~ archived since 2018 ~

What do you think about the existence of basic and carnal human nature?

prettylatebloomer
October 4, 2014
1 upvotes
/r/PurplePillDebate

In order to accept evolution, don't you have to accept that human beings are mere creatures? An idea like AWALT doesn't have to be a way of looking at women as some lesser species, it's simply accepting the nature of women. Men and women have different roles in preserving the human species. Doesn't that make men and women different? I agree that we're all human, we all have feelings, we all feel happiness and sorrow, but we've developed differently and I think we feel those feelings in different ways.

"True love" doesn't exist. A monogamous LTR doesn't inherently promote a better human species. Hypergamy does. From an evolutionary viewpoint, doesn't AWALT make sense?

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/PurplePillDebate.

/r/PurplePillDebate archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title What do you think about the existence of basic and carnal human nature?
Author prettylatebloomer
Upvotes 1
Comments 82
Date October 4, 2014 2:19 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit /r/PurplePillDebate
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/what-do-you-think-about-the-existence-of-basic-and.284693
https://theredarchive.com/post/284693
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2i9zam/what_do_you_think_about_the_existence_of_basic/
Red Pill terms in post
AWALTmonogamyhypergamylong term relationship
Top posts by prettylatebloomer

If you're not where you need to be in your head, you can't make girls your friends

60 upvotes
December 13, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Go into monk mode with a clear set of goals

17 upvotes
December 11, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Success stories from "late bloomers?"

14 upvotes
September 11, 2014
/r/askTRP

for the people in here trying to decide if they should take the red pill

13 upvotes
November 17, 2014
/r/TheRedPill

Taking the red pill is tough, but it shows us how the world works, how people work, and how we need to carry ourselves in order to live a successful life

12 upvotes
October 26, 2014
/r/ThankTRP

what is the red pill to you?

8 upvotes
November 3, 2014
/r/PurplePillDebate

I think TRP does make some valid points, and can be a positive way to live life as long as you can maneuver around the bullshit misogyny that does happen there and have empathy for your fellow human beings

8 upvotes
August 22, 2014
/r/PurplePillDebate

question as an incel

7 upvotes
November 25, 2014
/r/askTRP
Comments

[–]ianturpiesmoustache7 points8 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

An idea like AWALT doesn't have to be a way of looking at women as some lesser species, it's simply accepting the nature of women.

No, not all men are any one thing, and not all women are, either. I just don't see the value in pigeon-holing an entire gender as being a certain way, or all engaging in similar behaviours, as it just can't be done with any accuracy.

Also, as a sub that (sometimes, like in the side bar) advocates the view that women should be seen as/treated like teenagers, I'd have to say at the very least that's a really good imitation of "looking at women as some lesser species".

Men and women have different roles in preserving the human species. Doesn't that make men and women different?

Yes, men and women are different. That doesn't mean TRP is suddenly right about what those differences are, or the best way to form/maintain relationships with the opposite gender.

I agree that we're all human, we all have feelings, we all feel happiness and sorrow, but we've developed differently and I think we feel those feelings in different ways.

Is this a reference to TRP belief that women can't love men as much as/the same way as men love women? Because I'd love to see some actual, non-anecdotal evidence for that.

If not, could you clarify what you meant here?

A monogamous LTR doesn't inherently promote a better human species. Hypergamy does. From an evolutionary viewpoint, doesn't AWALT make sense?

How do you see hypergamy benefitting the human species more than forming LTRs?

[–]prettylatebloomerRed Pill Man[S] 5 points6 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

not all men are any one thing, and not all women are, either

I'm sure you understand what generalizations are and how they work. Individuality exists, yes. Some people like chocolate, others don't. That doesn't prevent you from making accurate generalizations about the way a group behaves.

advocates the view that women should be seen as/treated like teenagers

This is a part of the strategies TRP advocates. Simply put, these strategies DO work. You may disagree with the morality of some of these strategies, but nonetheless, they work in a surprisingly effective, and somewhat depressing, manner.

How do you see hypergamy benefitting the human species more than forming LTRs

Hypergamy promises that the best genes will win out. In terms of reproducing the healthiest, most attractive, most intelligent people, hypergamy achieves that goal.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Without birth control, hypergamy is irrational. If a woman were continually attempting to have sex with the most genetically advantaged men on an ongoing trajectory, that would compromise her ability to care for the resulting children and her ability to ensure they will survive childhood into adulthood. Having a pair unit to protect the child helps to ensure it will not die, as humans are vulnerable for an incredibly long time compared to other animals which grow to adulthood many times faster than us.

[–]prettylatebloomerRed Pill Man[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

Nature isn't always rational. Modern civilization has tamed humans into suppressing many of their primal desires. Not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. It has allowed for the continued existence of our species.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I just question the authenticity of the claim on those grounds. Based on primates, I would assume in nature we (both men and women) have an instinct to care for children quite extensively. Perhaps I also have misinterpreted your sentiment, but it seems to suggest women have a drive to continuously have babies, rather than caring for the child which will be vulnerable for many years. I imagine babies being left in the wild to try to survive, if that drive were real.

[–]prettylatebloomerRed Pill Man[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Women do have a deep love for their children. That's a basic part of TRP theory. Men -> Women -> Children.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Wait. So men don't have a drive to protect their children? I'm not following this. It isn't love, it is protection that is the issue in terms of survival. Hypergamy does not make sense after a child is born, as fixation on sex at that point would endanger its survival. Some primates have a group rearing system, some have a pair system.

[–]prettylatebloomerRed Pill Man[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's a hierarchy. Men are able to have an unconditional love for their women and children. Women only for their children. That theory can definitely seem a bit extreme but it's to say that the value a man can give to a woman in a relationship is more conditional than the value a woman gives to a man. Understand much of TRP theory hinges on generalizations, don't get worked up over outliers that may exist.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm going to go off of the protection model of love (as "love" is really just a nickname for a chemical response in the brain. The flowery language is inappropriate when discussing gene selection or ingrained instinctual behavior). So men "love" women because they need protection, women and men "love" children because they need protection. The child also "loves" (experience chemically driven neurological bonding towards) their parents in return. Why would the female human not return the "love" (neurological bond) to the man? If the man is protecting her and their offspring, it is evolutionary irrational for the woman to not wish to protect the male in some form, as he is ensuring the survival of the child, both directly, and also indirectly by ensuring the mother's survival.

If the human maturation process didn't take 2 full decades to complete (the first decade of which we are so vulnerable it is embarrassing compared to other species), hypergamy as a default setting for females could be rationalized, but this is not the case. Not having chemical bonds to the offspring and the male jeopardizes the survival of the offspring (even if we are closer to the group rearing system of some primates). The strength in numbers is important to survival of offspring, especially when the period of vulnerability to death from predators continues for a very long time, as it does in human children.

[–]egotherapy1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure you understand what generalizations are and how they work. Individuality exists, yes. That doesn't prevent you from making accurate generalizations about the way a group behaves.

You're talking about assumptions. There's no way to find out how billions of people behave in wildly different situations, you can't really generalize about this. Or is it for example okay to generalize that "white rice is a poison and no one should eat it" if we consider that eating white rice increases risk of developing diabetes?

Simply put, these strategies DO work. You may disagree with the morality of some of these strategies, but nonetheless, they work in a surprisingly effective, and somewhat depressing, manner.

I'm sorry, but the "depressive yet totally effective" shtick is really funny. Selling someone a bridge is also totally effective, yet for some reason we aren't saying that immigrants have diminished capabilities because of how they've evolved somehow (unless we're being racist).

Hypergamy promises that the best genes will win out. In terms of reproducing the healthiest, most attractive, most intelligent people, hypergamy achieves that goal.

Read this abstract please. Evolutionarily it's been argued that forager type societies were pretty egalitarian, so... Also I'm wondering about your actual published and peer reviewed sources, as in, are there any? Or is this another assumption?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Most modern humans descend from agricultural peoples who underwent significant evolutionary changes in the last 10000 years, not hunter gathers. Hunter gatherers who still exist are archaic, backwater, failed humans who tell us nothing about the present, evolution didn't stop with them, it continued and continues on to this day

[–]autowikibot1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The 10,000 Year Explosion:

The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution is a 2009 book by anthropologists Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending. Starting with their own take on the conventional wisdom that the evolutionary process stopped when modern humans appeared, the authors explain the genetic basis of their view that human evolution is accelerating, illustrating it with some examples.

Image i

Interesting: Henry Harpending | Gregory Cochran | Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors | Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

What makes them failed humans?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They failed to make the most basic discoveries that lifted the vast huge majorities of the humans to civilization-- stone, agriculture, division of labor, hierarchy, currency, private property and literacy. In fact, I have often thought that many of the ones that existed contemporaneously with civilizations around them might not even pre-date those civilizations, but were regressive groups for some reason, having left the civilizations to follow cultural courses that lead to huts and bare subsistence, but I'm not married to it. Say if a group of polygamous hippies devoted to nothing but sex and hallucinogens were to leave NYC and live in huts in upstate new york, they'd be New york's Yanomamo indian equivalent in my scenario. Since there were stone, agriculture, division of labor, currency and literacy having civilizations at the same time there were "forest people" in many areas, I don't think we really know which came from which in every case. Either way, The humans who continued on to develop the ingredients of civilization are our ancestors more directly than the ones who either failed and regressed or never developed civilization at all

[–]egotherapy0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol do you think agricultural societies popped up from nowhere or something? Most agricultural societies evolved from foragers, in some places there were two types of societies going on at a time. I'm also sorry, but if we're going into the most basic, archaic societies where people can be ruled by their instincts (which OP was raving about) then we're not really talking about agricultural societies, so way to go off-topic. Btw, most anthropologists would pretty much tell you to fuck yourself since you're trying to argue that only "civilized" culture matters. That's not true and that's not objective at all. Good day, sir.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

From an evolutionary viewpoint, doesn't AWALT make sense?

AAAAAAUUUURRRRGH! NO.

GOD.DAMN.IT.

Think about where you are in history!

THERE ARE 7 FUCKING BILLION PEOPLE ON EARTH. 200 FUCKING YEARS AGO THERE WERE 6 BILLION LESS. We are growing at an exponential drastic rate! What does this mean?

The Bible was written when there was, what, 500,000 people on Earth? Maybe 200 million? Just...not a lot of people on Earth. The Bible really supports heterosexuality! Why? Because it gives God the warm fuzzies. Because in order to survive, people had to hump like rabbits to just generally pass on their genetic heritage (because a shitload of kids died back then! Just because you had a healthy baby girl didn't mean you had a daughter for life!)

We don't have to do that anymore. We shouldn't. Look! Nature/God/whatever is saying "oh fuck that's a shitload of people, better throw some gay peeps in there to slow everything down." And what do the retards of Earth do? "Oh nooooo! Gays are scawy! Let's keep the population exploding because I'm a dipshit who's terrified of change that will happen anyway! I completely lack perspective and am just too much of a flaming retard to know any better! I will destroy God's creation because I'm scared, pathetic, and want simple, comforting answers rather than the truth."

Evolution isn't like train tracks - we don't just keep sticking to the same methods our ancestors used else we "go off the rails" because we don't live in the same world our ancestors lived in, we live in a world affected by their efforts. Evolution is far far more malleable than we previously suspected. Y'know, neuroplasticity and all: how certain parts of our genetic code will only unravel and be read if we are put in a situation that calls for it.

Getting back to your stupid theory: it's stupid, outdated, and does not take into account the modern dilemmas we all face. Most of us are probably a little gay. Because if a woman has one gay relationship in a series of relationships, that means for a certain number of years she can't accidentally have a child. That activity impacts the birth rate.

So, in order to preserve the human species, it's best to be gay to whatever degree one finds themselves attracted to the same sex, or at least be an ally to others. Stop ignoring gay people and pretending that they're some genetic aberration because they're not. They're the key to getting our massive population down and that should be respected. Evolution doesn't mean we are exactly like our ancestors. We will evolve to adapt to the world around us which is getting fucked by our ancestors' shortsightedness. Preserving our species sometimes means fucking like rabbits and spraying out babies. It can also just mean fucking at some point to pass on one's genetic heritage. It can also mean fucking people with whom one can't randomly produce genetic offspring. All these types of people are floating in the human genome because they ALL are necessary to keep the species going depending on what specific crisis our species is facing.

