Philosophers and Children

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Most of the great and significant philosophers since Descartes were childless - if not genetically, then practically, they played no role in raising their children. Descartes himself had an illegitimate daughter - besides that, the list of childless encompasses almost all of the modern philosophical greats. Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein. Against that you can balance Hegel, Marx, Russell and Heidegger, and there are probably more arguments over whether to include any of the second list (excepting maybe Hegel) in “philosophical greats” than the first list.

I’m not arguing for any causal link besides the pressure of time (kids take a lot of it, as does being a leading figure in almost anything) and the sort of personality that gets a long way in philosophy perhaps not being amenable to standard family life. While Hume would by all accounts have probably made a good husband, Nietzsche would almost certainly have been insufferable, and Wittgenstein, ah, wasn’t the marrying kind.

Speaking from my exerience, having children affected my outlook on life, convictions and expectations of how humans think and feel about other beings, of the hardness of the boundary between Self and Other. A seemingly facile statement about self-interest being paramount in all living beings takes on a different aspect, and it’s only by contortions of genetic reductionism that people can explain why it is hardwired to be in one’s self-interest to promote one’s children - but that isn’t what is meant by the atomism of many philosophers on the subject. There is an aspect of interpretation that is fundamentally different; maybe veering dangerously close to phenomenology, there is an experiential change. At least, many people I’ve spoken to and read have described how having children forced them to pull their head out of their arse and get on with real life.

I’m not arguing that everyone should breed, or that it’s a definitive act or in some way imparts additional value to ones thoughts and desires. But given that it’s such a large part of human experience, a necessary one for its continued existence, is it not strange that so much of what we think and so many of the terms in which we define and conduct our discussions were created and formulated by people who never experienced it? Is it maybe a variable that should be considered in the study of a body of philosophical work - just as we often consider the age, social background and historical/philosophical milieu of a thinker to place his ideas in context*?

[size=66]* I left out “sex”, and used “his” consciously, in acknowledgement of another underrepresented majority… [/size]

2

No doubt having a child does change your perspective greatly, as I am sure any personal life event with similar far-reaching implications or emotional attachments would. Falling in love, losing a loved one or family member or close friend would rank up there as well as life-changing events which probably alter perspectives a great deal.

How much of the change upon having children do you think is a strictly biological result of new hormones, chemicals, mammalian instincts, versus a more “phenomenological” or higher-level consciousness change based solely on the mental realisations regarding the existence of a new life that is made from you and who is wholly dependent on you? Or maybe it is hard to separate out the causes for the changes, but it would seem that careful thought might reveal just where the primary impetus for change in perspective and “pulling one’s head out of one’s arse” stems from.

If I had to wager a guess I would say it depends on the individual and his sensitivity and level of consciousness, also his emotional awareness and personal honesty with himself.

3

Absolutely. Many of them knew of the pain of love (although Kant and Spinoza I don’t know of) and the loss of loved ones; important and character-changing events. Fewer, that of children.

Well, hormonal rushes last a few days, maybe a few weeks; it may be that they flip a switch, but there are no currents of chemicals flowing through every parent that don’t appear in non-parents. In any case, the reason behind the change is not particularly relevant; whether the source of a change is purely mental or chemically-mediated mental doesn’t greatly matter, unless you wish to induce it or suppress it. Accepting the source whatever it may be, is it not a change that is common to much of humanity, but underrepresented in philosophical thought?

I’d suspect that philosophers are more prone to be more conscious/conscientious and self-aware than average, although I don’t know.

4

Maybe just being around such a completely innocent and malleable lifeform is so humbling an experience as to force the philosopher to contemplate the possibilities of his own errors and ignorances.

5

I agree. Children have that effect on me now from time to time, and I don’t even have one of my own yet. It’s funny and interesting to watch someone perceive and attempt to understand something for the first time – it can give you perspective as to how much your own perception has changed.

I remember reading something by Nietzsche in which he basically said a person’s philosophy often changes with his health, or quality of living. I think that is why children seem so adept at helping older generations understand their own biases and prejudices.

6

Yes… One of the most intense insights I get with my (young) kids is how much of a worldview is constructed from received information and built up by experience, and how the two influence each other.

In addition, with toddlers, you experience first-hand the struggle for meaning in language, learning how to communicate and to understand. And what’s really important in communication, as opposed to idle mental fancy.

7

  1. Superiors realize life is agony in a muculent cesspool. Propagating the vicious cycle is both obtuse and selfish; particularly with the contemporaneous overpopulation problems.

  2. The goal of the true philosopher is to transcend the shackles of the mortal coil; even if they haven’t yet cognized it. They realize changing diapers and attending PTA meetings wouldn’t facilitate this attainment.

  3. Marriage is a societal snare and distraction existing to impede the feebleminded from attainment of life’s true purpose.

  4. Females are solely useful for ‘satisfaction’; all other uses are analogous to marriage.

  5. Axiom 2 can procure an entire book exhausting it’s elaboration, but this shall have to suffice.

8

O_H, I am childless, but I have had the privilege of being able to spend much time with children. You have identified two of the most important things we can learn from them. I have learned as much philosophy from children as I have from books.

9

I am childless too. Hmm…Might be onto somthing here.