As BC explained, this really isn’t a good solution..if that wasn’t half joking :razz:. For whatever reason humans seem to desire having a significant other to have an emotional and physical bond with. It’s actually quite foundational. My pessimistic theory incorporates it under the category of boredom. As I’ve said before, loneliness is just one layer beyond the baseline restless boredom that lies at the heart of the human experience. This doesn’t solve the problem of restlessness as it is never ending and moves to the next goal to focus. However, relationships may be considered a “good” though many times this is fleeting and causes more frustration.

Anyways, for such a desirous and foundational goal, it has some of the worst systems for its attainment and/or maintenance. It is tragic, and like all other tragic things, we sweep it under the rug as some Nietzschean “pain makes life better”. And Schopenhauer shakes his head.

yeah, but Schop was a misogynist of the 'don't know em, so i know i dont need to know em' stripe. And on top of that: schop wasn't a bad looking guy, right. He could have - but...something got in the way. so: Cause and symptom, chicken and egg - who knows? Either way, I can't take him seriously on romance, good as he is on some stuff. Very very very smart, not bad aesthetically, but stunted emotionally. Was he doted on by a nice mom, had a mean or absent dad? I don't know, but that's my guess.

But romance isn't just [boredomcureX]. Certain cases are escapes from boredom, yes, no question. But romance isn't like drink or metal gear solid (my two boredom escapes.) Sometimes, it just really is romance and gosh it's nice. Romance doesn't last forever of course, so that 'gosh it's nice' has to evolve. but, still - that 'gosh it's nice' isn't reducible to [treat x ] staving off boredom. It's something very ..... Well, I mean, you have some soft and sweet childhood memories, I'm sure, otherwise you wouldn't be a pessimist. It's like those memories, only in addition to the sweet sadness, its hot too.

So the question I have is whether we can ever get through to the "truth" of another person, or ourselves. Because however we actually overtly act, there is then whatever is the antithesis of that by default. The issue is then whether that should be read as the hidden authentic desire - something we've repressed from sight because it is the bad "us" - or merely just another way we could have acted and didn't ... because we are essentially all right as a person ... as a habit of our social conditioning.

I haven't read Something Happened. I did reach Catch-22, a long time ago (13 years?). Catch-22, if I recall, does the Mark Twain thing of 'common sense in a world that sorely needs it.' If that holds true, it's ok, but...


at 16 it read like: no-bullshit hero follows the truth. Now, I'm a little skeptical of the pose. Twain was a misanthrope, like Vonnegut - the whole 'aw shucks, what a world, some people think theres a MAN in the SKY even though we're APES on a ASTEROID & pretend that STONES & METALS mean anything, but I'm just a MAN with a BEARD, SMOKING on my PORCH and I'm hear to tell you that..." - bullshit, but gets you in the literature books. Iconoclastic like America which is iconoclastic and also aristocracy is just people being like.... Thoreau is paradigmatic here: Cool thoughts about Ants, very cosmic, 'quiet desperation,' still have my mother do laundry on the weekends. The whole genre is bullshit. So those guys, got their number, but Helller?

I guess I don't know. My gut feeling he's part of this tradition. And my gut feeling is this aw shucks simple guy stuff links nicely up to irl doesnt know how the fuck to be with a real person. (because when a real person does real people things (APES on a ROCK) the husband guy can shrug to the camera that isn't there and go 'women (people), am I right?'

I was talking to someone younger (18ish) who read it, Catch-22 and he said [summarized] 'love that book, made me realize there's no point in risking anything for anyone but yourself, they're all just trying to sell you on something.' & ya maybe but ------

I 100% don't think we can get to the truth of another person (or ourself) but I'm open to the idea that we can get to the truth of a person insofar as they're part of some shared thing, which we are also a part of.

Sort of like umm - you got the mask, which is necessary, but you share a thing of knowing each other's masks, and their limits. Which is still not their truth (which is foreclosed to everyone, them too, except in moments.)

Is it possible to be authentic when being aware of how we think or feel must carry with it the sharp sense of the "other" which by implication or suggestion is getting suppressed by us?

'sharp sense' - I'm not sure. I think you can fall in love with someone, without ever really 'seeing' them, and go with that for a long time and neither of you will know who the other is and then after a while its too important, the relationship, to compromise, so you end up...

But I don't know what's essential or not here. I don't think the sharp sense of the other qua Other is essential, but maybe I'm romanticizing? In jungian terms I'd say I know couples who know each others shadows, the sharp sense isn't so sharp, and that seems closer, But yeah I don't -

I don't really care about what you said about me, but I do care about the homophobic-type vulgarisms aimed at BC and then you lecturing us all on how we undermined you without even acknowledging your bad behaviour in the discussion. Nobody else engaged in ad-homs except you and pretending you are the victim here is not going to fly.

I don't really care about what you said about me, but I do care about the homophobic-type vulgarisms aimed at BC and then you lecturing us all on how we undermined you without even acknowledging your bad behaviour in the discussion. Nobody else engaged in ad-homs except you and pretending you are the victim here is not going to fly. — Baden

I know you don't really care about what I said to you, clearly you have not read a word of what I was saying. And who is all? Don't use this notion of being so-called homophobic as an excuse for your anger towards me, because there is nothing about what I said that was.

This is really disturbing behaviour and I want to end our conversation right now.

I haven't read Something Happened. I did reach Catch-22, — csalisbury

I only mentioned it as I happen to be reading it and felt it matched your interest in the inner games people play. I found Catch-22 hilarious as a teen, but laboured when I tried to read it again a few years ago. Something Happened is surprisingly honest about the stuff people think and feel, yet could never risk saying.

