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

[Sushan]

In my experience the things that Real People ditch their family for are either their careers or selfish indulgences (not to work on their character flaws).

That sounds about right to me. As soon as a parent has a senior corporate role, there will be tension between the employer's requirements and the baby's/partner's requirements. Some extra difficult decisions are made all the time - people feeling like they could miss one-in-a-lifetime opportunities for self-actualisation, or that they have missed their calling, or that they will never know love in that marriage, etc. Not everyone is philosophically inclined, and many people believe in fate, destiny and the like. If they think they are missing the boat, they worry.

As for selfish indulgences and refusal to work on character flaws, I figure that, if a person was capable of doing better, then they would do better. Raw potential and abilities are not enough. While some people have extraordinary level of resilience, perseverance, patience and general inner strength, logically there will be others who are extraordinarily brittle, impatient, restless and generally weak.

Heck, I'm not so flash, myself, so I'm loathe to judge. People do stupid nonsense all the time, and I've done my share. In fact, the family setting is perhaps the arena where more foolish nonsense happens than anywhere else. Any Family Court lawyer would surely testify as much. Family is where sex, money and responsibility intersect ... what could possibly go wrong?

I've seen both and my observation is that those who focus on career "benefit" from BOTH a better career and not spending as much time doing childcare which they don't enjoy much and/or aren't very good at.

Those who focus on selfish indulgences don't require a detailed explanation as their motivations are self evident.

I think the notion that career-focused individuals are inherently poor at or uninterested in childcare oversimplifies the issue. Many working parents are very capable and dedicated to their children's upbringing, even if they face time constraints. It's not necessarily a matter of ability or interest but rather a balancing act between professional and personal responsibilities.

[Sushan]

In conclusion, while traditional structures and roles have their merits, it's crucial to adapt and evolve in response to changing societal values and understandings. Balancing personal freedom with family obligations requires a nuanced approach that considers the needs and rights of all individuals involved. How do you think we can reconcile these evolving perspectives with traditional values to create a more harmonious and equitable society?

Simple: right and wrong. What ever is inbetween is still wrong. No problem to leave relation and family if going for higher, eg. renouncing and lead the holly life. All wrong if relaying on consume, yet wishing not to fulfill obligations for re-lay(tion).

While I understand your perspective, dividing things strictly into right and wrong can be harmful. Life is rarely black and white, and dismissing everything in between as wrong can lead to a lack of understanding and empathy. It seems like you're simply taking the side of Prince Siddhartha, who left his young wife and baby to find the truth of life. This approach overlooks the complexities and nuances of individual situations.

[Sushan]

I’ve thought about this a lot myself. I love my family, but sometimes I feel like I’m just a husband and a dad, and nothing more. It's tough because you don't want to be selfish, but you also need to be true to yourself. I think it’s about finding that balance. For me, taking some time each week for my hobbies helps. It makes me happier, and in turn, I'm a better husband and father. It’s not always easy, but I believe it’s possible to have personal freedom while still being there for your family. Communication is key—everyone needs to understand each other’s needs.

I completely understand where you're coming from. It's a constant challenge to balance personal freedom with family obligations. Like you, I love my family deeply, but there are times when I struggle with feeling like my own identity gets lost in the mix of responsibilities.

Taking time for hobbies or personal interests is indeed a great way to maintain a sense of self and recharge (There are times that I sense a strong need to be free and alone to enjoy some 'me-time'). It’s encouraging to hear that this approach has made you happier and a better family member.

How do you navigate the moments when your personal needs and family obligations clash? Do you have any strategies that have worked well for you in those tougher times?

[Samana Johann]

In conclusion, while traditional structures and roles have their merits, it's crucial to adapt and evolve in response to changing societal values and understandings. Balancing personal freedom with family obligations requires a nuanced approach that considers the needs and rights of all individuals involved. How do you think we can reconcile these evolving perspectives with traditional values to create a more harmonious and equitable society?

Simple: right and wrong. What ever is inbetween is still wrong. No problem to leave relation and family if going for higher, eg. renouncing and lead the holly life. All wrong if relaying on consume, yet wishing not to fulfill obligations for re-lay(tion).

While I understand your perspective, dividing things strictly into right and wrong can be harmful. Life is rarely black and white, and dismissing everything in between as wrong can lead to a lack of understanding and empathy. It seems like you're simply taking the side of Prince Siddhartha, who left his young wife and baby to find the truth of life. This approach overlooks the complexities and nuances of individual situations.

Not at all, good Sushan. Right = not harm, wrong = harm.

And his wife, son gained of what most could just dream about, as well as countless more, who gained liberation over the last 2600 years.

Non of those who are common "helped" could or gain anything what'snot nevertheless lost.

If wishing to go for higher, it requires good Sushan the acceptance of her parents, and husband, if married (if femal). So actually less limits in odds even for highest path as recluse, yet every householder could reach the third stage of freedom even if still within household. No odds at all, going for real freedom, and family duties.

What good householder might see as lack of empathy, actually means serving defilements. How could right and wrong ever lack of empathy? It's possible because not understanding whats right and wrong, harmful, not harmful. If one likes to go for fun, yet duties arent' done, that wrong. It will lead to his/her demerits and harms other, at the end, breaks the relation.

[Sy Borg]

It's fascinating to see how some people manage to balance their work and personal lives effectively, thriving in both areas. Resilient individuals often possess a strong sense of purpose and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. They tend to prioritize their responsibilities, set clear boundaries, and seek support when needed. These strategies enable them to pursue career goals without neglecting family obligations.

That can only be achieved if the partners have compatible goals. You cannot prioritise responsibilities if your partner wants to have sex with others or is prone to having a hissy fit whenever they don't get their own way, all the resilience in the world will not make for a happy marriage, perhaps one that limps along as an ostensible success. My parents inadvertently gave me a good practical lesson in this.

Both partners would need to accept boundaries (boundaries made by one, or a team effort?) and to accept those same responsibilities, an the be more supportive than judgemental (unless the judgement is earned, of course).

[LuckyR]

In my experience the things that Real People ditch their family for are either their careers or selfish indulgences (not to work on their character flaws).

That sounds about right to me. As soon as a parent has a senior corporate role, there will be tension between the employer's requirements and the baby's/partner's requirements. Some extra difficult decisions are made all the time - people feeling like they could miss one-in-a-lifetime opportunities for self-actualisation, or that they have missed their calling, or that they will never know love in that marriage, etc. Not everyone is philosophically inclined, and many people believe in fate, destiny and the like. If they think they are missing the boat, they worry.

As for selfish indulgences and refusal to work on character flaws, I figure that, if a person was capable of doing better, then they would do better. Raw potential and abilities are not enough. While some people have extraordinary level of resilience, perseverance, patience and general inner strength, logically there will be others who are extraordinarily brittle, impatient, restless and generally weak.

Heck, I'm not so flash, myself, so I'm loathe to judge. People do stupid nonsense all the time, and I've done my share. In fact, the family setting is perhaps the arena where more foolish nonsense happens than anywhere else. Any Family Court lawyer would surely testify as much. Family is where sex, money and responsibility intersect ... what could possibly go wrong?

I've seen both and my observation is that those who focus on career "benefit" from BOTH a better career and not spending as much time doing childcare which they don't enjoy much and/or aren't very good at.

Those who focus on selfish indulgences don't require a detailed explanation as their motivations are self evident.

I think the notion that career-focused individuals are inherently poor at or uninterested in childcare oversimplifies the issue. Many working parents are very capable and dedicated to their children's upbringing, even if they face time constraints. It's not necessarily a matter of ability or interest but rather a balancing act between professional and personal responsibilities.

Not what I said. I'm not referring to the responsibilities of "working parents", I'm talking about parents who choose to work more than their responsibility on their careers and thus less than their responsibility with their children.

There's a big difference between the mindsets of those taking on a career that requires numerous work hours and choosing to work numerous work hours at a job that doesn't require it (to the detriment to one's children).

[Sushan]

In conclusion, while traditional structures and roles have their merits, it's crucial to adapt and evolve in response to changing societal values and understandings. Balancing personal freedom with family obligations requires a nuanced approach that considers the needs and rights of all individuals involved. How do you think we can reconcile these evolving perspectives with traditional values to create a more harmonious and equitable society?

Simple: right and wrong. What ever is inbetween is still wrong. No problem to leave relation and family if going for higher, eg. renouncing and lead the holly life. All wrong if relaying on consume, yet wishing not to fulfill obligations for re-lay(tion).

While I understand your perspective, dividing things strictly into right and wrong can be harmful. Life is rarely black and white, and dismissing everything in between as wrong can lead to a lack of understanding and empathy. It seems like you're simply taking the side of Prince Siddhartha, who left his young wife and baby to find the truth of life. This approach overlooks the complexities and nuances of individual situations.

Not at all, good Sushan. Right = not harm, wrong = harm.

And his wife, son gained of what most could just dream about, as well as countless more, who gained liberation over the last 2600 years.

Non of those who are common "helped" could or gain anything what'snot nevertheless lost.

If wishing to go for higher, it requires good Sushan the acceptance of her parents, and husband, if married (if femal). So actually less limits in odds even for highest path as recluse, yet every householder could reach the third stage of freedom even if still within household. No odds at all, going for real freedom, and family duties.

What good householder might see as lack of empathy, actually means serving defilements. How could right and wrong ever lack of empathy? It's possible because not understanding whats right and wrong, harmful, not harmful. If one likes to go for fun, yet duties arent' done, that wrong. It will lead to his/her demerits and harms other, at the end, breaks the relation.

