@@immortallegend648 Where in the school system are we having people learn by actually doing and not having them sit down to read with a book glued to their face?
In this I think I agree with the writer! Like children should learn about religions too but they should start learning when they are enough mature to think and not just belive everything. Like belive because they belive in the moral ext but nit just because they are forced to. Sorry my english is not the best
I didn't see it as church hating, but being mature enough to understand it. Many of the major religions, are rather complex and neuanced. While a lot of their followers from childhood, keep an overly simplistic model in their head. Which creates "Bible Thumpers" who just point to the words, but don't act on the meaning. I don't agree with the Idea of isolation religion from the child, but overly pushing it at a young age for some people are harmful.
There are many flaws in this type of thinking by Rousseau. The main problem I have is that the man self governs and expects the woman to be weak and passive. This is the main reason why children get traumatized. Everyone should be treated with respect and learn to have safe boundaries. Nevertheless at times as parents we don’t always get the results we want. In my humble opinion I raised my children with what I thought was good for them. I shaped their lives with love, compassion kindness and encouragement. My sons are doing well today. I only hope that they will raise their children with the best of their ability with love compassion and kindness and encouragement too. A Mommy in Queens 👸
Hello! You seem to have an interest in child-rearing, just like me. On my channel, I share valuable tips and experiences related to parenting. Maybe you'd like to take a look and get some insights. I would really appreciate hearing your thoughts.
The structure is somewhat accurate but too rigid. I also feel that all of those stages aren't required or even necessary for everyone's journey through life.
It is very interesting and ironic! But I started to think what if he gave up them for orphanage because he was just afraid to ruin the kids after his book failed? (If the book was first snd then he had his children) 🤔
There are challenges which can be posed to his ideology. Life doesn't always follow steps. Rousseau's process can be attempted only if the parents and tutor are as ideal as he states. I work with children and they have been through traumatic/strong experiences and already have strong opinions even before they've entered their teenage. This stage approach isnt realistic in my opinion. Reasoning can start early given a choice. It's my opinion. However, the rigour can differ based on rhe child. This also, excludes social interaction in younger stages and citizenship as they grow into the adult stages. Obviously, this seems to be a male centred book. And finally, the church burnt the books because it's against their "catch them while their young" approach.
a broken clock was right twice a day lol or perhaps nietzsche’s paraphrasing.. my keys don’t fit my locks but maybe they fit yours 😂 Or the Bible’s we all know in part so we prophesy in part 🤷♂️ idk crazy is as crazy does lol
These are broad stokes in the development stages and many should overlap and many of his ideas pertain to the ecological surroundings. you will wrap the child in warm clothing if you like in a cold climate.
That is the way to raise freethinkers by observing, listening and interacting. I would love my child to be raised like that and not believing in everything they hear.
I'm a teacher and I got a lot of pedagogy lessons, read a thousand books then became a father of two. Now I'm thinking the wisest word to explain what I encounter is "no plan survives first contact with the enemy".
That's funny. You have more credibility because you kept your children. That we could elevate the words about how to rear children from someone who refused to attempt it is ludacris.
“Do as I say, not as I do.” Sadly the fate of a lot of children of famous child development psychologists/experts, children’s authors etc. Perhaps their work reflects their guilt and what they wish they could have done for their children.
With peer influence causing some children to go wrong direction is important for the the parent to protect and atleast have an eye on their children . It shouldn't be completely cut off the society
Sounds like a good plan to me. Let the developing mind explore instead of fit into a preconcieved box. Then when it is developed it can operate outside of the box. Isnt that a good trait?
There are many problems and big assumptions made here. If a man grows up outside the city, it may be difficult to adapt to city life from scratch in their 20s. If he has been shielded from all temptations and vices, it may be easier to give in to those later. And if he finds a wife who is quiet, submissive and whose purpose is only to be loyal to him, what kind of advice will she be able to give him?
This guy was completely off on the timetable. What fool waits until a boy is 13 to teach compassion? Get a dog when he is two and allow the boy to grow with the dog and raise puppies. This Rousseau fellow found a path to develop selfish arrogance. I am glad he was not my neighbor.
Hey, team at Sprouts! Thank you for doing this video! It was very informative! Could you do a video about Mildred Parton's stages of play next? Thanks in advance!
