TED Conversations

Henry Maldonado

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

What are the arguments for and against philosophy in high school?

Philosophy is seen as a dead science. However, how can we ignore the prevalence of philosophy in history. Whether it be the philosophy of science, language, or history, there has always been philosophical inquiry except near the middle of the twentieth century.

Should philosophy be taught at the high school level? Should there be a mandatory or elective class for philosophy? What are the merits of philosophy in High School? What are the draw back of teaching philosophy in high school?

Topics: education philosophy
+9
Share:
progress indicator

  • James McGuiness

    • 0
    Sep 12 2012: I once had an English professor in college ask the class to write a two to four line poem to communicate an idea. I did mine based upon my own philosophical toils in trying to figure out who and what I am. He read it and sneeringly said in front of the class "hmmm, who have you been reading?".

    Does this not typify how academics can be agents of dismissiveness and hurt? I was 31 years of age trying to finish college at night. It was beyond this man to see my poem as MY creation. He had to associate it with a wheel that had already been invented by someone else and imply that I had either stolen it and tried to pass it off as an original or because someone else had said something like this I'm flawed for also stumbling across the same thing and not avoiding it. Is he the only dysfunctional academic and me the unluckiest person as Lyndall would seem to assume as she did above? No. There are millions of cases of "hero worship" causing teachers/professors to think similarly and denigrate a student as a plagiarist or reinvent of the wheel.

    Philosophy is a good thing. How it's handled is an open book. And as long as it is subjective to individual human professors, there is a wide margin for poor results--some of which can turn off otherwise potentially brilliant minds. My view of education--after the elements--is to cease "teaching" anything and start "leading" people to discover each art and science. That is the future and CBS 60 Minutes segment on Kahn Academy recently showed that this is more or less the model that is emerging. IMO it should have to take decades. But adults who make decisions for their children today don't know what they don't know and tend to view the education by their own experience and simply want something a little better. We can have it all and the world can change in our lifetimes so much for the better. Tradition is in the way--authoritarian hierarchical traditions..

  • ARISTOTELIS ELLINAS

    • 0
    Sep 12 2012: My Dear Henry. If, truly Philosophy is (seen as dead) dead "to you", then, respectfully, YOU ARE DEAD...!!!.. To "understand" the "term" Philosophy, you "must" know what the words means..."Philosophy"..."Philos"..(Friend)..."Sophia"... (Wisdom) : My Dear Henry, if, you are not a "Philos" of "Sophia"..("a Friend of Wisdom"), what the heck kind or type of being are you, and that goes for all types of "other beings", who are "attempting" to kill Philosophy. Did you go to College? Did you become "Greek". Were you part of the "Greek Club(s)??". Do you know why kids "kill" to become Greek in University / College?. Do you know that if you are "not Greek in College, you are nothing".. and do you know why?..[ Truly, Frankly, the "proper" word to use is, "Ellinas" - for the word "Ellinas" - means - "you are the Son / Daughter of Light / Enlightenment". Plato taught us "an Enlightened Man / Woman can do no wrong", since, when you are Enlightened you know what Respect is, and since you are Respectful, you cannot possibly be dis-Respectful, wherein you automatically know what Honour is and since you Honour you cannot dis-Honour, and thus automatically you are Disciplined with your life and ways and means and when you are Disciplined you cannot possibly be Un-Disciplined.
    The problem my Dear Henry is that, Philosophy is not taught "enough". Think for a moment, how many "fewer problems" we would have in our society today, if, honour, discipline, respect, love, "manners", respect for elders, respect for family, respect for each other and respect for country were taught in Elementary, and High School.
    On the contrary, we have kids who attend 10-12 years of elementary and high school and graduate with 90's and are ILLITERATE.
    Philosophy...to be Philos - Friend of Sophia - Wisdom, means, is, one of the "key criteria" of being an Enlightened, Positive and Productive "Human Being", Worthy and "Entitled" to be on this Beautiful "YAIA" - ("GAIA") - Mother Earth.

  • Lady Abena Amedormey

    • 0
    Sep 12 2012: We are all philosophers. Stop and search..We are always wondering. Kinds are the number one great philosophers. Our school system does not help in teaching philosophy. It should rather explore the philosophy in kids and find answers to them.
  • thumb

    Madison Fitzmaurice

    • 0
    Sep 12 2012: Were philosophy to be taught at high schools I suspect that they would most likely make a mess of the whole thing. Most of the children I see tend to become philosophical thinkers of their own accord; it's simply human nature to question things. If philosophy were to become a class in school it would be standardised so that it could be more easily assessed and as such would do more harm than good.

