“By what means does a young child grasp to understand the world if not its rational faculty?”
– Tim Starr
From the archives: Posted on 15th December 1994
“One of the key issues in this discussion has been whether there are any real differences between children and adults in the general area of capacity or competence.”
I don’t think anyone denies that there are important differences between children and adults. I think the dispute is over whether there are any differences in kind between the capacities of children and those of adults, or whether the differences are merely a matter of degree. I think that there’d have to be a difference in kind in order for there to be any justification for children to have a special, limited status as persons in the law, and that if the only differences are in degree then there can be no such justification. And, thus far, there seems to be little case for the proposition that there are such differences in kind. Mostly it has been assumed by those who take the limited legal status of children to be justified. If there is a better case to be made, I’d like to hear it.
“I liked the description ‘pre-rational’ for a young child grasping to understand the world but as yet unaware of causality and logic. I know that Sarah wants to call this exploration ‘rational,’ but it seems to me that using the word rational to mean anything other than ‘having or exercizing the ability to reason’ (American Heritage Dictionary) is broadening the concept beyond its usefulness.”
What makes you think Sarah is abusing the term “rational”? By what means does a young child grasp to understand the world if not its rational faculty, no matter how little developed it may be?
See also:
- Rival theories about early walking and talking
- Neighbors reacting to naked kids
- Disputes with children
Tim Starr, 1994, ‘Young children “pre-rational”?’, https://takingchildrenseriously.com/young-children-pre-rational