Comments on: Children as Philosophers: Solved? Part 2

By: Josh

Josh — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 04:28:29 +0000

Better late than never, and you got to the heart of much of what I didn’t say. I kept writing these big long essays, realizing I didn’t want to proof them and consequently outright deleting them and then thinking, “That was stupid, now what am I going to write.” So these essays will probably be pretty raw.

By: Science Heroes

Science Heroes — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:41:08 +0000

Sorry, I guess I came pretty late to this discussion.

By: Science Heroes

Science Heroes — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:40:33 +0000

I think the “natural” qualification is sufficient enough to solve this semantic problem. Philosophers have been using the term “natural” or “state of nature” for centuries to describe something uninfluenced by outside forces. Further, epistemology is a philosophical question, but one’s personal epistemological assumptions are rarely ever evaluated or made explicit whether you are an adult or a child–yet it is still a governing principle (arguably THE governing principle) of ones personal philosophy.

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:49:21 +0000

Sure, maybe the overdone “Children and Philosophy” type title would be clearer, but it’s too late now, the series is named.

By: Bret

Bret — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:31:02 +0000

I was thrown by my semantic assumption that for a child to be a philosopher, they would need to be capable of holding a philosophy, whether or not they could articulate it.

It’s the difference between, “Children do what they do naturally, and their actions support a general Surrealist philosophical view,” and, “Children naturally hold a Surrealist philosophical view.” But I get where you’re coming from…

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:20:36 +0000

I didn’t address that point, but that is what i am trying to get at in saying that they are Natural Surrealists, rather than Surrealists. Children don’t need to believe them because they live them, and surrealism is about the pursuit of something children have ready access to.

There are some metaphysical and epistemological questions wrapped up in that though: children simply believe what they perceive as reality. There is no -ism involved. Even if children could comprehend the tenets of surrealism, asking one if she believed them may be like asking an adult if the believe in gravity.

By: Bret

Bret — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:57:09 +0000

Picky question:
If the philosophy of Surrealism is defined as belief in the tenets of the surrealist movement, shouldn’t we be asking if they believe those tenets, rather than if they just act in a way that seems to support them? I don’t dispute that children often act in surreal ways, I’m just not sure that it’s their “philosophy.”

Maybe I’m just getting ahead of you…or maybe I’m just reading the “Children as Philosophers” post title too literally.

Do continue…