Some thoughts that followed my reading of The Family and Society by Leonid Zhukhovitsky, a book the previous post was about —
In the book, the author talks extensively about love but hasn't gone much into the technicalities of romantic love and merely says:
None of us knows what kind of force, regardless of all reason, suddenly ties us to one particular person, and nobody can say why sometimes, equally unexpectedly, the magnet that attracted one body to another loses its pull.
Well, now we do have good enough clue about it. We know that romantic love is mating drive, and what hormones cause it, et cetera. That doesn't undermine the book's message though; but I think now that we can explain romantic love scientifically, and thereby more meaningfully, it's a good idea to do so whenever we write on this topic, because otherwise there's a lot of scope for misinterpretation, the word "love" being used for varied feelings. I have written a series of posts explaining romantic love and related issues here.
Another excerpt from the book:
The better we live the easier it is to divorce from the material point of view... Previously, it was possible to get divorced but there was no place to go. It is easier today—they are building a lot of new flats. We have become more cultural and better educated, and we are therefore more demanding of the person we live with. A lack of common interests is a widespread and sufficient reason for divorce; we do not want to lead a boring life!
I totally agree with that. And the solution the author prescribes in the last paragraph of the book is:
Both love and misfortune enter our lives unannounced, and it is not within our power to stop them. But it is totally up to us whether or not we meet them without losing our dignity, conscience and humaneness. Experience shows that family catastrophes cannot be resolved by pressurizing—evil feelings won't help; it is only like smashing your fist against the wall that has appeared between people. On the other hand, kindness will carefully and tenderly dismantle it brick by brick.
That's also right. But it shows that the book is not philosophically rigorous. This is not a criticism of the book, and doesn't invalidate the book's core message. The book belongs to a relatively simpler time (1990). In today's times I think there's only one real solution: Existential wisdom. Meaning, understanding life and existence through philosophical development.
In earlier times social conditions were different, and the evil influences (like mass media) too weren't around, and traditional wisdom was prevalent. Religion, however flawed, was much better source of moral education than mass media which is the primary vector of cultural education today. Earlier, even in imperfect marriages people didn't think of divorce because so was their conditioning. It was wrong! And large families and culturally allocated roles and duties provided people meaning despite lack of passion in marriage. Now the world has changed. We neither have that binding social structure (large family, and the traditional/cultural roles and duties), nor have right moral guidance since cultural education is coming from mass media. Both together (among other factors) make sure that people don't behave in a way they did in earlier times in dealing with family issues.
In such a scenario, the only solution I see is for people to do their own homework. Understand what society is from bottom up. Understand the importance of family in relation to human nature. Earlier this exercise was optional. Now it is mandatory.
In the book, the author talks extensively about love but hasn't gone much into the technicalities of romantic love and merely says:
None of us knows what kind of force, regardless of all reason, suddenly ties us to one particular person, and nobody can say why sometimes, equally unexpectedly, the magnet that attracted one body to another loses its pull.
Well, now we do have good enough clue about it. We know that romantic love is mating drive, and what hormones cause it, et cetera. That doesn't undermine the book's message though; but I think now that we can explain romantic love scientifically, and thereby more meaningfully, it's a good idea to do so whenever we write on this topic, because otherwise there's a lot of scope for misinterpretation, the word "love" being used for varied feelings. I have written a series of posts explaining romantic love and related issues here.
Another excerpt from the book:
The better we live the easier it is to divorce from the material point of view... Previously, it was possible to get divorced but there was no place to go. It is easier today—they are building a lot of new flats. We have become more cultural and better educated, and we are therefore more demanding of the person we live with. A lack of common interests is a widespread and sufficient reason for divorce; we do not want to lead a boring life!
I totally agree with that. And the solution the author prescribes in the last paragraph of the book is:
Both love and misfortune enter our lives unannounced, and it is not within our power to stop them. But it is totally up to us whether or not we meet them without losing our dignity, conscience and humaneness. Experience shows that family catastrophes cannot be resolved by pressurizing—evil feelings won't help; it is only like smashing your fist against the wall that has appeared between people. On the other hand, kindness will carefully and tenderly dismantle it brick by brick.
That's also right. But it shows that the book is not philosophically rigorous. This is not a criticism of the book, and doesn't invalidate the book's core message. The book belongs to a relatively simpler time (1990). In today's times I think there's only one real solution: Existential wisdom. Meaning, understanding life and existence through philosophical development.
In earlier times social conditions were different, and the evil influences (like mass media) too weren't around, and traditional wisdom was prevalent. Religion, however flawed, was much better source of moral education than mass media which is the primary vector of cultural education today. Earlier, even in imperfect marriages people didn't think of divorce because so was their conditioning. It was wrong! And large families and culturally allocated roles and duties provided people meaning despite lack of passion in marriage. Now the world has changed. We neither have that binding social structure (large family, and the traditional/cultural roles and duties), nor have right moral guidance since cultural education is coming from mass media. Both together (among other factors) make sure that people don't behave in a way they did in earlier times in dealing with family issues.
In such a scenario, the only solution I see is for people to do their own homework. Understand what society is from bottom up. Understand the importance of family in relation to human nature. Earlier this exercise was optional. Now it is mandatory.
0 Comment(s):
Post a Comment
Please preview and double-check your comment before posting. Use proper formatting, i.e. do not use all caps or all small letters, no short forms like cud, dnt, lyk, b4 etc., use right punctuation,.. or the comment won't be approved. View full comment policy.