Is The Concept "Time Elapsed= Validity" A Valid Concept? I remember taking a philosophy course a couple of years ago. My professor at the beginning of the course was explaining to us how some people felt like they had more insight than some of the Greek philosophers, or that some felt what the Greek philosophers were talking about was a bit obsolete. He then tried to reason with us that "how can a 20-something-year old have more insight than these great philosophers who've been pondering these questions since the dawn of time, and are still being pondered today?" I'm not sure if I agree with this "time elapsed= more valid" theory myself. There are certainly a lot of social and scientific issues that have today been founded to be completely flawed or misguided, yet when it comes to Greek philosophers it seems like everyone triggers this theory and holds their reasoning to be impeccable and unquestioning. I'm sure some people don't think this way, but it seems like I've been running into a lot of this, and it baffles me. Another problem I have with this thinking is that it age discriminates. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume most people in their 20's don't have profound insights on life. However, I don't think saying "he's only 25" is a clear reason either to dismiss something. It seems like there's a different stimulus with a certain age group. If you're 80, you're a sage, if you're 20, you don't even know how to eat your food etc. So I'd like to hear some thoughts on this concept. It certainly could be said that it falls under the logical fallacy of "appealing to tradition", but I don't think 'tradition' is the reason why people hold the Greek philosophers to such 'impeccable' standards.