There are actually ongoing efforts, in Western Massachusetts, to teach philosophy to younger children. The practice was treated in a relatively recent New York Times article. (You might also check out the Philosophy for kids site.) On the basis of the work cited in the Times article, and on the basis of my own (relatively limited) experience with younger children, it seems to me that younger children are naturally inquisitive about philosophical questions. Whether teaching philosophy to young children would help or harm them in life, is, I think, more a matter of whether one thinks philosophy is helpful or harmful to life, which is itself a deep question about the nature of philosophy and its value that has provoked much disagreement from philosophers over the centuries. I myself am inclined to think that the kinds of inquiries that philosophy promotes can only be beneficial to anyone who engages in them, but I of course have a vested interest in holding that opinion!

There are 2 ways to interpret your question. One way is as a request for information about the philosophy of engineering. If that's what you're asking, I can suggest two good books to start with:

Florman, Samuel C. (1994), The Existential Pleasures of Engineering, 2nd edition (New York: St. Martin's Press).

Davis, Michael (1998), Thinking Like an Engineer: Studies in the Ethics of a Profession (New York: Oxford University Press).

The first was written by a practicing engineer, the second by a philosopher. Both deal with questions like: What is engineering? How should engineers behave? You might find some other references on the webpage "What Is Engineering?" for my Philosophy of Computer Science course.

There is also a branch of philosophy called the philosophy of technology, which deals with related issues. Check the article with that title in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The other interpretation is as a request for information about how to apply philosophical thinking to engineering. Here, I would think that the best answer is that the kind of analytical thinking skills that are the mark of good philosophy would stand you in good stead when dealing with engineering problems.

Another relatively recent, good, general introduction to a variety of philosophical issues is Thomas Nagel, What Does it All Mean?, which I myself read in my first year of graduate school and found most illuminating. Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy is a classic from relatively early in the twentieth century.

You might also consider reading some of the canonical texts of Western philosophy (in my ignorance, I don't know Eastern philosophy, and so am not in a position to recommend any works of Eastern philosophy): a good place to begin is with Plato's 'Socratic' dialogues, the Apology, Euthyphro, and Crito; if you like those dialogues, you might move on to the Republic, which treats many of the problem areas of philosophy, including epistemology (the nature of knowledge), metaphysics (the nature of what there is), ethics, and aesthetics, among other areas; a couple of more 'modern' works that you might consider are Descartes's Meditations on First Philosophy (which focuses on issues in epistemology and metaphysics), and Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, which tries to lay a foundation (hence the word in the title translated as 'Groundwork' by certain translators) for morality and hence treats ethics; if you want to grapple with some twentieth-century philosophy from the 'Continental' tradition, you might start with something like Jean-Paul Sartre's Existentialism and Human Emotions. This is just a short selection, of course--other panelists would of course suggest other works!!

it's never too late! ... I would recommend any of Simon Blackburn's more popular books -- "Think" (or is it "Thinking"?), "Truth" -- just google him and you'll find a few titles -- if you enjoy philosophical reflection on God you might try my own recent book 'the God question' -- or of course read Daniel Dennett's recent book on religion "Breaking the Spell" --

happy reading!
Andrew

Good philosophers don't take anything for granted. They are committed -- sometimes painfully so! -- to the idea that no beliefs, values, or points of view ought in principle to be exempt from scrutiny and criticism. They understand how easy it is to run a life on autopilot; to get into habits (of behavior or mind) that, on reflection, they can't justify or endorse; and to succumb to the temptations of complacency, or even smugness and arrogance. And they seek to teach and to model how to avoid these easy pitfalls. Studying, or studying with, such philosophers can give you the resources, and the inclination, to live a more deliberate life. Of course, too much self-scrutiny will prevent you from living your life at all. But taking courses that prime you to be reflective, especially about your own life, might help you establish habits of thought that will serve you well no matter what you end up doing with your life.

