Generational disequilibrium, the evil in gerontocracy

Introduction

One of the perplexing issues of modern life is the awareness of growing dissimilarities between the older and younger generations. In society at large we feel constant alienation from both sides which inevitably leads to a sort of ominous state of affairs. Something of a deadly truth is the growing methods championed by technocratic youths which supersede those of the older generation. What I mean here is that even though there are similarities regarding something like the applications and morality of technology as a whole, the age gap finds an almost undisputable disagreement. For example, the old might champion the idea of modern medicine as if it’s some kind of magical entity, touting indiscriminate approval of in that category. The younger however takes it for granted, they do not statically keep there in this materialistic view but rather take off on flight, abandoning their elders behind. This abandonment is peculiar and really partial, it is not necessarily an ideological one, since both generations are by and large in agreement with the principles of modern life, but rather, there is a material or perhaps even physiological inequality that engenders such a divide between the older and younger. The younger generation, which is also referred to as zoomers have transcended a certain mentality or Weltanschauung held by the elders, which are coincidentally called boomers. And this rift is self evident of course. We have stereotypes and tropes such as the boomers lack of intuition when they inevitably and with half advertence click on malware pop-ups in the sidebar of their favorite HTML funny animal pictures website. They are the ones who perceivably simply cannot comprehend younger societal trends of taste in humor and art mediums, although, the zoomers comprehend the inverse, but reject it as cringeworthy and incompatible. I believe this divide between the generations is due to the certain spirit the older generation championed without fully comprehending its effects, one of which was the continuation of a grand surfing on the waves of nihilism. Or in other words, the allowance of history to be self writing, to be without master and to be indefinite. From this, the younger generation is birthed, and oh boy do they encompass it. The zoomers are the perfection of what the boomers hardly understood but championed with all their might. And thus where the Zoomers encompass the spirit of modernity, the Boomers stay the role of guardians and ideologues, and they are inevitably left behind. It’s no contest that the boomers are responsible for the drastic progression of ideology throughout the 20th century, nobody will deny the fact that those heinous doctrines of Marx and Engels could have very well been touted and championed by the likes of your great-great grandfather. And should I even need to mention that the very people responsible for the horrendous situation Catholics face today are in fact the oldest population today? This is the perplexing issue which I will continue on about. Precisely why there not only exists a drastic disunity in the world views between zoomers and boomers, but that there is also a lack of duty or reverence to be paid to elders today. For the idea that boomers have right taste in things and should be adhered to is nothing but arbitrary eastern-esque filial piety, of which nothing good comes about that isn’t accidental.

What is generational disequilibrium?

There is a certain hostility in the air of which most are already aware regarding the compatibility or unity of between the older and younger generations. The acknowledgement of a disharmony is what will be called generational disequilibrium. To what extent it goes, is perhaps another question, but It’s without a doubt not an unprecedented dilemma considering all the historical accounts of certain attitudes between the generations throughout the various customs around the world. From the dynastic ancient Egyptians¹ to the Democratic Athenians generational discord² in a number of instances went on to act as the catalyst for certain alterations of the status quo, whether for good or for bad. If we are to evaluate those instances quickly to discern where we should side, to start, the issue only poses more questions. For example, to treat of blind tradition to respect, revere and subject the youth to the elder there are copious historical events and giants that showed itself partial to the convention of praising and subordinating the youth to elders of society. However, we see very quickly that those same very giants have spoken about a certain problem of intellectual probity and transcendence in matters which would ultimately contradict the premise of filial piety. For those that aren’t well aware of this dilemma, I’ll try to quickly illustrate it. The hallmark of the pro-elder side is easily discerned as Plato puts it “Everyone shall reverence his elder both by deed and by word.”³ Which will be easily contrasted by that of the pro-youth mouthpiece which shall be that famous Sophist by the name of Thrasymachus,

“I could wish, men of Athens, to have belonged to that long-past time when young men were content to remain silent, and when events did not compel them to speak in public, while the older men were correctly supervising the city.” But now because of grave mistakes, . . . it is necessary to speak.”⁴

