Thread: >tfw no gf

That's Sartre, isn't it? Never understood it. Then again, never tried. Does it mean that human identity only occurs after physical existence? If so, what a pointlessly confusing way of expressing a simple and common idea.

Yup, it's the root of existential nihilism. I guess he was just trying to be as concise as possible. The point is he posits a lack of intrinsic value with those three words. I'm suggesting that he's wrong until we're dead seeing as we're born into primitive bodies and how life begets life.

I think the end goal of humanity, is to go on forever. That said, I still don't believe in reproducing. I really have no interest in whether or not humans survive, if I am not around to see it. Which obviously leads the conclusion that I want humans to go on forever, and I want to see it.

Having children is a poor substitute for actual immortality, which I hope will come around due to advancing technology in the near future.

>meme arrows

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Opheliaaaa, thank you ma'am!

OP EDITED. CRITIQUE MEEE. Prove me wronggg. XD

Originally Posted by Alric

I think the end goal of humanity, is to go on forever. That said, I still don't believe in reproducing. I really have no interest in whether or not humans survive, if I am not around to see it. Which obviously leads the conclusion that I want humans to go on forever, and I want to see it.

Having children is a poor substitute for actual immortality, which I hope will come around due to advancing technology in the near future.

Well,

I think

you wouldn't be human if you could get away with that. And if you could get away with living way longer than the biological lifespan permits, most humans would want to hop on that bandwagon. AKA singularity would take hold of humanity and we'd evolve into some sort of virtual consciousness, all uploaded online and what not. There would be no humanity to observe lol.

Humanity is just a word. We might not be human, but we would still all be people who were born human, and that doesn't bother me at all.

ummmmmmmmmm Taoism says that we search for a significant other because it's our natural desire to feel the love we felt in pre-birth when we were one with God, the universe, ourselves (it states that we're twins with ourselves and you're only a half of what you were), everything. So you're thinking from a scientific point of view that you look at girls to pro-create but spiritually and scientifically there are many other "explanations". I'm just gonna say go get yourself a girlfriend and fall in love because it's simple and (i believe) we can choose to explain this existance in simplicity or complexity and in my opinion the former is more difficult to find and more beneficial.

Originally Posted by Brock

ummmmmmmmmm Taoism says that we search for a significant other because it's our natural desire to feel the love we felt in pre-birth when we were one with God, the universe, ourselves (it states that we're twins with ourselves and you're only a half of what you were), everything. So you're thinking from a scientific point of view that you look at girls to pro-create but spiritually and scientifically there are many other "explanations". I'm just gonna say go get yourself a girlfriend and fall in love because it's simple and (i believe) we can choose to explain this existance in simplicity or complexity and in my opinion the former is more difficult to find and more beneficial.

Rule #1 bro: the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. The Tao doesn't say ANYTHING. All of that talk about "pre-birth love" is basically a euphemism some butthurt geezers miraculously discovered they could believe and pass down to their poor, forsaken offspring. "Pre-birth love" is nothing more than an exquisitely romantic translation of our forefathers' boners, nothing more than a wonderfully figurative expression with which to veil our foremothers' ahegaos in mystery and high "spiritual" acclaim!

we search for a significant other because it's our natural desire to feel the love we felt in pre-birth when we were one with God, the universe, ourselves (it states that we're twins with ourselves and you're only a half of what you were), everything.

Twins with ourselves! Go figure.. The concept is far from profound and if anything, rather sad. To think that any significance I found in you was measured on your likeness with me, on how much you reminded me of myself. You do realize that by confessing this you're in total agreement with my claim for our essential vanity as the human species, right?

There are two possible things you might mean here so I'll address both of them.

It seems you think the psychology of an action must itself be caused by its evolutionary reason. That the reason we feel affection is because, on a subconscious level perhaps, we want to produce offspring. But this is wrong. The evolutionary and psychological reasons are separate. Feelings of affection or 'love' came about because they were being pushed by the need for the species to produce more offspring, but not even subconsciously does this mean we 'desire to make babies'.