  • Gross Ryder

    • 0
    Sep 12 2012: Philosophy is possible only if we can articulate questions for which so far we have no clear answers or the answers given so far are inadequate, insufficient, inarticulate or have led us into a 'dead end' or 'black hole'. This has happened to Philosophy - it has died. We no longer even know what are the relevant questions that NEED to be articulated - the necessary drive, the need has lapsed into our unconscious. Perhaps if this need is regenerated in schools we may make some progress. Otherwise we will continue to learn and teach only data and information about smarter machines while we ourselves become dumber, but fooling ourselves that we are 'evolving' and that we can easily prove this.

    " We have learned the answers, all the answers: It is the questions that we do not know." ..Archibald MacLeish

    The first step in Philosophy is to have the necessary curiosity and the constant needling feeling that there are fundamental and perennial questions that haven't even been sufficiently articulated, much less an attempt made to find answers for.

  • Ryan Rohrich

    • 0
    Sep 12 2012: I do believe that Philosophy should be implemented into the high school curriculum. It is beneficial to the students in the sense of all the skills they obtain, analytically, critically, and logically, in addition it promotes a certain freedom of expression and of thought. If philosophy was tied into other not so popular subjects such as math, history, and science I believe it would promote a growth in interest of these subjects that extend beyond the classroom. I myself am a senior at my high school and although we do cover philosophical movements in the language art classes we have I do not believe it is enough. The students of today are the innovators of tomorrow. How are we to, as a human race, grow and learn if we keep the next generation in the darkness that is so prevalent in society today; raised like calf for veal to the corporate fat cats? I believe that the only drawbacks are the tools given would not be used and that is the biggest travesty we all face in our daily lives, but it is a matter of free will, which we have in any condition to exercise.

  • Jay Milton

    • 0
    Sep 12 2012: It may be a bit much in high school unless it can be integrated into other subjects. IT is important to know HOW/WHY we know what we know in any given enterprise.
  • thumb

    scott lee

    • 0
    Sep 9 2012: When people want to add to the high school curriculum I always wonder what would we take out to make time. Its true that philosophy is good for promoting critical thinking, skepticism, and providing a history of though that led us to where we are. But should we give up math, physics, history, english, or PE?

    Perhaps it can be incorporated into other subjects, like history, or even science. Philosophy touches on a lot of subjects because there often philosophical roots specific areas of study.

    Its good to have it as an option for interested students, but I don't know if it should be mandatory. I remember my high school schedule being pretty full.
    • thumb

      Elizabeth Gu 30+

      • 0
      Sep 9 2012: lol fair enough

      we shouldn't give up math, physics, history, English, or PE.
      But philosophy needs to be mandatory even if students' schedule is full.
      There must be a way to teach students philophy without giving up other major subjects.
      It just doesn't always need to be intense. Only for common sense could be enough.

      It sounds like math, physics and such things are essential and practical ones and philosophy is just minor and academic one.
      Am I misunderstood?

      I do respect and understand what you mean, but I think learning philosophy should also be prioritized.

  • Jay Milton

    • 0
    Sep 9 2012: I'm thinking that Henry is wondering if there is any utility or pragmatic application of philosophy. This appears especially germaine these days in light of discussions about the value of a college education (ie, traditional four year, humanities/ liberal arts education without any direct job skills attached). And even in the so-called "core curriculum" that are expected of all graduates from four year institutions. Those need to be paid for and do add on to the overall tuitions. One could ask if there is any intrinsic value to those courses when they may not be directly applicable to one's ultimate career interests (I think they are valuable, by the way, but I can see the other side of the argument).

  • Jay Milton

    • 0
    Sep 7 2012: I didn't know it was a "dead" science. In fact, I wasn't aware that it was a science at all.
    • thumb

      scott lee

      • +1
      Sep 9 2012: Historically, science is a branch of philosophy. So you are right, it doesn't make sense to say that philosophy is a science, just as it makes no sense to say that a dish is a plate. A plate is a dish, and science is a philosophy.