And so the dilemma should be clear, is it good to blindly follow and revere the old or can there be criteria of which the premise may be altered? In other words, shall we follow on the basis of tradition itself or truth, for if it’s truth we follow, we may well all end up in the hands of accusers of corruption of the youth as Socrates was. This is of course treated of in the dialogue of Plato where a man is questioned by Socrates for lodging charges against his own father in an instance where the father had killed one of his slaves from negligence. In the classic Platonic way of dialectic, there are really more questions raised more than anything else. We however understand things from the light of clear moral teaching, luckily for us, there isn’t actually so much of a dilemma and I’ll show this later on. For now let it suffice that generational awareness and conceptualization as such is not entirely foreign, it is something which has evidently had impactful conclusions and for many in power was a great threat to regime stability. In my estimation, we are nowhere along in the instability of things where there is a threat to a regime whether from whatever form of consequential action against the elders. Things are in the stereotypical manner of modern life, incredibly mundane and trivial. If I were to boil our situation down, the youth simply do not respect the elderly in the way of custom as demanded by conventional reverence. This manifests in society as nothing more than a disdain of customary traditions and societal conventions. There is also a lack of want to assist the elderly which manifests as intimate interfamilial issues such as caring of ones own parents in old age but also those of society at large like the apathy towards geriatric consideration in most things. Think of the way a geriatric might be viewed upon for failing to inculcate the technocratic spirit thus rendering themselves incapable of navigating to the correct input on their monitor or TV. Such a trivial ineptness, which is akin to failure at language acquisition, is to the elderly, a common point of generational identity. And this very generational identity is exactly a point of departure for the youth. The view of their adopted custom perhaps summarized as lacking technological intuition is by far and by no means very well tolerated. In the youths view, the elderly refuse to adopt a certain language virtually intrinsic to the younger, and should have no significant support or consideration for it by society at large. Perhaps for the most part driven by the fact that to oppose the tide of things, to bog down this spirit which is greater than any group or persons is like modern apostasy. In ancient times, this divide from what appears to be at this point like the inability to grasp a kind of language, would be more carefully assisted or catered to, perhaps assumed as not a defect of intellect or lack of wisdom, but perhaps too much wisdom, and in the cases where defect was presumed, it would be seen as the manifestation of physiological deterioration. There is a deadly truth to the elderly today, which is that the older generation cannot walk at the same pace of which is demanded by the exponentially growing technocratic way of life, ultimately encompassed by the youth. The deadly truth is of course also self evident, it is apparent and incapable of being shrouded. Whether it’s the lack of inclusion in a derivative of the technocratic society such as memes or in an equal way out of touch with a certain cohesive communicative flux engendered by the rapidity of topic circulation, they get no sympathy. The spirit demands and those who cannot keep up are left behind. My view can be seen as one critical of something besides a simple right-wrong generational struggle, but while I vindicate one or the other on the areas of which I wrote previously, I have a clearer picture from another point of departure of which I take side.

To adhere to the ancients or to the elders?

It shouldn’t be particularly difficult to comprehend that there is a problem of who really our elders are in all things considered. To a philosopher, there is a great necessity to heed history, to pay reverence to what can be called the ancients, in contradistinction to the elders in our current society. One would be delusional to believe that they are one in the same or that by revering one I revere the other. The reason this is so is undoubtedly clear to me. If I revere the ancient philosophers for their great goodness and truth, I will contradict by law, the principles of my societal elders.⁵ That is to say, even those that are pertinent to me. For instance, how many of our elders today can be seen to carry on the great tradition of scholasticism? For me to view society at large and visualize how the ancients and the elderly today are diametrically opposed is laughable, it’s an obvious and given fact. Nobody in their right mind would perceive for there to be a kind of continuity of ancient thought with that of the current societal elders. In such a dilemma then I am left with two sides to choose from, to pick the inevitable rejection of what I believe is the rational and noble or to depart from them for the sake of a certain blind tradition which should really be called barbarism. I then by the very fact of appealing to a natural right, have already by the very appeal affronted what can be referred to as filial piety or reverence of the elderly. Is it not almost a paradox that to revere the ancient men of history is to spurn the elders of today? We should find out how this can be, for if the elders of today have a certain basis for belief in their veneration, we should find out whether it can stand up against scrutiny.

