THE EX-OPPONENT ( TRIUMPHANT ) AND EX-YOUNG "
days ago, was the" competition "about which they have or not have our political leaders or other species. What I mean today, truly elementary, it also for any area of \u200b\u200bsocial life. And, in short, is this: not to be confused with principle final.
This confusion is exactly what occurs (or is encouraged, because sometimes it seems intentional) when, without more, is presented as definitive credential prestigious competition and even have a degree of Doctor or have earned (in a fair fight, presumably) difficult opposition (or two). In the career of a university professor (only one in which the doctorate account), the degree of Doctor is a second step, which should follow years of teaching, research and publications. If after PhD recently, not studying, not taught and does not investigate, will lean curriculum. If you took the number 1 in a competition of Notaries for 15, 20 or 30 years, but little has been exercised Notary, this is a distant initial success, but not before a professional career or to prove that at present, that brilliant opponent know law. The only thing that got Notaries credited to the first, with 25 years is that we worked very hard 3 or 4 years and, at 25, it had great memory, good head and more than decent fitness. But today, at 35, 45 or 55 years, knows how , what experience has even who that person depends on what you did (or did) in the 10, 20 or 30 years later his initial triumph bright. The mere passage of time only seeks oblivion of knowledge and intellectual mold . And within 10, 20 or 30 years of total dedication to the policy, without more, can ensure the greatest oversights and serious damage, intellectual and ethical.
is certainly legitimate, p. eg., remove Chair opposition to university or place of counsel for the Courts and immediately engage in politics, as it is entering the legal profession and be over there shortly to engage in advocacy. But for the same reason that neither the professor and counsel for the courts can reasonably show that mere status as if it constituted a curriculum vitae rich in merit, neither should the senior member of the political class that, their day, now distant, won a competition to a body more or less distinguished civil servant, but in which he has served not only for a short time.
Outside of politics and public life is very bad thing confused to the point of considering an initial victory (and in particular on an opposition very difficult, difficult or not glib: grades pretty relative) successful completion as irrevocable and life-course that really conferring jurisdiction and merit. But it is in politics where it is most often display the initial victory as a certificate of adequacy or excellence precisely the absence of a subsequent trajectory of successive and constant efforts, with new successes and other experiences may not be successful, but very relevant for the personnel training and human maturity, which are of great importance to hold public office.
Moreover, for the res publica to all, is often preferable, more prudent, the ignorant aware of this condition that the ignorant Smarty. I certainly feel a lot less panic before a perfectly ignorant (re) known as such that when a wiseacre who has not lost the great conceit that inflated the ego false superiority on the day, 10, 20 or 30, was " number one" in his class Important to Professional . The ignorant can learn today but cautious and, above all, be inclined to ask questions and study what it takes. The brainy presumptuous and believed not have to ask (or so he believes it, hence it is called believed ) considers it unnecessary. And if you contradict arguments, takes it very badly, as if it were a personal attack. Not accept or tolerate dissent and less complete disagreement. If unwisely puts others on the verge of actually disagree and disagree is clearly the victim of humiliation. As no mistakes (or, if committed, not willing to recognize), or does not rectify the matter in question or in his usual attitude. And keep making the same mistakes.
MERE YOUTH AS MERIT (and often SOLE AND DECISIVE MERIT)
Another common social phenomenon in our days, which is very useful to find out: youth as merit. Being young is, by itself, to certain political leaders and to an even greater number of young (stakeholders), merit even a decisive merit. is one of the great idiocies that permeate the last few years social life, here and in the wider world . Everyone knows that there are young very smart, intelligent, slow, short and very short. Everyone knows that there are young with a lot of momentum and others who say they were born tired and have done nothing but further trouble in his childhood and adolescence. We see young workers and other extremely vague. We see them wanting to eat the world and change, along with other mired in the torpor of the most absolute conformity. We see them with ideals and see them with utilitarianism and egoism that scare. Youth is, if we set aside topical speeches, in one sense and opposite- a temporary circumstance of human life that does not include or drag, of itself, other aspects of temperament, character, personality, strengths and weaknesses, but combined, in each individual, with many different features . A young person may even be, reveal a maturity and wisdom that no seniors, elderly and even longevity, which may continue to be so reckless and crackpots like 20 years, if not more, for the most "practical ". Despite these genuine evidence, we lived and still live in a time of youth, in itself, seems to be regarded as equivalent to ability and merit.
In political life especially where, for some purposes, the youth is too relative and you are young (of the Young Socialist Popular Convergence, etc.) Both at 18 and at 37 years, many people in positions of responsibility, even a lot of responsibility-for the simple fact of being young: more than 20 and less than 36 years . Fulano (or Perenganita) became head of this or that, Director General, Secretary of State, Minister, Deputy Advisor courtly, Secretary General, etc. when was it that said " a boy (or girl) bright "with a university and a conversation that appeared to reveal widespread culture," Reading "(if they were many and well assimilated or mere quotations of occasion, be discovered later.) Perhaps it was also an "active young " and willful. Thus began many current political leaders and then, after 10, 20 or 30 years, these people are, in terms of merit and ability, just as they started . If we were to say what are now these leaders, we could only say they are "ex-young "or, if you will," former bright young . " Sounds weird, right? But is not accurate in many cases?
I try to be objective and fair: some of the "bright young people" engaged in politics can be displayed, after its inception, good management of the jobs obtained. Become mature and competent real prestige and employment opportunities outside the public sector. When they speak, it shows they know what they say (something impossible to fake) and listened with interest. But unfortunately, these are exceptions to the rule. The rule is that once young people reach their fifties and no one, with dispassion, are considered as "professional brilliant" and even professional , neither good nor poor. So, even temporarily to stretch young people, have left to be young and have become only "ex-young."
I said before that the mere passage of time only seeks oblivion of knowledge and intellectual mold. I have to rectify, but to complete what comes with time. Because of the time, there is something that young people have never (we've never had): experience. O, at least enough experience. Neither life experience or professional experience enough. And experience is needed, is a great "asset" for the performance of many jobs and functions (but do not confuse experience with age and only interested in good experience: the very old, by itself, says nothing) . Dispense with the (good) experience or undervalued is nonsense as amazing as widespread, committed by you, being young, inexperienced and do not disdain to be taking precautions. But also committed and is higher still crime of which, in the throes of selecting and appointing others, for those who do, as they say, are still "green" (which will badly damaged). And do not decide in this sense of necessity (due to lack of experienced people, eg.) Or take warnings and cautions. Young men and women launched the stardom (at stars and crashing ), because the lack of experience which is sure to afflict themselves-does not seem of any importance, as worshipers are simply youth. So we have been in the wrong hands a efebocracia , which can be gerontocracy by "ex-young" .
0 comments:
Post a Comment