These bright, young pupils have been asked to consider whether it is possible to step in the same river twice?“Well - I think you can step in twice because if you step in once with one leg you can step in a second time with the other leg,” she says.Another counters that this would not qualify as stepping in twice because although two legs have been used - only one body has gone into the river.

The ball goes to another who says: “You could step in the river one day and then go home. Then the next day you could come back to the same river - as long as you know the way - and do it again.”

Then, in a flash of inspiration, one of the boys who has been waggling his hand impatiently, now ventures hesitantly: “If you step in the river on Saturday and then you went to step in the river on the next day - where you stepped on Saturday would be gone because the river keeps on moving.”

The BBC article outlines the many skills students gain from philosophy, such as diplomacy, problem solving, communication, and emotional intelligence.

I’ve been an advocate of expandings the teachings of philosophy into the broad curriculum of schools for a while now. I had simply never once thought that such a heavy topic could be presented at such a young age. Furthermore, as the article notes, “A recent study suggested that children’s IQs are boosted by learning philosophy at an early age.” I had previously assumed topics that philosophy addresses would be best deciphered during the early teenage years, about the same time such ideas would normally come to oneself. This new research is quite similar to the suggestion that evolution be taught to kindergarteners.

This report truly shatters my preconceptions of, not only when a child should be introduced to certain subjects, but also at what age a person should presumably know everything they need to live success lives in the “real world”. Because, obviously, if topics such as philosophy and evolution are taught by age 7, instead of learning it in late high school (if at all), this would presumably speed up the age at which one should be graduating.

However, I would like to points out several things here. You may note that the article explains that this philosophy “instruction” was in fact a discussion. There was no teaching of right and wrong; it was a free-for-all processing and sharing of the brain, exactly how a philisophical topics should be addressed in schools.

Moreover, if we are to be introducing such heavy topics to children at age 6 or 7, I strongly believe that we should return to the topic, and delve into in deeper each year, as the students would learn more and more, and the topic does not become forgotten by the time it is immensely useful (such as early teenage years or mid-life for philosophy).

This does bring up other questions though. What other subjects can be brought up at such a young age? What subjects should be introduced by age 3? Or age 1? Or age 16? Should a child be introduced to such topics alltogether or be left to his or her own discovery (Montessori) - or should there be a mix of both? Should topics like philosophy be discussed in the classroom, let alone at such a young age (obviously I would argue for it, but I can already see some parents accusing the school boards of indoctrination)?

Incredibly interesting article, in any case. Your thoughts?

Sphere: Related Content