FAMILY AND NATION
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
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.
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,
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
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, ubringing and education,
thus because of natural and cultural processes which cause
that adult humans are not capable of living authentically
Very young children already learn what their culture allows
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 childrens 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
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? -  By practising love;  by enlighten others and
clarifying what love means; (3) by fighting all enemies of love
(how? =>  and ).
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
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 everyones responsibility
and honesty to think and say this over and over again,
also to do this in cooperation over and over again.
Immanuel Kant wrote:
Der Mensch ist ein Tier, was eine Erziehung nötig
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