In chapter 12 of Book 2, Aristotle describes the character of young people. Among some of the things that Aristotle says about young men are that they "have strong passions, and tend to gratify them indiscriminately" and that "While they love honour, they love victory still more; for youth is eager for superiority over others, and victory is one form of this" (Aristotle 84). Aristotle also writes that the young have "exalted notions, because they have not yet been humbled by life or learnt its necessary limitations; moreover, their hopeful disposition makes them think themselves equal to great things - and that means having exalted notions" and that "They would always rather do noble deeds than useful ones" (Aristotle 85). In a very broad sense, I'd say that Aristotle is pretty accurate in his assessment of the character of youth. After all, I think we've all had first-hand experience with the capriciousness of youth.
And yet I think the problems with Aristotle's fondness of categorizing things by opposites are also inherent in his description of youth. Aristotle seemingly contradicts what he says about the young having exalted notions when he also writes "They are shy, accepting the rules of society in which they have been trained, and not yet believing in any other standard of honour" (Aristotle 84). It seems to me that young people cannot be both accepting of the rules of society and be ignorant of life's "necessary limitations". Furthermore, I feel like today's youth exhibit many of the characteristics Aristotle attributes to old people such as distrust and cynicism. Maybe it's because of how accessible information is and the faster pace of life today, but I get the feeling that young people today are perhaps a little more jaded than how Aristotle described them. Which isn't to say that Aristotle's guidelines shouldn't be used; rather, his descriptions in certain aspects need revision to be more applicable to today's audience.
This is a good observation, and I would say you are definitely right in that Aristotle's guidelines need a bit of revision and some updates to be fully applicable to our current society. I'd say you're right in that it is the flow of information that has caused this shift in youth. Where in Aristotle's time youths would be given broad but less specialized education and "wisdom" was the domain of those who had actually experienced it, and while they did certainly share it they were not quite as generous as now. With the proliferation of books, the spread of access to "sources of wisdom" aka Professors, and eventually the free flow of information from the internet it is much easier for youths to gain the knowledge of this experience without having to actually experience it themselves, resulting in the more jaded attitude we see today.
ReplyDeleteIn my freshman year linguistics class, my sad Klingon-speaking grad student instructor told us that many of the mistakes children make when they first begin to speak, like adding esses to mass nouns, are actually "corrections" to English. They're speaking English as if it operated on a coherent grammar system, which it doesn't, and experience the disconnect between the system of rules that allows us to cope with the world and the way the world actually requires us to cope with it. So when they ask you if they can have some spaghettis, and you laugh, and they get upset, it's because of this disconnect. They know how to act in a situation and can't act appropriately BECAUSE of that knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI think that disconnect is what Aristotle is describing as both shyness and insolence. Young people have a good grasp of the rules but a poorer grasp of the world, which comes with experience. They know exactly what is expected of them, but not exactly what to do in a real situation.
I like what Charlotte wrote. The young know and understand the rules of society, but they don’t have the practical experience to know how to live and act in life. Take, for instance, the game of chess: it is useful and necessary to know the rules, but unless a player has actually had the experience of playing the game, she is not going to get good at it. Only after she’s played the game against a real opponent will she gain wisdom, strategy, and tactical awareness. Only after losing a few games will she understand what moves are “necessary limitations.”
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you, though, that while Aristotle’s description are pretty accurate, they could use revisions. But all things considered—that Rhetoric was spoken over 2 millennia ago in a completely different culture—I’d say that human character hasn’t changed a whole lot.
I like the chess analogy. I think that is a useful example of how knowing the rules of something is different from how the rules are applied, bent, and sometimes completely ignored. It works even considering Aristotle's "young" was still an adult grouping. They were the younger members of the assemblies to which he/someone would be speaking in order to move through legislation or argue a court case, and I think they are comparable to an idealistic college graduate who gets out and think they can change the world. They have to learn the ropes and how things are done. Take the Roman Republic: it was custom to put new laws to the senate first, even though their decrees had no force of law, before putting them to vote. When magistrates disregarded the normal procedure, they were killed. That is quite a hot temper and harsh negative reinforcement to instill the necessary limitations.
ReplyDeleteCoincidentally I think young dictators who rise to power with a short rule exhibit the characteristics of the Aristotelian young.