The Innocence Game: November 2013

There is no existentialism for children. This is because they aren't deemed worthy of it. Adults are content to consider that life has no objective meaning or purpose, that there may be responsibilities but no guilt or innocence, but only grant such as applicable to themselves. For children, adults always paradoxically and hypocritically permit that this objective meaning, purpose, and guilt and innocence really do exist, but only for their sake. Either they have no confidence in the so-called universality of the non-truth they espouse, or they have too much confidence of which to boast in themselves because of it. For truly, the adult reveres himself for his complexity and reveres the child for her simplicity, but just how legitimate are these characteristics? Is it so much to ask that the adult, in all his so-called glorious "complexity" admit a little honesty and humility (and not that "of a child" so as to glorify children) and say that children are not "simple" because adults are complex any more than they are "small" because adults are tall? The only reason why children are anything is because adults have decreed these things from their adult perspective. It is only for that reason that suggesting adult existentialism also apply to children—to grant an existential indifference "escape clause" exists for children—or at least grant that this existentialism "devoid of despair" that they've reserved for themselves actually applies to no one, and for all the same reasons. It's my contention that the latter is preferable to the former and therefore probably truer, therefore, there is no true existentialism for anyone.

I believe the only reason children are exempt from so many of the more so-called "relativist" philosophies is because adults who apply relativism to justify their own actions don't want to subject what they hold precious, sacred, and "trainable," to the inevitable deconstruction they have reserved for themselves and their ego. They want something to hold over children, even if it is the same self-granted ability to “hold something over” them itself. They still want to be able to boast in their own glory, in their own divinity as subjective “masters” of their own destiny so long as they can still see fit to deny children to be masters of their own as they used to do with owned slaves in the same manner. Why else would the subjectivist, the liberal thinker, the existentialist, declare complete personal independence for himself from all codes and ethics, including even innocence and guilt, and from all that Camus once called "philosophical suicide," but then turn around and insist that children, who are also human, be bound to those same institutions, philosophies, and structures defined by that same dependence on artifice, pretense, delusion, method, and ethics? Why hold the adult to be free to act without guilt or innocence and then chastise the child when he wrongs? It is clear in that hypocrisy that the existentialist who teaches a child morality cannot present his case without accepting that guilt and innocence, wrong and right, and truth and value exist, at least for someone, and therefore the further argument also—that if these objective realities apply to anyone (ie. children), they must also apply to everyone for the same reasons, otherwise we have to show just why only adults get to be angels.

Is it so hard to conceive that either what applies to child humans should also apply to adult humans, and adult humans to child humans? That what the adult permits himself so that he might glory in the fact of his so-called maturity could just as well serve the child to glorify herself so that she might also glory—not in her so-called immaturity, but her own measure of maturity as well? There is nothing immature until it is looked upon by that which assumes it is "more mature," and likewise, there is nothing "more mature" unless it is looked upon by that which is less, so there is no immaturity or maturity, just maturity in differing amounts. More and less are values, even to the existentialist, until it comes to the matter of age and experience, and then they reassert the prejudices of those they criticize to make it so. It is that assumption I would like to see diminish. Either what applies to the child also apply to the adult, or it applies to neither, which I believe makes the most sense. If anything exists in philosophy that might be deemed "too harsh" to apply to children, like the total independence of existentialism or the so-called glory of humanism, then it may be time to reconsider why it has any application to adults. If an adult can be "human, all too human," I can only ask why children are left out. If we can declare of ourselves "Ecce Homo!" along with Nietzsche, where is the equivalent "Ecce Puer!"? If we can declare ourselves an Über-mensch, where is the Über-kind? It's probably because adults would shudder at such a notion. How dare we drag children down with us! Must we drag ourselves down though?

If the adult truly and legitimately faces the "abyss" and can find it facing back without having to wallow in the despair of the mire after it but instead receive the blessings of complete freedom of action from it (many would also call it the "Absurd" or "God"), what sense does it make to deny those same blessings of the abyss, the Absurd, to children—to deny them this complete freedom only to maintain their so-called "innocence" (which is really to perpetuate ignorance)? If the most hardened absurdist can't look a child in the face and tell them that their life has no objective value, meaning, or purpose, then why do the same to adults? If the most hardened Über-mensch can reprimand the child for doing "wrong" or even just teach the child values (as in discipline) and never decline from doing these things so as to "free" the child from the shackles of slavery to meaning, value, delusion, and suicide (both actual and philosophical), then his absurdism is of no validity and he shouldn't be proclaiming the very same message to adults. If the message of this "humanism" is being expressed in human terms, either the message is fit for all human audiences, or it is fit for none, otherwise we have to explain why children aren't humans. For the same reason there is no existentialism, no lack-of-truth doctrine, which is only for Europeans or Americans, men or women, there should be no existentialism that is only for adults or children, but one that exists for all humans. There is either truth or there is no truth, and regardless of which is correct, the same should objectively exist whether an individual is black or white, male or female, or two or ninety-two. So far, relativism has not done this when it comes to age groups, and its universal failure to do this only calls into question its insistence that there is no such thing as a universal truth to begin with, which it can’t help but admit.

