How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 The Nuclear Family?   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

The Nuclear Family?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


25 posted 12-11-2002 01:24 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

This is for the most part in line with Ron's views on diversity:

quote:
in the same way I would sooner pick a professional chef to prepare a meal for me than my grandmother.


But doesn't this imply that your taste, the things you like to eat, can somehow be objectified, somehow made permanent?  It's a lot more complex than that. A professional chef caters to a particular clientele which not may be to your liking. You're taking a chance on the recommendation of others (usally people you don't know who also claim professional credentials). Theoretically, in an extended family, your grandmother would know your likes and dislikes and, more importantly, you would be familiar with her style of cooking. The odds are better for you getting a better meal for youfrom your grandmother than from a stranger. This isn't to say that you should play it safe all the time, or that all grandmothers are great cooks, it's just the very proximity to you enhances the odds.

Daycare centers are manned by people who have jobs (and presumably Plato's nursery would also be manned by people who have jobs), being a parent is more of a lifestyle.  You can leave a job, you can't leave being a parent (but of course people do do just that, our society's stigmatization of that is probably a good thing).

A further question might be if the increasing rationalization of the family itself is a good thing?

Local Parasite
Deputy Moderator 10 Tours
Member Elite
since 11-05-2001
Posts 2929
Transylconia, Winnipeg


26 posted 12-11-2002 01:55 AM       View Profile for Local Parasite   Email Local Parasite   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Local Parasite's Home Page   View IP for Local Parasite

quote:
The biggest problem with the family is that it allows the parents to get it wrong. And far too many do. The greatest strength of the family is that allows the parents to get it wrong. Because no one really knows how to define what is right.


A good point.  Plato would snarl at it however... he knows what The Good is.     

I agree that almost nobody knows how to define what is right.  Plato sure had one hell of a time trying to discuss "the just" in the Republic, though.  And it's rather convincing, actually... but to me, all he did was refute the existing definitions of what is "just."  He had a lot of ambiguity surrounding what is "right."

We can however discuss what we percieve as being "right", and how best to obtain what is "right" to us.  Maybe Plato's family construct is based on the ideal societal "good," but I do agree that we should challenge all the buzz-words that we land on, like "diversity."  

Can you prove that diversity is more beneficial than unity?  I'm not saying you can't, I'm asking you to try... if it can be proven, I would honestly like to know.

quote:

The problem I have with an "official" regimentation is that it will inevitably destroy diversity. We aren't smart enough to build more than a token biosphere, where the plants and animals are all in balance, so how in the world can we be smart enough to account for what is "good" and what is "bad" in our own natures? When you're playing with the next generation of humanity, upon which the whole of our future depends, there's isn't a lot of room for mistakes. We need diversity, and frankly, I don't think we're smart enough to do it on purpose.


This is a good start, but I don't find it wholly convincing.  I doubt it would begin with an entire generation of individuals, in the global sense.  To say it's risky doesn't say it shouldn't be done, it just says it should be done in a way that reduces the risk.  It could perhaps be done gradually, the diversity narrowed slowly, and any rising problems observed and dealt with as they came along.  

As for not being smart enough, I agree somewhat... we are not smart enough at the moment, but our intellect as a species was built mainly on scientific principles like scientific method, deductive/inductive reasoning, etc... so eventually we could grow to know what is most effective, how to control and harmonize life in perfect biosphere... and yes, how to build the perfectly functioning society.

quote:
But doesn't this imply that your taste, the things you like to eat, can somehow be objectified, somehow made permanent?  It's a lot more complex than that. A professional chef caters to a particular clientele which not may be to your liking. You're taking a chance on the recommendation of others (usally people you don't know who also claim professional credentials). Theoretically, in an extended family, your grandmother would know your likes and dislikes and, more importantly, you would be familiar with her style of cooking. The odds are better for you getting a better meal for youfrom your grandmother than from a stranger. This isn't to say that you should play it safe all the time, or that all grandmothers are great cooks, it's just the very proximity to you enhances the odds.


You've kicked the ass of my example, Brad, but the ass of what my example pointed at remains unscathed.  Plato states the children would be seized at birth.  Their tastes and preferences would not be known by their grandmothers - their grandmothers wouldn't even know who they are, and vica versa.  Their tastes and preferences, ideally, would be quite similar and easily catered to by the nurses.  At least, from the nurture standpoint.  

When it comes to biological predisposition to certain tastes (which I won't question), it's a bit more tricky.  Huxley's London deals with it in a way that is realistic... the DNA is regulated in exact similarity.  There's no room for biological differences, and the environmental differences would be minimal, were they raised properly by the nurses.

Brad, the "proximity" that you speak of would not exist between a grandmother and a grandchild in Plato's world.  Both proximity and professional training would be present.  My example should have been, I would rather have my grandmother - a professional chef - prepare my dinner than a randomly selected individual.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


27 posted 12-11-2002 12:09 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

LP,

On reflection, hasn't Communism and Naziism reflected the principles, on a smaller scale, of which you speak?  And haven't they failed?  What you propose seems to be Totalitarianism in it's extreme, where even the natural family unit is dissolved.  Should government have total control over lives?  Should human society become so mechanistic that everything is predetermined by the elite ... not necessarily those with the best or the most moral ideas, but those with the most power and money.  These questions are not meant for short answers.  They are meant to be rhetorical and to be reflected upon.  


Interestingly enough, another Author (who amazingly died the same day Aldous Huxley died) also wrote a futuristic novel about a totalitarian government ... C.S. Lewis.  I haven't actually read the book itself.  It's called Perelandra, the second in a science fiction trilogy.  But I have read the book "The Abolition of Man" the thought of which Perelandra is loosely based on.  It consists of three essays, and brings out much relevant to the ideas we are discussing here.  You can read it here if you like...


http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition1.htm#1


Anyway I thought you might be interested in reading a fictional work of a contemporary of Huxley, along these same lines.

I'll be reading it soon.  I am reading "Out of the Silent Planet" right now, the first in the trilogy.


Stephen.


[This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-11-2002 01:26 PM).]

winston
Member
since 12-19-2002
Posts 213
NW of Eden


28 posted 12-19-2002 10:26 AM       View Profile for winston   Email winston   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for winston

Forgive my ignorance, I've heard of Huxley and Plato but haven't read them. But from what you say here, it seems that those two men, if they were serious about what they said, were talking about taking humanity away from what is natural and into practices that are outright abominations and abnormal. Please kindly let me emphasise here that I respect those men wanting to express their views, but to actually restrict in any a man (or woman) from demonstrating his (or her) love which involves cherishing a beautiful God-gift such as a child is to oppress the man.

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> The Nuclear Family?   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors