I'm not sure how you are using the term axiomatize. However, I will say that life does not have ideas, only people do. People choose to have offspring. — schopenhauer1
They are following the ideology that ways of life of a society are good. — schopenhauer1
Yeah, you can give me some fringe exceptions, but besides that this isn't sustainable as a widespread thing, these fringes are only in relation to the non-fringes, so you need both. — schopenhauer1
It's the implication of this that is most important, not just awareness (though I doubt parents think of birthing children as assenting to an ideology). The implication is that if ideology is debatable, putting new people into these ways-of-life should be debated as well. It is no different a political debate as health care, and in fact is more fundamental and important — schopenhauer1
Not necessarily. I can give you a simple counterexample. Jewish minorities still had children, even though they never particularly subscribed to the non-Jewish mainstream ideology of society. They clearly had their own. — alcontali
Not necessarily. I can give you a simple counterexample. Jewish minorities still had children, even though they never particularly subscribed to the non-Jewish mainstream ideology of society. They clearly had their own. — alcontali
A fringe can easily become the mainstream. That happens all the time. In fact, most people are sheeple. Their opinion concerning the mainstream ideology, (or concerning anything at all, for that matter) does not matter at all. Nassim Taleb has written a good article exactly on that subject: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority. The opinion of most people is immaterial and irrelevant. Only intolerant people matter. Society changes its ideology according to the principle of group renormalization in line with the opinion of its most intolerant members.
So, you can happily ignore the opinion of most people, because it is known to be worthless. — alcontali
Psychology and economics were never blindly trusted and are widely considered to be mostly conjectural. Medicine has also always been distrusted to an important extent.
[...]No, it is just standard epistemology. — alcontali
We just look at how beliefs can be objectively justified, and if they can't, then it is ideology and not knowledge. — alcontali
People who were told "opiods, totally safe, science says so" by "scientific medical authorities" and live the terrible consequences are entirely valid in doubting the next important thing scientific institutions tell them to believe.
— boethius
And they are right in that regard. If there is doubt possible, they should doubt; especially when it is obvious that some people stand to handsomely profit from the fact that we believe their lies. — alcontali
As far as I am concerned, we cannot trust the interventionistas, especially, not in the subject of climate change. — alcontali
I think your examples miss the point of the premise. Rather, I am saying that by birthing someone, one is assenting to a set of ideals (one being that at least life is worth living, that the current society is good enough to bring someone into it, that the ways of life of that society are something to instantiate a new person into, etc.). — schopenhauer1
If yes, bringing someone into that way of life (majority, minority, or any at all) is an ideology in itself. — schopenhauer1
But we seem to be largely in agreement vis-a-vis parents choosing to conceive (and risking it is also an ideological choice): — boethius
I would agree with. — boethius
Yes, indeed. Without a consensus on how to live, a good ideology to live by, procreating simply amounts to increasing the number of confused souls. — TheMadFool
But to live at all is the ideology in this case. Why should people live at all (be conceived, birthed into existence)? To work, to entertain themselves, in a certain socio-economic context etc. seems to be the ideology for the children. But why are we assuming this is good for people to enter into? The ideology of living in a society is assuming another person should live in the society. Why this assumption? Why isn't this ideology debated? That should be a political debate, not an assumption of inevitability. — schopenhauer1
Au contraire, people are completely oblivious about the ideology they're endorsing and have never in their lives given a single thought to the issue. Of course it could be as I said earlier, people are in the know but are overwhelmed by social pressure to continue the tradition of family-making, either with resignation to, or in defiance of, the facts. — TheMadFool
Enter your question as to why the matter doesn't make an appearance in social debates. Perhaps people value life to the right degree to preclude persuasion otherwise. You haven't spoken of suffering at all but have made an effort to expose the meaninglessness of social existence - an endless repetition of activities having no intrinsic worth of their own. However think of it this way: nonexistence you've "known" before your birth and you will "know" it at death. Why not experience some life just for the heck of it? I know the odds are stacked against us but there's a chance, however slim, that our experience of life will not be all pain and tears. Life doesn't look so bad now does it? Even the most monotonous, dull lives seems almost mouth-watering! Irresistible! — TheMadFool
but have made an effort to expose the meaninglessness of social existence - an endless repetition of activities having no intrinsic worth of their own. — TheMadFool
Why not experience some life just for the heck of it? I know the odds are stacked against us but there's a chance, however slim, that our experience of life will not be all pain and tears. Life doesn't look so bad now does it? Even the most monotonous, dull lives seems almost mouth-watering! Irresistible! — TheMadFool
So to take this implication further, I believe this to be the utmost important political decision. I see political ideology as ideas that one believes not just oneself, but other should follow. — schopenhauer1
Thus, forcing other people into society should be the first thing debated. Everything else is secondary to this as everything else literally, comes from this. — schopenhauer1
So yes, deciding to have children is ideological based and implicitly accepts a large part of society's ideology.
