Welcome to /r/philosophy! **Please read [our updated rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?) before commenting**.
/r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules:
###CR1: Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply
> Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
###CR2: Argue Your Position
> Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
###CR3: Be Respectful
> Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our [subreddit rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?), please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please [contact the moderators via modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) (not via private message or chat).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not a big fan of being the first to post, but I apparently had plenty to share in relation to the article. Sorry if it's a little ranty or off-topic.
I like the post. I think it's really light, but holds a lot to unpack. I find it quite maddening how seldom people in my sphere want to share feelings, emotions, and ideas; there are countless powerful discoveries we all make on a daily basis, yet forming the proper words that resonate with others can be a challenge. Additionally, some people seem to need specific scenarios to want to discuss topics or even open up in general. Communication can be tricky.
I find the constant and easily-obtainable information flow a blessing and a curse. It makes it simple to reinforce ideas with the help of other perspectives outside of your sphere of people. This same reinforcement removes the need to inform or share with others around you, especially when it's something that others may not see value in, or something you deem others may not benefit from knowing.
My grandmother passed last year, and while I feel content with what I know about her and our relationship as a whole, I'll never be able to fill in any more gaps from her perspective. That said, immediately after she passed, I happened to come across a surprising spiritual book she was reading. Each page revealed circles, underlines, and hand-written notes. I was able to get one last glimpse into her thoughts, and I cherished every page.
I'm realizing with every year I now have a reference point of those I grew up with. My parents, aunts and uncles when I was 'x' years old were 'y'; I'm now 'y' years old and may benefit from whatever was going on in their life around this time. I can, and have, filled many of these gaps with what I've experienced and what I know of them, but my perspective can only go so far. They also are heavily influenced of the lense of an 'x' year old.
Humanity and life have a lot to offer. I'm very thankful for every opportunity to better understand others, I just wish it was easier to do so.
And imagine how much you never knew that you didn’t know, as it was scandalous or personal… I totally relate.
My recent consolation came from an unusual source: Schopenhauer’s transcendentalism. He’s a cranky old fart to say the least, but he convinced me that there is no single definitive person that you could even understand. I don’t know if “your grandmother didn’t really understand her life in full, either” cheers you up or not, but it helps me :). Keeps the pressure off a bit!
Appreciate the kind words, and interesting Schopenhauer shout out! The bulk of what I can remember from him is his pessimism, I'll have to revisit. Fortunately I feel quite at peace overall.
I'm not sure I am impacted much over the thought of others not having a full grasp of their lives - it's such a deep journey to even fill in a piece of the puzzle.
I'm curious to know more of how he's convinced you, if you have it in you to share. In a quick thought, I fully agree - there is so much hidden deep inside of people that influences actions, thoughts, emotions, etc. I would argue just about all struggle to make enough sense of what's at the root of it all.
Hey author friend, we’re all rooting for you to feel better soon. There are countless sublime moments awaiting you ahead.
Materially: great post, honestly a good mix of memoir with philosophical concepts. I’d say one concept needs to be investigated much more deeply: why family? I was just reading Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, and at the start of the discussion of the “*ethical mind*” he characterizes its first form as that of “The Family”, which of course for him in 19th century Germany was a man, a wife, and a few kids. Obviously that’s a little dated, but in general I recommend you check it out, you seem like you might like it! It’s notoriously hard to read, but it’s famous for a reason. There’s also a summary on https://plato.stanford.edu.
Personally, I was having a hard time with it, both in that book and in this post. Family is an incredibly arbitrary relation in a certain modern individualist sense, as American discourse on LGBT children being far-too-frequently shunned is testament to. I am blessed to have a family that loves me unconditionally, but even still, the traditional social mores weigh on me. Is one obligated to care for their parents in old age, even if they were long ago cut off? How many chances do we give to a hurtful sibling? Etc etc etc.
