Six situations are possible relating to a father and his feelings he holds towards his wife and / or children:

1.) He holds his feelings equally to his wife and to his children.
2.) He holds his feelings more to his children than to his wife.
3.) He holds his feelings only to his children, thus not to his wife.
4.) He holds his feelings more to his wife than to his children.
5.) He holds his feelings only to his wife, thus not to his children.
6.) He holds his feelings neither to his wife nor to his children.

The same applies analogously for a mother.

In modern times that normal sequence (1 to 6) stands on its „head“ (6 to 1)

Regarding to my children, I can say that I did the parenting, child education. I think it is one of the best jobs on Earth. I would like to repeat this wonderful time of my life.

Should each adult person become a childlike person or/and the species homo sapiens become the species homo erectus or even one species of the genus australopithecus?

Of course: No.

„Man sollte nicht überrascht sein, wenn sich zeigt, wie mit fortschreitender Weltvernetzung die Symptome der Misanthropie anwachsen. Wenn Menschenfurcht eine naturwüchsige Antwort auf unwillkommene Nachbarschaft bedeutet, läßt sich angesichts der erzwungenen Fernnachbarschaften der meisten mit den meisten eine misanthropische Epidemie ohne Beispiel vorhersehen. Das wird nur jene in Erstaunen setzen, die vergessen haben, daß die Ausdrücke »Nachbar« und »Feind« herkömmlich nahezu Synonyme waren.“ - Peter Sloterdijk, Im Weltinnenraum des Kapitals, 2005, S. 220.
Translation:
„It should come as no surprise if it transpires that the symptoms of misanthropy increase with the progressive interconnection of the world. If fear of humans means a primal response to unwelcome neighbours, an unprecedented misanthropic epidemic would be the foreseeable result of the imposed long-distance vicinity between most people and most others. This should only amaze those who have forgotten that the words »neighbour« and »enemy« were traditionally almost synonymous.“ - Peter Sloterdijk, The World Interior of Capitalism, 2005, p. 141.

If a man (or a woman!) wants to rape a child and to make the rape of children „legally“, then the easiest way is that he (or she!) tells again and again the lie that „children are atheists“, because the probability that this will become a law is not low, if the situation allows it. This was the case in the so-called „comministic“ countries (especially in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia), because all people of this societies had to be „atheists“. If all people are „believed“ (!) and have to be „atheistic“, then it is very easy for the rulers and their functionaries to capture all children by removing them from their allegedly „theistic“ parents and all other allegedly „theistic“ members of their families in order to legally rape this children. The definition of „theist“ is arbitrarily dictated by the dictators, and that means everyone and anyone who does not conform to this dictatorship can be called a „theist“ and be punished by death because of „being a theist“. So the rapists of children can - and do (!) - become more and more.

This tendency exists, and it exists more than ever before.

Imagine you have the will to be free from causality. To be free from causality is impossible. Imagine a child in the phase that Freud called the „Trotzphase“ („defiant phase“), thus a child between two and four years old; many adults are of the opinion that such a child would do anything what the strong will of this child wants to do, if the parents allowed it; but the truth is that, if the parents allowed everything, the will of this child would at last fail because of the causality (perhaps this child would fall into a fountain, hit by a car, straving to death, ... and os on). Or imagine those adult humans who are destroying our planet. One can have the impression that they do what they want / what they will. But they are going to be stopped by nature itself, by causality.

The most comprehensive and strongest meaning of the word „free“ and the most comprehensive and strongest meaning of the word „unfree“ give us the sure hint that the will can merely be a relatively free will.

The complete freedom is impossible, and I used the example of the causality to make that clear. No living being, thus also no human being, is free from causality. If humans were free from causality, then they would live as they want (=> will) to live, or, for example, remain young, never be ill, never die, ... and so on, thus they would live in a so-called „paradise“ with no causality or a causality that depends on huamn beings.

Humans are relatively free when they make choices. Some choices show (them often afterwards) that humans are unfree, many choices show (them often afterwards) that humans are relatively unfree / relatively free, and some choices show (them often afterwards) that hmans are free. A free will is not possible; an unfree will can be disproved by living beings, especially - and in a relatively high degree - by human beings; so the conclusion for human beings can merely be that they have a relatively free will.

Children develop and learn to be like adults. The older a child the more similar to an adult.

If children are capable of living authentically and adults are not capable of living authentically anymore, then the difference of both is because of development and learning, upbringing and education, thus because of natural and cultural processes which cause that adult humans are not capable of living authentically anymore.

Very young children already learn what their culture allows and forbids.

They learn for example some hygienic aspects or the eating habits of their culture.

Mothers usually constrain / box their children too much because mothers are usualy too much frightened when it comes to rear, nurture, educate their children.

I am not a Freudian(ist). I am no ...(ist) at all. Freud meant his „Über-Ich“ („superego“) as the rules, principles, taboos, etc. of the (A) culture, and for a child this means the rules, principles, taboos, etc. of: (A,a) mother, father, siblings - thus family -; (A,b) kindergarteners, teachers, peer groups and other groups - thus society.I am saying: The life of a human being begins with the origin of a human being, and the origin of a human being is the zygote. Additionally the decision whether one is a male or a female has a biological basis too, and this basis is most important.

I am saying: The life of a human being begins with the origin of a human being, and the origin of a human being is the zygote. Additionally the decision whether one is a male or a female has a biological basis too, and this basis is most important.

The first „gods“ for a child are the parents of the child. Later the child learns what „gods“ mean or/and what a „god“ means. So that learning of the concept „god/gods“ by children is a part of the ontogenetic development. I think that the learning of the concept „god/gods“ by erstwhile adults, thus a part of the phylogenetic development, is similar to the ontogenetic development. Ancestors had and have been gods for a very, very, very long time.

Modernity fights the origin. So theologically said, modernity means inventing false gods (idols). But in other times and always for children gods are not an invention but a part of the development of language-based thought from the concrete to the abstract.

„Meaning“ is the central concept of semantics which is one of the most important subdiscipline of linguistics. The semantical research can be done in a synchronic and in a diachronic (etymological) way. So meaning has a history too. Animals do not reall know that a certain phenomenenon has a meaning; but they know the meaning of some phenomenons, because they have experienced them. So one has to have something like the human language in which one can analyse sound (phonemes) and the smalles forms with a meaning (morphemes), then words, sentences, texts.

Just observe little children when they learn the language of their parents or family. They learn that certain speech-forms, thus lingusitic forms, have certain meanings, either inward or outward. If these meanings are inward, then they are part of the language itself; and if they are outward, then they are part of both the language and the environment. So meanings can change (see also above: diachronic [etymological]), are in permanent contact with the environment of any language. The inward located meanings have a more subjective or „individual“ character, and the outward located meanings have a more objective character, and both are in permanent contact.

Education is not possible without using rationality. Children use rationality as well and start educating others already very early.

The evolution (if we can use that word) of love is not only a way to perpetuate the human species but also to save it. We can observe this process in those families where parents protect their children as much as it is necessary for the children’s development.

Love is needed for both phylogenesis and ontogenesis. Without love there is no evolution, at least not for „higher“ living beings. The „higher“ the living beings are, the more love they need.

We should have both a realistic and an idealistic interpretation of evolution. Power is always present, but love is not. So, it is more necessary to support, to demand, to premote love. How should we do this? - [1] By practising love; [2] by enlighten others and clarifying what love means; (3) by fighting all enemies of love (how? => [1] and [2]).

You can find the most lack of love in materialistic/hedonistic times where the individual coolness is a fashion and mostly nothing else than hidden weakness because of the lack of love.

No consideration of antagonism between power and love!

Loveable people can be powerful, powerful people can be loveable.

But there are many (too many?) people who have diceded upon only one of the two.

To me, a basic polarity of emotion(s) is the thymos-eros-polarity. It is not mentioned in the figure above, but likely could be found in the „rage“ realm (see in the figure above) and „love“ between two realms (see in the figure above). So, to me, thymos and eros could be two of more or just the two emotionally basic constitutions.

The so-called „values“ can be used/misused by almost everyone. So, for example, responsibility, honesty, cooperation can be misused by, for example, leftists, centrists, rightists. Think of the current leftist dictatorship of „political correctness“ which requires from the children to think and say, for example, that „non-whites are good“ and or even because „whites are evil“, that it is everyone’s „responsibility“ and „honesty“ to think and say this over and over again, also to do this in „cooperation“ over and over again.

„Der Mensch ist ein Tier, was eine Erziehung nötig hat.“ **

My translation: „The human is an animal that needs an education.“

Communists are always saying that they want to „make the world a better place“ (**) and that therefore „adult-education seminars“ (**) and many similar things are needed (also the belief in the false conclusion „God is impossible“ [**]), thus: they want even more dictatorship.

Currently, liberalists and communists are in the same globalistic boat called „humanitarianism“ - not knowing what „humanitarianism“ means, what „humanity“ means, what „human“ means. They are confusing „good“ and „bad“ („evil“), „true“ and „false“ („wrong“), „objective“ and „subjective“, „ideal“ and „real“, „possible“ and „impossible“, „progressive“ and „regressive“.

- Register -