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

[Pattern-chaser]

I think the key is to develop EMPATHY instead of trying to do better than our parents did. Everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs, the difference is how strong those are.

Empathy is a difficult concept, even though it might not seem so at first glance. I don't think that "everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs," that's a problem with the Golden Rule. If you treat everyone else 'as you would wish to be treated', there are some whose needs are different from yours. The Golden Rule really needs to say 'treat everyone as they would wish to be treated (and expect the same from them in return)'.

IMO, of course.

[intentes_pupil]

I think the key is to develop EMPATHY instead of trying to do better than our parents did. Everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs, the difference is how strong those are.

Empathy is a difficult concept, even though it might not seem so at first glance. I don't think that "everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs," that's a problem with the Golden Rule. If you treat everyone else 'as you would wish to be treated', there are some whose needs are different from yours. The Golden Rule really needs to say 'treat everyone as they would wish to be treated (and expect the same from them in return)'.

IMO, of course.

I think we think the same, we just say it differently.

When I say "everybody has the same feelings and needs" I mean that needs and feelings are universal concepts (needs: autonomy, connection, meaning, play, peace, etc ; feelings: affection, excitement, connection, etc). BUT, how strong those needs/feelings are differentiate us from each other (and even moment to moment).

I guess that is the same you mean when you say "there are some whose needs are different from yours", right?

An analogy to make my point clear: gravity is the same for everybody, the difference is how much mass you have that makes your weight different.

I don't think there are golden rules.
Treating everybody the same way you would wish they treat you makes no sense within my argumentation. I argue that the key would be to learn to read other's needs in order to find a strategy that leads to the fulfilling of both parties needs (huge simplification here). Therefore treating somebody just taking into account your own needs leads necessarily (or at least high probably) to failure and struggle.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think the key is to develop EMPATHY instead of trying to do better than our parents did. Everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs, the difference is how strong those are.

Empathy is a difficult concept, even though it might not seem so at first glance. I don't think that "everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs," that's a problem with the Golden Rule. If you treat everyone else 'as you would wish to be treated', there are some whose needs are different from yours. The Golden Rule really needs to say 'treat everyone as they would wish to be treated (and expect the same from them in return)'.

IMO, of course.

I think we think the same, we just say it differently.

When I say "everybody has the same feelings and needs" I mean that needs and feelings are universal concepts (needs: autonomy, connection, meaning, play, peace, etc ; feelings: affection, excitement, connection, etc). BUT, how strong those needs/feelings are differentiate us from each other (and even moment to moment).

I guess that is the same you mean when you say "there are some whose needs are different from yours", right?

I see what you're getting at, and agree. But it isn't really what I was getting at. I was actually thinking of a particular, if unusual, example. If an autistic person is distressed, some (following the Golden Rule) might act as they hope someone else would act toward them, and put a comforting arm around the distressed person. But the autist has a problem with personal physical contact, and is made more distressed by the unwanted 'handling'.

This is a very detailed and unusual example, I admit. But it does illustrate the point I tried to make in my previous post: not everybody wants or needs to be treated as you would in their circumstances. In that sense, if no other, our needs can be quite different from someone else's.

[intentes_pupil]

I think the key is to develop EMPATHY instead of trying to do better than our parents did. Everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs, the difference is how strong those are.

Empathy is a difficult concept, even though it might not seem so at first glance. I don't think that "everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs," that's a problem with the Golden Rule. If you treat everyone else 'as you would wish to be treated', there are some whose needs are different from yours. The Golden Rule really needs to say 'treat everyone as they would wish to be treated (and expect the same from them in return)'.

IMO, of course.

I think we think the same, we just say it differently.

When I say "everybody has the same feelings and needs" I mean that needs and feelings are universal concepts (needs: autonomy, connection, meaning, play, peace, etc ; feelings: affection, excitement, connection, etc). BUT, how strong those needs/feelings are differentiate us from each other (and even moment to moment).

I guess that is the same you mean when you say "there are some whose needs are different from yours", right?

