When a child is born, is the child born with a blank mind or the child is born with some football potentials? This is one of the arguments I came across recently and with some knowledge I accrued in philosophy, I realized that there is need to philosophize here i.e there is need to engage ourselves in some critical reflection, analysis, evaluation, criticism and synthesis.
Philosophy as one of the instruments that examines the foundations of life, using the best available modes of knowledge to understand the nature of man uses logic to answer questions like what is correct reasoning? Here we can take a close look at the child psychology.
Child psychology does not only describe how the child generally look, act, feel or behave but goes further to explain how each child evolves as a product of the fusion of a spermatozoa and an ovum. It also describes how tiny product, the zygote develops until attaining the status of a mature adult.
Development in child manifest in the form of the physical, perceptual, cognitive or intellectual, changes that become noticeable as their ages increase. Of the importance is the fact that the development as is usually observed in any child is also a product of interaction of the inherent, genetic characteristics of the child and the experiences of such child within his environment.
Jacques Rousseau in his work said the child is born with some innate potentials but the child environment will play a vital role in bringing out these abilities. It is very possible for a child to be born with that ability to play ball very well but if such a child find himself in a kind of environment which does not support football or parents who always want their children to go to school to become a medical doctor, lawyer and other professions, such a child will really find it hard to exhibit that talent in him.
It is a real fact that most of the professional footballers in this part of the world where I was born and bred started their playing career from the ghetto where you don't even have the chance to go through football academy, where you don't have someone to tell you when to shot or pass the ball, but this are guys who made it to the world level, finding themselves in different clubs in Europe.
Rousseau was right in his opinion because most of the kids that find themselves in the rich environment also have the the ability in them but their parents will never allow them to play football due to one reason or the other. The least they can allow them is what I tag "garden play".
Just as Rousseau believes that the child is born with some innate potentials, John Locke was against the idea as he said the child is born with a blank mind. In his own opinion, the child mind is empty just like a chalkboard, the mind will become whatever written on it i.e even if your child doesn't have ability to play football, you can start relating him with football right from late babyhood to childhood, and through football academy, he can develop that ability.
The two philosophers are very right with their opinions, while one said the child born with in-built potential, the other said the child mind is born blank. There is one thing that is very common in their assertion, is the fact that environment play a major role in the child development.
After a deep reflection, I will be supporting Rousseau to some extent because going by the law of hereditary, it is possible for my football Dad to pass that ability down to me, the ability he has acquired through his rich Dad even when he doesn't have the football potentials. This football potentials will be in me and will only manifest only if my Dad support the idea of me becoming a footballer.
I will like to read your opinion in the comment section. Do you think the child mind is blank or with some potentials at birth?
I hope you find this post interesting and educating, until then, I remain my humble self @Oxygen02. Thanks For Reading👍
Comments