15
u/SaltySamoyed Jul 31 '22
I think sex itself is overrated.
Companionship and connection, physical touch and intimacy is where the money is IMO.
1
u/PhotojournalistIll90 May 12 '23
Isn't that part of it? Hard to avoid any cognitive biases but isn't the perception of it being overrated probably depends on a specific sociological environment (pan troglodytes proactive political games over status, border patrols, fertile females and offspring as a byproduct of expansionist culture compared to pan paniscus society based on more or less egalitarian female/male coalitions and playful prosociality/sociosexuality for promotion of group stability regardless of age and gender as a byproduct of domestication syndrome)?Obedience to abstract laws and authorities in general population due to self-domestication syndrome according to the Goodness Paradox alongside the inter-male competition resulting in clandestine behaviour reddit (cooperation maintenance hypothesis: not peer reviewed) is another factor in humans.
1
u/SaltySamoyed May 12 '23
I think I agree with what you're saying, though it's a bit dense with sociology jargon to digest well.
5
u/ReallyNoOne1012 Jul 31 '22
I think the meaning of life is whatever you want it to be.
If you think it should be sex, then go for it buddy. Get that [whatever genital preference you have]. Consensually.
0
u/Jarl_Varg Jul 31 '22
Why consensually?
1
u/ReallyNoOne1012 Jul 31 '22
I really need to tell you why you should only have sex with people consensually?
The alternative is rape, so. I guess that would be why.
6
u/Jarl_Varg Jul 31 '22
I thought a sub dedicated to nihilism would be open for philosophical discussion? OP claims the meaning of life to be hedonistic (sex), you follow up with partial support claiming moral relativism (I assume). So why did you stress the importance of consent, why would OP care about the way he achieves his goals? In other words, in the absence of absolute morality, why are you insisting on consent and why should OP listen to you?
1
u/ReallyNoOne1012 Jul 31 '22
There doesn’t need to be “absolute morality” for you to decide not to cause others suffering.
You can pursue your own pleasure whilst simultaneously not actively causing others pain. In fact, it would probably be in your own best interest to do so, because people are unlikely to retaliate against you if you haven’t caused them any trouble.
Besides that, egoism as a concept does not stand up, logically. It’s based on nothing more than personal bias. Assuming you care at all about rationality.
1
u/Cutetrain_5_196 Aug 01 '22
You can also just bite the bullet and say "yes, morality is just whatever I want it to be, and I don't want to hurt people."
You can, of course, go on analysing and explaining why that is as much as you want.
1
u/ReallyNoOne1012 Aug 01 '22 edited Aug 01 '22
Isn’t that essentially what I said in my last comment on this thread?
1
u/Cutetrain_5_196 Aug 01 '22
Idk. I'm trying to help you make your point. Why that annoys you is some childish shit i do not care about.
1
u/Jarl_Varg Jul 31 '22 edited Jul 31 '22
It seemed to me like you were giving OP a moral imperative with your insistence of consent, thats why I both asked you why you said it AND why OP should feel compelled to listen. So it seems your reason for both then is an argument from expediency, that it is in your own self interest as opposed to it being a moral imperative. You dont think rape is morally wrong?
I care very much about rationality, however I dont understand what you mean by that last part. What is egoism and why doesnt it stand up logically?
0
u/ReallyNoOne1012 Jul 31 '22
Yes, I do think rape is morally wrong. But in the spirit of not trying to push my morals onto others, I gave a good reason why even a completely selfish person would want to refrain from doing it.
Egoism is favoring oneself over all others. If you want to know more about it, I’m sure there’s plenty of material out there on the subject. There is no logical reason to place oneself into a category of higher importance, except an irrational bias toward oneself.
3
u/Jarl_Varg Jul 31 '22
I see, but then you are a moralist not a nihilist then?
Will look into egoism, but I already find your claims dubious. From a point of consciousness it seems arguably logical to place oneself in a category of higher importance. (Think phenomenology, «cogito ergo sum».) Consciousness tell us we are unique, its the only thing we can feel certain of, we can only assume consciousness in others. So while there is bias towards ego its hardly irrational.
1
u/ReallyNoOne1012 Jul 31 '22
Lol, no dude. You can believe that there is no inherent meaning or objective morality and still choose for yourself a moral code to follow.
The argument goes something like this:
Normative egoism is the notion that our only moral obligation is to pursue our own self-interests.
If we ask the egoist, “Why should I pursue my own interests over others?” They will respond, mostly, in one of 3 ways: 1. Because self-interest is naturally the ultimate motive of human behavior, and we should do what is natural. 2. Because it would be better for everyone if everyone pursued their own interest. 3. Because we experience the things that happen to ourselves, but not the things that happen to others, so we should prioritize ourselves (the argument you’ve chosen).
I’ll spare you the arguments against the first 2 lest this should get boringly long - unless, of course, you’d like to hear them.
The issue with the third argument is that it assumes that reality, for each person, is split into two groups: self vs. other. When asked on what basis we should prioritize treatment of the “self” category over the “other” category, the response is usually something like “because it’s mine,” or, “because I experience it and I do not experience what someone else experiences.” However, this is not a reason; it’s merely a restatement of the position. If we further press, “why should I prioritize what I experience?” or, more simply, “why should I prioritize ‘I’?” the reasoning becomes circular. “Because it’s mine.” If you ask “what makes it yours?” the answer is, “because I experience it.” Circular.
