Monday, December 12, 2016

Love and Children

I have run across a claim that feelings destroy the fabric of society. That is only the case in situations where social interest is directed against feeling. In places where feelings are allowed, feelings do not have an antisocial purpose; and the feelings are completely consistent with social interest.

It is funny how the hippie types in America have been treated. When they had interest in improving the world, they were claimed to be commies. When Reagan conservatism took place and took over the society, they were claimed to be selfish narcissists. Uh-huh. If you have interest in improving the world you're a commie; if you focus instead on your own life you're a narcissists. Very rational indeed.

Another claim I've heard is that love is nature's way of getting you to do its purpose. As someone said, “An illusion called love leads to an illusion called marriage, which leads to a reality called children.” I do not see anything wrong whatsoever with wanting to have children. My daughter was the best thing that ever happened to me, and I've lived a privileged life. What really is wrong with wanting to have children? And especially what really is wrong with wanting them to be raised in a loving environment?

I've known people who stated that their children were the “mistakes of their youth,” and I've known people who've blamed their children for the failure of their existence. Attitudes of that sort are completely disgusting. Maybe I've been lucky to have a child like my daughter instead of a child like me; but I have no respect at all for parents who are unloving as well as for parents who blame their children for their own choices.

Another claim I've seen is that love has mostly been used for wrong. No, that is not true at all. The World War II generation not only believed in love but practiced it as well; and it is a generation that has in no way been a failure. I know any number of highly effective, highly successful households from that generation who started their matches with love at first sight. Love worked out for them; it also should work out for others.

Apparently love did not work out for many people in the baby boom generation. I do not know the reason for this; but they do not begin to own love or anything similar. Love existed long before they existed, and it is innocent of their failures. That love has not worked out for some people does not make it narcissism or anything of the sort. Any more than the fact that some people are poor does mean that nobody can be wealthy.

That some people failed at love does not impugn love any more than does the fact that some people failed at prosperity impugn money. Anything that has appeal to people will see all sorts of people try it, and some of them will do better at it than others. Love has worked for the World War II generation, and it should work for other generations as well. That some among baby boomers failed at it does not impugn love any more than does the existence of broke people impugn money. Separate the purpose from those who failed at the purpose, and come up with a real understanding of how the purpose can be achieved.


Post a Comment

<< Home