5 ms·

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

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.

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.