Children's thinking as a philosophical question

The study of the mind and thinking of children and her mind's functioning methods has been the subject of various sciences, especially Psychology of children. Philosophy also pays attention to these topics. In response to the question of how knowledge is possible, philosophers and epistemologists focused on the nature of the subject (the owner of experience) and in the tradition of empiricism, some philosophers doubted the essence of the individual mind and, as a result, language was presented as a collective subject in the process of knowledge. So this philosophical stream considered children as devoid of knowledge and thought before entering the realm of their first language. In this article, we trace this historical process from classical modern philosophers to Quine and Wittgenstein, and we will explore the mentioned issues. The method is library-based and relies on philosophical texts and their analysis. it will be revealed how contemplation on the child's thoughts can lead to answers to some philosophical issues.
Keywords: Mind, thought, language, culture, children, philosophy
1- Introduction
Can the mind and thinking of children be posed as a philosophical issue? If yes, how do philosophers pay attention to this issue? Mind, thought, knowledge, and language are all issues related to the question of human nature and abilities. But how can a philosopher gain awareness of human nature and his cognitive and intellectual abilities? Attention to human behavior, to understand his nature and abilities, is not enough because it does not reveal the priority and posteriority between the mentioned philosophical topics.
Therefore, the person is not equipped with language, knowledge, rational principles, and - probably - thought is important to the philosopher. If one intends to answer the issue of "Does a person have knowledge of reality without learning anything from other humans and society?" by paying attention to human behaviors, the best option is to pay attention to behaviors of persons who have not yet practically entered human society, and the first available example of such a person is a child. Therefore, the children, their behaviors, their natural, cognitive, and intellectual abilities, and especially their minds are philosophically important.
2-         Materials & Methods
There are traditionally two important philosophical issues about children's minds. The first question is, "Before the children's empirical encounter with reality, do their minds contain principles that are true about reality?" The second question is "Inherently and without being taught anything by their parents and society, do children possess thoughts and knowledge?" In this article, we will explore these issues. Its method is library-based and focuses on the works of modern and contemporary philosophers, including empiricists and analytical ones.
For rationalists, the children's minds, either actually or potentially, have a set of knowledge termed rational principles. In contrast, for empiricists, children's minds at birth are like blank tablets in which there is no knowledge, idea, or concept.
Rationalists defend their idea by emphasizing the kind of knowledge that seem to be true in any empirical situation and it is impossible or difficult to imagine that an experience refutes them. For example, consider the equation two plus three equals five. Explaining such knowledge is problematic for empiricists. On the one hand, these knowledges seem necessary, on the other hand, as Hume correctly pointed out, necessity does not result from experience. Therefore, an empiricist faces a dilemma in explaining the knowledge that seems necessary, either he must deny the necessity of this knowledge, or he must accept that this knowledge is not empirical. A third solution proposed by some empiricists (such as John Stuart Mill and Quine) is to explain the necessity of this knowledge empirically.
3-  Discussion& result
Regardless of the way of acquiring knowledge, how does a person convey his knowledge to others? This is done through language, but the nature of language itself is a complicated philosophical question. To answer this question, some philosophers focus on its starting point: a stage in human historical development where our ancestors started using signs, as well as a stage in individual development where a child first attempts to use signs instead of instinctive sounds to communicate their desires.
Here one of the most important issues is "Before entering the realm of language and acquiring the use of signs and expressions whether the child possesses anything like thought?". Is thought prior to language conceivable? If a child who has not yet learned language possesses thought, what is the nature of these thoughts (which, according to the assumption, cannot be of the same kind as language-dependent concepts)?
Another philosophical issue is how a child learns norms and cultural frameworks. What dependency does this learning have on language learning? Is language learning synonymous with cultural assimilation for a child? If the answer to this question is positive, how is the relationship between knowledge and thought on the one hand, and culture on the other side? Are the children's knowledge and thoughts - and consequently the humankind's - dependent on a cultural framework to which they belong?
4- conclusion                                                                 
The child's mind and thoughts have been the focus of philosophers throughout history for these various reasons:
- Explaining the nature of thought
- Explaining the process of acquiring knowledge (rational/empirical).
- Explanation of the nature of language
- Explaining the relationship between knowledge and thought with language and culture
The above are important issues that have led to the nature of the children's mind and thought to be raised as a philosophical issue in the history of philosophy. The answers and arguments of some of the most significant philosophical currents regarding this issue have been examined in detail in the article in Persian.