I must say this is surely a Lounge topic.

Also, stop giving me lucrative business ideas. It stirs a very troublesome aspect of my persona I have yet to reign in proper.

Hm. Actually. It looks like "intellimeet.com" is available for the dirt cheap bargain price of only $5,799 USD. Perhaps @Jamal can organize a community fundraiser. From there, it would be a pleasure, nay, the highest of honors, to be able to help make your dream a reality.

That or try either Barnes & Noble or your local library. Worth a shot, eh? :smirk:

Edit: Sadly, "intelligents.com" commands a bit more of a premium, sitting at a cool 15,000 USD. But surely they can be persuaded toward a lower, more reasonable number. Still a bit beyond my purchasing power at the moment, I'm afraid. Another day, perhaps. :meh:

I must say this is surely a Lounge topic.

That is fair: I wasn't sure what to categorize it as.

Also, stop giving me lucrative business ideas. It stirs a very troublesome aspect of my persona I have yet to reign in proper.

Is it lucrative? Everyone on the other dates seemed perfectly happy chasing fleeting sensual and sexual pleasures...and that's the real problem. I guess my soul is much older than my body (;

Hm. Actually. It looks like "intellimeet.com" is available for the dirt cheap bargain price of only $5,799 USD. Perhaps @Jamal can organize a community fundraiser.

That's entirely too much money for a domain: there's way cheaper one's than that. If you go with an odd TLD, it can even sometimes be free (e.g., '.tk', etc.).

That or try either Barnes & Noble or your local library. Worth a shot, eh? :smirk:

I guess......

I have recently began my search for my soulmate; and started exploring dating apps. — Bob Ross

My son met his girlfriend on Tinder. They've been together for 3 years and seem like a very good match in personal values and life plans. She's a wonderful person and we've forgiven her for the fact her father voted for Trump. I just provide this to let you know it can be done.

I guess...... — Bob Ross

My reasoning is that you're looking for someone who is not only intelligent but content with themselves as a person, developed well beyond the child-like inner mentality and core persona of many "adults" that you seem to have little interest or connection with. My line of thinking is such a person would likely not be busying themselves trying to find a partner online but exploring the world or enriching themselves mentally in the flesh, as opposed to waiting idly by on a lackluster one-dimensional platform of lust and vanity, wouldn't you agree?

What is your age?

Maybe take a philosophy class. Night class. It’s a win/win opportunity. Could be cheaper than the sites Outlander found too.

I'm one of those totally anachronistic people who's never signed up to Tinder. Mainly, I guess, because at age 70, I was lucky enough to meet my life's partner 40 odd years ago at University, before apps were even a thing. So - I don't really have any recommendations. Although I do recall hearing a radio interview with a guy in his 40's who had made a huge amount of money in tech and didn't have to work. He was lonely, but then he got a dog. The dog itself, apart from being a companion, also allowed him to strike up conversations with other dog-owners at the park, and that's how he found some who went on to become his nearest friends. (I will add, like @T Clark above, my son too met his dear one on Tinder and they've been married 4 years. There's nothing the matter with that, but I imagine Tinder has, let's say, a poor noise-to-signal ratio.)

Try eharmony. I know a couple of people that has worked for. Or don't look at aps. Look in your community. She's there - you may even have see her. And when you do, remind yourself it's not business as usual, but the rest of your life. Get that message across and she will see you, and you can go from there.

Small warning: be careful of what you find in churches.

Well first of all, the "average person", isn't on dating apps. And depending on what the app specializes in, it may actually select against what you're looking for. Better to meet up with the types of people who have the qualities you seek in a nonromantic situation, then among that group, start a romance yourself (without an app).

Good luck.

Ironically, this pompous thread is on the main page while 'Kant's ethic is protestant' is in the lounge. Sometimes you will never know how TPF will work. Like the future 'suitable partner' you are looking for, @Bob Ross

Does anyone know of any dating apps or places to be, where people seeking a deep, long-term relationship with an intellectually substantive partner go? — Bob Ross

Dating as a philosophy enthusiast:

Principle A) Your candidate partners, matches and dates will almost certainly not care about philosophy. At least as much as you. People are good to talk to regardless. You're picking one of your most extremely exemplified traits and filtering on it, just raw statistics filters out most of the people you could get on well with. It's the same principle as the fact that someone who's 190cm tall looking for someone taller will not find many.

