children deprived of philosophy

Forums: School, Education, Philosophy, Children, Civilization
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Why is it that we do not teach the importance of communication, society, rationality, values and ethics to children?

They may be too young to understand some complex concepts of value, logic, aesthetics, metaphysics, epistemology but facts such as,

"why we have a society, and not anarchy."

can be told to them so they would have a better understanding of why rules exist and why not to break them, rather than doing something bad is followed by either a "no no" or a "biiig no no (with a spanking)" from your parents. Just being told that, "or else you're going to go to jail" really isn't a convincing reason to follow the rules set by some sentient beings from wherever no matter what age you are at for a rational being of any appreciable level of cognitive capacity we would like ourselves to be known to possess.

we are forced to take western civilization, economics, asian history, american history, plate tectonics, calculus; things most people never use in their life, yet something like history is taught over and over and over, even though none of them is absorbed by children because it's just not applicable to life (not at the age they are unless the teachers and professors are very talented in keeping children engaged during the lecture). why can't there be one class that gives a chance to see a small portion of reality and answer the common question of why and how.

i'm not a parent, but is this a flawed idea? do you think we should, or shouldn't?
Do we fear the possibility that children will rebel uncontrollably and lead to a era of chaos and rebellion if we teach children reality and how to see the world as is, and think for themselves without committing blindly to systems, tradition, custom...?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 9,861 • Replies: 142

View best answer, chosen by 55hikky

What about children deprived of the outdoors, of recess, of face to face companionship?

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

what are you suggesting?

...a reassessment of how tax is spent so that children are given time to play?
what do you mean 'face to face companionship'?...

your comment is too succinct for me to make appreciable connection and inference of your conclusion.

what about children deprived of basic human connection and opportunity to explore, to learn for themselves?
are you suggesting that that, in itself, is enough of a 'philosophical lesson' for them...?

1 Reply

@55hikky,

Quote:

...a reassessment of how tax is spent so that children are given time to play?

AAAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus Christ on a raft. What the hell is wrong with you that you would ask such a question???

Have you any idea how many people think that recess is a waste of time and want it eliminated from the school day?

Look at all the parents who hire lawn services to use chemical fertilizers to maintain their property which is mowed by fleets of men who disembark from their trucks and use their shabby little gas mowers to keep that lawn two inches high at all cost, financial and environmental.

If those same parents had a shaggy lawn and a cutting garden and, at the very least, a few tomato plants, their kids would be mentally and physically healthier and might even have a leg up in science in school.

If parents took their kids hiking once in a while instead of plopping them down in front of some kind of screen, perhaps, those kids would be more curious and less destructive of the environment.

Quote:

...a reassessment of how tax is spent so that children are given time to play?

Honestly, do you want me to spell that out to you? Let me put you in your high chair and give you some Cheerios to poke into your mouth while I clue thee in.

What do you think I meant?

Quote:

your comment is too succinct for me to make appreciable connection and inference of your conclusion.

Wow! You must be a second year student because that is such a sophomoric thing to say.

Too succinct? You are a boob. Shall I write in grandiose terms that are totally unnecessary? You do not come across as the leading intellect of the 21st C but as a petty minded snob.

So, let me clue thee in:

My message is to stop worrying about upper level stuff when the personal responsibility of every parent is produce well rounded (and, here, anticipating your next stupid comment, I do not mean fat but an intellectually and physically and emotionally fit human being).

I could go on and on and on about the French people I know who feel their lives were saved by philosophy because I am capable of playing the intellectual snob . . .and, I would suggest, better equipped to . . . but this is an internet forum. Reality is part of philosophy, n'est-ce pas?

Frankly, sometimes both a cigar and a rose are just a cigar and a rose. Often, words are what they seem to be.

1 Reply

@55hikky,

Don't really see the deeper point in philosophy, specially for children. It would be far better go make them read basic science, psycology, ecology ..etc.

For well over a years, I'v seen no value in philosophy, it's merely rethorical mastubation, a playground for demagogues and idiots.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

..so you agree with me...
the whole point of the exclusion of recess is because there isn't enough money for the school to pay the teachers. not only recess, but entire semesters have been cut short by weeks (in my former high school's case), tuition is only going up (in most universities and colleges i know of) and even entire classes are not offered anymore to students because the schools can't pay the teachers and professors..

it's not much of the parent's opinion to remove recess because it is a waste of time than it is an inevitable phenomenon.

and regarding the "lawn metaphore", you agree with me when I said,

"opportunity to explore, to learn for themselves. are you suggesting that that, in itself, is enough of a 'philosophical lesson' for them...?"

you don't think we should teach philosophy in school, but rather have them participate in outdoor activities, connect with nature and learn what curiosity strikes their interest, and let that be that.

