Printable View
Ever since the 1950s, youth culture and the generation gap has been grwoing steadily and juvenile delinquincy with it. What in your opinion iis better, for adolescents to be rebels and reject authority or for them to respect thier elders and the rule of law?
The youth should frequently question and test the established authorities and the "elders".Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
Default rebellion or rejection is not a value, IMO.
They should shut up and do as they're told. Ohh...and tidying their bedroom from time to time wouldn't go amiss. And another thing, do they have to play that godawful music so loud, I mean I wouldn't mind but it all sounds the same. Come to that what do they think they are wearing these days? They are pimply, craven youths who should be locked away until they get to 25 yo (IMO)..... don't get me on about bloody texting....national service that would sort them out....and what's all that about? driving around in a 10 year old Vauxhall Nova with a huge reflex bass carb in the boot.....BOOM BOOM BOOM all the way down the road.....you see when I were a lad.....
~D
I think its a vital part of youths growing process to rebel against standards set by an older generation.I would like to critizice a little bit that the 50´s youth was so rebellios compared to previous generations.40´s youth mostly never got a chance to be youth becouse they were fighting in WWII or otherways suffering from it.The youth of 30´s were living a time of great depression,wich resulted in many places to extreme nationalism.Generation of 20´s lived building up what the Great war had destroyed.And the youths of the beginning of the century also lost their youth in the trenches.:bow:
I disagree with your premise.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
Things are ever changing. Sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly. The most radical and dangreous changes often occur when people think they are preventing change or harking back to some mythical bygone state.Quote:
What in your opinion iis better, for adolescents to be rebels and reject authority or for them to respect thier elders and the rule of law?
Im with Idaho on this. Reflex reactionism is far more dangerous than testing the borders of the establishment. The beautiful thing about life is that yesterday's revolutionaries are todays upholders of the establishment. Its the circle that moves society forward.
I would say 'it's the circle that moves society'. I am not so sure about the 'forward'. In fact, you might want to shorten it even further: 'it's the circle that moves'.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Martyr_
Yep, that about sums it ~:cool: up.
Well, by definition, it is forward, whether or not that corresponds with your or my expectations of what forward (ie better, positive advancement) is another matter, and entirely subjective, but ever forward it moves, just as time.
I hate to say it, but by definition circles do not move at all. And societies moving in circles by definition do not move forward either.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Martyr_
Which is, by definition, nit-picking, I know, I know.
:bow:
The only place the decapitated youth culture of today can rebel is playing SOCOM and forgetting to jump around to avoid the bullets, or using a certain map bug to kill everyone.
Yes it's cynical, but it's a sad state of affairs.
No, circles are, as you allude to, circular... ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
But cycles (which is what I was alluding to with circle) move forward. Even, though it may seem that the same or similar thing happens every generation, the world has been ever changed by the previous cycle. Thus the ever forward motion.
Well juvenile delinquincy was not nearly as serious as it is now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I suppose it would depend on where the youth is from and what their elders do and what their laws are. ~:)
It is essential for youth to test the boundaries of society, to experiment, and to question authority. Unfortunately, unless society can fight back this rebellion becomes something similar to what we see happening today, an imbalance between rights and responsibilities. Americans in particular can't stand to have anyone tell them they can or can't do something, we hate authority with a passion.
I disagree that the generation gap is growing, its been huge for a long time and still is. The difference between today and 30-40 years ago is simple. In the late 60's if you challenged authority you might get a fat lip or knot on your head, but today lawyers and crisis counselors and child 'abuse' laws mean that there's no counter to the challenge.
ichi:bow:
On the contrary--it gives us an outlet for thoughts/feelings/behaviors that would otherwise be "unacceptable" to society at large. It doesn't prevent us from rebelling in other contexts--you, for example, "rebel" here regularly, by expressing opinions contrary to the "mainstream," (sometimes, doing so in a manner that is also "rebellious"). I think this (the first part) is great--provided it is done with respect for others and their "right" to express their thoughts/feelings (addressing the second part).Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
"Rebellion" is a natural part of the human growth cycle. The source, degree, and context of a particular rebellious behavior is determinant in whether it is "acceptable" or not. Those who make this judgment vary, also dependent on context.