Disagree. We teach children to lie indirectly - by not giving them an opportunity for a positive outcome and solution. The way we present the issue to children is usually 1) tell us the truth - which is that they did something ‘wrong’ and would lead to some form of punishment (abuse, admonishment, withholding of affection, removal of a privilege, implied shame etc etc) or 2) lie - which results in positive or no consequence in the immediate timeframe. If you are presented with two options - to receive punishment or to receive a positive/neutral reaction, what would you naturally choose? Of course morality comes into it - except young children’s brains aren’t yet developed sufficiently to be capable of successfully understanding and making moral decisions. Furthermore, their underdeveloped prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that tracks time and working memory (prediction of consequences rely on being able to remember what the consequences of behaviours are based on past events - i.e memory, and be able to understand the passage of time - if one may be aware that lying would eventually lead to negative consequences but have no concept of how long it takes for those consequences to realise, then wouldn’t one choose the more immediate option of a positive or neutral consequence?). We condition children from a very early age to choose lying as a way to avoid immediate negative consequences, and as they get older they are already habituated to make that choice. I think that we (including you and me) develop the ability to make the choice to tell the truth based on moral reasoning when we are much older and have better developed our personal value/belief system and sense of self. Some kids may be inclined to always tell the truth from early on due to a lower IQ, a much deeper fear of their guardians’ reactions to discovering a lie or some other factor. I think that majority of children raised in the ‘norm’ would be taught to lie from an early age. Our kid’s child psychologist, when we raised concerns about our kid’s tendency to lie, suggested to us to reframe our method of questioning to encourage the truth instead. Eg instead of saying “did you break this glass?” we can say “how should we clean this up?”; or instead of saying “did you hit your brother/sister” we can say “your brother/sister seem to be hurt, how can we comfort them?” This way we are focused on the solution instead of the problem/punishment. The solution is what we ultimately want children to learn to do independently - accidents happen, we all screw up, but what matters is how we right the wrong. Guilt is a natural human emotion, unless the person has some sort of antisocial personality disorder - and the jury is still out on whether people are born with those or develop it via trauma/environmental factors. Children naturally feel guilt when they realise they did something considered wrong by social norms, even if we don’t directly accuse them of doing so. By focusing on finding a solution, we are teaching children “mistakes and failures are a normal part of life, and we can find solutions to address them together” - which should lead to them being less avoidant of telling the truth about what they have done, develop more empathy towards the impact of their mistake on other people, feel empowered to make corrective actions as soon as possible and stop the cycle of guilt turning into toxic shame that immobilises people from doing all of the above.
How are you gonna keep a child away from influence, do they just not have friends? Learning right and wrong through consequences when the child doesn't get punished is stupid, take a look at every 5th grade, the rude children are mostly the cool ones (which could change with age but doesn't have to)
I agree. My biggest problem with most (but not all) of Rouseau's points as expressed in this video, is that his ideal age to introduce a child to certain things seems waaay too late to me.
@@jeffbenton6183 Good point. Maybe 200 years ago things were just way slower in general. For my part, I think most people don't really grow up until they reach 35 or so. So if one were to rethink education, I think it could go both ways: faster (out of school) and slower (back in).
@@sprouts Things going slower makes sense with what I've read about the period. Although in some ways, things moved faster. I'm thinking mainly in terms of the early 19th Century and late 18th Century, but it was generally teenagers who went to college, and junior officers in the military could be 19. On the flip side, men often didn't marry until they were around thirty, and they weren't really accepted in high society until that age as well.
I think there's a lot of good in this method of child rearing, but there's also a lot of bad in it as well. "Only the mother should feed the boy" is weird and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The loose clothing thing is weird, an interesting idea, but probably negligible. Dressing them "too warm" which "makes them weak" is a strange statement to make, but I think if the child can develop some sort of cold tolerance early then they'll develop more brown fat over time. Now how cold should they be allowed to get, probably not too cold. I love the idea that if a child cries a parent [not necessarily just the mother] should address it ASAp and help the child understand what made them upset and give to give them a more nuance kind of emotion than JUST upset. I love the assertion that children are born basically good and that we ought to shield them from coercive voices. I think this should also be quickly replaced with critical thinking skills where if they come across someone who disagrees with the way the world works then they'll be equipped to retort back with at least some sort of cogent response, or if not a full on response some clarifying questions. I love the idea that the kid should learn through real world experimentation and not through abstract readings. I think on some level reading is important, but reading is ironically the poor man's experiment. It's cheaper to read about how electricity works than it is to build a motor from scratch. I think if you don't let the kid interact with anyone else out of the concern that they'll pick up bad habits then you'll develop a socially stunted kid, or a kid who only knows how to socialize like their parents, which is a tossup on whether the parents actually know how to socialize effectively. Likewise I don't know if they'll develop an innate sense of morality, I think it's highly possible though. Self interested learning is paramount. Totally agree on the religious take where kids need to know how to reason before they know what religions have to say. I feel like at this day and age it goes without saying that Rousseau's perspective on women's role in society is quite antiquated. I wonder what his rationale why women ought to be weak and submissive. Wouldn't that encourage the development of weak and submissive children as well? I think it's wrong to isolate your kid away from society, and instead it's important to contextualize society for them whenever they come across something new and confusing.