"If parents took their kids hiking once in a while instead of plopping them down in front of some kind of screen, perhaps, those kids would be more curious and less destructive of the environment."

i agree with you on that.

I wrote a 20,000 word reply to a topic related to the parents role in raising a child on another thread, I will only say that I agree with you on this reply post, if you would like to see, here is the link to my reply.

http://able2know.org/topic/147286-2

i do not see why you seemed to be extremely frustrated with my posts; i merely filled in the details of your post, and your argument was just exactly what i meant...

and how was i really supposed to mean all of this from
"What about children deprived of the outdoors, of recess, of face to face companionship? "
i expected after my introduction of "tax" or "opportunity to explore"
you would mention about enslaved children in africa or asia, who were abducted from their parents where the opportunity of education is out of the question. but i figured that was waay out of the parameters of this discussion since i'm specifically talking about a more modern, first world education system.

i like your passion though.
i always feel if my replies and posts have no emotion, unlike you or hex. it's nice to hear from people who really talk like they mean what they say and say what they mean.

and not to be 'the second year student'

but i have no clue what you are talking about in the last three lines of your post =b.

-55hikky

0 Replies

@HexHammer,

first of all.

I'm honored that my topic has struck enough of your interest in earning your comment in my discussion.

the reason i though of this thread was from a book I am currently reading.

one man suggested that without society, without rules, we would be in a constant state of war, where everyman is for himself, and everyone else is a threat; we take what we want, kill who we want, do what we want; no safety.
By giving up some of our liberty, and forming external impediments, a precept which a man is forbidden to do anything that is destructive of his life. this will allow peace, and yield growth, reduce suffering, enhance human well-being, that allows us to resolve our conflicts of interests according to recognizably fair rules, and to assign responsibility for actions, so that we can praise and blame, reward and punish people according to how their actions reflect moral principles.

will children not understand that following rules is allowing them to feel safe and have fun? were you, and all of the individuals in your surroundings fully aware of this concept when you were in 1st grade?
the concept of giving up power for your own sake instead of, "because you have to."

of course this is just one concept, and i may of made it sound more complex in the long paragraph, but what it's saying is summarized in the latter.

yea there's a lot of 'rhetorical masturbation' in philosophy, but i guess i'm not talking about, say metaphysics, or epistemology which is more theory than anything. but something more tangible, the most basic ethics, and morals. why do we need to respect others, rather than, "just don't do that."

i'm not saying we should replace basic science, psychology, ecology ..etc. i'm saying we should also, somewhere in the course of k-12, one sememster/ quarter that allows children to really reflect on the type of world they came about into. why parents are the way they are, why residual conflicts occur, why prejudice is a issue. (not "is there such thing as 'free will'?" or "what does 'two' mean?" "is there such thing as a 'void'?")
would they really not be interested in these big questions that deal with everyday life?

1 Reply

@55hikky,

Quote:

why can't there be one class that gives a chance to see a small portion of reality and answer the common question of why and how.

We teach Physics, Biology and Chemistry and Calculus for that matter. These subjects deal with empirically measured reality. Philosophy is completely fabricated by the human mind. It is an invented field. It is untestable and unrelated to anything that can be called reality.

I am not against older children learning philosophy. For my children I consider Physics, Mathematics to be far more important. Actually, my children get philosophy through their Literature and History classes.

3 Replies

@55hikky,

Quote:

By giving up some of our liberty, and forming external impediments, a precept which a man is forbidden to do anything that is destructive of his life. this will allow peace, and yield growth, reduce suffering, enhance human well-being, that allows us to resolve our conflicts of interests according to recognizably fair rules, and to assign responsibility for actions, so that we can praise and blame, reward and punish people according to how their actions reflect moral principles.

I strongly disagree with this. Fortunately, most any teenager knows this is bull.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

We teach Physics, Biology and Chemistry and Calculus for that matter. These subjects deal with empirically measured reality. Philosophy is completely fabricated by the human mind. It is an invented field. It is untestable and unrelated to anything that can be called reality.