However, I would argue that "a large part" of society's ideology is a prerequisite for having children because it happens to be true. Though I view all decisions as ideological, that does not mean all ideology is false. "You shouldn't eat poisonous mushrooms" is a part of society's ideology I've inherited, and I imagine you as well, but doesn't mean it's false.
Now, I agree ↪TheMadFool that most people don't give the ideology they've inherited much thought, obviously simply going along with it in a "it's worked until now at least" sense isn't necessarily contradictory. Of course, most people who don't think much about it, just a normal thing people wanting and having children (a fact of life as it were), probably don't even argue that far. So it is an interesting debate whether such an assumption without attempting to justify it is a justifiable assumption; but of course, it can only be debated from outside by people that are reflecting on the issue and considering both proposals. So, probably best to discuss those proposals in themselves first. — boethius
At least not in terms of a face-value interpretation, of relation to parents conceiving children, as it excludes people who cannot have children from participating in what is essential and not secondary. — boethius
A reformulation I would agree with, is that the fundamental issue is "whether it is worthwhile to continue humanity or not", and, if yes, then several principles follow as a corollary. The most important would be preserving the environmental conditions that make humanity possible, not simply because that's the foundation for humanity's project but we have responsibility to other living creatures and not just ourselves. The idea that "sometimes people should have children" also follows from deciding to continue humanity. And, for some, the best way to contribute to continuing humanity does involves having children, while others may see the best way for them as other activities. — boethius
However, as I mention above, I believe we can't escape a large part of society's ideology because it happens to be true (and going without it leads quickly to death) but I also believe that whatever is false we inherit we can escape from. Deciding to have children is not an intrinsic commitment to perpetuate false beliefs society has. The "true ideology" may overlap a large part of society's ideology, either defined as the status quo or then just the collection of what everyone happens to believe, and the true ideology may include valuing the continuation of humanity. — boethius
So I think we are basically in agreement except that wanting/having children is a "fact of life". — schopenhauer1
That is taking that a bit too literally. Anyone can debate whether procreation is good. After all, procreation certainly affects the progeny born into existence. Although I don't think anyone can force their idea of procreating or not on someone else, it is ironic that indeed the parent is forcing procreation on a new person, whether or not that parent's neighbor disapproves or not. So again, anyone can have this conversation, whether if one can actually procreate or not. — schopenhauer1
But why is the assumption that we should contribute to continuing humanity? That is the exact ideological assumption I am questioning. Perhaps we should contribute to reducing ALL suffering unto a future person by simply not having said person (who will eventually suffer)? — schopenhauer1
I don't get how you are using "true" in this post. What makes an ideology "true"? Any answer you provide will beg the question, even unto the simple answer "it helps us survive" as even that ideology can be questioned as to why we should contribute to that cause rather than reduction of suffering (which would equate to preventing any new person from being born to experience suffering). — schopenhauer1
It is an aside, however, to what extent people can be justified holding a position without thinking through the justification. My statement wasn't well written if it is not clear I was not taking a position relative this issue. Apologetics for people who haven't thought their actions through much is not a subject that interests me -- though not because the answers are clear to these questions but simply because the only person who can benefit from such arguments is someone who does have the time and desire to think about the subject and so is no longer in the category of "not having thought about it". — boethius
My main purpose in my response, however, is to make a moral equivalence between having children and all actions that maintain and perpetuate society. — boethius
In my last comments I have been outlining (in my view) how a justification for having children can be argued; although it is indeed a very weight decision in itself, it follows from the broader question of valuing humanity as a whole or not. If humanity has value, and we conclude we should continue it, then it follows children are consistent with such a value system. — boethius
