Pedagogical myths in Philosophy and children’s asking

Is philosophy actually an innate “competence” that is revealed in childish asking (questions)?

License Creative Commons

Alfonso A. Gracia Gómez

It has become a commonplace to relate philosophical questioning with the so common attitude, sometimes annoying, of children asking their elders about absolutely anything. A simple  glance to this enables us to distinguish a fundamental reason that is, namely, the millennial renown of our ever beloved Socrates, the famous “impertinent” who bequeathed us a fundamental knowledge, capable of unmasking the chimerical theorizations of some of his most famous contemporaries.

But the “simple” Socratic heritage is not enough to explain such naive conviction, increasingly widespread, that childhood represents a kind of original moment in the history of the “philosophical spirit” of every individual. Especially since we find out there are involved with this idea certain pedagogical conceptions based on a constructivist background, which are currently hegemonical in the educational landscape. That is why it is necessary to consider whether there should be a second reason that contributes to explaining the success of this belief that relates, on the one hand, to philosophy as knowledge and, on the other, to the child and his learning as topics to be studied.

And so we are approaching an ancient thesis, a conviction widespread among philosophers themselves that some famous ones such as Kant or Wittgenstein have made their gospel: the idea that philosophy cannot be confused with its history. Doing philosophy is not knowing philosophy, but “philosophizing.” If we add to this, finally, the constructivist postulate, which (at least in its pedagogical aspect) postulates the ontological superiority of “skills” over content, the resulting cocktail is nothing but lethal.

Actually, unless philosophical activity should be considerated as a kind of innate “competence”, which should be cared for and guided so that it is not spoiled by the “perverse” effects of civilizational instruction, there is no way to understand childhood curiosity the spark of a thought claimed to be “authentically philosophical.” Philosophy for children is, in this respect, a corollary of Rousseau’s anthropological (pedagogical) theses.

So we must then interrogate ourselves if the children’s asking, if the questions raised in this childhood asking are truly philosophical. In other words, is philosophy actually an innate “competence” that is revealed in childish asking (questions)?

I am, personally, not at all clear about. On the one hand, it is obvious that children ask many questions, but, on the other, people with low cognitive levels may also do, no matter what reasons they do it for. A few years ago I met a man with an intellectual disability who kept all the time asking “Why?” No answer satisfied him, but his behavior was, basically, stereotypical. Could we say then this man was a philosopher?

There is a paradigmatic relationship between philosophy and not-knowing, but it seems no-sense to understand it as an inverse proportion in the form of: the less you know, the more you philosophize. Since “philosophies for children” and structuralist pedagogy advocate this idea, they nevertheless seem to forget that a philosopher is, above all, a wise man. And a wise man aware of his ignorance is not the same than an ignorant person.

In my opinion, the reason why we link «asking» with philosophy has nothing to do with either the art of dialogue or not-knowing. Every «asking» has a provocative aspect (and this is, since Socrates, what is a properly philosophical concerning): because it questions “what is known” to the “wise”, to the one who’s previously supposed to know.

Therefore, our approach must evolve: is the children’s asking really questioning ourselves? Actually I think so, although not in the way that a follower of Rousseau’s pedagogy might assume. As I understand it, the child asks because he needs someone who answer him, and that’s why he poses a challenge that looks insoluble to him. “Why is the sky blue?” It is not a question motivated exclusively by curiosity; It is mainly a challenge to the adult.

In fact, if we answer this question by talking about the ontic-ontological distinction, it is obvious this would not be answering the question. Nor would the child be happy being told that color is a subjective construction that does not correspond to the essence of things. Or maybe yes, it all depends on the adult’s ability to do himself as a mask, like a mirror that holds the child’s non-knowledge on the path to possible knowledge. Thus, for example, the child we are depicting would have also benefited from being answered with a forceful “I don’t know, but other ones do”, which is a way of introducing him into the symbolic order of the Law. This is just what happens in the scene of the film ‘Los santos inocentes’ (1984) when an extremely poor man like Pepe, but anyway proud of his little knowledge, was forced to respond to his daughter with a simple “Go a say this to the academics” since she kept asking annoying questions while he was trying to introduce her into the rudiments of Spanish grammar.

This example shows that the child’s asking doesn’t necessarily means a question running after the inquiry of truth, but it rather has to do with a lack in knowledge, a lack from wich arises the demand for a response that can only be satisfied by an answer, no matter wich one. And if it turns out that this answer might have the form of “The sky is blue because it reflects the sea” – which is obviously not a philosophical postulate – why do some people want to consider this as a kind of never mind what sorte of innate philosophical? Are there not any spurious interest underlying these types of assumptions?

Let’s each one to inquire for the answer to this impertinent «asking» by his own. Anyway, there is no doubt some will inevitably consider this question just like the expression of a mere twisted and vain, perhaps even childish, entertainment.

Source: educational EVIDENCE

Rights: Creative Commons