The default position probably doesn't involve a positive reason for procreating. All things being equal, people will have sex. So, the absence of a compelling reason not to procreate is sufficient. I don't think many people have kids so the kids can experience self-actualization or whatever. They simply want to have kids and don't think it's wrong.

They simply want to have kids and don't think it's wrong. — Roke

But the want implies a reason, even if not self-actualization. At least in the first world, access to birth control is pretty easy, so sex does not have a one-to-one ratio with having children.

Sure, they want to have kids for any number of reasons. To experience the pleasant intensity of fatherly/motherly love, as one example.

Purpose is the reason for any "drive or need". So when self-actualization is defined as a drive or need, then the purpose of life cannot be self-actualization, it has to be the reason for self-actualization.

Children born are the regrettable products of foolish people who conflate love with sentiment. Whether consciously or subconsciously, everyone needs to apply their love. Thus, the thinking goes that, "Ah, if I but have a child, I'm then obligated to love that child until I die, therefore freeing me of the need to find how best to apply myself!" Problem is that we are fallible and fallen creatures, so parents, after having made the mistake of having a child, realize that they aren't always able to love their child, and are right back where they were before. They forget the person in bed with them, and all the suffering folks out in the world already, right now, that ought to be loved first instead of loving, or attempting to love, that which does not exist. Instead of wrestling with the present, they cling to sentiments about the future, about having a child that is constructed by them exactly how they want, failing to realize that once that child enters the world, they lose what fantasies they had and end up with a much harsher reality.

Also...

For you virtue-fetishizers on here.. self-actualization seems to me very aligned with several versions of the virtuous person, so you don't have to replace it- it can be roughly equivalent. — schopenhauer1

I'd argue that the virtuous person hasn't actualized themselves, but rather, has actualized the potential virtues within them. To be virtuous does not elevate one's person, merely what virtue is being expressed more fully.

Also, also, I'd say that most people think that having a child is the most fulfilling and self-actualizing action one could take. And, just as before, this is the case whether they realize it or not.

the realization or fulfillment of one's talents and potentialities, especially considered as a drive or need present in everyone. — schopenhauer1

That is a good starting point. I don't disagree with it, but there might be other definitions of self-actualization, and certainly there are elaborations.

I do not like the idea that reproduction is a primary means to the self-actualization end. Reproduction probably has short-circuited more self-actualization than it has enabled. Animals (including us) reproduce because sexual pleasure results in sperm and eggs finding each other. Intention isn't required (but is often enough there, for us, anyway).

Animals (including us) reproduce because sexual pleasure results in sperm and eggs finding each other. Intention isn't required (but is often enough there, for us, anyway). — Bitter Crank

You'd be surprised at all the situations where it is necessary to posit intention. Anything which acts for a purpose, or aim, has intention, by definition. The purpose or aim of a thing's function is that thing's intention. Isn't there a purpose to the sperm and egg finding each other? So isn't it necessary to say that there is intention here?

It seems like in our society, we've forgotten what the word "intention" means, wanting to equate it with consciousness or something like that. But being conscious is not the same thing as having intent. I suggest that having intent is necessary in order that a thing be conscious, but it is not necessary for a thing to be conscious in order for it to have intent

If a rock (the very model of modern unconscious matter) is falling towards the earth and you will presently occupy the same space as the rock, does that mean that the rock intends, or could intend, to crush you (assuming some imminently conscious agent from TPF didn't urge the rock off a ledge)?

A bull does not intend to get a cow pregnant. It only has to get aroused by the cow's female pheromones. Perhaps, maybe, possibly, it could then intend to mount the cow. Or the teenage boy on the couch probably does not intend to get the teenage girl on the same couch pregnant. He might intend to have intercourse, but he certainly intends (needs, wants) to ejaculate, somehow, somewhere. The girl probably doesn't intend to get pregnant, either, but if push comes to shove... she might get knocked up, intent or not.

You'd be surprised at all the situations where no intention is posited and untoward outcomes happen anyway.