It's like if some wealthy man were to hire someone with creative potential and put him through art school, give him publicity, etc. and he created beautiful art which the wealthy man sold for a profit. And then the artist were to one day become depressed because he realizes that the only reason he's making his art is to make money for the man who hired him, and he concludes because of this that there is no real beauty in his art. But this is obviously wrong. He made the art himself and put as much emotion and thought and technique into it as any other great artist would, even though the man who hired him to do it was the initial cause of his success.

Feelings of affection stand alone like the artist. Even if the businessman were to abandon him, he would survive and continue to create art. Feelings of affection are real, are exactly what they seem to be. Love for a person is only love for that person. If someone wants babies, that is a completely separate desire than that for the person. The only truly upsetting part is that it will end, with death if nothing else. This might also be what you meant in the OP - that there is no 'higher' purpose for those feelings of love, that they only came about through evolution. If that's what you were saying I'm not even going to address it.

Obviously sex emerged as a means of reproduction, but it's become a part of emergent entities that are functional in today's civilization. The feeling of love, for example, may have only stemmed from the advantages of two parents sticking together to raise their children and giving them a strong incentive to nurture them, but it's proved to be a useful thing in itself in today's society where we don't really need to actually reproduce anymore. I'd guess the benefits would be all the desirable chemical responses built into such relationships originally for reproduction and nurturing, solely for the sake of the happiness and productivity it can bring. I'm not sure it would be correct to say that in these type of relationships one "unconsciously desires to make or nurture a baby" but it seems difficult to avoid that possibility since I don't believe the neurology developed from evolution is separate from subjective psychology, though it might be easy and practical to overlook and might be channeled in completely different ways. The point is that there's no need to worry that something fun emerged for an end goal you might not want, the journey might be the better point.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

It seems you think the psychology of an action must itself be caused by its evolutionary reason. That the reason we feel affection is because, on a subconscious level perhaps, we want to produce offspring. But this is wrong.

this is wrong.

I want to be wrong. I really do. It's probably the only reason why I'm here at all

But I'm afraid you're in denial.

User Wayfaerer said just barely enough to guide you toward what it is you're denying, to refute your claim against the correlation of psychology to biology:

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

I'm not sure it would be correct to say that in these type of relationships one "unconsciously desires to make or nurture a baby" but it seems difficult to avoid that possibility since I don't believe the neurology developed from evolution is separate from subjective psychology, though it might be easy and practical to overlook and might be channeled in completely different ways.

(Wayfaerer, would you care to explain why exactly you don't believe the neurology developed from evolution is separate from subjective psychology? It's a rather crucial point that leads to that rabbit hole of axiomatic descent so I hope you can back it up. No pressure)

...I mean, Dianeva, look:

Originally Posted by Dianeva

The evolutionary and psychological reasons are separate. Feelings of affection or 'love' came about because they were being pushed by the need for the species to produce more offspring, but not even subconsciously does this mean we 'desire to make babies'.

Not even subconsciously? Really? 1. You claim love/affection sometime emerged within our species and that the reason for this feel WAS initially humankind's need to produce more of itself; that our ancestors were PUSHED into making you, me...essentially anyone alive now and how this inescapable reproduction somehow ushered us to love. 2. Then, you also propose that this "psychology" of baby-making is in no way correlated to the act itself.

The only truly upsetting part is that it will end, with death if nothing else. This might also be what you meant in the OP - that there is no 'higher' purpose for those feelings of love, that they only came about through evolution. If that's what you were saying I'm not even going to address it.

But you have addressed it and you denied it with your artist simile!

Feelings of affection stand alone like the artist. Even if the businessman were to abandon him, he would survive and continue to create art. Feelings of affection are real, are exactly what they seem to be. Love for a person is only love for that person.

>>twf
>meme arrows

What board?

Clarification of my viewpoint: It's possible that at a subconscious level, in some twisted way, feelings of love, etc. can really be broken down into the desire to reproduce. But I find it pretty unlikely while examining my own emotions. I just don't see feelings of love and affection having anything to do with baby-making. But that is only my feeling about it and I could easily be wrong or even an exceptional case. I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't saying they definitely aren't related.

Now, what you seem to be saying is that the two are necessarily the same, that romantic feelings toward another person are really only a masked desire to reproduce. This is what I disgaree with. Correct me now if I'm wrong about this and have misrepresented your viewpoint, please. Too many arguments are really misunderstandings and I don't want to involve myself in another one.

If this claim is to be believed by any rational person, you need to present a reason for thinking this, which I don't think you've done. I've explained the facts as I understand them. That the survival benefit of reproduction drove the feelings of 'love' to arise, but that in no way implies that the psychological feeling of love is really a desire to reproduce. But you haven't even tried to refute this.

Originally Posted by tempusername

But I'm afraid you're in denial.

Nope.

Originally Posted by tempusername

User Wayfaerer said just barely enough to guide you toward what it is you're denying, to refute your claim against the correlation of psychology to biology:

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

I don't believe the neurology developed from evolution is separate from subjective psychology

I agree with Wayfaerer and what he said in no way contradicts what I've said. I am not saying that the neurology developed from evolution is separate from subjective psychology. What I'm saying is that the neurology/psychology is separate from the evolutionary drive.

Originally Posted by tempusername

...I mean, Dianeva, look:

Not even subconsciously? Really? 1. You claim love/affection sometime emerged within our species and that the reason for this feel WAS initially humankind's need to produce more of itself; that our ancestors were PUSHED into making you, me...essentially anyone alive now and how this inescapable reproduction somehow ushered us to love. 2. Then, you also propose that this "psychology" of baby-making is in no way correlated to the act itself.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. I'm glad you find it entertaining, but you might want to back up your claim to the contrary before getting all smug.

Originally Posted by tempusername

But you have addressed it and you denied it with your artist simile!

... That's message you obviously didn't understand.

The last thing you quoted from me doesn't at all apply to the second-to-last thing. I said feelings of love are what they seem to be, meaning they aren't really desires to reproduce. That doesn't mean that there is some 'higher' purpose to those feelings.

I really do care about this subject and hope that I'm right but also care about the truth, so if I am wrong I would like to know why. I'm going to give another quick example because I don't think you understood the point I was trying to make with the artist thing.

Consider a dog being trained to sit on command. Whenever the dog sits, it's given some food. It doesn't listen at first, but eventually figures out that whenever the trainer says 'sit', it will be given some food if it sits, so it does more often and eventually every time.

The trainer wants the dog to sit for his own reasons, but the dog doesn't know what those reasons are and only sits because it wants food. Similarly, natural selection 'wanted' us to reproduce, but we don't even have to know that. We reproduce successfully because sex feels good and love feels good. Evolution is like the dog trainer. It would be absurd to say that the dog's enjoyment of its food (our enjoyment of love) is really just a desire to please its trainer (our desire to meet evolutionary standards).

It seems like I've mixed things up a bit with my last post. I started with the subject of sex and spent the rest of the post on the more nurturing kind of love, kind of got sidetracked. Now I definitely understand Dianeva's point about the distinction between the evolutionarily developed reason for sex and psychology. The desire for sex was understandably a huge reproduction advantage, and so more organisms with sexual drive reproduced more than those without it. This doesn't imply at all that we unconsciously want to reproduce, that would be adding an unnecessary aspect to the natural simplicity of what just works. I'm guessing that the nurturing kind of love developed for the survival of children is a separate thing and was originally only meant for when taking care of a baby was actually a concern.

Love is here because we need to make more babies does not imply love doesn't have other purposes. It also doesn't imply that love must require one to want to make babies.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

It's possible that at a subconscious level, in some twisted way, feelings of love, etc. can really be broken down into the desire to reproduce. But I find it pretty unlikely while examining my own emotions. I just don't see feelings of love and affection having anything to do with baby-making. But that is only my feeling about it and I could easily be wrong or even an exceptional case. I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't saying they definitely aren't related.

