This is the saddest, creepiest OP I’ve ever seen on the forum. It’s worse than even Hanover’s true stories. — T Clark

Best thread on TPF in years, OP. :up: — Outlander

Why turning to base trolling and name calling I would expect on other forums?

T Clark you are the one also made the 'low effort' "get help" response in the very productive Suicide thread that many are enjoying so not going to put much stock in your comment.

I am not saying the OP has the highest intellectual vigour and was rightly placed in The Lounge but there is no need for guttural replies as there it was an honest observation and don't see what is 'creepy' about it. If you want to say it is creepy then say why, as this is a Philosophy forum, not just a little hit and run insult.

Seems your delicate sensibilities are easily offended.

Tolerance is often insufficient. It will not do to simply tolerate divergence while still despising it. The further step is to accept divergence. We accept multiculturalism, LGBQTI+, disability and so on as aspects of human variation. Racism, we don't accept, but tolerate; that is, we refrain from denying them civil rights or using coercion against them so long as they abide by the law. This is quite different from accepting racism itself. Acceptance applies to people’s identities, capacities, and ways of life; tolerance applies, in limited fashion, to people whose doctrines we reject. — Banno

Ok I see the term tolerance is problematic but kind of part of the question, but the following replies have cleared up the conflation.

The original accusation was clearly a low effort 'gotcha' by the right anyway, not one to be taken to be serious.

I have no idea what AmadeusD means by me strawmanning myself.

The quote I made is the stawman that I want to unpick.

Although it isn't serious it can lead to a serious debate on what the Left accepts (shall we use that instead of tolerance now?) and what the Right accepts? There seems to be a bit more jockeying over Right wing vs Conservative - I would see them as one and the same for the purposes of the discussion?

It would be those who you would commonly expect online to be complaining about 'woke Leftists' ruining the country. I happen to agree with most of what they are saying about wokism and cancel culture which creates a terrible landscape where people are afraid to have open debate.

That is why I touched on that in the OP and said I would also stand against that.

I am more thinking about your average Left leaning person who might enjoy David Pakman for instance. He too is against what I mention above. Sam Harris being another good example of public faces in the kind of sphere I am discussing.

I would say ideally a 'good Leftist' is one that is accepting of others while now becoming domineering about rooting out 'evil' where there may be none just for their own need to feel important.

The Right who criticise the Left for this and the Left that do it I would say are 2 sides of the same coin. The Right will call anything not Trumpist/MAGAist as woke nonsense and the wokey Left will likewise try and shutdown any discussion about legitimate issues such for example if any men want to gather to discuss issues they can often be out picketing as it is 'patriarchy'.

I would add that a moderate Conservative or Leftist could have thoughtful and intelligent discussion.

I suppose it is like average religious people vs. fundamentalists. All religions get along side by side in cities from day to day but the tiny minorities of extremists are the ones that are most visible and cause the most trouble. Though in this case it is far more than a tiny minority on the Left and Right who are the troublemakers.

Here in Australia — Tom Storm

Speaking of which, it is an aside but, why is Sky News super right-wing and even conspiracy pandering, yet in the UK it is pretty even. Well I can answer that myself as I looked it up the other day - because the Australian arm is still owned by infamous tabloid giant Rupert Murdoch yet the UK one was bought out, by someone else, who I forgot now but certainly more even handed in their writing.

incommensurability between the act of sex and the effect of procreation — Leontiskos

Indeed.

Most things are of a like kind to produce more of the same.

Not sure how to articulate, but living a certain kind of way produces more of the same. If someone lives a life of abusing their bodies they can expect results in kind. If someone eats healthy they can expect healthy results.

I suppose what I mean is that sex is nasty by nature, and nasty in a good way, due to being naughty, but babies are like a wholesome thing. It is like a strange alchemy where one base material produces its opposite.

Do you find satisfaction in Buddhism? — Jeremy Murray

Kind of. I would still much prefer my old life back, but it is like my hand has been forced to seek out something else and Buddism has a lot of explanations for the suffering.

