Since the dawn of human civilization, there have been countless descriptions of maternal love in various languages, and many writers and historical celebrities have also expressed their views on this. I don’t doubt that most of them come from true feelings and are a simple confession. . But when it becomes a representative of correct values and mainstream ideology, it is still too flooded and overinterpreted, or, in other words, it is used, just like elementary school students who make up non-existent stories and situations according to the model essay, so as to to show the greatness of a mother. So later, I can no longer distinguish whether it is an emotion or a morality, because from an emotional point of view, my feelings are not consistent with the mainstream publicity, but I have developed a bad habit of being critical. , I always hope that my mother can be as good to me as others write in the composition.
At this point, I think we should talk about mother love as a pure emotion and mother love as social ideology or morality, because there are still some differences between the two. The concept of mother love and family affection in our minds is different from ours. society, that is, our cultural practices, maternal love is not only a biological fact, like the love for offspring that is common in the animal kingdom, but also a concept that determines to a large extent our attitude.
For example, the way the Spartans treat their children is to put them in a school-like institution for collective training, and even the citizens of the city-state don't know who their children are, and the way they treat the sick and weak children is also cruel, and they will throw away. In Plato's ideal country, children should also be separated from their parents. Because in their concept, children are the property of the city-state, they regard the city-state as a kind of existence higher than the individual, and the importance of the individual is below the city-state, which is completely contrary to the modern society's concept of the state as a tool for individuals to seek happiness . Many examples can be cited for this. For example, in the early primitive society, when human beings had not yet formed the marriage system, the right to belong to children also belonged to the tribe. Another example is in Nazi Germany, where the interests of the country are above everything else, and some people even take the initiative to demand the execution of their mentally retarded sons, which is also allowed, but selfishly preventing children from going to the battlefield will be arrested and despised by society. In ancient China, there are many examples of righteous killing of relatives, just like the origin of the idiom of righteousness killing relatives, it is also said that the Mo family alone killed their own children for the laws of Qin. In the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period, some people flattered the monarch and did not hesitate to kill their sons for food.
These examples illustrate the fact that the kinship that we generally believe is not innate, it is the result of the combined action of the historical evolution of human civilization and the progress of the concept of development, and biological kinship is only a foundation. Just as Western societies do not place as much emphasis on children as in Eastern societies, this is because their culture tends to be individualistic (the result of the Reformation and the development of capitalism). At the economic level, the linking effect of kinship has been weakened. In contrast, Eastern nations that value family relationships (family and clan), such as us, are particularly superstitious about family relationships, that is, blood ties, and the boundaries between individuals are not clear. And it pays more attention to the inheritance and continuation of history and customs, that is, closer social ties, or a collectivist culture. The reason is that from the perspective of belief and value system, this is their world view and life value, because there is no God higher than the world, the community of the ethnic group has become the highest authority and personal value support. In addition, it is also used as a social system that can sustain one's own survival, such as the need for old age. Evidence of this tendency to attach great importance to kinship and even superstition can be found in slang words, such as the familiar ones, such as: "A tiger father has no dog, but his father must have his son", and another such as: Tiger Poison does not eat children, and grandparents have no heart. Of course, there are a lot of allusions and historical stories, so I won't give examples here. I cite these sentences as the ones we hear a lot because I think they reflect a "racist" worldview. For example, the first two sentences actually say that a person's achievement depends entirely on their parents. A person's nature and abilities are genetically determined. Of course, this view is very reasonable. Whether from experience or current scientific research, such as current social psychology research, it is found that genes account for about half of the factors that determine a person's fate. But I think most people hold an absolute view, which is also determined by the historically stable social structure. The family a person is born into is determined throughout his life, and it will almost certainly be the same as his parents. Because there was no public education in the past, and the poor who wanted to pass the imperial examinations had no advantage over the rich children, because they couldn't afford a gentleman, let alone a good gentleman. Moreover, the number of official positions in the previous society was very limited, because there was no other way to suppress commerce, and the landlord class had stable income due to monopoly of land, and there was almost no risk. It was difficult for the poor to become landlords. Even before the reform and opening up, the whole society was still a kind of feudal-like system, and even worse, there was no freedom, as Zhang Ailing said, only
