Many of our words are the same, but you asked a question and I provided an interpreted answer.
Edit: To say it specifically
The fourth character was drawn as a character representing an enlightened perspective. Rather than having multiple panels or having text to describe this, the character was drawn as a child as a shorthand since children come with that association in most cultures.
This is opposed to the other characters drawn in different walks of life’s who have their own unenlightened motives which we assume by default within the context of the forth panel.
The issue is that you called it dumb because you interpret it as “only children” are enlightened enough to see the tree as a tree.
But I don’t believe that is the intent of the comic, instead, they simply drew a child as a shorthand representation for the concept of enlightenment.
I believe any person can be so enlightened to see something as it is, and not what it could be made into if they wanted to.
Therefore, I don’t think the comic is dumb as you stated. I think the comic is attempting to motivate people to see things as they are and be enlightened.
Also there was a little humor in the misspelling of a common word when calling something dumb, in the way of “kettle calling the pot black”
The child is someone who doesn’t have a financial stake in what the tree is used for. It’s narrative shorthand for innocence, but it doesn’t mean “only children think this way”.
Otherwise it wouldn’t be encouraging the readers, presumably adults, to think that way, because it would be impossible.
Then tell me what it implies when all adults in the comic wants to cut the tree down, and only the kid appreciate the beauty of the tree as it is?
Kids are often used as an allegory for the innocent/naive/uncorrupted/enlightened
The kid sees the tree for what it is, not what it could be manipulated into as the other character do.
That is basically what I wrote with other words.
Many of our words are the same, but you asked a question and I provided an interpreted answer.
Edit: To say it specifically
The fourth character was drawn as a character representing an enlightened perspective. Rather than having multiple panels or having text to describe this, the character was drawn as a child as a shorthand since children come with that association in most cultures.
This is opposed to the other characters drawn in different walks of life’s who have their own unenlightened motives which we assume by default within the context of the forth panel.
Which doesn’t really answer why the other guy disagreed with me.
The issue is that you called it dumb because you interpret it as “only children” are enlightened enough to see the tree as a tree.
But I don’t believe that is the intent of the comic, instead, they simply drew a child as a shorthand representation for the concept of enlightenment.
I believe any person can be so enlightened to see something as it is, and not what it could be made into if they wanted to.
Therefore, I don’t think the comic is dumb as you stated. I think the comic is attempting to motivate people to see things as they are and be enlightened.
Also there was a little humor in the misspelling of a common word when calling something dumb, in the way of “kettle calling the pot black”
I can see how me using the word dumb in that context could cause a disagreement, especially as I misspelled beauty, I could have used shallow instead.
The child is someone who doesn’t have a financial stake in what the tree is used for. It’s narrative shorthand for innocence, but it doesn’t mean “only children think this way”.
Otherwise it wouldn’t be encouraging the readers, presumably adults, to think that way, because it would be impossible.