So...with that much genetic diversity/malleability, I don't think AWALT, AMALT, or APALT. I do think MRPASAF (most RPers are stupid as fuck.)

edit: Just reread this and realized we're not growing exponentially. That would be insane. But as a species we're still growing way too large for our...planet.

[–]prettylatebloomerRed Pill Man[S] 3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

AWALT doesn't insinuate that every woman is exactly the same. It's a generalization about the female gender, and how women who grew up in a developed modern society tend to act. Of course, outliers may exist. Having outliers doesn't make a generalization automatically absurd.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Why are you not selecting for and dating the outliers? They sound much more enjoyable to be around.

[–]prettylatebloomerRed Pill Man[S] 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Those outliers are what as known as unicorns. Outliers may exist, I just haven't encountered one.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

I honestly do not understand this.

I dated until I found someone who was distinctly different from other people, and that is precisely why our relationship works.

It took a while, but I would not have been happy in any other type of relationship.

[–]prettylatebloomerRed Pill Man[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Are you saying that this girl is perfect for you? I'm glad you're happy, but to believe that this girl is the only one in the world is a bit outlandish. Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Perfect is absolutely ridiculous. I am 30 years old. I also am diagnosed with aspergers, so I had a hard time being able to relate to people in dating. My partner is 27.

She has excellent communication skills, has a healthy attitude towards life in general, works with my autism traits and the difficulties I have, is a very interesting person, and has healthy priorities in her life. She is simply a quality person who is compatible with me and whom I can have mutual appreciation for. If I pursued women who couldn't work with my brain (I've tried) the relationship is just this endless low-level stress of trying to understand how she expects me to react.

I found someone that is a beautiful person both inside and out, who is very compatible with me, and frankly that took some serious effort and patience to find.

Also, she is not a "girl", she is a mature adult woman.

[–]prettylatebloomerRed Pill Man[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I found someone that is a beautiful person both inside and out and who is very compatible with me.

I'm not here to spoil anybody's fun. I'm glad you're happy. I wish you two nothing but the best.

Also, she is not a "girl", she is a mature adult woman.

Semantics. Don't be silly.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I put emphasis on that because I think you mature past a phase where you're giddily looking for pretty girls at some point. I think many people are more the "relationship type" where they also hope the cute girl has a great personality - that was me in my teens and early 20's - but at a certain point you want to date someone who has their shit together and has grown up, in addition to them having a good personality and looks.

I know it's semantics, but I wouldn't call myself a boy anymore, it would sound quite odd.

Thank you very much for your sentiment and well wishes. I hope I don't come across as rude. I hope my perspective/experience has contributed to the discussion.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I accept evolution, but I also accept it as working in funny ways. Sometimes predictable, sometimes less than predictable.

As far as carnal desires, I think it's a switch that can be turned on and off over and over again. Like a light switch.

[–]prettylatebloomerRed Pill Man[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think it's a switch that can be turned on and off over and over again. Like a light switch.

I don't think humans have that much control. This is why people make mistakes all the time. People get caught up in the heat of the moment. People are more carnal than you'd wish. People are more predictable than you believe they are.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I never said anything about our ability to control it. Although we try to.

[–][deleted] 7 points7 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]prettylatebloomerRed Pill Man[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Just delete your comment. This is stupid and adds nothing to the discussion.

[–][deleted] 3 points3 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]RedPill4LYFHeterosexual Red Pill Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you want to know if a specific concept “makes sense from an evolutionary viewpoint”, you might want to ask someone who actually has a real background in evolutionary biology/psychology/anthropology and you’re highly unlikely to find enough of those people here to have a debate. If you really want to put your ideas to the test, ask someone who might know more than you.

I was under the impression that anyone who comes to this sub is either here to defend or debate TRP theory. If you're not here to defend it, then then what good is it for you to post if you have nothing to challenge it? The question is straightforward enough. Go ask r/AskScience yourself if you think the answer requires their input and then report back here with your findings.

Make an effort, damn you.

