Philosophical discussions regarding education through Plymouth State University graduate studies. Focused on the works of Wittgenstein, James, Dewey, Thoreau, and supportive writing.
Monday, May 30, 2011
“The child of three who discovers what can be done with blocks... is really a discoverer, even though everybody else in the world knows it” (p. 166).
"What pretty oracles nature yields us on this text, in the face and behaviour of children, babes, and even brutes! That divided and rebel mind, that distrust of a sentiment because our arithmetic has computed the strength and means opposed to our purpose, these have not. Their mind being whole, their eye is as yet unconquered, and when we look in their faces, we are disconcerted. Infancy conforms to nobody: all conform to it, so that one babe commonly makes four or five out of the adults who prattle and play to it."
Emerson from "Self-Reliance"
"Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe?
Today had a really great hike. Will post pictures later this afternoon. About halfway through I was able to think about the picture you posted from what I believe is a Wittgensteinian perspective.
It involves use of the word: "my" and how that use can cause epistemological problems (through lack of clarity).
It would be an extension of the photography if in another picture your niece was interrupted by an adult and made the gesture (if not words) of "These are MY blocks." In philosophy there are paradigmatic examples (John Lock: Some Thoughts on Education; Of the Conduct of the Understanding) which establish the notion of possession and private use based on the child's use of this word. These kinds of examples are then developed into a way of knowing ourselves through this focus. And it is the basis of a kind of individualism.
But supposing the child does make this gesture...or does use this word: Isn't is possible (we have to imagine) that this gesture and the use of my is related to disturbing the child's engrossment with the blocks. For that child, free play with those blocks "is my world". My in this sense is not possessive....but rather constitutes a description or denotation from the child's activity and focus.
Is it possible that that its adults who teach the "possessive" meaning of "my"? Largely by misinterpreting the child's use of the word or the gesture....giving those things an intent that the child never intended.
I think its interesting to consider how the words we use develop our attitudes about the world. I remember discussing the use of the possessive "my" or "mine" in our culture and thinking about cultures who do not have those words, or who do not use them in those ways. Then there are some cultures whose words for greetings are precise descriptions of the direction they are facing, the path they are traveling, or from where they have just been. These cultures must think differently. I think Wittgenstein wrote something like "To learn a language is to be inducted into a culture."
On the morning of my wedding day both of my neices were at my mothers house (just noticed how much I used the word "my" in that sentence.) They were playing and at one point they starting sharing a bike (there was only 1) and Cecilia had a bit of a meltdown. Then just after Christmas they were together again, and sharing another toy, and Norah had a bit of a melt down that time. At both events the parents in the room discussed "toddler rules" which, if I remember, are 1. If I have it, it is mine. and 2. If I had it, let it go, but want it again, it is mine. I didn't occur to me then that those are probably not toddler rules, but toddler rules in our culture. It could be that those rules are learned as our toddlers use the word "my" as in "my world" but learn the possessive meaning from the actions of adults. I think the forming of these kinds of paradigms, modes of thinking and experiencing the world are fascinating. And I think it is even more fascinating (and probably more difficult) to think about how to wake up to my attitudes in my own world. Perfhaps a method of that discovery could be reflecting as we did in ED 5010 on our experience, and then analyzing the meanings of the words we use through the way in which we use them.
"What pretty oracles nature yields us on this text, in the face and behaviour of children, babes, and even brutes! That divided and rebel mind, that distrust of a sentiment because our arithmetic has computed the strength and means opposed to our purpose, these have not. Their mind being whole, their eye is as yet unconquered, and when we look in their faces, we are disconcerted. Infancy conforms to nobody: all conform to it, so that one babe commonly makes four or five out of the adults who prattle and play to it."
ReplyDeleteEmerson from "Self-Reliance"
"Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe?
Emerson from the Introduction to "Nature"
Today had a really great hike. Will post pictures later this afternoon. About halfway through I was able to think about the picture you posted from what I believe is a Wittgensteinian perspective.
ReplyDeleteIt involves use of the word: "my" and how that use can cause epistemological problems (through lack of clarity).
It would be an extension of the photography if in another picture your niece was interrupted by an adult and made the gesture (if not words) of "These are MY blocks." In philosophy there are paradigmatic examples (John Lock: Some Thoughts on Education; Of the Conduct of the Understanding) which establish the notion of possession and private use based on the child's use of this word. These kinds of examples are then developed into a way of knowing ourselves through this focus. And it is the basis of a kind of individualism.
But supposing the child does make this gesture...or does use this word: Isn't is possible (we have to imagine) that this gesture and the use of my is related to disturbing the child's engrossment with the blocks. For that child, free play with those blocks "is my world". My in this sense is not possessive....but rather constitutes a description or denotation from the child's activity and focus.
Is it possible that that its adults who teach the "possessive" meaning of "my"? Largely by misinterpreting the child's use of the word or the gesture....giving those things an intent that the child never intended.
I think its interesting to consider how the words we use develop our attitudes about the world. I remember discussing the use of the possessive "my" or "mine" in our culture and thinking about cultures who do not have those words, or who do not use them in those ways. Then there are some cultures whose words for greetings are precise descriptions of the direction they are facing, the path they are traveling, or from where they have just been. These cultures must think differently. I think Wittgenstein wrote something like "To learn a language is to be inducted into a culture."
ReplyDeleteOn the morning of my wedding day both of my neices were at my mothers house (just noticed how much I used the word "my" in that sentence.) They were playing and at one point they starting sharing a bike (there was only 1) and Cecilia had a bit of a meltdown. Then just after Christmas they were together again, and sharing another toy, and Norah had a bit of a melt down that time. At both events the parents in the room discussed "toddler rules" which, if I remember, are 1. If I have it, it is mine. and 2. If I had it, let it go, but want it again, it is mine. I didn't occur to me then that those are probably not toddler rules, but toddler rules in our culture. It could be that those rules are learned as our toddlers use the word "my" as in "my world" but learn the possessive meaning from the actions of adults. I think the forming of these kinds of paradigms, modes of thinking and experiencing the world are fascinating. And I think it is even more fascinating (and probably more difficult) to think about how to wake up to my attitudes in my own world. Perfhaps a method of that discovery could be reflecting as we did in ED 5010 on our experience, and then analyzing the meanings of the words we use through the way in which we use them.
Got me thinking a bit...