Maria daVenza Tillmanns uncovers the natural philosopher in us all.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Socratic_Wisdom_and_The_Knowledge_of_Children
Socratic Wisdom & The Knowledge of Children
-
Philosophy Now
- Posts: 1207
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am
Re: Socratic Wisdom & The Knowledge of Children
Tillmanns wrote:
"Elementary school children " is too vague to designate a useful category.
If Tillmann proposes that some education system or some child rearing practice destroys or inhibits children's moral or aesthetic development then she should say so as undoubtedly that's material for a worthy polemic. I'd support a scientific thesis that argues that there are shades of the prison house that are bad for the growing boy and that modern educational research carries on where Wordsworth left off.
They reveal nothing of the sort. Tillmanns seems not to know how to research how children become , or fail to become, morally mature adults. "Philosophical acuity" is not a sufficient qualification to "pick up on " correlations or even on psychological theories of children's moral maturity. "“I think you’re afraid when you’re angry.”
“If you’re bad to people, you can’t be very smart.”
“You’re brave when you can trust yourself.”
“You need to be a little afraid in order to be brave, so you know the danger you’re in.”
“I didn’t want my baby brother to get punished for accidently breaking his favorite toy, so I took the blame.”
These comments are from elementary school children. They reveal an intuitive grasp of the connection between fear and anger, or courage and trust, or intelligence and kindness. I believe it takes philosophical acuity to pick up on such connections.
"Elementary school children " is too vague to designate a useful category.
If Tillmann proposes that some education system or some child rearing practice destroys or inhibits children's moral or aesthetic development then she should say so as undoubtedly that's material for a worthy polemic. I'd support a scientific thesis that argues that there are shades of the prison house that are bad for the growing boy and that modern educational research carries on where Wordsworth left off.
Re: Socratic Wisdom & The Knowledge of Children
“I think you’re afraid when you’re angry.”
“If you’re bad to people, you can’t be very smart.”
“You’re brave when you can trust yourself.”
“You need to be a little afraid in order to be brave, so you know the danger you’re in.”
--------------------
These are cute. Bordering on the wisdom of eastern philosophers, who like to state an obscure observation, which makes their students reeling at the wisdom of the master, and they busily go about proving him and his utterance right. (Ever notice Eastern Philosophers are all old males? In the west we got 20000 male philosophers, but luckily also three women: Ayn Rand, Lindta Aren'td, and that woman who came up with the trolly experiments.
A western philosopher may go at it like this:
“I think you’re afraid when you’re angry.” -- most people will look at it as the root explanation of anger: you are angry because you are afraid, and this is how the fear comes out.
Whereas (as a child, I remember thinking this, or maybe I am imagining that) the kid is trying to say that if he throws a tantrum, he gets spanked, so it's with a bit, I mean, with a large bite, of premonition when his anger comes out.
“If you’re bad to people, you can’t be very smart.” Most people will interpret it that the kid, in his wisdom (or hers) declares that bad is stupid. Whereas he (or she) is just paying lip-service to the adults, who are trying their darndest in sermon-like enlightenment talks, to instill in the kid not to be bad. Whatever bad is. So the kid realizes that bad is bad, and he randomly associates other bad things with bad, in order to look good, such as lack of intelligence.
------------------------------
“You’re brave when you can trust yourself.”
This can be taken many ways, but my favourite is that the kid is talking true second person singular, and not the general "you".
In other words, he declares that his vis-a-vis is untrustworthy at worst, or incredibly stupid at best, and trusting an untrustworthy person or an imbecile both takes guts.
------------------------------------
“You need to be a little afraid in order to be brave, so you know the danger you’re in. It's elemental, my dear Watson.”
What's on? You can't feel brave when you don't realize that you are in danger. Bravery only presents in the face of danger. This the kid got right. Much too afraid? You won't take the risk. The kid got this one right.
“If you’re bad to people, you can’t be very smart.”
“You’re brave when you can trust yourself.”
“You need to be a little afraid in order to be brave, so you know the danger you’re in.”