I am not against older children learning philosophy. For my children I consider Physics, Mathematics to be far more important. Actually, my children get philosophy through their Literature and History classes.

And what subject isn't "fabricated by the human mind" in some way? If this is going to be your criteria for what's worth teaching, you might as well toss out all of the arts, arguably the social sciences, and perhaps much of the 'history' that is being taught. Political philosophy and ethics are two parts of philosophy that have always been, and will continue to be, very relevant to the public discourse. Our idea of morality, for example, is also entirely fabricated in the human mind, but I think most people would consider it to be essential to their humanity.

With that said, I agree that math and science are more important for younger children. I don't see the need for much philosophy being taught in K-12, beyond maybe an introductory philosophy and logic class in high school.

The Greeks also felt the same way; during Plato's time, formal study of philosophy wasn't even permitted until one had reached his mid-20s. It's probably better for people to develop their reasoning skills with math and science first, as those two disciplines are, on the whole, more practical. I suppose that's the source of the prerequisite for entering Plato's academy: "Let no man ignorant of geometry enter here".

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
why can't there be one class that gives a chance to see a small portion of reality and answer the common question of why and how.

We teach Physics, Biology and Chemistry and Calculus for that matter. These subjects deal with empirically measured reality. Philosophy is completely fabricated by the human mind. It is an invented field. It is untestable and unrelated to anything that can be called reality.

I am not against older children learning philosophy. For my children I consider Physics, Mathematics to be far more important. Actually, my children get philosophy through their Literature and History classes.

well, though I will take all of this for what it is, as an opinion, and I appreciate you for taking your time to answer my question, I would like to take this time to ask you a few question regarding this reply simply as a means to further understand your point.

when i said how and why something is the way they are, i was not referring to how much entropy is released when we make ethylene glycol, why light has wave and particle properties or the life cycle of a cnydaria. though your reply made it sound as if you thought this is what i meant, i'm sure, within what was actually posted you did understand this to some degree at lest.

I understand philosophy is completely fabricated, but not related to reality?
really? what exactly about physics, chemistry and biology is related to reality?
If it helps, I was a biochem major for 4 years. I've taken everything the school had to throw at me, with exception to a few of the most advanced like physical chem, cellular bioengineering, or anything relating to string theory, but i've taken everything that would qualify me to take those classes if i wished to pursue the path. and interestingly enough, you'd be suprized how usefull the things they teach you are. I calculate how much heat is produced in my body with each breath and how much relative volume of nitrogen is inhaled when i am in a restaurant near a populus tricocarpa relative to my car and consciously relate them to whatever i learned in linear algebra...
to be HONEST there was nothing more useless in my life than pretty much everything i've learned in the past 4 years (with disregards for the sole purpose to get a useless BS...)

you say "These subjects deal with empirically measured reality."...
...and your point is..?
so what if you know the genus, phylum, species of 300 plants and animals
so what if you know how to measure the ion equilibrium levels with a addition of a buffer solution
so what if you can figure out how much current is passed through capacitors and resistors...
so what if you know the 5th power series of the polynomial f(x) = 5tan (x+i3)
SOME are important namely algebra and geometry.
if you ask me there's nothing more, "untestable and unrelated to anything that can be called reality." than calculus, chemistry, physics and biology, ironically... they divert your attention from reality, burying children heads in books, exams, memorize and forget, and the cycle continues.

honestly, when was the last time you even said the word calculus? not only does the content not apply to reality, we don't even need the existence of the concept of calculus. (now don't flame me on this saying that, "everything that is made around you uses calculus." yes i know, but we know what i mean.)

but if knowing all of this, somehow makes you a better human being, than I am happy for you and your family for being able to find peace with yourself. I just happened to find peace in philosophy rather than the periodic table.

---
perhaps it is better if i narrowed it to Justice and ethics perhaps rather than 'philosophy'. The closest thing english teaches that would fall under the category of philosophy would probably be henry david thoreau, which isn't appreciated by students in a way which would cause deep thought and eureka moments. im not sure if english teachers go as in depth with lord of the flies and relating them to the human nature of war and fragility of morality... but i can be wrong. off the top of my head those two are the only two that really comes to mind that deals with philosophy.

i would like to give you credit on the fact that philosophy is taught through english and history, though i personally question the potency in the teachers to get the message through to a appreciable level.

