“He breaks the windows of his room; let the wind blow upon him night and day, and do not be afraid of his catching cold; it is better to catch cold than to be reckless. (11)”

No parent in their right mind would do this to their child. No disrespect to Rousseau, but this is extremely harsh and not realistic. Rousseau gives reason to this by stating that a child has no reason nor memory. The actions that occur do not penetrate the understandings of these children and therefore the method of rebuking children change. Does this mean that punishing children does not help?
We like to teach things to children so they can be knowledgable from their early days, but if they have no memory or level of competency or understanding, what is the point of educating them if we will have to repeat ourselves once they grow up?

I agree that children do not have a high level of competency but I disagree that it is a waste to educate then. Rousseau says that one should only learn something when that something is of use to them otherwise it will just be a nuisance for the child (12). He says that a twelve year old shouldn’t learn to read until necessary. Not only is that a procrastination method but it is also a mistake in my humble opinion. We don’t learn/teach things to apply them at that specific moment, rather to be knowledgable individuals that may need to know that information at any given moment of time. How can a person learn something whenever they need to know it? If it comes up spontaneously one may not have the time or the resources to learn it. Life is about being proactive.

I am not saying to teach a three year old the quadratic formula but to rebuke a child can be very helpful since I do believe that they have the ability to depict images (which Rousseau agrees with,12), which is linked to memory. If a child gets yelled at for doing something wrong, he/she will think twice before doing that action the next time.