  • Casey Hicks

    • 0
    Sep 3 2012: I'm a high school senior taking my second college level philosophy class while still in high school. I became interested in philosophy around my freshman year and my sophomore year took an independent study in the subject. I would say it should be a must for high schools, not only because of the knowledge it teaches in morals, metaphysics, and so on but because of it's argument skills. I see too many of my class mates writing weak papers or making weak arguments when we have debates or discussion groups in classes. Their arguments are full of fallacies, always begging the question, ad ignoratum, ad hominem, red herring, and simple mistakes of form. So high school students often have weak argument making skills and when they have to write their first college paper it doesn't go very well. If high school had philosophy as part of the curriculum things would be much better off.
  • thumb

    Eric McDermott 30+

    • 0
    Sep 3 2012: I believe on a very general level, Philosophy must be taught. A central idea behind Philosophy is that of questioning and analyzing. Personally, Philosophy has given me an acute sense of conversational direction and the ability to see to the core of a problem. Through the Descartes method of stripping something to the barest beginning, we can learn how something builds upon something else, and thereby delve into its underpinnings, increase problem solving skills, and facilitate innovations. Learning the Socratic method of questioning also has many benefits in expanding ideas and creating fuller understanding. I'll stop there with specifics but Philosophy in general, at the very least, is an excellent exercise in the adaptation and executive functioning of the brain. Without the ability to question on an intricate level, as Mankind, we would be a terrible loss. Needless to reaffirm, I am completing for the subject of Philosophy being taught in schools today.

  • jim Parker

    • 0
    Sep 2 2012: I have taught college English, Public Speaking, Sociology, and Economics.

    The average public high school graduate has a problem speaking academic English and doing basic mathematics. That being the case, they are far from being equipped for dealing with the intellectual rigors of philosophy.

    A voucher system might address that shortfall.

    jim

  • Lyndall Smith

    • +1
    Sep 2 2012: It seems the debate has rightfully shifted from teaching philosophy in high schools to teaching philosophy in general, including in lower schools. I pointed out earlier that teaching philosophy in schools requires exceptional teachers. I agree with James McGuiness that the teacher and the teaching process is a critical element in any person’s education. I agree totally, and look forward to hearing more of James on his philosophy of education. It also seems that it’s the educators that need the tenets of philosophy just as much, or even more, than the students do.
    Maybe teachers should be made to recite the Hippocratic oath that says, “Firstly do no harm”. How many of us have been damaged by an incompetent or poorly-educated teacher, or a poor education system, worse than not being taught at all. It’s those early experiences that set the whole tone of what follows.
  • thumb

    Fábio Nunes

    • +1
    Aug 30 2012: A short answer:

    Absolutely! I even think philosophy should be taught since the first years of school. And the most important part of philosophy isnt' the history of old philosophers such as Platon and Kant, but the exercise of the mind.

    Through philosophy one can learn how to think properly, and recognize good and bad arguments wheather you they are your's or not.

    If you learn how to think you can have better discussions, discussions that can actually take you somewhere. This is very important in politics. An educated population can better distinguish between good and bad arguments from politicians and therefore make a more educated choice, being certain that they are not being played.
    • thumb

      Elizabeth Gu 30+

      • 0
      Sep 9 2012: couldn't agree with you more :)
      Teaching philosophy to high school students is like giving them food for thought.
      In this fast changing, competitive society, learning how to think philosphically--doesn't need to be too academic--would save them from being disoriented.
      And fundamentally, it would play the important role in their life. Especially when they have to make major decisions.

      They need to know what they should consider and pursue.

      Philosophical thinking might lead them to be wise and let them face the truth not just reality.

  • James McGuiness

    • +2
    Aug 30 2012: There is a monumental distinction between "teaching philosophy" and leading people to understand why philosophers do what they do. As a teen I had awakenings that caused me to question everything I has been told up to that point. I then thought that by choosing philosophy as my major in college that I would be encouraged to think and find myself. On the contrary, either philosophy became a culture of hero worship where the objective was to compete on how much we could subsume from the works of published philosophers, or we spent ridiculous amounts of time splitting hairs on definitions and what I considered minutia. The fact is no philosopher comes to be a philosopher through study of other philosophers. Each philosopher is a student of the times in which they live where they are called want to stop the world and articulate a clarity they are not finding in anything else they see in the way of thinking and speech. Holding philosophers up on a pedestal and making the substance of their work a memorization contest is analogous to me of Jesus going to his death on the cause that acquiescence to blind authority is wrong only to have people come along and make him a good who must be worshipped instead of emulated. The distinction has to be owned in a way that can't be wishy washy. And I suspect that education will do the usual thing of diminishing the students whilst deifying the objects of their study. The whole thing should be about finding your engine of reason so you can know what you've created so that you never look at yourself as a "composite" of other people's philosophies.