That's fair. Thank you for setting me up for that rant tho. I do want to read Something Happened. My ex-roomate had a copy and I flipped through it a few times and it looked good. I'm just skeptical of the tradition.

Is she a sociopath? Or is there some important difference between this ^ and the original story? — csalisbury

I see what you mean about the vulnerability that appears more visible in the woman in your story, whereas in the reverse the man - according to her story - appears to be sociopathtic, but you must understand that when I said the latter it is to imply this alienation from any empathy or understanding of the other person, so I still hold that Robert has some pathology. I was interpreting the story from a single lens though and it is difficult to ascertain otherwise other than through the examples given, namely that of missing cats and the final messages as well as his sexual behaviour. It is nevertheless food for thought, however, that my initial reaction to his emotional disposition was indeed harsher than it would have been had the roles been reversed, which iterates that social conditioning and our understanding of our feminine and masculine roles.

In saying that, however, how did you interpret the main protagonist? Was she a heartless tramp?

but Schop was a misogynist of the 'don't know em, so i know i dont need to know em' stripe. — csalisbury

True.

Either way, I can't take him seriously on romance, good as he is on some stuff. — csalisbury

I don't know, he seemed pretty insightful on certain aspects. Mainly when I invoke Schopenhauer here, I don't mean his specific writings on love and women (which I agree are of his lesser writings) but his general principle of will and the structural tragedies entailed in it (which is the kernel of his worldview and are extremely insightful). I also invoke him in contrast to Nietzsche, who tries to pull a fast one by embracing of what is painful to try to incorporate it in full acceptance. These are the people who prefer the frustrations, dramas, and soap operas because they want life to be its own drama that the individual plays out- a goal to strive for. Every Jack cannot have his Jill.

But romance isn't just [boredomcureX]. Certain cases are escapes from boredom, yes, no question. But romance isn't like drink or metal gear solid (my two boredom escapes.) Sometimes, it just really is romance and gosh it's nice. Romance doesn't last forever of course, so that 'gosh it's nice' has to evolve. but, still - that 'gosh it's nice' isn't reducible to [treat x ] staving off boredom. It's something very ..... Well, I mean, you have some soft and sweet childhood memories, I'm sure, otherwise you wouldn't be a pessimist. It's like those memories, only in addition to the sweet sadness, its hot too. — csalisbury

Yes, I am aware. Romance is a "good" in the positive sense amongst a handful of them. However, it is still a longing out of a restlessness. If we were simply content, we wouldn't need Romance or anything else for that matter.

It cannot dwell where, as Plato says, continual Becoming and never Being is all that takes place. First of all, no man is happy; he strives his whole life long after imaginary happiness, which he seldom attains, and if he does, then it is only to be disillusioned; and as a rule he is shipwrecked in the end and enters the harbour dismasted. — Schopenhauer

However, the main point of my response here is how poorly this supposed "good" is attained and maintained. We haven't figured out the key to our own happiness in this seemingly important matter and so we fall into overanalysis, tropes, and other vague guidelines that simply make things worse. This story illustrated some of this.

The problem is people usually want significant others. This is where humans are utterly hopeless with poorly designed social systems to solve the problem of finding, signaling interest, and maintaining a relationship with significant other to have sex and other experiences with. With no set rules, the system gets bogged down with meta-analysis and confusion. Then you people simply falling back into tropes as the prisoner's dilemma sets in. Anyways, as we both agree this creates much unhappiness. Writers use this unhappiness and confusion to write mediocre short stories and soap operas. They seem to be the only ones benefiting. — schopenhauer1

I have had women copy the way that I dress, the colour of my hair, professionally and personally in a way of trying to morph themselves into the person they think that men would be attracted to. Whether this is based on some inner vulnerability or not, it exemplifies the superficiality of their inner life or being. I believe Erich Fromm states it perfectly:

Most people are not even aware of their need to conform. They live under the illusion that they follow their own ideas and inclinations, that they are individualists, that they have arrived at their opinion as the result of their own thinking - and that it just happens that their ideas are the same as this of the majority.

When you suggest it is about wanting significant others, what this does is produce standards or a set of expectations about what you look like, how you dress, your pleasant mannerisms and thus femininity and masculinity is streamlined into a social system that defines qualities worthy of these 'significant others' and why I suggested watching Black Mirror's episode Nosedive, the series itself like a selection of short stories and as you say, all those soap operas and social media force-feed these perceptions that people are conditioned to believe is reality. Our motivations are prompted to adhere because the rewards - the congratulations by society - reflect positively on you, despite it not actually being you at all. Your happiness is superficial. You form bonds with people that are not real; that is why I often say that those who are feeling depression or anxiety are really feeling their authentic self trying to communicate through emotional responses about the unpleasantness of their circumstances, they just don't understand it consciously.

I mentioned love because love and moral consciousness for me is the motivation which is authentic, prompting us to respond against the grain of social cliches and to see people for what and who they are. It produces real happiness.

I mentioned love because love and moral consciousness for me is the motivation which is authentic, prompting us to respond against the grain of social cliches and to see people for what and who they are. It produces real happiness. — TimeLine

But romantic love also has something to do with attraction. It also has to do with signaling that attraction, and pursuing that attraction. It also has to do with luck (is the person available). It also has to do with social cues (don't look like a fool, seem charming, don't be too nervous, etc.).

Then there is the idea that people are mostly self-interested. To let another person be a focal point may be the biggest downfall for many people who just cannot get over themselves as their only focus point. Any one of these things I mentioned, can doom someone to be alone.

In this world, it's easier to find oneself alone and unloved than to find oneself with someone and truly loved (perhaps eventually in the way you describe: authentic, prompting us to respond against the grain of social cliches and to see people for what and who they are. It produces real happiness.). Hence, I put in the category of the tragic.

