Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

This topic is about the April 2024 Philosophy Book of the Month, Now or Never by Mary Wasche.

AI Prompt : A lady is at an intersection, with one having a desirable path and the other having an undesirable path.
A lady is at an intersection, with one having a desirable path and the other having an undesirable path..jpg (67.65 KiB) Viewed 1974 times

In her book, Mary Wasche crafts a compelling narrative around Jennifer Davis, a woman who dramatically asserts her autonomy by temporarily leaving her family. This bold move provides a poignant backdrop for delving into the complex interplay between personal freedom and family obligations. As Jennifer grapples with being recognized beyond her roles as a mother and wife, her story vividly illustrates the deep-seated conflicts and profound questions about the extent of sacrifices one should make for family harmony.

The book prompts a reflection on a pressing societal dilemma: the traditional expectation of self-sacrifice in family roles versus the modern pursuit of individual identity and autonomy. This tension is exacerbated as societal norms evolve, shifting the discourse on gender roles, marital dynamics, and intergenerational expectations. The novel challenges readers to consider how we navigate the delicate balance between personal desires and familial duties. It asks us to ponder whether these aspects of life are inherently conflicting or if they can be reconciled in a harmonious balance.

Moreover, Jennifer’s decision raises critical ethical questions about the ramifications of prioritizing personal growth over family stability.


Can individual pursuits of self-discovery and personal growth justify potential disruptions in family life? How do we ethically negotiate these often competing demands? Is Personal Freedom at Odds with Family Obligations?

[Mercy119]

Sometimes to grow, one needs to leave their family and the conditions that hinder the desired progress. The irony is that stagnant and unsuccessful people are often disrespected within their families. It is therefore vital that one ventures into the unknown to build themselves up. That also puts him/her in a better position, mentally and financially.

[LuckyR]

If by "family" you mean your parents when you're a young adult, then yes, you need to spread your wings and learn to fly. If you mean family as your spouse and children, then no, you should have done that before having a family.

[Sushan]

Sometimes to grow, one needs to leave their family and the conditions that hinder the desired progress. The irony is that stagnant and unsuccessful people are often disrespected within their families. It is therefore vital that one ventures into the unknown to build themselves up. That also puts him/her in a better position, mentally and financially.

This perspective is indeed valuable, as personal development can lead to improved self-sufficiency and empowerment.

When it comes to balancing these individual pursuits with family expectations and obligations, the situation often becomes more complex. For example, if after achieving personal growth and success, the same family that might have criticized your earlier stagnation now expects you to fulfill familial responsibilities, this can indeed feel like a challenge to maintaining your personal growth trajectory.

In such cases, it's crucial to establish clear boundaries and communicate openly with your family about your needs and limitations. It's about finding a balance where you can contribute to your family without sacrificing your own growth and well-being. An example of this could be setting specific limits on the type and amount of support you are willing to offer, which could range from financial assistance to emotional support, while ensuring you reserve enough resources and energy to continue your own personal development.

A question that remains is: How do we navigate these situations without alienating family members or feeling guilty about prioritizing our own needs? Does this framework fit into your own experiences, or do you see other ways to manage these potentially conflicting demands?

[Sushan]

If by "family" you mean your parents when you're a young adult, then yes, you need to spread your wings and learn to fly. If you mean family as your spouse and children, then no, you should have done that before having a family.

Your perspective emphasizes a traditional view where personal exploration and self-development are expected to precede family commitments involving a spouse and children. This approach suggests a sequential order to life's milestones that might not accommodate everyone's journey or the unpredictable nature of personal growth.

Considering Jennifer's situation in this book, was her decision to prioritize her autonomy over immediate family responsibilities necessarily wrong or selfish? It's essential to recognize that personal growth doesn't always follow a linear path and sometimes continues even after starting a family. Jennifer's decision could be seen as an act of self-preservation and an attempt to rediscover her identity beyond her roles within the family, which can lead to a more fulfilled existence that ultimately benefits all family members.

If we are to argue that personal development should be completed before establishing a family, what options are available to those who find themselves needing further growth afterward? Are they to suppress this need for the sake of family stability?

What would you suggest as an alternative for individuals like Jennifer who find themselves at a crossroads between personal need and family obligation?

[LuckyR]

If by "family" you mean your parents when you're a young adult, then yes, you need to spread your wings and learn to fly. If you mean family as your spouse and children, then no, you should have done that before having a family.

Your perspective emphasizes a traditional view where personal exploration and self-development are expected to precede family commitments involving a spouse and children. This approach suggests a sequential order to life's milestones that might not accommodate everyone's journey or the unpredictable nature of personal growth.

