Good. A man and a woman should only enter into a union with each other if they have the common will to create superior offspring together, not because they have been indoctrinated that their lives alone are meaningless.
Discussion
This is an argument based upon the axiom that it is wrong to raise children with a specific culture, but that we should just sort of let them run wild and be unconcerned with their intellectual and moral development.
I obviously don't agree with that.
You ought to train a child in the way they should go but that being said giving them a fair, and objective education which exposes them to different modes of thinking could help them relate to different people more easily, or help them be more objective in their thinking perhaps 🤔.
How you choose to raise your children -- i.e. "Which stories do you share with them?" -- is what the original topic was.
I am saying that the ancient stories were generally better stories, that gave us higher ideals to aspire to and fostered a sense of the noble.
Me personally, if I ever had children I would raise them with a Biblical understanding first off but I also believe in the principles of education, and knowledge, and would have them learn many literary topics, and books of varying groups, and worldviews, etc.
If they decide that The Bible isn't true then so be it but I believe it is so, however if I am incorrect, I want to ensure that my children have the best opportunity to find the more accurate information than what I know.
There's no real point in giving your children popular culture, since they'll live seeped in it and it's generally devoid of any intellectual challenge or logic.
If you train them to read "Die Nibelungen" or Cicero, then they can read and understand everything else, but that doesn't work the other way around.
Are we getting the Laeserin Culture Sheet.
(Jokes aside, I would be interested if you did post something like that).
You typically seem well rounded in the topics you discuss which is why your notes are more interesting than most.
My handle means "the woman who reads", in German, as I've read a lot.
Old and REAL stories were the best. Today they would be cancelled. We live in an exception state, where wrong is right and right is wrong.
Raising kids traditionally and drawing the line between men and women and their role in society is very important but it is alien to “common society “. This type of “rooted” kids are rare these days.
I believe the second law of newton will save us. Root, tradicional, parents and offspring will come back. I just wonder what’s the price they will have to pay.
I’m already paying a high price for being “old school”. Imagine them trying to go back to their roots. It will be worth it.
Nah I never said that
You said that the ancient stories indoctrinated everyone to think that celibacy made life meaningless, so I thought we were playing a round of "throw wild and baseless accusations" and didn't want to miss out.
Not all heros were just chasing women around, you know. Some of the stories don't even depict women, or only have them in minor roles. Like the New Testament.
This was about depicting men being noble, rather than trottle.
What the ancients once understood, is that men and women need each other, even if no sex is involved. That the male and the female have a natural, productive interplay, beyond reproduction. That men and women both have a purpose and a nobility.
That's your interpretation. You can find anecdotal evidence for it as well as for any other interpretation of how people rationalized the dynamic of love and marriage lol.
You grasp. Culture indoctrinates. A culture that romanticizes the male hero and marriage for women indoctrinates them to be overly focused on those aspects of life and to see much of it in that light. That's what indoctrination is. It literally means to instruct in a teaching or doctrine: in-doctrinate
I also think this is a terrible way to view human intersexual relationships. Devoid of all emotion, sentimentality, and deeper meaning, and just about runting to breed prize animals.
Nah I didn’t say that either. Although, your romanticized view of marriage is a modern phenomenon. Before industrialization there was more emphasis on the contractual and „evolutionary“ aspects of marriage. These things do not exclude each other btw
This is contradicted by the romantic ideal already evident in the Old Testament, Homer, the fairy tales, and other ancient stories.
Some people never achieved that, and they are to be pitied, but it was always considered a wonderful, desirable thing. Humans have always fallen in love, and romantic love was always what good parents wished for their children because it lessens the burdens of life. The main difference, was that the ancients knew that romantic love can grow _within_ a marriage, rather than merely _before_ one.
What the romantic era did was raise it to a higher level of abstraction, by showing it as an interplay between the feminine and the masculine, rather than merely between two particular people.
First of all, I didn't say that romantic motives didn't exist, but they weren't emphasized as much as other motives. My statement is true. Read any scientific book or paper on the subject and there is a 99% chance that it will confirm what I said.
The romanticism of love in marriage has indeed abstracted the pre-existing concept and now dominates the subject, so that the other aspects of marriage become less visible. Exactly my point: the romanticized view of marriage is a modern phenomenon.