All in all, as mentioned above, I want to explain why human beings value family affection, not only because of innate biological instincts, but also because of social institutions and moral factors. Especially after the emergence of the marriage system, the family has become a basic structure of society, and it has become a The personal sanctuary has become an economic and emotional support, which further strengthens the role of kinship in interpersonal relationships. In fact, from the history analyzed above, it can be seen that family affection will still be flexible in the future. Although the family has advantages as a structure to maintain individual survival, it is still not the only one, and can even be replaced as long as conditions permit. For example, imagine that if artificial intelligence machines develop to a certain extent in the future, there will be a "perfect mother" that better meets the needs of young children, then it is not impossible for children to be brought up from their families. Now it is possible to produce babies through unrelated wombs. In the future, it may go a step further without the need for human bodies to breed babies. In the future, DNA can even be synthesized and modified artificially, just like the current PS, and no one will get the final effect. picture. Judging from the current speed of scientific and technological development and no sign of stopping, such a situation is entirely possible. In fact, many people in advanced Western countries have already thought about it from the concept. They no longer want children, or adopt other people's children, because they no longer pay attention to the continuation of DNA, and their self-identity has gone beyond the biological level. For example, some writers and scholars love their knowledge or works more than anything else, and they care about whether their knowledge and wisdom can be passed on, not whether there is a child with half of his DNA. The human self is not only biologically determined, but more self-identified, just like some people are only good to themselves, some people are also good to their children, some people are good to their friends, and some people Being good to their own country actually reflects the scope of their own self. For example, people who are only good to themselves may not feel bad when their children are injured, while for those who are only good to their friends, the country's comfort survives. Maybe he doesn't care that much either.
Forgetting so far, writing it here is closer to what my title wants to express. I feel that the so-called maternal love cannot be considered a kind of selflessness, but is still a kind of selfishness. It is only because the mother has expanded her self to cover the child, so it gives the illusion of selflessness. Just like in the movie, mothers do not hesitate to mutilate the lives of others in order to exonerate their mentally retarded children. Can you say that mothers are selfless? If selflessness is a virtue or a personality, then mothers should be consistent with others in every aspect. reflected in the relationship. If you see a mother who treats her children well and sacrifices herself, can you think she is great, and if you think so, does what you call noble mean that a person can harm the interests of others for his own purposes? , as long as she is for the child, it seems to be forgiven. I feel that in this kind of morality, there is also a tolerance for one's own immorality, as if maintaining a freedom to infringe on others for the sake of one's own children. This is still extremely selfish.
In fact, this movie just exposes the essence of maternal love. Mothers risk their lives to exonerate their children, just so that their children can live better, but what I want to ask is, why do mothers want to let their children live better , if it's out of pure love, then why isn't she being so nice to other people. In fact, it is easy to explain from evolutionary psychology. The mother is for the child, just because the child has half of her genes, and she just wants to continue her own genes. To be more precise, it is genes that continue themselves through organisms. We are just tools or machines for genes to continue themselves. The reason why genes allow us to love our children and sacrifice ourselves is that children will have a longer life cycle in the future. long-term preservation of genes. Gene is just a kind of information. It doesn't care about its storage medium, that is, organisms. We are just their vehicles. If we have no use value, we should abolish it. Reflected in ourselves, it is self-sacrifice, that is, loving our offspring more than ourselves. This can also explain why there is the phenomenon of intergenerational parenting. The reason why grandparents love their grandchildren is because they have a better chance to carry on their genes, because from the genetic probability, there are four points between two generations. One of the genetic similarities. In other words, grandchildren or grandchildren inherit a quarter of the genes of grandparents, grandparents, and grandparents, and this value is accumulated on the basis of human kinship. That is, our genetic similarities with others are gradually estranged according to kinship. This also explains why there are distant and distant relationships, why there is racism and discrimination between various groups.
