> some of them aren't related to raising a family at all
do you have examples of these
Discussion
we still need people who are able to pursue specialized goals unencumbered by the overhead of caring for biological progeny.
we also need young people who are willing to die for idealistic reasons.
fair enough
i would still argue thats downstream of strong families, just not their own
yeah if we open up the definition...
we all can accomplish extremely little by ourselves ❤
It could also be downstream from abusive families. Unless you want to argue that every great achievement came from healthy families, and no one from abusive families accomplished anything significant.
There are always numerous exceptions (that prove the rule), but the reality is that people that achieve greatness in solitude can only do so because they are in a context that permits it, i.e., civilized society which requires strong families to exist. For the vast majority of people seeking greatness they are doing so so that they can benefit society to enrich themselves and their progeny and many, many of those people are doing so to attract and keep partners to have children. It’s a basic biological fact that most motivations toward valuable output are in service to the next generation.
This is why I say that it's where to start from, and not a goal.
Oroboruos
Not when it's described as a "means to that end".
It's not an "end".
I'm sure that it's easy to think of a healthy family as some "high goal", because so many families (in the modern western world) are not healthy. That doesn't mean having a healthy family is the zenith. It's the base.
I’m ok with that metaphor.
its also absolutely true that the vast majority of people are more likely to find personal satisfaction in being a good parent and spouse,
regardless of any social benefit or other valuable output.
otoh, there are plenty of people who raised their families and DIDN'T find that contentment, eventually seeking elsewhere.
so
YMMV
families are the cellular unit of a civil society. i would say that’s pretty important, wouldn’t you?
There's only about an infinite amount.
I could easily claim that Picasso's main purpose was to create art. That has nothing to do with raising a family.
Sure, the bajillions of dollars artists make can feed a family, but they could have opted for other forms of income, raised a family, and not made anything in the art world.
How about Tesla?
What if my purpose is to demonstrate decentralized fuel production? I don't see anything there directly related to a healthy family.
Again, there are nearly infinite examples.
to be clear, my intention was not that everyone should have children, it was a description of my personal priorities
but anyway, both those men were born within a family, and benefited future generations so i still think its all connected
humanity intimately relies on strong families, the core building block
Faith, Family, Freedom ... in that order of importance.
That's what builds strong societies.