issues in interlocution with the philosophical tradition. Although this knowledge of philosophy could offer historical location for students in the discussion of contemporary issues, this exercise did not seem to go beyond of knowledge about what philosophers have produced. But to question the centrality of the history of philosophy in teaching was to confront our own assumption rooted. In a way, we believed that the impossibility of overcoming knowledge about philosophies was a consequent step in the formative process itself. After all, would we not need to know the classics of philosophy to get the basis for our own thoughts? Years later, this assumption would be problematized through the experiences of our research group colleagues – also professors ins philosophy. What they diagnosed was that, on the one hand, in the way the discipline was organized hat they diagnosed was that, on the one hand, in the way the discipline was organized, it would not provide the basis for future philosophical reflections, but only a knowledge of philosophical production. On the other hand, the problem was not only in the institutionalization of philosophy teaching in high school, but in the very relation that we, teachers, had with philosophy. Even away from the institutional ties, we would have difficulty establishing other practices that do not come near to the comprehensive exercise of history of philosophy. In fact, there wouldn’t have to be so different: from the first moments in degree, get used to a lot of practice, predominantly hegemonic, centralized knowledge of the history of philosophy, that is, understanding / explanation of the philosophical doctrines according to the true intentions of the author. Thus, given the problem that have been built and given the confluence between university and high school practices with philosophy, we ask: why is philosophy taught and learned in this way? Our hypothesis was that these practices were the consequence of a formative heritage consolidated in the 60's in the Philosophy course of the Universidade de São Paulo. In order to reconstruct this formative heritage we divided our investigation into three chapters. In the first one, we analyze the disciplinary practices for philosophy in basic education, passing through the Parâmetros Curriculares: Ensino Médio, Orientações Curriculares para o Ensino Médio and the texts of Leopoldo e Silva – a fundamental author to understand the philosophical support of such practices. In the second chapter, the focus remained in the texts of those who are considered patrons of practical philosophy at the USP: Martial Guéroult and Victor Goldschmidt. In the third, we will verify the reception of this inheritance in the USP, in order to show how they constituted the teachers that we became and would support the discipline of philosophy in high school.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Ensino de filosofia, Formação de professores de filosofia, Filosofia na educação básica, História estruturalista da filosofia, Explicação e compreensão de textos, Philosophy teaching, Philosophy teacher formation, Philosophy in basic education, Structuralist history of philosophy, Explication and comprehension of text