We could of course move onto this question, but so far my goal here is to give an idea of how ideology does not exclude coherent ideology which in turn does not exclude an ideology being true. That indeed, everything is ideological, and the word only has meaning when contrasting with the status quo (which at best is simply a short hand way to say "I'm going to now describe some ideas the majority does not agree with" and at worst is the ideology of denying the status quo is an ideology -- such as maximizing profits is simply rationality beyond reproach and not an ideology in itself), and in a philosophical context is simply equivalent to "world view". We are still left with all the same questions of whether the ideology or world view in question has merit or not, is sound or not, and is true or not. It's not a useless word in the philosophical context, it makes sense to contrast "my ideological foundations to yours"; but my main point so far is that identifying something as ideological does not provide us any further information than that we are considering the ideas in question together; it remains to be seen if those ideas have justification or are really true. — boethius
However, that we are unable to convince each other of anything without sharing premises that we can always beg the question about, does not imply there is no true positions. It does not even mean that we can't be truly convinced that we really do have the truth about something. Though I accept that you see my ideology (wherever we disagree) as one ideology among many, I see my ideology (certainly the critical foundations of it) as really true, otherwise I would not believe it; and I expect you to see things the same way for the key parts of your ideology. — boethius
Why should we enforce some values on everyone? Someone has to care for the children and there is an important difference between giving children a home life or institutionalizing them. Homemakers played an extremely important role in society and I am not sure we are better off without them. — Athena
So I don't think you are getting me here. You are talking about gender discrimination and the role of women in society. That is an interesting topic. However, this particular topic is about whether bringing children into the world is considered a political ideology in itself. In other words, choosing to have a child is equivalent to saying, "I like the current society and its ways-of-life and want to make another person also go through the ways-of-life of the society". To have a child is a POLITICAL decision, one made on behalf for the child, due to an ideology that the current society is good (and good enough to force another person into it on their behalf by procreating them into the society in the first place). That is more the topic, not as much role of gender in society.
As an aside, it is an interesting debate whether having someone stay at home full time is a better arrangement than two working parents. But that would be a different topic. — schopenhauer1
All life fundamentally chooses to have offspring. That is why it still exists in the first place. — alcontali
That was before women's liberation and different forms of birth control. Life may choose life, but we should not take it for granted that woman choose to give birth. — Athena
In fact, men even like it when the shit hits the fan, because that allows us to creatively find solutions, rise to the occasion, and show our mettle. Hard times tend to be good for men. — alcontali
What I have read of the Great Depression totally disagrees with — Athena
I want to be careful to not derail this thread but economic collapses tend to destroy men's self-esteem and they abandoned their families, leaving the women alone to provide for their children and care for them too. It is nothing like your notion of the effect of economic collapse. — Athena
So if a woman wants freedom, she doesn't have children. — Athena
All in all, you're right on the money about how empty the ideology of procreation is. — TheMadFool
When the currency will be gone, in all practical terms, the government will be gone too. — alcontali
Where are the few remaining families that could still fall apart? — alcontali
That will only keep flying as long as the corporations do. The corporations will be gone in Venezuela/Zimbabwe type of situations. In fact, they may already be mostly closing, just in a corona-virus situation. — alcontali
We can also expect that the security situation will deteriorate drastically. I expect to see riots and looting. Things have been too good for too long. Some people have become way too arrogant, and it is time to pay the bills now. — alcontali
It seems to me this thread took a turn when it became about having children. — Athena
I don't know that I can equate instinct to ideology, but I can say it's the progenitor of ideology. — MyOwnWay
Is the assent to perpetuate society (through procreating more people) an instinct? I say no.
It is a preference and thus something that can be deliberated and reflected upon. In other words, we can choose to follow an ideology (perpetuate society) or we can choose not to. This is unlike instinct where there is no choice. There is no ideological animal instinct.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.