[–]SirNemesistitties not tithe0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, cause those folks know all about real science. /s

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Somehow NONE of the evolutionary psychology and evolution books red pill and manosphere uses as sources matter, no matter if they are written by scientists and heavily footnoted, but sex at dawn garbage leads to a bunch of nyerd morons becoming "poly" and any sociology survey of 1000 college kids is gold.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes

[–]17b29a0 points1 point  (22 children) | Copy Link

no, accepting evolution doesn't really entail accepting grand claims about human psychology and "mere creatures" is pretty nonsensical

[–]prettylatebloomerRed Pill Man[S] 3 points4 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

"mere creatures" is pretty nonsensical

Are we not simple animals inhabiting a random planet in an infinitely large universe? If not "mere creatures," what are we?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (20 children) | Copy Link

If you strip humans down to their most basic needs then yes, we are all mere creatures. But humans, unlike other animals, have the capacity to reason and question their surroundings. In that sense, we are not "mere creatures" in the same way salmon are mere creatures. Most animals don't know that they are specs of dust on a much larger spec of dust.

[–]prettylatebloomerRed Pill Man[S] 4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

If you strip humans down to their most basic needs

That's what I meant. Surely you didn't think I was comparing human beings to salmons. We may have the ability to reason, but that doesn't cover up the fact that we ARE influenced by our carnal desires. Sexual desire is one of the most primal aspects of humanity. You can't reason your way into having attraction for an individual. Sexual attraction is either there or it's not. It's a carnal instinct driven by our carnal nature.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Surely you didn't think I was comparing human beings to salmons.

Well you did call humans "mere creatures." If Homo sapiens fall under the "mere creature" category, then it's safe to say that other animals, such as salmon, are also included.

we ARE influenced by our carnal desires.

We are also influenced quite a bit by society and culture.

Sexual desire is one of the most primal aspects of humanity.

Of course. There's a whole industry making money out of this. What are you getting at?

You can't reason your way into having attraction for an individual. Sexual attraction is either there or it's not. It's a carnal instinct driven by our carnal nature.

Not necessarily. There are people out there who are not genetically gifted in the looks section but are freaking hilarious, or are incredible story tellers. Some people can and do reason attraction. There are things outside of looks that make people sexy. Not to mention that what is considered "sexy" or attractive is highly subjective.

I think you are under the impression (correct me if I am wrong) that humans do things out of "carnal instincts" and base their decisions mostly on that. They don't. The fact that they can and often do ignore their instincts makes humans much more than just "simple creatures."

[–]prettylatebloomerRed Pill Man[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

There are things outside of looks that make people sexy.

Attraction depends on matters greater than physical looks. Physical attraction isn't all I was talking about when I said that people can't reason attraction. People can also be attracted to certain personality traits. Of course, nobody denies that. However, the attraction itself is primal. You can't use reason to convince yourself that you're attracted to somebody you're not. This is why divorce happens. People fall in and out of love.

I think you are under the impression (correct me if I am wrong) that humans do things out of "carnal instincts" and base their decisions mostly on that. They don't.

You've got a noble view of human beings. We're not as advanced as you think we are. We're shaped by psychology. Brain chemistry affects the way we choose to live our lives.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

We are shaped by a lot of things, genes, culture, etc. That being said, humans don't base their decisions mostly on instinct. If we did then we'd still live in nomadic tribes that travel the globe for food. It's not noble, it's fact. Humans don't fall victim to their instinct in the same way wolves and sea turtles do. We can and do ignore our instincts quite often.

[–]prettylatebloomerRed Pill Man[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

humans don't base their decisions mostly on instinct.

We do override our instinct on decisions that require greater reason. Sexual attraction doesn't call for reason. People don't normally utilize their logical reasoning abilities to determine their sexual attractions.

