You need to log in to create posts and topics.

The Philosophy Discussion Dueling Grounds.


Discuss the works and thoughts of your favorite philosophers, youtubers, favorite cartoon characters or Politicians.
So. Feminism, Political Theory, Art Theory, Discussions about differences between cultures... 4Am Thoughts about "what is love?", etc.. General "Wisdom".
All applies here.

Philosophy, from Greek φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally "love of wisdom" is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

And we're going with MMA rules, this time around.
No hitting the private parts. No eye gouging. No weapons (except your imagination).

My 2 favorite definitions of love:

"You know it's love when you want to make someone happy.. and you dont give a damn about the consequences." Via Frank Herbert, scifi writer.


"Love is just lust with jealousy added." via Lars von Trier, director (probably a pervert, too.)

I tend to agree with Herbert's definition... ?
and i like how "edgy, angsty" Von trier's definition is. X)

I like the first one quite a bit...that feeling of going out of your way to do something for no other reason than love. I can relate!

The second one I don't necessarily subscribe to, but I certainly know a lot who do. I think that people can love but still be fearful, but getting rid of that is so key to being a much happier person, or a much happier society.

Bill Hicks said it best!

Yeah. People i know that agree with that Von Trier quote tend to be...
"bitter" and have had traumatizing life experiences....
With enough pain, some people just let cynicism take over their lives, i guess.

The quote is from the "Nymphomaniac" films, btw.

and speaking of love -

Sorry, but “Love at First Sight” Isn’t Love at All—It’s Actually Lust


I'd rather agree with the first one - to think in somebody else's interest no matter how that (potentially badly) influences you or the environment, however to a certain degree. I think this is more "evolved" love. Doing something for someone even if it means your supply of oxytocin and co. is at risk. Letting someone go, partner to partner, or a parent letting their child attend boarding school or move to a different country.
The person in question is a big part of your life, but it's not everything. And you came to this conclusion trough time, incidents of different sorts and experiences. As mature love is ideally mutual you have the assurance that you don't need to "chase" after the other person or worry they will distance themselves so you can calmly proceed with your every day and then later spend some quality time with the other person. You both trust each other and understand the bond is mutual, but you don't do "absolutely everything" for each other either.

The crazy love is doing absolutely anything, but especially wanting to take care one's own oxytocin supply isn't being interrupted either. I'd call this the addiction type of love. It might seem and feel much more than the first type because everything revolves around the person. All your thoughts, all your feeling and all your actions. Their name is echoing in your mind 30 times per minute, all day, every day possibly for months or years even. Every second you're not with them you are suffering. Withdrawal, like with drugs. It limits your life to that one person and things connected to them and if such connection is interrupted it results in shock, a panic attack or similar and afterwards realisation you gave up everything else in life just for them, and they couldn't even appreciate it. Regret is stronger than gratitude, that's why dead people get more flowers than alive ones. Same it is with relationships. People generally forget to appreciate all the things they have until those are gone, and then they suddenly start considering their choices, changing their life habits and crying about the past.

Eventually one comes to realize giving another person all you have with sooner or later turn it into an abusive relationship as the one "less" in love has the power. Love is giving away power, in a way. Showing vulnerability and understanding a love-relationship is entering an agreement of mutual care that can end badly for the one caring about it more.
But then again there are different "agreements" in the modern world. Open relationships, polygamy, casual dating, ... and each has their own rules and expectations. And often it all fails due to communication.

Of course, there are also those that can be any of the above on one side and a specific need on the other, like the need for sex, the need for someone to talk to occasionally or any other enhancement of one's own life. I'd call that the toxic love. And there is much of it and often it tends to last for long times due to the denial and extra work/suffering of the "victim" and the enjoyment of the one who's in it for the benefits.

In the ideal case, two people in crazy love can end up having a life-long relationship of always putting the other first and always thinking in the other's best interest and thus become like one person, protective of each, left and right arm. Two people but one mind, travelling together through the universe. However, this cases are rare, and even more in today's world where things tend to be thrown away instead of fixed as there is too much choice anyway.