But romantic love also has something to do with attraction. It also has to do with signaling that attraction, and pursuing that attraction. It also has to do with luck (is the person available). It also has to do with social cues (don't look like a fool, seem charming, don't be too nervous, etc.). — schopenhauer1

Some people often call their experience "love" but it is actually a type of dependence, or their attraction is motivated by a preceding loneliness, or because their partner perfectly epitomises the socially constructed ideal. It is why they say that one cannot love until they experience being alone and accepting or overcoming loneliness. They are no longer prompted to make these attachments, where social cues and signalling attraction becomes natural. You don't need to do any of what you say because you are comfortable with yourself. It is that deeper lack of self esteem that impairs our capacity to hear our own voice and what compels us to blindly pursue relationships with people that we prolong and maintain for the sake of it, despite there being no feelings or genuine connection.

People who doubt themselves form such bonds where motivations are superficially conditioned by society and they do this because they lack the self-esteem and the courage, relying on the opinions and the congratulations from others as though such positive reception parallels meaning to their own identity. Conversely, those who are narcissistic and who cannot get over themselves are just as vulnerable to the above mentioned conditions and lack the same self-esteem but enhances that image by exploiting others, just like how cowards attack weaker people. It is rooted in the same superficiality but overcompensated by delusions of grandeur.

In this world, it's easier to find oneself alone and unloved than to find oneself with someone and truly loved (perhaps eventually in the way you describe: authentic, prompting us to respond against the grain of social cliches and to see people for what and who they are. It produces real happiness.). Hence, I put in the category of the tragic. — schopenhauer1

Love is the only thing worth living for but as I said earlier, you cannot give love until you learn to love yourself, which is basically overcoming that deeper lack of self-esteem and feeling comfortable with being alone and unloved. That sounds easy, but it is probably the most difficult thing we could ever do and the tragedy here is that many people never do. They live in quiet desperation tolerating their partner and creating new and innovative ways to prolong the relationship and "make it work". That idea for me is daunting, of sitting next to someone on the couch as they talk about things you hate, watching them as they pretend to be something you know they are not, basically suffering only to keep things going. That is the real tragedy. Imagine what the protagonist went through but instead spending years and years having sex with someone you don't love. :vomit:

A friend of mine recently broke up with his girlfriend of four years and everyone was in chaos, total meltdown as though he committed this huge crime. They were the perfect, iconic couple. She was a mindless drone but very attractive and popular and he was a borderline genius that dumbed himself down for her. He was losing his mind, but they looked good and everyone celebrated this image, keeping them going for years and years because he doubted himself. She was nice. Everyone liked her. Everything looks good. The underlying misery was that he felt trapped and obliged to do something he didn't want to do and in the end he finally snapped. It was like he needed to destroy it all in order to break up with her, completely smash down that social coercion forcing him to continue to do something he didn't want.

He is profoundly happy with his girlfriend now, a small, chubby unattractive and unknown nerd who is genuinely one of the most beautiful people I have ever met. She does not parade around pretending to be nice. She actually is. There is real love out there, but it first starts with you.

They are no longer prompted to make these attachments, where social cues and signalling attraction becomes natural. You don't need to do any of what you say because you are comfortable with yourself. It is that deeper lack of self esteem that impairs our capacity to hear our own voice and what compels us to blindly pursue relationships with people that we prolong and maintain for the sake of it, despite there being no feelings or genuine connection. — TimeLine

I think you are being a bit flippant with how relationships form. People aren't just self-actualized totally autonomous beings rolling around until they magically meet a significant other by way of pure attraction or kismet by way of their awesome self-actualized nature. Rather, people have to put themselves out there and work at trying to be with someone. This means, one has to initiate (whether that be a date, "hanging out", or offering to spend time together). This means that communication has to be kept open and flowing in a "natural way" (by phone, by text, by verbal communication). Initiating and communication can be frustrated at any moment and then chalked up to "it wasn't meant to be". Here is much of the anxiety and drama. To make such a flippant view of it, is to downplay the reality of the situation or ignoring of what is the case. Also, the person has to be mature enough to actually have the capacity to care for another person.

Love is the only thing worth living for but as I said earlier, you cannot give love until you learn to love yourself, which is basically overcoming that deeper lack of self-esteem and feeling comfortable with being alone and unloved. That sounds easy, but it is probably the most difficult thing we could ever do and the tragedy here is that many people never do. — TimeLine

Indeed, but as you mentioned, here is the tragedy. Perhaps many people can be comfortable being alone, and unloved. It is tragic nonetheless that they do not experience what you call "the only thing worth living for". As I said earlier, meaningful relationships don't just happen automatically because one is in some "self-actualized" state. This would be to attribute a false cause to how relationships form. Indeed, in any counterfactual situation, the person who is indeed alone and "comfortable being alone and unloved", can live this way until they die, missing out on a rather large "good" of life.

I think you are being a bit flippant with how relationships form. People aren't just self-actualized totally autonomous beings rolling around until they magically meet a significant other by way of pure attraction or kismet by way of their awesome self-actualized nature. Rather, people have to put themselves out there and work at trying to be with someone. — schopenhauer1

I kept my feelings for a guy I liked secret because he had a partner and everyday - I mean every, single fucking day - he would say something that would tear me apart because he had no idea how to treat a person that liked him nicely. I would spend my nights stitching up the wounds until finally I could no longer keep myself together. I knew we were very similar people, I knew we could have been great friends, but I kept on feeding him things about me that were not true because it hurt so much that I just needed him gone. I am a very strong woman, for instance, and I know he likes that, so I portrayed weakness to put him off and a number of other things where finally I got really sick because I hated myself mostly because I couldn't be myself. I have never in my life felt so vulnerable then when I liked him and I still find myself wishing - like our protagonist - we could just sit and talk this through where I am honest about who I am. We have every right to want to protect ourselves - by whatever means necessary - from that hurt and the best way of achieving that is through lies.

