Unlike some who view love as problematic, I don't think the problem is that it isn't real; I think it's that it's an irrational, uncontrollable preference perpetuated by unfounded evolutionary incentives. This might not seem too problematic at first glance, but when you consider the huge amount of time and energy wasted -- often in vain -- to woo someone because of what makes their personality superficially intriguing, it becomes obvious that love is a very, very bad aspect of our perverted psychological dispositions. If an elderly man whom I randomly meet on the street one day is the most intelligent, productive, kind-hearted, and pragmatic person I've ever encountered, why shouldn't I work alongside him, or at least engage him in discussion, more often than I would chase after women? Why shouldn't I move in with him, buy him gifts, take him to dinner? I have no feelings for him whatsoever -- aside from the ba
seline feelings that I have for all sentient creatures -- but isn't that a good thing? Doesn't that make him a more objectively worthy companion than someone who makes my heart flutter?
We can't control whom we love. We can't control what kinds of foods taste good, either, but we know which ones are healthy and which ones are unhealthy. Perhaps there are loves that are healthier than others, too, but love, unlike food, is not necessary for our survival. Trapping others in our emotions and personal dramas, then, is both egoistic and selfish, for it promotes preferential thinking -- a clear sign of a non-functional civilization. Further, the preferences created by love are meaningless, as I'm sure anyone who's experienced unrequited love can attest. Everyone, no matter their gender or how their smile or confidence makes us weak in the knees, must be judged by the same standards.
I highly, highly doubt that anyone you've ever loved was chosen because they were among the best and brightest of mankind. Love may not be an illusion, but its benefit to society certainly is.
this is stupid
ReplyDeleteMore likely, you don't see why recognizing this is useful. The point is that emotions like love and empathy are severely selective, mostly because they serve our genes rather than ourselves. If your goal is to reduce suffering or otherwise make the world a better place, relying on your emotions is likely to get in your way.
ReplyDeleteI don't experience any particular emotion when I hear a kid is starving in Africa. Not even if I hear a million kids starve every year, or whatever the number is. Clearly, my emotions are of no use here. If meanwhile I feel that old painful yearn for some or other woman, then my emotions are worse than useless. A similar close-to-home example is eating a steak and then cuddling with a puppy.
There is no doubt that your emotions are useful to you personally, and that there are situations where you can just indulge. But in cases where you want to be altruistic toward someone else who is not in your tribe and who you don't see as a potential mate, your emotions have evolved to get in your way.
That sums it up perfectly, Tim. Too bad it'll probably fall on deaf ears. From what I can tell, comments like this often get left in temporary spikes by forum-goers. Forums tend to promote in group-out group thinking to a degree higher than the norm in society, so it's inevitable that some comments during the spikes will exist solely to garner brownie points on whichever forum the poster(s) originate from. I'd delete them all, but this blog isn't nearly active enough for it to mean anything.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I've slowed down a bit over the last few months with this blog. I think I've said most of what needs to be said. I haven't been keeping up with this much lately, though I'm pleased to see Jim Crawford's YouTube channel and a few other antinatalist ones assuming a loose collective via Inmendham.
I know how these things go, but my comment is there for the record. It's sometimes hard to see what we're getting at with posts like these that see bad in things commonly considered good. If the reason for considering love stupid wasn't clear before, then now it should be.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the goings-on, yeah, I am more hopeful now than I was a few months ago. I think that there is really only one big step to take: we (society) should recognize nature for what it is and no longer hold it so sacred. When that happens, I think it will be clear that we're all fighting a common foe here. Ditching God was a big step, and it raised many serious questions about life. I think nature should be the next big step.
I also have a fairly practical way of getting there, as I wrote in a comment on this post: the right to die. Then again, I may be too optimistic. I hear (western) Europe is ahead on these things with regard to popular opinion.
Beep boop aspergers bot does not get human emotion beep boop
ReplyDelete"I highly, highly doubt that anyone you've ever loved was chosen because they were among the best and brightest of mankind"
ReplyDeleteI highly, highly doubt that anyone who isn't a perfectionist logic-obsessed emotionally dead robotic cunt like you even gives a fuck about that fact.
Beep boop aspergers bot does not get human emotion beep boop
ReplyDelete