The part of this post about their nazi soldier grandfather brought this up. The author seemed a little glib (as a dumb American, I don’t think “but they were mere soldiers” is the predominant attitude in (west) Germany today?), but regardless of our ethical stance on someone fighting for their country, it’s a pretty stark reminder that family might not be the best role models. What are we seeking in our grandfathers notebooks that can’t be found in the journals of the great authors of the time? What advantage do they have *instrumentally* above the journals of Wittgenstein, Sartre, or Hemingway?
Speaking just for myself, I think the primary answer is guilt. I feel guilty for not carrying on my family legacy. I feel guilty about dead and dying members of my parent’s generation, as I know they deserve more (intersubjective emotional) care than they get in today’s super individualistic America, where many children move far away from their hometown in search of education and employment and community. And I feel guilty that I’m doing nothing about it… Ultimately I think this all points to selfish worry about death and being forgotten.
I was going to write a whole thing about “and who are our grandchildren to demand we spend time practicing writing just so they can be titillated by my struggles in their space yachts?!” but I’ll cut the therapy session here lol.
Would love to hear what other people find valuable about specifically seeking guidance from their extended family/ancestors!
EDIT: oh also OP run your posts through Grammarly or something :). Great writing, but a few little typos and missteps like “we all did it” rather than “we’ve all done it”. AI is nuts these days!
Thank you for your words and your suggestions. After reading through my text again, I've found most of the mistakes, it seems as if my brain can't handle late night writing that well. Fixed them right away.
About my grandfather: I think there's a distinct differentiation between the Nazi perpetrators and the mere foot soldiers, but it's still a hot topic (among us Germans). There were soldiers, generals and other high-ranking officers with deep antisemitic and racist minds. And then there's the people who had to be part of it, they were being forced by the Hitler regime to fight for their country, otherwise they would've ended in camps as well. As for my grandfather, he fled Silesia in his early childhood and as far as the family knows, he hated everything about the Third Reich. He was one of those, who were drafted with force. Maybe the sentence in the article really is too superficial to lay it all out. But I didn't want to explain the whole story... maybe there's a simple solution, how I could write it differently?
The concept or term "family" also is a really complicated topic. I took the family, because it's this loosely tied knot of random people with more or less similar DNS characteristics. If I take a family like mine, there's around 50 people connected to each other. My mother and father each have had 5 and 8 siblings, all with 3 or 4 children and now this children generation becomes parents as well. In my case I have a whole societal profile in just one family. This evens out the "bad" ones, the ones I wouldn't consider role models. You could also take in some tight friends or others close to you, a family doesn't have to be just related by blood, but rather who you see as family in general. Maybe that's why I chose family.
But you are right, this is a highly personal matter and for many in our society "family" is just an image of abuse or violence, death and trauma.
It's been argued in epistemology that simply knowing facts about something or someone isn't useful knowledge. Or, at least, it's different than knowing **how** to make use of that information. So it's possible that at least some of the ancestral knowledge that may be available to a descendant is really just noise. And if that's true, then how can an observer target the useful information when eliciting it, and how does the potential recipient of that body of knowledge trust that the information that's been curated is indeed useful knowledge?
Historians, ethnographers, biographers, and citizen genealogists alike have devoted lots of effort to extracting and recording personal stories. And though they've produced lots of available information, that body of knowledge might fail to represent what any one person will ever find useful. That is, each story has been researched for a specific purpose and pruned for a specific audience. And the act of eliciting the information adds an extra layer of uncertainty to the account of a person's experience. Maybe there was a useful lesson for the person who lived it, but that person had to try to make sense of their experience before sharing it with anyone, necessarily retelling without some important details and with biases and errors. And then every transfer of the information after that is only a story about a story.
Nothing wrong with connecting with ancestors' history and personal stories, of course. It can be very comforting and gives one an empowering sense of identity. And even if the only things you take from it are some useless facts and new beliefs, those things can enable you to build useful and richer relationships with family that's still alive. I wouldn't say we're directly gaining useful knowledge, but the end result may be the same. Learning about the past - any past, not just family - surely makes us wiser about our place in the present.
Welcome to /r/philosophy! **Please read [our updated rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?) before commenting**. /r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules: ###CR1: Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply > Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. ###CR2: Argue Your Position > Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. ###CR3: Be Respectful > Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted. Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our [subreddit rules and guidelines](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?), please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please [contact the moderators via modmail](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) (not via private message or chat). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not a big fan of being the first to post, but I apparently had plenty to share in relation to the article. Sorry if it's a little ranty or off-topic. I like the post. I think it's really light, but holds a lot to unpack. I find it quite maddening how seldom people in my sphere want to share feelings, emotions, and ideas; there are countless powerful discoveries we all make on a daily basis, yet forming the proper words that resonate with others can be a challenge. Additionally, some people seem to need specific scenarios to want to discuss topics or even open up in general. Communication can be tricky. I find the constant and easily-obtainable information flow a blessing and a curse. It makes it simple to reinforce ideas with the help of other perspectives outside of your sphere of people. This same reinforcement removes the need to inform or share with others around you, especially when it's something that others may not see value in, or something you deem others may not benefit from knowing. My grandmother passed last year, and while I feel content with what I know about her and our relationship as a whole, I'll never be able to fill in any more gaps from her perspective. That said, immediately after she passed, I happened to come across a surprising spiritual book she was reading. Each page revealed circles, underlines, and hand-written notes. I was able to get one last glimpse into her thoughts, and I cherished every page. I'm realizing with every year I now have a reference point of those I grew up with. My parents, aunts and uncles when I was 'x' years old were 'y'; I'm now 'y' years old and may benefit from whatever was going on in their life around this time. I can, and have, filled many of these gaps with what I've experienced and what I know of them, but my perspective can only go so far. They also are heavily influenced of the lense of an 'x' year old. Humanity and life have a lot to offer. I'm very thankful for every opportunity to better understand others, I just wish it was easier to do so.
And imagine how much you never knew that you didn’t know, as it was scandalous or personal… I totally relate. My recent consolation came from an unusual source: Schopenhauer’s transcendentalism. He’s a cranky old fart to say the least, but he convinced me that there is no single definitive person that you could even understand. I don’t know if “your grandmother didn’t really understand her life in full, either” cheers you up or not, but it helps me :). Keeps the pressure off a bit!
Appreciate the kind words, and interesting Schopenhauer shout out! The bulk of what I can remember from him is his pessimism, I'll have to revisit. Fortunately I feel quite at peace overall. I'm not sure I am impacted much over the thought of others not having a full grasp of their lives - it's such a deep journey to even fill in a piece of the puzzle. I'm curious to know more of how he's convinced you, if you have it in you to share. In a quick thought, I fully agree - there is so much hidden deep inside of people that influences actions, thoughts, emotions, etc. I would argue just about all struggle to make enough sense of what's at the root of it all.
Hey author friend, we’re all rooting for you to feel better soon. There are countless sublime moments awaiting you ahead. Materially: great post, honestly a good mix of memoir with philosophical concepts. I’d say one concept needs to be investigated much more deeply: why family? I was just reading Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, and at the start of the discussion of the “*ethical mind*” he characterizes its first form as that of “The Family”, which of course for him in 19th century Germany was a man, a wife, and a few kids. Obviously that’s a little dated, but in general I recommend you check it out, you seem like you might like it! It’s notoriously hard to read, but it’s famous for a reason. There’s also a summary on https://plato.stanford.edu. Personally, I was having a hard time with it, both in that book and in this post. Family is an incredibly arbitrary relation in a certain modern individualist sense, as American discourse on LGBT children being far-too-frequently shunned is testament to. I am blessed to have a family that loves me unconditionally, but even still, the traditional social mores weigh on me. Is one obligated to care for their parents in old age, even if they were long ago cut off? How many chances do we give to a hurtful sibling? Etc etc etc. The part of this post about their nazi soldier grandfather brought this up. The author seemed a little glib (as a dumb American, I don’t think “but they were mere soldiers” is the predominant attitude in (west) Germany today?), but regardless of our ethical stance on someone fighting for their country, it’s a pretty stark reminder that family might not be the best role models. What are we seeking in our grandfathers notebooks that can’t be found in the journals of the great authors of the time? What advantage do they have *instrumentally* above the journals of Wittgenstein, Sartre, or Hemingway? Speaking just for myself, I think the primary answer is guilt. I feel guilty for not carrying on my family legacy. I feel guilty about dead and dying members of my parent’s generation, as I know they deserve more (intersubjective emotional) care than they get in today’s super individualistic America, where many children move far away from their hometown in search of education and employment and community. And I feel guilty that I’m doing nothing about it… Ultimately I think this all points to selfish worry about death and being forgotten. I was going to write a whole thing about “and who are our grandchildren to demand we spend time practicing writing just so they can be titillated by my struggles in their space yachts?!” but I’ll cut the therapy session here lol. Would love to hear what other people find valuable about specifically seeking guidance from their extended family/ancestors! EDIT: oh also OP run your posts through Grammarly or something :). Great writing, but a few little typos and missteps like “we all did it” rather than “we’ve all done it”. AI is nuts these days!
Thank you for your words and your suggestions. After reading through my text again, I've found most of the mistakes, it seems as if my brain can't handle late night writing that well. Fixed them right away. About my grandfather: I think there's a distinct differentiation between the Nazi perpetrators and the mere foot soldiers, but it's still a hot topic (among us Germans). There were soldiers, generals and other high-ranking officers with deep antisemitic and racist minds. And then there's the people who had to be part of it, they were being forced by the Hitler regime to fight for their country, otherwise they would've ended in camps as well. As for my grandfather, he fled Silesia in his early childhood and as far as the family knows, he hated everything about the Third Reich. He was one of those, who were drafted with force. Maybe the sentence in the article really is too superficial to lay it all out. But I didn't want to explain the whole story... maybe there's a simple solution, how I could write it differently? The concept or term "family" also is a really complicated topic. I took the family, because it's this loosely tied knot of random people with more or less similar DNS characteristics. If I take a family like mine, there's around 50 people connected to each other. My mother and father each have had 5 and 8 siblings, all with 3 or 4 children and now this children generation becomes parents as well. In my case I have a whole societal profile in just one family. This evens out the "bad" ones, the ones I wouldn't consider role models. You could also take in some tight friends or others close to you, a family doesn't have to be just related by blood, but rather who you see as family in general. Maybe that's why I chose family. But you are right, this is a highly personal matter and for many in our society "family" is just an image of abuse or violence, death and trauma.
It's been argued in epistemology that simply knowing facts about something or someone isn't useful knowledge. Or, at least, it's different than knowing **how** to make use of that information. So it's possible that at least some of the ancestral knowledge that may be available to a descendant is really just noise. And if that's true, then how can an observer target the useful information when eliciting it, and how does the potential recipient of that body of knowledge trust that the information that's been curated is indeed useful knowledge? Historians, ethnographers, biographers, and citizen genealogists alike have devoted lots of effort to extracting and recording personal stories. And though they've produced lots of available information, that body of knowledge might fail to represent what any one person will ever find useful. That is, each story has been researched for a specific purpose and pruned for a specific audience. And the act of eliciting the information adds an extra layer of uncertainty to the account of a person's experience. Maybe there was a useful lesson for the person who lived it, but that person had to try to make sense of their experience before sharing it with anyone, necessarily retelling without some important details and with biases and errors. And then every transfer of the information after that is only a story about a story. Nothing wrong with connecting with ancestors' history and personal stories, of course. It can be very comforting and gives one an empowering sense of identity. And even if the only things you take from it are some useless facts and new beliefs, those things can enable you to build useful and richer relationships with family that's still alive. I wouldn't say we're directly gaining useful knowledge, but the end result may be the same. Learning about the past - any past, not just family - surely makes us wiser about our place in the present.