Considering Jennifer's situation in this book, was her decision to prioritize her autonomy over immediate family responsibilities necessarily wrong or selfish? It's essential to recognize that personal growth doesn't always follow a linear path and sometimes continues even after starting a family. Jennifer's decision could be seen as an act of self-preservation and an attempt to rediscover her identity beyond her roles within the family, which can lead to a more fulfilled existence that ultimately benefits all family members.

If we are to argue that personal development should be completed before establishing a family, what options are available to those who find themselves needing further growth afterward? Are they to suppress this need for the sake of family stability?

What would you suggest as an alternative for individuals like Jennifer who find themselves at a crossroads between personal need and family obligation?

You are correct that while a sequential path is optimal, that unfortunately many find themselves at a conceptual crossroads and feel they have to "choose" between their personal growth and family obligations. To me the answer differs on whether the family includes children and how bad the lack of growth leaves the individual. If you don't have kids, great have a conversation with your spouse and take the time to improve yourself right away. Your spouse will miss you but will reap the benefits of your improvement ASAP.

OTOH, if you have kids, they're your responsibility. Their needs come first. If you can work on yourself and see to their needs optimally then you can do both. If not, your needs have to wait until you can. Perhaps when they start school.

However, if the problem is so bad that it seriously impacts your ability to parent the childrem, then perhaps the best thing for the kids is to have you fix that straight away, though if you're that immature and had kids anyway... I have no respect for you.

[Sy Borg]

OTOH, if you have kids, they're your responsibility. Their needs come first. If you can work on yourself and see to their needs optimally then you can do both. If not, your needs have to wait until you can. Perhaps when they start school.

However, if the problem is so bad that it seriously impacts your ability to parent the children, then perhaps the best thing for the kids is to have you fix that straight away ...

This summarises my position. Fact is, if you have children and you leave them, then you are palming off responsibility.

If your ability to be a positive presence around the child is impossible for a time, then you and your spouse can have that conversation. Fact is that humans are capable of reproducing in their teens but the extension of childhood education is effectively an extension of childhood, so there is a considerable period when conceiving a baby is easy, but not advisable.

Some people are still not ready in their twenties or thirties, or ever. It's very individual and the above intersection of physiology and culture doesn't help. I don't much judge people for screwing up, though. That's just The SNAFU of Chaos, which we all know is necessary for reality to change and develop.

[Samana Johann]

If by "family" you mean your parents when you're a young adult, then yes, you need to spread your wings and learn to fly. If you mean family as your spouse and children, then no, you should have done that before having a family.

In degenerated, marxist (productivity oriented bonds) and misleaded societies all get's but turned total opposite good and right...

Parents are giver, people of goodness, and a child has much debts, that's why one would be required to ask one's parents if wishing to go forth (go for Noble task, e.g beyond sensuality). Children are recipients of goodness (no, have no rights either), so no real obligation by parents toward them (yet surely own craving might be not easy to get around).

Note: it might be that "state" or "society" children raising falls under "in state duty" in cases. Which is defacto something very viral, although unseen by the most.

It's worthy to note that seeking just ease and joy is never really a reason for abounding "contracts", while on the otherside, if bond to do harmful (for oneself and/or others), there isn't any fault even if the other side might not be happy.

Common "personal freedom" hardly means leave for Noble search/quest and even if looking like Noble it's for the most just another eqo-trip or a hopeless try to escape one's duties, or try to seek for ways to consume without giving back.

And yes - most disturbing - of course a wife would be required to get allowance by husband.

There are also other hindrances for proper going forth, such as debts, in duty of the King (state)...

At least: No higher help for all then to seek and gain real liberation. Of which path, of course, requires gratitude, knowing debts and goodness well. Else wouldn't work. Improper, not rightly, left, one is bond to return again and again.

[Sculptor1]

Both ideas "personal freedom" and "family obligations" are both vacuous concepts. Neither of them are what they appear to be.

We are the products of our upbringing and cultural influences which have acted upon our innate forms governed by our genetic makeup - none of which we chose.
Family obligations are a set of norms inposed, even indoctrinated upon us which comprise a large part of the influences that act upon us.
Through this all we are unique agents which filter these two concepts, amongst many other determining factors.
Objectively we have zero obligation to our family but we are determined to act fully within our deterministic horizon, and our "person" is not "free" to exceed that determinism.
Yet our paths diverge with time, and once the idea that family and obligations are nothing but phantoms we are able to apply agency to act as we WILL

[LuckyR]

Both ideas "personal freedom" and "family obligations" are both vacuous concepts. Neither of them are what they appear to be.