However, there is another side to this. The absurdist who can and does look a child in the eye and tell them suicide is just as valid a choice for them as long life (in a value-neutral sense that is) would be perfectly consistent, and therefore worth what exactly his philosophy espouses: the promotion of suicide as a possible and value-neutral option for escape—a truth that would be fit for anyone. Camus had no qualm reaching this perspective when tacitly providing for the neutrality of this escapism to adults, even if he derided it for being the "easy way out" and the least valuable option in a life where "quantity of experiences" is supposed to matter over "quality." Truly, advancing the so-called value-neutral stance of suicide is absurd, but I guess advancing the same for children was just too absurd, even for Camus. Could we really propose it to children as merely a "valid, though less valuable" option in the same value-neutral way Camus does for adults? How could anyone with a conscience uphold suicide as a possible and therefore value-neutral option for five-year-old children to take if they were inclined as we do for despaired adults? Those who claim to be relativistic and absurdist but can't recommend suicide as a value-neutral option to children out of fear of harming their innocence by the suggestion are without merit and inconsistent. They apply human standards only to adults, who are human, that they can't dream of applying to children, who are also human. As such, the existentialist is faced with a conundrum: either to remain consistent and therefore be able to recommend suicide as a value-neutral option for low-quantity-of-life children (where there is no such thing as "human values"), or be inconsistent and hold adults to a different ontology than children in order to maintain a good conscience and not promote behaviors that are obviously harmful as "value neutral." The choice all comes down on just how human the existentialist is willing to allow a child to be and just how innocent he is willing to accept adults really are.

It is essential to understand just why adults are considered to be any more or less human than children, and while there are many theories adults have instituted to justify applying different standards to either—often conflicting theories—the main thing we have to consider is exactly that: that adults have instituted different “human” standards on young humans than on chronologically older ones. The theories they use to justify doing it I often refer to as appeals to varying criteria: one being age limits, with those who ascribe to them as nothing but superstitious; another being experience, who are nothing but prejudiced and uninformed; and another being duality (innocence vs. maturity), who are guilty of merely assuming these states are opposed or mutually exclusive. It is also essential to understand what it means to be human and how it objectively differs from the adult-centric perspective which has always reigned over reason and even reigns among those who would've criticized it when it excluded other demographic groups from its definition. Children are excluded from humanity, and this popular notion has existed in three principle forms: the idea that children are not human at all (and are therefore completely different from adults, like animals); that children are human in part or in the process of becoming human from otherwise not being human (therefore justifying some measure of their dehumanization); and that children are completely human at every stage of development and don't differ at all from adults, despite their objective and biological differences (therefore acknowledging human variation, but asserting human equality as already professed by the relativists, feminists, and racial freedom fighters alike, only for children this time around).

Essentially this difference is the determination of whether "humanity" is something (1) adults alone possess and receive upon attaining a certain criterion (listed above or otherwise), (2) whether it is something originally lacking in the creature but due to attaining a certain criterion gradually increases toward completeness, or (3) whether it is something common to all human beings of any age, experience, or difference, expressing itself differently at different times. It is dependent on whether we want to believe that what it means to be human has numerous expressions and that none are necessarily superior to any other, or if we want to continue to think there is only one valid expression of humanity and that it begins and ends with the current adult expression of it. It's the decision we have to make between at least there being one "adult" humanity, two mutually exclusive humanities for "adult" and "child" respective to their age groups or experience, or (as we have already determined on the basis of race, religion, and gender) one common humanity we all possess with only biological differences dividing us that have no bearing on how we ought to divide ourselves. All this being said, is it so much to assert that what applies to one should apply to the other, and if something should not be applied to one (existentialism, example), it probably shouldn’t be applied to the other either? The former asserts bringing children up to the level of adults, which is itself an adult-centric perspective. The later asserts the lowering of adults to the level of children. The later is not something adults are used to doing these days, but that's what makes it all the more interesting.

Don't listen to the naysayers out there who say such outreach is illegitimate or not needed, because every boy deserves the best start in life and every man who wrongfully suffers anywhere in the world is deserving of our concern, but all over the world there are men and boys dealing with violence, suicide, lack of scholastic achievement, lack of male role models, lack of security, higher rates of mental illness, imprisonment, and unemployment, and and who have no supports to turn to. That is why the issues concerning men and boys worldwide are observed every year on November 19th. This year, the theme is "Keeping Men and Boys Safe." Men and boys have a great number of issues that affect them, and so today is about spreading awareness on these issues.

The theme for 2013 is, "Keeping Men and Boys safe". The nominated target areas are:

• Keeping men and boys Safe by tackling male suicide;

• Keeping boys safe so they can become tomorrow’s role models;

• Tackling our tolerance of violence against men and boys;

• Boosting men’s life expectancy by keeping men and boys safe from avoidable illness and death;

• Keeping men and boys safe by promoting fathers and male role models.

The 2013 Press Release asks, "People all over the world are used to relating to men as protectors and providers, but how often do we consider the actions we can all take to protect Men and Boys from harm and provide them with a safe world where they can thrive and prosper?"