It emerged that my grandmother’s family had blackballed him, though for the very good reason that at the time he was physically abusive toward both her and the kids. My father was nevertheless harmed by growing up believing his father didn’t care about remaining in contact.

In any event, my father and his sister were…confused, perturbed, weirded out, whatever…at how, in the intervening time, he had gone from the monster of their memories to a harmless old man. As near as I can make out, their memories weren’t wrong; he simply…well, got old.

(Me, I was slightly hurt that he had remarried, adopted her kids who weren’t biologically his, and now *their* kids were his grandkids, I just saw him every so often. Kid!me was all, “*I* am his rightful grandkid, not them!” I never said this to anyone, and I never took it out on those other kids; but I thought it.)

Report comment

Moving from your first to your second sentence, you went from subtly referencing, to eliding, *non*functioning marriage. This suggests (not “begs”; that’s *improper use dammit*; I’m old 😉 ) the question: do all those married Christians have *functioning* marriages?

There are very few divorces in my family. The two divorced couples in my generation were and are serious Christians. (In one, the woman left claiming abuse; in the other, the man left for someone new.) The couple in my parents’ generation were churchgoers; they stopped speaking to my parents before I was born (and before the divorce), so I don’t know how serious they were. The one in my grandparents’ generation were serious Christians (baby boomers often say the GI generation were mostly “just churchgoers”; not this couple).

My parents are an atheist and an agnostic. Their marriage is unhealthy in a way that harmed kid!me*. I’m pretty sure anyone looking from the outside would consider it “functioning.” They only ever fought about what to do with me.

So IOW, in my family, all the divorces were serious Christians. :shrug:

*(My mom’s family is full of grade-skippers, my dad is the only one in his; my mom “recognized” me and knew what I needed, but didn’t have the “umph” to stand up to my dad; meanwhile he acted like a normal person and tried to “make me normal.” As a kid I used to beg my mom to divorce him.

Around age 20 I decided that if *either* of them had had a free hand, it would’ve wound up with my developmental needs being recognized and addressed: if it had been my mom, great; if it’d been my dad, he’d have pushed me into a breakdown, after which, I think, he’d have realized my differences and needs were real. The problem, I decided back then, was the constant arguing with neither one ever getting to actually try out their plan. I haven’t revisited that opinion, don’t know if I’d still decide that now–but I was amused to read my own words and think “hey, like politics today!” 😉 )

Report comment

Report comment

Edit: Also, I’ve never seen Breaking Bad, but isn’t Walter supposed to be thought of as a villain protagonist?

Report comment

We don’t know how to make it so that no one suffers, ever. But that’s a _problem_.

Report comment

We evolved to value happiness because engaging in happiness-causing behaviors increased our reproductive fitness, but that doesn’t mean that seeking out happiness when it doesn’t increase reproductive fitness is a Lost Purpose.

Really, I think Ghatanathoah won this thread before it began right here. Stop picking arbitrary values and pretending they should be universalized. You’re like cells optimizing themselves to take in as much insulin as possible. If you’re going to do that, at least be honest about it.

Report comment

Walter White: I’ve decided to stop making meth. Also, I am sorry for all those people I killed.
Addicts: We’re not addicted anymore, so nobody will be incentivized in the future to make meth!
The Law: Well, I guess you’re good to go then, Walter. Enjoy all the moneys!

If you find this unsatisfying, congratulations, you probably do value punishment after all.

(Feel free to write a similar ending for Dexter or some other “the bad guy is the main character” show. There’s a good chance you’ll even beat the actual Dexter finale.)

Report comment

Report comment

Report comment

And if some man committed a similar atrocity against your loved ones, you would not value hurting or killing him?

I think this suggests an odd use of the term “terminal values.” Pretty much everybody has a desire to punish built into their system 1, as spillover from something that is adaptive for game-theoretic reasons. But if someone is consciously choosing to override that system 1 impulse, wouldn’t you agree that their explicit, system 2 objection is their terminal value?

Report comment