Fundamentalism and free societies

[kerry]

Just had an intriguing thought as I was grading a student paper. To what extent does free thinking depend upon a rejection of traditional family. When I look at Islam, I see very few unmarried men. When I think about the great minds of Western society, I see lots of unmarried men: Plato, Epicurus, Augustine, Aquinas, da Vinci, Copernicus, Servetus, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, Spinoza, Locke, Shakespeare, Pascal, Smith, Hume, Franklin, Kant, Schopenhauer, Bentham, Voltaire, Kierkegaard, Thoreau, Nietzsche,Wittgenstein, Foucault. (Tom Paine was married twice for short periods but had no children and lived most of his life single)
Hobbes, Hegel and Marx were all married and their philosophies have been interpreted in authoritarian ways. (so has Plato's and he was unmarried)

But, I'm wondering whether the simple act of ruling over a woman in a marriage tends to lead to authoritarian style societies and this tendency is not followed by men who have never had the experience of ruling over a woman and children in a marriage? Or, to put it another way, does a free society depend on a rejection of patriarchal marriage? The West found 'freedom' not by a direct rejection of patriarchy but by accident of the fact that many of it's great thinkers chose to remain single?

The issue could also be framed in another way. Gay people, because of their tendency to live outside of the patriarchal family are a major source of our freedoms.

[pj67coll]

Originally Posted by kerry

Just had an intriguing thought as I was grading a student paper. To what extent does free thinking depend upon a rejection of traditional family. When I look at Islam, I see very few unmarried men. When I think about the great minds of Western society, I see lots of unmarried men: Plato, Epicurus, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Locke, Smith, Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Foucault. (Tom Paine was married twice for short periods but had no children and lived most of his life single)
Hobbes, Hegel and Marx were all married and their philosophies have been interpreted in authoritarian ways. (so has Plato's and he was unmarried)

But, I'm wondering whether the simple act of ruling over a woman in a marriage tends to lead to authoritarian style societies and this tendency is not followed by men who have never had the experience of ruling over a woman and children in a marriage? Or, to put it another way, does a free society depend on a rejection of patriarchal marriage? The West found 'freedom' not by a direct rejection of patriarchy but by accident of the fact that many of it's great thinkers chose to remain single?

Interesting. I think it's less a rejection of traditional family, as traditional philosophy (religion). Single folks perhaps just have more time on their hands to think of stuff than people caught up in the mire of "traditional" life, you know, family, home, responsibility etc.

- Peter.

[junqueyardjim]

Maybe we have no record of a "marriage", but I bet most of them were fathers. Most of them I think. Does that mean they didn't want to rule over women? I wouldn't want to guess on that one.

[Kuan]

Kerry, who would want to marry Kant, Nietszche, Schopenhauer, Locke, Hume? Can you imagine the treatise one would have to sit through during Schopenhauer's wedding ceremony?

[kerry]

Originally Posted by junqueyardjim

Maybe we have no record of a "marriage", but I bet most of them were fathers. Most of them I think. Does that mean they didn't want to rule over women? I wouldn't want to guess on that one.

I know Augustine and Descartes had kids out of wedlock but I don't think either were involved in the raising of those children or in the ruling of their mothers in a family. I'm not aware that any of the others fathered children. I think it's also worthy of note that both Hume and Smith were raised by their mothers, without a father. Don't know about the others.
I think part of this thought may have been spurred by a conversation with my dad last week about being a parent. I came to parenting later in life and one of the big problems I see in it, is the tendency of a child to accept the authority of the parent. I think it's pretty easy for a parent/child to buy into the whole business of authority as a result of this experience.

[jlomon]

I think you'd need to get a better look at the upbringing of Plato, Epicurus, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Locke, Smith, Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer, Voltaire, Nietzsche, and Foucault to make a better determination on this front. They may not have married, but watching how their fathers related to their mothers would have been far more formative in developing attitudes towards women and families than the fact that none of them married as adults. By the time we're adults, we are pretty much who we're going to be. The damage was already done by age 5 or so.

[kerry]

Originally Posted by Kuan

Kerry, who would want to marry Kant, Nietszche, Schopenhauer, Locke, Hume? Can you imagine the treatise one would have to sit through during Schopenhauer's wedding ceremony?

From a woman's point of view, I can imagine Hume being a good f**k but I agree on the others.

[kerry]

Originally Posted by jlomon

I think you'd need to get a better look at the upbringing of Plato, Epicurus, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Locke, Smith, Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer, Voltaire, Nietzsche, and Foucault to make a better determination on this front. They may not have married, but watching how their fathers related to their mothers would have been far more formative in developing attitudes towards women and families than the fact that none of them married as adults. By the time we're adults, we are pretty much who we're going to be. The damage was already done by age 5 or so.

I know something about some of them. Smith, Hume, and Nietzsche had no fathers in their lives. Schopenhauer's dad committed suicide and his mother didn't like him.

[pj67coll]

Originally Posted by kerry

I know something about some of them. Smith, Hume, and Nietzsche had no fathers in their lives. Schopenhauer's dad committed suicide and his mother didn't like him.

Just how many of the philosophers were massively important in the creation of "western freedoms" and how many current authoritarian regimes are that way because of religion rather than "family". I'd hardly consider the Facist, Nazi and communist regimes to be non authoritatian but they were as much a product of western thought as any free society.

- Peter.

[kerry]

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Just how many of the philosophers were massively important in the creation of "western freedoms" and how many current authoritarian regimes are that way because of religion rather than "family". I'd hardly consider the Facist, Nazi and communist regimes to be non authoritatian but they were as much a product of western thought as any free society.

- Peter.

My view depends on the fact that 'religion' is not some independent social factor but in many important ways, is just an outgrowth of certain views of family life. For instance, the 'authority of the text' in western monotheisms is just a disguised statement about the authority of the patriarchal father. The interpreters of the text are male and the 'religion' is a social method of enforcing the power of the patriarchal father. This view accounts for why all those monotheistic religions are strongly anti-homosexual.
As to which of those thinkers are important in developing 'Western' freedoms, I'd definitely include Descartes, Locke, Smith, Hume, Kant, Voltaire, Paine, Nietzsche, Foucault, exactly the people who are hated by Muslim fundamentalists.

In other words, I'm suggesting that the fact that all these thinkers denied the authority of the text may be related to the fact that they also denied themselves the role of the patriarchal father.

[MS Fowler]

Kerry,
You do come up with some interesting and original ideas
I think you'd have to pursue the reverse of your statement--look at great minds who were also married men, and women. Luther, Calvin and the American, Jonathan Edwards, all come to mind as great minds who were married. Does that promote your argument?

[kerry]

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Kerry,
You do come up with some interesting and original ideas
I think you'd have to pursue the reverse of your statement--look at great minds who were also married men, and women. Luther, Calvin and the American, Jonathan Edwards, all come to mind as great minds who were married. Does that promote your argument?

Well I certainly wouldn't put Luther and Calvin in the class of people who were in favor of free societies. (and I also wouldn't put Plato and Augustine in there either). In some ways, Calvin seems to me to be the quintessential patriarch in his murdering of Servetus. Granted, Luther and Calvin did the West a service by breaking from Roman Catholicism but it doesn't seem to me that it was done with any deliberate attempt at individual freedom.
Not sure about Jonathan Edwards.

[kerry]

Bachelorhood and its Discontents

http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/22098/sec_id/22098

Doesn't address the overall social effect of societies constructed by bachelor intellectuals.

"To what extent does free thinking depend upon a rejection of traditional family."

I'm not convinced this is causal, is it possible that "free thinking" and the rejection of traditional family are just correlated? It seems more likely that some more basis characteristic of a given society could affect both of these attributes. Just a thought.

[kerry]

Originally Posted by Craig

"To what extent does free thinking depend upon a rejection of traditional family."

I'm not convinced this is causal, is it possible that "free thinking" and the rejection of traditional family are just correlated? It seems more likely that some more basis characteristic of a given society could affect both of these attributes. Just a thought.

Any suggestions as to what the more basic characteristic might be? What's more basic to human culture than parenting? I can see an argument that non-traditional sexual orientation may be such a thing, causing a person to feel outside the norm and willing to think different thoughts as a result.
I was thinking particularly about comparisons and contrasts between Islamic civilizations and the West when I initially thought about this because celibacy and singleness are highly discouraged in Islam compared to Christianity, at least in its Catholic form.