The old-school Japanese way of thinking proposes that all forms of rebellion against "legitimate" authority are tantamount to "treason,"--unless, of course, you "win." While the "... all forms ...tantamount to treason ..." part is a bit antiquated for today, the basic gist of this outlook is still valid.
Confromism (sic) can be viewed from a variety of different angles. Consider my comments about blending and restoration of harmony in the "Stand up for your Beleifs (sic)" thread, and the insightful comments of other patrons on the same.
Rebellion for the sake of rebellion is pointless-anyone who believes something simply because their parents believes the opposite needs to seriously review their belief system as a whole-just as would someone who bends the knee to authority simply because they are authority figures.
Questioning society's beliefs and values, and challenging assumptions is, on the other hand, an extremely valuable activity, which is in no way the exclusive preserve of the young.
Oh yes, those mods and rockers were really well behaved. There are many other examples too-people have been scaremongering about criminality amongst youth for most of known history.Quote:
Ever since the 1950s, youth culture and the generation gap has been grwoing steadily and juvenile delinquincy with it.
I said since the 1950s, that means including it and beyond.
I think I'll also have to disagree with the premise of the question. I'm not sure that juvenile delinquency has been growing steadily since the 1950s. Violent crime, in particular, has been going down amongst juveniles over the last decade. I found a few good reference links to recent statistics, but the best and funniest that I found was from a "Game Revolution" article defending the video game industry against charges that it promotes youth violence. They have a chart matching the declines in violence against the release of things like "Playstation I" and "Grand Theft Auto". Funny, but accurate. LINKQuote:
Ever since the 1950s, youth culture and the generation gap has been grwoing steadily and juvenile delinquincy with it. What in your opinion iis better, for adolescents to be rebels and reject authority or for them to respect thier elders and the rule of law?
I also think that the generation gap was much greater between the "Baby Boomer" generation and their WWII-era parents than it is now. That gap was huge. A dad today who grew up skateboarding and listening to punk rock isn't going to be too disturbed if his son brings home a Black Eyed Peas album.
As for the second part of the question, I think that adolescents should always question authority on a societal level, but should also respect the law and try not to give their parents a hard time unless it's completely unavoidable.
Rebelion, as long as it has a purpose.
Rebelion. As long as it has a purpose.
Sense. Nothing has a place unless it has a purpose.
Nothing has a purpose. In eventuality everything is equally worthless.
Yes, a just purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
I must confess that I've never readed Nietzche, so I'm in disadventage right here (I'm presuming that the frase is Nietzche's). But I seriously don't see any logic in that. If the rebelion triumphs then it's not worthless, is it? The purpose exists before the triumph, wheter it's frustrated or not, but that goal that you want to achieve (notice that I'm talking about goal like purpose, and not cause like purpose) is always there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Respect your elders. They may not be smarter, but they are wiser.
I got a lot farther in life doing as I was told, as opposed to some of my friends who bucked authority and ended up poor and cut off from their family, with no hope of schooling or a good job.
No, any purpose at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Listen well my young deciple. That is not a phrase of Nietzsche's, not exactly. But that is something I got from reading philosophy. Everything has an expiration date, and everything will collapse no matter how powerful. If you are to find purpose you will look for it in the heavens but you will not recieve an answer. So what are you to think? You are to make your own purpose, but that will be something that you will only 'think' you have accomplished. So in a way purpose is another semantically contradictory annoying word like 'time' or 'good'. They are only useful so long as you live with other people and think for the group.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
If the rebelion triumphs then it is still worthless, for it will establish itself and then another rebelion will spring up. You cannot end what is not possibly an end, for there is no end to timelessness.
An elaboration on what I've said. By the way, BP, what purpose does this determination serve, if all purposes are not concreet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Sidenote: What's with you and the avatars with makeup?
Well that's you saying it.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
The rebellion is not worthless because it eventually will fail (btw what's that of diciple, a quote from Star Wars ~:joker: ), if that's your phylosphy then why do anything? The rebellion triumph and as long as it's not attacked it keeps it's effectivity. If we always get stucked on what is to come then we loose all sense of what is to be done.Quote:
If the rebelion triumphs then it is still worthless, for it will establish itself and then another rebelion will spring up. You cannot end what is not possibly an end, for there is no end to timelessness.
