Secular Sanity
Registered Senior Member
No. I will, though. Thanks!Did you ever happen to read Dandelion Wine by Ray Bradbury?
Or the Saturday Evening Post, I suppose. Leo Auffmann's Happiness Machine↱ comes to mind.
No. I will, though. Thanks!Did you ever happen to read Dandelion Wine by Ray Bradbury?
Or the Saturday Evening Post, I suppose. Leo Auffmann's Happiness Machine↱ comes to mind.
Thanks for this post however I find it primitively oversimplified, it lends a lot of credit to my idea.In "Amusing Ourselves to Death", Neil Postman writes:
In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.
The Experience Machine or Pleasure Machine is a thought experiment put forward by philosopher Robert Nozick.
Nozick asks us to imagine a machine that could give us whatever desirable or pleasurable experiences we could want. Psychologists have figured out a way to stimulate a person's brain to induce pleasurable experiences that the subject could not distinguish from those he would have apart from the machine. He then asks, if given the choice, would we prefer the machine to real life?
While this later version of the Matrix is not a paradise-like reality in the literal sense, it may be argued that it is a lot like a pleasure-inducing Experience Machine, since Cypher is given the opportunity to have a prominent position of power and wealth in this new simulation. As he says while dining at a simulated restaurant:
"You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy, and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss."
In a summer walk in the countryside, Freud and two companions engage in a discussion of the ephemeral nature of all that is beautiful. For one, a poet, the thought that all the beauty surrounding them will vanish is saddening and robs beauty of its value. For Freud, however, it is exactly the contrary: transience lends things greater value, rather that stripping them of it: “Transience value is scarcity value in time”.
It makes you wonder why the idea of heaven is even appealing when eternity would cancel out transience.
Hmm…oh, well, back to the OP.
I loved Esther Perel’s talk.
She gave a great talk on desire, as well.
Esther Perel: The secret to desire in a long-term relationship
No. The above relationship is not built on communication. It is in deep trouble. And having an affair will make it far worse.What happens next is you stop having sex with your wife simple becuase there is no more sexual desire left. So because of this your wife becomes sexually frustrated and may not tell you this, the question; Is it fair if she decides to have an afair after all you are no longer giving her the pleasure she signed up for when choosing to marry you? Or what would be the right thing to do is have a divorce before any infidelity accurs? Please note other than this effect the relationship is virtually perfect.
Weak schmeak. Humans, being humans, can communicate with their mates.I don't blame humans I know they are weak and may not recognize that they are humans and not animals. Some of us may even understand the distinction.
Crcata said:But I wouldn't be completely unsympathetic towards the cheater.
I was having some thoughts on relationships and it accured to me there comes a time when having an affair may be socially acceptable. I am not supporting infidelity by any means but in this situation I will describe I could see why it may transpire.
Example; you are married to your wife everything is great the sex is great actually phenomenal, actually so good you reach your sexual peak and loose all interest in sex all together.
What happens next is you stop having sex with your wife simple becuase there is no more sexual desire left. So because of this your wife becomes sexually frustrated and may not tell you this, the question; Is it fair if she decides to have an afair after all you are no longer giving her the pleasure she signed up for when choosing to marry you? Or what would be the right thing to do is have a divorce before any infidelity accurs? Please note other than this effect the relationship is virtually perfect.
And what's the philosophy behind that?
I mean, sure, there are plenty who will offer up some sympathy, but unless that's completely arbitrary it will be based on a combination of available information and presuppositions.
To wit, it's easy enough for me to offer some sympathy to the cheater, but in that case the cheater shouldn't have entered the relationship, and people tend to cling to the proposition a priori that hindsight is the more accurate perspective, thereby mitigating the initial error of having undertaken the relationship.
Whatever sympathy I offer a cheater in these cases only points to a structural problem, which is how we arrange and justify these relationships in the first place.
In fact, Homo sapiens is one of a very small number of species in which it is, indeed, the norm.Pair-bonding is not a dysfunction.
What "norm" would that be, Fraggle?In fact, Homo sapiens is one of a very small number of species in which it is, indeed, the norm.
Artificial social constraint. Or a band aid. whichever you prefer.There's never a reason for infidelity. If someone wishes to have an open relationship, clue the other person in. lol Don't cheat. There's never a 'good' reason to lie, and cheat behind someone's back. Give the person the option to opt out of being with you, if you want to sleep around.
When someone cheats on you, revert to your post here. And comfort yourself with it. lolArtificial social constraint. Or a band aid. whichever you prefer.
Of course there are reasons for infidelity; if there were not, it wouldn't happen.
What "norm" would that be, Fraggle?
A social one, or an instinctual one?
Pair bonding is not the norm among humans, it has been imposed as one.
Of course there are reasons for infidelity; if there were not, it wouldn't happen.
If pair bonding was not evolutionary efficient, and most importantly, beneficial, it's safe to say you probably would not be here right now. The human species would have died out while they still roamed the plains. There is a brilliant paper by a scientist called Sergey Gavrilets, who delves into the many variables that drove our male and female ancestors to becoming monogamous. The paper is called "Human Origins and the Transition from Promiscuity to Pair-Bonding". As such, those choices made by our ancestors, to become monogamous, drove human evolution. Without these beneficial choices, we would not be here today. So it was not imposed. It was vital for our ancestor's survival and was vital for our existence.What "norm" would that be, Fraggle?
A social one, or an instinctual one?
Pair bonding is not the norm among humans, it has been imposed as one.
Why do you believe it is not natural human behaviour? There is clear evidence that monogamy played a vital role in human evolution. In fact, the evidence points to the evolutionary benefit of males to be in a monogamous relationship for various reasons.Pair bonding and monogamy are not the same thing.
Monogamy is not natural human behaviour. We aren't monogamous at all, and we never have been.
Even those species other than humans heretofore regarded as being "mated for life" have been found to cheat quite regularly, with only one or two exceptions.
Yes and no. Even in today's age, both parents are required to care for their offspring, even when separated.Pair bonding is performed for reasons other than procreation, and those reasons are fast becoming redundant in modern human society.
The gradual unshackling of women over the last century or so has begun to make it unnecessary. Hence the higher divorce rates and lower incidence of marriage, and people waiting longer to get married than they ever have.
Even in the supposedly strict 19th century, marriage was primarily an economic function, among the wealthy at least.
Women may be more independent, but that does not mean that monogamy is no longer viable when one looks at evolution.Hence the higher divorce rates and lower incidence of marriage in the last fifty odd years, and people waiting longer to get married than they ever have.
Because they don't need to as much anymore. Women are becoming more independent.
You appear to be approaching this from a personal perspective. In other words, perhaps you are repulsed by the idea of spending the rest of your life with one person.There's also the point that, due partly to greatly increased life expectancy rates as well as the above, marriage and monogamy are a more heinous consideration than they have ever been before.
I'd imagine Romeo and Juliet might have thought twice if rather than being together for thirty odd years, they would be for 60.
Why on earth do you believe that the appendix has no function now?Sounds like you're trying to convince me that because an appendix had a function once, we shouldn't remove them anymore.
Take it you've never read the Bible?... Why on earth would a bible thumper prefer to believe that monogamy was imposed???