Rene Descartes said “I think therefore I am”. This was a completely idiotic statement. His whole schtick was believing that the “mind” is really what mattered, and the body was some sort of necessary inconvenience. And this philosophy was handed down through the generations until we got statements like “Children are Sponges” The educational system according to Spongebob Squarepants?
…AS IF!
The fact is – children are NOT sponges! They are thinking human beings. They process information. They are not “empty slates”. The sooner we all truly realize this, not only intellectually, but in practice – the better. You can’t just tell children things, in a classroom or on a sports field, and expect them to just “absorb”.
Furthermore – we cannot forget the physical development of the child. This is not just for the sake of their health as a quality of life add on. That is important too. The other reason is that they will be less likely to reach their full intellectual potential without physical development achieved through Active Play. Furthermore – humans can’t reach their full potential without Active Play.
Children need Active Play, Problem Solving Play, Pretend Play, Social Play to get better at processing information. If Descartes had experienced those things, he would have known that. They actually need to be included in the active part of forming the questions within the prescribed content. Their natural inquisitiveness must be cultivated and maintained. A great educational system will inspire children to ask their own questions. Yes, children may ask questions that are not informed, or that show a misunderstanding of the material – GOOD! This is a chance to explore further, not a horrible event.
Both in the classroom and on the field of play, children must be raised in a culture that asks them leading questions, that doesn’t just “tell them what to do”. What would you have done differently? What do you think would have gotten a different result? Do you have any questions for me? This dialogue can lead to more questions, and further understanding with guidance.
It is high time that we stopped listening to dead philosophers that were damaged goods themselves, and don’t even live here in our present world! Join me in giving Rene Descartes the rest he so sorely needs. After all, we’ve been running him around for a while, and he wasn’t in very good shape…
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 17, 2011 at 10:53 pm
Frank Forencich
As the professor put it so aptly, “Even sponges aren’t sponges.”
In other words, there’s a big difference between living organisms in habitat and passive, inert substances. Living organisms act and interact; they learn through action and interaction. And as for Rene, well, he got lost in his head and took us with him. When searching for an architect for modern Western culture, we would have been better off with Gene Kelly, Bruce Lee or Michael Jackson. In other words, physically-integrated people. If Rene were alive today, he’d be a video game addict or a robotics professor, effectively dead from the neck down. Can there be any wonder that the French were also the inventors of the guillotine?
April 18, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Dr. Kwame M. Brown
Frank, agreed on everything except Michael – he found himself largely without tribe, and disconnected from nature, and his spirit was in shambles. He was overdosing on drugs. So, while he was impressive, i wouldn’t consider him physically integrated, largely because we failed him. But you know how I feel about Bruce – YES!!!
LOL on the guillotine comment!
April 18, 2011 at 3:48 am
Bob Totans
So true and key to a child’s ability to learn is their natural inquisitiveness- something they must leave behind when the classroom door closes. The genius of play is in its simplicity and convenience- a child can be both student and teacher, exploring new situations, ask and answering their own questions and working out their own solutions. At the end of the day a lesson is always learned.
I was always a visual learner and also feel the more concrete and tangible the playing field, the more children will be stimulated and apt to express themselves. A piece of chalk fits more comfortably in the hands of a child than does a pen.
But what the hey do I know Dr. B., as usual, I just appreciate your insightful and thought provoking commentary.
April 18, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Dr. Kwame M. Brown
Yes Bob! And you know a great deal, having been responsible for 2 generations…you, like Mike Lanza with Playborhood, are a sage that I look to for help in shaping these ideas and giving them the context of family and neighborhood
April 18, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Tracey
I agree except for the part where you dis Descartes. Because you know as well as I do, the world needs more thinkers. And “I move therefore I am” doesn’t work for everyone, like say, Stephen Hawking.
April 18, 2011 at 2:55 pm
Dr. Kwame M. Brown
Tracey – if you look again, I am just dissing his exclusion of movement – not thinking. That’s my whole point – most children will not fully develop the intellect without the context and power of movement. I certainly would NEVER say “I move therefore I am”. What I am looking at is the solutions that work for most of humanity. Mind-Body-Spirit-Tribe-Land-Ancestors, none separable from the other. Look no further than the thoughts of the original Exuberant Animal Frank Forencich (www.exuberantanimal.com). The world DEFINITELY needs more thinkers – without play, this will not happen to the extent it needs to.
That is my biggest complaint with Rene Descartes, and those who would follow Cartesian philosophy – is that they separate the non-separable. Certainly there are outliers who have had catastrophic things happen to them, like Hawking, who still have a contribution to make. But modeling after outliers does not a holistic solution make. We just need to acknowledge and appreciate their “outlierness”.
We routinely follow those who do things that seem impressive, that are without context or connection to the rest of humanity. I will say this about Hawking – he is often in thought in isolation, which is why his powerful brain sometimes comes up with things that lack context or any connection to what’s real. Even powerful brains need the context of observation and relationships. Sometimes he interprets his own (well thought out) conjectures as fact, when they are not.
April 18, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Josh
What was at the heart of Descartes’ “cogito?” It was a grand thought-experiment. He wanted to take denial to the furthest extreme. How far could he deny things?
The “only” thing he couldn’t deny was that he was thinking about his problem. To him, this meant that he “exists,” and that he exists solely as and through thought.
But did it prove his existence? We’re arguing that it did not.
What did it prove? To me, Descartes’ thought experiment proved that he was thinking.
It’s like a movement practitioner “proving” that “everything is movement,” or a physicist “proving” that “everything is physics,” or a mathematician “proving” that “everything is mathematical.”
Why is it necessary to “prove” anything? Are we able to have models that allow us to adapt to ever-changing circumstances (life) without “proof?”
April 19, 2011 at 8:37 pm
NeoSoulBrotha
Interesting premise, and glad to stumble across it.
Computers think, and can rationalize. However, would a computer’s logic be considered existential? No, because it can only do so within the constraints of the data to which it’s been exposed.
The challenge of humanity is to expose ourselves to the greatest amount of input as our courage and creativity allows. We are unique in our ability not just to observe and process, reflect and rationalize; but rather to synthesize new information through our natural, instinctual drive to learn and grow. In many ways, we’ve forgotten that while constraints can be practical (in terms of our own survival) they can also limit our own evolution.
Although our society is striving to become more machine-like: more efficient, more predictable and reliable, and less error-prone, it is the absence of these behaviors which distinguishes humanity and causes us to reach new heights of discovery.
April 20, 2011 at 1:16 am
Dr. Kwame M. Brown
I LOVE THIS – “The challenge of humanity is to expose ourselves to the greatest amount of input as our courage and creativity allows.”
Thank you so much for commenting here, Jon.
May 4, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Move Theory Part II: Philosophy to Action « Dr Kwame M. Brown: Move Theory
[...] But I realized pretty early that I had failed to ask the most important question: What were they interested in? Had I respected their wants and needs? It all goes back to that “sponge” issue I wrote about a couple of weeks ago. [...]