I find lots of it ridiculous though, so have to pick what I take, as, while they claim to be non-theistic, it is still steeped in religious dogma, such as reincarnation, fantastical supernatural acts, like the Buddha could supposedly levitate and other such silliness.

This is when you look on contemporary Buddhist forums as well and if you question those things you are told 'you do not have faith'

I don't really read much into that now. Sam Harris has done a good analysis of this, taking the good rational bits and throwing out the nonsense.

The problem of evil is avoided, for one thing. — Jeremy Murray

Don't know what you mean here. Sounds like a misinterpretation. Nothing is avoided in Buddhism, it is all to be accepted and detached from, good and evil, until you do not care one way or the other and move past the dichotomous world.

Do you find any solace in talking about these things? — Jeremy Murray

Not much though I am indulging myself in this thread. I prefer discuss other philosophical subjects.

It is fine at the moment, or I wouldn't have posted, but not something I actively seek over other philosophical matters.

deep dive — Moliere

Deep dive you mean a life downswing? I usually see that term these days used just to mean heavily researching a topic.

There is ample archaeological and paleopathological evidence that ancient humans, including early Homo sapiens and even Neanderthals, cared for and cared for their fellow tribesmen with serious injuries, disabilities, or illnesses. This is evident in the traces of old injuries on the bones of the inhabitants of that time, and yet, later in life, the tooth enamel of such individuals often appears better than that of their fellow tribesmen (they ate pureed food). This is interpreted by scientists as evidence of healthy group members caring for the sick or disabled. — Astorre

Interesting and good evidence of our sociability being a core aspect of our nature..

reddit seems to make big mistakes — ProtagoranSocratist

I think that is very different. They get to a size where they are too big to fail and think that everything they do is right and people will keep coming no matter what.

Lol why do you need him to ban you? I often just delete my saved credentials from forums, usually because people are rude and troll when I am being, what I feel is, nothing but civil. Don't rely on others, be self-sufficient.

However, why don't you wait and see what the new forum will be like? which I know is a big topic around here at the moment. I personally doubt it will be any improvement to this, and don't like this one much either as I prefer older fashioned forums, but I have said my piece on that already in the dedicated thread.

It is testament to the general quality of discussions that I stay despite my dislike of the user interface.

have you read Ligotti's book or the pessimists? It's depressing stuff, but I found comfort in it. — Jeremy Murray

No but I did philosophy as my degree and Existentialism was my favourite, with Political Philosophy second, I would say, for very different reasons. I remember eagerly waiting the year it would be studied proper and when it came it did not disappoint.

Yes Camus said that about Sisyphus; they pretty much all were saying the same thing weren't they, from different angles, as per my comment above, to embrace the absurdity of life through living authentically.

As I wrote in my reply to @Moliere this was well and good while things were working out for me through that hard toil of 'living authentically' but when life hit reset for me does not feel fair, while others still get to carry on their own paths unfettered, and I am once again disillusioned.

I suppose that is the absurdity part, which I am not accepting.

Btw why do @ mentions of users seem to work for others but not me?

what has gotten better is my ability to live with depression, and that's made a huge difference in my life satisfaction. — Moliere

This was me after many years thinking I was finally finding my stride and then I got hit with chronic illness and it just tumbled the whole house of cards.

Before it felt like life, while difficult, could be enjoyed if I, and others, worked hard enough to achieve it but being struck down just as I felt like I was about to start enjoying all the fruits of my labour has made it all seem worthless and that anyone can be smote at any time.

Most annoying to still watch others enjoy their lives in blissful ignorance.

I know lots of people deal with various chronic illnesses and still enjoy life but for me it has stripped away my ability to engage in what I devoted my life to for about the last 20 years.

If it happened when I got older and it was expected then I could have felt like it was inevitable and accepted it more but I feel I have been shot down in my prime.

Now I just feel like why bother when it could be taken away at any moment. I have tried to find new things, like picking up philosophy again in joining this forum, which I do enjoy, but I don't think anything will ever replace my first passion. It just feels like 'plugging the gap' now until my eventual demise.

