Aristotle states, in no uncertain terms, that "the young are not fit to be student of Political Science" (9). He bases this discrimination in the reasoning that the young, "whether they are young in years or immature in character," lack life experience and knowledge of how to conduct themselves: traits vital to Aristotle's image of a politician. The translator attributes Aristotle's exclusion to the young's inability to "gain a knowledge of Ethics (which they cannot, because it requires experience of life), they would no use it as a guide to conduct, because they are led by their passions and appetites" (Rackham in Nicomachean Ethics, 8).
My dissatisfaction with Aristotle's exclusion of "the young" lies in his deliberate rejection of a viewpoint that is highly different from his own. In seeking Goodness, for which he has no ultimate definition, closing off a particular age group -- some of whom may or may not characterize the immaturity of character he mentions -- from the opportunities of Political Science seems short-sighted. For in doing so, he closes himself off from another opportunity: to be inspired by a fresher set of ideas.
This is an interesting observation about Aristotle's way of thinking. Although he builds from--and refutes--the thinking of previous philosophers, he doesn't have much respect for those who have lives or opinions that differ from his own. During his discussion of the young and their inability to practice Politics, he states, "The defect is not a question of time, it is because their life and its various aims are guided by feeling; for to such persons their knowledge is of no use..." (9). Those who perceive the world through the mechanisms of emotion rather than of logic, therefore, are not properly equipped to practice Politics. It follows that Aristotle believes that Politics, and therefore the Good that comes from Politics, is the domain of logical and principled thinking.
ReplyDeleteAristotle's discussion of Happiness and pleasure further indicates his belief that Goodness should transcend human feelings because "the most vulgar [men] identify the Good with pleasure and accordingly are content with the Life of Enjoyment..." (13). It is not only the young who are incapable of arriving at true Good because of their emotional connection to the world around them, but ordinary people who obtain happiness through pleasure and think that it is Good. Although he states at the end of the pieces that "things appear good to different people," (141) Aristotle seems to be suggesting that those who "feel" good rather than "think" good are not correctly experiencing what he sees to be a philosophical Idea and therefore attainable only by those who follow the same teachings as Aristotle himself.
This rather systematized view of how people should see and interact with their world does not allow for differences in the perceptive lens that people use to make sense of the world. Thus, while Aristotle comes to the conclusion that Ideal Good is unreachable and that people therefore must find what is good for themselves, he still holds on to the belief that some goods are more legitimate than others.
I also found Aristotle’s description of youth to be pretty reductive. Over and again, in both Nichomachean Ethics and Oh Rhetoric, Aristotle points to their naivete and changeability as flaws rendering them incapable of engaging in meaningful civic discourse. However, he would condemn them for many positive traits as well: idealism, hopefulness, courage, trust… the list goes on.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found to be very interesting in On Rhetoric, however, was that although Aristotle clearly concludes that the old are much more capable than the young, his argument would lead one to think otherwise. This may just be my bias as a young person, but I would much rather have an idealistic and hopeful politician as my leader than one who is overly cynical, doubtful, “small-minded because of having been worn down by life” (Aristotle 167), a “slave to profit” (Aristotle 168), etc.
Of course Aristotle is making huge generalizations about how age shapes us. And again, my view may be just as fickle and immature as he makes it out to be. But it seems to me that a more useful categorization than “old” and “young” might be “optimistic” and “pessimistic”, or maybe he could have combined this argument with his discussion of the effects of noble birth or family money on consciousness. Either way, I found Aristotle’s treatment of age to be the most close-minded of what we’ve read of his work.