Our collective consciousness is influenced by experience, or our cultural psychology is shaped by various concepts and stories in history. For example, in our traditional culture, patriarchy is more important than women, because in our traditional society, the status of women has always been Very low, even used as a tool. And the reason for the low status of women, in addition to the physical structure of women, is also because our culture assumes that heredity is determined by men, and women are just a receptor, or a tool like gestation. Today, such jokes can still be seen reflecting the unconsciousness of this kind of patriarchy, such as treating sperm as oneself and thinking that the beginning of one's life begins when entering the vagina, but according to current scientific understanding, a person It is produced by the combination of the chromosomes of the parents. The sperm and egg carry the chromosomes of the male and female, that is, the cells that carry the genes, and then merge to form a complete person. Why is it that so few people regard the egg as the initial stage of themselves, or androcentrism. In fact, the discrimination against women in our traditional society started from a wrong concept. This also reflects why people are gradually giving up gender discrimination. This is not only a change in social structure, but also the result of scientific development. In the final analysis, the fundamental progress of our society is still derived from scientific discoveries, which will change our Views, changing my morals, changing our attitudes about things, it's just that progress is slow.
One thing I can't figure out is why the theory of evolution has been published from the 19th century to the present for more than 100 years, and many scientific research results have been published continuously, but the response from the social and moral level has been so slow. This is probably It reflects the inherent limitation of human beings as an animal, that is, once a certain attitude is formed, it is difficult to change, so there is a need for renewal. Jobs’s so-called death is the best invention of life, which is what I understand it to mean.
When it comes to the title of this article, why "family affection" is the dirtiest thing in the world, I think so, because according to current scientific research, the family affection manifested by human beings is only a biological instinct, and human beings are very fond of their own children. Having family affection does not mean that he is not selfish, but merely an expression of self-expansion, and we are accustomed to use the name of selflessness for this superficial "altruism", and even attach a moral judgment such as greatness and nobility. The definition of self in our modern society is defined in terms of biological individuals, that is, as long as our altruistic behavior is towards others, whether they are children or strangers, the same moral judgments are imposed. But this is actually problematic and a tarnishing of moral standards. According to the common sense of ethics, morality should be consistent, there should be no preference for one over the other, and there should be a kind of self-restraint or transcendence, that is, when making moral behaviors, one should give up part of the self-interest. Although altruistic is inherent in our nature, our altruism is more morally meaningful when it is embodied in groups or others with whom we are more distant. And being good to one's own children is an instinct inherited from all living things. A person is born with it, and it is not enough to make such a positive moral judgment. From a social perspective, if the system and morality evolved from history have turned family affection into an unconscious emotion, it exists naturally like air, and everyone obeys it. Of course, it is only natural, then this kind of family affection will naturally exist. Behavioural performance is also not sufficient for positive moral judgment, it is like a system.
Finally, a story came to my mind about Wittgenstein: "When someone once said to him that GE Moore's childlike innocence was praiseworthy, Wittgenstein objected. "I don't understand," he said, "unless a Children deserve praise too. Because the simplicity you are talking about is not the simplicity that one struggles for, but the natural freedom from temptation. "
Writing here, I found that some concepts still seem to be not clear enough. For example, in fact, love is not so good for positive moral judgment. After all, love is for reproduction. But our culture still celebrates love, even indiscriminately. But I feel that the true love that is laudable goes beyond this level, that is to say, it does not aim at marriage or reproduction, or even sex, but is just a kind of mutual appreciation, giving and connection. But the problem is that such love often breaks through the definition of love and becomes a rational type of love. Okay, I'm a little tired.
The title should be changed to, "The Hypocritical Side of Family Love", which may be better.
That's not going to change
View more about Mother reviews