Socially constructed ideals work in similar vein and is our way of communicating with the external world, where morality forms that contrast that articulates a structure in how we respond to others. We can never really know another person, we are always two magnets that repel from ever uniting authentically and so this "work" or "putting yourself out there" is really that attempt to explain yourself. The problem and what the story conveys is that most people don't actually know themselves, their attitude or decisions are aligned with socially conditioned ideals and they are motivated to quiet who they are that most of their activities are not shared but rather subjective, in secret.

This is the whole point, how can we "put ourselves out there" if our self-esteem is vulnerable to criticism where we fear projecting that inner life because it betrays socially streamlined notions of happiness? People read books and think that there is somehow a way to behave - "play the game" - in order to reach some end and therefore act without ever sharing a bond; it becomes dependence whether emotionally or economically and they are fine keeping things going despite their unhappiness because it is the lesser of two evils, the other evil being loneliness.

But, there are people who are instantly compatible, they actually work well with one another and when the barriers of society are shattered like what my friend did and where we can openly be ourselves, that sharing is authentic, it is "real love" because she is herself and she admires the other person who is also himself and where they both - as independent people - share a bond with one another.

As I said earlier, meaningful relationships don't just happen automatically because one is in some "self-actualized" state. — schopenhauer1

No, one must first learn to love themselves because only then can they ever "put themselves out there" authentically and see others for who they are as well. I needed to go through all those struggles that I faced with him to realise that I lacked the confidence or self-esteem and I learnt more about who I was because of it. People who are stuck in unhappy relationships, for me, is way worse than being alone.

This is the whole point, how can we "put ourselves out there" if our self-esteem is vulnerable to criticism where we fear projecting that inner life because it betrays socially streamlined notions of happiness? People read books and think that there is somehow a way to behave - "play the game" - in order to reach some end and therefore act without ever sharing a bond; it becomes dependence whether emotionally or economically and they are fine keeping things going despite their unhappiness because it is the lesser of two evils, the other evil being loneliness. — TimeLine

I honestly cannot make out some of what you are trying to convey here. I think you are saying something along the lines that people play some sort of game to live up to an ideal and are not authentically themselves when dating. I guess, when first meeting another person, people usually tend to hide their most radical beliefs and most unique traits, because there is a notion that people expect some sort of "normalcy" standard- perhaps one a society has signaled through various cues as "socially acceptable". Sometimes, this leads to two people falsely living up to social standards but never being themselves.

But, there are people who are instantly compatible, they actually work well with one another and when the barriers of society are shattered like what my friend did and where we can openly be ourselves, that sharing is authentic, it is "real love" because she is herself and she admires the other person who is also himself and where they both - as independent people - share a bond with one another. — TimeLine

That's great, but again, most things don't work like in movies or fairy tales as "instantly compatible". In other words, it still takes work and putting yourself out there. You have to take the effort to meet, or go out into the world and be somewhere where this is possible. You have to show interest (usually the guy due to social expectations), and ask for a number, a date, a time to meet. The other person has to reciprocate interest by accepting. The date has to be actually followed through. A second date then has to be procured, etc. etc. This takes time, effort, work. Often, anywhere in this process, it is liable to fail, and often does. The chances to meet someone very compatible are slim. Again, we just chalk it up to "wasn't meant to be". But the process itself is rather clunky, which is rather tragic being that this is also something that is supposed to lead to a major good of life. As stated earlier, for something so important, we have some of the worst systems in place for its attainment. It is the lack of guidelines that could be a problem in this case. There is no defined procedure. It is all groping in the dark, and "putting oneself out there". Vulnerability. Showing interest in another in a vulnerable way, often repeatedly. Again, this dating process is where the anxiety, drama, and much of the painful part of the process occurs. It is not just instant, and it is not just fate, and it is not just kismet. It is a process that often leads to failure- failure to gain traction, failure to communicate, failure to be oneself, failure to fully find interest in the other or the other to find interest in you, etc. No amount of self-actualization will bypass the actual process. You can be yourself all you want, and fail at finding a companion, love, and all the rest. People can be alone their whole life and be comfortable with who they are and miss out on any meaningful romantic relationship. You seem to be overlooking that main point.

No, one must first learn to love themselves because only then can they ever "put themselves out there" authentically and see others for who they are as well. I needed to go through all those struggles that I faced with him to realise that I lacked the confidence or self-esteem and I learnt more about who I was because of it. People who are stuck in unhappy relationships, for me, is way worse than being alone. — TimeLine

Yes, and why I said that relationships often lead to more frustrations and harm, and thus makes it that much more tragic. What is supposed to be an absolute good, becomes just another negative experience- and again people sweep it under the rug in manic Nietzschean phrases like "pain makes life better", "pain makes us learn", and other such sentiments. And again, Schopenhauer shakes his head.

I honestly cannot make out some of what you are trying to convey here. I think you are saying something along the lines that people play some sort of game to live up to an ideal and are not authentically themselves when dating. I guess, when first meeting another person, people usually tend to hide their most radical beliefs and most unique traits, because there is a notion that people expect some sort of "normalcy" standard- perhaps one a society has signaled through various cues as "socially acceptable". Sometimes, this leads to two people falsely living up to social standards but never being themselves. — schopenhauer1

More like acting, People pretend to be likeable, they are motivated to perform because being socially accepted produces feelings of pleasure and since society has shaped our understanding of what is likeable, attractive, popular, our self-esteem depends on these social reactions that compels us to perform in a way that we think will enable the best response from others; the more positive the response, the more secure we feel. In contrast to this is the risk of negative, anxious feelings which develop when one is alone or ostracised since the opinion of the majority implies verification that you are unworthy in some way. It is this paradigm that causes us to feel alienated from ourselves.

