There is a reason why older folks were nearly universally afforded respect by younger people over the previous hundred generations (although none of us quite knew why we should be doing this as the world of the older people seemed rife with contradictions that could easily be remedied). It was something we were all taught at the same time we were learning how to walk and talk. The lesson was that fundamental...that real knowledge and wisdom are gained through direct experience.

Over the past two generations, young people have been empowered by parents too concerned with their own lives, by academia that completely gave up on instilling any moral guidance, and most importantly by the demise of any higher higher power that might serve as a ethical/moral beacon.

We now have young people who believe that actual learning comes on social media instead of through life experience. Although many of these younger folks are having their way, the crack party will not last forever and reality will return with a vengeance, and I suppose that (eventually) we will witness colonies of woke-folk growing old as did the Hippies, some who still have not seen fit to depart the 60's.

Experimenting in thought and lifestyle are wonderful processes for both individuals and society but only if responsibility attends. Out of control people who infringe/impinge on others rights can and should not be tolerated in any free society.

As COVID wanes and we return to a somewhat normal existence, hopefully the adult children of America will put their toys away and get back to work as we desperately need to fix this place.

Whinging boomer.

There is a reason why older folks were nearly universally afforded respect by younger people over the previous hundred generations — synthesis

To appease them, and escape the nauseating condescension.

That you both for your piercing insights.

And from the aging Australian rhinoceros and who knows what the other one is, you expected?

But there does seem a matter of interest here. Until recently it was the past that informed the present. And the old were generally respected because they were the ones who knew the past. But starting, for most, in the 1950s-1960s, that started to reverse, with the present being increasingly informed by the possibilities of the future and the lessons of technology. And one can see how the old would resist this, and how to that degree of resistance would become objects of scorn, ridicule, and contempt as fools and obstructionists. That is, there seems something intrinsic to the dynamics of this change, inexorable and inevitable.

Leaving respect for the old only for what wisdom they might possess, for those that severally possess it, and in the areas where such wisdom might apply.

And it may be asked just where philosophy itself fits within this changing of regard. History aside - and history as history is always valuable - philosophy's instruction must ground itself in the possibilities as a dynamic pursuit, and exactly not as Hegel's owl of Minerva that, "When Philosophy paints its grey in grey then has a shape of life grown old. By philosophy’s grey in grey it cannot be rejuvenated but only understood. The Owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk"

Or a different translation:
"Philosophy, as the thought of the world, does not appear until reality has completed its formative process, and made itself ready. History thus corroborates the teaching of the conception that only in the maturity of reality does the ideal appear as counterpart to the real, apprehends the real world in its substance, and shapes it into an intellectual kingdom. When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of Minerva takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering."

And it is just this that appears to be at least partially overturned.

There are [...] people out among the masses who believe that their rights supersede others rights because "their side" knows the truth. They can utter whatever absurdity supports their narrative, but others cannot do the same because it infringes on their rights (to feel safe and secure). — synthesis

IOW, the history of mankind. Duh.

My angle here is that what you learn from experience is far greater than what you can learn otherwise, for two reasons. One is obvious, you learn best by doing. The other is off most people's radar, that is, almost all true learning is non-intellectual. In other words, the amount of information you are taking in is so much greater than what you can intellectually process, that there must be other (unknown) mechanisms that convert this information into wisdom. It is why cultivating awareness is so important.

For example, I am a physician who has been in practice for over forty years. The amount that I know is far greater than just the cumulative total of all of my intellectual experiences. If I have been able to become proficient as a care-giver, it is because I have achieved a deeper understanding of people that I could never explain, and I am sure this holds for other occupations, as well.

Many years ago, I had a patient on a very snowy afternoon where few ventured out so we had a chance to chat at length. He was a WWII veteran who fought at the Battle of the Bulge (he must have been in his late seventies/early eighties). The gentleman started to describe (in detail) what was going down (it was an epic bloodbath) and after a couple of minutes of me just staring at him in utter disbelief, he broke-down and cried right there in front of me. After he composed himself, he told me that he had never told anybody about this and had never cried about it, as well. It was an incredible experience, to say to the least.

Although I will never forget one moment of that conversation, it was not the information that literally changed me going forward. There were all kinds of things going on (besides what we think of as our intellect) that we have no clue about. What we do know is that people who have a great deal of experience are extremely valuable (this should be intuitive to anybody that has had any difficult issue to resolve).

Young people (being relatively new to the planet) have not had the opportunity to have many types of experiences and therefore discount this aspect of wisdom. As we all get older, get married, have children (or take on other responsibilities), the value of experiential learning becomes glaringly obvious.

