Philosophy for Children

I need some help. I'm trying to put together a syllabus for teaching my children philosophy. They're young, but not so young as to preclude them from rational thought. I don't want to depend upon them learning a rational philosophy from me haphazardly, and I don't want them to have to wait to develop their own philosophy until they're older. My job as a parent is to take them from making 0% of their own decisions as babies, to making 100% of their decisions as adults. I want their decisions to be based in reality and reason. Specifically, I want to lead them to discover a philosophy of rational self-interest before they have a chance to make negative life-altering choices. I have found nothing available that is sufficiently basic enough for them to understand, so I'll have to develop it myself. (Unless anyone has any other suggestions.)

I've developed an outline of what I believe are the necessary fundamentals of Objectivist ethics:

I. Metaphysics

a. How do we know what we know? (Truth vs. belief)

b. The world is real.

c. It follows rules which we can know, it has cause and effect.

d. Everything has a specific nature.

e. We are conscious beings in this reality and we have free-will.

II. Epistemology

a. Reason

III. Values

a. What are they?

b. Why are they important? Why is it important to have them?

c. What is an ultimate value?

i. What must your ultimate value be?

1. Your life.

2. Your happiness.

ii. Why?

1. Is-Ought problem.

IV. Ethics and morality

a. What are they?

i. Codes or principles? (Principles)

b. Why are they important? Why is it important to follow them?

V. Feelings and emotions

a. What are they? What causes them? (Not a source of knowledge.)

b. What should you do about them?

My aim is only that they arrive at ethical principles upon which they can rely to make rational and correct choices in any context.

Any help anyone could provide would be enormously helpful. Any deficiencies/excesses in the outline? Any books/articles/web sites which might provide a basic understanding of Objectivist ethics?

Thank you for your time.

Jeff

Post 1

Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 4:42pm

Hi Jeff,

I like what you're trying to do. Would it be possible to give us the ages of your children? That would be helpful.

I'm not sure that you realize how much you have misplaced in your outline. For example:

Metaphysics

a. How do we know what we know? (Truth vs. belief)

a. is essentially epistemology, not metaphysics.

Instead of beginning with metaphysics, how about starting with Axioms, which are true first principles?

If your kids are younger than 10-12, Axioms will be much easier to grasp and apply to everyday thought.

Values and Ethics can be combined. Every value implies an ethical code.

i. What must your ultimate value be?

1. Your life.

2. Your happiness.

I'm really uncomfortable with the "must" idea. These are "shoulds," not "musts."

"Should" is a profound distinction that allows thinking freedom. "Musts" coming from an outside source do not allow for free thought.

I'm also quite curious as to how you might answer this question yourself.

1. Is-Ought problem.

It isn't a problem. "Every is implies an ought." Consider it part of Rand's Razor. I'm not sure why you're including this. Why is it important for your lesson plan?

Ethics and morality

a. What are they?

i. Codes or principles? (Principles)

b. Why are they important? Why is it important to follow them?

Okay, now I'm worried. Principles in the Objectivist Ethic are applied, not "followed." The Objectivist Ethic is a guide, not a rule book. Do you want thinking children, or robots? ;)

Feelings and emotions

a. What are they? What causes them? (Not a source of knowledge.)

b. What should you do about them?

For very young kids, feelings are a source of knowledge, so be careful how this is presented. They feel sad, happy, hurt, excited, etc., all for a reason, but those reasons cannot be articulated by them at a very young age.

This is a perfect lesson for "virtues," which you've left out of the outline, but I'm not sure why. Why are virtues missing?

Post 2

Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 4:51pm

Not Quite Heretical But True...

TSI said:

"I'm really uncomfortable with the 'must' idea. These are 'shoulds,' not 'musts.'"

"'Should' is a profound distinction that allows thinking freedom. "Musts" coming from an outside source do not allow for free thought."

"Principles in the Objectivist Ethic are applied, not 'followed.' The Objectivist Ethic is a guide, not a rule book. Do you want thinking children, or robots?"

"For very young kids, feelings are a source of knowledge, so be careful how this is presented. They feel sad, happy, hurt, excited, etc., all for a reason, but those reasons cannot be articulated by them at a very young age."

Teresa, could you duplicate this post so I can sanction you again?

Hi Jeff. Do fill out your profile too. Listen To Teresa, when she's right (i.e., agrees with me) she's very right.

