Why is the age of reason set so high?

[jmcrae]

(2) However problems still arise regarding the age of reason and what is described in the quoted post. Firstly, the child needs “to be taught”. So in that case they must be more than automata. They must clearly have the ability to know. In that case, again they have the ability to intend, for to learn actually is to apply (that is, to intend) the intellect to one’s imaginings in such a way that one can classify data under some quality or predicate or species. But also, if children could not know, then it is absurd for people to try and educate children before the age of 7. In that case pre-k and kindergarden is a total waste and children actually don’t know math until they are 7.

Children can’t do algebra (which requires a process of reasoning) before the age of seven. They can certainly memorize things, and this is a good thing for them to do, because it will give them a bedrock of information to draw from when they become able to reason. They can memorize the various sounds made by the letters of the alphabet, and they can read and enjoy simple stories, but we don’t expect six year olds to be reading War and Peace, or writing argumentative essays.

(3) Secondly, you say “thinking”. But a thinking person has an active mind and as such, he can be convinced of different and opposing ideas.

My experience of children under the age of seven is that they believe pretty much anything they’re told - they don’t really evaluate information to see whether it is reasonable, or not.

S

o it is contingent that children think that “i’ll do this because mom won’t be upset” and not true that all the time, children think that things are good or bad only because of incidental reasons.

Children understand “good” to mean, “that which makes me happy and does not upset my mother.” They understand “bad” to mean, “that which I don’t like,” and/or “that which upsets my mother.” Cookies are good. Cookies right before dinner are bad, because that upsets Mother.

(4) Thirdly, if parents don’t really blame children, then parents are only speaking metaphorically or poetically when they say “you are naughty”. But I doubt that most parents are merely speaking in similes or metaphors. Indeed, saying “play nice” would also be mere metaphor like if we call an animal “intelligent”.

Animals are intelligent - but, just like little children, they don’t reason. Animals also make choices based on what they like and what makes them feel good, and that doesn’t upset the more dominant members of their pack.

(5) Fourthly you said “choose”. Now a child supposedly does not choose in the full sense of the word for he does not have either intention or knowledge. So then it is in vain for parents to correct their children through punishments since the child does not even begin to become “corrected” (except perhaps metaphorically) unless it has full knowledge and intent. For it is admitted that children have no responsibility and so, one cannot correct that which is not even morally responsible for anything. Indeed, such would not even be punishments but mere “conditioning”.

Under the age of reason, it is a process of conditioning, yes. This is necessary in order to instill good habits and a bedrock of memorized information that the child can draw on when he acquires the use of reason.

If so, then why are children praised for making good friends before they are 7 and why are children supposed to learn reading and basic counting before they are 7?

Children can read and count before the age of seven because they have the ability to memorize. Making friends and socializing doesn’t require the use of reason.

 

[fakename]

Put it this way. Sin, particularly mortal sin, is an extremely nuanced concept. One must have knowledge of the gravity of your action, as well as full consent (and remember things like impulsivity and immaturity of themelves affect one’s ability to freely consent).

I’d say there’s a whole lot more complexity to it than there is in the behaviours that parents may find blameworthy and punish or praiseworthy and reward.

I mean we tell even extremely young children ‘good boy/girl’ or ‘bad boy/girl’ about certain things, and may give young toddlers a time out for being naughty or a kiss for being good. But we don’t credit them with the level of moral sophistication of a child over the age of seven - as shown in the fact that we wouldn’t dream of insisting that a two-or three-year old child go to confession for the things we might give them time out for!

A good enough point but I think I need to go deeper to understand why these people don’t go to confession.

 

[White_Peony]

Some people don’t mature at all…

Did you know that in the time of Jesus, you weren’t considered an adult until you were 30.

 

[davidv]

A good enough point but I think I need to go deeper to understand why these people don’t go to confession.

They don’t go to confession because reason is required in order makes the judgements necessary for repentance. What good would confession be for a 4 yr old who cannot reason the difference between rignt an wrong?

 

[fakename]

Children can’t do algebra (which requires a process of reasoning) before the age of seven. They can certainly memorize things, and this is a good thing for them to do, because it will give them a bedrock of information to draw from when they become able to reason. They can memorize the various sounds made by the letters of the alphabet, and they can read and enjoy simple stories, but we don’t expect six year olds to be reading War and Peace, or writing argumentative essays.

My experience of children under the age of seven is that they believe pretty much anything they’re told - they don’t really evaluate information to see whether it is reasonable, or not.

S

Children understand “good” to mean, “that which makes me happy and does not upset my mother.” They understand “bad” to mean, “that which I don’t like,” and/or “that which upsets my mother.” Cookies are good. Cookies right before dinner are bad, because that upsets Mother.