Well, enough of that for now~

Another thing, yet the same theme ... Saying "the 3 words" - Thesis:
Saying "I love you" in today's world is not a statement but a demand for an answer that tends to put the recipient under stress. Should it be used as much as it's being used nowadays? Along with "I hate you"?
Does this devalue them? Should it even still be taken seriously?
Same for smileys of affection. Usually, the quantity of things devalues those. How does that reflect in modern communication? What does that say about today's society?

Bah Gawd.
Luciana just murdered this thread. XD

Yep. There's lots to agree with here. I was nodding my head a lot. ?

I agree about the "reasonable limits" of what people should do for each other.

The best relationships tend to bring out the best in both people. Two people being there for each other when it's necessary (sometimes even when it's annoying XD)
It's always good to seek a "balance" of sorts... As soon as it seems that only one person is doing all the work... that's probably the right time for both people to sit down and have a talk, reevaluate their feelings, etc...

"Regret is stronger than gratitude"
"Love is giving away power, in a way."

Two golden "nuggets" of wisdom. Great quotes.

Love will always be risky. There's no reward that is really worth something without some risk, though, and if Love is giving away power then it's probably good to remember that
holding onto too much "power" can cause way too much inner stress and it's
always good to let your guard down and relax.. around the right
people. Not to mention that an insane buildup in power can cause meltdowns..
hence Fukushima and..
the reactorleak XD

"I love you"...
Overly used by young people who confuse lust with love.
Usualy wise not to drop those 3 words too soon... If someone says
that to you and you've only had 1 date and you barely know each other..
then they need to a) calm down and re-evaluate their real feelings...
and b) that could be a sign of immaturity or that there's an obsessive, unhealthy element at play.
It's best to say it when there's some real trust already in place and there's some maturity in both sides. When there's some certainty of each other's feelings.

I'm VERY skeptic of those types of relationships.
They dont seem "serious" to me. Surely, loving one person is hard enough at times.
I've seen "cult like" elements in a few cases.. with a guy or a couple who stand at the center of the relationships and enjoy ordering other people around. (There's also a lot of cults who are super into this. Hmm.)

People need to call Polyamory what it is.
"Friends with benefits" who are a bit confused about their feelings.
Most of the time just immature people in "open relationships" who want to give their
lifestyle a legitimate sounding name.

But as far as love advice...

Nobody knows more than Alexyss K. Tylor.


Could be of interest.

"In sexual politics the view of women as either Madonnas or whores limits women's sexual expression, offering two mutually exclusive ways to construct a sexual identity."

"Clinical psychologist Uwe Hartmann, writing in 2009, stated that the complex "is still highly prevalent in today's patients"

Here Is What A Madonna-Whore Complex Looks Like In 2015

"The Madonna-Whore complex looks like the men who claim to be “Nice guys,” and then shame all sexually active women who aren’t sleeping with them."

lol "Nice guys".

I think this is still very much alive today. Women who had many sexual partners are labeled cheap (and yes in some cases they really fulfill the whole image of "girl who doesn't have her shit together and has another guy every week and talks about wanting a rich boyfriend etc") even though most of the girls at least i know havent had more than a few serious partners. However, i did hear from many that they had, at some point in their life, a wild phase where they'd just hook up and experiment etc. But these things are sort of kept a secret as in "its a bad thing" - then again some did state that they felt worthless as a result of it even though they were the ones initiating it.

Men dont have this problem, the more they bang the better for the image in any circles. However, i think this is changing as well (term: f*ckboy) On the other hand men tend to be expected to be the one making the first move and even if being rejected and hurt, not show emotions etc. - again, i hope this is slowly changing.

What i have experienced somehow quite a lot (not form partners only but also different random males, photographers, male friends etc) is how some men like to project their desires onto girls - in the way of: "you dirty little wh*re, you surely secretly enjoy doing this and that blabla". Umm .. no sorry, the porn world/your fantasies and the real world are two different things.
Yet, if a girl actually says she does enjoy something kinky or whatever would make her "a dirty little wh*re" she is immediately somehow expected to feel ashamed.

