(Successor site to CoPhilosophy, 2011-2020)
A collaborative search for wisdom, at Middle Tennessee State University and beyond... "The pluralistic form takes for me a stronger hold on reality than any other philosophy I know of, being essentially a social philosophy, a philosophy of 'co'"-William James
This inscription stared back at me once I began reading this section of Neiman's work. What is more fitting? We end at the beginning. This section serves as Neiman's last hurrah, her concluding statements about the infamous question. While she references points made earlier in the book, I will only focus on what she states in this section, as I believe there is more to be gleaned here than there. This commentary will also be (slightly) independent of my in-class presentation, as I will act more professionally here. Without further ado, let us examine what Neiman deems the cause to assume our role as "adults."
Outlook: The First Step to the Answer Lies in the Question
Before answering why one should grow up, we must examine the question. Mainly, we must get rid of the stigma that surrounds "growing up." To get to the root of the question, I have separated the stigma around growing up into two parts: What We Lose and Expectations. This detour will help to clearly understand what makes growing up seemingly undesirable, but also why it is not as undesirable as we may believe it to be.
What We Lose
Neiman's answer to growing up seems vague at first, but clarity strikes when we look closer. She says that growing up is "harder than you think, so hard that it can amount to resistance --- even rebellion"(WGU, pg. 192). Later on, she defines this difficulty as stemming from mixed messages; half urging us to be serious and the other half selling things to keep us young. These mixed signals give a sense of confusion and hesitation. Why should we grow up if we do not know when, how, or where? One cause of this hesitation is in the aforementioned seriousness. Seriousness, as Neiman puts it, has many definitions. All of these definitions blend together, eventually creating an idea of suppression and loss in young people. These ideas create resentment for the very notion of becoming adults, all to protect their freedoms and dreams. And for as much truth as that may hold, the correct answer lies in outlook.
TEDx Talks does a great job of describing the importance of outlook whilst growing up. Especially with Alexandra Mandoki's introduction, where she allows her audience to play with Lego bricks so they may reconnect with their child-self. This video serves as a reminder to stay positive as you live and learn.
Neiman describes a time when she spoke to two friends. The two had massively different outlooks on life, and when she shared with them the theme of Why Grow Up, the two had varying reactions. The serious friend was disgusted, but the other? He simply said, "My hero has always been Peter Pan" (WGU, pg. 194).
It should be noted that Peter Pan serves as a metaphor for prolonged adolescence --- for better and for worse.
Outlook is what determines what we believe we gain or lose through life. Although societal norms may have you expect worrisome things as you mature, realize this: You won't know until you try.
Expectations
On that note of expectations, there are many when it comes to maturity. One such expectation is that of surrender; giving up to the endless march of time and conforming to society. There's only one misunderstanding with this belief: what society is there to conform to? "Rosseau's problem remains with us: it's impossible to create fully active and responsible citizens in a society that undermines adulthood, yet it's impossible to create another society without a fairly large number of responsible adults" (WGU, pg. 195). If this concept brings dismay, do not panic just yet. This realization goes hand in hand with another expectation: growing up is a process that has us 'peak', or reach a state of almost perfection. Neiman shoots this idea down quickly, reassuring us that 'peaks' are just 'foothills.'
A certain cynicism comes from the idea that only certain people can 'grow up' within a society. While this may unfortunately be true, growing up should be focused on as a personal journey.
Now that we have discussed these expectations, we may move on to the topic of discussion. Before I continue, I would like to mention that these expectations should not seem unfounded. Our society perpetuates this negative view of 'growing up', which is precisely what this blog is for; to show the truth behind the veil.
Growing Up: Stepping Toward a Better Future
Growing up can seem like a daunting task, even with all the negative stigmas removed. As much as we would love to stay as we are, we age regardless if we are ready for it or not. That aging brings about loss, primarily of loved ones. While this loss will hurt, at least we find comfort in the fact the pain will dull. Aging comes with experience, a reason enough to embrace the notion of adulthood. Breaking out of the realm of the book, TIME wrote an article called "Here's Where People Are Happiest Growing Old". The final line of the article supports Neiman's thinking: "Many people have hypothesized that you just get emotionally more skilled when you get older,” says Deaton. “You make mistakes, and you learn."
This way of thinking is also supported by a phenomenon called the 'U-Bend.' This is marked by the progression of happiness throughout our lives: we tend to be unhappy till we are middle-aged, then our happiness rises as we continue to grow old, thus forming a 'U' shape. Calling back to the article, the point where people tend to shift to happier moods varies depending on the nation. Neiman mentions the "Swiss hitting bottom at 35 and the Ukrainians at 62" (WGU, pg. 199), but regardless of location, all grow up happier for it.
A variety of Philosophers have sound advice for growing up. One proper example is the Roman philosopher Cicero, who found that aesthetic pleasure is a reason we become happier in our later years. He writes:
"I say nothing here of the natural force which all things propagated from the earth possess - the earth which from that tiny grain in a fig, or the grape-stone in a grape, or the most minute seeds of other cereals and plants, produces such huge trunks and boughs. Mallet-shoots, slips, cuttings, quicksets, layers-are they not enough to fill anyone with delight and astonishment?" (Cicero, Old Age, pg. 64-65)
I love this quote because characterizing our life as a play makes it easier to live it. Treating every issue and or roadblock as just a part of the play is a great outlook to have, especially for those who take life more seriously than needed.
