"I'm ashamed of you," is best reserved for moral failures, but parents can (and should) be ashamed just as they can be proud. If a child uses a racist slur to taunt another child, the parent could reasonably say, "I'm ashamed of you! Never do that again!"
Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
Is it possible shaming will produce a happy confident child ?
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
My point from the start is that we should not view children as "products". Parents don't "produce" them (except biologically). If a parent is ashamed of the behavior of his child, he should honestly and openly confess it, just as he would if he were ashamed of a friend.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
The child may not know what to do about their parent's emotional distress.Ecurb wrote: ↑June 19th, 2020, 2:33 pmMy point from the start is that we should not view children as "products". Parents don't "produce" them (except biologically). If a parent is ashamed of the behavior of his child, he should honestly and openly confess it, just as he would if he were ashamed of a friend.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
That's a risk in all relationships. Nonetheless, it's no reason to fail to be honest, open and forthcoming. Besides, the child will generally know what to do, especially if the parent gives him some good advice. For example:
A 5-year-old calls another child the "n" word on the playground.
Parent: "That's really rude and nasty. I'm ashamed of you! Go and apologize right now!"
-
- Posts: 957
- Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
But the origin of the idea 'luck' is NOT essentially the mystery of life at all.
In fact the origin of the idea of 'luck' is ALREADY KNOWN.
The idea of 'luck', just like EVERY other idea, originated in 'human thought'.
What a human being perceives of as being 'luck' is a completely other issue. Obviously there is absolutely NO 'luck' at all, in the context of what happened happened mysteriously, happened from nothing, or happened because of some unknown reason.
To me, 'what is considered beautiful' is evidence of thoughtful consideration. But what has this got to do with anything I said, and asked you?
Well 'your' so called "argument" does need to be argued. It is OBVIOUS that 'what is favorable' is merely a perspective, just like 'what is beautiful' is merely just a perspective. Thee Truth, and thus fact IS; Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. In other words, EVERY perception is merely 'just a perspective'.
But there is NOTHING mystery here at all, well to me anyway.
If one is with 'thee one', which they Truly love, then they are said to have found their 'true love'. What is supposedly "mysterious" about this?
I really still do not know, for sure, what it is that you are 'trying to' say and express here.arjand wrote: ↑June 19th, 2020, 4:58 am One has found his/her true love, a single moment in time of greatest significance in one's existence as a human. Whatever meaning is in the human or in the Universe, is united and fulfilled in relation to one's self in that single moment of time and can last into eternity.
An absolute unique moment in time of ultimate significance that lasts into eternity. A mystery by which only the term 'luck' could aply.
But I am starting to lose interest as well.
I do not understand what you are 'trying to' say here. But, again, I am losing interest now anyway.
You appear to like to deflect away from answering the actual questions being posed to you.
To you, 'Everything' might be equal to 'every thing', but, to me, they are two completely different things, with two completely different meanings.arjand wrote: ↑June 19th, 2020, 4:58 amEverything = every thing. The meaning of the word is plural.evolution wrote: ↑June 16th, 2020, 6:21 am
But I NEVER said EVERY thing (plural) could be infinite.
I said, 'Everything (singular) is just infinite and eternal'.
To me,
'EVERY thing' is plural for EVERY single thing.
'Everything' is singular for thee One Everything.
When 'EVERY thing' literally comes together they become thee One Everything.
The sum of EVERY thing together is thee One, Everything.
Which one, or, how does one implies a begin, and, what does 'a begin' actually mean, to you?
What does the 'it' word here refer to exactly?
If the word 'it' refers to 'a begin', then, whether 'a begin' can precede an observer is the question being asked to me, then I do not understand what the question is actually asking for.
I would have thought 'a begin' would imply 'a beginning'. Whereas, to me, 'an end' implies 'an ending'.
Are you suggesting that the Universe did not begin until an observer came-to-be?
If yes, then, to you, thee Universe did not begin until 'you' began to observe.
Also, what are you basing the claim, "The Universe requires an observer to be possible", on exactly?
But is there even an idea of a word 'One' that is separated from One as it is said to hold meaning as the denotion of singularity?
If yes, then who has this idea, and why do they have this idea?
Okay.
Are you making a "true" attempt to include the observer into something that you say does not even exist until an observer exists?
Also, could it be possible that what appears to you is not actually what is occurs nor is happening?
Could it be possible that you are just misunderstanding what I am saying, and meaning?
-
- Posts: 957
- Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
But are you able to think?
The question just asked for what you 'think'.
You really do appear to avoid answering just the questions, which are actually being posed to you.
Do you 'think' that training has to include a competitive aspect against other people to it?
The answer is usually in a 'Yes' or 'No' response.
Competition, like war, can provide many advantages but I question if it is an intelligent method. Competition appears to be an easy option for people to achieve progress. It is easy to choose to compete against others who are already "successful" or to destroy others "good" to improve one's reflection upon them.
When one considers my great, great, great grandmother's statement that kindness is the greatest human virtue, a corresponding measure of success may not involve a spirit of competition against other people. BUT, whatever ANY one's statement is this does not have much to do with what YOUR answer is to a yes or no question?
Why set 'expectations' on a child that there is some sort of 'failure', 'success', and/or 'reward' for just being alive?arjand wrote: ↑June 19th, 2020, 5:00 am When one denotes "good" in relation to one's self (or one's child), one makes an ethical claim by which one denotes "bad" which - when not paired with an intelligent structure/design - automatically results in a disposition towards competition.
According to Bertrand Russell ethical philosophy offers little more than self-serving argument to justify violence, which is essentially competition towards other people. He developed a disgust of all ethical claims.
Philosophers and Pigs
Russell told one colleague that the talk (On Scientific Method in Philosophy, Oxford) ‘was partly inspired by disgust at the universal outburst of “righteousness” in all nations since the war began. It seems the essence of virtue is persecution, and it has given me a disgust of all ethical notions.
...
In private, Russell referred to the essay as ‘Philosophers and Pigs’.
...
Russell’s antiwar protest was so extensive that it would cost him both his job and, for a time, his personal freedom. His theoretical antidote to the irrational, sectarian vitriol between European nations was to try to show how logic could function as an international language that could be used impartially and dispassionately to adjudicate disputes. His theoretical antidote was, in other words, analytic philosophy.
‘The truth, whatever it may be, is the same in England, France, and Germany … it is in its essence neutral’
https://aeon.co/essays/philosophy-at-wa ... l-analysis
There may be situations or environments in which competition is the most plausible driver for progress. When structured for the purpose of maximum value creation, i.e. paired with 'intelligent design', it may be a good method for progress.
What is 'success'? Is it to prevent an astroid from hitting earth, thereby to study hard and pioneer ways to secure prevention of such a potential event, resulting in improved strength and resilience for humanity? Is it to increase hapiness or intellectual satisfaction for humans in the short time that they are on earth? Is it to take part in generic human life with a certain character or disposition and maintain values that have been given by one's ancestors, religion or culture?
Perhaps only parents can make a sound attempt to answer the question and set 'expectations' before a child is grown up. The expectations, while they allow for failure, also provide a potential for reward.
What sort of 'expectations', for example, would you set up on a child?
From what I have observed, setting 'expectations' upon a child is not the "highest love" at all. But I still await for your examples of 'expectations'.
This is ambiguous is so many ways, I really have NO idea what you are actually saying here.
To just be listened to, heard, and feel accepted for who they Truly ARE. Or, in other words, to just have thee full sense of belonging.
Obviously, if one feels that they are separated from thee One, then they do not have a True sense of 'belonging'.
If you think the purpose of life, and living, is for children to fulfill their parent's 'expectations', then I think you find that that is NOT the purpose.arjand wrote: ↑June 19th, 2020, 5:00 am When the child turns out to be otherwise, the parents (or society) may not be capable of giving their "highest love" and may consider the child "failed" but perhaps from the perspective of the child, fulfillment of his/her own expectations or purpose in life may be a greater good.
Also, it appears to be a case of you just 'trying your hardest' to fulfill the expectations of your parents only here. After all, the so called "greater good" is for you to fulfill your parent's expectations, correct?
-
- Posts: 957
- Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
Parents can also say much more Truthful things, which are proactive, non-negative and constructive things, rather than that WRONGFUL and destructive phrase.
-
- Posts: 957
- Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
-
- Posts: 957
- Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
So, parents actually do, literally, produce children.
Also, is a child born consciously knowing what is right and wrong in Life, or, does a child learn from its surroundings about what is right and wrong in Life, and therefore they/we are actually products of our environment, literally biologically AND mentally?
I would not use the example of the friend because sometimes people do not want to, so call, "hurt" the feelings of their friends and so they will not openly and honestly confess that they feel ashamed of the behavior of their friend.
But I do agree that we would already be living in a much better world if we ALL were OPEN and Honest about how we feel in regards to EVERY one's behavior and misbehavior, and were Truly OPEN and Honest about EVERY thing, in fact.
Also, if a parent is ashamed of the behavior of their child, then it would be BEST to express that to the child, than to EVER say something like, "I am ashamed of 'you'". If it is the 'behavior' that someone is ashamed of, then just make that Truthfully CLEAR.
