| | I can imagine that the thought of a stranger's kid being placed above you, when you have been on top yourself, all these years, must be something akin to the thoughts and feelings of those individuals who had to give up their slaves, akin to those men who had to share control with their wives and face jail if they beat them, (some still haven't got over that one) What a gross misuse of analogy. You're comparing someone's offspring to slaves and subjugated wives with no rights?? We've already proven this is false. Reflexes aren't knowledge, nor are they emotions born of values.
Objectivists argued their own rights only, as if the child was some baggage. Reminds me of a quote the great Mark Scott used to say:
"...They want you to love your enslavement! Embrace the yoke, people!"
It's one thing to choose the yoke as a value, quite another to impose it.
What did shock me was, that all those who were certain that someone would volunteer, were unwilling to see the tenuous position held by children under Objectivist rule. A speculation, accusation, hunch, wish, hope, or wild claim is not the same as actual proof. Tenuous in what way?
Maybe you're not familiar with Rand's basic premise of morality:
"The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."
Shortly after, I found the dreaded Jeremy Griffith and his premise: that since we are of the animal domain it is the rule, generally, that survival of the species depends on special treatment for the young. He also cited bonobo research that suggests that primates who evolved to become humans became cooperative with each other as a survival strategy. Work is continuing in this area. Is this also, impossible for you to read?
Indeed, we are social creatures. Always have been. But that doesn't make us _selfless_ creatures. Neither are we lemmings.
Denial of a child in utero receiving emotions registered by the mother, does not lessen their impact, the emotions are stored in the physical body, not in the brain. I didn't try to mislead you.
Sharon, I don't want to think less of you, so I'm going to assume you just plain don't know what you're talking about.
This is provoking more research; hypothesizing that children are not born "tabula rasa" as far as emotions are concerned; but with all kinds of baggage from the mother's emotional judgements.
This suggests the old "nature or nurture" determinist ideology. That we are helpless against our environments or our biology. Human beings are so good at overcoming obstacles, it's impossible for these theories to hold water.
My understanding of new wave is a kind of superstition; like astrology, and crystals. Dismissing Griffith out of hand,as being in this category, is not a logical stance Teresa. I think that you have not read his essay. It is long hard slogging. Like Barbara Coloroso says "Kids Are Worth it ! I can't read it because, just like an elitist, Griffith's version of Adobe PDF is not support by my OS.
Who's kids? Worth it to whom?
My proposal has to do with rethinking Ayn Rand's first premise that an adult individual's life is prime. I am siding with Griffith and taking the position that to ensure the survival and flourishing of our species, the young require a collective response. This is a logical and science-based proposal. I am skeptical of the evidence so far. It appears to relay heavily on emotional appeals.
Ayn Rand used logic and natural science to argue all her other positions, she lacked the new findings available in 2006, and inadvertently passed over the importance of helpless children, whose main purpose in life is to become productive happy benevolent adults who will procreate and raise a new generation that is even more productive and happy. Happiness creates more happiness, Teresa. It is exponential. This sounds like Catholic dogma. Imposing the goal of procreation on "helpless children" is really backward to me, and that they should be happy with that goal is even more backward.
It is time to show some leadership and apply the best Objectivist minds to this solution. Inventing a "problem" doesn't prove there is one.
If Objectivists cultivate benevolence as a value, how could this change anything for the worse? Who said it would?
In fact, having empathy with babies will increase benevolence in older children. It's known as the wisdom of babies Think of the effect it would have on Objectivists. What I've learned is I can't make people like what I like. Neither can I be forced to love the personal values of a stranger. It's part of what it means to be an "individual."
It appears this Griffith crank wants to destroy the concept of "individual" and this appeals to you. Nothing new, here. Such destroyers have always popped up throughout history.
My nefarious self just has to get back at those guys who ignored my call for help a few days ago. So you do think the concept of "individual" is evil. So evil, it must be scandalized somehow.
Not to drag another skeleton out of the closet, but Nathaniel Branden said it this way:
"No one is coming."
That "roots of empathy" website should be renamed to "roots of appeasement". To encourage children to "feel what others feel," while at the same time claiming to encourage "individuality" is so hopeless a contradiction, I can't believe you're buying it. I have a sense that individuality is severely curtailed at places like this. Bet me these kids are encouraged into "group think," as the "facilitating consensus through collaborative activities" suggests to me.
I could find nothing on that website that illuminated the organization's commitment to cognitive development or skills. I assume because those attributes are judged to be inferior to emotions.
We don't need a generation of appeasing politicians.
I'm sick at thinking this is a good idea to you.
|
|