    • Lyndall Smith

      • 0
      Sep 1 2012: James McGuiness, I’m sorry your philosophy teacher didn’t make a good impression. But students of any discipline need to know where the current world knowledge is at in the field of choice is the basis of a good education; Its partly so people don’t waste their time re-inventing the wheel, and partly to be able to communicate efficiently to others in the same field, and partly as a bit of personal discipline in developing a bit of patience and losing a bit of hubris . I found the whole lot fascinating for a raft of reasons, and wish I had more critical analytical reasoning taught early in my education and less religious indoctrination. But on the other hand the religious indoctrinators were not realising what they were doing, as they themselves didn’t have critical analytical thinking taught to them.

      • James McGuiness

        • +2
        Sep 1 2012: There is nothing of waste or shame in "re-inventing the wheel" if one has no knowledge of wheels. On the contrary, every person who is able to reason a solution conceived by their own wits needs to be "led" by the educational authority/ the society and culture around them to credit themselves with the capacity to do what the one we hold up so high as the original inventor has done. This is where it goes wrong so often--hero worship diminishes motivation and discourages further achievement. I have worked in education and industrial design for 30 years and I know it wasn't just my experience with a "bad teacher" that tells me that there are dysfunctional systems and attitudes still in place today which wind up discouraging or humiliating a potential achiever rather than leading them to believe in themselves and fulfill their potentials. Yes, we need people to get to the front edge of innovation quickly, but more will get there with greater enthusiasm if there are no dinosaurs in the way with stop watches and ratings systems and casual attitudes about writing off people who don't jump through the hoop the "right way" according to factory model prescription. The same is true of philosophy--you can make it a contest of how much you can memorize of other people's philosophies, but you can't "teach" maturity or perspective. You must do something entirely different to produce new philosophers. IMO what usually does that is facing arrogant, intransigent authority who has it wrong and risking stepping up to say "you're not seeing what I do. And here's what that is". But authoritarian systems dissuade people from risking that. If inspiration also happens to reinvent a wheel, that person should get the same credit as the other wheel inventor and should not be mocked and tossed aside. There is no shame or waste in duplicating greatness--there is only shame in dishonesty. My philosophy is called "facilitarianism" perhaps you'll read about it some day I hope.

        • Gross Ryder

          • +1
          Sep 12 2012: Since the wheel has got 'jammed' in the slush, we have to relearn/reinvent the wheel in the midst of all the mud - to go back to the design board - start from scratch by first of all finding the right questions that provoke people at an early stage to think about them and struggle with them.
    • thumb

      Justin Elkin

      • +1
      Sep 3 2012: I admire your level of understanding in this area, James, especially of citing a difference between teaching philosophy and leading people to understand why philosophers do what they do. Brilliant. I think an unbiased curriculum would be essential and key in prevention of "hero-worship". No matter what past conflicts has arose, an empathetic view must be maintained for true teaching of the subject. I feel there is no "reinventing the wheel", more appropriate, for me, is creating new inventions that allow us to farther utilize the wheel. Facilitarianism? Yes. Let's make it easier and more effective. If in fact that is your meaning.

      • James McGuiness

        • +2
        Sep 3 2012: Thanks Justin. "Facilitarianism" is the word I came up with to conventionalize a "successor" to the order we have long been born into which gives us no choice or contract called "authoritarianism". It's been said for a couple of decades now that information technology--even before the Internet took off where there were products like Lotus "Notes" that the PC revolution "flattens hierarchies". Nothing really "flattens hierarchies"--technology has only threatened to. Hierarchy is so pervasive and ingrained in society that to grow beyond it and "facilitate" all the human potential it currently and previously writes off, a successor must be formally engineered. Initially I called my facilitarianism an antithesis to authoritarianism but in writing it it became clear that hierarchy should not be abandoned or demonized--it needs to just be greatly tempered with new understanding of human potentials that we can now address with technology and especially the "cyberspace" metaphor which make for a "secondary plane" of reality in which time and space can be conventionalized more productively.The heart of my brainchild is the assertion that authoritarianism reduces human beings to units of "utility" and there is a range of capacity it fails to address I call "facility". This explains why the title of my philosophy--"facilitarianism".