I see what you're getting at, and agree. But it isn't really what I was getting at. I was actually thinking of a particular, if unusual, example. If an autistic person is distressed, some (following the Golden Rule) might act as they hope someone else would act toward them, and put a comforting arm around the distressed person. But the autist has a problem with personal physical contact, and is made more distressed by the unwanted 'handling'.

This is a very detailed and unusual example, I admit. But it does illustrate the point I tried to make in my previous post: not everybody wants or needs to be treated as you would in their circumstances. In that sense, if no other, our needs can be quite different from someone else's.

In those specific cases I agree with you.

I find it also very interesting the way people with some mental conditions (sorry if I am not using the most appropriate term here, not meaning to be disrespectful) perceive the world. A nice example I found while listening Lex Friedman Podcast interview with Karl Deisseroth about bioengineering, depression, schizophrenia, ets; was the fact (unknown for me till then) that there are people who are highly psychotic but it does not have a negative impact in their lives and therefore they are not considered to have a mental conditions. These are people who hallucinate while daydreaming or have deep spiritual experiences, etc.

That changes the whole game and makes me question the "nature" and origin of things like feelings, thoughts, etc. Analyzing only the extremes leads to unsuccessful rules and generalizations, but obviating them leads to partial truths.

[Pattern-chaser]

I find it also very interesting the way people with some mental conditions (sorry if I am not using the most appropriate term here, not meaning to be disrespectful) perceive the world. A nice example I found while listening Lex Friedman Podcast interview with Karl Deisseroth about bioengineering, depression, schizophrenia, ets; was the fact (unknown for me till then) that there are people who are highly psychotic but it does not have a negative impact in their lives and therefore they are not considered to have a mental conditions. These are people who hallucinate while daydreaming or have deep spiritual experiences, etc.

That changes the whole game and makes me question the "nature" and origin of things like feelings, thoughts, etc. Analyzing only the extremes leads to unsuccessful rules and generalizations, but obviating them leads to partial truths.

I think you are describing "neuro-diversity" here? The realisation that many people who have historically been considered 𝖆𝖇𝖊𝖗𝖗𝖆𝖓𝖙 or 𝖉𝖆𝖒𝖆𝖌𝖊𝖉 are merely different? There are, I believe, psychopaths who live, constructively and productively, in our societies without displaying any of the frighteningly-negative things we expect of them. [If I misunderstood that, or misremembered what I read, just ignore that last bit. ] It is surmised that quite a few prominent historical figures were autistic - although historical diagnosis is fraught with uncertainty! - including scientists, artists, and generals. It may well be true. And I'm sure there are many other examples of which I am unaware.

Those who are different have contributed much over the centuries, and yet they are ridiculed, neglected, and even persecuted or imprisoned. But now I'm starting to ramble, or preach, so I'll stop here.

[Zainab Wasif]

Often some core values inculcated by our parents are trickled down to our kids without us knowing. We can never judge our parent’s upbringing. There are pros and cons to everything that we might not realise. But, if you have been in a dysfunctional family and been counselled well, you can certainly avoid your parents’ mistakes and perhaps raise better children.

[Pattern-chaser]

Welcome, Zainab!

Often some core values inculcated by our parents are trickled down to our kids without us knowing. We can never judge our parent’s upbringing. There are pros and cons to everything that we might not realise. But, if you have been in a dysfunctional family and been counselled well, you can certainly avoid your parents’ mistakes and perhaps raise better children.

Children learn uncritically, to start with. It's only later, around age 13, that we start to really think for ourselves. During that early learning period, we absorb cultural values from our (social) environment without even knowing we're doing it. So I was raised a racist, having unconsciously and unknowingly absorbed those values from a highly racist society (1950s and -60s UK). I have had to work very hard, over the years, to set aside, and moderate those racist impulses. But I can never get rid of them. Sadly, they are too deeply buried for that to be possible. The only good part of my example is that I have at least succeeded in living and acting as an anti-racist or non-racist. It was hard work, though, and it remains so.

