Children, Intuitive Knowledge & Philosophy

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 1205
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

Children, Intuitive Knowledge & Philosophy

Post by Philosophy Now »

Maria daVenza Tillmanns argues that teaching children to think must involve more than simply teaching them cognitive skills.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/119/Ch ... Philosophy
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Children, Intuitive Knowledge & Philosophy

Post by d63 »

“We need to foster and nourish the ‘inborn Thou’ by strengthening children’s relations to the world around them and other people. The only way to restore the inborn Thou to our society is to allow children to develop their intuitive knowledge by allowing them full reign to their imaginations in the arts and sciences and in doing philosophy with them.” –from Maria daVenza Tillmanns’ Philosophy Now article: Children, Intuitive Knowledge & Philosophy

Now there is a lot to unpack here and this, potentially (because it reflects on many of the things I’ve been concerned with in my process), could give me give me a couple of days worth of rhizomes as well as a letter to the editor. And given the criteria by which I tend to work (what I can use –steal even), this pretty much qualifies as a good piece of writing. I highly recommend it, should you have access.

That said, while there are many reasons to like the article (many connections with aspects of my process), I would start one of the most prevalent: the way it puts some shine on the answer to the question of the month, what is the future of mankind, that I will have the pleasure of publishing in the next issue. My point was that mankind has reached an important evolutionary milestone in that we either make the leap from the competitive evolutionary legacy (that which involves the base of our brains (our immediate self interest (utilizing its higher cognitive functions strictly for its purposes) to the cooperative: that in which our baser impulses see it in their interest to work in tandem with the cognitive functions and their recognition of the interests of others, including the other of our environment. And as I made clear, unless we make this evolutionary leap, we risk destroying ourselves as a species along with all other species of life.

And where better to start than children as Tillmanns suggests? Right? I further note the overlap between Tillmanns’ agenda and that of continental philosophy (especially as concerns Gille Deleuze via Bergson (and the more practical and accessible American approach via Pragmatism –especially as practiced by Rorty. Tillmanns poses their position against the analytic and the tyranny of the functional (will try to get to this later (by propping up the value of intuition and Play. And it is through intuition and Play (what Tillmann refers to (via Buber (as relation (that we come to concrete understandings of our environment. And it is in this very spirit that continentals tend to work, especially in the case of Deleuze who offers an, at first, indecipherable text for the sake of a kind of Play in which the reader is allowed to engage with it creatively by their own terms which are always anchored in the reality of the text itself.

Tillmanns’ point pretty much comes down to what I have believed for some time now: that all great achievements must start in Play and return to it frequently. In other words, it must be rooted in something that a child could do.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Children, Intuitive Knowledge & Philosophy

Post by Walker »

Tillmann'a article stresses what needs to be done, and why this must be done.

However, the piece is light on the how.

Since the piece slants towards teaching children, the how needs more attention.

*

The how is to keep it simple for kids, and that is simple to do.

Quite simply, don’t invalidate the child.

Example:
A young teen is repeatedly bullied.
- He is ordered by an authority figure to shake hands with his tormentor.
- He does not want to.
- His point of view is immediately invalidated by the authority figure.
- He is invalidated.
- Any further discussion is to further solidify the authority figure’s premise, and invalidate the victim.

The proper approach.
- Require a thoughtful essay from each.

From the bully:
- Why I wanted to shake hands.

From the bullied:
- Why I did not want to shake hands.

Force them to write the essays immediately.
- Suspend all their other activities until the proctored assignment is complete.
- The teacher has the authority to do this.
- The environment is totalitarian.
- Add a threat of penalty to insure compliance.

Further elevate and validate the significance of what is significant to them, by requiring each to read their essays in the presence of each other, and two authority figures.

*

American humour:

Possible unintended consequence, i.e., what if, i.e. when philosophy steps into the world:

Writing the essay makes the bully feel “unsafe.” :shock:
- The bully goes home and complains to the attorney parents.
- Chum in the water.
- Discrimination suit: Have any other children been subjected to the punishment of writing an essay and/or missing lunch? Yes, no? Well then, prove it. Hire an attorney, spend a lot time and money to prove that you were neither discriminating nor endangering the hungry children with starvation.
- Child endangerment suit: Teacher, did you even check the medical records of these developing children to determine whether or not either child has a medical condition aggravated by either high or low glycemic blood levels?
- No? What kind of human being are you, anyway.

