The Importance of My Philosophy

My philosophy is that children can and will explore philosophical ideas as naturally as any other subject such as music or sports (p. 36). I have studied the abilities of children through informal interviews conducted by myself and college students. These interviews show that some children’s thinking process are philosophical in nature. Kids ask questions for practical purposes, and children come across these questions by reflecting on their experiences (p. 28). While some students devote time to philosophical matters infrequently, other students may persist with these inquiries and continue to reflect on them (p. 96). I believe that the role of adults is to foster youngsters’ natural need for philosophical thinking. Teachers, parents, and communities can encourage children’s inquiries by discussing the questions students bring to them and analyzing the responses together. Adults can also provide literature that is engaging and deals with philosophical whimsies. My philosophy is important for people who are around children because my research forces adults to reflect and question the assumptions they have about children. The assumptions adults have about how kids learn best and their cognitive abilities are disrupted when researchers look into examples of children’s reflections on complex subjects. For example, you can look at conversations of how students think about what space is,, what makes someone real, and the continuity of time. Those who consider my research will see that the interactions between adults and young people are important because the adults create and engage students in activities and conversations that build on cognitive abilities. My main purpose is that children do not move away from their philosophical interests because of the adults around them (p. 106).

I think that students of all ages are equipped with cognitive abilities that adults value. Young children think critically about the world around them and use what they know to solve problems. Many researchers in my field study the cognitive abilities of children and the development of these abilities as children age. Piaget, for example, studies the steps children make towards intellectual development (p. 37). Piaget’s research implies that young children’s cognitive abilities are in an underdeveloped stage. However, what I have noticed is not a deficit in reasoning and understanding. A clear example is that of an interview with a student. In it the student talked about whether God existed. The young child argued with me that since God had a name He had to exist. Piaget states that the girl is unable to separate names, an abstract concept, from things or concrete objects. I, on the other hand, do not see the girls thinking as deficient. I see her using her knowledge of the world to create premises and apply them to the unknown in order to reach a conclusion (p. 31). My belief is that children have more cognitive abilities than what Piaget and other pedagogics think. Typical schools and adults who see younger students’ thinking as limited avoid exploring philosophical topics or heavy subjects with students. I think seeing student thinking as deficient is a disservice to children because students are naturally intrigued by philosophical ideas. Schools and educational theorists need to create spaces where students can explore philosophical thinking if they are attracted by it.