Have you seen those relationships between people, despite not being able to sustain a decent conversation with one another and where they are completely unhappy, deliberately create events with the unrealistic hope that things will improve? What - other than the congratulations socially for adhering to the "normalcy"- would compel two people to remain together despite lacking compatibility? What would make the two in our short story remain together?

That's great, but again, most things don't work like in movies or fairy tales as "instantly compatible". — schopenhauer1

I actually think it can. I am not saying it is common, neither am I saying that it is not without some effort or work on both parts, but two people can be perfectly compatible, they just 'click' and my friend is proof of that to me although it took a really unhappy relationship to finally make him find the courage to be himself. He is incredibly attractive (according to society) whereas his current partner is not, but they are genuinely happy together. He just doesn't give a shit what anyone thinks anymore and for that reason he was able to see her for what she was and not for what society would see him to be if he was with her. Does that make sense? So yes, you do put yourself out there, that things take time and you still need to make an effort and make things work, but the motivations are different. This is the dichotomy between authenticity and unauthentic.

Vulnerability. Showing interest in another in a vulnerable way, often repeatedly. Again, this dating process is where the anxiety, drama, and much of the painful part of the process occurs. It is not just instant, and it is not just fate, and it is not just kismet. It is a process that often leads to failure- failure to gain traction, failure to communicate, failure to be oneself, failure to fully find interest or have someone else find interest in someone, etc. No amount of self-actualization will bypass the actual process. You can be yourself all you want, and fail at finding a companion, love, and all the rest. People can be alone their whole life and be comfortable with who they are and miss out on any meaningful romantic relationship. You seem to be overlooking that main point. — schopenhauer1

I may be overlooking this because the line is very close to that former 'acting' that I initially stated, since one could merely be practising this faux behaviour to reach that intended success. I believe what you are trying to say, however, is that it takes practice to overcome that vulnerability to be yourself and indeed, this is exactly right. My experiences liking someone who did not like me back and all the grief that came from that strengthened me to finally reach that self-actualisation that my confidence is now really solid. In saying that, however, I cannot admire contrived behaviour and I have met men who are wonderful and where we do actually 'click' but, I believe you make your own luck or kismet. If you really love someone, you would make an effort.

Have you seen those relationships between people, despite not being able to sustain a decent conversation with one another and where they are completely unhappy, deliberately create events with the unrealistic hope that things will improve? What - other than the congratulations socially for adhering to the "normalcy"- would compel two people to remain together despite lacking compatibility? What would make the two in our short story remain together? — TimeLine

I don't know, doesn't sound too good. Again, tragic.

I am not saying it is common — TimeLine

That right there is part of the tragedy.

So yes, you do put yourself out there, that things take time and you still need to make an effort and make things work, but the motivations are different. This is the dichotomy between authenticity and unauthentic. — TimeLine

I agree with you about being authentic, but I think we must really emphasize the time and effort it takes to find a person and maintain a relationship with them. The fact that this is unequally distributed and rare, is a signal that something off about the phenomena of dating and relationships itself.

I believe you make your own luck or kismet. If you really love someone, you would make an effort. — TimeLine

Okay, but again this is still not addressing the main point (which doesn't really have to do acting or being inauthentic) the point is:
You can be yourself all you want, and fail at finding a companion, love, and all the rest. People can be alone their whole life and be comfortable with who they are and miss out on any meaningful romantic relationship. You seem to be overlooking that main point. And there is yet another part of the tragedy. That is really the crux of my argument. We agree- authenticity in relationships is essential.


To summarize: Dating, relationships, love are often a source of harm, unevenly distributed, and often not even experienced by many people in the world. The avenues to experience these things are clunky, leads to many other negative experiences along the way, and often lead to failure in many respects. Here we are with this very desired "good" but have very poor ways to achieve it. And that is part of the tragedy of it.

That right there is part of the tragedy. — schopenhauer1

:ok:

That is it uncommon for two people who are authentic to actually meet.

I agree with you about being authentic, but I think we must really emphasize the time and effort it takes to find a person and maintain a relationship with them. The fact that this is unequally distributed and rare, is a signal that something off about the phenomena of dating and relationships itself. — schopenhauer1

Perhaps I am being ungenerous; it took several solid months before I realised that I was attracted to that guy I mentioned earlier and I must make it clear that I am not talking about the love at first sight scenario, which is just Disney at best. No two people are perfect for each other, which returns to my earlier statement about that inability to genuinely connect, but two people who know themselves and their self-esteem is solid, who have the courage to transcend the opinion of others, they are able to share and enjoy one another authentically.

Okay, but again this is still not addressing the main point (which doesn't really have to do acting or being inauthentic) the point is:
You can be yourself all you want, and fail at finding a companion, love, and all the rest. People can be alone their whole life and be comfortable with who they are and miss out on any meaningful romantic relationship. You seem to be overlooking that main point. And there is yet another part of the tragedy. That is really the crux of my argument. We agree- authenticity in relationships is essential. — schopenhauer1

Hmm, I cannot help but think that is the tragedy of consciousness that may substantiate the reasons for why people to delude themselves in the first place (are we compelled to act because evolution dictates this, since without it we find it way too difficult to form bonds with others?

Being brutally honest, I am not unattractive and I was recently approached by a man who was attractive, had a stable job and was generally a nice person, but I didn't feel anything for him at all and for a brief moment in my mind I heard this he'll do. It was brief and I was shocked at myself, but it was there, the idea that we could build a life together, white picket fence, dog, children, but no love. I wonder how many people see there partners in that way, rather than actually feel something for them?