Post 3

Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 6:36pm

LOL, Ted... :cD

Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 7:02pm

Tools of Cognition

Subsequent to his break with Rand, Nathaniel Branden warned that one must pay close attention to one's feelings. If one is unhappy it may not be because one hasn't lived up to one's consciously espoused values but because these values are wrong. Unhappiness tells us something - that there is a contradiction somewhere. Emotions are not a tool of cognition. But they do represent facts - implicit facts - internal facts - potentially obscure facts - but facts nonetheless about the consonance of one's values and one's circumstances. They do not tell us whether our values or our circumstances are out of line, just that there is some lack of (or, in the good case, presence of) alignment.

Post 5

Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 7:34pm

Jeff, I think your approach is a bit too analytical. Are you going to sit your children down and lecture them about philosophy? I don't think that'll work.

You say you "don't want to depend upon them learning a rational philosophy from me haphazardly," but didn't they learn language from you haphazardly? I think haphazard learning is underrated. Setting a good example is more important than teaching from an outline.

I use the books my son Peter reads, or the TV shows he sees, or the things he's exposed to in school as jumping-off points for discussion, or just as opportunities to give him a little something to think about. Examples:

(1) Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day. Piglet gives up his house to Owl, who lost his in the storm. I ask my son, do you think Piglet should have to do that? Wouldn't there be a fairer way to help Owl? Maybe his friends could help him build a new house instead of Piglet just giving his up.

(2) Earth Day at school. Peter says, we had to do a skit about not cutting down trees. I ask him, is there something wrong with cutting down trees? Do people do it just to be destructive, or do they do it to get lumber to build houses?

In terms of morality, I strongly believe in telling children WHY they must or must not do whatever it is you are telling them. Some people think that's a waste of time, but I think it's important, even if the child doesn't find your reason sufficient -- at least you are reinforcing the idea that there IS a reason behind moral decisions, that the moral is the practical.

As for emotions not being tools of cognition - my interpretation of this is that "wishing doesn't make it so." It doesn't mean that you can't learn something from examining how you are feeling, just that we can't know something "in our hearts" - we know things in our minds.

Post 6

Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 7:55pm

Jeff, I read Anthem when I was 15. I am now 58. My daughter turns 29 in a month, so I have been there and done that. We used the books recommended by Rand and the NBI and others in the same vein. She went to two different Montessori schools. I made up nursery rhymes such as
Hey diddle diddle
the excluded middle
means A cannot be non-A
It's either-or
and neither-nor
and A is always A

What really counted was how we lived our lives and based on that, in the final analysis, she made her own choices... more and more choices ... as she got older and older... You have no control over their choices. None.

In lieu of the usual bedtime stories, I read from Edit Hamilton's Mythology and Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman -- though there were also Grimm and Milne and even Tolkein. The lessons she took from them were not the ones I was teaching.

If brainwashing worked, there would be no Objectivists... or, for that matter, much of anything but the gray middle. Horace Mann brought Prussian education to America and we still use it. Does it work?

You will and do teach your children philosophy every minute of every day: your kids see how you live your life. You are on trial constantly. Never mind the metaphysics.

There is a Parenting Forum here on RoR if you want to read what others did or do or not.

I have never met a second-generation Objectivist.

My Mom was an agnostic. We never went to church. We made fun of religion (sparingly). Growing up, we had religious instruction after a fashion from several sources. As teenagers, my brother and I each decided on atheism as the best explanation. We are materialists and rationalists. We both read Atlas -- his wife went all out for Rand and never returned my Newsletters. Our sister is a born-again Christian.
That is a problem for her because for her minor in biology, she went to the Galapagos. When her husband teaches the kids that the dinosaurs died because the people in Babylon built walls around their vegetables, she says nothing. Mom cannot even roll over in grave because we cremated her.

Everyone makes choices.
You have no control over that.

Post 7

Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 9:56pm

Wow! Thank you all so much for responding. I am very grateful.

I see I've made myself much too vague in many areas, but my ignorance much too clear in others. I hope no one minds if I lump you all together in my response. I think many questions can be answered simultaneously by clearing up my outline a little, and by answering Ms. Isanhart's highly detailed post.

My kids are 10 and 11. They are both homeschooled by me. (Everything I write from this point on might be entirely wrong, so please feel free to correct me. I'm sure of these first two statements, though.)

I'm having a hard time deciding where to begin: metaphysics, or epistemology. "What is reality?" seems like a somewhat too in-depth subject for their ages, and not so necessary for what I want to accomplish: have them discover a moral code which they know to be true and won't fail them. However, knowing there really is a reality is important, I think, to Objectivist ethical principles. I want them to know there really is a reality, they can know there really is a reality, it behaves exactly as they think it behaves, and everything they know comes from this reality. I want them to be secure in the argument for a reality because I think subjectivists are going to be the first contrarians they come in contact with (after all, don't all children believe they're the center of the world? LOL!). I don't want them to be caught doubting their entire set of moral principles at the first contact with subjectivist metaphysics. In order to know there really is a reality, it seems to me they need to know how they know what they know - which, as you correctly point out, is epistemology.