Philosophers on elders

In the Soul and Aging by Masahisa Seguchi, Aristotle is shown to believe that control by the elderly in the regime is not necessarily meant to mean what one would expect, that is, that geriatrics are owed control for the sake of their greatness in age. Seguchi continues by explaining that there is a difference in what Aristotle calls control by the more mature in contradistinction to what is typically translated as control by the elderly.⁶ The reason given for this nuance is straightforward, Aristotle bases the right to rule, according to the natural hierarchy of goodness, not arbitrary notions of age, for age does not necessarily come to mean goodness or wisdom. St. Thomas takes the same view.⁷ That age in itself is no absolute determinant of nobility is not contested by sound minds. What follows is that the age of a man realistically is best suited to ruling when it has both surpassed youthfulness which inhibits good by positive excess, “their mistakes are due to excess and vehemence. . . . They think they know everything and are positive; this, indeed, is the cause of their excess in all things.”⁸ and their elderliness from their materialism. “Their life is guided by calculation rather than by what is noble.”⁹ There are of course other considerations which occur in both ages but in particular stand out as far more impactful in elders. That of bodily deterioration affecting the mental faculties. Seguchi further explains that Aristotle viewed aging with scrutiny in this regard as he noted the physical degradation that occurs and its effect on the soul. “just like the physical body, it is recognized that the thinking power is aging.” And thus Aristotle places age restrictions on the holding of public office and even critiques the Spartan system which facilitated geriatric rule of which the debilitated elderly were to rule. “He (Aristotle) criticized the Spartan elder system in which members were chosen from among those over 60 years of age. Not only does he say that the method of selecting the Spartan elders is ridiculous¹⁰, but also that the offices of the presbytery are in good condition. However, it is particularly problematic that they preside over important trials for the rest of their lives.”¹¹ Seguchi furthermore shows that Aristotle places an emphasis on the bodily condition of old age as equally susceptible to the base. For example, is it not true that many old men today can be called fools? There are countless facts to prove that this is ever so today than any time period before. The absurdity of blue haired 70 year old grandmas on TikTok, and those akin to the grotesques of society are by no means far and few between. I shouldn’t even need to cite how the clownish and immature actions and composition of someone like Donald Trump is not particularly rare. This just serves as further as an explanation for why the words for old age and maturation are distinct in Aristotle’s use.¹² It is true that on the other hand Plato places less importance to the deterioration of the body¹³ in aging, but he nevertheless imposes age limits on positions of power “The 37 public defenders who sit at the top of the nation are said to be between 50 and 70 years old (755A). Ages 50 to 75 (946C). Although this position is not for life, once you reach the age of 70, “It is not too early to meet the fate of death,” said an old song written by Solon.” Furthermore, Plato bases his belief in the lack of deterioration of the mental faculties in his theory of physiognomy, something which he doesn’t seem to entirely adopt elsewhere. With the philosophers we so far understand that the elderly do not have an irrefutable right to rule over the younger but that rather it is from the superiority conventionally associated with age. This means of course, that there would be instances in which the elderly are not necessarily to be given absolute reverence in regards to what their inability or lack of capacity shows. It should be noted that there arises the question of distinction between filial piety in regards to interfamilial considerations and another regarding societal authority and a large scale societal reverence. It’s difficult to exactly pinpoint which aspects are those claimed as part of due reverence to elders. Where some might say simple privilege in society, others as shown in history demand a costly subjection. However, it is apparent that even in the most simple purported duty such as the material care of the elderly, there might also arise certain caveats or reservations. St. Thomas explains such reservation in the case where an evil effect comes about from the precept: “Gregory expounding this saying of our Lord says (Hom. xxxvii in Ev.) that “when we find our parents to be a hindrance in our way to God, we must ignore them by hating and fleeing from them.” For if our parents incite us to sin, and withdraw us from the service of God, we must, as regards this point, abandon and hate them.” Accordingly, if our carnal parents stand in need of our assistance, so that they have no other means of support, provided they incite us to nothing against God, we must not abandon them for the sake of religion. But if we cannot devote ourselves to their service without sin, or if they can be supported without our assistance, it is lawful to forego their service, so as to give more time to religion.”¹⁴

Granting an indiscriminate privilege is therefore incorrect on account of truth, much like Thrasymachus was shown to believe in his retaliation against the elderly oligarchs in fifth century B.C. Athens. The reasons are similarly clear for us as was for Thrasymachus, to follow the elderly oligarchs was to forsake the emphasis on reason and the noble on top of the prior tradition which the elderly themselves departed with. In this respect I cannot but entirely sympathize with him. If the older living Athenians, were the reason for the departure from the good but deceased older elders, that is to say the established good convention, the younger generation wanting to adhere, not just based on precedent, but also on truth, would have to supersede the rebellious living elders. Or better put, Thrasymachus is supplanting the living elders, for their elders from which they rebelled against. Questions naturally arise as to why the living elders which in our world are called boomers, cleave to such a departure? I believe this question is owed the space of an entire book. Let it suffice to say that at least we know from what is self evident regarding the immaturity and incompatibility of boomers and truth today.