Animals are intelligent - but, just like little children, they don’t reason. Animals also make choices based on what they like and what makes them feel good, and that doesn’t upset the more dominant members of their pack.

Under the age of reason, it is a process of conditioning, yes. This is necessary in order to instill good habits and a bedrock of memorized information that the child can draw on when he acquires the use of reason.

Children can read and count before the age of seven because they have the ability to memorize. Making friends and socializing doesn’t require the use of reason.

I kinda get what you’re saying about memory except that remembering seems to take some sort of inference abilities and “to infer” is really only in reasonable humans. So it seems the kids might have functioning rationality. Also, to say that kids are just conditioned is to make them (IMO) into automatons. I mean, if by memorize you mean “rote repetition of a certain sense image” and if you mean (as I think you do) that kids only have the ability to memorize, then how are kid’s mental powers different from things like parakeets? They are clearly however, not equals. In any case such a position concedes too much. If kids are just uncritical acceptors of information, then teachers would not have to worry about kids not learning but this latter thing happens a lot. Similarly there would be no answer to any question that a child would find unconvincing. But we know from experience that children find many answers unacceptable and even apply logic in communicating their problems to adults. This is another huge problem though, for children are known for asking questions (and not in a metaphorical sense). So w/o equivocation children do ask real questions. But the only way to answer a question is through dialectics but dialectics applies only to reasonable beings and so children must be reasonable.

Socializing per se, requires the use of reason because otherwise it would be possible to speak of friendship between men and animals and of animals with other animals, all of which are impossible; your pets are not your friends. This is because socializing requires free cooperation between two things and nothing besides humans have free-will. But it is possible to speak of automata socializing but this way of speaking is again “metaphorical” and yet I don’t think parents only mean that their kids have metaphorical “friends”.

Animals are not intelligent except again, analogously and not properly speaking.

 

[fakename]

They don’t go to confession because reason is required in order makes the judgements necessary for repentance. What good would confession be for a 4 yr old who cannot reason the difference between rignt an wrong?

The problem is that 4 yr olds do reason the difference b/t right and wrong, it’s just that they don’t have good reasons.

They say (according to others), “all things that feel good are good, this feels good, so it is good”. This is coldly rational in nature.

But to lack good reasons is not to lack reason (after all even adults can be persuaded to believe that all that feels good is good).

 

[jmcrae]

The problem is that 4 yr olds do reason the difference b/t right and wrong, it’s just that they don’t have good reasons.

They say (according to others), “all things that feel good are good, this feels good, so it is good”. This is coldly rational in nature.

It’s not as if they sit there and ponder the issue. They just go for the things that feel good, unless they think someone is watching.

But to lack good reasons is not to lack reason (after all even adults can be persuaded to believe that all that feels good is good).

The difference is that adults can ponder about it, and come to that conclusion. Little kids can’t - they just go for the good stuff, unless someone stops them.

 

[jmcrae]

I kinda get what you’re saying about memory except that remembering seems to take some sort of inference abilities and “to infer” is really only in reasonable humans. So it seems the kids might have functioning rationality. Also, to say that kids are just conditioned is to make them (IMO) into automatons. I mean, if by memorize you mean “rote repetition of a certain sense image” and if you mean (as I think you do) that kids only have the ability to memorize, then how are kid’s mental powers different from things like parakeets?

Kids have a variety of abilities, but they can’t actually reason, and they do have that in common with animals. Animals are also not automatons - they, too, make free choices within a limited scope of activities.

They are clearly however, not equals. In any case such a position concedes too much. If kids are just uncritical acceptors of information, then teachers would not have to worry about kids not learning but this latter thing happens a lot.

Kids don’t enter school until they’ve reached at least a rudimentary level of reasoning. It’s not like they are without reason altogether from birth until age seven, and then suddenly the lights come on, on their seventh birthday. It’s a process that occurs over time, and is thought to be complete at the age of seven - the seven year old can reason things out and figure out on his own how things happen. The fantasy world is gone - but it was always on its way out - Santa isn’t real, because sleds can’t fly. But he’s been suspecting for at least a year that something was up with that.

A six year old can reason that one and one is two, but hasn’t yet figured out that Santa isn’t real. A five year old can ask a lot of questions, but will accept both rational and fantasy-based answers. A five year old will believe you when you explain that Santa’s sled can fly because of the magic dust - a seven year old will realize that you’re just being silly.

Similarly there would be no answer to any question that a child would find unconvincing. But we know from experience that children find many answers unacceptable and even apply logic in communicating their problems to adults.