"Just" is in the eye of the beholder, of course. What I say applies to Communists and Macchiavels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
i love these either/ or threads. as if there are only ever two options in life.
That second word is strange to me ~D .Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
Just is not on the eye of the beholder. Justice is a value that comes from our nature, it's inside us, we always look for justice. Justice only means that certain thing or concept is succesfully adapted to society. For example, if I say that the fraud has become and accepted practice and even a custom, shuold I make it legal, us course not, because it's against morality, now if you want to discuss the subjective value of morality I'm with you. But let's suppose that it's related to a non-criminal activity, marriage for example. Let's say that this community has been celebrating marriages for a very long period of time, with no essencial variation in the process (that constitutes custom), and registering it in the local parrish. In this case it's not an activity against morality, therefore it's acceptable to establish this new custom as the regular legal canon from now on, and wipe out the old, why? Because what makes differenciates the law from morality is that the law (not justice at all, but part of it) has objective rules, one of them is based on the idea of justice, adjustment to society values and practices, as long as they're moral.
What will be the middle option then?~:confused: There are more options (?) but right now we're discussing two of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by solypsist
Naughty Socrates.
Sorry, but that's what the French teacher asked for his essay.Quote:
Originally Posted by solypsist
I disagree. Justice is a creation, like the ideals of perfection, goodness, fairness, and so on. The example of marriage you've provided is particularly ironic to me, in this case, as I'm having some issues with my dislike for monogamy, and how the women I know don't seem to agree with me. But alas, I see no purpose for it, therefore, it must be removed, just or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Seriously, you've never heard the word 'Macchiavel'?
Therefore, in order to demonstrate yourself as out-of-the-mainstream (rebellious? Could be...could be not...), seek the third option, deliberately so.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
It gives you and your work a certain panache. (Homework, I presume?) You will find the entire essay easy to write as you spend most of your time justifying the third (fourth? Or infinity?) way and little in belittling the two original ones.
~D
The analogy would be flying out of the box, rather than burning and redecorating the box or accepting it as it is.
But fly where? That's yours to answer, not mine. ~D
As for the discussion at hand: rebellious is man's nature; he wishes not to be controlled by another of his equal position: being human. It is natural that he would rebel against existing authority, even if superficially or mentally, before carving his place in society. Of course, he himself might return to the flock bruised and battered and decided to conform with it. Advocates of utter conformity intends to break the basic nature of man that, among others, seperates him from rivers and stones.
About a superior being, an overman or a god... that deals with another of man's nature. That includes prophets, of course, since they essentially claims superior authority.
It does not surprise me coming from your mouth. Your belief patterns, if contradictory in facts and allegations, or even principles (?), at least display consistency--even historical consistency.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
But where are you going?
Back to "the Box?" The cycle is a circle in your opinion, then...some would rebelliously disagree.~;)
Do you mean Machiavelli, Italian politician and author of the influential The Prince, or Machiavellian, the system of belief based entirely on the ends and none on the means?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
(From another thread) ah...but he died for his own beliefs, didn't he? Then again, he didn't want to die, according to that testimony marble... ~:joker:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Closer to the second. A Machiavel (one 'c' or two?) is an adherent of Machiavellianism.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Of course it's a creation, but there's creations that are founded beyond all doubt and constitutes the basis of system (axiological concepts) and those that can change subjectevly. I also have a problem with monogamy, I follow Rouseau.~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
I'm argentinian remember?...Anyway I understood what you were trying to say. "Il Principe" is one of my favuorites readings.Quote:
Seriously, you've never heard the word 'Macchiavel'?
I follow my...uh....'nose'. In any case, I don't think anything is beyond doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Gah. I hate Rousseau. Reading him gives me migraine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
However, remember that Machiavelli and Machiavellian are actually rather different. Many scholars argue that Machiavelli himself (the author) is not a Machiavellian; I do not know that in detail, but I believe it's along the lines of examining Machiavelli's later writings--in The Prince, he condemns the "evil dictators," for one. The "Machiavellian" philosophy, on the other hand, justifies whatever means necessary for an achievable goal, even if it's Stalinistic means. In other words the utterly pragmatic point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged