Anti-family philosophy: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Social Sciences » Anti-family philosophy » Anti-family philosophy

Anti-family philosophy

Page: 1 2

Anti-family philosophy

sheps
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 427

Posted 10/21/09 - 04:26 AM:	#11
Postmodern Beatnik wrote: You're all missing the obvious answer: the first and foremost anti-family philosopher was Plato. Read the Republic, particularly the "waves of paradox" sections in Book V. God, I'd forgotten. Plato's ideal state was good for women, but all those communal marriages within the philosopher class...count me out.
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

thepeonwhocould
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 19, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3

Posted 10/21/09 - 04:44 AM:	#12
Caldwell wrote: Can you use something like fraternity, masons, secret societies, country clubs, even university dorms to help out with the counterexamples? I don't think phasing out the family unit would decrease inequality, let alone eliminate it. Sociology also says that "hierarchies" of all kinds will exist no matter what you do. I don't see how these would be counter-examples to my argument. I would not intend to promote things such as country clubs, secret societies etc by removal of families. In fact I would prefer to denounce such things in my argument - although if I do this, I will be extending my definition of families, or rather changing my argument to denounce all groups that promote separatism. The topic of my essay would then be quite different (ie denouncement of all groups that promote separatism). I'm not sure if I would be comfortable doing so, but I suppose I certainly need to have a reason why I should distinguish between families and other groups... Thankfully, my essay is not due for quite a while, so such dramatic shifts in focus are possible

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2224

Posted 10/24/09 - 12:20 AM:	#13
thepeonwhocould wrote: I don't see how these would be counter-examples to my argument. I would not intend to promote things such as country clubs, secret societies etc by removal of families. In fact I would prefer to denounce such things in my argument - although if I do this, I will be extending my definition of families, or rather changing my argument to denounce all groups that promote separatism. The topic of my essay would then be quite different (ie denouncement of all groups that promote separatism). I'm not sure if I would be comfortable doing so, but I suppose I certainly need to have a reason why I should distinguish between families and other groups... Thankfully, my essay is not due for quite a while, so such dramatic shifts in focus are possible I think you have brought up an important question you should include in your essay: what distinguishes the family unit from other groups. Because, this is exactly why the family must be phased out in your essay, that the family unit promotes inequalities, at least according to your preliminary premise. But so do other groups that accept their members as bothers and sisters, that is why I brought up these other groups like fraternity and secret societies. In fact, tribes and villages do the same thing, too. So, what is it about the family unit that makes it special? The bloodlines that expand to generations, and the legal ties attached to them? In California, if you are the biological parent, for instance, you have the default rights to the child/children, whether you raised them or not.

keefm2005
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2009
Location: Edinburgh

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 10/29/09 - 02:11 PM:	#14
"Plato even saw the family as a threat to the state, and as needing to be strictly controlled among the mob and excluded among the band of soldier-philosophers. Plato is thus the father of the modern anti-family movement and ultimately of political totalitarianism." http://www.spiritualsisters.com/mabelgil1.htm (not a very extensive webpage but a nice introduction)

ElectricWonderland
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 04, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

Posted 10/30/09 - 03:19 PM:	#15
xzJoel wrote: This isn't quite to your point, but the idea is discussed in "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World Maybe you can find some discussion of the book where they talk about the way that children were conceived and raised. (It was by assembly line, just like you'd produce a car.) Huxley also discusses the family in his novel Island. In the novel they use Mutual Adoption Clubs instead of actual families. Children live for short periods of time with different families and then move and live with another family and continue the process. It's a really interesting idea.

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 11/02/09 - 12:56 PM:	#16
I think your essay needs to provide some explanation for why the elimination of inequality is a good thing. It's clear that those who are raised in two parent, stable homes fair better than those who are not. The traditional response to this problem is to try and promote stability in the home so that all children will have these advantages. Your solution is to eliminate the inequality by placing everyone in the same sinking ship. Sure, it's equal, but how is it better to make everyone's life suck just so that we'll all be even? By analogy, it's better to have shelter, and those who live on the street face much more difficult lives than their home-dwelling counterparts. Perhaps you should pass some law that requires everyone to live without shelter so that we'll all be equal.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

psychotick
Dazed and confused

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 120

Posted 11/06/09 - 09:36 PM:	#17
Hi, First Peon I'm not sure you should state what your conclusion will be before you've finished researching the topic. Its sort of like saying I value you're opinion but -. Second I sort of agree with Hanover's last post. Maybe families do promote inequality but they also (mostly I hope) promote success for children. Getting rid of them will make everyone equal in terms of where they come from perhaps, but will they as a group achieve what they would have otherwise? Somehow I doubt it. Third we mostly learn love and caring for others initially through our families. A mother's love, father's love, brothers and sisters. Who would we be as social animals if we were raised in essentially state run orphanages? Would we have the same understanding of love? Of respect and caring for others? Or would we become a society of complete individuals? Would love and marriage continue, especially when there was no chance of raising a family together in this brave new world? Would we consider others as our brothers and sisters when in essence we have no brothers and sisters? Would society as we know it even continue to exist? Maybe instead of getting rid of families to reduce inequality, you should be looking at strengthening all families so that all children are raised in loving, supportive homes and have all opportunities at their feet. Damn - I sound like a socialist! Cheers.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.