Maybe the ability to deliberate can cause you to act against your own instinct and therefor your own self interest. It's something I personally like to call the curse of philosophy. — MyOwnWay
On the opposing end one could argue that being able to think in this way means they are a value to the gene pool but a detriment to their own natural interests. — MyOwnWay
Eating and continued survival would be the best examples.What natural interests?
It was meant to. This isn't an implication of right or wrong though. What I'm trying to get across is the original question here must be answered in a clinical and biological way. If we fail to do that then I suppose every action must be viewed as part of or a contribution to ideology.Also, this example is oddly eugenic sounding.
Is it though? What if you have a child outside of societies bounds and raise it disdain society?To reiterate, my argument is having a child is approving of a certain lifestyle (the current society) and thus society becomes an ideology for parents.
Eating and continued survival would be the best examples. — MyOwnWay
It was meant to. This isn't an implication of right or wrong though. What I'm trying to get across is the original question here must be answered in a clinical and biological way. If we fail to do that then I suppose every action must be viewed as part of or a contribution to ideology. — MyOwnWay
Is it though? What if you have a child outside of societies bounds and raise it disdain society? — MyOwnWay
Oh dear. I always thought people had sex because of hormones not because of some kind of planned parenthood. — Athena
However, men did hold a notion that having a son proved they were a man, and back in the day, having children is what a good woman did. Are these examples of having children to manifest an ideology? — Athena
To reiterate, my argument is having a child is approving of a certain lifestyle (the current society) and thus society becomes an ideology for parents. — schopenhauer1
This assenting to bringing new people into society is an ideology in itself of perpetuating the current society. Its such a strong assent to the point of making the decision that others must go through it as well. — schopenhauer1
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. — schopenhauer1
You're probably going to work for some employer or maybe start a business. If you don't for a long enough, you will go hungry and become homeless. You can try to hack it in the wilderness yourself. Someone thought that this was a good situation to bring you in. But this wasn't examined more than- it is good to bring this person into society. The ideology is, "At least some people should be brought into society". Why is any person being brought into a society a good thing? It is simply an ideology that the way of life is good, and others should be brought into it. — schopenhauer1
So is society itself a sort of ideology, a sort of "brand" that we as individuals perpetuate through the gateway of birth? It has a way-of-life. By constantly birthing people, we are clearly buying into it. Sure, we might want to change parts of how the backbone runs (free health care vs. private, etc) but generally speaking, the whole pie itself of society (work, entertainment, maintenance/increase comfort levels) seems to be shared by all. Thus, birth essentially pushes this ideology unto a new generation. I think it is an ideology, forced in perpetuity on others. More work, more entertainment, more going to die hacking it in the wilderness if you don't like. There is no option for the no option (non-birth). Once born, you're living the ideology out until you don't (that is you die). — schopenhauer1
I respectfully disagree with you. I love my fiancé and I want to sleep with her because I love her and I find her desirable. If we get pregnant, that’s the fruit of our love. Politics have nothing to do with it. — Agathob
However, to decide to have a child is a choice. — schopenhauer1
They are signalling, "I like society and think someone else should have to go through all the ways-of-life of the current society" — schopenhauer1
I disagree that society itself is an ideology.
I’m currently reading Aristotle’s Politics and he clearly states that the state is a community.
A community is composed of families that formed a larger social group. Typically for mutual support and survival.
I believe our ancestors hardly had the time to debate ideologies when they formed the earliest societies along lines following instincts. — Agathob
Many of us older people find it quite impossible to excise the control of our bodily functions as you so proudly assume is everyone's choice for control. And since when did we expect a male to exercise the control we demand of men today? Back in the day, 4F males took a lot of pride in not exercising a lot of self-control. — Athena
BS, they are horny and it happens and they sure as blazes are not pondering the social and political ramifications of having sex. My bad, that was not a very philosophical statement, but here is where philosophy gets a bad rap. The average person is reacting to feelings without analyzing why and what the consequences will be to self or society? Young people having children can't even comprehend how a child will change their own lives, let alone contemplating ideologies. When it comes to sex, it is the other head in control. — Athena
I must congratulate you on her tenacity. I will agree some people have children to perpetuate an ideology. Now once the child is born, what do they do to prepare the child to perpetuate that ideology?
