Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Should philosophy have an age limit?
Print Should philosophy have an age limit? | |
|
Minyun
? = :)  Usergroup: Members Joined: May 14, 2009 Total Topics: 31 Total Posts: 685 |
 #1
Subject: Should philosophy have an age limit? a) In order to practice and speak of philosophical topics, should one be of a certain age? If so, what is that age? Example: Is it possible for a 14 year old to know of concepts which he has naught encountered? Death, love, death of love etc. I can only speak from experience, I can say that when I was a teen, I wasn't happy with what anyone had said, I didn't accept anything but my own word. I'm sure it is the same with many teens, a lack of understanding because at that stage we think we are invincible. b) But on the other hand, when do we not have a lack of understanding? Some people go through their entire lives not understanding simple concepts, yet they are allowed to take part in discussions, how is it different from that of a teen? c) If it is that philosophy should have no age limit, because we all lack an understanding, why is it not one of the first subjects of education for humans? Anything, aslong as it allows you, and I, to live. |
|
Jeremiah
Canine Philosopher  Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 04, 2009 Total Topics: 4 Total Posts: 88 |
#2
"Should philosophy have an age limit?" Sometimes it certainly would be nice but, no, there should not be an age limit on thinking. *woof* |
|
swamy
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 20, 2009 Total Topics: 9 Total Posts: 61 |
#3
Minyun wrote: a) In order to practice and speak of philosophical topics, should one be of a certain age? If so, what is that age? Example: Is it possible for a 14 year old to know of concepts which he has naught encountered? Death, love, death of love etc. I can only speak from experience, I can say that when I was a teen, I wasn't happy with what anyone had said, I didn't accept anything but my own word. I'm sure it is the same with many teens, a lack of understanding because at that stage we think we are invincible. b) But on the other hand, when do we not have a lack of understanding? Some people go through their entire lives not understanding simple concepts, yet they are allowed to take part in discussions, how is it different from that of a teen? c) If it is that philosophy should have no age limit, because we all lack an understanding, why is it not one of the first subjects of education for humans? a. Human beings are not machines, rather they are organic systems. Every human being has their own development ladder. Therefore age to pratcice philosophy cannot be determined. b. With respect to the seond question, there is an ignorance factor and sometimes intentional. c. Abstract thinking is required to understand philosophy. But some aspects of philosphy are taught in schools such as a subject "Moral", in higher educations they are reffered as Personality Development etc. There is no such formal education to teach abstract thinking, therefore it is individual interest takes them to philosophy. Edited by swamy on Oct 23, 2009 - 1:29 AM |
|
Minyun
? = :) Usergroup: Members Joined: May 14, 2009 Total Topics: 31 Total Posts: 685 |
#4
swamy wrote: Abstract thinking is required to understand philosophy. But some aspects of philosphy are taught in schools such as a subject "Moral", in higher educations they are reffered as Personality Development etc. There is no such formal education to teach abstract thinking, therefore it is individual interest takes them to philosophy. By personality development and morals, you mean conformity to social norms, since the ones teaching personal development have no idea about the person that is I in the child. Imagine if you will, that the subjective and objective were taught from a young age. I understand that the vehicle we use to teach is embedded in language, such as I, but what kid really thinks about this. What kid really knows about I, infact I would say a large majority of adults don't know what I really represents. There is good reason for this, kids would more than likely become far more confused than when they had started. Much like legally having sex after 17, or driving a car after 21. This is because law deemed it fit that people under these presecribed ages would not be able to understand the rights and wrongs, of say driving into another car or having sex with a minor. So I will pose the question again, should there be an age limit on when one can learn the core components of philosophy? Perhaps I should better ask, is there a point in a humans development where he is more accustomed to understand a philosophical concept? Anything, aslong as it allows you, and I, to live. |
|
swamy
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 20, 2009 Total Topics: 9 Total Posts: 61 |