When women found independence, they also began to have less children. The more conscious and honest we are, the more incapable we are of bullshitting to ourselves that being alone is inevitably a choice.

Hmm, I cannot help but think that is the tragedy of consciousness that may substantiate the reasons for why people to delude themselves in the first place (are we compelled to act because evolution dictates this, since without it we find it way too difficult to form bonds with others? — TimeLine

You'd have to explain the term "tragedy of consciousness" for me to comment on that. Are we compelled to act to find mates? I think it is not a matter of compelled but a matter of necessity. You cannot find a partner sitting by yourself, or not socializing in some way, so I see no other choice. But I could be misinterpreting what you mean by compelled to act.

When women found independence, they also began to have less children. The more conscious and honest we, the more incapable we are of bullshitting to ourselves that being alone is inevitable a choice. — TimeLine

Being an antinatalist, I am good with that outcome of less children :). I don't get your last sentence there. You'd have to explain. I don't correlate not having children with wanting to be alone. One can have a relationship and not have children. But I'd have to hear first what you are trying to convey about being alone to better comment.

You'd have to explain the term "tragedy of consciousness" for me to comment on that. Are we compelled to act to find mates? I think it is not a matter of compelled but a matter of necessity. You cannot find a partner sitting by yourself, or not socializing in some way, so I see no other choice. But I could be misinterpreting what you mean by compelled to act. — schopenhauer1

I think that consciousness is that additional layer that functions almost in contrast to this biological landscape and our brains have the tools that contradict our own nature. We recognise ourselves or have capacity for self-awareness and thus the activities of our bodies and our thoughts and opinions. This shapes how we treat the system by forming favourable cultural behaviours - monogamy, polygamy, asexuality = maximum diversity - and while our underlying motivations are always compelled by the primitive need for sexual contact, the epistemic features challenges how we approach that system.

This is why some cultures - particularly paternalistic ones - contain systemic women's rights abuses that eliminate any capacity for these women to voice consciousness or self-awareness and thus removes that reproductive barrier. Women who possess such empowerment and control over their own bodies make choices because there is that subjective authenticity and as a consequence - since authenticity is a state of mind - are capable of wanting that love that I mentioned earlier to a point that they would prefer to be single and if they want children, are empowered enough to voice what they want. While women have that maternal instinct, there is a clear difference between contemporary western women and those paternalistic cultures where women end up have +5 children.

Women who possess such empowerment and control over their own bodies make choices because there is that subjective authenticity and as a consequence - since authenticity is a state of mind - are capable of wanting that love that I mentioned earlier to a point that they would prefer to be single and if they want children, are empowered enough to voice what they want. — TimeLine

I am not sure why this is going down the gender politics route. I see what you are saying in terms of the fact that much of this authentic choice for relationships can only take place in a culture that allows for all genders to experience authenticity (in other words the ability to have choice). My main point still stands- people can be alone their whole life and be comfortable with who they are and miss out on any meaningful romantic relationship. Further, truly authentic love can be unequally distributed, rare, and can possibly lead to more frustration down the line. The avenues to obtain authentic love are also frustrating, clunky, non-harmonious, and often drama-filled.

As I said earlier to someone else: However, the main point of my response here is how poorly this supposed "good" is attained and maintained. We haven't figured out the key to our own happiness in this seemingly important matter and so we fall into overanalysis, tropes, and other vague guidelines that simply make things worse. This story illustrated some of this. Overall, it is a tragedy and more proof of the negative character of human life (the basis for philosophy of pessimism).

I think the main differences for why we are talking past each other is that where you are seeing themes of authenticity, I'm seeing themes of the (very often) futile nature of love/relationships/dating. I have agreed with your point that authenticity is part of truly loving someone for who they are and having them love you for who you are, but you have not addressed my main point which is the tragedy at the heart of this phenomenon.

Do you think, Bitette, that you probably lack an understanding of what the story means given you've enjoyed penis for supper for these long years? — TimeLine

God's teeth! How did I miss this savagery?

The old Elizabethan (I think) exclamation appears pretentious, I know, but strikes me as appropriate since you apparently associate the penis with "what's for dinner." Not that God would, of course, though that may be debatable if you accept the doctrine of transubstantiation.

It seems rather severe given the quality of the story in question, but I'm sure your comment, though stern, was well-intentioned and, like the story itself, meant to enlighten. "The Eternal Woman (or Feminine) draws us upward" (sorry, since we have Google we may as well use the original German--Das ewig Weibliche zieht uns hinan).

It seems rather severe given the quality of the story in question, but I'm sure your comment, though stern, was well-intentioned and, like the story itself, meant to enlighten. "The Eternal Woman (or Feminine) draws us upward" (sorry, since we have Google we may as well use the original German--Das ewig Weibliche zieht uns hinan). — Ciceronianus the White

Indeed, the eternal feminine of a pure and submissive woman who functions as a gateway to sexual ecstasy must align herself according to the socially constructed ideals that her own identity and responses are shaped by what men expect her to be. Nevertheless, by keeping it real, it was not the best way to joke about women being socially conditioned to behave sexually in ways that men do not understand and those members who don't know me or are not my friend may intentionally misinterpret the meaning, so either way I apologised and apologise again. As for aligning the phallic with some gastronomic Eucharism, well, that's your soul and problem. :halo:

My main point still stands- people can be alone their whole life and be comfortable with who they are and miss out on any meaningful romantic relationship. Further, truly authentic love can be unequally distributed, rare, and can possibly lead to more frustration down the line. The avenues to obtain authentic love are also frustrating, clunky, non-harmonious, and often drama-filled. — schopenhauer1

I am not disagreeing with your point, it is more a discussion not intended to undermine yours but to explain mine ("putting yourself out there") and I am particularly interested in the idea you say here regarding the avenues to obtain authentic love as I see authenticity as a state of mind just as much as I view love to be moral consciousness and thus a practice. If we play with the words a bit, it is the capacity to reason and therefore live with honesty and thus the non-harmonious frustrations is really some failure of communication either subjectively within yourself due to social constructs that delude your perceptions of reality, or the oft drama-filled miscommunication between one another.

