Sign in or 
Share this
Parents & Children
On Parents and Children This is a surprising topic to find in a philosophy book. I would expect it in a pyschology book perhaps, or even history or english. Philosophers have rarely developed any kind of theory relating to parents and children. Nozick at least begins a theory, and gives a fresh look at the philosophical dimensions of family connections. This is worth while especially since there is not much of it in philosophy books. Let's see what he has to say.
Starting on a personal note, Nozick states that he knows of no bond stronger than being a parent. I'm a parent and I agree 100%. Nothing even comes close for me. But we want an eloboration of the nature of this bond, what does it provide to life and how should we live as parents and children? Nozick says that children give substance to the lives of their parents. What does he mean by substance? Do parents literally become more substance by bringing a child into the world, which is part of their actual being? Or does he mean that the gravity of life is greater, for better and/or worse, but more intense either way. He definitely sees children as part of the identity of the parents, so you're identity is altered once you have children. In a way they really are part of you, so you are not wholly contained in just the space your body is in. Imagine that, part of you is outside of your body.
An interesting discussion of Nozick's is how being a parent and being a child are interrelated. A parent is also typically still a child of their parents (if still alive). Having a child fundamentally affects how we relate to our parents, and to our own childhood. First (pg. 29), 'being a parent helps one become a better child'. This does not necessarily say that we become a better child to our parents, but just a better child period. We rediscover childhood in having one. This may bring back valuable experiences of creativity, openness, freedom, etc. which are long since gone in the adult world. This can be a great form of personal growth just for the parent.
Then he says we become 'a more forgiving grown-up child of one's parents'. I see his point here, but have some questions as well. When we go through the struggles of parenthood with our own children, and experience the range of emotions our parents had when raising us, we can understand them better than before we had been through the same experiences. This may even drastically alter how we feel about our parents, now knowing what they were going through in raising you. Presumably, we would become more forgiving once we have our own child to parent. But, what if you are so much more to your child than your parents were to you, and they did not face any huge barrier that you do not. You're just a much better parent. I think this would make you LESS forgiving of your parents, maybe even hate them. So, whether or not having a child makes an adult a more foregiving child to their parents seems to depend on the particulars of the case, sometimes it may go just the opposite direction. Finally, he says that we play the parent to our own parents when they get old. The idea is that aging parents become dependent on others, in much the way a child is dependent their parents. The aging parents now need parenting from their children, much like the children received from their parents.
So perhaps it is right to see the natural evolution of the relationship ending with children parenting their parents. But perhaps not. Suppose again the aging parents were very bad to their child, and did not sufficiently meet their needs. Does the child have an obligation to meet the parents' needs? Even if the parents were good, why should we say that they are literally 'parenting' their parents, as opposed to just looking after their needs? Being a parent is more than just being a care giver. You give direction, set limits, possess authority, etc. In order to parent your parents, you have to be doing all of this, not just caring for their needs. Nurses do that without being parents. So this sounds like a controversial claim.
Nozick briefly offers a definition of being 'grown up'. We are grown up when we stop needing and expecting parental love. To the extent that we still need and expect the love of a parent, we are not yet grown up. Our parents can still love us, but not as a child, as an adult. We also cannot expect the world or some other figure to be a symbolic parent. We may however seek an adequate substitute. Perhaps in the form of a spouse, for example.
I have questions here. If we get a substitute for parental love, it seems that we still need and expect that kind of love, and hence are not grown up according to his definition. Also, is it a healthy thing for a spouse to be a substitute for parental love? What if we had bad parental love, mixed with abuse? Should we find a substitute? I would think that the love we get from a spouse is so different from the love we get from a parent that spousal love is not a substitute for parental love.
Finally, Nozick takes on the issue of inheritance, or 'bequeathment'. The practice of passing things down to later generations sustains family bonds and gives them a symbolic form that can live on. Inheritance can also be used for less laudable purposes as well. From a moral point of view, we may object to bequeathment because it allows the rich to stay richer and the poor poorer. This seems unequal and unjunst, and inheritance plays a big role in keeping inequalities in wealth over generations.
Rarely can anyone be said to actually deserve an inheritance, or the lack of one. That just depends on the random fact of who you were born to, which you do not control. Marxists, or Socialists often argue against bequeathment precisely because it sustains inequalities that are incompatible with a truly equal society. U.S. law allows it, though there is some heavy tax to pay. Read through Nozick's arguments and see what you think.
Starting on a personal note, Nozick states that he knows of no bond stronger than being a parent. I'm a parent and I agree 100%. Nothing even comes close for me. But we want an eloboration of the nature of this bond, what does it provide to life and how should we live as parents and children? Nozick says that children give substance to the lives of their parents. What does he mean by substance? Do parents literally become more substance by bringing a child into the world, which is part of their actual being? Or does he mean that the gravity of life is greater, for better and/or worse, but more intense either way. He definitely sees children as part of the identity of the parents, so you're identity is altered once you have children. In a way they really are part of you, so you are not wholly contained in just the space your body is in. Imagine that, part of you is outside of your body.