Would people more-or-less agree that this is most non-religious people's answer to purpose? — schopenhauer1

Self-actualisation was a term coined by psychologist Abraham Maslow, but is also very much a part of the 'human potential movement'. It has roots going back to Emerson and Thoreau and the 'New England Transcendentalist' movement, but also 'new thought', Christian Science, and vernacular Western non-religious mysticism, much of which was influenced by Theosophy and also by Yoga and Buddhism. Also not to be forgotten was the consciousness mysticism of psychedelics, Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert (who subsequently became Ram Dass, who is a legendary spiritual teacher and still with us). Leary's mantra was 'turn on, tune in, drop out' (much to the chagrin of millions of sixties parents, mine included. ;-) ) But behind that, was the belief that LSD was genuinely revelatory.

Abraham Maslow took these ideas which were already circulating in the milieu and incorporated them into a scientific-sounding type of framework, his well-known 'hierarchy of needs':



This in turn became central to the movement that used to be known as 'transpersonal psychology' from about the 1960s until around year 2000, which then morphed into 'Integral Spirituality' and merged with Ken Wilber.

Whether it's religious is an interesting question. It's certainly not mom-and-pop religious, it's not a Church- or Bible- oriented social form. It understands religion in a very different way to that, much more multi-facted and fluid.

If you think that this sounds about right, do you have your own critiques of the idea of purpose being self-actualzation (or further, that it is good to bring more people in the world so they can become self-actualized)? If you think self-actualization is the summum bonum, why do you think so? — schopenhauer1

It would be interesting to hear from more woman on the question. You might expect the sense of self-actualising purpose might be greater, no?

Also, the notion of "selfhood" is socially-constructed as well as biologically-constrained. So there are notions of self that are about families, and lineages, or even villages, people and nations. To self-actualise could mean having kids to inherit the estate, continue the name, fulfill ambitions the parents couldn't.

So being pregnant, giving birth, breast-feeding - at least half the population might count that as a natural completion of the self in terms of actualising a potential. Any antinatal argument ought to represent the realities for both sexes.

And then self-actualisation doesn't have to mean being socially self-centred. People can feel there is a larger self in a family or community. So it is identity at that level that is worth perpetuating. Again, philosophy can't simply dismiss this natural seeming state as somehow an arbitrary impost. Humans clearly have the potential for a social level of identity. And thus it could be a purpose wanting its actualisation.

"'What is "self-actualization'" and how would you know you had it?

When should one expect to achieve "self-actualization": Any day, now? Before one is 25? 25-50 years? Over 50?

Is "self-actualization" like circumcision or baptism--once done, it can't--or need not--be repeated?

Is one supposed to be "self-actualized" all day every day? Or is it a fleeting event? Is "self-actualization" like a 'peak experience' -- the glow lasts a long time?

Can one die happy and have never achieved "self-actualization"? What kind of people fail to achieve "self-actualization"?

Can the world stand 7 billion "self-actualized people"?

I suspect that it takes a concerted effort to become fully actualize; maybe Type A personalities are more likely to persist than Type B people.

Are "self-actualized people" different than people who are not "self-actualized"?

Is "self-actualization" like circumcision or baptism--once done, it can't--or need not--be repeated? — Bitter Crank

Paramahansa Yogananda was one of the first Indian gurus or spiritual teachers to set up shop in America. His book, Autobiography of a Yogi, has been continuously in print for decades. He was a pioneer in other ways as well, notably mail-order, which he used to great effect to disseminate his teachings. And he was astute enough to purchase a large block of land in Hollywood, which thrives to this day.
His teaching is called 'self realisation', which means in that context, realising your identity as Brahman by detachment from the sensory domain and worldly self, in line with the traditional teachings of yoga, albeit modernised for a Western audience.

So being pregnant, giving birth, breast-feeding - at least half the population might count that as a natural completion of the self in terms of actualising — apokrisis

Well, according to the Census Bureau, maybe not.