It has certainly made me see the nature of impermanence which the Buddhists would say is good.

I haven't looked through the replies yet, so don't know what's been discussed already or if I am retreading old ground, but I saw the title in passing on previous visits and the idea percolated in my head to some thoughts.

I joined this forum again after many years of not thinking about anything much philosophically after finishing my degree almost 20 years ago (wow!).

The intent was to just toy with ideas for the fun of it like the old Greek boys.

I actually became disillusioned with philosophy at the time of finishing my degree, having thought for a while before that, before completion, that it was going round in circles and many philosophers were saying the same things, just from slightly different points of view, and that it was mostly impotent.

This made me in the following years read more into the hard sciences as they were very clear about goals and achieving them with rationality.

Now though, having come back to it, with this forum, it has reminded me how it can be enjoyed just for its own sake. One of the awful issues when studying for a degree was, while we were studying very interesting topics, there was such pressure to meet deadlines that there was very little time to enjoy the subject matter.

It just felt like a constant conveyor belt of essays and exams, which it was. You could only pick one topic per semester as I recall and due to the tight deadlines it worked out better to just skip the rest once you picked one you wanted to write an essay on as it effectively 'wasted' time that could better be spent studying for that one subject/philosopher you chose to do the coursework on.

This outcome dependence really stymied the enjoyment.

I think I stated my point enough on that.

A 'useful', in the real world, Protestant work ethic sense, application of philosophy would be areas like politics and ethics.

It's a dark thought, 'life will only get worse' but perhaps an accurate prediction, in some cases. — Jeremy Murray

Sure it is but it is my life experience which has drawn me to this thinking.

I feel that the eras I have passed through have gotten worse with each decade, and that is not even considering the health side of things. 90s were the good old days in my mind with people just seeming to get stupider and stupider as the years have gone on.

You can call it classic cynicism of aging but most seem quite happy in middle age compared to me now. Maybe it is superficial and they are suffering too but they certainly don't seem as motivated as me to reject the status quo.

The Buddha too became 'disgusted' with the wheel of samsara which pushed him onward to find a better way.

I'm glad the discussion has continued on despite the timid early posters with their wrote and trite 'get help'. This is a very important area of study for philosophy and when we studied it at university it was not shied away from, as it should not be.

From the top of my head Kierkegaard’s leap of faith, Camus in his embracing absurdity and various other flavor generally espousing the same with most of the Existentialists. This is a fundamental question for philosophy to tackle and not something to brush aside. Philosophy should tackle the big questions.

It does feel like 'concept creep' has affected this issue in the way it has with many progressive interventions — Jeremy Murray

Hehe concept creep is a good way to put it if I am understanding you correctly in it being a slippery slope to normalise suicide for what seems lesser and lesser maladies.

I was watching a documentary on assisted dying recently which is current in the uk due to their passing some prelims in parliament for it. It went to the States to interview people where it is legal as well as Canada.

What I thought 'silly' was how some disabled people were rallying against it, for the future creep idea you propose, envisioning a holocaust type scenario where they will be shuttled off for their lethal injections.

They are saying they want to keep it illegal because it makes them feel 'unsafe' and in so doing forcing others to suffer who will not have access to it. Pretty selfish I thought for their paranoid hypothetical. I get the sentiment but it is another case of over reaching just like black lives matter and metoo - as in there is a kernel of truth where it is justified but blown out of all proportion.

I was thinking of a more radical idea. What if it was instead taken to be super cheap and easy to do with little checks at all, if someone felt like it? Buddhism and other eastern philosophies say how all is impermanent and suffering in this world. Never mind the reincarnation fantasy mentioned above and other metaphysical nonsense it is steeped in.

From a coolly rational point of view wouldn't it be better to let it be a simple matter. If we can divorce ourselves from the idea of life being precious - which is really only Darwinian impulse, then why not?