As for dysfunctional families, we don't live in a 'Hollywood world', but in the real world. And in the real world, there are few if any perfect families. Most or all of them are "dysfunctional" to some extent. Real families are all very different, and very imperfect, just like all other human doings.

We all strive to avoid our parents' mistakes ... but then we go on to make our own mistakes instead. None of us are perfect. The best we can do is to try our best...

[Mounce574]

Quoting Jordan Peterson "Raise your children so you don't hate them." The human brain doesn't fully mature until we are 25. What I see is too many parents allow their children to be their friend or the cliche "I don't want them to hate me." Your child is not your friend. They are all individuals and should be raised as such. I have four children. 3 of them are polite. 2 of them are respectful. 1 of them is sociopath (by the literal definition of the word). 1 of them doesn't know her identity. The 2 that are my oldest and youngest are the nicest people you will ever meet. However, all four are treated according to their individual personality. They are held accountable for their actions. None of my children acted like those kids you see on TV that act like little monsters.
My mother was far from perfect. I am not perfect. But if you take how you were raised and apply it to your child you cannot predict the results. I think if you lead by example then your child will emulate that In their own way. My mother would say "Do as I say not as I do." That does not work. She was also the person who said "The Apple doesn't fall from the tree," when she would get angry with me over something trivial. To that I have the attitude "Then I must be you because you are supposed to be the tree." I have no relationship with her, by her choice, but I still remember those words.

[Sushan]

The title says "avoid mistakes", but the author did almost everything reverse/opposite. This is not how it works!

Maybe this is how our relationship with our parents works; we are more judgmental about their relationship with us, others, and each other than any other person on Earth because here we involve the first and premature onset of emotions in our lives. We never become neutral to see what they did wrong and a lot of other things they did the best to us. Maybe we think they are guilty of bringing us into this cruel world.

Not raising your child like you were raised, you should become an observer without intervention as well as judgment to your memories and retain a lot of good things which happened to you in that era including improving bad things in your child's life. Moreover, as everyone has different needs or priorities; so do the children. Listen to the needs of your kid and try to fulfill them instead of being in the past trauma and preparing for your kid to say the same what you perceive about your parents.

Parents should listen to the needs of their children. Sometimes the two parties may have different interests and different goals. For a better relationship parents should become good listeners. But should they do all what kids need? NO. Children always have childish thoughts and interests which may actually harm their growth and future. So it is up to the parents to guide and steer them correctly.

Yes, we can never be neutral about our parents' parenting since we were directly subjected to it. But after becoming adults, or even parents, then we can look back and think what might have changed if their parenting was different. And if we can apply the insight that we gain from it to raise our own kids I think we can get better results.

While parenting is multifactorial, for the purposes of this discussion usually what is being referred to is strict vs lenient. Currently, the form that poor parenting is commonly taking is too lenient in response to perceived strictness in one's own upbringing.

Indeed, the concept of strictness and leniency is one of the primary dichotomies in parenting styles, and it's true that some parents may swing from one extreme to the other in reaction to their own upbringing. However, it's crucial to remember that these are not the only factors at play when we talk about parenting.

Parenting involves not just the enforcement of rules and boundaries (or the lack thereof), but also the communication of values, the nurturing of a child's individuality, the provision of emotional support, and much more. So, while some parents may react to a strict upbringing by being overly lenient with their own children (or vice versa), this doesn't necessarily address the full spectrum of their parenting responsibilities.

Moreover, it's also important to recognize that every child is unique, with their own temperament, needs, and circumstances. What works for one child may not work for another. Therefore, while reflecting on one's own upbringing can provide valuable insights, it's also necessary to adapt and respond to the unique needs and characteristics of each child. This is where the art and challenge of parenting truly lie: not just in avoiding the perceived mistakes of our own parents, but in adapting and responding to the unique individuals that our children are.

This also opens up another layer of discussion: how should parents strike a balance between learning from their own upbringing and responding to the unique needs of their children? And how can they navigate the complex task of setting boundaries while also fostering their child's individuality and autonomy?

