sophistree
A dear friend posted on Facebook a link to this. Saith the New York Times,
A few times each month, second graders at a charter school in Springfield, Mass., take time from math and reading to engage in philosophical debate. There is no mention of Hegel or Descartes, no study of syllogism or solipsism. Instead, Prof. Thomas E. Wartenberg and his undergraduate students from nearby Mount Holyoke College use classic children’s books to raise philosophical questions
to which I answered,
well... it would be philosophy if the kids were learning how to tell it from sophistry, thought from feeling, sentimentality from sentiment, what does from what doesn't correspond in the real world to what they see in a fantasy character. Are they?
I had my doubts, and here's why:
One afternoon this winter, the students in Christina Runquist’s classroom read Shel Silverstein’s “Giving Tree,” about a tree that surrenders its shade, fruit, branches and finally its trunk to a boy it has befriended. The college students led the discussion that followed - on environmental ethics, or “how we should treat natural objects,” as Professor Wartenberg puts it - with a series of questions, starting with whether the boy was wrong to take so much from the tree.
And it had its intended effect:
Most of the young philosophers had no problem with the boy using the tree’s shade. But they were divided on the apples, which the boy sold, the branches, which he used to build a house, and the trunk, which he carved into a boat.
“It’s only a tree,” Justin said with a shrug.
“The tree has feelings!” Keyshawn replied.
Does anyone else guess that if one of those kids had made the points that:
Isaiah was among only a few pupils who said they would treat an inanimate object differently from a human friend.
Silverstein's story is worth considering philosophically. We can indeed draw an ethical lesson from the feelings it stirs in us: to appreciate the persons in our lives who love us and give of themselves to us; to forgo any wish of ours that, to be fulfilled, would require an excessive and unjust demand on them; to love them as themselves more than any possible gifts they might make.
And if we are grateful for trees and the good we get from them, we might begin to think there could be a Giver who has arranged it that, in fulfilling their own selfish purposes, the trees nevertheless benefit creatures beyond themselves. But McCollum forfend that any kid would get that takeaway from a public school program.
Most kids do have Giving Trees in their lives... they're called parents. Will the young philosophers (I almost typed philosophes) go home with a renewed sense of gratitude to them? Or will they only start laying guilt trips on them for using wood products (such as the musical instruments my friend plays and teaches)?
A few times each month, second graders at a charter school in Springfield, Mass., take time from math and reading to engage in philosophical debate. There is no mention of Hegel or Descartes, no study of syllogism or solipsism. Instead, Prof. Thomas E. Wartenberg and his undergraduate students from nearby Mount Holyoke College use classic children’s books to raise philosophical questions
to which I answered,
well... it would be philosophy if the kids were learning how to tell it from sophistry, thought from feeling, sentimentality from sentiment, what does from what doesn't correspond in the real world to what they see in a fantasy character. Are they?
I had my doubts, and here's why:
One afternoon this winter, the students in Christina Runquist’s classroom read Shel Silverstein’s “Giving Tree,” about a tree that surrenders its shade, fruit, branches and finally its trunk to a boy it has befriended. The college students led the discussion that followed - on environmental ethics, or “how we should treat natural objects,” as Professor Wartenberg puts it - with a series of questions, starting with whether the boy was wrong to take so much from the tree.
And it had its intended effect:
Most of the young philosophers had no problem with the boy using the tree’s shade. But they were divided on the apples, which the boy sold, the branches, which he used to build a house, and the trunk, which he carved into a boat.
“It’s only a tree,” Justin said with a shrug.
“The tree has feelings!” Keyshawn replied.
Does anyone else guess that if one of those kids had made the points that:
- It takes a person to give of herself to others out of love.
- The reason Silverstein's tale is a tearjerker and why the reader's blood boils at the ungrateful brat at the end is that, in his story, the tree is a person.
- In the real world a tree doesn't give benefits to people out of love. When it throws shade, all it is doing is trying to grab as much sunlight for itself as it can use. When it bears fruit, all it is doing is trying to reproduce itself. When it makes wood, all it is doing is holding itself up and moving its food around.
Isaiah was among only a few pupils who said they would treat an inanimate object differently from a human friend.
Silverstein's story is worth considering philosophically. We can indeed draw an ethical lesson from the feelings it stirs in us: to appreciate the persons in our lives who love us and give of themselves to us; to forgo any wish of ours that, to be fulfilled, would require an excessive and unjust demand on them; to love them as themselves more than any possible gifts they might make.
And if we are grateful for trees and the good we get from them, we might begin to think there could be a Giver who has arranged it that, in fulfilling their own selfish purposes, the trees nevertheless benefit creatures beyond themselves. But McCollum forfend that any kid would get that takeaway from a public school program.
Most kids do have Giving Trees in their lives... they're called parents. Will the young philosophers (I almost typed philosophes) go home with a renewed sense of gratitude to them? Or will they only start laying guilt trips on them for using wood products (such as the musical instruments my friend plays and teaches)?