My plan was to use the question, "How do we know what we know?" (senses --> perception --> concepts) to move into a simple argument of, "You know what you know because you sense things. If there was nothing to sense, if there was no reality, you wouldn't sense it. Your senses feed information to your brain, your brain puts that information into ideas, or concepts, and you eventually put names to these concepts." From here I thought to continue on to, "Since you sense things, you are aware of things. You are conscious - or aware of things around you." From there I can continue on to, "Since you are aware of things, plural, you're aware there are many different things. You're aware of their differences and their similarities; both of which help you know what they are, and what they aren't. You're aware these different things have different natures; that a ball isn't a balloon and won't act like a balloon - nor would you expect it to."

In this way I hope to cover all three axioms without actually having to go too far into them. Axioms, as a concept, are difficult for me to understand, I don't think I'd do a good job explaining them. It's a little difficult proving something that doesn't need to be, or really can't be proved. And I'm going to have to prove this stuff to them, or at least get them to prove it to themselves.

I see how values can be put together with ethics, but I think the concept that one's ultimate value is his own life and happiness is so central to Objectivist philosophy that it deserves some specific handling. I want them to know that "selfish" is not a bad word, that they don't have to feel guilty for being selfish. That there is a factual reason their ultimate value must be their own lives and happiness.

You object to my use of the word "must." Do I have the philosophy all wrong? I thought the point was that reality forces our hand here; that as living beings we must do what living beings do - live. The only way to live is to continue living. If our ultimate value is something other than our own lives then wouldn't living be, at best, secondary to something which is against our nature? In this case, isn't the "must" coming from our nature; from axiom #3? The "is-ought" problem is, if I understand it, related to this point. Doesn't Ms. Rand claim to solve the "is-ought" problem with axiom #3 - that since man is living, he ought to have living as his highest value?

By asking, "Why is it important to follow [one's principles]?" I'm not presenting principles as an outside rule book to be followed. I mean only to say that once you determine your own values, and your own ethical principles, that you must follow them if you wish to remain true to those ethical principles. I most certainly do not want robots - that's what I'm trying to avoid. I just want them to understand that once they've developed their principles they can't compromise them or negotiate them away. They must stay true to them or all the thinking and work that went into them will be for naught. They will have betrayed their ultimate value, which means it really isn't their ultimate value, which means they're choosing something other than living, and the only alternative to living is death.

Yes, feelings are very important to children. I hope they arrive at the knowledge that feelings are useful for understanding themselves and the world. But I also want them to understand feelings don't change reality; that feelings are clues something is right or wrong in their perceptions, actions, and knowledge. I plan to direct the conversation toward examining feelings and understanding what meaning they can glean from them.

I haven't included virtues because I'm not quite sure how valuable they would be to the discussion. I'll do some more reading on them.

My plan is to structure these lessons in an Aristotelian fashion: discussions between the three of us where I guide the discussion. Since I homeschool them I do get a lot of interaction time with them, and we have already gone over a great deal of the political branch of Objectivism, and some ethics. However, it still seems like a lot of me lecturing to them, and I don't want that. I don't think they'll really own the philosophy until they arrive at the conclusions themselves. I, too, believe the "Why" is just as important as the "What," perhaps even more so - that's why I'm trying to develop something which allows them to come up with their own "Why"s. It is my hope that the "What"s will follow from that.

I'll definitely check out the parenting forum. Thank you, Mr. Marotta, for the suggestion. I'll be honest in stating I worry about letting their philosophy form "naturally" because of all the stupid stuff I did as a child. There are many reasons for me not to even be alive today, yet I am. I don't want to make choices for my children, but I also don't want them to pay any price for my desire that they be more independent than their peers. If I neglect something out of the belief that, "They'll just pick it up as they go along," and that later proves to bring them pain, then I'll have not been true to my highest value. Because my children have equal value to my own life and happiness.

Sorry this is so long, but I hope I've addressed your questions. Am I tilting at windmills here? Is this philosophy just too complicated for pre-teens to understand? Will I be too untrue to the philosophy if I "dumb it down" in a sense, and leave out much of the metaphysics? Am I still wrong in everything you've pointed out?