I can see that we're at a stalemate. Neither of us will change what we believe, and to me, that's alright. As long as you're able to live your life in the most fulfilling manner to you, more power to you. I'm not trying to force my worldview on anybody, I just felt like I should share something that's helped me. TRP gets a bad rep due to misconceptions people have of it. No need to worry. I don't look at women as some lesser species. I respect relationships. I have no desire to chase women in monogamous LTRs. Agreeing with AWALT is simply a generalization. I understand individuality exists. However, I choose to live with a more realistic view on the way the world works. It might not be as pretty as Disney makes it out to be, but shit, life is a beautiful experience. Be well, live happy.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Fair enough.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

have the capacity to reason and question their surroundings

How does this capacity make us more than mere animals?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy Link

We can ignore our instincts unlike other animals. Humans can question what they do and have the ability to create and change cultures whereas other animals simply do things without question. They don't have the capacity to.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

So we are animals that can do that. How does it remove us from the animal realm though. We are still just great apes

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

We build civilizations, we launch satellites into space to explore our universe, we map our oceans, we study other animals, we are obsessed with learning and knowing as well as creating and destroying. Other animals tend to do things out of instinct whereas humans can override their instincts which is why we can create amazing things as well as cause so much destruction.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

I still don't understand how the fact that we build MORE things than other animals like beavers or termites do, or use more complex tools than other animals like monkeys makes us NOT animals, you haven't explained how these things remove us from the realm of animals, you are still just describing animals that can do more complex things, as our more complex animal brains would suggest we'd be able to do. If we aren't animals like all the other animals, what are we?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

I never said we are not animals, I simply said that our capacity for reason and logic estranges us slightly from the rest of the animal kingdom which can be a good thing but has had such disastrous results.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

What disasterous results?

[–]TheFallenHero0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Animals don't ask questions.

Animals don't develop philosophy.

Animals don't create mass scale weapons capable of wiping out their entire race.

Animals don't write, don't read, don't create culture, literature.

Animals don't farm.

But one animal does. The Human. And because of that, in a philosophical sense, he is much more than an animal.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

how does having more capabilities make us more than an animal? More in what sense? We have something ADDITIONAL that makes us not animals? How does additional brain function remove us from animals?

[–]garybuseysawakeningIron Pill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

We consistently see the pattern hormones has on psychology and predispotions to behaviour. Most people fall within a realm of normalcy.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]prettylatebloomerRed Pill Man[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's a straw man argument. Nobody said anything about "reverting back to how things were in the past/ trying to replicate the lifestyle of our ancestors."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (27 children) | Copy Link

There is no singular nature to people. There is no single nature of women, or men.

As for true love, it absolutely exists, but only if you open your mind to the possibility that it does.

[–]prettylatebloomerRed Pill Man[S] 2 points3 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

it absolutely exists

That's an extreme statement. How would you even prove something like that?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Belief in love is predicated on faith. It never has been something you can quantify, but countless people have experienced it as well.

[–]prettylatebloomerRed Pill Man[S] 1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Countless people also believe in a Christian god. Just like countless people believe in allah. Who's right and who's wrong? This is why you can't and shouldn't try to argue beliefs. Nothing wrong with believing something. I just don't think beliefs have a valid place in a debate.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

Nobody knows who is right and who is wrong. That is why saying "true love doesn't exist" definitively applies only to you as an individual, if that is indeed what you do believe.

[–]prettylatebloomerRed Pill Man[S] 5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Can you give me a definition of your idea of true love? I do believe that love can exist. A husband can love his wife. A wife can love her husband. Parents can love their children. I just don't believe in Disney's fairy-tale version of true love. I don't believe in the idea that two people were ever meant to be. That's what I mean when I say that true love doesn't exist.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

Eh, I don't believe in the fairy-tale version of love, but I do believe that the bonds people form can last a lifetime if they are right for each other. My views are unorthodox and complex though.

[–]prettylatebloomerRed Pill Man[S] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I do believe that the bonds people form can last a lifetime

You've got a dangerously hopeful view of love. What do divorce statistics tell you? When people say "I do," do they not usually mean it most of the time?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I am an idealist. Divorce statistics tell me that most people have no idea what they are doing, which isn't exactly a stretch.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Did they ever know what they were doing? How did people know more about successful marriage when they used to get married at like 20 and divorce was rare compared to people getting married at like 30 with high divorce rates?

