"The Polar Express" sends a bad message to children (spoilers)

Great Debates
21

Diogenes if your sole point is that children shouldn’t be told never to doubt then we have very little argument. But that’s a far cry from your original position that children should never, ever believe in anything that can’t be proved objectively and seen with the eyes.

I can accept that children shouldn’t be told never to doubt. I can’t accept that they should be told not to believe in fair play because they can’t see it and it can’t be proved to exist objectively. Those two positions are poles apart.

I still maintain that the movie was talking about the value of things that can’t be seen or proven with science but are nonetheless real and of great value. Of course I haven’t seen the movie. Even if I had that is a discussion for café society since it is purely my subjective interpretation of the movie vs. yours. Of course just because you view is subjective and can’t be proved doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t believe in it, does it? :wink:

The child wasn’t being mocked for being a doubter. He was being mocked for doubting for all the wrong reasons. This is the message I see being portrayed; that not all things should be doubted or deemed worthless and non-existent simply because they can’t be seen or weighed. The very fact that the child is called a doubter makes it quite clear to me where that part of the story was drawing its inspiration from. It is a clear rewriting with the story of Thomas in the Gospels.

I’ll quote Gould:

And that is the very sentiment I believe the movie was presenting. The child was being chastened for demanding objective proof for something which is quite clearly not based in subjective reality. He was refusing to believe there was any value in any reality beyond the objective. Like the story of Thomas this story is an important message about the principles underlying the acceptance of the subjective-but-valuable things that make us human. Santa Claus in the movie is a metaphor for the subjective. Santa in the movie is like ethics and values. Very important and valuable to humans but they are not determined or falsified by there ability or inability to be seen or measures. And as Gould says anyone who doubts the existence of such things simply because they lack of observational proof of them deserves to be rebuked for being a doubter.
So once again I agree with Gould and disagree with you.

Fair enough too. But that doesn’t make it any less valuable that children be taught that things have a value even if they can’t be established by investigation or seen in the real world. Both philosophies have there place, children should be exposed to both. This movie has chosen to tackle the latter. That doesn’t make it a bad message in any way.

But as I have pointed out, that is the case. A great many things are true solely because people believe in them. Love, Mercy, Justice and so forth are all true. They are also completely subjective. They exist and are true entirely because people believe in them and for no other reason.

22

All I know is that the CGI humans in that movie looked creepy as hell. Why anyone would watch that when The Incredibles is showing two theaters down is beyond me. :smiley:

23

I’m sorry, but no, it’s not. Childrens’ books don’t tend to go for complex philosophical points the audience won’t possibly get, and The Polar Express is no exception. If Dio’s interpretation is a little hard on a kid’s book, this one is much too broad. The message, and he’s right that it’s not unique to this one book, is that magic and Santa and all these wonderful things are real if you believe in them, and people who doubt are missing something. Probably it’s because these books are usually written by parents who want their kids to listen to them without asking a bunch of questions. :wink: If you boil down what stories like this tell kids, it’s that believing is in and of itself a good thing. Why? If you believe in things, you get rewards! You get candy and toys and you get to sit on Santa’s lap.

He said nothing that even comes close to resembling this in the OP. You should reread it. This happens a lot, actually. Diogenes is talking about being rational and skeptical. You’re equating it with being closed-minded and sticking your head in the sand. I think what you’re saying about death is just incorrect, but I won’t go into it since the above is what counts. Love can’t be measured, but yeah, at some points you DO want to think critically about it.

True as it may be, I don’t think this has anything to do with the subject. Dio’s approach doesn’t dismiss opinions, feelings or concepts. You seem to be suggesting that if we think critically, we throw all of those things out the window. That’s absurd.

I don’t see where he says anything that would make you think this either.

Yeah, you know that Diogenes, he just hates mercy and kindness. Look, almost everything you’ve said is based on this idea - one that the Polar Express story could be said to back up, in some small way - that people who think critically and exercise skepticism are mean, selfish, cold-hearted, uncharitable Scrooges. In my opinion, that’s just humbug.

24

Dead wrong. The child is told to “just believe” in a harmless myth that spreads joy & happiness. Not in everything. And if I was taken on a magic train ride to the North Pole- complete with elves and Santa- there’d be just and good reasons to believe.