2014, 47.6 percent of women between age 15 and 44 had never had children, up from 46.5 percent in 2012, the highest child's rate in 40 years.
...for women between 25 and 29 — 49.6 percent of women in that age group don’t have kids. Unsurprisingly, after age 30 those numbers drop and more women become mothers. The survey found that 28.9 percent of women ages 30-34 are childfree.
The census data is backed up by data from the National Center for Health Statistics. According to a recent report, in 2013 there were just 62.9 births for every 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44 in the U.S. — an all-time low.
As Sezin Koehler wrote for The Huffington Post in September: “I don’t need to push a child out of my vagina to be a real woman.” — Emma Gray, The Huffington Post

My guess is that all these women aren't so much against having children, as they are against having children under the circumstances that would apply to their having children. Like, not having any free time for several years; like having a vastly increased burden of domestic work; like committing to an extremely expensive proposition -- and that assumes she has an employed partner. Why women choose to have children on their own (especially when they are not independently wealthy) is beyond me -- no matter how fulfilling it might be.

I guess only US women represent "real women" then? The USA is 4.4% of the world population, but hey, you guys and gals get to speak for humanity. And if you need to balance your demographics, you will import the children of other countries as economically required.

Sound legit.

Why do people seize on some small feature of other member's posts the way you just did, and ignore the main point? When I responded to your post, I only offered a "maybe not" suggestion (with census information), and I didn't slam you for speaking for all women in the world. I've learned that women tend to not like it when men speak for them.

I'm sorry you felt slighted, misrepresented, or stereotyped by what I said. I was speaking of the United States; I do not know why you supposed I was speaking for you, and all women in the world.

There are quite a few countries where the birth rates are very low -- the US isn't the only such country. I think it is quite reasonable for me to think that there may be practical reasons why women might forego the (alleged) self-realization of having children. It's also fair for me to limit these observations to my own country about which I know a little, rather than speculate on what women are thinking in many countries about which I know nothing.

There are also countries where the birth rate is quite high. Whether (often poor) women bearing 4-9 children in countries with lethargic economies feel self fulfilled, I can not say. Can you? I know that birth rates rise and fall with respect to other social factors. You probably know that too.

Get over yourself. My point was that antinatalist debates on PF pretend to speak for common human experience yet are rather unrepresentative of the variety of both human culture and gender.

The fact you didn't even acknowledge the cultural specificity of your response shows you didn't get the point.

I know that birth rates rise and fall with respect to other social factors. — Bitter Crank

Of course. This is well studied. People have lots of children where that seems like a rational socioeconomic investment. Then stop having lots of kids when investing in an education and career makes more socioeconomic sense.

So both choices would be "self-actualising" on the same grounds, even if the choices underpinning them become dramatically different.

If that is the argument you want to make, the papers are out there.

Abraham Maslow took these ideas which were already circulating in the milieu and incorporated them into a scientific-sounding type of framework, his well-known 'hierarchy of needs': — Wayfarer

Within Maslow's later work, he began to reformulate his famous hierarchy and added on to it another layer to the pyramid: Self-transcendence. The transition from self-actualization to self-transcendence takes place through "peak experiences" similar to Rolland's "oceanic feeling", in which the individual feels a sense of unity with the world around him, a loss of any and all inhibitions and a disregard for the constraining dimensions of time and space. The state of self-transcendence, however, was a departure from that of self-actualization, a focus beyond ourselves and towards some more lofty goal, a release from the ego.

However, the concept of self-transcendence stands unique from the original hierarchy in that it is not merely constrained to those who have self-actualized but to any, although Maslow did believe that self-transcendence would be achieved more often by those who had self-actualized. Instead of a new capstone built on to the famous pyramid, self-transcendence acts as a blanket which covers the pyramid, decreasing in thickness as it stretches down to the base.

Although I am generally skeptical of theories of transcendence or becoming, it seems to me that the two concepts have become infused in a way that actualization in its modern definition has become a dialectic of the two, celebrating both egocentricity and the liberation from it.

Although I am generally skeptical of theories of transcendence or becoming, it seems to me that the two concepts have become infused in a way that actualization in its modern definition has become a dialectic of the two, celebrating both egocentricity and the liberation from it. — Erik Faerber

This is an important point. Another way of looking at peak experience is psychological flow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

But the irony is that - neuroscientifically speaking - flow is not transcending self-conscious levels of actualisation. It is more like letting go and running on learnt skill - automatic habit.

So it is part of the dialectical or dichotomous design of the brain to balance habit against attention.

And likewise - if we are discussing the human condition - again there is a dichotomy that is not a problem but instead an essential balancing act.

So social structure is a balance of local competition and global cooperation. The individual (starting even with the parts of a person's own life on up to families, communities, nations) has to have a competitive energy. But also, from the nation down, there must also be a generalised cooperative structure.

So a dialectic of differentiation and integration. What is natural is to be consciously self-actualising (looking out for yourself) within a social context that fosters generalised cooperation - the "automatism" of habits, laws, customs and other shared meaning.

A self-actualisation that would seek to transcend its own social conditions is unnatural and so a reason people find it disappointing. The nihilist superman lacks flow.

Thanks, Erik, and welcome to the Forum. I think Maslow's ideas tended to meld with other aspects of the human potential movement - as I mentioned, there was an informal school known as 'transpersonal psychology' which was popular from the 60's until around the turn of the century, although I think it has somewhat faded. (I know this because I used to edit a newsletter for the Australian Transpersonal Psychology Association, which was a group of amateur enthusiasts.) In any case, it combines some elements from the likes of Maslow, with various Eastern and other New Age type of influences.

....celebrating both egocentricity and the liberation from it. — Erik Faerber

Insightful comment. I recall the expression 'the Me generation', which I think was from a Time magazine cover in the 1970's. This was a criticism of the so-called self-absorption of 60's type - so caught up in 'navel-gazing' self-analysis as to be indifferent to the 'real world' of economics, politics and public affairs. There was some truth in that, but it doesn't take into account the reaction against a cultural wasteland of the modernity fixated by materialism and hypotized by consumerism. (There's an eloquent account in an insightful essay by Camille Paglia, Cults and Cosmic Consciousness: Religious Vision in 1960's America.)

That lead at least some of the '60's types' to explore the wisdom traditions that taught self-transcendence - one was mentioned above, but there are others. Suffice to say that the real sources of those teachings are all grounded in true self transcendence - but like other spiritual ideas, these can be co-opted by the self or various social movements for other ends.

If a rock (the very model of modern unconscious matter) is falling towards the earth and you will presently occupy the same space as the rock, does that mean that the rock intends, or could intend, to crush you (assuming some imminently conscious agent from TPF didn't urge the rock off a ledge)? — Bitter Crank

No, the rock does not intend to kill you, because the defining feature of intent is purpose. Unless the rock was thrown by a human being, or otherwise set up to fall with the purpose of killing you, we don't apprehend any intent here. This is just a chance occurrence, that you happen to be under the falling rock. In the case of the sperm and the egg though, it is not a chance occurrence, that they "find each other", because the activities of the sperm are purposeful, the sperm actually seeks the egg to the extent of its limited capacities. Therefore we cannot exclude intent from the sperm finding the egg.

A bull does not intend to get a cow pregnant. It only has to get aroused by the cow's female pheromones. Perhaps, maybe, possibly, it could then intend to mount the cow. — Bitter Crank

I agree that the bull does not intend to get the cow pregnant, but that is only one example of the many possible intentions behind this act. If the bull does not intend to mount the cow, then what causes it to mount the cow? Sure, it is aroused, and wants to ejaculate, so isn't it the case that it mounts the cow for this purpose? And if it does that for this purpose, then how can you deny that it had this intent? The intent is not "to get the cow pregnant", but there is still intent behind the act.

Or the teenage boy on the couch probably does not intend to get the teenage girl on the same couch pregnant. He might intend to have intercourse, but he certainly intends (needs, wants) to ejaculate, somehow, somewhere. The girl probably doesn't intend to get pregnant, either, but if push comes to shove... she might get knocked up, intent or not. — Bitter Crank

I am not arguing for any specific intent, I am arguing for intent in general. You seem to be in agreement, because you allow that there is intent, in your examples, just not the particular intent which one might posit. But that's the nature of intent though, unless it is guided by the conscious mind is very general in nature, manifesting as various instinctual urges and desires. But how can you remove intent from these instinctual urges? Can you honestly believe that there is no purpose (and therefore no intent) behind the beaver's urge to build a dam?

