Something I've learned from working with kids

I love that you can say something incredibly intellectual to a child and, the instant they realize they don’t understand it (which is usually while you’re talking), their mind switches to something that interests them. I love that. There’s no sense of frustration with the unrecognized, just indifference. You could talk about the non-reality of corporeal bodies and the kid will respond, “let’s play Battleship!” And then you’ll think for the whole night about what it means that a child does that, maybe even a little proud of your cerebral nature, but that kid’s going to go to bed thinking about being a spaceman and he’ll be a thousand times happier than you.

I don't know why, but I really felt like telling someone that.

Amen to that. I'm merely a child in my own mind (16) but unfortunately the only thing I think of as I fall asleep is how tired I am. *If only it were a spaceman* :rolleyes:

Good thoughts, now write a song about it. =P

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonI love that you can say something incredibly intellectual to a child and, the instant they realize they don’t understand it (which is usually while you’re talking), their mind switches to something that interests them. I love that. There’s no sense of frustration with the unrecognized, just indifference. You could talk about the non-reality of corporeal bodies and the kid will respond, “let’s play Battleship!” And then you’ll think for the whole night about what it means that a child does that, maybe even a little proud of your cerebral nature, but that kid’s going to go to bed thinking about being a spaceman and he’ll be a thousand times happier than you.

I don't know why, but I really felt like telling someone that.

Yeah...sometimes I think kids have it all figured out.

Then I think about the non-reality of corporeal bodies. And then spacemen.

I rep'd you on this cause its brilliant. Good thoughts. You should write a novel.

Kids only think about what they want to think about. They can easily tune out stuff. No drama in their lives.

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonYou could talk about the non-reality of corporeal bodies and the kid will respond, “let’s play Battleship!”[/quote]
Corporeal - having material or physical form or substance.

Why would you talk about the "non-reality of material objects" to a child? Simply in order to confuse him? It's not surprising that a child (or any honest individual) would automatically tune such irrational nonsense out and switch to thinking about something of actual value.

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonAnd then you’ll think for the whole night about what it means that a child does that, maybe even a little proud of your cerebral nature, but that kid’s going to go to bed thinking about being a spaceman and he’ll be a thousand times happier than you.

This is because the child is using his mind to focus on reality while you are apparently focusing your mind on irrational nonsense. And for whatever reason proud of it? :(

Another point is the unfortunate degradation of "the intellect", or what it means to "be intellectual" such as this:
[QUOTE=Jolly McJollyson]I love that you can say something incredibly intellectual ...

The intellect, properly defined, represents the power of a man's mind to perceive and understand reality. And yet, such phrases as "non-reality of corporeal bodies" are merely pointless contradictions that do not point to anything in reality. They do not add any value to our lives, they do not represent any actual knowledge or "increase in intellect". Unfortunately, because irrational nonsense like that continues to be passed off as "intellectualism", the intellect, as such, gets a bad name.

Finally, Jolly McJollyson, I am not sure exactly where you stand on all of this stuff. But, I do appreciate you posting this thought in the first place. And I think that you are seeing something valuable in the child's reaction.

Ignorance is bliss

Originally Posted by: alucard0941Ignorance is bliss

If ignorance is bliss then I am the happiest man on earth!! :D

Originally Posted by: CSchlegelCorporeal - having material or physical form or substance.

Why would you talk about the "non-reality of material objects" to a child? Simply in order to confuse him? It's not surprising that a child (or any honest individual) would automatically tune such irrational nonsense out and switch to thinking about something of actual value.

This is because the child is using his mind to focus on reality while you are apparently focusing your mind on irrational nonsense. And for whatever reason proud of it? :(

Another point is the unfortunate degradation of "the intellect", or what it means to "be intellectual" such as this:

The intellect, properly defined, represents the power of a man's mind to perceive and understand reality. And yet, such phrases as "non-reality of corporeal bodies" are merely pointless contradictions that do not point to anything in reality. They do not add any value to our lives, they do not represent any actual knowledge or "increase in intellect". Unfortunately, because irrational nonsense like that continues to be passed off as "intellectualism", the intellect, as such, gets a bad name.

Finally, Jolly McJollyson, I am not sure exactly where you stand on all of this stuff. But, I do appreciate you posting this thought in the first place. And I think that you are seeing something valuable in the child's reaction.

Amen to that!

Originally Posted by: CSchlegelCorporeal - having material or physical form or substance.

Why would you talk about the "non-reality of material objects" to a child? Simply in order to confuse him? It's not surprising that a child (or any honest individual) would automatically tune such irrational nonsense out and switch to thinking about something of actual value.