With the latter, if you are having trouble communicating, I would call that a sure sign that you are not right for one another and why I was suggesting happiness to be that natural 'click' or compatibility where you both seem to understand and admire one another comfortably and contentedly.That quiet desperation is really a failure to make this connection and yet still attempting - despite the lack of harmony - to make things work.

We haven't figured out the key to our own happiness in this seemingly important matter and so we fall into overanalysis, tropes, and other vague guidelines that simply make things worse. This story illustrated some of this. Overall, it is a tragedy and more proof of the negative character of human life (the basis for philosophy of pessimism). — schopenhauer1

To see the story as a tragedy has shifted my understanding of it and of your points as I personally felt more disturbed by the experience rather than sympathetic to the underlying motivations, except for when she continued to have sex with him despite realising that she no longer wanted to that perhaps - afterwards - made me feel sorry for her. I don't see what happened as a negative though as though no hope exists, on the contrary her oscillation between the authentic and inauthentic illustrates cognitive possibilities, a type of coming of age or bildungsroman that will enable her to understand what honesty actually is. As I mentioned earlier, it is a terrible experience having a person that you like or are attracted to intentionally hurting you, but despite the hurt, you contrast and learn and in the process this social dynamism helps you to improve and develop that consciousness.

I'm seeing themes of the (very often) futile nature of love/relationships/dating. I have agreed with your point that authenticity is part of truly loving someone for who they are and having them love you for who you are, but you have not addressed my main point which is the tragedy at the heart of this phenomenon. — schopenhauer1

This, I see, as an error and not a tragedy, that error where you select the wrong person and try and make it work, and all other aspects that lead you to make that decision - whether it be social constructs or some underlying loneliness and desperation - and the tragedy is when your entire life passes practising in-authenticity. It is really sad when people cannot see you for who you are, but it is a tragedy when you cannot see you for who you are. I don't see being alone as tragic unless there is an absence of authenticity (like the end of Brave New World)

It seems to me that throughout our sad history, we males when taken together have for various reasons characterized women as either impossibly bad or impossibly good, as it suits us and our circumstances. We're either gross or (grossly) sentimental about them, generally. I'm not sure what Goethe was thinking when he wrote that line, but it sure seems he had the impossibly good woman in mind.

I wonder now and then whether we can be any more sensible. I think we can be in certain cases, but not as a rule, because I suspect when it comes to women we desire we stop thinking in any significant sense. I want to be clear about this, and don't want even to imply that we lose responsibility for what we do or are deserving of sympathy because we driven by impulses beyond our control. But I think that we can become exceedingly stupid and sentimental, though calculating. At worst, we become...well, repulsive. And that may inform the socially constructed ideals you refer to.

I may be wrong, of course. I prefer Pelagius to Augustine, and so think if I have a soul it was pure as pure can be, untouched by sin, at my birth and since then am responsible for my woeful life and will be no matter how many times I ate his body and drank his blood. I stopped doing so long ago, though. My soul and my problem, as you say.

It is really sad when people cannot see you for who you are, but it is a tragedy when you cannot see you for who you are. I don't see being alone as tragic unless there is an absence of authenticity (like the end of Brave New World) — TimeLine

Ah, then this is the crux of our current disagreement. Your quote there, seems at odds with what you said earlier: [Love is] "the only thing worth living for". Well, if real love, and relationships are so paramount, indeed so much so that it is "the only thing worth living for", then for MANY people not to experience this (I am talking specifically romantic love), would seem to be a tragedy. I don't see how you can vacillate between acknowledging it being such an important "good" of life, yet see the non-attainment of this paramount good as "not tragic", or "no big deal". Do you really think that the non-attainment of love/relationships/romantic love for many individuals (this very important good) is not bad? I don't see how this conclusion computes from your view. People are literally not experiencing of the greatest goods one can experience and can go a whole lifetime without it. Indeed, they may have other goods, but it cannot be denied that there is a major one that could have made that life better.

It seems to me that throughout our sad history, we males when taken together have for various reasons characterized women as either impossibly bad or impossibly good, as it suits us and our circumstances. We're either gross or (grossly) sentimental about them, generally. I'm not sure what Goethe was thinking when he wrote that line, but it sure seems he had the impossibly good woman in mind. — Ciceronianus the White

Goethe was almost biblical and this dichotomy between the harlot and the holy illustrates the subjective conflict between instinctual desires or the "bad" and moral responsibility or the "good" that seems to be projected and translated in women. We tempt and inspire the same struggle and thus men create these artificial constructs that they project into an ideal woman and women play the part in order to make themselves attractive. It is superficial communication that enables two people who don't really like each other to stay together, a type of possessiveness rather than harmony. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies?