A Buddhist practice is to imagine you could die after your next breath. Perhaps there would be a more light feeling to the world if you knew you could end it simply at any moment.

who began whinging in their teens and never stopped. — Tom Storm

Sounds like usual 'alpha male' rhetoric.

In the last few years I feel like the only guarantee is life will get worse and worse so what is the point?

"Just because" is usually the reply or some prettied up version of it.

My parents are elderly and either they or their peers are talking of an ever growing list of health issues. You can do very little of what you used to enjoy so why wait to reach that stage? "Just because".

The live fast die young adage seems better. Also from an evolutionary perspective we weren't 'meant' to live past our 30s anyway so pretty much fighting against the tide. You can say it is part of our nature to fight against our nature, but, as above, why? if the only reward is worsening health.

My mother often tells me about putting money into pensions for when I am old but it seems like retirement is a scam. Build loads of interest for the banks and you spend on stupid superficial stuff when your body is broken and not really able to enjoy it.

Euthanasia for the terminally Ill is one thing. — hypericin

It doesn't have to be terminal illness. Chronic illness is torture for many. Complex illness is largely ignored by the medical institution.

Read this discussion about infinite scroll — Jamal

The time it took to load that link is case in point lol. Discourse takes like 20+ seconds for me to load a page. Phpbb very quick.

It is like the latest windows versions require greater and greater hardware requirements in the name of 'progress' when I can run linux just fine on cast off machines from family members from a decade or more ago.

I don't care what people say about infinite scroll, won't change my mind. Pagination worked perfect and cannot envision a case where infinite scroll would be better since I value conserving resources and that is the opposite "load everything to get to the part you want in a thread" rather than jump to specific page. If I am wrong, don't care, don't like it!

EDIT: Ok I did read the thread. I see a message claims that 'posts are loaded in and out while scrolling just the same as with pagination'.

Maybe true but I just prefer the old style even if performance is 1:1 the same, just because that is what I first learned and liked. Don't care if it is nostalgia or what. I hate social media too maybe because it wasn't around when I was young but I think I would dislike the vapid nature of it even if I was young when it was already established.

I have always despised 'booze culture' and that has been around for a long time before I was born.

So much this. — Outlander

Right on. Time for a 'hard fork'? :yum: would probably be a community of 2.

Well, respectfully, it is because I could pick a host of things I dislike about current forums - the bloating and infinite scroll, the overly 'busy' design and litany of options which do little, imho, to improve the experience. Maybe improve the addictive nature, like with the social media sites they are based on, but do not add anything positive over a simple text forum.

I opt for things like command line email clients though which is not most people's cup of tea so not expecting to win anyone over.

Lol, then we have nothing more to discuss on this matter.

I see. Thanks for explaining. I had never looked into it tbh. I know a lot of forums use discourse these days and simply have not had an interest since it is not the old school aesthetic I like.

I have been toying with the idea of making a forum or two myself for a while - nothing to do with philosophy - and I quickly decided I would choose phpbb if I ever use one.

I too have been a coder for some years, though haven't done it in a couple of years now. Not coding directly but adjacent skills of admin of server running and command line stuff which I also enjoy.

Can I ask why you have gone the subscription and premium forum software route rather than free and open source?

Being honest the choices I read above about Discourse being 'slick' to paraphrase seemed rather trite.

I am a wholeheartedly biased open source advocate.

Also biased in that I much preferred forums from the early naughties in my formative years of the internet when phpbb was top dog. I still prefer that forum software in this day and age of emojis, reaction scores, and other social media inspired forums with added content and phpbb is still an updated project.

Not saying that will sway you just that is what I prefer. I have come to enjoy the ragtag motley crew especially our raucous and polarising Uncle Boethius so will go to whichever y'all go most likely just that I prefer clean and simple forums like phpbb. For the subject matter which is about level headed rational discussion I don't see why you have to be 'trendy' and go with the most flashy forum software of the moment with its related costs.

Lol, I thought I would check @boethius's new posts and came upon this thread.