It's a noble idea to define right and wrong by the simple measure of harm, but in reality, it's often not that straightforward. For example, think about the story of The Bhagavad Gita, where Arjuna struggles with the idea of fighting in a battle that would bring harm to his own kin. On the surface, engaging in a war might seem wrong due to the harm it would cause, but Krishna advises him that not participating would lead to a greater wrong—neglecting his duty as a warrior and allowing chaos to reign. This illustrates that moral decisions can't always be boiled down to whether they harm or don't harm; the context and the greater good must also be considered.

Regarding growth and gains, it's crucial to recognize that they aren't limited to spiritual pursuits. Mundane achievements—such as fulfilling family duties, contributing to society, and living a balanced life—are equally important. Even Prince Siddhartha, before becoming the Buddha, lived a life of luxury and explored worldly pleasures before renouncing them to seek enlightenment. His journey shows that understanding and experiencing the mundane world can be a necessary step before seeking spiritual salvation. Without first grounding ourselves in our worldly responsibilities, the pursuit of higher spiritual goals might be premature.

Balancing these aspects of life—moral decisions, worldly duties, and spiritual aspirations—is a complex task. It's not just about avoiding harm but about understanding the full spectrum of human experience and our responsibilities within it.

[Sushan]

It's fascinating to see how some people manage to balance their work and personal lives effectively, thriving in both areas. Resilient individuals often possess a strong sense of purpose and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. They tend to prioritize their responsibilities, set clear boundaries, and seek support when needed. These strategies enable them to pursue career goals without neglecting family obligations.

That can only be achieved if the partners have compatible goals. You cannot prioritise responsibilities if your partner wants to have sex with others or is prone to having a hissy fit whenever they don't get their own way, all the resilience in the world will not make for a happy marriage, perhaps one that limps along as an ostensible success. My parents inadvertently gave me a good practical lesson in this.

Both partners would need to accept boundaries (boundaries made by one, or a team effort?) and to accept those same responsibilities, an the be more supportive than judgemental (unless the judgement is earned, of course).

I completely agree with your points. A successful marriage truly requires both partners to have compatible goals and a shared understanding of boundaries and responsibilities. This kind of relationship is built on coordination and cooperation—where both partners work together as a team, rather than pulling in opposite directions.

Marriage isn't just about love and affection; it's also about partnership. When both individuals are committed to supporting each other, understanding each other's needs, and respecting the agreed-upon boundaries, it creates a foundation for a resilient and fulfilling relationship. Of course, this doesn’t mean there won’t be challenges, but when the goals are aligned, and there's mutual respect, those challenges can be navigated together.

[Sushan]

That sounds about right to me. As soon as a parent has a senior corporate role, there will be tension between the employer's requirements and the baby's/partner's requirements. Some extra difficult decisions are made all the time - people feeling like they could miss one-in-a-lifetime opportunities for self-actualisation, or that they have missed their calling, or that they will never know love in that marriage, etc. Not everyone is philosophically inclined, and many people believe in fate, destiny and the like. If they think they are missing the boat, they worry.

As for selfish indulgences and refusal to work on character flaws, I figure that, if a person was capable of doing better, then they would do better. Raw potential and abilities are not enough. While some people have extraordinary level of resilience, perseverance, patience and general inner strength, logically there will be others who are extraordinarily brittle, impatient, restless and generally weak.

Heck, I'm not so flash, myself, so I'm loathe to judge. People do stupid nonsense all the time, and I've done my share. In fact, the family setting is perhaps the arena where more foolish nonsense happens than anywhere else. Any Family Court lawyer would surely testify as much. Family is where sex, money and responsibility intersect ... what could possibly go wrong?

I've seen both and my observation is that those who focus on career "benefit" from BOTH a better career and not spending as much time doing childcare which they don't enjoy much and/or aren't very good at.

Those who focus on selfish indulgences don't require a detailed explanation as their motivations are self evident.

I think the notion that career-focused individuals are inherently poor at or uninterested in childcare oversimplifies the issue. Many working parents are very capable and dedicated to their children's upbringing, even if they face time constraints. It's not necessarily a matter of ability or interest but rather a balancing act between professional and personal responsibilities.

Not what I said. I'm not referring to the responsibilities of "working parents", I'm talking about parents who choose to work more than their responsibility on their careers and thus less than their responsibility with their children.

There's a big difference between the mindsets of those taking on a career that requires numerous work hours and choosing to work numerous work hours at a job that doesn't require it (to the detriment to one's children).

I see your point, and sorry for the previous misunderstanding. And I totally agree with your point.

When a career demands long hours, it’s often a matter of necessity, and children can understand this if it’s communicated well. However, when parents choose to spend extra time at work beyond what’s necessary, it can create feelings of neglect in children, potentially leading to issues in their development and self-esteem.