I Blame the Romantics

But wait, so you're claiming that the Romantic notion of essentially being irrational has overcome the idea of reason? But then you say how it's taken 300 years for this irrational mentality to set in--well then, isn't it now sort of tried and tested? It wasn't like a wildfire that was sparked one minute and burnt itself out the next.

If you were correct on your assessments than that's exactly what would have happened--the romantics would have burned themselves out with their own passionate youthful irrationality.

Unfortunately most of life isn't so onesided--like everything else Romanticism to the more Classical or conservative approach is a balance. Going always with what has been used before gets you nowhere you've never been, right? Isn't the definition of insanity doing the very same thing over and over and expecting a new result?

Thinking outside the box, aka Romanticism, has it's place--as does the wisdom of the classical viewpoints. We need both.

Actually, I think the Romantic movement took more like 200 years, as I don't really consider a viable Romantic movement to have existed until the 19th century. (Yes, there were "avant garde" Romantics on the 18th century, but the majority were int he 19th century. Even the example I used was written in the 1770's, so only 240 years, not 300.)

Now, as to Romanticism being tried and true, that is not exactly the case. Romanticism took hold among the intellectuals, but not among the general public. Even as late as the 1920's you will still find a majority still venerating age and relatively conservative. The trend toward youth worship was still held by a small set of trend-setters.

I think the real explosion, and forcing the Romantic mindset into the mainstream came with two things, the electronic media allowing a small group to control popular thought more easily and the broad access to higher education, which disseminated intellectual trends more broadly.

And, I have to differ with your final statement as well. Some things are one-sided. And, in my mind, Romantic worship of youth is such a thing. There really is no benefit to treating the young and inexperienced as role models.

Even as a youth I could see the folly of that position.

Thanks for the comments, and welcome to the blog. Please come back again, as I always enjoy hearing the perspective of others.

So you're saying there is nothing redeemable with youth? Nothing to be admired? You must have been a boring kid. And you must be rather old now.

There are advantages to youth that are worthy of veneration. For instance, in the youth the minds are open and willing to examine possibilities that the old wise sages of society won't even consider out of bias or fear of being wrong.

How much of the new inventions and new technologies of our day were brought about by people under 25? By people under 20? I mean talk about the personal computer. The big grand-daddy of computer businesses at the time, IBM, wouldn't touch the industry of personal computers with a ten foot pole in the beginning.

In order to truly thrive, we have to be both wise and innovative. Youth have a predisposition to innovation. Won't you agree with that?

Not to mention enthusiasm. Society has many great movements to thank youth for--even the founding of this country. Surely the wise and experienced Continental Congress were not going to fight the revolution--that took the enthusiasm and dynamism of youth.

Think about the civil rights movement--that was mainly staged by the youth, and led by Martin Luther King Jr. who died before the age of 40.

Wisdom does come with age, but so does getting comfortable with thinking a certain way which can be blinding to new ideas and solutions to old problems.

No, I was quite a wild youth, which led me to believe that anyone who would have listened to my opinion on anything would be a fool.

But, prove your point. Take all the money you have and give it to a an 18 year old. I will give mine to a senior investment counselor. We will see who makes more money.

You see, whatever may be admirable about youth, foresight, experience, and good judgment are not the traits they have. And those are the traits which should drive society.

I have the feeling you are again trying to avoid the point by waxing enthusiastic about the joys of youth and failing to address the bad decision inherent in basing society on the whims of youth.

And, as for my own age, I am actually rather young considering those bloggers whose ages I know, but it does not matter. I would have said the same a decade ago.

Also, you seem to place too much emphasis on enthusiasm.

I have to ask, are you an Obama supporter? Your paean to enthusiasm sounds like the Obamaniacs' praise "charisma".

Now, to address enthusiasm: Enthusiasm can be good or bad, depending on what drives it. My point is youth lacks the judgment to know where to direct their enthusiasm. (Also, king was in his late 30's, since when is that "young"? You stretch the truth to try to make your point.)

If you doubt me, think that the NSDAP was driven by youth, charisma and enthusiasm, so misdirected, those three can give us a horrible outcome. Youth also gave us the cultural revolution (even if the leader was quite old, the followers were the enthusiastic youth).

I have never heard of a comparable evil coming from conservatism, slow change and deep thought.

There seems to be a lot of angst directed at Obama from your posts. For someone you claim is out of the running at this point, he still gets a lot of attention.

I didn't say that Youth was always good. You're right--folly is certainly a characteristic of youth as well. Enthusiasm can be horrific when it's the HJ we're talking about, or Charles Manson.

I think it is admirable how much enthusiams Obama garners--for being a guy who doesn't use hate or anger to motivate people.

I think that generally speaking maturity and seasoned experience is the way to proceed--it's safer, more secure.

As you used the case of investing--however, if you want a great deal of money fast you invest in young companies. Sure, you can lose your socks or you can get rich. Youth is oftentimes a more risky gamble.

But gosh, guys like Alexander the great conquered the world basically because he was so young and willing to go about things in novel ways.

Youth is typically better for making sweeping changes...which is what a lot of young and liberal people want after the last eight years.

But it's also riskier than picking a guy like McCain who is 71 and will more likely do much more of staying the course.

The thing is, you guys have the advantage, even with the ardent support that Obama has gained in some circles--change scares people, because it's risky.

But you're really not going to acknowledge that there is anything beneficial to being young? Not anything?

I mention Obama frequently as he is frequently in the news.

I do claim he is out of the running, and I am hardly alone in that position. I just don't see him recovering now and managing to pull even a small percentage of the independent votes.

But, whatever I think of his prospects, the press continues to cover him, so I speak about him as well. Not to mention that he still appears to have a hard-core of followers who want to defend him, and, as long as they keep him an issue, I feel the need to respond.

Your comparison of "young companies" is rather silly. First, the "youth" of a company doe snot compare to the youth of a human. "Young" companies are often run by very old men, so the experience is there, unlike young humans. Your example reminds me of the "life cycle of countries" silliness 50's and 60's sci fi writers and 19th century historians enjoyed. Utterly absurd, but it sounded good.

Lastly, sweeping change is usually a bad idea. It often happens when people feel unhappy, and it is usually a bad idea. There are endless examples of this.

Ok, not quite the last one. One last thing: The fact that you think McCain is likely to stay the course makes me laugh. The man is far from a normal Republican, and I can't see him following Bush's lead. He will definitely veer right to keep his base when elected, but he is still more liberal than most Republicans, and unpredictable. I think staying the course is not the most likely outcome if he were elected.

Can't check out youtube at the moment for fear of waking a finally sleeping three year old.

I did read the article, and I am not so sure if I share the author's worries.

Yes, I am concerned by Obama's choice to stay at his church and his long association with Rev. Wright, and his previously glowing statements about Wright.

On the other hand, I am not so sure about the family ties part. It never states that Obama himself has been influenced in any way by these relatives, and I don't want to judge anyone just by their relatives.

Why, if you judged me by my relatives I would be in trouble.

So, yes, I agree that the ties with Wright and a black separatist church are troubling, but I am not convinced that his biological father is an issue.

As I said in another post, there are plenty of reasons to oppose Obama based on what he ahs said and done, we don't need to haul his family into it as well.

And my apologies. I forgot both to welcome you and to thank you for your post. I got caught up responding and forgot my manners.

Sorry about that.

Welcome to my blog, and thank you for writing. Please come back again.