[Ask the Gulch] Why does Objectivism seem to forget about children and families? Or is that my misunderstanding?
Posted by SteveSmith 5 years, 3 months ago to Ask the Gulch
You type: | You see: |
---|---|
*italics* | italics |
**bold** | bold |
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Dagny and Jim were opposite philosophical archetypes in romantic fiction, who made opposite choices under the same circumstances among the best typically available.
But those choices were not made in an intellectual vacuum; they chose from among ideas passed on to them by the culture. In that sense Jim absorbed the worst -- and ran with it to an extreme. Each of them had to choose what to be. Jim made the choice to 'absorb' the worst and follow it to its logical conclusion, not through his own 'logic', but the logic of the nature of his premises.
I did write this:
Hey, diddle, diddle
The Excluded Middle
means that A cannot be non-A.
It's either-or and neither-nor;
and A is always A.
( I don't think it ever sank in on that level. On another level though, she was always an "A or non-A" kid, Never a middle ground with her...)
Hard to say. I know one kid well. I am not a teacher. And I don't know any teacher who unxderstood Objectivist epistemology. So, I'm in the dark on that.
The other side, being "happy for your gains" is not much better.
I am intrigued, though: personally interested in your story. Thank you for opening up and sharing it.
So, thanks for clarifying your views on trust. It is a two-way street.
I am not sure that you can say that Dagny came from a "good" family. Oh, I am sure that they were all right and all that... but James only absorbed and acted out the bad side of that family: the religion, the social do-gooding of the rich, the governmental entanglements "necessary" to business. (Mouch was Rearden's lobbyist.) Dagny absorbed the other side, the self-confidence of judgment, the pride in achievement, the social graces based on self-esteem, the love of machinery and for that matter household efficiency. (She could sew on a button.)
The idea that you can "raise your child to be an Objectivist" is ludicrous. We teach by example and children choose.
I will post here later in a different topic how I raised my daughter. You should feel free to share your experiences and outcomes as a parent.
So, no, a child cannot always just leave home. But in Ayn Rand's day many children did. A child of 8, 10, 12... who makes up their mind could do so successfully. Our society is a bit different. We have very few jobs that children can do. But, you know, a lot of adults have only a grade school education and they do quite well. I work with one or two in an engineering fabrication shop.
Moreover, in his early days, Herbert Spencer said that chidren who work and pay taxes should vote. A child's rights are not A or non-A. Back in 1966 the song said, "You're old enough to kill, but not for votin'..." Age of consent for sex, age of consent for marriage, drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco... And the free market recognizes that: car rentals are generally unavailable if you are under 25. Try being 23 and suiing for your "equal rights" to rent a car... or run for Congress... But a 16-year old can drive. Our public library made the 9th grade or age 14 the cut-off between a children's card and an adult permit. Adults had different check-out privileges (more books; stiffer fines).
Just sayin'... A child's rights -- or anyone's -- are not a matter of exclusive disjunction. Life is a process.
The expression to not trust me, initially, is an invitation to earn it mutually.
That being said, these "kids" mentioned above are not my biological children. My two are dead, each less than a year old. Along with this I've had many an opportunity in mentorship that verges on the step-dad role. The worst results have been one murdered and another committed suicide.
I have 5 beautiful young women age 18 to 27 who are going to be phenomonally successful pursuing their happiness. Every few months I get a call or text on a point of altruism / capitalism perspective.
Most recent was an apprentice in my shop, grandson of a friend. Had him on suicide watch for about 3 months in late 18 (4 of his peer group of 25 have taken their lives in the past 8 years). When I moved out of MN to WI this winter he had to seek other employment....got a call 2 weeks after he found such. He was surprised by how much he knew.....and the enthusiasm of that value has blown away a self esteem issue he's been dealing with.
In 2008 I had a brief episode. An upwelling of sorrow / rage / bewilderment of intensity that shall never repeat. The losses.....and I made a choice: They are all mine.
This past Sunday I had the fortune of sitting with four youngsters at the marina I joined. 17 to 24 years old. "What do you think of this present global situation?" I asked. The responses were not too varied, yet collectively involved mistrust of source of information. We spent an hour in exploration of how to possibly vet a source and validate it. Sure is not taught in contemporary early education. They were involved in making critical decisions on perception and how it affects their lives. They also ignored the little electronic chirps from their devices.
These wonderful young people, even in the midst of dire circumstance, engage with me because I care deeply for my happiness extended to theirs.....it's a process. I don't know exactly how I do this. I just seem to be the process.
The prime example of rational parental influence not being sufficient and a child becoming what he chooses to be is the difference between Dagny and Jim Taggert growing up in the same good family.
(I will deliver my answers later...)
The metaphysical fact is that children did not ask to be born. They are brought into the "contract" against their will. It is hard to understand what could be binding on them. At least, that was my understanding as a parent. The process of raising a child is in some contexts analogous to the emancipating of an inherited slave.
"I qualify with: Do not trust me or trust I am telling you the Truth."
Not a tack I would have taken. Trust is extremely important, however much I encouraged indpeendent thought and action. Far short of blind faith or obedience, I was always cognizant of my responsibility to be trustwortthy. But that was, perhaps, personal with me. You took a different view of the matter.
So, if I may ask, how old are your children now? My daughter is 40. I have had plenty of opportunity to see how this plays out.
"Pro choice" in general -- the rights of the individual -- is a consequence of morality based on the necessity for standards in making rational choices to live one's own life -- the virtue of selfishness.
She was selfish and arrogant.
Thank you all for the answers!
Load more comments...