I was just using an example, calm down; I never said I adhere to that school of philosophy.

Also, the "non-reality of corporeal bodies" has to do with a representationalist philosophy like that of Berkeley. Read a book and take your meds.

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonI was just using an example, calm down; I never said I adhere to that school of philosophy.[/quote]
I am calm, as ever, thank you. I explicitly said I didn't know what your position was. I did use the second person "you" in my reply. However, it was not necessarily pointed at YOU personally. It was meant in a general sense. Unless it is applicable. So if the shoe fits, it is yours to wear. :p
[QUOTE=Jolly McJollyson]Also, the "non-reality of corporeal bodies" has to do with a representationalist philosophy like that of Berkeley. Read a book and take your meds.

I've read Berkeley. And his descendents (and I mean that historically and metaphorically) Hume, Kant and Hegel. All of them constitute a disaster area of irrational nonsense that has polluted philosophy for the last 300+ years. Berkeley's philosophy (and his followers, especially Kant & Hegel) is typically categorized as Immaterialism or Idealism. This is usually code for "the human mind cannot successfully perceive reality" or "things as they REALLY are". This starting premise somehow NEVER discourages any of these knuckleheads from continuing on with 700 more pages about their "philosophy".

You'd think they would take their own advice and realize that since they are also human, obviously their own philosophy should tell them that they know nothing and can never know anything for certain. So why are they writing philosophy texts?

I'll stick with Aristotle and Rand, thanks. And I do not need or take meds, thanks for your concern. :)

Any one else feel stupid after reading Jolly and Schlegel posts to each other? :p

Originally Posted by: damagedAny one else feel stupid after reading Jolly and Schlegel posts to each other? :p

Yup. I point you back to an earlier post "If ignorance is bliss then I am the happiest man in the world". I am glad I'm good looking 'cuz I'm not that bright! (heavy sarcasm here....) :)

I left the intellectualising at Uni some years ago. Jolly's post put me more in mind of why adults aren't the same way.

Example - having studied literature, I use 'flashy' words now and again when speaking without meaning to, it just happens. Only once in my life has someone stopped me and said 'Sorry, what does that word mean?' I doubt he was the only one, but credit to him for saying something. I guess it was pride from the others that stopped them from asking (or maybe they didn't care, and some people have this thing nailed too!)

Over thinking is not a positive thing for me, and unless academia becomes your life, it may not be for you (in the general sense) either.... The more I learn, the less I feel confident I understand and the more I find there is to learn.

Originally Posted by: renThe more I learn, the less I feel confident I understand and the more I find there is to learn.

That is a true definition of what makes one wise - understanding that the more you know, the less you actually know. I know plenty of big words but I use them sparingly in conversation. That's just me. I feel pretty good if I can just get my ideas across to the person I'm speaking with without them having that RCA Victrola dog look "Wha?" on their faces.

Originally Posted by: CSchlegel[i]
This is because the child is using his mind to focus on reality while you are apparently focusing your mind on irrational nonsense. And for whatever reason proud of it? :(

Studies have shown that small childrens brains work on a frequency between delta - theta (dont remember the exact freq.). An adult with his/her brain working on this freq. is either asleep and dreaming or very drowsy.

Maybe you'd like to take that in to consideration before you assume that all children are able to accurately judge whats real or not.

Some people are very good at visualizing things. A good (maybe too good) example of this was Nicola Tesla who as a child could not differentitate at all between things he had imagined and things that were "real".

Originally Posted by: clewniiStudies have shown ... Maybe you'd like to take that in to consideration before you assume that all children are able to accurately judge whats real or not.[/quote]
You dropped the original context of the conversation. I don't need to consult a study of children's brain waves in order to know that corporeal bodies are real and that "the non-reality of corporeal bodies" is a contradiction in terms.

If someone was telling a child about something that was real and truly complex, therefore beyond the conceptual grasp of a child (differential equations or valence bond theory in chemistry, for example), then it might be valuable to know more about the physical/electrical responses of the brain.

Since the conversation started with talking about something that was clearly irrational, no further information is needed to conclude that the child's reaction was to switch to thinking about something that the child knew was real and therefore of value to him (i.e the game "Battleship" was the given example).
[QUOTE=clewnii]Some people are very good at visualizing things. A good (maybe too good) example of this was Nicola Tesla who as a child could not differentitate at all between things he had imagined and things that were "real".

Granted. This is a very good point. But, again, the original context was about something that was a contradiction and did not refer to anything in reality, regardless of it's potential or actual existence as imagined or real.