Relationships

[Pope Joan]

A friend of mine lived fast and loose, and then, to his shock, at age 30 found
"the One", somebody his cynical heart didn't think existed, his real true love!

He cried on my shoulder. "I want to give her all that I am, but I've already given too much of it away. She deserves better. Maybe it's too late, I am not complete enough for her, I spread myself so thin....Maybe I should just set her free, to find someone more worthy."

True story, I swear.

Was your friend played by Neil Patrick Harris?

This happened in 1985, probably before whatever entertainment you are referencing.

[French Union]

Depends on how much wealth the first option has. The kids part though is a really turn off, so she's going need a lot of wealth/resources for me to consider choosing the first option. Otherwise, definitely the second option.

[The High Godliness Of The Black Hole]

Indeed! I've heard of many people who have had sex and not had a baby!

Correlation does not imply causation!

Lets start up a web campaign.

Gold.

No, I've never bought one...

Silver.

Neo Art gave me a gold medal.

My work here is done.

[Augarundus]

1. I get the first and third sentences (and that this Schopenhauer guy, whoever he is, must be some sort of masochist), but not the second sentence. However, none of this addresses my first point in my first post, regarding love being an agent of reduction of suffering, regardless of whether or not it is objectively real, as in most cases, perception is reality, and all it seems you've really been arguing in this thread is that love is just a subjective perception.

Schopenhauer was an 18th/19th century German philosopher and an advocate of philosophical pessimism.

Even if "love" (or any other act) is a "reduction of suffering", that does not address the pessimistic view that all life is suffering. Love is just a masturbatory escape from pain, but it provides no "positivity", only a reduction in the negative experience of pain.

Think of pessimism this way: if a man is starving, he is experiencing a great deal of negative pain (suffering). To feed him is not to provide positive happiness, only a temporary solution to the pain he has experienced. There is no positivity in existence, no state of happiness. Only a temporary escape from individual instances of suffering.

Schopenhauer contends that the only true escape from suffering is to accept its inevitability and renounce the desire to abolish it. To abolish desire is to eliminate the negativity of pain, because pain merely "is" (Schopenhauer believes man becomes "content" - though not "Happy" - when he no longer "lacks"/desires the utopia beyond suffering, but has accepted pain with indifference).

Schopenhauer cannot be categorized as a masochist. Nietzsche arguably could be, because he argues individuals may accept and rejoice in the pain of suffering as a means of celebrating existence.

Self-contradictory bullshit. The same tryhard nihilist critique of love you offer could be applied to anything, including your own ideas. How is "the Will" any more or less implying a spirit or purpose or whatever than the concept of love? What about the angst you express here, which is also an emotion and no more or less chemical than love? What about humor? Aesthetics?

Will exists - it is our ontological identity. Who am I but a bundle of Will? I have no identity (my name does not describe my Being) but the act of Will. I am nothing as a subject but my Will to Truth, my Will to Power, etc. A center of continual becoming - an identity production based upon the production of Will.

I do not contend that emotion does not "exist", in the sense that it is a chemical product of determinist, biological reactions to stimuli. Only that it is existentially meaningless. We may by blissfully accepting of love as mere apes, but as introspective men (as philosophers - as thinking agents) we find the emptiness at Love's root. That it is nothing more than a chemical imbalance brought about by an individual's self-delusion (the view of the external other's romantic value).

There is no existential purpose - Will is the only force that is not "empty", because it contains no pretense of internal worth. It is, in itself, the construction of meaning (individual definition).

The purpose of life is individual fulfillment. It's pretty backwards to hold depressive emotional blankness as a moral ideal.

Also, you can correct me if you want, but for all your talk of life being suffering you've never really seemed like you have much to complain about. I'm a gay autistic high schooler who's been hospitalized 3 times and is allergic to 3 major food groups and I view life more positively than you. Unless you're a cancer patient or something I suggest you look at things empirically and lighten up.

"Individual fulfillment"? What is that, and how may it be proven to be the purpose of existence?

