How can a 3 year-old read Sartre? (Tiger mother)

[ZZZenAgain]

I know we have talked about Amy Chua a lot already but this really puzzles me. Read an interview with her in a German news magazine.

Just paraphrasing from memory : "Whilst other dc learnt numbers from 1-10, I taught Sophia addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and decimal numbers. When she was 3 she read Sartre".

Now did Sartre write some books I don't know about which would appeal to/be accessible to a 3 year old? I can imagine a 3 year old under some circumstances might be able to decode the words but could a 3 year old understand Sartre's books and actually get anything out of them?

At 3, my dd did not read anyhing so I can't compare but I do wonder what the point is in reading Sartre aged 3. Or is Sophia a far from ordinary child anyway even without the parental training, is she an exceptionally gifted person?

Hahahahahahahahahaha..... and breathe

No 3 year old can understand stuff like that - she may be able to read the words, but that doesnt mean she understands any of it.

I'm glad it is not only me who is stumped by that one.

Silly to try to get a 3yo to read Sartre. And if by chance she actually DID manage it, silly to admit it.

Family lore has it DH read Lord of the Rings aged 5. He did - two pages of stumbling over elf names etc. [ignorant non-nerd emoticon] but not the whole book!

I am sure quite a few children can "read" Sartre at 3. By that I mean as in link the leters together to make works but understand it? there is no way!

Quite few 3 yo probably do spell better than me too

but if they cannot understand what they are reading, what is the point? Or am I missing something - like the importance of starting with good literature and bypassing easy reader stuff because it is all tripe etc?

the question here is why would any 3 year old want to read sartre

I expect it was just lying around, one of the adults had been reading it and Sophia picked it up, something like that probably.

I know she is a bit into high-brow culture - "Naturally I wanted my chldren to have hobbies - but not anything like sewing or handicrafts which leads to nothing. Instead I wanted them to do something purposeful and difficult with potential for depth and virtuosity" (classical music)

but still

the whole point of reading is being able to understand what you are reading imo, as far as literature goes it is important to understand the subtext if you are going to digest it and learn from it.

I am sure I could teach my 3yo to parrot fashion sartre back to me (like she does with billy goats gruff and the gingerbread man and pretty much any other book at the moment) but I think she can relate to the books she reads and if I can't relate to Sartre how the hell is she going to [idiot emoticon] (for me not her!)

kind of depressing reading some of it, isn't it? I know I was reading something by sartre when I was pregnant and I couldn't cope with it in that emotional state. Got me down too much.

Odd choice for a 3 year old I would have thought

I think if your child is gifted there are many other things that can be learnt that are more important and more practical actually, Sartre etc is something that a child picking up to read to enjoy could happen later when they have more comprehension, it is all very well being able to "read" it, I can read a computer programming manual, doesn't necessarily mean I can make it work

However if she really is that gifted and understands I feel terribly sorry her as she will have nothing to work up to, will effectively miss out on her childhood and if she has a pushy mother (as it seems) she may end up resenting her in the future. Not all of these stories end well sadly.

its one of those things I think I should read, and can't bring myself to. For me there are other books that I would prefer to spend time digesting, I would prefer to increase my knowledge and dd's some of his work to me doesn't acutally make me feel like I am increasing my knowledge, I can think for myself however I think perhaps I am more factual!

but not anything like sewing or handicrafts which leads to nothing

what an incredibly blinkered view.

yes grimma but she is tough like that. A bit relentless in the pursuit of success (success in recognisable status/material terms).

Later inthe article I read she is asked about creativity and whether drilling dc doesn't stifle it and whether it would not be better to encourage a dc's creativty. She answers that yes, creativity is important to her but she would not have let her girls play with wooden blocks for instance. Instead she showed them other cultures via travel and took them to museums.

She was just incredibly clear in what she wanted for her dds' education and little leeway left or right of that was given.

Her poor children, I can't see how playing with wooden blocks wouldn't encourage creativity (dd spends hours building forts and castles with hers but she has lots of architecture and arty people in our family) but I can see how spending hours in the museums might stifle it [ponders own visits to museums when a child].

This discussion needs a 3yo. DS2 is my guinea pig.

We have read:

"A lost battle is a battle one thinks one has lost."

"Hell is other people."

"When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. "

"Being is. Being is in-itself. Being is what it is."

verdict from 3yo (who needed help with the word being). What is this? Why are these nonsense? What's hell?

Sartre's top quotes don't actually require a huge amount of reading skill - I expect they're accessible to most reception children, it's just that they won't mean much for another few years.

I have noticed that the parents of supposedly exceptionally clever children tend to guild the lily when talking about their accomplishments. It makes me extremely sceptical of anything they have to say.

It makes a change for it to be Sartre though - I thought the standard for genius was the early reading of Harry Potter.

Of course a 3 year old child could read it, but that's not necessarily indicative of the child's intelligence. I have known many, many Chinese (and Indian) children over the years who are 'exceptionally bright' but seem to be lacking in a certain kind of intelligence. It is hard to explain it, but I think that this preoccupation with all things academic is at the expense of other things, like common sense and social skills.

Satre? Pah. We did that at 2.

'That's not my philosopher, his views are too existentialist...'

Of course dd can spell it correctly.

I agree MommyMayhem. Just because a child can do something does it mean they should? What benefits does a child reading Sartre at 3 have? They can hardly discuss it at playgroup. Let them be kids!

I can just picture a group of 3 year olds discussing Sartre at playgroup in between biting, hiting, snatching toys and crying .

I agree with PPs who say the child might have been sounding out the words, but not gaining anything (other than phonics practice) at age .

The thing about Sartre is that it's the kind of material which means something when you have read other things. A sound knowledge of the bible, for example! in isolation, even for an adult, (ie if an adult who has never read books started to read "The Flies" or "Les Mains Sales") most of it would be meaningless.

OK, I have just tested Seville's quotes on my 4yo (I read them out, he can't read them yet) and asked him to judge each quote as 'clever' or 'stupid'

His view is:
"A lost battle is a battle one thinks one has lost."
and
"When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. "
=clever

"Hell is other people."
"Being is. Being is in-itself. Being is what it is."

=stupid.

which is clearly spot on.

(therefore I conclude that my 4yo can't read Sartre but he can form intelligent opinions about it, which is much more advanced than yours)

hippy - loving the idea of those 'thats not my series'