4 ms·

Sexual self-denial always was the driving force behind the western cultural success. You can not have hyper-specialization and rule of law, without some member

Sexual self-denial always was the driving force behind the western cultural success. You can not have hyper-specialization and rule of law, without some members of society sacrificing a "normal" life. From the monk in the monastry to Turing hyper-focused on an enigma there is clear line. Its a ugly recipe, but its working, unlike all those other societies out there, who are currently eating themselves. A judge doesn't dress like a priest for no reason. Sexual caste slavery or anarchy- thats the choices.

sapphicsnail 1y ago
> You can not have hyper-specialization and rule of law, without some members of society sacrificing a "normal" life. Sex freaks hyper specialize in things all the time. Monks and priests also had reputations as horny perverts in Medieval literature. Also, there are plenty of non-Western countries that have been functional. This is such an out of touch, ahistorical take.
- kergonath 1y ago
  > Also, there are plenty of non-Western countries that have been functional. And there are plenty of western countries that do not work like that, as well.
kergonath 1y ago
> Sexual self-denial always was the driving force behind the western cultural success. It is a feature of a subset of the culture in some countries. It is far less universal as you say. > You can not have hyper-specialization and rule of law, without some members of society sacrificing a "normal" life. This really does not follow. How does the existence of laws prevent someone to live a normal life? In a liberal democracy, laws fundamentally guarantee that we can do so, as long as someone’s fundamental individual freedom does not cause unacceptable harm to someone else. In that framework, what we do in private with consenting adults is absolutely nobody’s business. Rule of law does not change this. > From the monk in the monastry to Turing hyper-focused on an enigma there is clear line. What line is this? In which way was Turing’s persecution a requirement for him being a genius? How do we benefit from him killing himself instead of leaving him be and make other contributions to our intellectual development? > It’s an ugly recipe, but it’s working, unlike all those other societies out there, who are currently eating themselves. It is not. What you are advocating is a theocracy and there are many examples in History and around the world that show that it is a terrible idea. > A judge doesn't dress like a priest for no reason. All I can say is LOL. Ceremonial clothing is more nuanced than that. > Sexual caste slavery or anarchy- thats the choices. The fact that you only see these possibilities says a lot more about you than the way human beings work.
rendall 1y ago
It's fun when posters inadvertently reveal far more about themselves than whatever they are discussing, such as "Western cultural success" as here.
grues-dinner 1y ago
> Turing hyper-focused on an enigma I don't know if he had major active relationships specifically while working on Enigma (other than the short engagement to Joan Clarke in 1941), but Turing famously did have sexual relationships since the discovery of one eventually led to criminal prosecution of both him and his partner, his chemical castration and eventually possibly suicide. Paul Erdős might be a better example, though I don't think he was deliberately self-denying and more just a huge oddball. Newton also never showed much interest, apparently, though an engagement was rumoured. Many of the biggest and best-known brains in maths, engineering, physics and computing did marry: as a quick random survey: Euler, Chandrasekhar, Faraday, Maxwell, Watt, Babbage, Einstein, Dijkstra, Wiles, Hopper, Hamilton, Knuth, even Ramanujan and the Woz (4 times, even).
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [dead]
Der_Einzige 1y ago
This BTW is 100% the reason why americans still perform circumcison and still radically cling to it. Men must have their sexuality attacked and stymed from the very beginning of birth, or else they will waste their brain power on promiscuity. That's the only thinking anyway that explains why over half this country still circumcises. Kant and I think Newton were famously virgins and a whole lot of moral crusaders in this world get extremely angry at the idea that people in this world have enjoyable sexual relations. A lot of people want a lot more sexual frustration to exist in this world, as it's good for capitalist exploitation.
- spauldo 1y ago
  That's absolutely not the reason. It started out that way, sure, but it's not why it's done now. It's done now out of basic tradition (father is circumcised, so son is too), conformity (his peers are all circumcised, we don't want him made fun of), doctor advice (fewer infections, easier to keep clean), and plain old cultural inertia. It's slowly dying out but I expect it to stick around another several decades.

sapphicsnail 1y ago

> You can not have hyper-specialization and rule of law, without some members of society sacrificing a "normal" life. Sex freaks hyper specialize in things all the time. Monks and priests also had reputations as horny perverts in Medieval literature. Also, there are plenty of non-Western countries that have been functional. This is such an out of touch, ahistorical take.

kergonath 1y ago
> Also, there are plenty of non-Western countries that have been functional. And there are plenty of western countries that do not work like that, as well.

kergonath 1y ago

> Sexual self-denial always was the driving force behind the western cultural success. It is a feature of a subset of the culture in some countries. It is far less universal as you say. > You can not have hyper-specialization and rule of law, without some members of society sacrificing a "normal" life. This really does not follow. How does the existence of laws prevent someone to live a normal life? In a liberal democracy, laws fundamentally guarantee that we can do so, as long as someone’s fundamental individual freedom does not cause unacceptable harm to someone else. In that framework, what we do in private with consenting adults is absolutely nobody’s business. Rule of law does not change this. > From the monk in the monastry to Turing hyper-focused on an enigma there is clear line. What line is this? In which way was Turing’s persecution a requirement for him being a genius? How do we benefit from him killing himself instead of leaving him be and make other contributions to our intellectual development? > It’s an ugly recipe, but it’s working, unlike all those other societies out there, who are currently eating themselves. It is not. What you are advocating is a theocracy and there are many examples in History and around the world that show that it is a terrible idea. > A judge doesn't dress like a priest for no reason. All I can say is LOL. Ceremonial clothing is more nuanced than that. > Sexual caste slavery or anarchy- thats the choices. The fact that you only see these possibilities says a lot more about you than the way human beings work.

rendall 1y ago

It's fun when posters inadvertently reveal far more about themselves than whatever they are discussing, such as "Western cultural success" as here.

grues-dinner 1y ago

> Turing hyper-focused on an enigma I don't know if he had major active relationships specifically while working on Enigma (other than the short engagement to Joan Clarke in 1941), but Turing famously did have sexual relationships since the discovery of one eventually led to criminal prosecution of both him and his partner, his chemical castration and eventually possibly suicide. Paul Erdős might be a better example, though I don't think he was deliberately self-denying and more just a huge oddball. Newton also never showed much interest, apparently, though an engagement was rumoured. Many of the biggest and best-known brains in maths, engineering, physics and computing did marry: as a quick random survey: Euler, Chandrasekhar, Faraday, Maxwell, Watt, Babbage, Einstein, Dijkstra, Wiles, Hopper, Hamilton, Knuth, even Ramanujan and the Woz (4 times, even).

cindyllm 1y ago
[dead]

Der_Einzige 1y ago

This BTW is 100% the reason why americans still perform circumcison and still radically cling to it. Men must have their sexuality attacked and stymed from the very beginning of birth, or else they will waste their brain power on promiscuity. That's the only thinking anyway that explains why over half this country still circumcises. Kant and I think Newton were famously virgins and a whole lot of moral crusaders in this world get extremely angry at the idea that people in this world have enjoyable sexual relations. A lot of people want a lot more sexual frustration to exist in this world, as it's good for capitalist exploitation.

spauldo 1y ago
That's absolutely not the reason. It started out that way, sure, but it's not why it's done now. It's done now out of basic tradition (father is circumcised, so son is too), conformity (his peers are all circumcised, we don't want him made fun of), doctor advice (fewer infections, easier to keep clean), and plain old cultural inertia. It's slowly dying out but I expect it to stick around another several decades.