25

How does the child know what a harmless myth is and what isn’t? Sounds to me like he ought to just believe anything in case. For that matter, why is the kid told to believe over and over if he’s already going to see Santa anyway?

26

Miracle on 34th Street is a great movie, though, and it’s totally different. The point of Miracle, and of virtually all “believe, goddamit” movies, is that faith can move mountains and make the impossible possible. This is obviously not the point of Polar Express, though, because the impossible is happening the whole damn time even though the protagonist has no faith at all. It’s not magical or sweet for someone to not believe in things that are right in front of them asking them to believe them; nor is it magical or sweet for them TO believe those things. It’s just absurd. As is his eventual conversion; if a long-ass train ride and a whole bunch of ghosts can’t convince him, then just being in a big square while a bunch of people cheer isn’t about to. He doesn’t convert because he finally realizes he’s wrong; he converts because he’s lonely and sad. Polar Express, if you look at it, is actually about believing because if you don’t you’ll be left out and you won’t get presents.

I do happen to think that that’s a bad message.

–p

27

Nonsense. “Not everything that is real can be seen” is not a complex philosophical point to the average 6yo. It’s about as complex as “not everything that is ugly will stay that way” as seen in “The Ugly Duckling” or “destroying the natural environment has consequences on humans" seen in “The Lorax”. You are not giving children near enough credit if you think that something as simple as ““Not everything that has value can be seen” is too complex for them.

No it’s not.

Once upon a time a prince wanted to marry. 3 sisters applied for the job. Each one was placed in a room after they met the Prince. The room contained three jars filled with beauty, gold and water respectively and the girls were told they could choose one as a gift. The first sister chooses the beauty and is rejected. The second chooses the gold and is rejected and covered in mud. The third chooses the water because water makes the flowers grow etc. She is rewarded with marriage to the prince and great beauty and wealth.

How many hundreds of kids stories follow that basic storyline?

If you boil down what stories like this tell kids, it’s that believing in the value of things that aren’t tangible or visible is far more worthy than believing only in things that can be seen or sold.

Did you even read the OP? He says outright that it never correct to say that “sometimes the things that are the most real are the things you can’t see”. And then you claim that he never said anything that implied an inability to think of anything that is real but can not be seen or objectively measured. Marley your comprehension skills need a bit of work.

I never suggested anything of the sort. I stated quite clearly that my objection is to Diogenes’ claim that children should never believe in anything that can’t be proven to exist. Please can the strawmen.

OK, now I know you didn’t read the op.

Where did he say anything that would make me think that it is wrong to teach children to value things that that can’t be ‘proved’ by scientific critical thinking based on objective reality?

Gee, do you think it might have been when he said “They [children] should be told not to believe without proof”? Do you think that might be a bit of a hint? Unless of course you are suggesting that children can value something they don’t believe exists? Is that your point Marley?

Marley this is a blatant strawman. Please either quote where I said anything even vaguely resembling that or else withdraw it.

Is this really the best you can do? A n apparent total inability to read the OP? Claims about what is and is not in children’s books that contradict what we all know to be true and made without references? Strawman caricatures of my position? How about engaging what was actually posted?

28

Let’s face it – children’s stories whose theme is “ya gotta believe!” are a product of the sadness adults face at watching children grow up. They are a parent’s way of saying “don’t destroy the credulous child I love by growing into someone I don’t know or recognize.” It’s probably not the healthiest thing in the world, but it is natural for parents to have such feelings. I doubt such stories do any great amount of harm, except perhaps for making a child’s own sadness at leaving very early childhood behind even more acute.

It is unfortunate, but growing up can be cause for mourning as well as celebration. If “Miracle on 34th Street” and “Polar Express” turned legions of kids into freakish Michael Jackson types who totally deny their age, I would be the first one to decry them, but I doubt that that is the case.

29

…now, if the conductor was telling the kid, “Bush is a great American, and we’re winning the war on terror, and gas was ALWAYS too expensive, and we’ve ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia, and you should just BELIEVE…”

…that would be one thing.

This is a movie about a kid believing in Santa Claus.

While I can see Diogenes’ point, I have to draw a pretty stiff dividing line between Santa Claus and George Bush.

