Do I need to stay together for the sake of children?
The marriage lasted until his death, and is precisely with this intention. Lifetime inevitable confrontation is his deep sense. The Way of Individuation in marriage implies the impossibility of escape from a collision with a partner, even if it is very difficult and unpleasant prospect. However, this does not mean that divorce has no right to exist and always prevents individuation, but that probably would have been better if less people to marry and that the position of a bachelor should be respected.
In modern society, bachelor life, fortunately, is not necessarily asexual. New forms of living together, such as municipalities or other communities that do not have the typical marriage strict regulation. It should welcome the desire of women to become happy mothers outside of marriage, since the decision to marry just because of the desire to have children can bring great harm. People who, marrying, only interested in how to have children, this institution is contraindicated.
Spouses, sooner or later it may become clear that they do not fit together as partners in individuation. Then they have the right to divorce, even if in general a good idea to understand each other. Criterion for a divorce should not look to scale the difficulties and pathology of marriage, he may very well depend on whether the marriage is for both partners, the path to happiness or not. By that time, when the couple noticed they were wrong, they often have become parents. Then the question arises: whether to stay together for the sake of children?
My opinion is: in case of divorce to take into account the children do not need to because extremely difficult to determine for sure that more harm the child's mind, live in families where the parents play in front of them a comedy, or the life of one of their parents in an atmosphere of openness and honesty? Will the benefit of the children show how their parents sacrifice themselves for their benefit and refuse to own individuation? In this case, we can only speculate and seek confirmation of their conjectures in practice. My experience convinces me that children are not easy to see how the parents refuse for them on their luck and individuation, so that children have persistent, chronic remorse in relation to the parents that leads to abnormal aggression.
Marriage is not an institution not only good for adults but also children. The task of those who care about children, is not whether to help them achieve the benefits, but rather to show them the example of his life the possibility of individuation. We must show children the importance of happiness, not good. It is thus hardly an example of parents who are hypocritical for the sake of living together and inspire a child to individuation. Our goal - the happiness of children, not good. The difference between these concepts is crucial in dealing with children.
I would like to warn readers from choosing the wrong path to happiness, because it often has dramatic consequences, regardless of occupation of the person. Analyst, psychologist, or just dear friend often give erroneous advice, because people are never objective, and psychologists are no exception. Happiness is attainable, and marriage, and beyond. "Proponents" of a path of happiness are trying to teach each other the right way, to prove the correctness of his views and thus is often harmful.
The divorced woman, who from bitter experience that it's a marriage - it's not her way of individuation, will gladly give advice to her friend, experiencing difficulty in relationships with spouse, but these tips will be biased, because this woman is set against the marriage and focuses on the individuation beyond marriage. The result may be a divorce of spouses, which, perhaps, it would just help save your marriage. It would be nice if therapists and marriage counselors were aware that they have their own preferences in choosing the path of individuation, which advocates, themselves in need of exactly the same care as their clients. Then the people who turn to such professionals, would be somewhat protected from their conscious or unconscious missionary.
I would hope that in the near future, an analyst for whom marriage is not the preferred way of individuation, be able to tell his patient, complaining to the marital problems: "I must warn you that I do not really zhaluyu marriage, so stay tuned for the fact that I not become invisible to pay you in the direction of bachelor life. " In conclusion, it should be mentioned that the essence of marriage, in which individuation takes place, is by definition that the partners live together until his death.
Divorce is not always mean that marriage is not suited to these people as a way of individuation, since it is likely that your partner just happened to be difficult, indifferent or ill person, but the marriage is in principle useful data spouses. For example, the Catholic Church interprets the concept of "indissoluble marriage" too literally. Stepped into the path of individuation in marriage, we express our willingness never to be parted with our partner, and even if it comes to divorce, and in our life will be a new, more suitable for joint individuation people, the idea of marriage still remains the idea of the collision, which lasts until until death do not end it.