How we misunderstand intent is that we assume that the final outcome of the intended act must be apprehended by the individual acting in order that we can attribute intent to that act. So for example the boy does not intend to get the girl pregnant, so we are inclined to remove intent from that act. But there is still intent of some sort, behind the act which gets her pregnant, so we cannot deny intent altogether. If we do not understand the intent behind an act, as this or that particular intent, this does not force the conclusion that there was no intent.

Intent in its natural form, is very different from the way we represent it. We tend to start from the final end, as that which is intended, and work our way backward through all the necessary steps required to bring about that end. This is the way conscious intention works, we choose a goal and determine what is necessary to bring that about. So we model this in our representation of intention. But conscious intention is artificial, created by the conscious mind, and these models do not represent intention in its natural state. In its natural state, the purpose of the intentional act is something very immediate. The intentional being acts to bring about an immediate result, as there is purpose to every minute act which that being makes. Each particular intentional act may start a chain of efficient causes, and the final outcome of that chain of efficient causes is never a guaranteed particular outcome.

Would people more-or-less agree that this is most non-religious people's answer to purpose? — schopenhauer1

'I realized that everything is in vain, and I hated life. And this too was in vain.' -paraphrase of Ecclesiastes, which restates the message in a text that is around a thousand years older.

The answer in that older text I mentioned is to do something worthy of creating a stele (carved memorial)... that's kind of like self-actualization, but it's obviously not non-religious.

OK, I'm persuaded. I'd say more, but I've got stuff to do and best get at them.

"'What is "self-actualization'" and how would you know you had it? — Bitter Crank

That's a good question.. There is a list Maslow gave which sounded like a modern version of the virtuous man: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization . That seems like just one version of this though.

When should one expect to achieve "self-actualization": Any day, now? Before one is 25? 25-50 years? Over 50? — Bitter Crank

I guess if one can honestly assess one is hitting the points that Maslow or other models bring up as the self-actualized person? What others think? Both?

Is "self-actualization" like circumcision or baptism--once done, it can't--or need not--be repeated? — Bitter Crank

I guess self-actualized would be like the virtuous person, it would come naturally as they cultivate good habits, but I would think it could be lost if the lower parts of the hierarchy were taken away (safety, belonging, etc.). So, perhaps it is dependent on other parts of the hierarchy being stable, something that is not always sustainable.

Is one supposed to be "self-actualized" all day every day? Or is it a fleeting event? Is "self-actualization" like a 'peak experience' -- the glow lasts a long time? — Bitter Crank

I am guessing if the lower structures are in place, it would be ongoing.

Can one die happy and have never achieved "self-actualization"? What kind of people fail to achieve "self-actualization"? — Bitter Crank

Probably almost everybody.

Can the world stand 7 billion "self-actualized people"? — Bitter Crank

I picture them being quite smug people, but I guess if they were self-actualized, they would all be peaceful and equanimous.

I suspect that it takes a concerted effort to become fully actualize; maybe Type A personalities are more likely to persist than Type B people. — Bitter Crank

Probably more Type A

Are "self-actualized people" different than people who are not "self-actualized"? — Bitter Crank

Yes, supposedly they are living their life to the fullest as defined by Maslow or other models of what personality or goals these people have.

Now, I haven't given my critique, I am answering your questions as if self-actualization is a reason to have children. I will just start off with the idea that why give a new person (inevitable) burdens to overcome, especially if achievement of the supposed ultimate goal (of some elusive self-actualization) is not achievable for many?

I picture them being quite smug people — schopenhauer1

7 billion smug Type A sons of bitches. Great.

