Behind every great man … is a f*ck awful nagging troll that keeps the husband from wanting to go home so badly that he actually ends up getting more work done
The comment applies to Socrates alone here. So calm down. It’s a lead in from section 5. Lets get back to the list:
Aristotle; late night university “debates” ending in naked wrestling and hot oil rub before home to the wife. So awesome.
He also said woman where “monstrosities” barely able to be considered tamed beasts. I laugh every time I read that. He ruled all thought so thoroughly for so very long if you only knew. People would reconsider things if it conflicted with him alone. He was a religious mandate. And women’s rights are still recovering in not just female equality but also same sex equality by extension; and he slept with heaps of boys. Oh, life. You.
And I love how Seneca (Younger) ranted in effect “How can anyone feel ashamed of adultery anymore, when the morality of society has completely crumbled…I challenge you to even find a woman who will actually stay with the one man!”.
This was in the 4th century BC. Talk about your anticipation of a downward spiral. If he could only see Paris and the Kardashians. In fact; any of reality TV. There is your yard stick.
Beecher: “Marriage is the grave of love”. Cute huh? And “marriage” can really be taken to mean “relationship” by today’s standards.
Cookie cutter relationships are the grave of love.
Schopenhauer liked a women with big titties: to better nurture his children so their intellect wouldn’t suffer from malnourishment.
I like this fact because I bet that’s where all the dudes who like big titties get it from. They want to suck on their mothers’ tities and are anticipating their children doing the same. Hot.
Every time some jock starts raving on and on about a chick’s rack, just remember this and see if you don’t smile.
Sartre once told a girl he stood up he got lost in a castle. Gone are the days where that excuse would hold up you’d think.
That being said, this is the 20th century when it worked last so, hey, give it a whirl;
“…come on honey you know what castles are like in LA at this time of night… I took one wrong corridor…missed my exit cause the portcullis was down… now I gotta double back to the main drawbridge…”
With the same directness I have always used, Ayn Rand said “without the ‘I’ there is no I love you”. This is right on the mark for the representation of the “you” part as well, I would argue.
Plato considered Love to be a serious mental disease. To the point. Republic goes a lot further than that, of course.
Titus Lucretius said sex was only ethically sound so long as love was not involved. Pretty good.
Locke said simply that love is the exemplary in humankinds power to utterly self deceive.
He applied this with respect to life long marriage in particular and this is 1600’s. Some people just got it.
Kierkegaard is great: every time he gets a crush on someone he gets really depressed. Its cute. He’s kind of hot too. <3. It is like he is caught in the middle between the logic and the bio-lust (what is called love socially) drive.
Kant saw marriage as a sex contract, underpinning Russel with the “more [unwanted] sex in marriage then in prostitution” sentiment.
Hume, like most philosophers, had his choice of mates, which he likened to “getting to choose your cell in a prison.”
Hegal: “Men-Woman; Animal-Plant”. Wow. Nuff said.
Descartes had a fetish for cross-eyed women. That’s just fun. It doesn’t support the thesis. Though not cookie in a respect, arguably.
Comte ended up crouching in the shadows behind doors like an animal unable to teach after just 2 years marriage. See, not good for the creative. There were legal circumstances here though I’m not going into.
Nietzche: Oh women; they make the high’s higher and the lows … both lower and more frequent. He only had sex on doctor’s orders by some accounts, so wasteful was courtship. I mention this only because he went mad and died from syphilis, some claim. If that is true, there is a bitter irony there. Or some very well organised doctors drumming up long-term business.
He also expressed a classic adage regarding the company he likes to keep, an adage that people don’t like, but as explored in an earlier section I have found is true: “I prefer plain girls…all plain girls compensate by cultivating their mind”.
That is not to say classically attractive people are simply less intelligent, not at all. But for the most part.
Remember, the fake praise and easy attention of any passerby is ever available. Should an engagement becomes too emotionally complex or concepts gain too much depth, that “out and pick me up” is ready and waiting. It would be harder for anyone to grow in that environment.
And if they go too many years without being challenged then, yes; they become less bright and begin to call unintelligent people intelligent, to compensate.
Philosophy of Love Part VI
Toad, Kitten or Baby Golf
By the same token, not every plain individual picks up a book or reflects on life. Not by a long shot.
But since extreme symmetry is an outlier it is more reliable to state that attractive people are far more likely to be stupid then any other person drawn at random.
Hey, I don’t make the rules: it’s a pure numbers game.
The near certain impact of social normative reactions. The result of kid glove treatment and false, unearned praise. This is how attractive people get treated and it must have an impact. And they don’t know they get treated differently. That doesn’t change anything though.
They get praise for nothing so think “wow, I should keep this up!”. Which they do. It’s praise for doing nothing and so they are conditioned to do more of the same.
It’s like saying people are more likely to hit a toad with a golf club then a kitten or a human baby: it’s just a fact of symmetry circuits to protect our young over-generalizing. Toad, kitten, baby…golf club…ethically is there a difference? Not to me.
If love is to have any meaning
If love is to have any meaning at all, it has to be an honest shared exploring of the world.
Not a commonplace mirror image cookie cutter conditioned facade of what the neighbours are doing, taught at birth, and then absurdly applied as a grotesque abstract to whoever you happen to be dating at any given time.
No wonder so many philosophers lament on their deathbed that getting married is their only real regret. Or say their master piece would have been completed years earlier but for the insane drama people were intent on bringing into their life.
The point is, when all is said and done, it is completely bizarre that there should be a base print for “couples” behaviour that is so commonly counterfeited to include expectations from one relationship contract to the next.
And why do we have to pretend that none of them end, particularly when we are young. Frauds!
We are similar creatures, but not on traits that support unions like this. Nor do the genetics or those of our closest cousins, but that is beyond the scope of the philosophy of love series.
The closing point is: Artists don’t need pain to create. Life is pain. And you are making it worse. Artists need to be left alone.
Well, ok, that’s a bit of a sweeping statement. But most of this is pretty solid. I think the reader can allow me that one.
Hmmm… do I have time to proof read this before we go to print…probably not hey.
J.J.Raphael (2012). Philosophy of Love Series. The Journey Chronicle in Letters and Science, First published Issue 8 (11). 4th Edition (Current Ed 10th).