Besides, I’m pretty sure Santa’s a Democrat.

30

I think it’s wrong to lie to your kids for several years about the Jolly Old Elf’s role in the X-Mas loot’s “magical” appearance beneath the tree, and whenever I say that, people either :rolleyes: or accuse me of something tantamount to child abuse. Maybe they’re worried my line of reasoning could extend to Jesus…

31

I saw Bad Santa (it is here this year) instead and began my review:

If you fear that sickly sweet feel-good Xmas fare like “The Polar Express” will rot your teeth, try the truly %$#&^%** nasty “Bad Santa”.

32

You say you haven’t seen it so hw could you know what the kid is being mocked for? I saw the movie. The kid was being mocked for not simply believing without asking questions.

I think it’s a huge stretch to find literary allusions to the gospels but even so, your quoted passages serve only to undeline my point. Thomas is being ridiculed for doubt by exaggerating his need for proof (he needs to see both hands) and Gould also says that “Thomas should have known by his faith and belief.” No. No he shouldn’t. Not only is it unreasonable to say that people should know by faith, it’s not even possible. Belief != knowledge, no matter how strongly you believe it. Even if a belief happens to be true it is still not knowledge without proof, it’s just an incidentally true belief.

The only knowledge is objective knowledge. Belief is not knowledge. Subjectivity is not knowledge. Only that which can be verified empirically is knowledge. Kids should never be told not to doubt what they are told, especially if what they are told is contradicted by empirical observation.

How can they have a value if they can’t be proven to exist? A belief itself may have a value but that belief can’t be mandated and it’s wrong to tell a kid he has no right to disbelieve.

I disagree that those ideas are brought about by belief. They all have tangible definitions. They are somewhat abstract but they have definition and reality. I would even argue that they’re all empirically verifiable.

Love is a biochemical reaction which binds animals to mates, to offspring and to allies. It’s an organic survival tool and a product of evolution. It’s just brain chemistry. It’s also obervable, even if you don’t agree about what causes it, it’s still an observable phenomenon in nature and in anthroplogy. It’s an emotion which people experience for themselves like any other emotion. “Love” is just a word for a particular emotion caused by brain chemistry. Belief has nothing to do with it.

Mercy is a specific human behavior. No belief required.

Justice is a philosophical ideal which can be expressed formulatically and pursued. Again no belief is required. One may agree or disagree with the practicality of the ideal, or with the formulation or even with the ideal itself but one cannot disbelieve that it simply exists as an ideal.

None of those things are taken on faith.

33

Now Bad Santa was my kind of Christmas movie. :smiley:

34

Not that this necessarily constitutes a case against the movie, but I feel compelled to refer to one of the better lines from a movie review in recent memory, this from the N.Y.T.'s recent review:

If only Cahiers du Cinema could write more about scrota.

35

Seems to me that the child was using logic to explain that Santa could not exist because he is simply not fast enough, and doesn’t have the resources to carry enough toys for everyone. How are his explainations the wrong reasons? Seems pretty logical to me. That’s the problem. The childs questioning of Santas existence are perfectly valid, yet he is told to just believe, just because. :rolleyes:

36

I think I’m placing more importance on the “most real” part of the equation than you did.

I think there’s a significant difference between saying “sometimes the most real things can’t be seen” (pretty typical kids’ book wisdom) and “everything real can be seen.” I don’t know exactly what Diogenes thinks about the existence of concepts like justice and honesty and fair play, but they seem to be evident in his thinking.

Anyway you’re obviously right. I didn’t read the OP or (bet you didn’t see this coming) your post. :rolleyes: But reading your reply made me realize why a couple of people in a recent thread said they’d like to see the word ‘strawman’ banned.

37

You’ve brought up a good point Dio that shouldn’t be dismissed.

I haven’t seen the movie, so I can’t comment to its merits directly, however I think you should bear in mind that only when you are young can your life be filled with wonderful fantasies that are “real” to you. A lot of us older people here seem to be embittered by realities (like the re-election of George Bush) . Did you not believe in Santa at one time ? Or did your parents believe that your best interests would be served by dispelling any notion of a jolly old saint? Being the archetypical cynic that you portray on these boards makes me wonder if that was due to likeminded upbringing.