--------------------
These are cute. Bordering on the wisdom of eastern philosophers, who like to state an obscure observation, which makes their students reeling at the wisdom of the master, and they busily go about proving him and his utterance right. (Ever notice Eastern Philosophers are all old males? In the west we got 20000 male philosophers, but luckily also three women: Ayn Rand, Lindta Aren'td, and that woman who came up with the trolly experiments.
A western philosopher may go at it like this:
“I think you’re afraid when you’re angry.” -- most people will look at it as the root explanation of anger: you are angry because you are afraid, and this is how the fear comes out.
Whereas (as a child, I remember thinking this, or maybe I am imagining that) the kid is trying to say that if he throws a tantrum, he gets spanked, so it's with a bit, I mean, with a large bite, of premonition when his anger comes out.
“If you’re bad to people, you can’t be very smart.” Most people will interpret it that the kid, in his wisdom (or hers) declares that bad is stupid. Whereas he (or she) is just paying lip-service to the adults, who are trying their darndest in sermon-like enlightenment talks, to instill in the kid not to be bad. Whatever bad is. So the kid realizes that bad is bad, and he randomly associates other bad things with bad, in order to look good, such as lack of intelligence.
------------------------------
“You’re brave when you can trust yourself.”
This can be taken many ways, but my favourite is that the kid is talking true second person singular, and not the general "you".
In other words, he declares that his vis-a-vis is untrustworthy at worst, or incredibly stupid at best, and trusting an untrustworthy person or an imbecile both takes guts.
------------------------------------
“You need to be a little afraid in order to be brave, so you know the danger you’re in. It's elemental, my dear Watson.”
What's on? You can't feel brave when you don't realize that you are in danger. Bravery only presents in the face of danger. This the kid got right. Much too afraid? You won't take the risk. The kid got this one right.
-
attofishpi
- Posts: 10012
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Socratic Wisdom & The Knowledge of Children
My dog at 3 months is far more intelligent than a child at 3 months....or 'wise' if we have to go down that path.
Re: Socratic Wisdom & The Knowledge of Children
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
1 Corinthians 13:11
“I think you’re afraid when you’re angry.”
I think you’re afraid when you are slave to a limitation that does not permit anger. If you are angry but cannot constructively use the energy of that anger for the benefit of mankind, and instead suppress that anger which results in a mental conflict (mental conflict being a form of violence against oneself, radiating outwards), then fear does rule your world. If you have the courage to face your anger as an honest human being, the energy of that anger, when not attached to the habitual association with the emotion of the self-precious, will elevate intellect, comprehension, and speed (because life happens fast *) of perception for discovery of what’s right under your nose, which is the transcendence of anger.
“If you’re bad to people, you can’t be very smart.”
In time, transmissions of badness boomerang into receptions of badness. Karma. Knowing this is smart, but knowing this doesn't stop bad doing.
“You’re brave when you can trust yourself.”
“You need to be a little afraid in order to be brave, so you know the danger you’re in.”
* Oh yeah.
Re: Socratic Wisdom & The Knowledge of Children
“You’re brave when you can trust yourself.”
You’re brave when you’re trusting the current self. When you’re seeing reality through the remembered eyes of youth and trusting the capacities of that remembered self as a reliable gauge for assessment, then you’re either foolish or nostalgic; foolish if you’re balancing high stakes on that remembered self’s capacities which no longer fit any circumstance of which you are an element, and nostalgic if the current stakes are simply sitting in the rocker and watching the sunset, basking in the golden glow of the sun or burning in the hell of regrets, depending on the psychological realm crafted by karma.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aElusGQyh_s
You’re brave when you’re trusting the current self. When you’re seeing reality through the remembered eyes of youth and trusting the capacities of that remembered self as a reliable gauge for assessment, then you’re either foolish or nostalgic; foolish if you’re balancing high stakes on that remembered self’s capacities which no longer fit any circumstance of which you are an element, and nostalgic if the current stakes are simply sitting in the rocker and watching the sunset, basking in the golden glow of the sun or burning in the hell of regrets, depending on the psychological realm crafted by karma.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aElusGQyh_s