We are the products of our upbringing and cultural influences which have acted upon our innate forms governed by our genetic makeup - none of which we chose.
Family obligations are a set of norms inposed, even indoctrinated upon us which comprise a large part of the influences that act upon us.
Through this all we are unique agents which filter these two concepts, amongst many other determining factors.
Objectively we have zero obligation to our family but we are determined to act fully within our deterministic horizon, and our "person" is not "free" to exceed that determinism.
Yet our paths diverge with time, and once the idea that family and obligations are nothing but phantoms we are able to apply agency to act as we WILL

You are correct that societal norms have no intrinsic "power" and their status as norms is illusory. However, there is an abundance of prior experience with the outcomes associated with following and numerous varieties of ignoring these norms. I'm not personally impressed with the track record of the vast majority of choices that completely flaunt societal norms. Thus my choice (and advice) to use societal norms as a basis upon which I applied minor (but I felt, important) nuanced tweaks or adjustments.

There's nothing new under the sun. Prediction of the future is possible through a careful examination of the past, especially in common, time worn situations.

[Sculptor1]

Both ideas "personal freedom" and "family obligations" are both vacuous concepts. Neither of them are what they appear to be.

We are the products of our upbringing and cultural influences which have acted upon our innate forms governed by our genetic makeup - none of which we chose.
Family obligations are a set of norms inposed, even indoctrinated upon us which comprise a large part of the influences that act upon us.
Through this all we are unique agents which filter these two concepts, amongst many other determining factors.
Objectively we have zero obligation to our family but we are determined to act fully within our deterministic horizon, and our "person" is not "free" to exceed that determinism.
Yet our paths diverge with time, and once the idea that family and obligations are nothing but phantoms we are able to apply agency to act as we WILL

You are correct that societal norms have no intrinsic "power" and their status as norms is illusory. However, there is an abundance of prior experience with the outcomes associated with following and numerous varieties of ignoring these norms. I'm not personally impressed with the track record of the vast majority of choices that completely flaunt societal norms. Thus my choice (and advice) to use societal norms as a basis upon which I applied minor (but I felt, important) nuanced tweaks or adjustments.

There's nothing new under the sun. Prediction of the future is possible through a careful examination of the past, especially in common, time worn situations.

That change is enevitable, as a determinist I know that the clash of individuals with the norms of the past are always going to forge new roads. And though, whilst the older generation tend to Urumph and the new whipper snappers attitudes declaring "things are not what they used to be", they should recognise that they in their turn did the same to the tradition of their own past.
What is curious, though, is what governs the conditions of what Levi-Stausss identified as Cold, as opposed to Hot societies.
ATM we are faced with an unprecedented socail change opened up by social media, making things pretty hot. As if the 20thC was not enough to deal with. For the first time since news has been writen we now have the chance to see all angles to an issue.

[Ambar Gill]

In my honest opinion, I think you come first. While we all have titles and responsibilities to others in our lives, our main concern should be ourselves. You can't give from an empty cup. You can't be what your family needs or expects when you don't even know what you need or what you want. I understand not wanting to put others in a tough spot but you still come first. You need to be fulfilled and happy with who you are, only then can you genuinely help others. You don't owe anybody anything and you shouldn't be dependent on someone for your happiness either.

[LuckyR]

In my honest opinion, I think you come first. While we all have titles and responsibilities to others in our lives, our main concern should be ourselves. You can't give from an empty cup. You can't be what your family needs or expects when you don't even know what you need or what you want. I understand not wanting to put others in a tough spot but you still come first. You need to be fulfilled and happy with who you are, only then can you genuinely help others. You don't owe anybody anything and you shouldn't be dependent on someone for your happiness either.

I disagree that parents don't owe their kids anything. You're free to disagree, of course, though good luck to your kids...

[Sushan]

If by "family" you mean your parents when you're a young adult, then yes, you need to spread your wings and learn to fly. If you mean family as your spouse and children, then no, you should have done that before having a family.

Your perspective emphasizes a traditional view where personal exploration and self-development are expected to precede family commitments involving a spouse and children. This approach suggests a sequential order to life's milestones that might not accommodate everyone's journey or the unpredictable nature of personal growth.

Considering Jennifer's situation in this book, was her decision to prioritize her autonomy over immediate family responsibilities necessarily wrong or selfish? It's essential to recognize that personal growth doesn't always follow a linear path and sometimes continues even after starting a family. Jennifer's decision could be seen as an act of self-preservation and an attempt to rediscover her identity beyond her roles within the family, which can lead to a more fulfilled existence that ultimately benefits all family members.