Another problem is a man wanting a girl who has to be proper and ladylike but also a dirty s*x machine at the same time. But only for him. So have a lot of experience but no previous partners. And also be emotionally supportive but when i dont need it i really dont want to deal with your clinginess and emotional needs. etc

I think generally there are way too many social expectations and way too little action and communication. Not to mention all folks who dont have a partner and are just bitter about it and then start setting up rules and social expectations for the folks who live together in harmony and is in no need of any external help or judgment.

What ive recently seen on 9gag (lol yeah thats my source of news too) is a Chinese blogger offering free sex an then being arrested for prostitution. Now regardless the details, i'd just like to take this statement and ask - when did society decide what a girl can do with her body and what not. Is it a part of the older software when they still kept women in the kitchen without voting right and youd go to hell if you played with yourself?
Now i wouldnt want to necessarily turn the next statement into reality but im throwing this hypothesis out for discussion:

Wouldnt it be a better, much more relaxed world if sex would be seen as just another tab in the health app amongst weight, daily walked kilometers and blood pressure? Something it would be OKAY to take care of?
It being okay to offer sex as a mutual service. Having establishment educating people about how to perform, teach them techniques and ways of understanding each other to enjoy the full experience? Having oxytocin, serotonin and dopamine levels displayed among the other body stats like hydration and sleep length? Not only satisfying the lust feeling but an overall good vibe, feeling respected and understood, and maybe even loved?
Whats the percentage of people who are unhappy - either single or in a failed relationship.

Marriage is a nice thing and i still see it as not a possessive thing but as a vow that this one special human is dear enough to you to decide to share all life's happiness and adventures with them because that is a big part of your own happiness.
However, marriage was also there to keep people from "devilish" things, to establish an order, and lastly - back then people didnt even live so horribly long so except for raising kids and working their asses off till they eventually dies in 40-60s there wasnt much about it.
Nowadays i think there is much more time for the individual and health care has drastically extended out lives. But some social expectations still date back to the old times.

Now im not for a totally "lawless" lets bang around and get into a relationship and split up etc (specially since then eg a guy would just stay together with the girl when shes still young and sexy and then at some point just leave her for the next young one while the girl - mostly the more emotional and attached partner - would adjust her whole life for him and then end up alone and with a destroyed view of the future) . I'm for the "fix it" option, making it work, talking about it. A relationship is a decision its a commitment - not only feelings. Because what i see often today is that its just too easy and convenient to ignore plroblems and eventually change to the next boy- or girlfreind instead of going trough a bit of emotional courage to talk things trough and fix them. Obviosuly this doesnt appl to all cases but i hope you get the general idea.
Guess i now totally floated away from the theme again ^^* ...

I can answer one bit of that, I happened to see an article about it a few days ago.
The percentage of the american population who are single is about 50% (which is slightly higher than the percentage of the population who are Married at 44%).... and I suspect it's similar in the UK.

And yeah, that is exactly where the stigma came from, back then it made perfect sense if only to keep the spread of disease under control.

Also another interesting bit of research (that I saw too long ago to remember the numbers) shows that the more sex partners an individual has in their lifetime the less likely they are to stay in a long term relationship or marriage.
This effect was considerably stronger in women than men.

Let's all agree to say no to Kink Shaming.

now seriously.
@luciana, i was nodding in agreement through that entire post. ?

People "learn" socialization and relationship rules from their peers.
Happpiest young couples i know tend to be the sons and daughters
of successful long term couples. Funny, that.

People also learn all the toxic shit and
i've lost count at how many co-worker dudes i've known that tend to blame rape on the victim.
"Those chicks are practically asking for it!" + other variations.

I always cringe.
Truth be told, i dont think i know a woman that hasnt been molested in some way.
And that makes me angry.

Anyway, as times change, so does science:

Old research that was shared by dailyfail with DIVORCE in all caps, even.

New research says.. Not so fast.

U researcher: More sex partners before marriage doesn’t necessarily lead to divorce

But wait.. original study was from University of Utah?
fucking Mormon social sciences?