Freedomain Radio

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea of de-fooing is to be completely honest in all of your relationships, and if they don't survive, then they weren't healthy relationships in the first place.  Am I right about that?  To me, this seems like an easy way to cop-out of dealing with relationships that may not always work in your favor, regardless of how the other person feels.  To me, the beauty of a lot of relationships is that you're stuck with them more or less.  When people have relationships that aren't necessarily the most "convenient", and care about them regardless of how it will benefit themselves, this is a basic definition of what I would call "love."  I would, however, agree that anybody in a truly abusive relationship, should cut ties with the abuser, but a lot of the examples of "de-fooing" that I have seen both on this message board and in real life, are people isolating themselves from loving family members and friends without any regard to their feelings.  I'm not trying to come on here and bash anything Stefan or anybody says, just trying to get a better understanding of the whole de-fooing process.

Have you tried being honest with your family?  

I'd like to hear how it has gone relative to what you have seen here.

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to disagree with your definition of love. The consequences of such a definition would allow, and even require, "loving" someone who acted in a manner antithetical to my values or against that which I consider virtuous which is impossible in practice. As an alternative suggestion, what if we were to define love as, "The involuntary response to virtue in another person."? What do you think?

Also, to me, the beauty of relationships is that I am not "stuck" in any of them. I am free to interact or not interact with whomever I so desire. This approach necessitates that I treat each relationship as something precious and important because it is something I am actively chosing to expend my time and energy on. Remember, in situations where there is no choice, there can be no virtue.

As to the subject of De-Fooing, my understanding it is for those who have exhausted all avenues in an attempt to share themselves and improve their relationships with the members of their Family of Origin. Could you say more about what you mean by "relationships that may not always work in your favor"? I would like to be sure I'm understanding your position correctly.

To answer the first reply, I would say that I've always been pretty honest with my family, and we get along reasonably well. 

To Michael.J - Maybe I didn't phrase my post the way I had intended to, "stuck" probably wasn't the right word.  But the reason I believe it is important (at least for me) to value my family of origin, is because they, much like any other parents, didn't choose to form a relationship with me anymore than I did with them.  Sure, they probably intended to have a child, but they didn't even know what gender I would be, let alone what kind of personality, beliefs, etc. that I would have.  But, just as billions of parents all over the world have done, my parents loved me anyway.  It would seems selfish to me to abandon a relationship with my parents despite the years of sacrifice they have made in order to raise me.

According to the definition of love that you gave (which I have to admit I've never heard), I guess it would be impossible to love someone who you found no virtue in.  By the way, is that a widely used definiton of love, is it from something, or is it your own personal definition?  Either way, I would choose to disagree with it, because I have seen examples of "families of origin" loving each other despite characteristics that contradict each others values.  (i.e. - baptist minister with son who is a homosexual).  I've seen parents and children alike even change their own values to accomodate their loved ones, so love, to me can be stronger than personal values.

To be accurate, there is no 'idea of defooing' - it is a term simply used to mean 'taking a break from an abusive family while under the care of a professional therapist' (which would be too long to type every time).

I also don't know what it means to be 'completely honest in all of your relationships' - can you tell us more about what you mean? I can't even imagine how that could be implemented.

Thanks, and welcome!

Ok, so maybe I misunderstood de-fooing.  But, I still have a question about what it means to be a part of an abusive family.  What do you consider abusive?  Physical abuse? verbal abuse? manipulative behavior?  Where is this line drawn?

it would seem that physical abuse and verbal abuse are clearly abuse; as the words imply.

terradactle:

To me, the beauty of a lot of relationships is that you're stuck with them more or less.  

This made me very sad.

well, obviously physical and verbal abuse are abuse, but how far out is the line drawn?  Nobody has a perfect family life, but I believe 99% of the time the best solution to having a somewhat rocky relationship with parents is to communicate more, and not less.  Unless of course, the individual is actually subject to things like real verbal and physical abuse.

And to Stephen - I still regret using the word stuck there.  I'll rephrase.  To me, the beauty of a lot of relationships is that you were born into them, entirely by chance, but can still appreciate that person despite the fact that you haven't chosen the relationship.  If that still makes you sad, then we just have very different views on relationships.

terradactle:

Where is this line drawn?

Here.

And here.

I couldn't help but find fault with this passage from Real Time Relationships-

"The humility required to subject our wild and narcissistic imaginings to the twin disciplines of logic and evidence has been sorely lacking throughout human history, and it is not hard to see the effects of this lack of humility in the realms of science in the past and ethics in the present."

What could possibly be more narcissistic than thinking the entire course of human history has been unable to "pull the wool away from their eyes", yet Stefan Molyneux, a man who has read some Ayn Rand (and has a habit of appropriating her ideas without citation), but otherwise lacks any sort of expertise in the field of philosophy, psychology, or family therapy, can somehow see that we have been misleading ourselves, not just for our own lifetimes, but for the past 4 million years? 

We have relationships with those who birthed us, raised us, live in our geographical area not because they are virtuous, but because it is how every species of every living organism has formed relationships.  It's a matter of practicality.  What could be more narcissistic than thinking that we are somehow the exception?

I was going to suggest leaving this voluntary relationship you've created in becoming a board contributor here at FDR, but then I remembered you saying that leaving is an easy way to cop-out of dealing with relationships that may not always work in your favor, so I guess you're stuck here with what you call the most narcissistic person in all of human history.... for the rest of your life. Welcome friend!

dave, dave, dave, hooked again by such obvious bait?

And if we're going by those standards, I wouldn't be allowed to be banned either.  By the way, I haven't established a relationship with anybody on FDR, and regardless, I see nothing wrong with a little dissenting opinion here.

terradactle:

And if we're going by those standards, I wouldn't be allowed to be banned either. 

No, that is your standard. Most board members believe in freedom of association.