[Sushan]

Parents make mistakes in parenting. Their children note them as well. When they become adults, they tend to believe that their lives would have been better if their parents raised them differently. And some of them even try to raise their children in the manner opposite to their parents.

With your experience or speculations, is it a successful way to apply what one gained from experience into practice?

Yes, but do not rely on experience 100%. The mistake of the quoted example is that she was fixated at the negativity of how she raised by her mother that she failed to see that she was using the child as an experiment for her own satisfaction -- times have changed and influence outside the home plays a much bigger role than we expect.

I agree with your point about the influence of external factors in a child's upbringing. The societal context, peer influences, and the general environment in which a child grows up significantly contribute to their development. So, while parents' actions undoubtedly play a crucial role, they are not the sole determinant of a child's personality or behavior.

Also, your point about the potential danger of using a child as an "experiment" for one's own satisfaction is well-taken. Parenting should not be a means for parents to resolve their own personal issues or past traumas. Children are not a blank canvas upon which parents can project their own desires or unfulfilled dreams.

However, I wouldn't entirely dismiss the value of drawing upon one's personal experiences when it comes to parenting. After all, our experiences shape us and inform our perspectives, including our approach to parenting. The key, perhaps, lies in not letting our past overshadow the present or the unique individuality of the child. In other words, while it's important to learn from our past, it's equally important to adapt and respond to the present circumstances and the unique needs of our children.

[Sushan]

This Be The Verse
By Philip Larkin


They **** you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were **** up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another’s throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don’t have any kids yourself.

The poem you've shared by Philip Larkin indeed paints a bleak picture of the cycle of parenting, suggesting that parents inevitably pass on their faults to their children, who in turn do the same to their own children. It's a powerful piece that resonates with many people's experiences.

While it's true that we inherit and learn a lot from our parents, both good and bad, I'd argue that we also have the power to break these cycles. We can choose to learn from our parents' mistakes rather than repeat them. Of course, this is easier said than done and requires a great deal of self-awareness and conscious effort.

Moreover, it's also important to note that, as parents, we're not merely passing on our 'faults' to our children. We're also passing on our strengths, our wisdom, our values, and our love. Parenting is indeed challenging, and we are bound to make mistakes along the way, but it also offers opportunities for growth, both for us and for our children.

In response to Larkin's final lines, while it's true that parenting can be challenging and at times painful, it's also filled with joy and fulfillment. It's not for everyone, and that's perfectly okay, but for those who choose it, it can be a profound and rewarding journey.

This discussion reminds me of a quote from Kahlil Gibran's The Prophet: "Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself...You may house their bodies but not their souls, for their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams."

Perhaps this is something we need to keep in mind as parents: while we do our best to guide our children, we also need to respect their individuality and their own unique path in life.

[Sushan]

The title says "avoid mistakes", but the author did almost everything reverse/opposite. This is not how it works!

Maybe this is how our relationship with our parents works; we are more judgmental about their relationship with us, others, and each other than any other person on Earth because here we involve the first and premature onset of emotions in our lives. We never become neutral to see what they did wrong and a lot of other things they did the best to us. Maybe we think they are guilty of bringing us into this cruel world.

Not raising your child like you were raised, you should become an observer without intervention as well as judgment to your memories and retain a lot of good things which happened to you in that era including improving bad things in your child's life. Moreover, as everyone has different needs or priorities; so do the children. Listen to the needs of your kid and try to fulfill them instead of being in the past trauma and preparing for your kid to say the same what you perceive about your parents.

I totally agree. I think the key is to develop EMPATHY instead of trying to do better than our parents did. Everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs, the difference is how strong those are. Therefore, If we are able to empathise and identify the needs and feeling of the others, if we listen from the heart and make our goal to truly listen (our children, our parents, our neighbours) we will be on the path to make a deeper connection and therefore closer to avoid the "mistakes" that our parents "committed".

I wouldn't say that our parents "made mistakes". This is too judgmental from my point of view. I argue that most people are not trained on identifying feelings and needs. Therefore most parents often fail to act in consequence and aligned to their children's needs.