Now, I haven't given my critique, I am answering your questions as if self-actualization is a reason to have children. I will just start off with the idea that why give a new person (inevitable) burdens to overcome, especially if achievement of the supposed ultimate goal (of some elusive self-actualization) is not achievable for many? — schopenhauer1

You're looking for someone to make the case that we should create more people purely for their own good, that good being the fuzzy notion of self-actualization. I think the problem is that this is not a position many (any?) people hold.

OK, I'm persuaded. — Bitter Crank

That wasn't hard. But that's because you're a very reasonable and open-minded person with respect to this type of question.

Now, I haven't given my critique, I am answering your questions as if self-actualization is a reason to have children. I will just start off with the idea that why give a new person (inevitable) burdens to overcome, especially if achievement of the supposed ultimate goal (of some elusive self-actualization) is not achievable for many? — schopenhauer1

You're looking for someone to make the case that we should create more people purely for their own good, that good being the fuzzy notion of self-actualization. I think the problem is that this is not a position many (any?) people hold. — Roke

It seems to me that if we assume self-actualization is the ultimate goal, then having children would be a logical step in one's own progression. Many of the common reasons that people have children can be found on Maslow's pyramid. The creation of a family and a child to love falls squarely within the third step of the pyramid, that of Love/Belonging. For those in very poor countries where having children is helpful in order to stay economically stable, the benefits of having children would be within the Safety level of the hierarchy. Passing down the family name can be considered an instance of achievement/prestige, the qualities present within Maslow's fourth level of Esteem. Even some inadvertent consequences of having children help out. Those who raise their children "well" are often regarded as good parents, which garners the respect from others that is part of Esteem as well. For those solely interested in self-actualization as an end goal, having children would seem to be an incredibly helpful choice.

I'm a lot more skeptical about the self-actualization of the child being a reason for procreation, but I suppose that a lot of the things that parents commonly hope for their children to have would be seen as steps on the way up the pyramid. I doubt anyone procreates solely for the chance that their offspring becomes a self-actualized individual though.

Roke, were there any other alternative reasons you were considering earlier that you think people have children for?

Roke, were there any other alternative reasons you were considering earlier that you think people have children for? — Erik Faerber

I side with Kant on this, that to 'have' children for some reason is immoral, because it is treating them as a means. One is left with having children by accident, having no children, or having love for the unborn unknown stranger.

I side with Kant on this, that to 'have' children for some reason is immoral, because it is treating them as a means. One is left with having children by accident, having no children, or having love for the unborn unknown stranger. — unenlightened

I don't think I've ever come across any work on procreation by Immanuel Kant himself, but it seems as though this is a circumstance wherein using someone as a means to an end would not be relevant. Kant's conception of moral person-hood pertained to those who were "rational and autonomous", qualities that an unborn person clearly does not have, so it's gray area whether conceiving a child for some outside purpose is even using a person as a means to an end.
There are a few Kantian authors who agree that concieved children can have moral personhood, but they argue that our "love for the unborn unknown stranger" cannot be a reason either for having a child.
One of Julio Cabrera's ideas on this (ill post below), stems from the fact that when we bring someone into our world, our sense of what is "good" for them is based upon some intra-wordly morality that stems from the starting point of birth. The example he uses is that it one may fulfill the requirements for being a "good father" when they have not yet answered whether its permissible to be a father in the first place. Thus while it is still good to follow our moral rules after a child has been born, we can never procreate for the reason of giving the child a good existence, for as fellow Kantian David Benatar argues, coming into life is always a serious harm.

Julio Cabrera- A Critique of Affirmative Morality
http://repositorio.unb.br/bitstream/10482/17430/3/Livro_CritiqueAffirmativeMorality.pdf

...they argue that our "love for the unborn unknown stranger" cannot be a reason either for having a child. — Erik Faerber

I agree. It cannot be a reason, because it is unreasonable; it is the passion that reason is and ought to be slave to. There are women that like being pregnant more than they like having children, but in general, the notion of doing anything either for or because of a foetus rather than for the projected stranger seems incoherent.

As for "rational and autonomous", there is no such person, so I depart from Kant there without a backward glance.