How old are these kids? Are we talking about two year olds, or six year olds?

This is another huge problem though, for children are known for asking questions (and not in a metaphorical sense). So w/o equivocation children do ask real questions. But the only way to answer a question is through dialectics but dialectics applies only to reasonable beings and so children must be reasonable.

Not necessarily. See my example about Santa.

 

[LilyM]

Some people don’t mature at all…

Did you know that in the time of Jesus, you weren’t considered an adult until you were 30.

Well, I’m a bit over 30 and sometimes still don’t feel like an adult. Particularly when I’m around my parents. Might be a youngest child thing - youngest kids seem to be babied a lot more even in adulthood.

 

[fakename]

It’s not as if they sit there and ponder the issue. They just go for the things that feel good, unless they think someone is watching.

The difference is that adults can ponder about it, and come to that conclusion. Little kids can’t - they just go for the good stuff, unless someone stops them.

I recently figured out that the age of reason doesn’t actually say that before the age of reason kids don’t have reason.

That brings up problems but let me address the above post.

(1) Maybe I was “just different” (a controversial proposition indeed) and I used to ponder when I was 6 or even 5 but the point is that I think (given an idea of how the mind works and proposes actions & my personal experience as a little kid) that it is unavoidable that kids “syllogize” or apply universal instantiation to figure out what they should do next.

It’s possible that they don’t have any universal ideas before the age of 7 (something that I don’t remember in my case but let’s forget about me) but that seems rather impossible, for they use words like “dog” or “person” which are abstract universals.
So it’s possible that they could talk about the universal idea of “good” and that “goodness” relies on pleasure.

And plainly, as I interpret it, it’s highly unlikely that kids from ages 1-6 just do “whatever they feel” since (1) one tells kids not to do whatever they feel, which would be impossible if they simply do whatever feels good to them anyways and (2) there are times when kids could get better things and yet even though they could get it, they don’t try to take the opportunity. So it’s not true that they always do whatever they sensuously desire unless someone stops them. Whether this proceeds from past conditioning or physical differences between people is another question.

 

[fakename]

Kids have a variety of abilities, but they can’t actually reason, and they do have that in common with animals. Animals are also not automatons - they, too, make free choices within a limited scope of activities.

Kids don’t enter school until they’ve reached at least a rudimentary level of reasoning. It’s not like they are without reason altogether from birth until age seven, and then suddenly the lights come on, on their seventh birthday. It’s a process that occurs over time, and is thought to be complete at the age of seven - the seven year old can reason things out and figure out on his own how things happen. The fantasy world is gone - but it was always on its way out - Santa isn’t real, because sleds can’t fly. But he’s been suspecting for at least a year that something was up with that.

A six year old can reason that one and one is two, but hasn’t yet figured out that Santa isn’t real. A five year old can ask a lot of questions, but will accept both rational and fantasy-based answers. A five year old will believe you when you explain that Santa’s sled can fly because of the magic dust - a seven year old will realize that you’re just being silly.

How old are these kids? Are we talking about two year olds, or six year olds?

Not necessarily. See my example about Santa.

I’m talking about kids 1-6.

Now no, animals are not automatons but by automaton I mean “lacking free-will and basing decision on natural impulse”. Animals don’t have “choice” or freedom but they only calculate what they need to do in order to get the things which they are programmed to already like. This is far different from humans, who are not merely plugged into their environment but who can transcend that environment through free-choice.

I agree that the age of reason (after doing a little more reading) is not so clean-cut in the sense that pre-7 year-olds are irrational and 7 year-olds + are rational. But if that’s true, then how are 1-6 year olds rightly kept from confession? After all they have venial sins too?

But back to the main topic, the difference b/t believing in fantasy and reality is based not on “reason”, in the sense that the ability to make syllogisms and perform logical operations alone differentiates the believer in fantasy from the believer in reality, but rather on experience.

If it’s true that children do not have the ability to think as efficiently and logically as adults, it has nothing to do with their acceptance of fantasy and reality. After all, many more fantastic things can be believed by adults than can be accepted by children. For instance, adults believed in potions of immortality, and the myths of ancient Greece. Indeed our “children’s stories” were (in more violent or dramatic forms) the ancient religions of pagan Germany or England.

So just because kids have impaired reasoning doesn’t entail that they know only fantasies.

 

[jmcrae]

I
So just because kids have impaired reasoning doesn’t entail that they know only fantasies.

Of course not. But the younger the child is, the more difficulty they have distinguishing fantasy from reality. That’s why little kids believe in super heros, Santa, and princesses, right along with Jesus, parents, and friends. And why they can’t do algebra.