The following story is recounted in John Aubry's Life of Thomas Hobbes:

"He was forty years old before he looked on geometry; which happened accidentally. Being in a gentleman's library Euclid's Elements lay open, and 'twas the forty-seventh proposition in the first book. He read the proposition. 'By G ,' said he, 'this is impossible!' So he reads the demonstration of it, which referred him back to such a proof; which referred him back to another, which he also read. Et sic deinceps, that at last he was demonstratively convinced of that truth. This made him in love with geometry. I have heard Sir Jonas Moore (and others) say that it was a great pity he had not begun the study of the mathematics sooner, for such a working head would have made great advancement in it. So had he done he would not have lain so open to his learned mathematical antagonists. But one may say of him, as one says of Jos. Scaliger, that where he errs, he errs so ingeniously, that one had rather err with him than hit the mark with Clavius. I have heard Mr Hobbes say that he was wont to draw lines on his thigh and on the sheets, abed, and also multiply and divide. He would often complain that algebra (though of great use) was too much admired, and so followed after, that it made men not contemplate and consider so much the nature and power of lines, which was a great hindrance to the growth of geometry; for that though algebra did rarely well and quickly in right lines, yet it would not bite in solid geometry."

Now Hobbes himself, in his own philosophical works, such as Leviathan, did not quite aspire to axiomatization, but he did seek proofs of the sort that can be found in geometry; his near-contemporary, Spinoza (whose views, if not his method, influenced Hobbes's own work--Hobbes even said of Spinoza, "He hath overshot me by a bar's length, for I durst not write so boldly,"--self-consciously modeled his Ethics on Euclid's Elements, following the "geometrical method," beginning each part of the Ethics with Definitions and Axioms, on which the Propositions 'proven' in each section were to be based: in the Preface to the Third Part of the Ethics, "Of the Origin and Nature of the Affects [in comtemporary language, emotions]," Spinoza claims to "treat the nature and powers of the affects...just as if it were a question of lines, planes, and bodies." However, if one opens the Ethics to any given proposition, while one will find rigorous argumentation, and 'proofs' that make reference only to the definitions, axioms, and prior propositions 'proved' in the relevant part of the Ethics, one will hardly be convinced by those proofs in the same way that Hobbes--or we--might be convinced by the proofs in Euclid's Elements. This reflects a frustrating, fascinating, feature of philosophy: the propositions it treats are not amenable to proof in the same way as propositions in mathematics. While philosophers over the centuries have sought to make philosophy into a 'rigorous science', more akin to mathematics, the propositions it treats do not seem to admit of proof like the propositions of mathematics. Indeed, it is reported that the philosopher Moritz Schlick once said, "Making lists of propositions proven by philosophers is a pastime heartily to be recommended," knowing full well that the list that one ended up with would be quite short indeed.

What's distinctive, it seems to me, of the claims in various branches of philosophy--such as ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics--is that they treat questions that do not admit of proof. One must, instead, seek to give arguments for the claims in which one is interested--just as Hobbes and Spinoza did--and those arguments will rest on reasons that may well be open to challenge by other philosophers. Consequently, there is no one method for analyzing and proving statements in metaphysics--or any other branch of philosophy, for that matter: instead, one must seek to give reasons for the claims that one seeks to advance, and to develop arguments in their support. This is what sets philosophy apart from other branches of knowledge, such as physics and mathematics.

let me supplement Eddy's fine response by noting that you will probably have to be very pro-active in making this happen! not only will you get distracted (reasonably) by life, but so will most of the people you're hanging out with, who may not have any initial interest in philosophy anyway! so you'll have to take charge -- for example, start a book club or discussion group at a local coffee shop ... check out 'socrates cafe' on that score ... find organizations that have public events of philosophical import so you can meet more like-minded folks (if you're in NYC you might look up 'socrates in the city') -- make sure your local NPR station carries the program Philosophy Talk (look it up!) and then be sure to listen to it ... organize a lecture yourself -- for example, i recently gave a talk at a bar in New York City that has a tuesday evening literary series ... find such a thing, or start one yourself! .... so don't count on others keeping your philosophy bug alive, you'll probably have to do it on your own initiative ...

good luck!
AP

Isn't that simply a false dichotomy? You need the good questions and the right spirit of enquiry. If you've no clear, well-formulated, questions then you'll just produce an ill-directed ramble. If you aren't driven by curiosity actually to explore the good questions, if you lack the desire to follow the argument wherever it leads, then nothing will come of having raised the questions!