Thank you, again, for your time.

Jeff

Post 8

Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 11:19pm

Jeff, I'd suggest you simply answer your children's questions when they come. Eleven is certainly old enough to read Rand's novels. Have them watch Cosmos, read Rand and Tolkien, Will Durant and Stephen Jay Gould, Asimov (the nonfiction) and Robert Heinlein. Especially Heinlein. Your job is admirably summed up by Micael Marotta above. Just be honest with your children, and answer their questions to the best of your ability. Just as you can't teach a seven year old about presidential politics, since he won't yet have the life experience, you don't need to teach explicit metaphysics and epistemology ahead of its time. If you have to pick one lesson, explain to them the stolen concept. Once you have that you have the essence of Objectivism.

Also, Steve's post below has my full endorsement.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/23, 11:46pm)

Post 9

Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 11:30pm

Jeff,

There is a section in Nathaniel Branden's Six Pillars of Self-Esteem book for parents. I would also recommend the books by Hiam Ginott and his protogee's (whose names slip me right now). They guide the way to helping the child function as a being with both emotions and reason and they teach very effective communication skills for working with kids.

The first duty of a parent, in things intellectual, is helping the child with their self-esteem since the lack thereof is the motive power for irrational thinking to persist even in the face of logic.

Next of importance is teaching critical thinking - not by lecture but by example and pointing out a fallacy, in language approriate to their ages, in the every day events. Just simple, straight forward explanations of why something that already has their attention can be seen differently. My father often said "two wrongs don't make a right" as a way of stopping an argument one of us kids was making. He listened to our arguments when we argued with him and if our reasoning was sound, he agreed - not just in words or appearance - but his behavior. Wow! That teaches that reason is value like nothing else. It wasn't presented as a lesson, it was never addressed as a subject and that made it all the more powerful.

It is critical that your kids are coming to you, eager for learning - the very instant it becomes like a forced feeding or duty or burden, they begin to move away from your values and adopt a cover of compliance or an attitude of rebellion. For purely practical reasons you want to build the bond, and the respect they have for you such that it endures the normal shift of allegiance and the calls for breaking away that start in the teen years - both the calls by peers and the calls to independence. Time spent with you MUST be enjoyable to weather that difficult time for them. Done right, they become independent in healthy steps and don't burn that bridge to you.

Build routines that they find enjoyable, even if your only real joy is being with them and offering a minimum of guidance and the opportunity for them to witness how you process reality in a non-didactic, fun way - so they will model you as their natural process to becoming who they will become. (Boy scout type projects, or 4-H, or a small business venture, it isn't as important what it is, compared to building that family bond.) Dinners together as a ritual - not in front of a TV - intellectual games at the table (read how Nicolas Negroponte grew up - can't remember where it read about his family - but it was a powerful influence in his life).

Their character, their self-esteem, and their bond to you will say much more about how they come out of that turbulent, tunnel of teen years in terms of the intellectual approachs they will be open to and will take as they move into early adulthood.

In terms of the home-schooling of philosophy I would also suggest teaching grammar as the rules we use bring clarity to our words - there is a great little book called "Rex Barks" - it is about sentence diagramming. Kids seem to enjoy that and it is a good opening to epistemology in small bites and clear thinking. There is also a grammar course on CDs by Piekoff (it's expensive and it isn't for kids, but would give you the intellectual material to use in explaining clear thinking via breaking down sentences - they would be ready for the CDs in another few years.)

There are others who have learned to speak to teens in ways that are very powerful - find those writings or recordings of Virginia Satir - a therapist from some years ago - not related to Objectivism at all, but she understood that personal responsibility was the fastest path for acquiring personal control over ones life and she knew how to teach that to kids such that they eagerly picked up tasks and became intelligent and aware of what were fair responsibilities and earned inner-power and respect from their parent and greater liberty.

Post 10

Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 3:39am

Hi again, Jeff -

I'm having a hard time deciding where to begin: metaphysics, or epistemology. "What is reality?"

Why not just come from the position of actuals; "of course reality exists! Duh!" And go from there? I just don't think it's necessary to put a question to it. Children have to be taught to disassociate from reality, not to accept it. Accepting reality comes quite naturally.

At 10 and 11, they're going to be far more interested in how this all fits into their own lives, as adolescence is fast approaching.

Laure's answers were fabulous! Use examples at every opportunity.

I have to get to work! Maybe more later.

Post 11

Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 4:45am

I have no children and only quickly scanned this thread but wanted to mention some clues that I did not yet see mentioned here.

