|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
Business & Finance Resource Center The Radical Academy Blogs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Posted November 10, 2006
The Academy received the following inquiry from Felix who lives in Puerto Rico: Felix: These quotes are from your essay "A Brief On Perennial Philosophy"; I have some questions about them. 1. Quote: "We are social beings. The tendency to perfection brings us into contact with others. We establish families, the first society in the order of time to ensure the continuation of the human race and provide us with personal and cultural advantages." Felix: What is the definition of a family, according to perennial philosophy? Is it a man and a woman? And if not necessarily, then what do you mean by "the continuation of the human race" and what are the necessary and sufficient conditions to meet this criteria of continuation? If a man and a woman is the radical definition of a family by perennial philosophy, then society does have, in a sense, a definite structure in its matrix (or at least on the family issue). Dr. Dolhenty: This is, believe it or not, a complex matter, especially in today's society. There has been a good deal of talk out there about the so-called "nuclear" family -- that is, Mom, Dad, and 2.5 Children -- as if this was the only way the term "family" should be defined. Much of this has been directed toward a political controversy involving the so-called "gay marriage" issue. The term "family" as used by Classified Realists (or the perennial philosophy) does not have a specific, determinant, absolute, one-meaning-only type of characteristic. It is a term which can have multiple meanings depending upon the context in which it is used and how it is used in that context. The Webster's New World Dictionary that I commonly use has seven definitions for the term "family." The first one is: "All the people living in the same house." This is certainly at odds with the "nuclear" family definition. It then goes on to say (second definition): (a) a group consisting of the two parents and their children, (b) the children of the same parents, or (c) one's husband (or wife) and children. Definition three says a family is a "group of people related by blood or marriage; relatives. And it continues on from there right down to how the term "family" is used in the science of biology (definition seven). We humans can "form" families in a variety of ways. The "nuclear" family concept, while valuable in certain contexts, cannot represent the whole range of how we use the term. What about a widow with four children? What about a widower with four children? What about a husband and wife who cannot themselves produce children and choose not to adopt them? Are they families or not? Moreover, consider the first definition: "All the people living in the same house." Nothing is noted there regarding kinship by blood or marriage. Furthermore, I do not have any immediate family currently living. I do, however, have many very close friends here in my community who also do not have an immediate family and we spend holidays together, frequently socialize together, and look out and care for one another in a "family" way. Can we consider ourselves a "family"? Why not? Regarding the "reproductive" issue (the continuation of the human race), most human beings are naturally motivated to form families for the purpose of producing and caring for children. But, as can be seen by the various meanings of the term "family" cited above, this is not a "necessary" condition for the use of the term "family" in a social context. While most families may be formed to "ensure the continuation of the human race," families may also be formed or even "accidentally brought about" for other purposes, such as friendship, companionship, and love. There is, in my view of Classical Realism (or the perennial philosophy), no fundamental requirement that a family consist of a man and a woman, either with or without children. You can have a single-parent family, a polygamous family, a family of friends, an adoptive family, and, yes, even a monastic family within a religious order or community. Nature has motivated us to be social beings and to find our personal "perfections" within social relationships. There is, however, no specific, absolute "matrix" (or blueprint or design) as to how this is to be realized in the world. The term "family" is very general and one will have to look at the context in which it is being used to determine what it means in any circumstance. 2. Quote: "No determined form of society is established by nature, and different forms can be constructed according to the needs of the people or of the times." Felix: : I thought you said that the family was driven by our tendencies or natural desire for perfection and therefore nature (our nature) establishes the family? According to you, if this is right, nature does dictates a specific form of society for its continuation and betterment. I am not sure in what sense you meant to say this but if it is in the same sense as in the first quote (meaning not a man and a woman necessarily), then you are a relativist for political purposes and you are making no sense at all. (I hope not.) Best regards, Felix Dr. Dolhenty: The above quote represents the view of Classical Realism as I understand it. While human beings are by nature "social," the specific "structure" any society develops is a matter of time, place, or, one can say, culture and history. Our "nature" motivates us to form societies of "some form," and it also motivates us to form families of "some form." We, as human beings, are "perfected" (that is, our needs and ends are met) within societies of some form, including families, political organizations, religious groups, hobby clubs, and so on. To do so is a "natural" tendency built into our very being. The fact that "nature" motivates us to form societies and families and so forth does not mean that we are provided with a specific "blueprint" or "flow chart" as to how these phenomena are to be organized or structured. So, "nature" does not "dictate" a specific form of society. Nor, for that matter, does it "dictate" a specific form of family. And, yes, there is a "relativity" here. I am not sure what you mean when you say "then you are a relativist for political purposes" or how that relates to the issues discussed here. The terms "relativism" and "absolutism" have been so misused lately, it's hard to know what anyone means when they throw the terms around. After all, everything in the universe is "relative" to something else and, even in the realm of ethics or moral philosophy, there is a "relativism" which is quite rational, intelligible, and appropriate. Please note that Aristotle, that most profound of Classical Realists, defined "virtue" as the "relative" mean between the extremes of excess and defect. So, the particular structure a society or political entity or family takes may be "relative" to the physical environment, historical antecedents, common or disparate ancestry, emotional characteristics of the group or tribe, and this and that, and more this and that, too many different properties to even mention here. It is, as I've tried to illustrate, a very complex matter. All human beings, in the view of Classical Realism, share a common human nature. How that human nature is "expressed" or "realized," however, can be as varied as the snowflakes that fall in a winter storm. And best regards to you, Felix, and thanks for submitting your questions. Jonathan Dolhenty,
Ph.D. Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book... Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Magazine...
|
||||
|
Ask the Academy Main Index |
||||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, 2002-03, 2004-05, & 2006 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.