Principle B) Asking philosophical questions can count as asking intrusive questions. Be careful.

Principle C) This place of enlightened intellectual hook up culture and romance doesn't exist, never has and never will. It would be a special sort of hell. If you want to do philosophical dating, go and think about the experiences and norms you encounter. But don't talk about them on dates as it's a horrible faux pas.

Principle D) people still want to be approached and talked to. Even though maybe 1-10% of women (depending on your age) might think approaching them in public means you're a sex offender (only a mild exaggeration). If you're looking for women, default to the idea that people you approach will look at you like a threatening wild animal. Would you want a wild animal to corner you in a night club? No. Or approach while you're walking home through a side street? No. But in a public place, especially if they're with others? That's more ok.

Principle E) If you make an advance on someone, be direct with your intentions but tell them that it's okay if they refuse. When in doubt, imagine what an English stereotype would do then do the opposite.

Good luck!

Be yourself in a public place. If you are unusual but not creepy you will attract the interest of those who might be interested. It might take more than 5 minutes. Hey look Mum, that guy's reading a book/ feeding the birds,/playing the mandolin/whittling a spoon/doing tai chi. Anything you fancy apart from "searching for a soulmate" That's too creepy and predatory!

If you are unusual but not creepy you will attract the interest of those who might be interested. — unenlightened

These days people don't approach others in public I'm afraid. Despite most people desiring to be approached more.

:heart:

I will keep trying then...

That's entirely fair: I do think I am more likely to find a partner in the world as I am merely doing what I normally do; but that may take some serious time, as I am introverted and do not go out much. I will have to start getting out more.

Lower 20s: how about you?

:up:

That is definitely worth a shot.

Lol.

These days people don't approach others in public I'm afraid. Despite most people desiring to be approached more. — fdrake

Sure they do, but you have to look up from your book occasionally and look around and smile at anyone who's looking at you. If they smile back, you say "I love this book..." and then they want to know what book, and...

You're picking one of your most extremely exemplified traits and filtering on it

I am realizing more-and-more that you are right: I didn’t think it would be rare to find someone who at least has thought through their positions, but apparently that is a lot to ask…

Principle B) Asking philosophical questions can count as asking intrusive questions. Be careful.

Yeah, I figured that out the hard way.

Principle C) This place of enlightened intellectual hook up culture and romance doesn't exist,

I am not looking for an intellectual hook up culture: I want out of the hook up culture altogether.

Principle D) people still want to be approached and talked to.

This one is the area that I need to work the most on. I usually avoid women in public places (: It is time to get thrown to the wolves.

Sure they do, — unenlightened

I was exaggerating.

The norms changed into a massive clusterfuck. Over the past few years I've talked about it with straight woman friends and acquaintances my age-ish quite a lot. I'd say about 30 people. There were two broad camps.

The first camp believed that being approached by a man (first) in public at all is creepy or predatory in principle - the overwhelming preference for them was not to have it happen at all ever. This was about 25% of the women I talked with. NB, this wasn't framed as a strong personal taste, it was framed as a moral wrong on the approacher's part.

The second camp believed that being approached by a man (first) in public is okay so long as they're not creepy, predatory or intrusive about it. Those situations differed. Some people saw it as creepy, predatory or intrusive if men approached them in public when they were with friends. Some would need friends there for it to be ok. The norms were also very different regarding approach strategies - some people found it creepy/predatory if the guy didn't declare their intent almost immediately (eg trying to make it fully explicit that they're attracted), some people found it creepy if the guy declared his prior to socialising for quite some time. This broad group was 75% of the women I talked with. Broadly speaking they distinguished personal preference from morality, unlike the first group. Some things just gave them the ick which others would require. Such is compatibility.

Both of groups on average would not approach men even if interested (one person I talked with would and has). And both saw the kind of situation you described as a male entitlement to assume it means you can approach them for a conversation at all, never mind an amorous one! Different people have different "clear signals" of their interest, which aren't clarified beforehand.