38

Generally, it isn’t even possible for children to think rationally before they’re nine years old. And shortly after that, they’re consumed by hormonal imbalances. Children aren’t small adults. It is in their nature to be trusting and to believe what adults tell them. It is difficult enough to rear children without someone advocating that they become rebellious and question everything. They don’t grock the real dangers of the world, the ulterior motives of so many people, or even their own immortality, and so it is important that they trust their parents and obey them. There are exceptions of course. Some parents are themselves nefarious, but it requires other adults to safeguard kids from such people. Kids can’t do it themselves. They cannot even comprehend the nuances of healthy skepticism. Attempting to make them into critical thinking adults while their brains are still immature is, as far as I’m concerned, a form of child abuse.

39

I haven’t seen or read The Polar Express, and it’s been years since I saw Miracle of 34th Street, but I would tend to agree with Diogenes about Polar Express, without extending the same criticism to Miracle on 34th Street.

It seems to me that The Polar Express, as described, is an endorsement of blind faith over reason, with emphasis on the literal truth of an impossible fairy story. If you ‘believe’ hard enough, it is true. Or if you don’t believe a popular myth, you’re stupid. That’s poison, as far as I’m concerned.

Miracle on 34th Street, on the other hand, is more about an affirmation of intangibles behind the form of the myth. It’s critical of pure materialism and especially shallow commercialism, but the only non-material things it places value on are things like love, generosity of spirit, etc.

For me, Miracle of 34th Street is a perfect Christmas movie, in that it uses the secular trappings of the season to relate a valuable Christian message. (IMHO, which may be at odds with those of some Christians, since I find dogmatic belief systems of any description repellent, but hold Christ himself in high esteem as a philospher and spiritual leader, and Miracle of 34th Street strikes a chord with me from that point of view.) The whole debate about whether or not Kris Kringle is a fraud to be punished or something special is just Christ before the pharisees again. I hate that so many people (christian or no) put all the emphasis on the fairy-tale and mythology that has accumulated around Christ, and ignore his actual message. Virgin birth? Who cares? Can turn to smoke and fly up a chimney? Fuggeddabout. Is capable of reminding people to love one another above the world? There’s a man with a divine spark, who should be acknowledged. I heartily endorse such a message.

Blindly believe in the literal truth of articles of faith surrounding some mythical personality because of the promise of some personal reward? Not so much.

Ayuh. Faith is poisonous stuff, and everything it touches turns nasty. It’s what Christ tried so hard to free us from, the poor bastard.

40

Liberal: Generally, it isn’t even possible for children to think rationally before they’re nine years old.

Golly, Lib, you must know some odd kids. Most of the three- to eight-year-olds I know are quite capable of thinking rationally, although they certainly don’t do so consistently. But they’re well able to understand simple rational explanations of phenomena, such as “Santa couldn’t possibly visit every house on Christmas Eve because nothing can fly fast enough for that”. Some kids I know have even figured out such explanations for themselves.

Liberal: It is difficult enough to rear children without someone advocating that they become rebellious and question everything. They don’t grock the real dangers of the world, the ulterior motives of so many people, or even their own immortality, and so it is important that they trust their parents and obey them.

I don’t think that Dio is advocating that children shouldn’t trust or obey their parents. As he said, he’s just bothered by the presentation of a child’s skepticism or doubt as something to be mocked and suppressed.

Liberal: *They cannot even comprehend the nuances of healthy skepticism. *

Sure they can. One of my friends is a great exaggerator and would often make silly or extravagant responses to his toddler son’s questions, just for fun. The boy loved it, and very soon learned to play the game of figuring out whether Daddy was giving a straight answer or just teasing. (His standard skeptical inquiry about an improbable-sounding statement—“Weeeally?”—is still a catchphrase in our circle. :))

I agree that it would be insane and horribly cruel to demand that a child figure out how to deal with everything s/he encounters in the world purely through the exercise of his/her own rational inquiry. As I said, their rationalism just isn’t consistent enough for that, nor do they have adequate maturity or experience or a host of other necessary things.

But there’s certainly nothing wrong with encouraging them to develop the beginnings of critical thinking. And all DtC is saying here is that we shouldn’t absolutely squelch or mock their own attempts at it.