Do you agree with this point of view?
J. J. Rousseau believed that often a child is forced to live as adults do, thereby preventing him from developing freely, educating him in slavish obedience.
Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
It depends on what is meant by the vague “live like adults”.
Rousseau, with his love of noble savages, could easily have meant any kind of upbringing and transfer of values from an adult to a child.
But it is also possible to understand the phrase in such a way that you can agree with it. I think that many people have met such parents who, in relation to the child, are like those generals who are preparing for the last war. For example, “I dreamed of becoming a lawyer, and my child will become one.” “I spent my life on a career and I regret it, so my daughter should be a housewife with many children.” They try to replay their own life through the child and realize their own desires through him. There's also “I'm happy with my life, so you should live the same way.”
It is normal for a parent to pass on moral values to a child (but depending on what kind of values, of course, some will teach their child that “not caught is not a thief”). But it is not normal when a parent imposes a path to self-realization on a child. Each person must make this path for himself. To find something that will bring happiness to him, not to follow the path that brought (or it seems to them that it would have brought) happiness to his parents.
If you leave the child no choice at all, then Russo will certainly be right
On the other hand, life with a child also depends on the fact that we should enjoy it. In other words, there must be certain boundaries that ensure a comfortable co-existence for everyone. It is for everyone, not just parents or just children.
For example, if parents get up for work in the morning, it will be strange to allow an anxious child to keep everyone awake. Or cooking special food only for your cub, because the other one he refuses to eat, of course, very carefully, but quite exhausting.
At the same time, it is quite unjustified to prohibit children from climbing, running, and jumping where adults usually do not do this (that is, almost everywhere). Movement is one of the needs of children, necessary for development.
I wrote in very general terms, although I tried to give examples. But each situation should be considered separately, without applying general rules for life. We're all different. And, in my opinion, the main task of a parent is to raise a child and help him develop his potential. It is to help, not to force. And it is your own, and not the one that your parent always wanted. Then everyone decides for themselves.