What you have put forth in writing is a good, succinct juxtaposition of analysis and comment. Naturally, a lot more ink could be used to go in depth, yet the various points you brought to the fore in your paragraphs highlight the dichotomy of Rousseau's ideology and real world application. Plainly put concerning Rousseau: never trust a statistic you haven't falsified/imagined yourself. The ivory tower's ideas may be enticing, yet they have been based on a predetermined selection of variables, which can lead to an escapist, dogmatic approach, thus in turn incompatible with the tribulations of an individual's life experiences. Furthermore, Rousseau should have objurgated himself, for not adhering to his theories with his own progeny. Although, that could be said of all ideologies that promulgate duplicitus dogma since the inception of all groups vying for the zoon politicon's adherence to their sphere of influence. One fundamental aspect seemed always to be missing from Rousseau's theory, and would not have been included, due to the fact that it would have torpedoed the creation of his theory's underlying/ predetermined set of variables: chance or fluke. This would have forced him to delve into the real-world realm of the unknown, thus negating his hermetic theory. In closing: When trying to obtain third person inspiration on the topic of how to adapt oneself to the evolution of raising a child, I would not dismiss the lecture of Rousseau's theory, for it has some ideas that could be adapted to one's own family circumstances and most importantly to the stages of the child's personality development. Being a parent is a challenge, for which no fullproof playbook has ever existed. At least, I never found one. What I learned through the evolution of my children from the stages "baby to adult age", is that no child is alike, love/ boundaries/nuturing are paramount, and when both parents are partners in the education of the individual child , it definitely helps. With kind regards, TH P.S. Since English is not my native tongue, please forgive occasional mistakes.
Apart from the notion of a hired tutor, sounds spot on, particularly in the shadow of my broken US neighborhood which seems intent on denying every point
“Man is born free but everywhere is in chains.” Rousseau says, I have been waiting for this wonderful video Thanks soo much!! I think there are similar ideas between him and Pestalozzi and Dewey. I would say that he belongs to "social constructivist perspectives", I am wondering if this is true? I am also very excited to learn about his rival Voltaire and his opinion about "social contract" comparing to Hobbes, John Locke, and Freud.
the part about "a child's mother naturally loves them more than any other woman does" kinda hits different if you (or someone you know) was an unwanted child and/or had abusive parents. i'm just saying.
The concept and role of personal tutor as explained in this video is ideal but quite difficult (expensive, perhaps impractical ) to find for every child. Even with the promise of personizable AI tutors , the roles the tutor is supposed to play here may not be fulfilled given that the tutors role is to 1. Shield the child from bad influence (can AI do this?) 2. Observe, guide and comment (can AI do this?) 3. Be human and present ( can AI do this?)
I do think Emile is receiving great education. From my POV, the child must be prepared before any first activities, such as making friends, learning, play outside, ride a bike, go to school for the first time... and the parents must ensure that the child will not appear any phrase of self-harm or self-denial thoughts.
Thank you for the video. Beautiful voice with a soothing and calm tone makes the video pleasing to listen. Illustrations were mesmerising. Thanks again for making many good videos like this one.❤❤❤
I think this is quite a good education Although as a woman myself I don't exactly love how women are supposed to be educated to obey. On the other hand I know how to be strong-willed but I do find it difficult to follow others so maybe an education in that sense could have helped me 😂 but generally speaking I suppose we need to see things as they were at the time. After all education is the basis to live well within a society and the premise to living well is to survive in a society. I have no doubt that a woman like Sophie had many more opportunities to find a good husband - and to survive a bad one - than I would have if I had lived at the time with my personality.