But what is there to say for the hopeless? What voice is to be heard for those who believe that life is not worth living, and growing up by extension? Never fear, for Immanuel Kant has the solution, the Critique of Judgement. There exists a story of a devil and a man, and the devil curses the man to live his life in a loop for all of eternity. The story was made to see people's outlook based on how they think the man would respond: Would he rejoice (positive outlook) or would he beg for mercy (negative outlook)? This outlook on living life is something that Kant focused on, and thus he wrote:
"The value of life for us, if it is estimated by that which we enjoy (that is, by happiness), is easy to decide. It sinks below zero; for who would be willing to enter upon life anew under the same conditions? Who would do so even under a new, self-chosen plan (yet in conformity with the course of nature) if it were merely directed to enjoyment? . . . one can leave an answer to this sophistry to the good sense of each man who has lived long enough and reflected on the value of life; you have only to ask him whether he would be able to play the game of life once more, not under the same conditions, but under any conditions of our earthly world and not those of some fairy-land." (Critique of Judgement, pg. 83)
Immanuel Kant and Cicero, while both being vastly different philosophers, would agree that life is worth living. It is worth it to live and to grow up in a world despite the circumstances. Maybe not to grow up in a society that forces one to conform to their standards, but to grow and find happiness in the small things in life. I leave you with the final lines of Neiman's Why Grow Up, which hammer home the notion that growing up just looks worse than it is.
"Courage is needed to oppose all the forces that will continue to work against maturity, for real grown-ups are not distracted by bread and circuses. No longer confused by baubles or shy with inexperience, we are better able to see what we see, and say it. We? All of us, including this author. It's a process of permanent revolution. Who wants to encourage that?" (WGU, pg. 234).
Discussion Questions
Do you believe that our society can be reformed to better accommodate our adolescents? If so, how? If not, then what alternative do you suggest?
What was the moment when you realized you had to grow up, if applicable?
What do you think of Neiman's approach to 'growing up'? If you could discuss a different element of maturity, what would it be?
"TEDx Talks does a great job... where she" - who is she?
You've omitted a crucial portion of this quote: "Rousseau's problem remains with us: it's impossible to create FULLY ACTIVE AND RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS IN a society that undermines adulthood..." I was dismayed, trying to make sense of it without that clause that was essential to Neiman's point.
The cartoon rightly implies that growing up in this society is an act of resistance, even subversion. Go for it, everybody!
Re: the U-bend, I say again: don't lock yourself in to a self-fulfilling expectation that "we tend to be unhappy till we are middle-aged..." I'd rather put it this way: we tend to be (even) happier after middle age.
Cicero was right, but we should all try to meet a happier end than he: "Cicero was killed on December 7, 43 BC, aged sixty-three, his head and hands (having penned the Philippics) hacked off..." https://penelope.uchicago.edu/encyclopaedia_romana/calendar/cicero.html
Kant asks "who would be willing to enter upon life anew...?" I raise my hand to that, under the old conditions OR new. The gift of life is a precious privilege. More, please. Maybe not eternity. But more.
Neiman's last cryptic rhetorical question puzzles me. I would definitely want to encourage permanent revolution IF that means permanent willingness to change and adapt in the face of changing times and circumstances. I'm sure she would too, but the form of the question seems to imply otherwise. Or does it, do you think?
1. That was a grammatical error on my part. I meant to call Alexandra Mandoki by name. Most of my blog was made in the late hours of the night, so some elements fell within my blindspot. 2. I "omitted" that part of the quote because (like in point 1) it was an error made on my part. I will correct that post-haste. 3. I figured the cartoon fit, along with my explanation just below it. 4. Just my belief in the U-Bend, I guess. 5. True, but if we focus on his end, is that not missing the journey for the destination? 6. I thought I shared the same idea by including the second half of the quote? I agree with you, you don't have to raise your hand! 7. The final quote puzzled me too. It feels provocative to place a rhetorical question in a section about answers, but I think I understand why: it's a challenge. A call to deciding to grow up now rather than later. I believe that is powerful, and thus I included it.
"TEDx Talks does a great job... where she" - who is she?
ReplyDeleteYou've omitted a crucial portion of this quote: "Rousseau's problem remains with us: it's impossible to create FULLY ACTIVE AND RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS IN a society that undermines adulthood..." I was dismayed, trying to make sense of it without that clause that was essential to Neiman's point.
The cartoon rightly implies that growing up in this society is an act of resistance, even subversion. Go for it, everybody!
Re: the U-bend, I say again: don't lock yourself in to a self-fulfilling expectation that "we tend to be unhappy till we are middle-aged..." I'd rather put it this way: we tend to be (even) happier after middle age.
Cicero was right, but we should all try to meet a happier end than he: "Cicero was killed on December 7, 43 BC, aged sixty-three, his head and hands (having penned the Philippics) hacked off..." https://penelope.uchicago.edu/encyclopaedia_romana/calendar/cicero.html
Kant asks "who would be willing to enter upon life anew...?" I raise my hand to that, under the old conditions OR new. The gift of life is a precious privilege. More, please. Maybe not eternity. But more.
Neiman's last cryptic rhetorical question puzzles me. I would definitely want to encourage permanent revolution IF that means permanent willingness to change and adapt in the face of changing times and circumstances. I'm sure she would too, but the form of the question seems to imply otherwise. Or does it, do you think?
1. That was a grammatical error on my part. I meant to call Alexandra Mandoki by name. Most of my blog was made in the late hours of the night, so some elements fell within my blindspot.
Delete2. I "omitted" that part of the quote because (like in point 1) it was an error made on my part. I will correct that post-haste.
3. I figured the cartoon fit, along with my explanation just below it.
4. Just my belief in the U-Bend, I guess.
5. True, but if we focus on his end, is that not missing the journey for the destination?
6. I thought I shared the same idea by including the second half of the quote? I agree with you, you don't have to raise your hand!
7. The final quote puzzled me too. It feels provocative to place a rhetorical question in a section about answers, but I think I understand why: it's a challenge. A call to deciding to grow up now rather than later. I believe that is powerful, and thus I included it.