        To supplant hierarchy means creating a culture and that demands the definition of new metrics, new politics, much improved scope of what we think of our own potential. I have long wanted to be perhaps the first philosopher to skip the linear book and instead synthesize my understanding and new language directly into the non-linear inter-active multimedia network to estblish it as a medium much more capable than being the electronic page turner it's been. But find compatriots has been a tough slog. I welcome engagement by anyone who wants to make the Digital Revolution a true revolution of design rather the evolution of defaults it has been.
        • thumb

          Justin Elkin

          • +1
          Sep 3 2012: Great! I believe we have similar goals. I have no tangible credentials but I am open to new ideas and offer my assistance. If I may make a suggestion, there is a man by the name of Jacques Fresco who has an organization called The Venus Project whose lectures and ideas may be able to further assist your task.

  • Lyndall Smith

    • 0
    Aug 29 2012: It seems to me that someone can usefully do some research here. Philosophy was being taught in a few State run primary schools in Queensland Australia, (started at East Brisbane) ten years ago and about six years ago I went to a discussion on its effectiveness; It seemed to be good and very exciting, although I haven’t followed the subject further until now. My recollection is that the teachers are/were a major the limiting factor to wider application. Most primary school teachers are/were not suitable to teach philosophy , as many had wrong ideas themselves. From the replies in this forum, it seems that philosophy is being taught also in some other countries around the world. A review of their results would be very interesting. Additional comments: some students will be very interested in the subject; some/many will not, and their mind set is probably permanent; different individuals respond to different things, so don’t expect widespread excitement; philosophy is not for everyone. I myself love philosophical thinking, but my wife doesn’t get excited by it one iota; But then sport seems a great waste of time and effort, but for many people it’s the light of their life.

  • Michel Clark

    • 0
    Aug 25 2012: Critical thinking, the basis of philosophy, transcends every single aspect of life, and thus school, and should thus be a mandatory class at some point in secondary school. It is a tool which everyone uses on a daily basis. To teach methods of using this tool more effectively would at the very least serve to improve the lives of all students. The greatest challenge consists of convincing students about the importance and relevance of this subject in their everyday lives, no matter their ambitions and endeavours.

  • Conor Corrigan

    • 0
    Aug 24 2012: Short answer is yes, philosophy should be a topic in high school.

    I'm of the belief that philosophy can't be taught. Philosophy can only be explored (preferably with a guide).

    I agree with the quote in Marija's entry below (don't teach what to think, teach how to think)... I take it to mean that we cannot be TAUGHT philosophy; we can be SHOWN philosophy, and with the right guide, philosophy can open the door to a mind that will push its' limits (the mind's limits and the limits of thought).

    The problem in high school is that in so many subjects, we teach our students (rightfully so). In philosophy, it's not the teacher who makes the impression, it's the thought (that makes the impression) on the young mind. It's hard to accept that philosophy is not the "topic", it's the vehicle, which comes in many different "makes" and "models". Using that vehicle, we navigate the rest of life.

    Happy trails!
    • thumb

      Jake Frackson

      • 0
      Aug 24 2012: I agree that philosophy should be taught at a high school level. I'm currently a high school student in British Columbia, Canada and as far as humanities courses go, we only have one: psychology. Other courses touch on a few humanity related topics but as far as a whole course goes, that's all our school board is giving us currently. For me personally, it doesn't make sense to give students so much "learning" content when they haven't even taught us how to truly think. Philosophy, and humanities in general, are a much needed topic in high schools if we hope to usher in the next generation as a generation of change makers.
  • thumb

    Marija Kovačević

    • 0
    Aug 24 2012: How can philosophy be dead, when it's the ground for every human thought?
    Recently I've seen a poster saying- Don't teach WHAT to think, teach HOW to think!
    So, yes, it should be in every high school and university curriculum, in some form, to teach young minds how to doubt!

  • Marnie Ferguson

    • +2
    Aug 24 2012: I think, no I know, that philosophy is not a dead science. I know that it should be taught in high school and middle school and junior high and elementary school as well.