[–]prettylatebloomerRed Pill Man[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I am an idealist

Honestly, it's a cruel world out there. I don't know your age, I'm actually in my early 20s so I'm relatively pretty young as well, but, as a whole, I've been jaded by the human race. You won't find happiness through idealism. People are selfish, in order to have success in your life, you need to be selfish yourself. At least that's what I've found for myself. I mean, I definitely still care about other people. I've got a tremendous amount of empathy. It's just that I've learned that I need to put myself first, my own happiness should come first. When I do that, it makes life in general a more beautiful experience.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

My belief in love is predicated on brain chemistry and hormones, speak for yourself. It can be quantified. The release of oxytocin after a 2 minute hug has been quantified, for example. There is nothing else but meat and hormones and brain chemistry, if we don't understand it yet, we will

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

That is the chemical process, but there is more to life than physical things. I'm not really even a spiritual person, but spirituality influences many many individuals for a variety of reasons.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

there is more to life than physical things

What else is there?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Spirituality, for those that it appeals to.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

And what is "spirituality"?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Spirituality: the quality or state of being spiritual

Spiritual: of or relating to a person's spirit

Spirit: the nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.

There, that is spirituality, by the dictionary

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Is there a singular nature to mountain gorillas? Nematodes? Deer? Wolves? You think because humans have somewhat, and I do mean somewhat, diverse personalites and appearances like dog breeds that means there isn't a deep human nature that can be ascertained?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Just because something has tendencies, it doesn't mean it has a singular nature. It's like layers. The first layer of ever person is similar, by virtue of all of us being human, but as you add layers, people change. So people have some very basic similarities and branch out from there.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Maybe its because I'm old, the older I get, the more predictably similar the humans become. To quote Fran Lebowitz:

People (a group that in my opinion has always attracted an undue amount of attention) have often been likened to snowflakes. This analogy is meant to suggest that each is unique -- no two alike. This is quite patently not the case. People ... are simply a dime a dozen. And, I hasten to add, their only similarity to snowflakes resides in their invariable and lamentable tendency to turn, after a few warm days, to slush.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

There is a duality to that. I'll concede that much. That being said, personally, I view it differently. I am an idealist and am shameless about it. I know that you aren't wired that way.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

When you say you are an "idealist" do you mean you believe in the reification of ideas? Like, that if you can imagine it, it can come into being?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Nah, just that there are things that nobody could possibly understand, even if we may know that physical processes that create it. It actually dovetails nicely with my view on religion. I am an idealist because I am much more optimistic about life than many many individuals.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I notice you and other BP people seem extremely religious in nature, its fascinating

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I am pretty sure that BP people are less religious than TRP people actually. I am actually an agnostic theist. Not exactly the most religious position.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I define religious as believe in anything nonmaterial, whether its ideas, "spirituality" or gods. I'm certain BP peopel aren't traditionally religious, but they appear to believe fanatically in baseless "moral" systems and non material explanations for things. And to reject the notion that humans are meat machines run by chemicals

[–]UnicornrowsPurple Pill Man-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think our unique brains make us more complex and harder to predict than other animals. The way that genes control our behavior is very convoluted when you mix in culture and the modern world for which we didn't evolve.

I really wish looking at things from an evo psych standpoint worked better, and it does work decently well, but I think it's not the most--or at least not the only--useful perspective.

You could look at a computer from a physics perspective, a chemistry perspective, a programming perspective, or an end-user perspective, and you'd be right that it's operating on each of those levels, but those perspectives are useful for different things. If you drop it and it breaks, physics is the best way to explain why it broke. If you spill water on it, it's a chemical thing. If you want to send an email, though, don't think of it in terms of electrons and silicon; think of it in terms of browsers and webpages.

People can similarly be looked at on multiple levels. We obviously still exist on physical, chemical, and biological levels, but those are rarely useful for predicting behavior. Evo psych is one tool for predicting people's behavior, but so is looking at a person's individual genes and epigenetics, and so is psychologically analyzing their experiences and history, and so is talking to them to learn their beliefs. TRP is yet another perspective, and I'd say it's distinct from evo-psych.

A humanistic perspective is what most people use most of the time, and there are lots of phenomena best explained from it. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie adopted a bunch of kids; that's counterproductive to their genetic fitness. John Lennon and Yoko Ono seem to be best explained through "true love" (annoying as Yoko is) than evo-psych.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter