People don't have to be the way they are

"Undiscerning crowds, in whose eyes the same thing and not the same is and is not, and all things travel in opposite directions!" (Parmenides, DK 28 B6)

"Most people are not worth much" (Ludwig Wittgenstein, paraphrase)

---

What people are is not natural. Is it natural, or, a fortiori, necessary, for persons' way of being in the world to be in "the natural attitude", i.e., the way of living where the person is in the thrall of the objects in experience as opposed to reflectively studying the field of objectivities? In other words, the "natural attitude" is a socially constructed mode of human existence which is convenient for the adolts(sic) to jerk a kid around without the kid noticing anything is being done to to him (her, other) because it's just the way it is, it's just the way things are, it's no big deal, i.e.: "it's natural". So?

"What men are willing to put up with depends on what they are able to look forward to." (Arnold Hauser)

A person's way of being in the world is always the product of childrearing, except maybe for Romulus and Remus who were suckled by a wolf. Far more frequently: Homo homini lupus est. I (BMcC[18-11-46-503]) was childreared by what were effectively even if not phylogenetically animals from a more primitive species that did not understand this, which is the measure of how inferior they were. Shouldn't human beings be capable of discernment of differences? "I recognize that I'm not as good as you are." "That suggests you are not, for if you were you would not have recognized it."

No surprise endings: For any child who is capable of it, and I am not saying they all are but that I was, do not childrear them as intraworldly objects. Raise them as judges of the world. In philosophical jargon: Cultivate the child to see him (her, other) self as the Being of beings, not as a being among beings (Who's manning the helm?). This would mean parents and, later, teachers, instructing the child to judge them, not to obey them. Are you up to it, you adults? Or are you uh-dolts who get off on being flattered on cue by small children? "Love your mother, kid!" It would mean cultivating the child's faculty of discriminatory evaluation: "Are you sure you only just don't like [whatever we want you to like] just a little bit, not that you detest it, wish it had never existed, and really want it to go away, forever? Are you sure?" Not: "It's no big deal, Brad." Would such a child live in "the natural attitude"?