An interesting discussion of Nozick's is how being a parent and being a child are interrelated. A parent is also typically still a child of their parents (if still alive). Having a child fundamentally affects how we relate to our parents, and to our own childhood. First (pg. 29), 'being a parent helps one become a better child'. This does not necessarily say that we become a better child to our parents, but just a better child period. We rediscover childhood in having one. This may bring back valuable experiences of creativity, openness, freedom, etc. which are long since gone in the adult world. This can be a great form of personal growth just for the parent.
Then he says we become 'a more forgiving grown-up child of one's parents'. I see his point here, but have some questions as well. When we go through the struggles of parenthood with our own children, and experience the range of emotions our parents had when raising us, we can understand them better than before we had been through the same experiences. This may even drastically alter how we feel about our parents, now knowing what they were going through in raising you. Presumably, we would become more forgiving once we have our own child to parent. But, what if you are so much more to your child than your parents were to you, and they did not face any huge barrier that you do not. You're just a much better parent. I think this would make you LESS forgiving of your parents, maybe even hate them. So, whether or not having a child makes an adult a more foregiving child to their parents seems to depend on the particulars of the case, sometimes it may go just the opposite direction. Finally, he says that we play the parent to our own parents when they get old. The idea is that aging parents become dependent on others, in much the way a child is dependent their parents. The aging parents now need parenting from their children, much like the children received from their parents.
So perhaps it is right to see the natural evolution of the relationship ending with children parenting their parents. But perhaps not. Suppose again the aging parents were very bad to their child, and did not sufficiently meet their needs. Does the child have an obligation to meet the parents' needs? Even if the parents were good, why should we say that they are literally 'parenting' their parents, as opposed to just looking after their needs? Being a parent is more than just being a care giver. You give direction, set limits, possess authority, etc. In order to parent your parents, you have to be doing all of this, not just caring for their needs. Nurses do that without being parents. So this sounds like a controversial claim.
Nozick briefly offers a definition of being 'grown up'. We are grown up when we stop needing and expecting parental love. To the extent that we still need and expect the love of a parent, we are not yet grown up. Our parents can still love us, but not as a child, as an adult. We also cannot expect the world or some other figure to be a symbolic parent. We may however seek an adequate substitute. Perhaps in the form of a spouse, for example.
I have questions here. If we get a substitute for parental love, it seems that we still need and expect that kind of love, and hence are not grown up according to his definition. Also, is it a healthy thing for a spouse to be a substitute for parental love? What if we had bad parental love, mixed with abuse? Should we find a substitute? I would think that the love we get from a spouse is so different from the love we get from a parent that spousal love is not a substitute for parental love.
Finally, Nozick takes on the issue of inheritance, or 'bequeathment'. The practice of passing things down to later generations sustains family bonds and gives them a symbolic form that can live on. Inheritance can also be used for less laudable purposes as well. From a moral point of view, we may object to bequeathment because it allows the rich to stay richer and the poor poorer. This seems unequal and unjunst, and inheritance plays a big role in keeping inequalities in wealth over generations.
Rarely can anyone be said to actually deserve an inheritance, or the lack of one. That just depends on the random fact of who you were born to, which you do not control. Marxists, or Socialists often argue against bequeathment precisely because it sustains inequalities that are incompatible with a truly equal society. U.S. law allows it, though there is some heavy tax to pay. Read through Nozick's arguments and see what you think.
arete |
Latest page update: made by arete
, May 8 2007, 11:51 AM EDT
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by arete
1071 words added 1 image added view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
None
More Info: links to this page
|
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonymous | Parents and Children | 0 | Oct 28 2007, 12:49 AM EDT by Anonymous | ||
|
|
Thread started: Oct 28 2007, 12:49 AM EDT
Watch
As a parent, I agree that there is no other bond quite like the parent/child bond. . Although I don't have experience with this, I do believe that such a bond can also exist with children that are not biological. Its all about unconditional love and all that comes with it. When you put your heart and soul into another child that bond can't be broken.
Here is a helpful link about the bonds between children and their parents. http://www.raisingkids.co.uk/ask/ex06_pre18.asp |
||||
| Anonymous | Parents & Children | 0 | Jul 16 2007, 2:31 AM EDT by Anonymous | ||
|
|
Thread started: Jul 16 2007, 2:31 AM EDT
Watch
As a parent I am more forgiving of my parents, well I'd rather say more understanding of them. I now understand they did their best with what they had to work with. Maybe they didn't have the upbringing that I had, then how would they have the ability to do and be what I am able to do and be with my sons? I didn't always respect my parents ... until I became one and realized how much they loved me and how much they tried (though they were not perfect by any means - but neither am I).
Here are lyrics to words by a song that Lauryn Hill wrote for her son: http://www.lyricsdepot.com/lauryn-hill/to-zion.html |
||||
| Anonymous | Parents and Children | 0 | Jul 15 2007, 12:48 PM EDT by Anonymous | ||
|
|
Thread started: Jul 15 2007, 12:48 PM EDT
Watch
I agree with Nozick's statements on children and parents. Being a new father i feel as of my son is an extension of myself. I can relive my childhood with him and steer him away from the mistakes i have made. it feels almost as if being reborn. Having a child also forces you to become more "mature" in your everyday life making you a better parent. So your child does make you a better parent and they are an extension of yourself, "... you are not wholly contained in the space of your body..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpNFSLbs_5M This was just really funny, and it kinda show how a mother and daughter can be so close |
||||
Showing 3 of 11 threads for this page
- view all
