4 ms·
No, romance is dumb.
by xlnt 19y ago
No, romance is dumb.
- xlnt 19y agoWe know that romantic relationships frequently hurt people. This leaves some pro-romance positions available such as: - it only hurts foolish people; there are known solutions to all those problems - it's worth the risk of being hurt - there is a type of relationship that is different than conventional romance in a way that prevents being hurt, but is still romantic So, anyone want to debate, or just stick to downvoting? None of the pro-romance positions are obviously correct.
- PieSquared 19y agoDebate? I wouldn't mind. I'd say (although maybe I'm unqualified to do so... :) ) that although it may hurt, it can also just lead to a happier lifestyle. And happier people, it seems to me, would be more productive, both in the short and long run. So while relationships may hurt people, the hurt would be short term, while the overall happiness and productivity gains might be long-term. ----- Oh, and by the way. It took me login to post, because I didn't realize that the ID's were case-sensitive. I'm not sure that they should be, eh?
- xlnt 19y agoWhile people frequently feel happy about romance, what is there that should make one happy? If the answer is something like, "having a close relationship where you understand each other well" then that is possible without romance and without being hurt.
- euccastro 19y agoI don't think you are questioning that romance can cause more intense and overwhelming feelings than the social and intellectual pleasure of close bonds and mutual understanding, right? It's quite easy to explain, in evolutionary terms, why it 'should' be like that. But I don't think this is the "should" that you are asking about. And the problem is, there are no other "should"s, no other "why"s. In asking for a transcendent "why", you are negating the intrinsic "legitimacy" of our most basic instincts. You emphasize the "feel" in "feel happy" as if there was anything to happiness beyond the feeling of it. Trying to submit instincts to reason doesn't make any more sense to me than trying to submit axioms to inference rules. You may argue romance is kinda obsolescent now that culture is overriding genetics as the main driver of adaptation. But by the same radically disembodied reasoning, you shouldn't take romantic pain so seriously. We just are what we are. Play to win; life is too short for anything else.
- xlnt 19y agoWe just are what we are. Play to win You can only play to win if you have some control over your life. If you do, then you aren't just what you are now. If you want to win, I don't see how life strategies known for causing lots of pain and misery are wise. Couldn't we say that life is too short to to waste time with love and sex instead of working on something important (like, say, life-extension research)?
- wheels 19y agoYou could, but you could also say that life is too short to waste on ice cream, smiling and literature. None of these things have absolute value. Happiness, and success are a perspective, not an objective reality. Importance is synthetic. Freedom is just a macroscopic view of determinism. If you can find a way to be happy with or without relationships, you win. People seem to have succeeded and failed with both strategies.
- xlnt 19y agoIf an argument works to support either position then it's not a justification for romance.
- wheels 19y agoWhy should it be justified at all? I feel like you're coming to logical conclusions based on all the wrong questions. ;-) Edit: Oh, and if you're actually interested in wasting some time on a little literature you might enjoy some Alain de Botton; he's a logical ninny that's written some good stuff on relationships in a weird way of combining a novel with light philosophy. On Love is probably better than The Romantic Movement; though the latter paints a prettier picture of romance.
- xlnt 19y agoI said that, as we all know, it hurts people. If you can't justify good reasons to do it anyway, or come up with an argument it doesn't actually hurt people, then it's a bad idea.
- rms 19y ago>it's worth the risk of being hurt
- yters 19y agoIt's a relevant and significant question. The west's views on romance are not the norm. For example, the Greeks considered the best relationships to be between men, since men were thought to be the most rational. This is similar in Islamic cultures too. While I don't have a specific cite I can show you to back up the claims about the Greeks, it is pretty evident if you've read Plato and Aristotle. As for Muslims, this is pretty clear if you just look at how they treat women. Frankly, I'm disappointed that there is so much knee jerk voting going on here. On the other hand, it is interesting that xLnt has really hit a nerve.
- xlnt 19y agoIt's an L. XLNT. Abbreviation of excellent. I don't mind the voting. It's useful information to find out that I hit a nerve.
- yters 19y agoYes, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be disappointed with the voting.
- xlnt 19y agoYou expected more of YC? :)
- yters 19y agoYeah, otherwise it isn't worth coming here. I can go anywhere else online and find people who'll just spout their preferences instead of respond rationally. I made a submission out of this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=149248 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=149248
- xlnt 19y agoIn my opinion YC is well above average, but its expertise doesn't apply to all issues.
- euccastro 19y agoHere's another one for your consideration: - Even love-induced pain often helps you grow personally in some way.
- kajecounterhack 19y agoEveryone is entitled their opinions, I dont see why this had to be downmodded necessarily because it is a valid statement. Besides the fact that antisocial people tend to say things like that. And nobody likes antisocial people. And they dont like anyone either, by definition. I guess it was downmodded cause he didn't back up his valid statement. Of course, I disagree with his statement. No gf here but I've got a date to prom ;)
- davidw 19y ago(It's pretty silly, which should make it be a -1, but not a -20 or whatever)
- xlnt 19y agoSo far after posting support for my statement I've lost 13 more points. I don't care, but this is useful as evidence: I think your theory that I was being downvoted due to lack of support for my statement is incorrect.
- kajecounterhack 19y agoWell I think its impossible to make a statement like this and not lose points because of the sheer number of people who strongly strongly disagree with the statement (and the fact that it isn't connected to support directly, in the same post, and people dont always read downward in the thread) -- Also there seems to be this peer pressure to downmod when something looks disagreeable.
- Emmjaykay 19y agoI agree and disagree. I don't think that romance is dumb. In fact, courtship and companionship seems like it would be wonderful, sublime. However, reading your other comments about risk and so forth, I can feel myself resigning to agreement. It does seem like it would be a heavy risk and certain to fail. I can't explain why I'm so risk-averse where as other things in my life seem just as unsure.
- gaika 19y agofrom http://mauitian.livejournal.com/11166.html http://mauitian.livejournal.com/11166.html The last thing you need to know about girls has to do with love. Even just thinking about girls is likely to cause you more emotional anguish than anything else in your life. And it's not like getting mauled by a bear -- that kind of pain goes away after a month or so. No, love, when it goes bad, is worse than pretty much anything. So, why mess with it? Why not just avoid girls altogether? Well, I must admit I've asked myself this many times. And the answer is: can't help it. The emotions and drive are too strong to deny. So, just do the best you can. It is, actually, pretty damn good to have a girlfriend when things are going well. And try to make the best decisions you can, even though your brain isn't really running the show.
- xlnt 19y agoA lot of people think they can't help it, so don't seriously try to.