5 ms·

We know that romantic relationships frequently hurt people. This leaves some pro-romance positions available such as: - it only hurts foolish people; there are

by xlnt 19y ago

We 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 ago
Debate? 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 ago
  While 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      We 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 ago
        You 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 ago
        If an argument works to support either position then it's not a justification for romance.
        wheels 19y ago
        Why 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 ago
        I 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
- xlnt 19y ago
  What percent do you estimate that risk is?
  - rms 19y ago
    I'm going to go with it's impossible to estimate.
    - xlnt 19y ago
      Then how do you judge that it's worth it?
      - rms 19y ago
        Do you even believe the argument you're trying to make here? Frankly, it seems ridiculous.
        xlnt 19y ago
        Yes I do. Absolutely.
  - euccastro 19y ago
    That's irrelevant. Even if that was 100%, it would be worth the 'risk'. Not ever living romance is sadder than certainty of pain.
    - xlnt 19y ago
      What's so great about it?
      - euccastro 19y ago
yters 19y ago
It'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 ago
  It'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 ago
    Yes, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be disappointed with the voting.
    - xlnt 19y ago
      You expected more of YC? :)
      - yters 19y ago
        Yeah, 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 ago
        In my opinion YC is well above average, but its expertise doesn't apply to all issues.
euccastro 19y ago
Here's another one for your consideration: - Even love-induced pain often helps you grow personally in some way.

by xlnt 19y ago

PieSquared 19y ago

Debate? 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 ago
While 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    We 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 ago
      You 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 ago
        If an argument works to support either position then it's not a justification for romance.
        wheels 19y ago
        Why 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 ago
        I 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

xlnt 19y ago
What percent do you estimate that risk is?
- rms 19y ago
  I'm going to go with it's impossible to estimate.
  - xlnt 19y ago
    Then how do you judge that it's worth it?
    - rms 19y ago
      Do you even believe the argument you're trying to make here? Frankly, it seems ridiculous.
      - xlnt 19y ago
        Yes I do. Absolutely.
- euccastro 19y ago
  That's irrelevant. Even if that was 100%, it would be worth the 'risk'. Not ever living romance is sadder than certainty of pain.
  - xlnt 19y ago
    What's so great about it?
    - euccastro 19y ago

yters 19y ago

It'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 ago
It'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 ago
  Yes, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be disappointed with the voting.
  - xlnt 19y ago
    You expected more of YC? :)
    - yters 19y ago
      Yeah, 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 ago
        In my opinion YC is well above average, but its expertise doesn't apply to all issues.

euccastro 19y ago

Here's another one for your consideration: - Even love-induced pain often helps you grow personally in some way.