Life's purpose is not to be happy - it is already a joyless existence. We are puppets of the gods (empty cogs marching on a purposeless crusade against the pain of being), but we may be glorious puppets. If anything, life's purpose is to be great. To abolish pain - to become happy - is a cowardly hope for the optimist: an impossible escape from our doom.

The only alternative is to be great - to embrace suffering and, rather than overcome it, triumph through it. To become a Man of Iron, not of Flesh. To renounce all that once made us "human" (the weak, slavish desire to retreat from our battle with suffering). The man of tomorrow is the Soldier, steeled against the empty values of love, compassion, optimism, and faith. He is unfeeling and accepts the existential emptiness of his life - his is not a Will to construct purpose in this emptiness, but only to accept the meaningless of being and accept great, impersonal sacrifice; only to realize that this is no great sacrifice at all, for his life is, at best, a negligible value.

[Fashiontopia]

Option 1

[Chinamerica]

Start adulthood option 2, go into something like option 1 in late 20s.

[Benomia]

1. I get the first and third sentences (and that this Schopenhauer guy, whoever he is, must be some sort of masochist), but not the second sentence. However, none of this addresses my first point in my first post, regarding love being an agent of reduction of suffering, regardless of whether or not it is objectively real, as in most cases, perception is reality, and all it seems you've really been arguing in this thread is that love is just a subjective perception.

Schopenhauer was an 18th/19th century German philosopher and an advocate of philosophical pessimism.

Even if "love" (or any other act) is a "reduction of suffering", that does not address the pessimistic view that all life is suffering. Love is just a masturbatory escape from pain, but it provides no "positivity", only a reduction in the negative experience of pain.

Think of pessimism this way: if a man is starving, he is experiencing a great deal of negative pain (suffering). To feed him is not to provide positive happiness, only a temporary solution to the pain he has experienced. There is no positivity in existence, no state of happiness. Only a temporary escape from individual instances of suffering.

Schopenhauer contends that the only true escape from suffering is to accept its inevitability and renounce the desire to abolish it. To abolish desire is to eliminate the negativity of pain, because pain merely "is" (Schopenhauer believes man becomes "content" - though not "Happy" - when he no longer "lacks"/desires the utopia beyond suffering, but has accepted pain with indifference).

Schopenhauer cannot be categorized as a masochist. Nietzsche arguably could be, because he argues individuals may accept and rejoice in the pain of suffering as a means of celebrating existence.

Self-contradictory bullshit. The same tryhard nihilist critique of love you offer could be applied to anything, including your own ideas. How is "the Will" any more or less implying a spirit or purpose or whatever than the concept of love? What about the angst you express here, which is also an emotion and no more or less chemical than love? What about humor? Aesthetics?

Will exists - it is our ontological identity. Who am I but a bundle of Will? I have no identity (my name does not describe my Being) but the act of Will. I am nothing as a subject but my Will to Truth, my Will to Power, etc. A center of continual becoming - an identity production based upon the production of Will.

I do not contend that emotion does not "exist", in the sense that it is a chemical product of determinist, biological reactions to stimuli. Only that it is existentially meaningless. We may by blissfully accepting of love as mere apes, but as introspective men (as philosophers - as thinking agents) we find the emptiness at Love's root. That it is nothing more than a chemical imbalance brought about by an individual's self-delusion (the view of the external other's romantic value).

There is no existential purpose - Will is the only force that is not "empty", because it contains no pretense of internal worth. It is, in itself, the construction of meaning (individual definition).

The purpose of life is individual fulfillment. It's pretty backwards to hold depressive emotional blankness as a moral ideal.

Also, you can correct me if you want, but for all your talk of life being suffering you've never really seemed like you have much to complain about. I'm a gay autistic high schooler who's been hospitalized 3 times and is allergic to 3 major food groups and I view life more positively than you. Unless you're a cancer patient or something I suggest you look at things empirically and lighten up.

"Individual fulfillment"? What is that, and how may it be proven to be the purpose of existence?

Life's purpose is not to be happy - it is already a joyless existence. We are puppets of the gods (empty cogs marching on a purposeless crusade against the pain of being), but we may be glorious puppets. If anything, life's purpose is to be great. To abolish pain - to become happy - is a cowardly hope for the optimist: an impossible escape from our doom.