I got a lot more out of your anarchism/communism discussions which seemed much better rooted in actual historical precedent, backed up by the source material which I further explored. It seems your content has veered far from the vigorous philosophical subject matter I first came to respect you for when joining this forum.

Maybe all these what ifs are true to your life as @Jamal indicated but I don't see what these extremely idiosyncratic scenarios have to do with the 'price of fish' (to use a British colloquialism) here.

I understand if someone, for instance, suffers a violent attack they may have much more awareness about threats in the future. It is whether the vigilance is rational or not. If it becomes hyper-vigilance where they were afraid to leave the house then that is not helpful, which seems akin to these extreme hypotheticals you are posing here.

From your postulating, this forum does not seem any different from other businesses in the UK, and all businesses in the UK should shutdown immediately to pour over these possible risks.

Of course nothing is 100% and any other company would be open to the risks of being sued you are proposing here.

I am finding it tedious how "I asked chatgpt..." has become the "let me just google that" seemingly overnight.

Also more annoying is when people will respond to you by interjecting AI answers into a discussion. What is the point of discussion forums if they are just going to regurgitate AI content?

The Christmas vs Hunting examples are, coincidentally and unintentionally when I wrote the post, good contrasting examples as you note here.

While I do not personally favor Christmas, and am one of those 'opt out' people alluded to above, as it is generally harmless.

On the other hand killing animals for fun and sport when the participants could get their jollies in a thousand other ways is needless suffering for innocent animals.

I actually do not think the consumerist behemoth of Christmas - which is what I take issue with, not the original festive season before all this bloat was added - is harmless however I think that is a lesser evil than killing for fun.

And whence do you get your cards, sir? From the future? — unenlightened

My post above I think clears that up on my position.

I think it’s reasonable to challenge arguments from tradition. If someone says something is a matter of tradition, I think the first response should be to question it. But that’s just a personal preference. Misogyny, homophobia, slavery, and many other bigotries and harmful practices are traditional. The defence that a group has always done something a certain way is not a definitive justification. And the question might be, “Whose tradition?” Is it tradition for the nobility to exploit peasants and does this make it right? Is democracy and liberalism a tradition? I’m sure many of the people who defend tradition may not be so enthusiastic about those two institutions.

When does something become a tradition and is there any agreement on how it works? — Tom Storm

This is a nice summation that gets at what I was aiming for which seems to have been glossed over in most replies I have so far.

Most respondents seem to answer as if I am attacking tradition 'just because'. The point is that heinous acts through history have been perpetrated in the name of tradition. T Clark defends hunting with his family from an typically anthropocentric perspective because it serves him and his own in group, with no regard for the needless killing of animals for one's own fun.

Why can't he and his family enjoy a board game around the fire instead?

Does the act of killing some other creature enhance the fun and togetherness? that would be a rather chilling and bloodthirsty claim to stand by.

As per the slavery example, it could be equally justified that the family is brought together with some good wholesome corralling of savage negroes to be auctioned at market.

It is about questioning what is held as traditional and asking 'can we do better'?

I do agree tradition, falling under culture can also be very beneficial. On the opposite side I chagrin the loss of culture to the throwaway society. In my opinion it is about separating the wheat from the chaff which comes from well considered analysis of these traditions and not holding any particular one as out of bounds because 'tradition'.

It isn't that it necessarily does. That would be the same fallacy as the appeal to tradition fallacy. It is that you should not automatically take tradition as proof in itself that something should stay the way it is.

Upon inspection it might well be that keeping a tradition is the best course of action, or inaction, but reason must evaluate the options to decide that, not just deciding that choice, or lack of, is right just because it has been like that up to the present point.

Example: Claim: It is better not to kill people because the bible says so.

We can agree generally it is conisdered right not to kill people, but not just because the bible says so. We can evaluate that it is wrong to kill as killing is wrong for whatever humanitarian reasons we choose. The bible just happens to agree.

Yes.

