I don't think it's your ideals that are at fault, but rather your expectations.Like the stars aligned to fulfill that desire without compromise, but still wasn't good enough for this romantic idealist. That's what you get for spending years reading about romance rather than doing it. — Wosret
Again it's not the ideas which were unrealistic, but the fact that your partner didn't share them. And it would be kinda silly to think you're the only crazy one out there - it's just that, probably like you yourself, the crazy girls are hard to find. But to this day they must be waiting for Wosret...Even with that, my warped by fiction, ridiculously unrealistic ideas about romance, and love proved to be too insane, and I messed that up too. — Wosret
First, when I refer to patrilineal societies it's not of the essence with regards to them that the male plays a more important social role than the female. For all I care, it could be the female inheriting the property. What is of importance is that certain virtues exist - monogamy, virginity, loyalty, faithfulness, chastity, control of the sexual impulse. These virtues permit the creation of relatively stable families, where the members work together for the achievement of higher, common goals, with the elimination of potential sources of inner conflict like jealousy, hatred, anger, etc. Families are necessary for building up a strong and healthy society which focuses on its survival and flourishing instead of merely on pleasure.That it happens to be currently so is certainly true, though savagery is by no means confined to undeveloped societies. But I would like to see some argument as to why it is so 'by essence'. You might take the following into account, taken from here. — unenlightened
Yes you did, but I have no beef with it. It's not about using language to talk about my own prejudicies, it's using it to talk about what's important (and let me remind you that you've associated those virtues with patrilineal societies as well, so I merely identified the important point and went on from there). If you care about the fact that man or woman has a more leading role in society than the other, or whatever other incoherency, that's your problem, and you can go on caring about it day in and day out. I don't. If you disagree that the virtues are necessary for a stable family environment/society, I would like to hear arguments, not quibbles about what words mean.First, I introduced the term 'patrilineal', and I used it in the conventional meaning rather than make up some nonsense. If you want to distort the language to suit your own prejudices then there is no possibility of communication. — unenlightened
No they haven't actually. You name me just one such society. Societies have thrived from social conservative values - the Middle East and India from arranged marriages for example, Europe from the virtue of chastity, and so forth. The only ones who thrived from other values are the savages.And what is of importance is that you have zero basis for your declarations thereafter; as if other cultures have not been at least as stable and survived at least as long and flourished as well, with just as stable families. — unenlightened
How is that any different from the Rome of Musonius Rufus and Epictetus (who advocated chastity until marriage for example) degenerating and collapsing in its morals over time? How is it any different than the very religious Islamic caliphate started by Muhammad degenerating into the liberal Baghdad at the height of its powers? A time always comes when people no longer see the value of discipline and virtue, and think they can do without it. Their parents couldn't enjoy life because they were burdened by the virtues - at least they should enjoy life now! It's like an army - if the army is always winning, and they even forget that losing is possible, they lose sight of the value of discipline. They forget that they won in the first place because of discipline. So likewise these young people forget that virtue is actually what made enjoyment possible in the first place, and not happy with the amount of enjoyment possible, they want to extend it, and conclude that removing virtue is the way to do this, without understanding that virtue is what made it possible in the first place.And I would point out that it is just this stable family focused sexually righteous society that has degenerated into the abomination that is modern liberalism. Now how did that happen? — unenlightened
Societies go through cycles. Growth and decay. — Agustino
There is no progress in terms of societies. It's the same cycle having played itself out through all of history, and which will play itself out through all of history. The reason for this is the fallen nature of man.Then they are not stable. People who see that progress and stability are incompatible are different and few, and they are thought to be mad-men by everyone else. — unenlightened
*nods* (Y)I'd definitely say that the West is obsessed with sexuality more than just sex. — Heister Eggcart
So where do I sit once I find her? :-OI said find, not find her and sit on her. — Heister Eggcart
We might then discuss whether any of these are good reasons in particular circumstances. The latter, for example, might work for monks, but not so much for priests, and even less for the laity. — unenlightened
While, you may say that "truth is a pathless land" according to one of your favorite philosophers, I would have to say the is some truth in what they say. Time would attest to that fact.
If society is obsessed with matters such as sex and sexuality, then I say fuck society. Erich Fromm would agree? — Question
Let me put it very simply; if one sees clearly that sex is not necessary to one's life, then there is no difficulty. I am like this with cars. I know most people around me have a car, and I see the use, but also the problems, and it is no effort for me to decide to avoid having one. Sometimes I have difficulties because I don't have one, but those difficulties are small compared to the trouble and expense of owning one. If sex is like that, then there is no problem leaving it behind. But If I found that I was constantly thinking about having a car, and disparaging those that have them, and lauding myself for doing without, then the truth would be that I was more obsessed with cars than those that had them. And that would be silly.
So to be free from the obsession with sex that some people (but probably fewer than appears) have is certainly to be looked for. But celibacy maintained through gritted teeth, as it were, is not any kind of freedom, and maintains the obsession far more strongly than having a sexual relationship. — unenlightened
don't you feel joy from not having a car and smile to yourself at times when you see that someone gets a ticket or is stopped so the Bobby can reach his quota? — Question
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.