Of all the guy friends I have, I only know one other bloke who actually talks with women they don't already know (when they have any amorous or sexual intent) in public regularly. The remainder have seen the above and opt out of the clusterfuck, either because they fear the peculiar rejection of being seen as a creep in an unpredictable fashion, or because they don't want to ruin the first camp's day.

People in Camp 1 still engage in the Camp 2 social invitation graces, but they do so as social graces and nothing more.

The overall shift I've seen with these norms over time is the emergence of the first group and those norms getting absorbed by blokes I speak with.

Camp 2 is kind of business as usual for me, what I grew up with, and the norm you're expressing in your post. The default assumption being that if someone meets your eyes, smiles at you, or otherwise engages you in niceties in public that means trying to start talking with that person can be assumed (in principle) to be ok. It's also overwhelmingly what I see when I talk with older people (like 35+) about romantic norms. The Camp 1 people were younger.

It's also very much class coded. Working class dive bars have the camp 2 social norms among the young 'uns. And straight coded - I go to a gay bar and any bloke who behaves like camp 2 is an absolute prude.

This one is the area that I need to work the most on. I usually avoid women in public places (: It is time to get thrown to the wolves. — Bob Ross

Good luck! Try going out with your friends and approaching women who have other friends there. You get moral support and so do they. Rejection is the default. It always stings a bit but you get used to it.

48

Sure they do, but you have to look up from your book occasionally and look around and smile at anyone who's looking at you. — unenlightened

Sure they do, but you have to look up from your book phone occasionally and look around and smile at anyone who's looking at you.

Sure they do, but you have to look up from your
phone occasionally and look around and smile at anyone who's looking at you. — Agree-to-Disagree

Nobody ever looks up from a phone, and no one who is on a phone in public is likely to be noticed at all except as an arsehole talking to someone who isn't there like a schizo. The point of being in a public place in this context is to be present to the world, and engaged in an activity, but open to the presence of others. I gave many options apart from a book, and none of them was a phone for good reason.

:up:

I wonder: are there any good ways to meet an intellectually substantive partner (viz., perhaps a philosopher)? — Bob Ross

Principle A) Your candidate partners, matches and dates will almost certainly not care about philosophy. At least as much as you. People are good to talk to regardless. You're picking one of your most extremely exemplified traits and filtering on it, just raw statistics filters out most of the people you could get on well with. It's the same principle as the fact that someone who's 190cm tall looking for someone taller will not find many. — fdrake

I tend to disagree with fdrake. There are philosophers and there are philosophers. By "intellectually substantive partner" I suspect that Bob is thinking of someone who is philosophical in a sense that is not exclusively academic. It is worth noting that intellect is not merely one of Bob's traits, but specifically one of his values, and I believe it is worth taking the effort to try to find someone who shares that central value. Intellectual mismatch is not a minor problem in relationships.

Of course, it is likely that his conception of "intellectually substantive" is overly narrow, and in that way I agree with your point. If so, the criterion should be broadened but not abandoned.

Fair enough. I am not looking for an actual philosopher (in an academic sense) nor do they need to be overly interested in the various branches of philosophy that I am; but I would like to be with someone that I can intellectually resonate with. I value people who have put in the intellectual work, even if I disagree with them, to hash out their worldview and be able to explicate it (adequately); and I value critical, genuine, and creative thinking.

I am not shocked that most people don't study philosophy on their own time; but I am kind of shocked how little these women (I have talked to) know about what they believe (in any substantive sense). Some of them even boast that they are "apolitical"......

know about what they believe (in any substantive sense) — Bob Ross

People in general don't enjoy the kind of thinking that inclines you toward philosophy. My impression is that it usually feels some combination of pedantic, combative, frustrating and destabilising. None of which are pleasant feelings.

Thinking philosophically isn't full of pleasant feelings anyway is it? Even when you get something out of it. It's work.

This one is the area that I need to work the most on. I usually avoid women in public places (: It is time to get thrown to the wolves. — Bob Ross

My advice: Work on establish comfort, connection & rapport before diving into the "what is your worldview and is it rationally coherent" discussion. :wink:

If you're serious about it pick up the gospels and emulate the character that Jesus describes down to the T.