Suddenly, you're in the bizarro world of the offended. If you're lucky, it doesn't end badly, with terrible singing.

:lol:
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Children, Intuitive Knowledge & Philosophy

Post by d63 »

"Children aren’t the only ones who have a total engagement with the world. Artists, for example, rely on the knowledge that originates from a total engagement and openness, to which they give expression through their art. But for many people, intuitive knowledge is gradually replaced by the structures of thinking we are taught. Logic then comes to replace immediate experience, although experience is infinitely more complex than reason can behold. And where reason fails us, many turn to religion." -Once again, from Maria daVenza Tillmanns’ Philosophy Now article: Children, Intuitive Knowledge & Philosophy

I'm reminded here of a quote by Picasso:

"Taste is the enemy of art."

However, Picasso was not one for "defining his terms" as Voltaire implores we do. Therefore, I would (in all humbleness (revise his statement. First of all, while he was right about taste, he failed to see Art as socially defined and therefore beholden to taste. He failed to recognize that what he was engaging in every time he approached a blank canvas was not art, but rather a creative act. It only became art when it entered the cultural system that we refer to as Art. In fact, this was the very dynamic that Duchamp was referring to when he hung a urinal in an art museum. Therefore, I would argue that what Picasso was actually saying was:

"Art is the enemy of the creative act."

And I think Tillmanns would agree with me here in that they seem to recognize how (via Play (most substantial achievements in the world start at an intuitive level that, through a natural process of vetting and revision, become actual achievements.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Children, Intuitive Knowledge & Philosophy

Post by d63 »

Now (in the short window I have (I would like to compare two quotes from Tillmanns’ article and note the overlap with post-structuralist and postmodern thought.

“In I and Thou (1923), existentialist philosopher and scholar Martin Buber wrote, “It is simply not the case that the child first perceives an object, then, as it were, puts himself in relation to it. But the effort to establish relation comes first… In the beginning is relation – as category of being, readiness, grasping form, mould for the soul; it is the a priori of relation, the inborn Thou. The inborn Thou is realized in the lived relations with that which meets it” (p.27). This a priori (that is, existing prior to learnt experience) relation to the world forms the basis for the intuitive knowledge we have of the world. Intuitive thought then emerges from one’s total engagement with the world, through one’s whole being.”

Here we see the problem with the old subject/object dynamic that post-structuralist and postmodern thinkers were dealing with: it always led to the assumption that the subject was always some supreme being standing above it all and passing judgment. This was mainly a reaction to Capitalism as is demonstrated in the following quote:

“As an example, David Brooks says in his article ‘The Power of Altruism’, “When you introduce a financial incentive you prompt people to see their situation through an economic lens. Instead of following their natural bias toward reciprocity, service and cooperation, you encourage people to do a selfish cost-benefit calculation. They begin to ask, ‘What’s in it for me?’… the institutions that arouse the moral lens have withered away while the institutions that manipulate incentives – the market and the state – have expanded. Now economic, utilitarian thinking has become the normal way we do social analysis and see the world” (New York Times, July 8, 2016). And Chad Miller found that when he administered a survey on the first day of class to examine his students’ reasoning skills, they answered that they “believed school was boring, but necessary to go to college and ‘make a lot of money’” (p.2). Essentially, we have replaced a life rich in meaning for a meaningless life of riches. In the name of progress, we end up working against our own interests, increasing distrust and hostility. Buber describes the world as one in which there is a “constant swinging back and forth” of the I-It and I-Thou relationships. Yet if we are disconnected from our I-Thou relationship and only the I-It relationship determines our interactions and relations with the world and other people, no amount of ‘religion’ can make up for that loss.”

As Tillmann is attempting to point out (as thinkers like Deleuze and Rorty did), as long as we think of ourselves as subjects above the objects in the world, we will fail to see ourselves as nodes in a system and continue to take on the technological perspective (as, strangely, defined by Heidegger –given his association with Fascism (and think of our environment (including others (as something to be exploited.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Children, Intuitive Knowledge & Philosophy

Post by d63 »

This is the first draft to my letter to the editor on this article:

Dear Editor: By some cosmic coincidence in issue 119, you published, in the news section, research done by Beissert and Hasselhorn on intelligence and moral development that more or less undermines Maria daVenza Tillmanns’ agenda in “Children, Intuitive Knowledge, and Philosophy”. And I would submit that Beissert and Hasselhorn’s conclusions are propped up by anecdotal evidence. We all know of highly intelligent people of questionable moral integrity. This, at its most extreme, expresses itself in the M.O. of the psychopath.