I like some ideas of Rousseau, but not all of them. First, I think impossible to take care of personalized education for every child because not everybody have the resources to do so; also, not all the parents and tutors would have the same ideas about what a child have to learn and, finally, I do not agree with his idea of women's education.
Maintain a healthy distance between the child and the State's schools ... he was right about that! I also agree with the notions of 'learning useful manual skills', and of letting the child direct his own learning ... specifically, tailoring one's education towards favored interests and loves. I'd personally like to see greater emphases upon horticulture, music, philosophy and oration. Surely, there is something there for everyone.
is so called one person short term plan, bcs the plan will just end on amile and not to be continued by his children since Sophie doesn't do the same method...
Ah, but Rousseau didn't raise his children. He abandoned them in orphanages and foundling homes. So, he's effectively just guessing, with the arrogance of a "philosopher" who thought that science had reached its peak of information. He was never unsure of his own importance and the infallibility of his theories.
tbh i feel like this is a good idea i will change some stuff like where education and empathy and religion started to me religion will be just simplified and he should observe his parents do it at the age of 7-10
Hi Swayam Mohanty, Thank you very much for your comment! If you are interested in a similar topic, feel free to join our next #sneak preview of “Unschooling” on June 8, from 2 pm - 2:30 pm London time (GMT). We watch together an upcoming video, collect feedback, and engage in a short discussion afterward. Usually, the event is reserved for Patrons only, but we currently have some spots open. If you’d like to attend, please register through the form below as soon as possible docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScG8Ur6JniiOeRp9zHHCcCLaqXsRUKvtx7nc6R7XG1MqJnUnw/viewform I hope to see you there!
I think the premise that you can raise a child to be a "free thinker" --- whatever that really is --- to be misguided. Of course it's well intentioned, but people develop in their own unique way, and it's best not to stick to some philosophy. Parenting can be done in infinite ways, and their are infinite results for one single parenting style.
In one ship it doesn't make sense to have two captains. The most important reason why divorce is very high nowadays is that men and women all want to be the captain of the family and in the end the ship sinks.
@@perafilozof it works because the co pilot accepts being a co pilot. If they fight because everyone wants to be the pilot then it will not work. You don't have to accept my logic, the divorce statistics are enough to consider.
Yeah, Rousseau was wrong. You were right that his ideas have permeated throughout society, though: we have whole generations of parents saying, "Well, even though I'm Christian, I'm going to let my child decide for himself/herself." And now having run Rousseau's experiment a million different ways, we can more clearly see the outcome. Turns out that removing religious doctrine from early life doesn't result in people being more intellectual and grounded in reality-- it leads to them thinking that they are gods themselves, deserving of their own reality, of having every need fulfilled by society, of having others affirm even the most self-destructive of delusions. We live in a world of Emiles, and it's coming apart at the seams. It was a nice work of fiction, but it is every day proving that it was dreamy-eyed fantasy. There are too many wrong paths that humans can walk for a child to discover the faults of them all through trial and error. What works better is training and demonstration of the correct way to behave. The ancients knew the truth from ages past: "Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he grows older he will not abandon it." (Proverbs 22:6)
Your bucking against alot of things here. More then anything tho, Your post Is full of statements and self affirmation. I't is clear to me that you believe as you do because you were taught very specifically what is "right" and what is "wrong", It gives you confidence and clarity for how the world could be improved. (Sentence contextualized to be readable to poster) This is very fascinating to me as this is how I used to be, However we are now(likely) complete opposites In how we view the world. I have grown to believe that there is no such thing as "Truth" or an "answer". That it's the process of the destination that is most important, While everything else is a hurtful lie. I'm not here to say your wrong or right, Id Just like you to remember this moment and come back to it in 10 years and tell me how you feel then.
@@ViolenVaymire I'd very much recommend "Orthodoxy" by G.K. Chesterton. There's an audio book recording of it available for free on RU-vid. Mostly just so you'll know that you're not the first "free thinker" to have "branched out" like this and surrendered the ground of objective truth, and you won't be the last. There are forces at play in this world who are out to make it very hard to simply remain on that hill. But that book is very illustrative and entertaining. Your style of putting forth a perspective reminds me very much of his, so I think you might enjoy that book. Another good one is "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. I'll leave you the same challenge, in 10 years, to come back to this post and see if your feelings (which have already changed once in the small span of your mortal life) have changed yet again.