But I'd just add that there is nothing at all special about philosophy here. It's the same whether cosmology or molecular biology, history or the study of ancient Athens are your thing. Enquiry needs to be guided by good questions and driven on by the right spirit of 'wonder'.

Or at least that's the ideal! Of course, there's lots of routine hack work in science and history, mechanically grinding away in a low grade way. And equally --- though don't spread the word too enthusiastically! -- there's lots of routine hack work in philosophy (regrettable, maybe, but people do need publications for tenure, and have to satisfy "research assessment exercises" and the like).

Great questions! In a way, it is difficult to begin philosophy without there being some kind of mood --whether this be openness or inquisitiveness. It has been said that philosophy begins in wonder, and I suppose one may think of wonder as a mood. Some philosophers have interpreted this as philosophy beginning with puzzlement and understood the goal of philosophy to be the dispelling of puzzlement. But I suggest "wonder" might also be fascination or awe or even reverence. I suspect that when you get in a "philosophical mood" you probably are prepared to set aside distractions and work from a whole host of what might be called moods: fascination, awe, reverence, inquisitiveness.... but also possibly anger, love or hate and more. If we follow Socrates and the Platonic tradition generally, there are certain moods or emotions that can aid or that can hinder philosophical reflection. Those impairing philosophical inquiry include jealousy, envy, impatience and vanity. I believe the majority in the Platonic tradition would also include rage as a mood or emotion that inhibits reflection. Some great philosophical works have been written in rage --Burke on the French revolution and on the nature of political order, for example. But while the rage fueled some extraordinary English prose, and Burke's work has been influential in the 20th century (Michael Oakshot) the rage also drove him to present some stories as fact when there was no historical basis for doing so. Positive moods or emotions are (again, in the Platonic tradition) those that tend to put the ego to one side "and follow the argument wherever it leads."

Philosophers in the so-called Continental tradition such as Heidegger and Sartre spent more time reflecting on moods than their Anglo-Saxon analytic counterparts, but you can find some fascinating reflections on philosohical methodology and a person's personality in the work of William James.

Step one: Visit AskPhilosophers.org weekly! ;-)

Step two (and most importantly): Don't fall out of the habit of caring about and thinking about philosophical questions. This will be hard to do. You will get busy and busier with a "real" job, paying bills, perhaps raising a family, surfing the internet, watching TV, exercising, eating, sleeping, etc. It can be hard to find the time to slow down and reflect. It is sometimes hard for me to do this, and I'm a professional philosopher! (Seriously, even when I am teaching or writing philosophy, I sometimes find myself forgetting to do philosophy, in the sense of re-considering and deeply considering the very issues I'm talking or writing about one more time.) So, try to make time for philosophical reading and thinking by building it into your schedule somehow.

Step three: find sources of philosophy you like. Keep a list of books (and articles) you want to read, and find sources for information about books (and articles) you may want to read. Find philosophy blogs you like. There are a lot of them now. I mention one, Flickers of Freedom, only because you can use it as a source for more blogs (on the left bar) and then use those to find others. Perhaps find philosophy magazines or teaching tapes or even journals you want to buy.

Step four: find friends to talk philosophy with. This is the best way to keep it alive for you.

You may also be able to find a local university where you can take more philosophy (or philosophical courses) during your lifetime.

There are other possibilities (other panelists might offer some). But I really think step two is the key. Our life is full of distractions (here I am writing on a blog while I watch news in the background!). It's hard to find time for philosophy.