If we are to argue that personal development should be completed before establishing a family, what options are available to those who find themselves needing further growth afterward? Are they to suppress this need for the sake of family stability?

What would you suggest as an alternative for individuals like Jennifer who find themselves at a crossroads between personal need and family obligation?

You are correct that while a sequential path is optimal, that unfortunately many find themselves at a conceptual crossroads and feel they have to "choose" between their personal growth and family obligations. To me the answer differs on whether the family includes children and how bad the lack of growth leaves the individual. If you don't have kids, great have a conversation with your spouse and take the time to improve yourself right away. Your spouse will miss you but will reap the benefits of your improvement ASAP.

OTOH, if you have kids, they're your responsibility. Their needs come first. If you can work on yourself and see to their needs optimally then you can do both. If not, your needs have to wait until you can. Perhaps when they start school.

However, if the problem is so bad that it seriously impacts your ability to parent the childrem, then perhaps the best thing for the kids is to have you fix that straight away, though if you're that immature and had kids anyway... I have no respect for you.

Thank you for your insightful response. I agree that ideally, personal growth should precede the commitment of having a family. However, life often doesn't follow a perfect sequence, and many people find themselves needing further development after starting a family.

For instance, let's consider someone who had children at a young age and later realizes they haven't fully explored their personal goals or passions. It's not always feasible or fair to expect them to suppress their needs entirely. Their fulfillment could positively impact their family's well-being in the long run, creating a more harmonious environment.

Your point about prioritizing children's needs is absolutely valid. As parents, our primary responsibility is to ensure our children's well-being and stability. However, there are situations where a parent's lack of personal growth might negatively affect their ability to fulfill these responsibilities. In such cases, addressing personal needs might be essential for effective parenting.

For example, a parent struggling with unresolved personal issues or unfulfilled aspirations might not be emotionally available or mentally healthy enough to provide the best care for their children. Addressing these issues, even if it means temporary disruption, could lead to better long-term outcomes for the entire family.

It's a delicate balance, and as you mentioned, open communication with a spouse is crucial. Finding ways to support each other's growth while managing family responsibilities can be challenging but necessary.

What would you suggest for parents who find themselves in such a predicament, where their need for personal growth seems to conflict with their family obligations? Are there specific strategies or support systems that you think could help them navigate this complex situation while minimizing disruption to their family's stability?

[Sushan]

OTOH, if you have kids, they're your responsibility. Their needs come first. If you can work on yourself and see to their needs optimally then you can do both. If not, your needs have to wait until you can. Perhaps when they start school.

However, if the problem is so bad that it seriously impacts your ability to parent the children, then perhaps the best thing for the kids is to have you fix that straight away ...

This summarises my position. Fact is, if you have children and you leave them, then you are palming off responsibility.

If your ability to be a positive presence around the child is impossible for a time, then you and your spouse can have that conversation. Fact is that humans are capable of reproducing in their teens but the extension of childhood education is effectively an extension of childhood, so there is a considerable period when conceiving a baby is easy, but not advisable.

Some people are still not ready in their twenties or thirties, or ever. It's very individual and the above intersection of physiology and culture doesn't help. I don't much judge people for screwing up, though. That's just The SNAFU of Chaos, which we all know is necessary for reality to change and develop.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree that when children are involved, their needs must take precedence, and any decisions made by the parents should prioritize their well-being. The idea of "palming off responsibility" is a valid concern, and I appreciate the emphasis on having honest conversations with one's spouse to navigate these challenges.

However, it's also important to recognize that not everyone has the luxury of perfect timing or the opportunity to achieve full personal growth before starting a family. Life often presents unpredictable challenges, and personal development can continue well into adulthood. For instance, someone might only realize their need for significant personal growth or change after they've already had children. This doesn't necessarily mean they're irresponsible; it simply reflects the complex nature of human development.

Consider the case of individuals who face mental health issues or who have experienced trauma that only surfaces later in life. Their ability to be a positive presence around their children might be compromised if they don't address these issues, even if it means temporarily stepping back to focus on their well-being. In such cases, finding a balance between personal growth and family obligations becomes crucial, and it's not always a straightforward path.

Moreover, societal and cultural pressures often dictate when people should start families, like the South Asian culture which I belong to, sometimes leading to premature decisions that might not align with their personal readiness. This societal framework can complicate the intersection of physiology and culture, as you mentioned, making it challenging for individuals to navigate these waters without external judgments or pressures.

So, while I agree with the need to prioritize children's needs and the importance of timing, I also believe there should be empathy and support for those who find themselves in difficult situations. How can we create a supportive environment that allows individuals to address their personal growth needs without neglecting their family responsibilities?