A fair question, to which I would answer "no" — Tzeentch

I shall quote Cuz D'Amato, Mike Tyson's formative trainer: "I don't care what Mike Tyson does outside the ring."

That was tongue in cheek.

Yes I see your angle is the Ghandi lead by example approach. Of course ideally the man would also be the perfect reflection of his values, but that doesn't make their work's worthless if they aren't. A rational person should analyze the merits of the body of work in its own right to see if it offers value.

What you are proposing goes against the justice system's tenets of not allowing outside elements taint a person's right to a fair trial. From what I understand they won't allow evidence which does not pertain to the particular case as it might taint the jury's opinion unduly from the case at hand. I don't know all the legalese terms for it but that is the general gist.

prominent members of this site have used it to make themselves look smarter than they really are — Janus

Can you show an example of this? Maybe that is why user Boethius seemed to reel off such long posts in short order now I think of it? :rofl:

I really hate it too on the wider internet now. How seemingly overnight everyone and their mother are casually writing "I asked chatgpt xyz" and have fully adopted it into their weltenshaung.

I can't imagine how bad things are going to get in the coming years with how quickly it has already gotten to this state. Maybe it will be like some other rapid rise cultural phenomenons where it will reach saturation point fast and peter out and get pushback/revulsion before long. The bubble effect.

What really gets my goat is being on chat for an online store and when they get tired of replying they will pas you over to AI without telling you. I quickly figured that out on livechat when pages worth of responses were regurgitated in milliseconds but over email it takes a little longer but I suspect it several times when there are no spelling errors and some general female name who is very friendly as usually you will get curt monosyllabic replies from real people as they can't be bothered with you.

Before you read his philosophy, I suggest reading his biography and then ask yourself the poignant question whether this is the sort of "man" you would take economic advice from. — Tzeentch

Is it not a case of judge the message and not the man? The same was said about Heidegger being an unapologetic/unrepentant Nazi but his philosophy still stands on its own and from what I recall had little flavour of his political beliefs.

If there is a master craftsman woodworker and you appreciate his work and later find out he is a Nazi does that make you suddenly hate his handiwork? Maybe the answer is yes, but should you, rationally?

Another example is quite a bit a bit of technology was taken from the Germans at the end of WW2. Does make the science any less valid? Methadone is one example which has enjoyed much use in the west since.

Aside: I only just noticed the OP was from 4 years ago. I wonder if the original poster has long left to pastures new, having cultivated their right wing ideals in the interim, to places like Q-anon forums. :)

Nonetheless it seems @Tzeentch has taken up the torch.

Pretty obvious to me Boethius is the disingenuine (and likely mentally ill imo) one here. How could a question so simple be impossible to answer? Instead, evasive, obtuse and…of a weasel like nature.
So much for outside arbitration. — DingoJones

No there is no problem with an opinion that differs from mine, it is still good to have others weigh in on the situation.

Although I have found Boethius very entertaining, and previously informative, when they are posting, I too am veering to your own appraisal which I have come to think due to their very erratic posting habits. There will be a large flourish of frantic posting then radio silence for weeks.

This could be put down to having a life but the strange thing I noticed is that they are still active on the forum, as it shows their status as having been here only minutes ago when I have checked for any new entertaining posts from them but it just seems like they are lurking for large spaces of time yet still absorbing the forum content.

I'm gonna guess that you're obviously suffering from not being aesthetically desirable compared to others. — DifferentiatingEgg

I think this highlights the comments boethius made above. It is an attempt to shame me for not being beautiful as being bitter, and I am sure the term 'incel' would be thrown a post or two after, which is the western boogeyman for the unsuccessful capitalist man.

It is like if anyone makes a critique of someone rich then they are just 'haters' and jealous. As if to say "the system is perfect, it is only because you are losing that you are taking issue with it".

Not buying into your whip crack attempt to make me a productive wage slave.

Similar to making fun of someone for having a cheap car like they should aspire to buy an expensive one because society says so.

This back and forth would benefit from outside adjudicators as to the claims leveled against one another rather than you two just slugging it out which is just ending up in the same claims being volleyed from one side to the other again and again.