I wonder now and then whether we can be any more sensible. I think we can be in certain cases, but not as a rule, because I suspect when it comes to women we desire we stop thinking in any significant sense. I want to be clear about this, and don't want even to imply that we lose responsibility for what we do or are deserving of sympathy because we driven by impulses beyond our control. But I think that we can become exceedingly stupid and sentimental, though calculating. At worst, we become...well, repulsive. And that may inform the socially constructed ideals you refer to. — Ciceronianus the White

Love is a practice or an ordination of character, about how we use our own mind and if a person cannot take care of themselves, how is it they can take care of others? If we cannot love ourselves, how can we love others? This subjective vulnerability and lack of self-esteem compels one to conformity or an almost delusional pathology, but as Erich Fromm stated: "Only the person who has faith in himself is able to be faithful to others.” I believe men do deserve sympathy because a deeper vulnerability pressures them to silence articulating their own identity. The pressure of masculinity. If they ever reach that unity within themselves, that honesty where they separate themselves from these socially expected ideals, such men can be inspiring.

Your quote there, seems at odds with what you said earlier: [Love is] "the only thing worth living for". Well, if real love, and relationships are so paramount, indeed so much so that it is "the only thing worth living for", then for MANY people not to experience this (I am talking specifically romantic love), would seem to be a tragedy. — schopenhauer1

The problem is you see love to be romantic love as though when I said love is the only thing worth living for that it is somehow meant for one person and so if you never find that one person than it is tragic. Love - like authenticity - is a state of mind, something that we give and if we only love one person and yet remain indifferent to all others, that is nothing but an enlarged ego or narcissism. You love only because you are loved.

These delusions that people conform to are rooted in this vulnerability, this lack of self-esteem and so when I said that love is the only thing worth living for, I meant reaching a genuine understanding of the world around them because "love" is moral consciousness. It is why some people can be physically alone but never feel lonely, whereas others are in relationships and have many people around them and yet feel anxious and lonely. It is that subjective, inner life that I speak of and working towards attaining this harmony with ourselves - love - is the only thing worth living for, because without it our understanding of the world around us is artificial at best.

It is not to say that authenticity in romance is impossible, the love between two people who have reached that subjective harmony and have overcome that narcissism and lack of self-esteem to see with their own eyes and not with socially constructed ideals. If they can "see" then they can see each other. The tragedy only exists in those that never attain that self-awareness.

Goethe was almost biblical and this dichotomy between the harlot and the holy illustrates the subjective conflict between instinctual desires or the "bad" and moral responsibility or the "good" that seems to be projected and translated in women. We tempt and inspire the same struggle and thus men create these artificial constructs that they project into an ideal woman and women play the part in order to make themselves attractive. — TimeLine

There's a certain danger in being desired or thought desirable by men, it seems.

The "bad" women to such as Goethe would probably be those who arouse the brute needs of the male (I've always wanted to use this silly phrase and couldn't resist using it when the opportunity arose) and the "good" women would be those who inspire our loftier ideals and so lead us onward and upward. It's likely a part of the old distinction we've liked to make between the merely physical and the mental or spiritual, the latter always being superior to the former, but the former always being paramount regardless of what we say, especially when it comes to sex where we (men I mean) are so motivated by what is visual.

I believe men do deserve sympathy because a deeper vulnerability pressures them to silence articulating their own identity. The pressure of masculinity. — TimeLine

The incendiary and divisive Camille Paglia claims that we men must define our identifies against our mothers or we'll be swallowed up by them. An image at once disturbing and suggestive. She can be such fun, sometimes.

But don't be too kind to us. Pity may be more appropriate than sympathy when it comes to these things. And caution. The pressure you speak of is largely self-imposed.

I appreciate your responses. I think better of the story and the author because of them, and may even understand them somewhat.

The problem is you see love to be romantic love as though when I said love is the only thing worth living for that it is somehow meant for one person and so if you never find that one person than it is tragic. Love - like authenticity - is a state of mind, something that we give and if we only love one person and yet remain indifferent to all others, that is nothing but an enlarged ego or narcissism. You love only because you are loved. — TimeLine

This is very much perennial thinking there that most people can get on board with.

These delusions that people conform to are rooted in this vulnerability, this lack of self-esteem and so when I said that love is the only thing worth living for, I meant reaching a genuine understanding of the world around them because "love" is moral consciousness. — TimeLine

Okay, but here you are really stretching the word "love" to such a wide scope, you should probably use another word (even agape vs. eros would be fine). However, you knew, based on the confines of this thread which was started from a short story on dating/relationships/romantic love, that the definition I am using is about romantic love- that is to say that involving having an emotional and physical bond with one (or more?) particular person(s).

It is why some people can be physically alone but never feel lonely, whereas others are in relationships and have many people around them and yet feel anxious and lonely. It is that subjective, inner life that I speak of and working towards attaining this harmony with ourselves - love - is the only thing worth living for, because without it our understanding of the world around us is artificial at best. — TimeLine

Again, I think you are broadening the world "love" to such a degree that it no longer fits into the topic. It's like making a category error. You are applying a concept of "being at harmony with oneself and the universe" as equivalent to romantic love, and I think this creates a false sense that what you are saying is really addressing the scope of this argument.

It is not to say that authenticity in romance is impossible, the love between two people who have reached that subjective harmony and have overcome that narcissism and lack of self-esteem to see with their own eyes and not with socially constructed ideals. If they can "see" then they can see each other. The tragedy only exists in those that never attain that self-awareness. — TimeLine

I really think you are putting so much emphasis on people's self-actualized sense of themselves, it overshoots the issue at hand. Humans are social creatures. We have thrived on committing to intimate/romantic relationships since the beginning of the species, in all societies (whether polygamist or monogamist, tribal or post-industrial, etc.). This social reality is simply not experienced by many people, and the phenomena itself leads to frustration.

So, even if someone is fully self-actualized (a modern concept I find lacking but that's another thread), a big part of being human (intimate relationships) either a) leads to more frustration or b) is not even experienced, thus making a life worse off or not as good as it could have been compared to the rare others who may have this experience of a meaningful relationship.