With the transfer of so much power to younger folks, we have already seen the results and they are not so wonderful. How nice it would be to be able to walk down the street without having to hear multiple f-bombs going off well within the hearing distance of small children, or lack of civility by young people obsessed with themselves without any worries that they may be held in account.

IOW, the history of mankind. Duh. — baker

Thanks for making my point.

If every new generation is a degeneration from the last, surely we should be extinct by now?

Thanks for making my point. — synthesis

Not at all. Your point is that it's only some (young) people who "believe that their rights supersede others rights" etc. etc.
I'm such such beliefs are common.

My angle here is that what you learn from experience — synthesis

What does it mean "to learn from experience"?
Just because one experiences something, doesn't mean one will learn something from it.

For example, people can drive for hundreds and hundreds of hours, without their driving skills improving one bit.

What does it mean "to learn from experience"? — baker

Because real learning is doing.

Do you want to go to a cardiac surgeon that is just trying a new procedure for the first time or would you rather that s/he had performed the procedure many, many times?

There should be one word in the English language for rights and responsibilities because they are a package deal. — synthesis

I wasn't going to respond to one more of your half-assed, claptrap, mean-spirited, "why, when I was a boy," social/political rants. I was hoping it would die out. Since it hasn't, I'll respond.

No, that's not how rights work. Let's make a list (with some overlap):

General (US Declaration of Independence)

• Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Civil rights (US Constitution)

• Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition
• Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia
• Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures
• Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy
• Right to a speedy and public trial
• Right of trial by jury
• Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments
• Freedom from slavery and indentured servitude

Human rights (UN Declaration of Human Rights)

• Right to life, liberty and security of person
• Freedom from slavery or servitude
• Freedom from torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
• Right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal
• Right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial
• Freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence
• Freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state
• Right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country
• Right to marry and to found a family
• Right to own property
• Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
• Freedom of opinion and expression
• Peaceful assembly and association
• Right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work
• Right to education

As much as you might like it to be otherwise, these rights apply to everyone, whether you think they deserve them or not.

I wasn't going to respond to one more of your half-assed, claptrap, mean-spirited, "why, when I was a boy," social/political rants. I was hoping it would die out. Since it hasn't, I'll respond. — T Clark

How wonderful to have people like you who can set others straight.

With rights come responsibility. If you do not exercise responsibility, you are denying others their rights. Is this a difficult idea for you to understand?

How wonderful to have people like you who can set others straight. — synthesis

Aw, shucks.

With rights come responsibility. — synthesis

Let's forget for a moment that "unalienable" means you get them even if you don't deserve them. Which of the rights on the list would you withhold from people who don't meet your standards?

If people do not act responsibly, then there will be a breakdown in order.

As an example, there were many "peaceful" protesters that saw fit to destroy other people's person and property last summer. Many of these people were not only held to account, but they were encouraged by political leadership (of course, until they came for their property).

If you are exercising your rights, you must do it in a fashion where you are not infringing on others' rights. This is a fairly basic concept.

People are too busy enjoying their rights to want to fight for them. This habit will be the deathknell of social democracy. Despite this, one must afford them their right to do this. Let justice reign though the heavens fall, and all that.

Do you want to go to a cardiac surgeon that is just trying a new procedure for the first time or would you rather that s/he had performed the procedure many, many times? — synthesis

Surgery is a special case because in addition to requiring medical knowledge, skill, and training, it requires opportunity to practice. For medicine in general an inexperienced graduate may be the better choice because they may be more likely to be up to date on the latest research, procedures, etc., whereas the experience old-timer might be more set in their ways.

Surgery is a special case because in addition to requiring medical knowledge, skill, and training, it requires opportunity to practice. For medicine in general an inexperienced graduate may be the better choice because they may be more likely to be up to date on the latest research, procedures, etc., whereas the experience old-timer might be more set in their ways. — praxis

Ideally, you want to somebody who is state-of-the-art AND experienced. As you are well aware, there is learning curve to all things. If this is not a big deal, you should seek out medical services at teaching hospitals where the interns and residents are up on all the latest information as well as being familiar with all the latest techniques. I am sure they would love to practice on you.

As an example, there were many "peaceful" protesters that saw fit to destroy other people's person and property last summer. — synthesis

It bothered me that violent vandals and looters were not held legally accountable for their actions. We agree on that, but it doesn't have anything to do with rights.

If you are exercising your rights, you must do it in a fashion where you are not infringing on others' rights. This is a fairly basic concept. — synthesis

It's impossible for us to live our lives without sometimes coming into conflict with other people doing the same thing. Yes, we should behave responsibly, fairly. Again, that doesn't have anything to do with rights.