A parent could NEVER "reasonably" say, " I am ashamed of 'you' ". There is, literally, NO sound, valid, NOR logical reason to do so. Although VERY MANY parents do say that.
-
- Posts: 957
- Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
Three things here;Ecurb wrote: ↑June 19th, 2020, 6:17 pmThat's a risk in all relationships. Nonetheless, it's no reason to fail to be honest, open and forthcoming. Besides, the child will generally know what to do, especially if the parent gives him some good advice. For example:
A 5-year-old calls another child the "n" word on the playground.
Parent: "That's really rude and nasty. I'm ashamed of you! Go and apologize right now!"
1. Is the parent ashamed of the child, or of the behavior?
If it is the behavior, then tell thee Truth. Saying, " I am ashamed of 'you' " is NOT thee Truth.
2. Did the child KNOW that it was really rude and nasty, previously?
If no, then what do they have to apologize for?
3. Where did the child learn the "niger" word from exactly anyway?
Obviously, where they learned that word from was another human being, who had learned it from another human being, et cetera. BUT, where that word, and its connotation, came from originally was from an ADULT. So, children would feel far more respected if they were just taught what is right in Life ONLY.
Instead of being bombarded by ALL of what children hear and see adults say and do, and then children be expected to magically decipher and KNOW what is Right from what is Wrong in Life, it would be far more conducive if children were just continually taught what is Right in Life, without absolutely NO blame at all being put on them.
If adults swear at and degrade each other with derogatory terms, then WHY should children not be able to do the same also?
Why do children have to apologize for what they have OBVIOUSLY heard and see from adults doing?
If children did NOT see NOR hear the WRONG adults do, then children literally cannot do WRONG, and thus obviously could NOT copy.
Monkey see, monkey do.
Hear NO evil, see NO evil, speak (do) NO evil.
Children only copy and follow, they do not usually teach and instruct. Although, in order to create a Truly peaceful and loving world, children need to be listened to, and followed.
Also, and by the way, a word in itself means absolutely NOTHING. Therefore, if there is any so called "rude" or "nasty" connotation from a word, then that is the making of an individual them self. If a child repeats a word to another, then that also does not necessarily mean that the child was using, nor was even knowing the connotation that you, yourself, or others, have and use for that word. So, if a five year old child calls another child a "niger" would it be better to find out first what the five year old child thinks that word means, BEFORE they chastise, humiliate, shame, and/or punish the child? A child, especially a five year old, could perceive that word means absolutely anything, including 'friend'. So, again, and it is ONLY a suggestion, it might be better to just listen to a child FIRST, and just see what they think and understand. But, I guess if that is better or not will be NEVER KNOWN until it is tried, and tested.
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
And where does that thought originate from?
I simply wonder whether plants or for example birds bring forward their apparent beauty on the basis of what can be indicated as thoughtful consideration.
Thoughtful consideration implies the turning of facts into favorable for what can be indicated (in general) as 'beauty'.
The mystery and thus the foundation for the idea 'luck' originates in the absolute unique nature of the event.
My argument is that valuing precedes the senses. The simple logical truth that something cannot cause itself is evidence.
Valuing is the appropriation of what can be indicated as "good". When one values, one does not choose between "good" and "bad" but value.
The simple logical truth that something cannot cause itself means that the origin of valuing cannot be valued itself. That means that the senses cannot be the origin of valuing.
My argument is that time is not of substance by itself and that it can only exist as a pattern observed by an observer.
When people view time, and for example the Universe as a totality, they erroneously exclude the observer from the equation.
The One that you appear to indicate is also known as "First Cause" or "God".evolution wrote: ↑June 20th, 2020, 12:20 amWhich one, or, how does one implies a begin, and, what does 'a begin' actually mean, to you?
What does the 'it' word here refer to exactly?
If the word 'it' refers to 'a begin', then, whether 'a begin' can precede an observer is the question being asked to me, then I do not understand what the question is actually asking for.
Spinoza: The Oneness of Everything
https://medium.com/personal-growth/spin ... 1a411085c9
Aristotle: First cause, in philosophy, the self-created being (i.e., God) to which every chain of causes must ultimately go back.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/
Marcus Aurelius: The nature of the universe did once certainly before it was created, whatsoever it hath done since, deliberate and so resolve upon the creation of the world. Now since that time, whatsoever it is, that is and happens in the world, is either but a consequent of that one and first deliberation.
I wonder if these perspectives can be valid. As it appears, the error is made to exclude the observer from the equation.
A "First Cause" cannot exist because it implies a begin and a begin cannot precede an observer because a begin requires an observer.
Yes, my argument is that "the Universe" as in "a totality" did not begin until an observer introduced a begin.evolution wrote: ↑June 20th, 2020, 12:20 amAre you suggesting that the Universe did not begin until an observer came-to-be?