The only alternative is to be great - to embrace suffering and, rather than overcome it, triumph through it. To become a Man of Iron, not of Flesh. To renounce all that once made us "human" (the weak, slavish desire to retreat from our battle with suffering). The man of tomorrow is the Soldier, steeled against the empty values of love, compassion, optimism, and faith. He is unfeeling and accepts the existential emptiness of his life - his is not a Will to construct purpose in this emptiness, but only to accept the meaningless of being and accept great, impersonal sacrifice; only to realize that this is no great sacrifice at all, for his life is, at best, a negligible value.

Shut up. Most of what you said seems like the same mindless babble I get when I try to have a conversation about how there is no god.
Moving on.

[Sskiss]

I'm old, so the first option. At my age, you're looking for companionship, someone to grow old with.

[Augarundus]

Shut up. Most of what you said seems like the same mindless babble I get when I try to have a conversation about how there is no god.
Moving on.

"I do not understand philosophy" =/= "Philosophy makes no sense."

Until my Jungerite fascist state of total mobilization becomes a reality, you're free to ignore this and move along.

[Benomia]

Shut up. Most of what you said seems like the same mindless babble I get when I try to have a conversation about how there is no god.
Moving on.

"I do not understand philosophy" =/= "Philosophy makes no sense."

Until my Jungerite fascist state of total mobilization becomes a reality, you're free to ignore this and move along.

Did I say philosophy makes no sense? No.
However, you make no sense.

[Manisdog]

option 1 is scary and trust been in a kind of similiar situation,As a man I believe it is my duty to spread the seed and give other people a good time, I think it would be unjust and unfair to choose option 1

[The High Godliness Of The Black Hole]

option 1 is scary and trust been in a kind of similiar situation,As a man I believe it is my duty to spread the seed and give other people a good time, I think it would be unjust and unfair to choose option 1

Misogynist.

[Orania Vrystaat]

"I do not understand philosophy" =/= "Philosophy makes no sense."

Until my Jungerite fascist state of total mobilization becomes a reality, you're free to ignore this and move along.

Did I say philosophy makes no sense? No.
However, you make no sense.

It's general, everything is discussable.

[Manisdog]

option 1 is scary and trust been in a kind of similiar situation,As a man I believe it is my duty to spread the seed and give other people a good time, I think it would be unjust and unfair to choose option 1

Misogynist.

very good arguement and really good debating ethics,

[Grenartia]

1. Number 1 is worded in such a way that they could immediately divorce you and the condition would still be satisfied. It also states that you love them, but not that they love you. So it's once-sided. Then you would never be married again, too, so you would have no chance of raising a family.

2. So even though I don't like casual sex, I would pick option 2. It says you don't have accidental children, meaning that you could have intentional children. It also grants you immunity to STDs, which is awesome beyond belief. Furthermore, you can marry people and raise a family, you just won't be in love with your spouse, which is no big loss.

1. It does imply that they do reciprocate, since "you will be with them for the rest of your life".

2. Doesn't marrying somebody you don't love seem rather fucking pointless?

And then what? Why would I want to devote my entire life to helping some young people achieve better things when I could be trying to better myself?
And yes, PS/2.

We aren't immortal, that's why. Eventually, perhaps not today, but eventually, you'll have to stop bettering yourself and start bettering the next generation.

I must point out that one can better oneself while bettering the next generation.

We aren't immortal, that's why. Eventually, perhaps not today, but eventually, you'll have to stop bettering yourself and start bettering the next generation.

But why? Why do I have to start bettering the next generation? What does it matter to me how other people's lives are?
That's what I'm getting at. Those questions don't have any good answers. I realized that a long time ago.

Why should you not care about others? Seems rather selfish to only care about oneself all the time.

But why? Why do I have to start bettering the next generation? What does it matter to me how other people's lives are?
That's what I'm getting at. Those questions don't have any good answers. I realized that a long time ago.

Children are simply the easiest way to have a legacy. Alternatively, you could do something so incredible that history remembers you forever, but that isn't an option for most people. Having people to pass your name down to directly benefits you.

