The value in starting a family

[Nilsi]

59 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

I don't know how you come to the conclusion that "creation" is outside of the real, as if there were something other than real(and therefore emptiness, holes (symbolic representations) in the real) or something other than creation.

But that’s exactly the point of Deleuze’s concept of the Virtual - it’s not a "hole" in reality but the very creative potential that makes actualization possible. What you’re calling a hole is really an excess, a surplus of difference and intensity that hasn’t yet been actualized. The Virtual isn’t some lack - it’s the field of forces, tendencies, and potential becomings that structure what can emerge.

Of course, this can collapse into a vacuum, a lack, and then we’re back in Lacanian metaphysics, but I’m not willing to surrender the potential of the Virtual to some childish nihilism. Quite frankly, it just doesn’t hold up under the scrutiny of direct experience.

Go read Difference and Repetition and The Logic of Sense. I’m not going to make this argument better than Deleuze did.

Edited Saturday at 09:51 PM by Nilsi

[Nilsi]

8 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

But that’s exactly the point of Deleuze’s concept of the Virtual - it’s not a "hole" in reality but the very creative potential that makes actualization possible. What you’re calling a hole is really an excess, a surplus of difference and intensity that hasn’t yet been actualized. The Virtual isn’t some lack - it’s the field of forces, tendencies, and potential becomings that structure what can emerge.

Of course, this can collapse into a vacuum, a lack, and then we’re back in Lacanian metaphysics, but I’m not willing to surrender the potential of the Virtual to some childish nihilism. Quite frankly, it just doesn’t hold up under the scrutiny of direct experience.

Go read Difference and Repetition and The Logic of Sense. I’m not going to make this argument better than Deleuze did.

Really, this comes down to belief. If you truly believe that real creativity is possible, it is; if you don’t, it isn’t. And since most people are so dulled by their petty, utilitarian lives, we might as well describe their behavior and psychology in Lacanian terms - they operate as subjects of lack, forever circling the void.

But clinging to this framework is a grave mistake if you actually want to live a life that affirms itself and its own potential. This is precisely why no Nietzschean can be a Lacanian and why Žižek, to this day, struggles to grasp the core of Nietzsche’s philosophy. Nietzsche is about becoming an active, life-affirming subject, not a passive one shackled to an unfillable emptiness at the core of their being.

Just watch this. Isn’t it remarkable that one of the brightest, most well-read philosophers of our time struggles with Nietzsche, of all people? That alone should make you seriously question his entire project - which, of course, is a Lacanian one.

[eos_nyxia]

On 2025-03-07 at 8:51 AM, Chadders said:

@Sugarcoat That’s not the point I’m making. Population size is another issue all together

If only the people that were mature enough to start a family did so you can be sure the global population would radically decline

Yes, this would be ideal. That's kind of the point. It sucks in the shorter term for countries and economies, especially when your whole model is based on the attachment to the idea of infinite economic growth.

It's not a popular view, though I don't care much about people's opinions on the matter; it's not like opinions alone are going to make much of difference. Either we get this sustainability thing right and make the appropriate choices, or we'll be reminded that we are very much still animals that are subject to the natural world who have lived beyond our means and will be culled accordingly in time, all while dragging our children and children's children into it, along with the number of other species we are currently responsible for making extinct.

Let's see how people's current children and their children feel about us and our choices when they are adults, I guess, when we are the boomers' age. That's a real test.  I'm guessing they're not going to be very happy with what we've left them.

 

 

Edited Saturday at 11:12 PM by eos_nyxia

[Recursoinominado]

Retirement guaranteed! 

[eos_nyxia]

On 2025-03-07 at 8:13 AM, Chadders said:

What do people think about starting a family? I find many are just not in touch with the deeper purpose behind it

We’re actually talking about something that is an inherent part of the evolution of the human species. It’s not ‘traditional’ in that dismissive attitude some people have but it’s baked into the fabric of the human species. Family units were a core part of tribal societies it’s not just some conservative mid-century option. We are hardwired to procreate and care for our children unless very dysfunctional 

Also I would say that what makes a boy a man and a girl a woman is when they are ready to start a family - this is irrespective of whether they actually do or not, the point is they are mature enough to do it properly if they were to. It’s a good test of your own maturity. Do you truly believe you are mature and strong enough to be a grounded, loving and stable father figure or a compassionate, loving and nurturing mother? 