How can anyone disagree with you? However your conclusion, or your hope at least (at the end of the post) however right, may be somewhat wanting of possibility. :smile: I realized a while ago worrying about a country of 330 million people, which I only assume exists (from what I've heard from the TV and such) may not be the best use of time. However perhaps the solution, on a personal level, may be as much to the point, even if never quite attaining to it. In layman's terms, looking out for number 1. :smile: The way I see we can do that is to find a mate and do something constructive. However cross referencing the bible and my own preference (at the ripe young age of 36, yes I'm a bachelor ladies :smile: ) reveals perhaps an impediment to that, and yet I don't think I'm going off topic yet. So it's a chicken or egg type thing. How do we improve America if it's hard even to get a family going? Takes two to tango. :smile:

Yes there's not only something intrinsic to it, that is the essence of the industrial age. And it was happening well before the '50s. Constant change. And as has been noted, before the industrial age, the world didn't--couldn't--change. The Anglo Saxons ruled England. The peasants farmed. The Normans conquered it. The peasants farmed. The religion was paganism. The peasants farmed. The religion was Christianity. The peasants farmed. Communication (no newspapers or even printing press) was a large part of it probably. But most of the idea of historical change before the industrial age, to my understanding, was limited to the world of the literate. Even if the church had wished to change the populace completely, I'm not sure they would have had the means, or the lasting power to enforce it. Custom was strong, and as the one predominant thing of the pre-industrial age that has remained, that is it, I think, but not always concretely, to my mind. It is custom I think that is responsible for all the differences in countries in the world today. The one force impossible to change (except slowly), but I don't think we see it necessarily, it is mutated and involved in the variations among various countries with comparable technology.

I agree with your second post (or I think it's the second post, your response to Mr. Wood). Experience has taught me much, and I got none of that really, or at least not useful experience I think, from communication on the Internet. The message board, I think, is becoming a real problem now. No not this one (well not principally) but ones where people go generally to share the same ideas. So their knowledge, and I think you've already suggested this, is just repeated again and again, in the group. Things are held to be true that may not be. A lack of experience, and a repetition of shared knowledge, reinforces (perhaps) a false view, one that, also incidentally, may reinforce seclusion from reality--and thus experience. Problems I think are a given in the future, catastrophic and cataclysmic ones are the concern. :smile:

As to the faults of the young, well I don't think I was ever much in control of my life really, before a certain age. And people of certain dispositions, of course, follow certain roads, appertaining to their own time. And so like streams converging it seems to be a continual process, and although not strictly analogous, to my view, unstoppable. That's a hundred million streams (supposing we're speaking of the U.S.A.) Need a mighty large dam to brick that up. :smile: But you did mention the role of parents, though I'm not sure that's any different. Same values (general 'baby boomer' type people, live and let live and what else one might infer), same following a course, same unstoppable flow. It's these darn machines I tell ya! :wink:

If every new generation is a degeneration from the last, surely we should be extinct by now?

The constant social change didn't begin till the industrial age really. Where it will end up no one knows (or so I flatter myself who hasn't figured it out yet).

The constant social change didn't begin till the industrial age really. Where it will end up no one knows (or so I flatter myself who hasn't figured it out yet). — EricL

Welcome to the forum. You write well and have interesting things to say. I hope you'll hang around for a while.

Oh thanks, I'm glad to be here. :smile:

You didn't answer my question, and you're giving an impertinent example. People can do something a lot, but this still has no bearing on whether their skills at doing it will improve or not. A person can bake a hundred loafs of bread poorly, repeating the same mistake over and over again, learning nothing from merely doing. Were it not for a measure of external oversight, a surgeon could botch dozens of operations, repeating the same mistakes, learning nothing from merely doing.

It's impossible for us to live our lives without sometimes coming into conflict with other people doing the same thing. Yes, we should behave responsibly, fairly. Again, that doesn't have anything to do with rights. — T Clark

You have the right to free speech, but the responsibility to not shout FIRE in a crowded movie theater (if there is no fire).

You have the right to bear arms but the responsibility to not recklessly endanger others with said firearms.

You have the right (privilege?) to operate a motor vehicle but the responsibility to obey the traffic laws.

You have the right to vote but the responsibility to not vote twice.

You have the right to attend public school but the responsibility to not interfere with others' education.

With every right comes responsibilities.

People can do something a lot, but this still has no bearing on whether their skills at doing it will improve or not. — baker

Perhaps you are around the wrong kind of people.

I think you and I are talking around in circles. Talking about words. We've probably taken this as far as we can for now.