This is not entirely true. There are several types of generativity (bettering the next generation) that I as a high school psychology student am aware of:

1. Biological generativity - raising children
2. Technical generativity - teaching younger people skills (such as carpentry, driving, etc.)
3. Cultural generativity - teaching younger people one's way of life (i.e., many Holocaust survivors had a strong desire to teach their children Jewish customs and culture).

option 1 is scary and trust been in a kind of similiar situation,As a man I believe it is my duty to spread the seed and give other people a good time, I think it would be unjust and unfair to choose option 1

Somebody's rather confident in their abilities.

1. I get the first and third sentences (and that this Schopenhauer guy, whoever he is, must be some sort of masochist), but not the second sentence. However, none of this addresses my first point in my first post, regarding love being an agent of reduction of suffering, regardless of whether or not it is objectively real, as in most cases, perception is reality, and all it seems you've really been arguing in this thread is that love is just a subjective perception.

Schopenhauer was an 18th/19th century German philosopher and an advocate of philosophical pessimism.

1. Even if "love" (or any other act) is a "reduction of suffering", that does not address the pessimistic view that all life is suffering. Love is just a masturbatory escape from pain, but it provides no "positivity", only a reduction in the negative experience of pain.

2. Think of pessimism this way: if a man is starving, he is experiencing a great deal of negative pain (suffering). To feed him is not to provide positive happiness, only a temporary solution to the pain he has experienced. There is no positivity in existence, no state of happiness. Only a temporary escape from individual instances of suffering.

3. Schopenhauer contends that the only true escape from suffering is to accept its inevitability and renounce the desire to abolish it. To abolish desire is to eliminate the negativity of pain, because pain merely "is" (Schopenhauer believes man becomes "content" - though not "Happy" - when he no longer "lacks"/desires the utopia beyond suffering, but has accepted pain with indifference).

4. Schopenhauer cannot be categorized as a masochist. Nietzsche arguably could be, because he argues individuals may accept and rejoice in the pain of suffering as a means of celebrating existence.

1. So basically, since we can't even get to a positive integer, we shouldn't even try to get as close as we possibly can. Seems legit.

2. Why not assist the man in feeding himself (if nothing else, teach him to fish instead of giving him a fish)?

3. And I disagree with Schopenhauer. What is the point of living life if one cannot even attempt to relieve the suffering of oneself and others, if only temporarily?

4. Ah. I see.

[Samuraikoku]

Imagine if you had two rather extreme options:

1. You will find a girl/guy who you absolutely love. You will marry them, have kids with them, and be with them for the rest of your life. But it will be only them that you ever have sex, with-make out with ever again. No other girls/guys like you in that way ever again, so cheating is impossible and divorce means you will be forever alone. Also, after the first few night of marriage, they will only have sex with you once in a blue moon.

2. You become a major playboy/really hot girl. You party all the time and get to sleep with any and all of the hottest girls/guys you want. However, you never really fall so much in love with any of these girls/guys that you marry them. You also have some kind of amazing luck that not only do you not have accidental children, you are also immune to STDs.

Which do you choose?

Personally, I like option 2 better, as I have seen what marriage becomes, and I hate kids.

1. I am forever alone already, and I'm not interested in number 2.

[Meryuma]

Life's purpose is not to be happy - it is already a joyless existence. We are puppets of the gods (empty cogs marching on a purposeless crusade against the pain of being), but we may be glorious puppets. If anything, life's purpose is to be great.

Why be great and stoic and shit? It doesn't make me happy, and I'm not going to be self-sublimating, subjecting myself to your higher ideals. I can and do find happiness in life. At some points this has been through love. My lived experience trumps your Internet postulating.

You also seemed at a point or two to bastardize Stirner which kinda bugs me.

[New Sapienta]

Number One, while Number Two might give me(look at this word, ME) temporary happiness, it would not grant me permanent happiness like number one would.

[ThirdPrizeYoureFired]

I'd take #1. Companionship is going to make me happier for a longer period of my life, and if I'm staying in a sexless marriage then obviously the person is wonderful on every other level. Also, while I never want children, if I were in a scenario where I had them, it would be because my SO wanted them very much and would thus be the primary parent.