I have always asked myself the question “Why is youth idolized?” But up until today I never had an answer, for youth is idolized not just merely because of ignorance but rather the shade of social idealism pulled over the youth. In that brief period of time (Specifically between the ages of thirteen and seventeen.) It felt as if boundaries are simply something you can blow past, It felt like flying and seeing life from a birds eye view, everything with accordance to each other in a visible pattern of both recognition from a subjective level, and even extended to an objective level. Shared recognition by the lot can be nothing other than an objective judgment that is opposed to the judgement of perception. (Which is only based in the individual and is not shared among the lot.) But this shared sensation is orchestrated at best, it is not the truth, but rather it is the reflection of whatever someone or something wants you to see. Quite literally the allegory of the Cave. My metaphysical disagreements with Plato aside, the ethical half of this allegory still stand. It is a contrived statement of pseudo-intellectualism to make the claim that some shadow-like powerful institution is controlling everything but that, as long as this section goes, is of no importance, for I will first explain how the things are before making any foolish claims.
Youth can be a contentious subject insofar that can we even prove youth exists? What should separate the man of fifty to the younger man of fifteen? well, it is the presupposed fact that fifty is greater than fifteen and our use of the word “younger” in regards that ages exist in a measurable space apriori to how they are thought as independently. In short, we assume the magnitude of which knowledge is instituted in the first place before even discussing the concepts of “greater” and its opposite. Youth exists in that framework, now we shall move onto discussing the quality of the ages, so the question being is what is the difference between the man of fifty and the younger man of fifteen? This question is a given in that basic natural science can already explain for this. The young are less learned than their elders, the brain of the young is sharply distinct on a mere empirical level and reason assumes that not existing in the world as long its elder, its relation to it is shorter and not as grounded.
Now the last section is such of sound sense that I could have excluded it but to make this passage whole I intend to fix into every detail. For this part will perhaps critique the system of how we treat youth in society (Through institutions) in such a manner it will blink at itself and exit its own to see its own existence for what is is. Now the first distinction when It comes to the youth is the separation of what ought to be and what already is. (Do not confuse this with the original is-ought problem, this is of an entirely different subject.)
I make the claim that is is can be taught in a negative manner, that is, taught by something which actively lies to the youth in saying what actually is. It organizes life into simple confines and even represents that in the life of the youth. It plays off the ignorance of the youth to convince them the boundaries of whatever may exist are easily crossed with only a mere will to do so. Academic achievement, job opportunities, even social relationships, and that attitude is found everywhere that “Life is what you make it.” attitude which, ironically, has solved the is- ought problem. The new statement, “it is ought to be” makes it positive that oughts’ even exist, it is positively normative. Positive normality is the attitude given to youth by almost everyone, but does it relate to reality? Is everything ought?
To have the value that everything can be changed and is malleable to the will instilled at such a young age always ends up in that the reality of the youth is the reality of a construct in to which they take a look back from the bird’s eye vision they have been accustomed to using and organize everything in the manner they deem fit for the self. Coupled with the general easier life, youth is grand. Everything exists around you like play-putty to your own creative desire and you have the time to do so as well. But as a one gets older and the golden age of youth tappers away reality sings a different tune, a tune of inherited qualities and collective power over the notions of the meek self and its presupposed reality. Now the general question is raised, if we have an understanding or inclination to what reality is, why do we tend to idealize it to children? Surely it should be normal, much like drinking a glass of water, an act of which I feel no idealization for the sole reason I know all of the ins- and outs of how it operates. Yet we think we idealize youth, but in actuality we idealize the ignorance, of which the young mind is only a vassal for, we idealize of a world to the will of the self, for if the world is truly to the self, we should have no reason to idealize but to treat it like drinking water, an activity that is a given.