This "mistakes" are the direct consequence therefore of a child having a need, a parent not being able to identify it, and an action that is not aligned with the child's need. This causes a struggle, but not a mistake from my point of view. The struggle or bad consequences for the child are the consequence of parent's ignorance or what I call "empathy illiteracy".

To reinforce my argument, let's do the following mental exercise: let's call C = child, P=parent, A=action

1. C has a certain need.
2. P is not empathy literate
3. P commits A (for whatever reason)
4. A is not aligned to C's needs

Consequence: STRUGLE

But, let's asume now in another case, that:
4. A IS ALIGNED to C's needs.

In this case P is still "empathy-illiterate", but A does not cause struggle!

Therefore, calling the first case a mistake assumes that P is empathy Literate, knows what C needs and commits A (not aligned with C's needs) anyway!

This intentionality is for me not obvious. Anybody could argue also that if C had a different need, A could fit the situation and there would be no struggle!

Therefore, I argue that the issue with parenting is the incapacity of most people to listen empathically (meaning reading/identifying children's needs).

If we only focus on trying to fulfil the needs that our parents didn't, we might not fulfil our children's ones!!! It is therefore obvious that the chances of "commiting a mistake" are REALLY HIGH!

I appreciate your emphasis on empathy and the need to understand and respond to the specific needs of our children. The concept of 'empathy literacy' is a powerful one, suggesting that we need to be able to 'read' and interpret the emotional and psychological needs of others.

However, I would like to add that empathy should be accompanied by wisdom and experience. While it is crucial to understand and empathize with our children's needs, we must also use our own judgment and experience to guide them, especially when they are young and their understanding of the world is still developing.

Furthermore, it's important to remember that there is no such thing as perfect parenting. We all come with our own set of strengths and weaknesses, and our parenting will inevitably reflect that. The key, I believe, is to strive to do our best, to learn from our mistakes, and to be willing to grow and adapt.

I agree that simply trying to avoid the mistakes our parents made is not enough. Instead, we should aim to understand why they made those choices, learn from their experiences, and then strive to do better.

[Sushan]

I think the key is to develop EMPATHY instead of trying to do better than our parents did. Everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs, the difference is how strong those are.

Empathy is a difficult concept, even though it might not seem so at first glance. I don't think that "everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs," that's a problem with the Golden Rule. If you treat everyone else 'as you would wish to be treated', there are some whose needs are different from yours. The Golden Rule really needs to say 'treat everyone as they would wish to be treated (and expect the same from them in return)'.

IMO, of course.

Indeed, empathy is a complex concept. It's not merely about treating others as we wish to be treated, but more importantly, understanding and acknowledging their unique needs and feelings. This holds true in parenting as well. We need to recognize that each child is unique, with their own set of needs, desires, and perspectives. What worked for us or our parents might not work for our children, and what we perceive as 'mistakes' might just be a misalignment between actions and needs, as we've discussed.

Yet, there's also a significant truth in the fact that empathy does not come naturally to everyone. It's a skill that must be cultivated over time and with conscious effort. So, the key could be in fostering this empathy literacy, not just in ourselves, but also nurturing it in our children, empowering them to express their needs effectively and to understand the needs of others around them.

The challenge, then, may not be to avoid repeating our parents' 'mistakes', but rather to strive for open communication, understanding, and empathy in our relationships with our children. In doing so, we might create a nurturing environment that respects individuality and encourages personal growth.

[Sushan]

I think the key is to develop EMPATHY instead of trying to do better than our parents did. Everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs, the difference is how strong those are.

Empathy is a difficult concept, even though it might not seem so at first glance. I don't think that "everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs," that's a problem with the Golden Rule. If you treat everyone else 'as you would wish to be treated', there are some whose needs are different from yours. The Golden Rule really needs to say 'treat everyone as they would wish to be treated (and expect the same from them in return)'.

IMO, of course.

I think we think the same, we just say it differently.