Why aren't you certain? Are you unsure about the credibility of being an "exceptional case" when the subject matter concerns your entire species? I regard this topic as I would the speed of light, positing feels as physical constants. That is the position I hold in the OP. So I can't really argue with someone who isn't even certain she's holding an opposing stance to my claim. But if you're only maintaining this passive-aggressive facade in order to provoke bouts of persuasion, I'm happy to play along. I'm here for the company anyway.

Correct me now if I'm wrong about this and have misrepresented your viewpoint, please. Too many arguments are really misunderstandings and I don't want to involve myself in another one.

what you seem to be saying is that the two are necessarily the same, that romantic feelings toward another person are really only a masked desire to reproduce. This is what I disgaree with.

If this claim is to be believed by any rational person, you need to present a reason for thinking this, which I don't think you've done.

Very well, then; it should go without saying that I would never wish you to ever fall under the impression I took you for anything less than rational. That being said, it's my pleasure to assure you just how right you were to worry about misunderstandings in this case. With your paraphrase of my stance now at hand, I can better explain why I could only assume you were in denial earlier and why my OP initially appears so intuitively disagreeable.

So to elaborate here and simultaneously broaden my post in your thread, I will tell you I mean to say that if two things are "the same," then neither is "masked" (to the knowing beholder of said things). Consider dreaming. We sleep, we dream, then wonder why? Upon waking we're left with memories of apparently nonsensical dream material which leads to analysis and interpretation. Initially, we render our dreams senseless in contrast to unambiguous reality. Then, by utilizing our understanding of the comprehensible we attempt to attribute order to our dream realm and thus construe meaning unto it. Out of habit of distinguishing, we've led ourselves astray on an endless quest to match our internal notions (although they are already abstractions) with something tangible outside ourselves. Just as we're inclined to distinguish conscious behavior from subconscious activity, we're disposed toward separating feels from our body. Both are examples of either-or fallacy.

the survival benefit of reproduction drove the feelings of 'love' to arise, but that in no way implies that the psychological feeling of love is really a desire to reproduce.

As user Marvo just noted in your subconscious thread, extension is an unavoidable property of the mind. In fact, because a physical body is literally and absolutely required to necessitate the mind, it seems appropriate to claim extension as the essence of mind. In this way 'love' is quite obviously attributed to the desire to propagate as it is the very feeling we've appointed to determining why we want to continue our species. A rather ass-backwards approach if you ask me, but if only to be momentarily fooled in a plight of passion... You see, it's not that we don't know the truth; the world is simple, solid all the way through. That is why secrets impress no one but rather the trick they are used for. We are in love with mystery, so what better audience to fool than ourselves?

Originally Posted by Abra

Love is here because we need to make more babies does not imply love doesn't have other purposes. It also doesn't imply that love must require one to want to make babies.

That's fucking right. What you want doesn't matter. Despite any estrangement that might ensue from realizing you're fated essentially to fuck, and despite any efforts to deviate from your crude duty by extending it as a means to other ends, love is an end in itself. Nothing changes why "love is here" as long as we are here; our presence testifies to this.

I agree with Wayfaerer and what he said in no way contradicts what I've said. I am not saying that the neurology developed from evolution is separate from subjective psychology. What I'm saying is that the neurology/psychology is separate from the evolutionary drive.

You do realize what exactly you're suggesting, right? To say our mental faculties are separate from our evolutionary drive is to say they are separate from our physical faculties. It's obvious you at least possess your fingers, seeing as you're able to respond here. So that can't be what you mean. Are you confessing to being a dualist? Because I don't see where exactly our mental faculties as emergent properties could be if not in the physical realm. The third guess I can make is that you aren't in fact a dualist and somehow find it that you as well as the rest of us have complete power over our environment. That we somehow beat the odds(!) of being subservient to an evolutionary drive only because we are ends in ourselves! Is this what you're suggesting?

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

The desire for sex was understandably a huge reproduction advantage, and so more organisms with sexual drive reproduced more than those without it. This doesn't imply at all that we unconsciously want to reproduce, that would be adding an unnecessary aspect to the natural simplicity of what just works.

Yes, exactly. My point is it was not originally an unconscious desire or secret.