3 ms·
> They have kids to carry on their legacy, not for the joy of having them For anyone wanting their children to be a legacy of themselves, the (blatantly obviou
by BLKNSLVR 6y ago
> They have kids to carry on their legacy, not for the joy of having them
For anyone wanting their children to be a legacy of themselves, the (blatantly obvious) irony in the above is that the less time a parent spends with their child, the less actual legacy they're leaving of themselves. Having other people raise your children means the legacy being left is that of the nannies or tutors or grandparents or teachers or the child's friend's parents.
If they don't see who you are and how you conduct yourself, they won't be filling your shoes.
But reverse-ironically, they'll probably be just as absent for their children, so there's a little inevitable legacy that will be passed on.
- odshoifsdhfs 6y agoFor a lot, the family name to live on is more important than their thoughts or values to do the same.
- carterklein13 6y agoOften, billionaires' legacies are only their name, their power, and their wealth. If anything, their actual personalities may be something even they hope people forget. The name, power, and wealth is what they want their children to carry on