#5
Minyun wrote: By personality development and morals, you mean conformity to social norms, since the ones teaching personal development have no idea about the person that is I in the child. Imagine if you will, that the subjective and objective were taught from a young age. I understand that the vehicle we use to teach is embedded in language, such as I, but what kid really thinks about this. What kid really knows about I, infact I would say a large majority of adults don't know what I really represents. There is good reason for this, kids would more than likely become far more confused than when they had started. Much like legally having sex after 17, or driving a car after 21. This is because law deemed it fit that people under these presecribed ages would not be able to understand the rights and wrongs, of say driving into another car or having sex with a minor. So I will pose the question again, should there be an age limit on when one can learn the core components of philosophy? Perhaps I should better ask, is there a point in a humans development where he is more accustomed to understand a philosophical concept? Personality Development and Morals are to some extent related to social norms, and also for one's own individual development. Secondly there seems to be no effort to bring philosophy to the common man by teaching it from schools onwards. All these needs experiment. One has to develope their own interest and explore ways to learn this subject. |
|
Kamerynn
Semper Ardens  Usergroup: Members Joined: May 31, 2005 Total Topics: 5 Total Posts: 316 |
#6
Teaching philosophy to a 14 year old would be like herding cats. Throughout life, we engage in mental gymnastics, exercising our thinking muscle so that it can take on more and more. As one's vocabulary slowly increases, one's thought slowly becomes more sophisticated (language is, after all, a medium of thought). There is not so much a prerequisite of age for philosophy, but rather one of sophistication. That there are age limits imposed on drinking, sex, and driving has to do with them being dangerous. How is philosophy dangerous? When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love. -- Martin Luther King, Jr. |
|
nousPLOTINU
High Court Jester  Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 07, 2008 Location: Moon City. Total Topics: 11 Total Posts: 241 |
#7
If I follow Piaget's findings I would say introduce philosophy after eleven years old when preparing the child for adult life... My last set of thoughts were about you and you. |
|
Minyun
? = :) Usergroup: Members Joined: May 14, 2009 Total Topics: 31 Total Posts: 685 |
#8
There is not so much a prerequisite of age for philosophy, but rather one of sophistication. I agree. At what point does the human mind become sophisticated enough to grasp such a thing as the objective and subjective? Kamerynn wrote: That there are age limits imposed on drinking, sex, and driving has to do with them being dangerous. How is philosophy dangerous? Leading one to question ones existence? If you are unable to fully comprehend some of these concepts, they can indeed be very dangerous. Anything, aslong as it allows you, and I, to live. |
|
Minyun
? = :) Usergroup: Members Joined: May 14, 2009 Total Topics: 31 Total Posts: 685 |
#9
nousPLOTINU wrote: If I follow Piaget's findings I would say introduce philosophy after eleven years old when preparing the child for adult life... Interesting, i'll look into that. Anything, aslong as it allows you, and I, to live. |
|
Jeremiah
Canine Philosopher Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 04, 2009 Total Topics: 4 Total Posts: 88 |
#10
Minyun wrote: I agree. At what point does the human mind become sophisticated enough to grasp such a thing as the objective and subjective? Leading one to question ones existence? If you are unable to fully comprehend some of these concepts, they can indeed be very dangerous. "I agree. At what point does the human mind become sophisticated enough to grasp such a thing as the objective and subjective?" We start teaching children the differences between the two as soon as we start teaching them difference between fiction and non-fiction, science and art, fact and myth. Consider Santa Claus, what is Santa Claus but just and exploration of an subjective entity. All the skills needed to practice philosophy are innate, everyone has them even a child. And there is no "too young" to learn how to think. I say the younger the better and would even like to see philosophy added to the school curriculum. If a child can learn math and science then they can handle philosophy. " Leading one to question ones existence? If you are unable to fully comprehend some of these concepts, they can indeed be very dangerous." How? *woof* |
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.