But before the analytic/scientistic crowd gets too antsy, allow me slow their ticker-tape parade down a little. While Tillmanns’ faith in the creative aspect of knowledge (of Play) may have been a little over optimistic, the value of play in our intellectual development can be supported. I have always believed that most important endeavors have to start in play and return to it frequently. In other words: any important thing we can do must be rooted in something a child could do. And I have minds greater than mine to back me on this. Nietzsche certainly saw it in his emphasis on the Dionysian dance. Wittgenstein came to it when he recognized the value of language games. Gille Deleuze (for whom the creative act never seemed that far from the back of his mind), in cohorts with Felix Guatarri in What is Philosophy, describes philosophy as that which creates concepts. And based on what I know about him, I would revise this to philosophy being about playing with concepts for the sake of creating, yet, more concepts.

We can even see a healthy respect for Play (in a functional sense) in such figures as Thomas Edison who was known to shut down shop on the weekend, bring out the beer, and, with his co-workers, play with the inventions they had come up with.

Play is all over it. And it may well have a physiological basis in the brain –that which offers the empirical criteria that the analytics are so enamored with. The scientific understanding of dreams is that it is basically the brain doing a kind of inventory of its contents and randomly juxtaposing elements on each other until it finds patterns that resonate with it which it then keeps and uses as elements it can then juxtapose with other elements. The theory is that this kind of mental bricolage (this play) plays an important role in brain plasticity.

So while Beissert and Hasselhorn's research is a grim reminder that Tillmanns’ idealism is misguided, we still have to try. We still have to encourage and support those children that might actually make the world a better place to live in.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Children, Intuitive Knowledge & Philosophy

Post by d63 »

Dear Editor: For me, it was a productive coincidence that you published a news article on research done by Beissert and Hasselhorn on intelligence and moral development (research that shows there is no correlation) and Maria daVenza Tillmanns’ “Children, Intuitive Knowledge, and Philosophy” in the same issue (issue 119). The former, obviously, undermines the latter. And Beissert and Hasselhorn’s conclusions should not come as a surprise. We all know of highly intelligent people of questionable moral integrity –that which fully expresses itself in psychopathy.

But before those of a conservative slant (those whose pedagogy focuses on the functional and the "three R's") declare this final and conclusive, let's not dismiss Tillmann's emphasis on Play. While Tillmann’s belief, that creative approaches to education (via philosophy) will ensure more moral adults, may be a little over optimistic, the value of Play in our intellectual development can be supported and may have evolutionary implications. I have always believed that most important endeavors must start in Play and return to it frequently. In other words: any important thing we can do must be rooted in something a child could engage in. And excuse the appeal to authority, but greater minds than mine have backed me. Nietzsche saw it in his Dionysian dance. Wittgenstein came to it when he recognized the value of language games. Gille Deleuze (for whom the creative act was never that far from his mind), in alliance with Felix Guatarri in What is Philosophy, describes philosophy as that which creates concepts. But I would playfully (and for poops and giggles) revise that to playing with concepts for the sake of creating, yet, more concepts. We can even see a healthy respect for Play (in the functional) in such figures as Thomas Edison who was known to shut down shop on the weekend, bring out the booze, and, with his co-workers, play with the inventions they had come up with.

Play is all over it and may have a basis in the brain. Dream science suggests that dreaming is basically the brain doing a kind of inventory: randomly juxtaposing mental elements on each other until it finds patterns that resonate with it, that which it stores so it can juxtapose them with other elements: a kind of mental bricolage that serves an important role in brain plasticity.

So while Beissert and Hasselhorn's research may reveal Tillmann's agenda to be a little too idealistic, we still have to try. We still have to encourage and support those children it might actually benefit, those who will grow into productive adults and lead our species (via the joy of Play and the empathy that results) into the next evolutionary phase.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Children, Intuitive Knowledge & Philosophy

Post by Nick_A »

From the article:
It is my contention that the form of young children’s knowledge of the world is based on intuitive thinking. Let me begin with how I came to this idea in the first place.
If intuition is a priori knowledge, is it a good thing to destroy it in the young in favor of answers acquired through indoctrination?