If yes, then, to you, thee Universe did not begin until 'you' began to observe.
Also, what are you basing the claim, "The Universe requires an observer to be possible", on exactly?
The base for the claim is that a begin cannot precede an observer because it requires an observer to be possible.
My question is whether the observer can be included into 'something'. Something implies a begin and a begin requires an observer to be possible so it appears that it is not possible to include the observer into 'something'. It would explain why - until today - the origin of consciousness is unknown.evolution wrote: ↑June 20th, 2020, 12:20 am Okay.
Are you making a "true" attempt to include the observer into something that you say does not even exist until an observer exists?
Also, could it be possible that what appears to you is not actually what is occurs nor is happening?
Could it be possible that you are just misunderstanding what I am saying, and meaning?
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
My answer as a whole was an attempt to indicate that there are at least some different possible perspectives on what is "good" by which it would be possible to answer both Yes and No to the same question.evolution wrote: ↑June 20th, 2020, 1:44 amBut are you able to think?
The question just asked for what you 'think'.
You really do appear to avoid answering just the questions, which are actually being posed to you.
Do you 'think' that training has to include a competitive aspect against other people to it?
The answer is usually in a 'Yes' or 'No' response.
So my answer was: I cannot judge on the subject and thus I cannot answer the question with the reason being that perhaps only the perspective of the parents is to be considered able to provide an answer.
When one makes the value-equation that humanity needs to perform pro-actively to secure survival, for example by pioneering ways to prevent an asteroid to strike earth or to excel in science otherwise, one could pose expectations on a child to contribute to humanity in a certain way.
A value-equation could be based on many factors, such as family heritage, societal/cultural values, religion etc.
While I understand that expectations from the perspective of the child can be (experienced as) destructive, from the perspective of the parents it may be the best that they could possibly give to their child: the potential for their greatest love.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
If the child is old enough to know what the law means "It's against the law to call someone that. Don't ever call someone a N."
If the child is old enough to know empathy " It's cruel to call someone such a bad name. Try to be kind."
Whatever age the child they are never responsible for parents' feelings of shame or any other feelings the parents the parents may have. There is no need to control and educate children's misbehaviour by shaming them, and it's also counter productive as shaming intimidates the child and makes them feel permanently guilty, or for self- defence makes a bolder child resentful and rebellious. It's also doubtful if the parents ought to express too much pride in their child's worldly success.
Telling 'the truth' to children relates to the child's ability to understand. Children's moral development proceeds in stages that relate approximately to the child's age. Even an older teenager needs positive leadership not shaming.
It is okay to tell another adult, your friend, you are ashamed of their behaviour because your friend has as much power as you have yourself. But I'd still like to reason with my friend even if my being ashamed of them is something else they might like to think on. A child by definition is not yet autonomous , autonomy is what we aim for on their behalf.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Would it be moraly right to tell young people the truth about life?
That's fair enough, although I don't think children are such fragile little flowers that their self esteem will be "poisoned" if a parent is ashamed of something they do. Nor is it "emotional blackmail" for a parent to honestly and openly tell the child how his behavior makes the parent feel. Is it Ok for a parent to express positive emotions engendered by a child's actions, but not negative ones? If so,why? Is it OK to say, "When you say you hate me, that makes me sad." Or is that "emotional blackmail", too? I don't think honestly discussing one's emotional reactions with one's child constitutes "blackmail". (For one thing,in my extensive experience with young children, they don't care all that much,)Belindi wrote: ↑June 20th, 2020, 4:46 am For a child to think his parent is ashamed of him poisons the child's self esteem.It is something the parent should never say. If the parent is actually ashamed of the child's behaviour in calling someone a N for the parent to emotionally blackmail the child is wrongful, and the parent had better have not admitted to such feelings and done their best to hide the feelings. There is no call always to be frank with the child, better be tactful and positive. In your scenario the parent should be like : " That is a bad word. Don't say that again."
If the child is old enough to know what the law means "It's against the law to call someone that. Don't ever call someone a N.....
The distinction between "I'm ashamed of you" and ""I'm ashamed of that behavior" is a false one. If a parent has a loving, open relationship with his child, the child will know what is meant. Besides, no reasonable parent would be ashamed of the behavior, which might be due to ignorance (as someone pointed out). The parent would be ashamed of the behavior in conjunction with the motives for it (eg. trying to hurt someone else out of meanness.)
In addition, families should support each other and feel pride (or shame) in the unit. That's reasonable, and educating one's child in that regard is reasonable.
Of course in my case I've never been confronted with this situation because my own son is, like Mary Poppins, practically perfect in every way.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023