When I say "everybody has the same feelings and needs" I mean that needs and feelings are universal concepts (needs: autonomy, connection, meaning, play, peace, etc ; feelings: affection, excitement, connection, etc). BUT, how strong those needs/feelings are differentiate us from each other (and even moment to moment).

I guess that is the same you mean when you say "there are some whose needs are different from yours", right?

An analogy to make my point clear: gravity is the same for everybody, the difference is how much mass you have that makes your weight different.

I don't think there are golden rules.
Treating everybody the same way you would wish they treat you makes no sense within my argumentation. I argue that the key would be to learn to read other's needs in order to find a strategy that leads to the fulfilling of both parties needs (huge simplification here). Therefore treating somebody just taking into account your own needs leads necessarily (or at least high probably) to failure and struggle.

You bring up a crucial point, and I believe we are indeed speaking the same language, albeit in different terms. The universality of needs and feelings, as you've pointed out, does not equate to a homogeneity of experiences or desires. Each individual, each child, is a unique confluence of these universal elements, and this uniqueness should be respected and nurtured.

My original question was about the success of implementing life experiences into parenting practices. Through our discussion, it seems we're collectively veering towards the understanding that what's paramount is not necessarily the avoidance of our parents' perceived mistakes but rather the development of an empathetic understanding of our child's needs. This understanding, however, should not be based solely on our needs or experiences but on our child's individual expressions and needs.

This distinction is subtle yet significant. It doesn't deny the value of our experiences or the lessons we've learned from our parents, but it underscores the importance of allowing our children's uniqueness to guide our parenting. The past, while informative, should not be the exclusive blueprint for the present or the future. Instead, our empathetic understanding of our child's needs should help us tailor our parenting strategies in ways that foster their growth and well-being.

[Sushan]

I think the key is to develop EMPATHY instead of trying to do better than our parents did. Everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs, the difference is how strong those are.

Empathy is a difficult concept, even though it might not seem so at first glance. I don't think that "everybody feels the same and everybody has the same needs," that's a problem with the Golden Rule. If you treat everyone else 'as you would wish to be treated', there are some whose needs are different from yours. The Golden Rule really needs to say 'treat everyone as they would wish to be treated (and expect the same from them in return)'.

IMO, of course.

I think we think the same, we just say it differently.

When I say "everybody has the same feelings and needs" I mean that needs and feelings are universal concepts (needs: autonomy, connection, meaning, play, peace, etc ; feelings: affection, excitement, connection, etc). BUT, how strong those needs/feelings are differentiate us from each other (and even moment to moment).

I guess that is the same you mean when you say "there are some whose needs are different from yours", right?

I see what you're getting at, and agree. But it isn't really what I was getting at. I was actually thinking of a particular, if unusual, example. If an autistic person is distressed, some (following the Golden Rule) might act as they hope someone else would act toward them, and put a comforting arm around the distressed person. But the autist has a problem with personal physical contact, and is made more distressed by the unwanted 'handling'.

This is a very detailed and unusual example, I admit. But it does illustrate the point I tried to make in my previous post: not everybody wants or needs to be treated as you would in their circumstances. In that sense, if no other, our needs can be quite different from someone else's.

Indeed, the example of the autistic person highlights the importance of understanding the individuality of needs and perspectives. The complexity of empathy lies not only in recognizing our shared humanity but also in acknowledging our unique experiences and responses. It's true that one size does not fit all when it comes to empathy, and what may seem like a comforting gesture to one could be distressing to another.

In terms of parenting, this suggests the need for a flexible approach. Raising a child isn't about simply avoiding the mistakes of our own parents or implementing a prescribed set of behaviors, but rather understanding the unique needs, desires, and sensitivities of the child and adjusting our approaches accordingly. This reinforces the idea that learning from past experiences is not about direct application, but about using that knowledge to inform a more nuanced and empathetic understanding.

Yet, it also raises a question: while we can make conscious efforts to understand and cater to the individual needs of a child, are there limits to our capacity to truly understand another's subjective experiences? And if so, how do we navigate those limitations in the context of parenting?