From a discussion between Jacob Needleman and Richard Whittaker
JN: ………………………That is what Plato called eros—a word that's come down to us which has taken on a sexual association. But for Plato it had to do, in part, with a striving that is innate in us, a striving to participate with one's mind, one's consciousness, in something greater than oneself. A love of wisdom, if you like, a love of being.

Eros is depicted in Plato's text, The Symposium, as half man, half god, a kind of intermediate force between the gods and mortals. It is a very interesting idea. Eros is what gives birth to philosophy. Modern philosophy often translates the word "wonder" merely as "curiosity," the desire to figure things out, or to intellectually solve problems rather than confronting the depth of these questions, pondering, reflecting, being humbled by them. In this way, philosophy becomes an exercise in meaningless ingenuity……………………………
The experience of awe and wonder in a young person inspires questions of the heart like “who am I?” Is it better for a young person's psyche to provoke questions or to offer approved answers?

If a child is drawn to eros after the experience of awe and wonder and the experience of a quality of reality greater than themselves, how does an advocate of secular education respond? Should the question be killed and the government described as serving the purpose of eros?

Modern education stresses head knowledge and answers. The author knows the value of heart knowledge beginning with intuition inspired questions. Which is more important for a well rounded human education: culturally approved answers or contemplating the great questions of the heart which IMO is real philosophy?

I like the author of this article. She appreciates the importance of questions. However, what if the government shuts down questions in the classroom in favor of indoctrinated secular answers?
“To think about God is to the human soul what breathing is to the human body.
I say to think about God, not necessarily to believe in God–that may or may not come later.
I say: to think about God.” ~Jacob Needleman in What Is God? p. 3
Denying these thoughts kill the spirit. Must the child drawn to eros and attracted to the source of eros be spiritually killed in favor of secularism and its denial of the God question?
The author of the article raises important questions. I just wonder if secularism will ever become human enough not to find satisfaction in being spirit killers and finding satisfaction from killing eros in the young?
marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Children, Intuitive Knowledge & Philosophy

Post by marjoram_blues »

The piece is well written and thought provoking but nothing outstandingly new.
Paints a pretty picture of philosophy and ends with a proposal for an Academy of Philosophy.
Why?
In a similar vein to an Academy of the Arts - to engender a more creative, imaginative spirit in Philosophy?
Why?
So as to benefit children and improve their educational experience. Amongst other things.

Always, always a repeat of ideas explored before; with never a clear idea of 'How'.
At least that was my first impression...
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Children, Intuitive Knowledge & Philosophy

Post by Nick_A »

marjoram_blues wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 10:33 am The piece is well written and thought provoking but nothing outstandingly new.
Paints a pretty picture of philosophy and ends with a proposal for an Academy of Philosophy.
Why?
In a similar vein to an Academy of the Arts - to engender a more creative, imaginative spirit in Philosophy?
Why?
So as to benefit children and improve their educational experience. Amongst other things.

Always, always a repeat of ideas explored before; with never a clear idea of 'How'.
At least that was my first impression...
I agree. At the same time from her perspective, why get into details if people reject the big picture? Does a child feel an inner intuitive attraction to eros which is really the essential calling of philosophy? Many will say it is just fantasy and it is time to become serious in service to society or what Plato called "Beast. Is it better if a child is inwardly killed to serve society or allowed to awaken to the emptiness of secular society without philosophy and the ESSENCE of religion or the inner recognition of eros? Consider the beginning of the Logical Song by Supertramp:
When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful,
A miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical.
And all the birds in the trees, well they'd be singing so happily,
Joyfully, playfully watching me.
But then they sent me away to teach me how to be sensible,
Logical, responsible, practical.
And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,
Clinical, intellectual, cynical.

There are times when all the world's asleep,
The questions run too deep
For such a simple man.
Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned
I know it sounds absurd
But please tell me who I am.
Should public education serve to kill the "who am I" question for the sake of establishing temporary sensible, clinical, dependable, and intellectual personalities or seek to further it for the sake of awakening to a conscious human reality? The author supports stimulating the essence of philosophy. Others will ask why encourage fantasy when only facts are important? Can these opposing perspectives be united into an educational perspective essentially human? This is the question that I've found to be avoided like the plague since we don't know even where or how to begin.
Post Reply