    Please google Philosophy for Children Alberta and see what exciting things are happening at the University of Alberta with Philosophy for Children. Check out Eurekamp and see what wonderous fun young children are having as they play and discuss philosophical ideas.

    Still not convinced, try their facebook page. There are thousands of photos and videos to prove me right.

    Still not sure....then talk to the organizers and parents and children.

    Philosophy is alive and thriving.

    Why do we need it? Because in an increasingly technology based world, people (children especially) need to learn how to listen, to reason, to argue, to work together, to think critically, logically, face to face. Philosophy teaches these skills.

    I know. I have seen it.
  • thumb

    Luke Hobbs

    • 0
    Aug 24 2012: To me, philosophy is what helps us think beyond our genetic restraints. Many people are bound by action due to biological circuitry, and do not seek to break their programming. Philosophy is that spirit which allows us to go "Wait a minute, I can change, I can make choices beyond my genetic programming."

    By the way, most philosophy I have read has been about self-journeying to reach a higher state of consciousness. But is there a realm of philosophy that promotes "evil"?
  • thumb

    Imad Atwi 10+

    • +1
    Aug 24 2012: So are you debating whether to enlighten people and expand their horizons at a young age or not?

    The younger the better. But as with all topics, it has to be gradual. You cannot teach kids calculus before teaching them addition and multiplication.

    Start early. Give it to them in scaled phases. Let them nurture it.
  • thumb

    Bharath Kumar Kunjibettu 10+

    • 0
    Aug 23 2012: Philosophy should be taught but in a way such that it should be as fun as playing games.... which is quite a challenge...

  • Brad Ovenell-Carter

    • +1
    Aug 22 2012: The key 21st C skill is, ironically, a very ancient skill: philosophical thinking. And like mathematics or languages, it is a discipline and deserves its own time. Chesterton has a good wag about teaching philosophy: http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/43811/Why%20Philosophy.htm

    But why restrict the teaching of philosophy to high school students. I've been teaching it very successfully for years to middle school students and up: practical reasoning for grades 6/7, ethics for grade 8 and a survey of philosophy for grade 9. At Island Pacific School, on Bowen Island off the coast of Vancouver, BC, philosophy courses are the foundation of the school. I gave a paper at a humanities conference at Columbia Univiasity a few years back in which I called for the reanimation the dscussion of metaphysics in grade schools (http://ijh.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.26/prod.971)

    The point is, rather young people are not only perfectly capable of studying philosophy, in my experience, they are eager to do so.

  • walter crockett

    • 0
    Aug 21 2012: You answered your own question.
  • thumb

    Arjun Soman

    • 0
    Aug 20 2012: Yeah very true... well said JG... Also people tend to do wrong things even after they are aware that it is wrong.. It could be due to greed for quick fame and money... :) people don't see the long life ahead... they do not think that I can die any moment and I'll be buried with open hands..! They don't think that if they contribute to the world in a positive way, they would be much happier when they look back at their life before death ! Such thoughts can be dealt only with a dedicated course like Philosophy I guess... ;)

    can I get your Facebook ID such that I can keep in touch with you...Nyc talking to you... Do good n be Good !! Take care ! :)
  • thumb

    Jedrek Stepien 10+

    • 0
    Aug 20 2012: Philosophy is dangerous. Left in the hands of dilletantes could do a lot of harm to everybody..

    • Michael Harvey

      • 0
      Aug 23 2012: what did you call me? i do a lot of reading and i love philosephy.
  • thumb

    Nicole Small

    • 0
    Aug 20 2012: There is a lot of hidden talent that isn't being tapped or even discovered within the school system and as a result, certain students are dismissed with the belief that they are simply "challenged." Most kids who don't "fit in" fall into that category because they think differently. Offering Philosophy could have a very positive outcome in that respect. On the other hand, it's possible that some kids could be labeled as a "possible threat" based on the themes they choose, etc. This could lead to some profiling problems and become dangerous for the teens involved. For example: if a kid writes about a violent end to civilization, does that mean that he/she wants to help it happen or see it happen--or maybe it's just a fear or paranoia about it? If they're excited about it, there's always the possibility that they're searching for a way to prove they can be heroes. As with most good ideas; in the wrong hands they can do just as much harm.
Load more comments…