Sorry about the really long post, i understand if you don't want to read it =b.

-55hikky

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
By giving up some of our liberty, and forming external impediments, a precept which a man is forbidden to do anything that is destructive of his life. this will allow peace, and yield growth, reduce suffering, enhance human well-being, that allows us to resolve our conflicts of interests according to recognizably fair rules, and to assign responsibility for actions, so that we can praise and blame, reward and punish people according to how their actions reflect moral principles.

I strongly disagree with this. Fortunately, most any teenager knows this is bull.

ah! so there's hope; "most" of your teenagers know this is bull?
haha i'm just kidding, nothing personal, really.

you don't think you are giving up some of your free will (yes yes, there's no such thing as free will, hush fellow philosophers) for the safety of yourself, your family?

don't you pay taxes to get the amenities you are receiving?
don't you consciously prevent yourself from just taking everything you need and actually exchange them for money?
you prevent yourself from taking things whenever you want, killing, breaking, abusing, etc. to stay ,"civil"?

so aren't you relinquishing some of the power to an external authority-government-for safety in return?

your teenagers don't believe in this!?

ok, this is why i think we should teach them that this is happening instead of keeping them in the dark, giving them a cardinal list of thing they must do and not do... it makes more sense...

DOESN'T IT??? NO???
i thought you were all in for teaching kids facts...???? isn't this a fact??

well do you think law, sociology, and perhaps psychology is under the same "category" as the 4 you cared to list above; calc, chem, bio, phys?

-55hikky

0 Replies

@Pangloss,

i think you said it better than the two of my posts combined lol. well composed.

-55hikky

0 Replies

@55hikky,

55hikky wrote:

Why is it that we do not teach the importance of communication, society, rationality, values and ethics to children?

They may be too young to understand some complex concepts of value, logic, aesthetics, metaphysics, epistemology but facts such as,

"why we have a society, and not anarchy."

can be told to them so they would have a better understanding of why rules exist and why not to break them, rather than doing something bad is followed by either a "no no" or a "biiig no no (with a spanking)" from your parents. Just being told that, "or else you're going to go to jail" really isn't a convincing reason to follow the rules set by some sentient beings from wherever no matter what age you are at for a rational being of any appreciable level of cognitive capacity we would like ourselves to be known to possess.

we are forced to take western civilization, economics, asian history, american history, plate tectonics, calculus; things most people never use in their life, yet something like history is taught over and over and over, even though none of them is absorbed by children because it's just not applicable to life (not at the age they are unless the teachers and professors are very talented in keeping children engaged during the lecture). why can't there be one class that gives a chance to see a small portion of reality and answer the common question of why and how.

i'm not a parent, but is this a flawed idea? do you think we should, or shouldn't?
Do we fear the possibility that children will rebel uncontrollably and lead to a era of chaos and rebellion if we teach children reality and how to see the world as is, and think for themselves without committing blindly to systems, tradition, custom...?

If we discuss with children the question, "why we have a society, and not anarchy." we ought to begin by pointing out how that question is ambiguous as so many "why" questions are. For it may be asking, "what causes us to have a society, or how does society come about?" and it may also be asking, "what justified having a society?". I say that because if we did that, it would really be teaching the children what philosophy is all about, since it would be teaching them basic principles that lie behind philosophical issues.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Sure, if the teachers are capable of bringing big, real life problems, or simply the current situation of the world, in words children can understand, enough to the point where the children facilitates the "lecture" by asking their own questions that would be a true sign of success and a bright future, as I would like to believe. If we can cause philosophy to naturally brew from their mind, now that would be a moment to cheer. I think it would be great if children internalize the concept of questioning reality, questioning authority, questioning the current value and ethics and perhaps being about a revolution to prove the current adults where the core of "success" lies in the length of resumes and the amount of commas in your bankroll should not be the sole goal of rational beings we so praise ourselves to be. I may be too optimistic in my own delusion.

0 Replies

I find it a bit interesting that people are speaking as if "philosophy" is the same thing as "morality and ethics".

Morality and ethics have more to do with psychology and sociology then with philosophy. The advantage of psychology and sociology is that they at least have a bit of empiricism.

Kohlberg pretty well explains how my personal understanding of morality developed. He is a psychologist more then a philosopher, and the fact that he tested his model is a benefit to his model of moral development.