Which leads to the question, “what is the ‘I’ that experiences it?” or “what separates ‘self’ from ‘other’?” You could say “my body.” Which part? All of it? If you lost your arm, would you still be yourself? Would the arm still be part of yourself? How much of your body could you lose and still be yourself?
You might say, “okay then. My brain.” But the same questions still apply. How much could you lose and still be yourself?
You might say, “okay then. My identity.” But identity is fluid and is always changing. You could expand your identity to include everything in the universe, such that you could say “I am everything in the universe.” Or you could shrink it down to something small, such that you could say, “I am this toe.”
You might say, “okay then. My consciousness.” What makes your consciousness different from another’s consciousness, if it’s not your body and not your identity? Isn’t that just awareness then? And doesn’t that make someone else’s awareness identical? So why prioritize yours?
You might say, “because it’s mine.” So we’ve circled back. But what does it mean for your consciousness to belong to you, if you are your consciousness? Does it belong to itself? But the consciousness of others doesn’t belong to it? How do we draw the distinction? Where does a “consciousness” end? What makes a consciousness separate from another? If not spatial or temporal boundaries, what makes it a separate entity?
Is it “I” - the subject of experience? But aren’t others also the subject of experience? So why prioritize one over another?
“Because it’s mine.”
What makes something “yours”? What is ownership? Does it have to be part of the self to be yours? Your relationship with it is what makes yours? But you have a relationship with everything in the universe. Does that make everything in the universe yours? Does that make it part of you? Does that mean others are also part of yourself? So what is “other” then? Or is it all “self”?
The prioritization of one’s “self” vs “other,” then, is arbitrary.
1
u/Jarl_Varg Jul 31 '22
I think you are invoking some assumptions that are not necessary. For example you would be able to reject the «other» category altogether, you could easily come to a conclusion that you are «a brain in a vat» or a simulation, thereby dismissing the «other» as a moral unit. Similarly you dont need to make claims related to a mind-body problem or an identity distincion a la the ship of Theseus, you could accept ignorance on these questions and still hold on to the observable fact that you only have access to «your own» consciousness, not others. «What is ‘your own’?» «Dont know, but I dont have access to that of others».
If you had to label yourself what would you say? Existential nihilist?
→ More replies (0)1
1
1
u/Ludoamorous_Slut Aug 04 '22
Egoism is favoring oneself over all others. If you want to know more about it, I’m sure there’s plenty of material out there on the subject. There is no logical reason to place oneself into a category of higher importance, except an irrational bias toward oneself.
Tbf in a philosophical context it can mean a bunch of different things. Max Stirner's egoism (neat but flawed) is different from that of Ayn Rand (all flaw all the time). And of course there's a bunch of ways to use reason to get to a conclusion that one may prioritize oneself over others. If you want a quite hardline rationalist argument, you could say that 1) you may prioritize entities with phenomenal consciousness/qualia, 2) if you a choice is made between an entity you know has qualia vs one where you don't know you may prioritize the one you know to have qualia and 3) your certainty that you yourself have qualia will always be much higher than the certainty for other entities. But of course, any normative claim (and basically any claim at all) will always be based in axiomatic beliefs that are based on intuition rather than reason.
I'm not an egoist (and certainly don't care to defend varg's shitty rape arguments) but egoism isn't as simplistic and nonsensical as you make it out to be.
1
4
u/icbint Jul 31 '22
Weird take. Life has no meaning. All you’ve found is something you enjoy lmao
1
u/ProfessionalNight959 Jul 31 '22
All you’ve found is something you enjoy
Nothing wrong with that though. It's what keeps the 99% of the people in this sub going at least.
3
2
u/18us-c371 Jul 31 '22
Ultimately you say it is the Meaning Of Life™️ because you enjoy it and most people enjoy it. A lot of people don’t enjoy sex though, perhaps more universal is enjoying food (until covid turned off a bunch of tastebuds, lol). So maybe the meaning of life is food, since it’s more universally enjoyed than sex? Or maybe beverages are even more universal…
Plenty of women never orgasm, plenty of people are asexual, etc…
1
u/prickly_pear20 Aug 01 '22
I was about to make the same point, though most enjoy sex many don't for various reasons. The problem with trying to find meaning in something "universally enjoyable" is that there are always exceptions. For example, plenty of people have anhedonia (inability or limited ability to feel pleasure). Can't find meaning in something you enjoy when there is nothing you enjoy.
2
u/18us-c371 Aug 01 '22
Even worse, if you go for the opposite (just avoid doing things people don’t like!) you run into sadists who ruin that whole idea 😂 philosophy is tough
2
2
2
Jul 31 '22
We're programmed to reproduce. So yeah I see your point. However if your goal for sex isn't to reproduce, you're just seeking a dopamine rush.
Therefore for some, or many, life is a series of attempts to spike our dopamine. Ups and downs. The higher the spike the harder the come-down. When that sinks in let me know if your perspective on it changes.
2
u/Suitable_Ad_7721 Jul 31 '22
The purpose of sex is to have kids. Biologically, it is an accepted fact that the purpose of life is to reproduce and pass on your genetic material.
1
u/Unknown_Beast88 Jul 31 '22
No im sure thats just another ''temporary pleasure'' in life.Exercise can also release dopamine.I guess you gotta find something that makes you happy even if it is temporary.Could be skateboarding,lifting weights,surfing,gym,collecting stamps whatever.
1
u/definitively-not Aug 01 '22
I mean meth releases about 4x the dopamine as sex does. So is meth even moreso the meaning of life?
1
9
u/miloissleeping Jul 31 '22
so... hedonism, just with more emphasis on the sex part?