Talons Philosophy

An Open Online Highschool Philosophy Course


Technology VS Play

In our modern day society technology and all its devices are a common place. We all use them in our daily lives, even our classroom is equipped with surround sound and a projector screen that’s over 20 feet long. The question many people are asking, however, is what age children should be actively using technology devices such as IPad’s, cell phones and computers.  Just recently, my cousin bought her five year old daughter and IPad for her birthday, a boy I babysit is 7 years old and plays a mass amount of video games, a friends younger sister is 8 and just recently got an IPhone 5c, all this has shown me that clearly many people are not opposed to allowing children to use technology in their everyday lives. Logically thinking, what effect does technology have on children and how young is too young?

It has been shown through many studies and written about in many articles, such as The Impact of Technology on Huffington Post, that technology has many more negative effects on children than positive ones. Many argue that the amount of technology a child is exposed to should be limited. This argument can be broken down through logically thinking as follows:

  • Premise one: A 2010 Kaiser Foundation study showed that elementary aged children use on average 7.5 hours of entertainment technology per day.
  • Premise two: Children need physical play that involves creative thinking to ensure the healthy development of their bodies as well as their minds.



  • Premise three: Sedentary children exposed to frenzied sensory stimulation are resulting in delays in achieving child developmental milestones as well as negative impacts on basic foundation skills for achieving literacy.
  • Conclusion: Thus, the amount of technology a child may use per day should be limited.

By evaluating the premises the soundness of the statement can be determined through the following:

  • Premise one: can be accepted as true for it has been discovered through reasonable research
  • Premise two: Is accepted as true because of observation and scientific facts of child development that have been studied and accepted for years
  • Premise three: can be accepted hesitantly. It has been observed only, and in terms of science, is a very knew development. However, it still has been proven



As we can see, the argument is sound because it is both factually correct and valid. It is factually correct because all the premises are true and it is valid because its conclusion follows from its premises.

The effects of this argument, if shared, will hopefully show parents that the amount of time they allow their children to use technology should be limited. A child should spend more time in physical play then technological play for the sake of their health. In our modern day society as the articles author Cris Rowan writes:

“Technology’s impact on the 21st century family is fracturing its very foundation, and causing a disintegration of core values that long ago were the fabric that held families together. Juggling school, work, home, and community lives, parents now rely heavily on communication, information, and transportation technology to make their lives faster and more efficient. Entertainment technology (TV, Internet, video games, iPads, cell phones) has advanced so rapidly, that families have scarcely noticed the significant impact and changes to their family”

By allowing children to spend all their time with electronics we are impairing their development, health and social dynamics. Let’s focus on “Building Foundations” limit “Virtual Futures” so that we keep the positives of technology because there are so many. Too much of a good thing can, in this case, have negative side effects.




Epistemology Intro Reading

For Monday, please read the two posts linked below, both from Jonathan Toews’ work last year:

Individual Development of Knowledge

The development of one’s own epistemological statement requires a basis of knowledge in the subject (ironically enough). In reading a booklet provided to us, everything seemed to overlap. Each subject, each idea seemed to reach into another’s pocket for help, without containing any formal connection.

One idea that repeated itself more times than others was priori knowledge – the knowledge gained without any sensory medium, but rather, with reason and mind. In response to this, I do believe that knowledge can be found independent of empiricism, but it seems illogical that any knowledge can exist ‘completely’ independent of sense. This is because in order for reason to be a creator of knowledge, it must first have a basis of knowledge to work off of. For reason is the ability to use existing information to find new information – essentially, deduction or induction. In thinking about this, I questioned where the basis of knowledge really is? Can all knowledge be based in reason, or empiricism? Or is there an order that must follow? Trying to go deeper, I created a system, which I believe is how individuals accumulate knowledge.

The Need for Ignorance 

The theory is that all of knowledge is a building. This building has many layers, many levels of knowledge, which we have accumulated within a paradigm. Each time we find new information we add it to the top of the building, building higher and higher. If we find that one piece of information or knowledge was inaccurate, we remove it. Now, if this piece of the building happened to be near the top, it causes little destruction, as only the top must be reconstructed. What happens if the base is removed? The entire building comes crashing down. But wait. Each of these pieces are still extremely useful, as an independent piece. The only problem we faced was the lack of as strong base.

For this reason, we must create a new base. This new base is stronger, and the rest of the pieces of the old building are reorganized, in a new, different way, on top of the new base. In this way, I believe that each time we resolve to create a new base, we are entering a new paradigm. We are not simply discarding all previous knowledge, but building it on an entirely different foundation, one that is (sometimes) stronger.