Gerontocracy in Politics

There is without a doubt a consensus on a certain kind of alert waiting for boomers to relinquish their hegemony over the political sphere today. We see notions of the inability to change or shift that ever so obnoxious status quo due to the lack of control granted to the younger generations. This is of course felt mostly where it matters the most. The supposed political workings of the modern regime system. Not only is it limited to this but we see the business sphere equally dominated by the geriatrics in the form of corporate entities. For example, the one arguably youthful significant business entity affecting society at large today is Elon Musk. His constant controversial stances which hardly shake the status quo are felt as an earthquake to the geriatric convention. He isn’t even particularly opposed to the geriatric Weltanschauung and still does he irritate and shake the ground upon which they all stand. From an example such as this, I believe even the temperament alone of a youthful male would be significantly problematic for geriatric rule. Where the political sphere requires a sort of materialism to continue the youthful temperament would bring as a necessarily oppositional force “honorable before expedient actions, for they live by their disposition rather than by calculation.”¹⁵ Although it is true, that the situation today is far more lax than other more rigid regimes and circumstances but it nevertheless feels ominously difficult. For instance, if we look to the current system, we are occasionally granted the voice of the youth often in the form of incompetence and humiliation, and in shallow or superficial areas where nothing substantial could come about. I believe many would agree today that this generational gap wouldn’t be the main issue, but rather that is an issue. Certainly in the political world, there could by no means be a legitimate contender viewed as youthful that isn’t a complete puppet of the status quo. That is to say, one who isn’t a young-aged elder. And this is what ultimately matters anyway. Because even though the average age of those in the highest positions of powers are set to be whether by convention or law exclusive to geriatrics, granting in this sphere more rights to the younger would hardly turn out to assist the noble end.

Gerontocracy in Catholicism

Gerontocracy of religion is by and large the most pertinent thing to me. I believe there is a certain domination of the ignoble either by sheer indifference or positive touting of terrible conventions. It’s without a doubt true that there is a sort of necessary rift between the generations in Catholicism due to positive laws of the institution barring youthful rule or power. But at this point, where we are such outside the norms, my opinion is that this ends up only serving itself, leaving behind the noble truth. Something that I like to call 1950’s Catholicism is the prevalent and ubiquitous basis of this Gerontocracy of which I speak. You are well aware of it, it’s the practical LARPing of all the customs and conventions held by society at large in the 1950s America. Think not just societal and superficial customs such as dress and way of speech, but also the predominant Weltanschauung and spirit of the times as a whole. In this spirit I perceive the various attitudes surrounding the multiplicity of subjects ever so important. The question of women in power, forms of pedagogy, artistic mediums and conceptualizations, perceptions regarding the technology and science, the list could go on and on. It’s in essence the championing of that ever prevalent world view of the common American 1950’s. It shouldn’t be surprising that this worldview is not particularly held up by the ancients, but rather some post-modern conceptualization of the ideal in society. In reality their post-modern basis is alien to the Ancients, it is utterly contradictory. This issue of the ancients and the moderns was by no means reconciled. We have no proper answer of which there is evidence, but rather the opposite. There are countless instances where the side one takes in the battle bears terrible fruits. The Gerontocracy takes something for a fact that in reality was left totally unsolved. The very ominous questions and anxious problems faced by the anti-modernist popes and philosophers are abandoned as if time itself answered in the affirmative for modernity. This is the Gerontocracy which I criticize as a kind of barbarism, an arbitrary choosing for a convention which is by no means intellectually backed. They look back at the 1950’s and pretend that there were no issues during that time period, but unlike the historical examples of defensive gerontocracies, the boomers carry their conventions as religious fact. And why is it that the Gerontocracy takes all the difficulties of their elders for granted? Perhaps it is a desperate attempt to circumvent the questions in such a fragile and delicate position. Perhaps it is their way to keep sanity, the attempt a child makes to shove under the rug the item that incriminates him to his parents. If we know as a fact that we are to base our belief and precepts on truth, not custom, we would be able to benefit greatly from a departure of the arbitrary.

