What challenges does the political participation of children pose to the Philosophy of Childhood? What challenges does the Philosophy of Childhood pose to children's political participation? This text is inspired by the idea that “research is not about enumerating situations, but making researchers lose their sleep”. It is divided into two distinct parts. In the first, we introduce the theoretical framework that orients our research group and our work with children in the philosophical research community. We posit a link between (...) listening to children's voices, the conditions of listening, and the location of their political participation in public space. The second part is comprised of a creative illustrated narrative in the form of a dialogue. From the coast of what could be called the territory of political participation, two characters - Sentinel and Walker - discuss the waves of children that crash onto the territory. To what extent does creating space and time for listening to children open polyphonic movements and enable the construction of new forms of polis: poly(s)phonies? In what ways does the Philosophy of Childhood challenge itself in the creation of poly(s)phonies where the participation of children sets the tone? In what ways does the Philosophy of Childhood in turn challenge us to create poly(s)phonies? (shrink)

In the call from papers from childhood & philosophy we hear an invitation to philosophize. But what does such an invitation mean? In what ways does an invitation or invitation to philosophize encourage us to suspension our accepted meanings and empower us to sustain this challenge? These are the questions of two teachers who have, first, accepted the prior invitation to philosophize with children, and have now accepted the invitation to think and write together about that experience. This essay was (...) prompted by two questions posed by the children with whom we philosophize: In writing it, we have experienced other ways of thinking and living educational practice, and, through our encounters with our students, find ourselves challenged to live in more inventive and therefore more childlike ways within the framework of the public school, here understood in the sense of scholé. In order to reflect on the two questions, we set off from the concept of consummation, and we engage in dialogue with both a pedagogy of the question, and the concept of equality of intelligence, in order to open a pathway of thought that addresses them. (shrink)

The intersubjective paradigm advocated by Habermas laid the foundation for a new way of reaching rationally predicated consensus. His work indicates that what keeps people in an attitude of communicative action is rational basis and motivation. Upon analysing the intersubjective dimension of the practice of the community of philosophical inquiry, we realized that it possible to observe the transition from a subject-centred autonomy of treason, to the practice of a communicative rationality. The inevitable assumptions of communication ground and sustain communities (...) and allow for an environment of trust and care that enables community members to think freely and let themselves be driven by the power of “we”, “nos-otros”. It is not only in the context of communities of philosophical inquiry that the potential of Habermas’ intersubjective paradigm can be observed, but also in the discussion among specialists. To an extent, this is what we found when we studied the various approaches of Ann Sharp, David Kennedy, and Giuseppe Ferraro to the concept of the community of philosophical inquiry. The dialogue between these philosophers and the concept of the community of philosophical inquiry, their arguments, and the ways of achieving philosophical dialogue in community offer rich evidence of the productiveness of communicative rationality. We are aware that Ann Sharp’s concept of community of philosophical inquiry is different from David Kennedy’s, and that both are distinct from Giuseppe Ferraro’s circle of thinking. Nevertheless, we place these different approaches into dialogue, due largely to what is permitted by the movement of communicative rationality itself. These possibilities for dialogue are also grounded in the assumption of an intersubjective relationship between concepts, experiences and thoughts about concepts and experiences. By understanding the community of philosophical inquiry as a space of intersubjectivity, opening the philosophical community to other non-discursive dimensions of communication, and analysing the circle of thinking that fills space with time and turns it into a place, we reveal that the community of philosophical inquiry is an open and fruitful concept and experience: a concept in motion. (shrink)