The Philosophy of Four-Year-Olds
Will Ferguson
I was sweeping behind the chesterfield the other day, and
my thoughts naturally turned to the great Woolly Mammoth.
As I recall, several years ago, some scientists discovered
a frozen mammoth preserved in the icefields of the Siberian
steppes, and what did they do? They had themselves a barbecue.
If you think that chowing down on 10,000-year-old steak
is a strange way to celebrate an important scientific discovery,
you obviously don't have any children around your house.
The scientists were simply channelling the four-year-old
in us all. They were re-enacting the childhood ritual of
Easter.
Housecleaning at our place always resembles archaeology;
you never know what you will unearth, and sure enough, out
from behind the couch rolled a chocolate egg from some Easter
past. Because sweeping behind the couch is one of my (theoretical)
duties, God only knows how long that egg had been back there.
It might have been years.
Not that it mattered to my four-year-old son, Alex. The
chocolate egg hadn't even finished rolling when he leapt
upon it.
"Spit it out!" I shouted just as he swallowed. "You'll
get sick."
"No, I won't. Because we won't tell Mom."
Like four-year-olds everywhere, Alex lives in an "observer
affected universe." It was a Zen koan made manifest: If
chocolate is consumed and Mom is not present to see it,
does it still count? Of course not. Four-year-olds intuitively
understand that a tree, falling unobserved in the woods,
makes no sound.
Easter is not about theology, it is about archeology.
And what is the point of discovering an egg behind the couch
or a mammoth in the tundra if you can't eat it?
Here, then, are some of the philosophical maxims I have
gleaned from my son, ranging from the existential to the
epistemological:
Santa Claus is the root of all celebrity culture.
The trembling excitement, the carefully choreographed public
appearances, the photographic souvenir, the pleading, deluded
fan letters: the cult of celebrity begins at Santa's knee.
It's no secret why Stalin banned Santa Claus from the Soviet
Union; there was only room enough for one personality cult
in Uncle Joe's fiefdom.
God is the last refuge of desperate parents. My
four-year-old son has mastered the Socratic method of debate
with devastating force, and every conversation I have with
him lately ends up sounding like this:
"Go to sleep. It's bedtime."
"No, it's not. We sleep when it's dark out. It's not dark
out. So I don't have to go to sleep." (Note the impressive
syllogism he presents.)
"It is bedtime. The only reason it's not dark yet is because
it's summer."
"Why?"
"Because in summertime the earth tilts towards the sun."
"Why?"
"I don't know. Something to do with the sun's gravitational
field."
"Why?"
Sigh. "Because gravity pulls objects towards each other."
"Why?"
"Because God said so, that's why!! Now get to sleep."
I admit that invoking the teleological designs of a Supreme
All-Knowing Deity in order to win a debate with a four-year-old
over bedtime is just one step away from answering 'Why?'
with an angry 'Because!' --but if it gets him into his Pokemon
pajamas, that's all that matters.
Identity is a social construct. Here's how four-year-olds
play. They have a quick ad hoc meeting at the edge of the
playground to decide who they will be before charging off
in a suitably Leacockian manner. "Remember! I'm Buzz Lightyear.
You're the green Power Ranger. And Aya is a princess. Let's
go!"
I tried to convince the parents at the playground to follow
suit. "OK, I'm a powerful business magnate! You're a fashion
model with a degree in marine biology, and we are on a beach
in the French Riviera drinking champagne coolers." But they
just looked at me with a mix of fear and pity in their eyes,
and backed away slowly.
This Father's Day, my quota of potential philosophical
input has doubled with the arrival of a new baby. And now
that Alex has a little brother to torment and torture --er,
mentor and nurture--I expect the level of dialectical discourse
will heighten. I have been watching two-month-old Alister
very closely and, near as I can tell, he favours a form
of "passive hedonism," one that revolves primarily around
bodily functions.
I have much to learn.
Maclean's Magazine
June 17, 2002
|