A big problem is that many people are not mature enough to be parents. This is so obvious with people who can’t fully take on board the responsibility in being a parent

I’ve seen posts where people will dismiss the family option and go their own way with travel or whatever. That’s fine but it’s this dismissal and the conception that it is a traditional option that bugs me. Starting a family is a beautiful thing. It’s not a lifestyle but a core part of us it’s just that maturity is the key to it

On a personal level, I've never felt like I had the right stuff to be a good mother, though I've done a lot of soul searching to think about what this would involve. As if "intelligence" and/or material resources are what make a good or decent parent. It is not. Neither is empathy or sensitivity alone.

I am good with younger people in the sense that I GET them (especially late childhood/ teenagers) and I even used to work with them, but that doesn't mean that I would be a good parent. Among the many possible issues is that I have very sensitive senses and am not the most adaptable close quarters and home spaces, and there is the sheer amount of energy and effort it would take to adapt to them in a way that doesn't leave me shellshocked or me STILL taking it out on them in some way. 

Like, I could probably be a good mom if I had a 24/7 nanny or a partner that did 80% of the childcare stuff, lol. AKA. If.... I could be a DAD instead of a mom.

Unless I could guarantee that I would get a child that was just like myself as a child (aka. like a quiet, super mature "little adult", but BTW that behaviour too often arises for emotionally unhealthy reasons), I will suffer a great deal and it will consume my whole life. But getting to pick and choose your child? That's not how any of this works, yet people often operate with this innate, unexamined assumption, that they can either somehow "pick" or mould their child into a product of their liking.

Also, I would like to keep my body intact, thanks! Being in a female body has been hard enough as it is already and I've had enough. I got used to people calling me "selfish" for this when I was younger, which is usually when I start asking them about their philanthropic efforts or vocational work with youth, or if they're planning to adopt. RADIO SILENCE. People who care about helping kids are.... usually out helping kids instead of getting into these stupid discussions with childless girls and women.

 

I would say, for whoever is interested in starting a family, a person who has this grand vision of what their kid is going to be like, what they should like and who they should be, is probably going to be shitty parent. That would be a flaming red flag for me.  Even people who don't actively hold their perspective still often hold this perspective. The question is, what does it take to get a person to that point?

 

 

Edited Saturday at 11:44 PM by eos_nyxia

[LastThursday]

@Chadders what could be more spiritual or divine than union, and then creation? Then again many things have a divine dimension to them seen in the right light. In some sense you could say that anything that is "natural" is also divine, irrespective of negative consequences such as overpopulation.

I'm not sure that maturity is necessarily the best argument for or against having a family. Is it that you need to be mature to start a family or is it that it matures you in the process? A stronger trait to have would be commitment. Can you be committed to your family unit and your kids for twenty years or more? Except I reckon most wouldn't look at themselves and say: boy I've lacked commitment in my life, I really shouldn't be starting a family. No, they just go right ahead and do it anyway, because it's a natural urge if not traditional. It's not really going out of fashion any time soon, even if the make up of having a family changes with tradition. Even people who at one time dismiss having a family, may succumb later in life. But I admit, commitment is probably some form of maturity. 

I think it's hard to be prescriptive about a process that lasts twenty years or more, if not the rest of your life - things change too much over that time to say anything much about it from the outset, even if it seems obvious two people would make lousy parents.

Personally, I've sat on the fence about it most of my life. I feel variously: happy that all my money and time are my own without compromise, I'm stress free moslty, but then, that I'm missing out on the love and connection and joy of having a family (and maybe even yes, maturity). All my friends have just got on with it, without much deeper thought to it I suspect. Most of my male friends weren't ready to be fathers, but I think that was just a hypothetical fear of confinement and probably the unknown - they're all decent committed fathers now without exception. I would probably be the same if the situation arose.

Edited 18 hours ago by LastThursday