The new educational reform has been at the heart of the public debate over the past few weeks, and at that time one of the main axes of the theme has been the subject of philosophy (a debate that is repeated periodically). In this sense, one of the most surprising opinions that have been made known has been that of journalist Ramón González Ferriz: “Whoever does not have a total awareness of death, who does not have a significant moral dilemma in his life, and who does not understand the tragic nature of politics, or the frustration of love, sex and friendship, cannot, in any case, understand philosophy.” The writer refers to adolescents between 14 and 15 years of age.

Besides getting a little categorical (“you can’t at all! “Understanding philosophy”), González seems to suggest that one cannot understand X (in this case, philosophy), if he has not lived in the first person some of X’s own experiences. That is, the author of philosophy relates maturity with maturity, and of course maturity can give a different view when dealing with some subjects, a different perspective, if you will, but at the same time, taking to the extreme the argument of personal experience (experience as a premise for knowledge), the student is relegated and limited to his recent experience. I believe that education must be precisely the opposite: to broaden the view of students beyond the framework of the nearby experience; to explore all possible ones.

The worst thing, however, in my opinion, is that the innocence that González attributes to adolescence is naive. It is not only that it automatically accepts that adolescents aged 14-15 years are not able to understand philosophical themes, but that, directly, they do not understand the atrocities of love, friendship or sex, or do not face significant moral dilemmas in their lives (!). This opinion is not, let us say, an anecdotal and innocently spontaneous opinion, but an expression that is situated in a very broad line of thought: in the context of the systematic infantilization of young people and, especially, of adolescents. Teenage brother-in-law sitting by the neck: “Quiet, young, you are not yet able to understand all this.” I am convinced that adolescents are faster than González believes, but perhaps we should not accept it.

Philosophy may seem difficult at first to some students, but that is not because of a lack of maturity, but because, for example, they are dealing for the first time with issues that until then have only worked transversally or very superficially in school. Of course, we can talk about content and methodologies because surely there is one of the keys to the subject, but, to begin with, it would not be bad in the field of the humanities (and in any area) not to underestimate the students, because it is important where we want to leave and we will hardly build houses if the first brick is done wrong.