In societies where people with a different ideology take control of resources and enforce a different way of living, it is devasting to the aboriginal people, leading to shattered lives, broken families and alcoholism. Are people who do this to other people guilty of a wrong? How important are our ideologies to the good life? — Athena
Hold on though, you are jumping off on an interesting but slight tangent. If we can make the argument that perpetuating society is like perpetuating a game, and each new person born is a new participant in the game, why should more people play this game? — schopenhauer1
Let's say the goal of this game is something like "self-actualization". The levels are things like survival-in-an-economic setting (i.e. employment), maintaining your comfort levels (cleaning, regulating surrounding temperatures, consuming preferred items, etc.). and entertaining yourself (keep your mind occupied, try to find meaning in some task or goal, etc.). — schopenhauer1
With all this in mind, why does this ideology of abiding by this well-trodden way of life (society) need to be perpetuated to yet another person in the first place? — schopenhauer1
What is it that this game must be continued? — schopenhauer1
But why are we preferring to perpetuate this ideology? — schopenhauer1
Its self-justifying and when we get to the root of the reasons, it doesn't even add up. What is going on is that people are born, they suffer but it is stated that the "brand" of the game-of-life (the ideology of society) must be played by another person. — schopenhauer1
What is going on is that people are born, they suffer but it is stated that the "brand" of the game-of-life (the ideology of society) must be played by another person. — schopenhauer1
Do you think that would have always described what is important? — Athena
The purpose of mythology is to transmit social agreements and transition youth into adults who are valued by the community. The children just happen without planning. I know you think children are the result of planning, but for how many centuries has that been true? — Athena
Because we believe it is best and will mean a good life for the members of our society, but as I said we have not perpetuated the ideology of our forefathers. We stopped using education to transmit our culture and began preparing our youth for a technological society with unknown values. Today what the young think is best is not what we wanted in the past. I absolutely hate the new fade of saying "perfect" to everything! That is so superficial and frivolous. I find business practices today, intolerable. I see a serious lack of individual liberty and power and this is not "perfect". This is surely off-topic, but maybe you can understand why I find it hard to go along with your train of thought? — Athena
I think you must be young because you are unaware of a dramatic cultural change. The US has become what it defended its democracy against. That means all those people who defended our way of life, died for nothing. That bothers me a lot. — Athena
You skipped my question of how is an ideology transmitted. — Athena
Likewise, in human (and possibly other) societies, groups, "tribes", and so on and so forth, it's not reducible solely to the desire to physically reproduce (e.x. a non-violent community of monks or nuns practicing celebacy, or a community of artists, musicians, or athletes which serves more of a creative purpose than a "surivial" purpose would be examples. — IvoryBlackBishop
Yes, I think you are misunderstanding my argument to mean only this society should be questioned. My point is questioning if any society should be perpetuated, whether new/old, this way or that way. All societies are going to have the same basic ways-of-life (that is to say a way to survive, maintain environs, and entertain). It is not whether this specific society should be perpetuated vs. another type of society. That is where there is a mismatch of dialogue here. — schopenhauer1
(thus marry early, have a ceremony, make it sacred, make it tied to money and property, etc. etc — schopenhauer1
As far as youth and education, and enculturation, the question is why are we making new people? — schopenhauer1
It is not about carrying out a society's ideology to a new generation unless there is a war and then reproduction becomes very important. Then it is important to have as many people as possible or the whole society will become extinct. Your own survival is in danger if your defense is weak. Isreal and Palestine are a good example of the importance of outnumbering "them". Israel's claim to democracy is especially difficult because if the Palestinians outnumber the Jews, the Jews would loose control of decision making. This forces Israel to increase its population faster than the Palestinians. It can not assimilate Palestinians into its culture, unlike the US that gladly assimilated most but not all immigrants. You don't become a Jew like you can become a citizen of the US. And this is about "us" and "then" not exactly ideology. A better subject might be why do divide between "us" and "them"?What is important to carrying out society to a new generation at all? — schopenhauer1
While I agree on many points, indeed this would be another conversation, as interesting as it is. — schopenhauer1
Why we bring more people into the world, and spread THE (not a specific) brand of "society" (any way of life, not a specific one). — schopenhauer1
Well, this thread is about specifically how society is perpetuated by procreation. I think we can move to that question after we discuss this a bit more. — schopenhauer1
"To reiterate, my argument is having a child is approving of a certain lifestyle (the current society) and thus society becomes an ideology for parents."
Is it though? What if you have a child outside of societies bounds and raise it disdain society? — MyOwnWay
I think you're conflating various things, such as cultures and ideologies with biology.It's hard for me to discern what you are talking about here. However, as far as society being an ideology, my point is that by having more children, people are trying to force a way-of-life onto a new person (the person being born). It is such an assent (YES!) to society (life) that they want OTHER PEOPLE to live it and will make the decision that they should do so on their behalf.
That does not ring true to me. Perhaps you could describe it more precisely? Exactly what would a common ideology look like? — Athena
I don't think those are universals. They are common but not universal and there is nothing sacred about our secular marriages. — Athena
Why is it important for Christians to make everyone one of "them"? Why does one society assimilate others and another society keep itself pure of those others? Can we be sure those Jews forced to be Christians are really Christians or are they faking it and do they threaten "us"? I think you have locked onto the wrong premiums. Reproduction is not the only way to increase our numbers. — Athena
Having a child at its core is procreation, and what is procreation if not a species DNA instinctual need to pass on a means in which to survive. Just because we have the means to live in a way where basics for survival are an after thought; does not mean that they were never and are not natural motums of our existence. — LuckilyDefinitive
If the need to procreate is only driven by want why are we not the only species on the planet that procreates. Since it would require the ability to preconcieve to formulate a want then nothing else should mate according to your logic, correct? — LuckilyDefinitive
How can anyone state that definitively if we have never experienced a life only lived through purity of one or the other? — LuckilyDefinitive
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.