Aren't all children philosophers?
No. While stereotypes may have their foundation in common experience, hyperbole is almost always exclusively false.
From "Being A Philosopher" - an interview with Professor John R. Searle
At one point you say, "We have to begin by approaching the problem naïvely. We have to let ourselves be astounded by facts that any sane person would take for granted." So this sense of wonder and naïveté and innocence that you might have is a virtue, in a way.
Yes. I mean that quite literally, and in fact we've been exhibiting that just in our discussion. The way that I describe the mind-body problem: you have to allow yourself to be astounded by things that any sane person takes for granted. We've got this stuff in our brains, it's conscious. How the hell can it be conscious? Now that's the childlike question that you have to ask. When you begin working on a philosophical question you have to be totally naïve. "I've got this hole in my face, noise comes out. People find it meaningful. They think it's true or false or interesting. How can that be? How can just making these noises through my mouth, how can that have all of these remarkable properties?" That's the naïve stage. Then you have, at some point, to become incredibly sophisticated. You stop being naïve and become immensely knowledgeable, rigorous, and sophisticated. And I've never figured out the algorithm for when you stop being dumb and start being smart. But you have to start off very naïve and very dumb. "Oh yes, amazing, how can that be?" Then later on, then you bring in your intellectual apparatus and get it resolved.
Asking this question because I myself am still very young, and I have noticed that what surprises children doesn't surprise me but if i were to be in their age, it would.
Consider the maxims:
- Youth is nothing if not wasted upon the young
- Youth and talent are no match for age and treachery.
Welcome to the world - it owes you no explanation.
That you might construct explanation adequate to occasion and develop rhetorical acumen, when making use of ambiguous terms, ask yourself, what has been communicated? For example, by your use of "children", do you mean those generally of less than a decade old? Two decades? Those under three feet tall? In one sense every presently living human (i.e. homo sapien) and all prior are aptly described by the term "children." That humans are taxonomically identified by the Latin for "wise one" - does that make each human wise any more than the Latin "homo" for the species makes each human male? No.
Per my answer to your other question, "philosopher" is an honorific term. Especially when "philosophy" is used in the sense of "a way of looking at things" even the likes of Ayn Rand, Jacques Derrida, Slavoj Žižek, or fictional characters like Socrates, Morpheus, Gandalf et cetera can be considered "philosopher". So sure, it may be rhetorically apt to describe children as "philosophers". On the other hand, when philosophy is used in the sense of the translation from the Greek, all one need do is reject false argument, rationally assess the truth value of claim(s), or advance knowledge claim(s) for adequate use of philosopher as descriptor. Philosophy is, after all, respect for obtaining knowledge. In this sense humans may very well be adequately described as philosophers from the time they are capable of utterance.
As described by writer Jostein Gaarder in his book Sophie's World, to philosophize is to be astonished by things in nature around us, and we can always see children always surprised of things happening, which we consider it normal, does that mean that children are all philosophers but when they grow up, they follow a system which destroys their sense of astonishment?