There are many situations where in my personal opinion of right and wrong it is proper to break the law. There are some cases where in my understanding of morality it is imperative to break the law.

For young children, a morality based on "follow the rules" is completely appropriate. For adolescents and young adults, challenging and breaking the rules as moral acts is necessary.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

well it is not completely ignorant to consider ethics as a branch of philosophy, and i think the definition of ethics is philosophy of morality, where morality is roughly; defining what is wrong and right.

you could be right since i have no real idea whether 'morality and ethics' is a part of sociology and/or psychology. i always thought psychology was study of behavior, or study of how the brain works, rather than; would stealing medicine that costs 30 cents, trash to any commercial pharmacy, but capable of saving his daughter's life morally acceptable (...for example).
but yea, kohlberg was a psychologist that worked around morals and ethics.

i'm not trying to isolate certain disciplines through technicality...
in fact i have taken sociology, AND psychology (child development, physiological, and two intro to psychology class)... and the problem, if i may with pure psychology, and sociology is that they isolate themselves from everything else..

i think the reason i obsess in using the term "philosophy"-class, is because i feel as if all other "empiric" classes lack relevance. Most classes focus on memorizing terms, times, names, theories, equations, laws, etc... no? and they are very sterile facts alienated from real application.

i want people to be able to connect what they learn in psychology and sociology to their life. without , "Make sure you can list Kohlberg's 6 stages of moral development by this tuesday as well as chapter 6 and 7 will be on the quiz." at an early age, so they can actually play a role in human development.

... i feel that the school is fixated on standardization of students by teaching them everything they are required to teach, rather than what is needed to be taught. we drain their rights by coercing them into kindergarten at 3 and never ever give them the option of doing anything else but memorize facts and forget them inevitably, until they are 22 and get a BS before they can say to themselves, "why am I even doing this?" if they ever do get the chance without being pressured to make payments, advance in work ladders, and keep up a relationship.

"There are many situations where in my personal opinion of right and wrong it is proper to break the law. there are some cases where in my understanding of morality it is imperative to break the law."
how long did it take before you were able to establish this notion and power? that you can actually break the law for a better good. to have the ability to make your own decisions based on what you believe is right, from your virtues and beliefs emanating from logic and righteousness? everyone should be able to have this notion, and it would be less detrimental if we introduce the concept of being right, over being correct at a younger age than say, 18-years-old.

I agree with your last sentence as well, children do do well when they are simply told so by their parents to the virtue of making them proud and happy. but my question is, is it wrong, producing a negative consequence if we give them the opportunity to be more aware of the situation we have built, that they have now become a part of?

what you said is exactly what my parents would say, and a part of me; rules for children, and adolescents can challenge the rules.

is it wrong to attempt to begin this process at a younger age? to may be even say catalyze the human moral development by exposure to the concepts at an earlier age.

what EXACTLY will be taught? i don't know, specific criteria that will be tailored to the children's cognitive capacity is something perhaps psychologists and sociologists will determine, for most of values and ethics really only means something if they have personally experienced it and can relate to the issue.

but i can name certain topics off the top of my head. rules, schools, work, food. i'm sure children would have innately absorbed these concepts at a very early age and i think we can fill them in on why the adults have made them that way, how we think it works, some immediate problems, past problems that have caused the system to be in such a way, what is expected of them, etc...

is there hope?

-55hikky

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Considering that the forebrain where moral/ethical judgments are formed is not fully developed until 21 +/-, the Greeks were correct to delay the teaching of philosophy.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Ethics has always been a branch of philosophy.

0 Replies

@55hikky,

Dear 55hikky, I must urge you to stop this ill thinking of philosophy for kids. When most aduldt can't make philosophy that make sense, it's even more senseless to think that kids can. Kids can't realize when they make philosophy that are pragmatic, when it's right or wrong, because they simply doesn't have the nessesary understanding of life and experience.
They will only produce ramblings like communism, inquisitorial doctrins and dictatorious thoughts, long term thinking and ethics are things that does not appear logically for kids, you really should know that!

Of all these philosophical post in here only a handful may be of some relevance, less something kids can benefit from in their philosophy, as it may be too complex to comprehend, too many unfamiliar concepts, too many things that requires extensive background knowledge and analysis.

3 Replies

children deprived of philosophy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know