1. Reinhold, Meyer. “The Generation Gap in Antiquity.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 114, no. 5, 1970, pp. 347–65. Reinhold in his wonderful essay on Generational rifts in Antiquity shows among many instances the generational acknowledgement in the dynasties of ancient Egypt. “tah-hotep, a vizier of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt, in his popular and famous pamphlet of advice to young aspirants for high status in Egypt, proclaimed the necessity to “hearken,” to heed “. . . the thoughts of those who have gone before.” “If you are held in high esteem,” advises Ptah-hotep, speaking to parents, and have a household, and beget a son who pleases the god-if he does right, and inclines to your nature, and hearkens to your instructions, and his designs do good in your house, and he has regard for your substance as it befits, search out for him everything that is good…. But if he does wrong and trespasses against your designs, and acts not after your instructions, and his designs are worthless in your house, and he defies all you say, then drive him away, for he is not your son, and he is not born to you.” ↩︎
2. Reinhold, 351. “the second half of the fifth century B.C. a degree of devaluation of the older generation and of generational disequilibrium unparalleled in the previous history of man-kind. The evidence is unmistakable. Increased awareness of an antithesis between the generations took form in Athens. This cleavage was widened and supplied with a rationale by the Sophists, who elevated the conflict of generations to a vigorous and conscious opposition in Athenian society. Their tendency to analyze phenomena in bipolarized form, their sanctioning of reason and natural rights (physis) over legal and traditional institutions (nomos), which they held up to critical examination, their advocacy of arete in knowledge rather in obedience, of egalitarianism and relativity in morals-all these heightened generational consciousness on the part of the youth. Thus there emerged for the first time the claim of the younger generation to a “natural right” to disobey and disregard fathers and elders.” ↩︎
3. Plato, Laws 879C. ↩︎
4. Reinhold, 5. Cp. Eupolis (writer of Old Comedy, fl. 430-410 B.C.), frcag. 310 (Edmonds): “The young lads stand up and speak before the men.”  ↩︎
5. Arist. Categories (Cap. De oppos.) ST II-II, Q. 101, A. 4 “good is not opposed to good.”  ↩︎
6. Masahisa Seguchi, Soul and Ageing : The Views of Plato and Aristotle on Old Age, Journal of Classical Studies, 2007, Volume 55, Pages 63-75, Released on J-STAGE May 23, 2017 ↩︎
7. ST Suppl. IIIae, Q 1, A 1, ad. 1. “Old age calls for reverence, not on account of the state of the body which is at fault; but on account of the soul’s wisdom which is taken for granted on account of its being advanced in years.” ↩︎
8. Reinhold, 360. 2 Rhetoric 2.12.3-14. ↩︎
9. Reinhold, Ibid. Rhetoric 2.13.6, 9, 13-14. Cp. Aristotle, Rhetoric 1.5.6 on self-restraint and courage as the aretai of the youth. ↩︎
10. Arist. Pol. 1271a ↩︎
11. Seguchi, Ibid. ↩︎
12. Seguchi, Ibid. Seguchi writes that there is a clear distinction in the language Arist. uses in the politics on the passages regarding the elderly. First, he distinguishes the Greek for maturation and that of old age as exclusive. “The added term “those who have reached maturity” Arist. Pol. 1.1256b is attributed to Arist. The argument here strongly suggests that control is not by the elderly or the elderly, but by those in their prime of life.” ↩︎
13. Seguchi, ibid. “Plato explains the physiological mechanism of old age based on the assumption that connate elemental triangles, which function to digest nutrients, are doomed to wear out with age. However, he never suggests old age necessarily brings about deterioration of intellectual faculties. Plato distinguishes old age from disease and then suggests a way of living a healthy life to harmonize movement of soul and body. His suggestion is not limited to the intelligent elite but targets ordinary people (Tim, 88C).” ↩︎
14. ST II-II, Q. 105, A. 4, ad. 1 ↩︎
15. Reinhold, Ibid. 2 Rhetoric 2.12.3-14. ↩︎