The children's book The Little Red Hen was the first book I ever read alone and its message of personal responsibility and productivity has stayed with me since that time.

Between Parent and Child is the Haim Ginott book that Steve Wolfer mentioned and is worth reading.

The curriculum at Founder's College should give you a clue about how the professionals at an Objectivist-leaning college structure their content for delivery to young minds.

The only other similar college I know is The Reason, Individualism, Freedom Institute which might also offer clues.

The books of Maria Montessori also help or so I am told.

The main problem I see with your outline is that it violates the crow epistemology, i.e. it overwhelms the young person's mind with too much "stuff" at once. Approaching content from a needs standpoint and then fleshing from there might be a better approach. See this Objectivist club brochure for more on the four basic human needs and how the Objectivist ethics satisfies them. This should offer adequate motivation for learning to reason properly.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/24, 4:52am)

Post 12

Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 6:24am

Children have to be taught to disassociate from reality, not to accept it.

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner! This is the bottom line, Teresa.

Post 13

Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 9:01am

Mr. Keer-
Thank you for your reading suggestions. They've read Tokien, some (fiction) Asimov, and seen Cosmos. What I've read of Durant and Gould seems a bit out of their comprehension range right now, but I'll check to see if there's anything they've written which is a little more digestable. I'll look for Heinlein. I've never even heard of him. Do you believe metaphysics and epistemology can't be sufficiently simplified without being devoid of meaning; would they have to be simplified so much that their purpose would be lost?

Mr. Wolfer-
Thank you, also, for your reading suggestions. Looks like I have a lot of research left to do. I agree with your observations on self-esteem and critical thinking. The problem, I believe, is children have a tendency to defer to authority. We spend the vast bulk of their lives telling them, "No!" and they learn not to question it, whether or not that's our intention. As they get old enough to start asking questions they will, but usually (from my limited experience) only when the fact that I'm wrong is so painfully obvious. It's difficult to teach them logic, and thereby build their self-esteem from a well-won logical argument, when they believe I'm always right and refuse to question that belief. I need to find a way to get them to question whether I'm always right. My hope was the Socratic Method (I mis-identified this in my original post - see, I am sometimes wrong!) would prompt them to question me, and thereby develop their critical thinking skills, their knowledge of philosophy, their ethical principles, and their self-esteem all in one stroke.

Your grammar suggestion is excellent. I had not thought about that.

Ms. Isanhart-
Isn't knowing reality exists fundamental to knowing there are objective principles to apply? I want them to know why the proper response to, "Does reality exist?" is, "Of course it does, duh!" As we get more experience, it's easy to give this answer, but we have to go through a lot of doubt before we can; at least I did. The first time I confronted the subjectivist argument it threw me for a loop. It was only then that I truly considered my beliefs, and even then they were still just beliefs. It wasn't until much later that I knew. As Mr. Keer pointed out, perhaps it would be enough to teach the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept. I think I'm going to have to come up with a simpler example than the ones I've read, though.

Mr. Setzer-
Thank you for your reading suggestions, and links, as well. You believe my outline doesn't have enough detail; that I should break the lessons up into smaller chunks? My intention was to make them short enough for a 30 minute walk. The three axioms would each be their own 30 min walk, reason would be its own walk, values - 30 min, ethics - 30 min, feelings - 30 min, then practical application ("What would you do if...? Should you always...", etc.). Do you see any conflict between the material and the time in which I've got to develop it?

Jeff

Post 14

Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 10:37am

Haven't read HEINLEIN? I don't know whether to pity, or to envy you. I guess it's envy. You have a lot of great new books to encounter.

Please drop everything, and read this thread here now.

Post 15

Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 11:25am

In giving Post 0 of this thread a second read, I retract my initial statement about the outline.

Five broad chunks is fine for the stated time -- at least initially.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/24, 11:26am)

Post 16

Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 11:26am

If you don't want to bore your kids to tears, you could always just share with them some of the cooler "puzzles" in philosophy, preferable in story form.

-- the ship of theseus and zeno's paradox for ontology
-- the evil demons hypo for epistemology
-- the trolley problems for ethics

As with most subjects, you'll want to excite and inspire your kids toward it. Stories and puzzles are a great way to go.

Jordan

Post 17

Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 12:51pm

TSI: Children have to be taught to disassociate from reality, not to accept it. Accepting reality comes quite naturally.

Red check!

Post 18

Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 5:27pm

Michael, I assume that Teresa means the ability to step back and look at things in context rather than being overwhelmed by the emotion of the moment. Certainly, as an adult, that's not something you oppose?

Post 19

Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 7:54pm