I would agree @boethius that it is glaringly obvious you have answered the questions many times so find it bizarre it is claimed you haven't. Of course I could be accused of being biased, so it could do with some fresh impartial, as agreed to the both of you, eyes. :)

This one I'm closer to agreeing with the OP. — Mijin

Good to see some unsolicited support as I was a lone voice, except comrade boethius, on this so far. I would put it down to other respondents being under the veil of western propaganda and are more apologists for capitalism.

Your example reminds me of a documentary I once watched where it was showing how some indigenous tribe revered its old, which was highlighted specifically to contrast how the west does not. One of their rituals was shown of an old lady dressed in nothing but a small sumo style loin cloth was being rubbed down all over with some kind of oil by the younger people.

Yet another example I recall from some seminar where the lady of Italian descent spoke of strong Italian role models who were admired and were the 'alpha females' back in the mother land whereas the culture in America is to shut them away.

There's a lot of things wrong with the world, the way beauty is treated is just another one of of those problems. The only answer is there is something wrong with the people who believe it's the right way to act. Why they do it is because of human stupidity, and weakness to natural urges that would allow us to think otherwise. There is nothing truly beautiful about this way of thinking, it completely misrepresents what beauty is about--- it's completely artificial. — Barkon

Indeed, that is the Eastern philosophy flavor of explaining it. Not saying it is wrong and is a good overall synopsis.

Eugenics would be a good idea to promote good health in reproduction, it's better than treating children as a father or mother experience(like parents own the child's spirit). I quite like the idea of the Government rearing beautiful children.

I guess this is tongue in cheek?

What about the motto of the Communist Chinese reform movement: Getting rich is glorious! — BC

Interesting, but isn't that proof it was only when they adopted a mishmash of communist/capitalism which is what it is today? What are your thoughts on this take on this comment ?

I was going to say, this seems like a rather strange statement. Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Mitch McConnell, etc., along with most of the "Big Billionaires" are not remotely young — Count Timothy von Icarus

There are different forms of influence of course, but I am just discussing that which is attributed to beauty. Take any of the above and apart from Trump who people would be very excited to see just because of his celebrity, how many of those would have influence in a nightclub setting? :D They would just be seen as old creepy/boring people. Trump people would love to see because he is so outrageous and kind of transcends his age due to his personality. I don't even think of him as an old person as his strength of character transcends that.

I do agree it was an omission on my part not to mention political power in the OP.

There is also celebrity and social status which is another form. Look at the example of Weinstein and Epstein. Both ugly and gross but had influence regardless.

These are not the topic of discussion. I agree they exist and not denying them. I am just asking why society as a social norm values beauty so highly (not to deny there are other forms of social value but they are usually equally shallow).

I am sticking with the evolutionary trait run rampant, a la the peacock's tail. The nub of the question though is why has happened? With the complaints so far about the question maybe the beauty focus is a red herring, a single symptom of a deeper issue, and the question would better be modified to...why is western society at large so shallow?

EDIT: Ah of course! Not sure why I didn't see it before but my communist/anarchist knowledge kicked in and of course the answer is obvious now...capitalism! The root of nearly all of the world's ills!

I think this overlooks the huge influence the West has on the rest of the world. Most other countries of the world actively aspire to be the top dogs. Much of their tv is westernized and so too their values of what the good life is seeks to emulate western society.

Yes, this was covered in the OP. That is the evolutionary instinct. My question concerns how it seems to have been hyper exaggerated beyond the natural level.

Like I mentioned, I would maintain that it is the runaway principle. Same as how high heels are unnatural but they accentuate the natural attributes of a woman.

That explains the what but not the why. As in, why our society lets beauty and aesthetics dominate over more substantive matters like philosophy or more noble pursuits.

Take an extreme example you will not see skimpily dressed women in muslim countries under sharia. Not saying its right but that has been suppressed there. Over here we are the other extreme of licentious lustful desire.