Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well I stated from the first post that my main dilemma was embracing the PUA lifestyle as opposed to individual tactics. The title of this thread is about how pessimism interferes. I never claimed to be intelligent or a wise man. And if you wish to see my use of philosophy as a crutch to express my personal experiences, then you can simply see every quoted philosopher as proof of me bragging how stupid I am.
Also besides how pessimism affects my personal psychology, I think the reflections on what it means to live in a social darwinist world is DIRECTLY relevant to PUA, since there is a theoretical foundation to PUA. Based on a rather ruthless biology.
I think philosophy and my personal life are deeply intertwined. And even where its not about me personally, I think it does relate to relations between men and women. IF PUA science is right, and power is always right, then precisely those characteristics in men that would most contribute to a brutish vampric age would be those rewarded with genetic success. In this way my unwillingness to live in a demon haunted world, is directly related to PUA theory and even stems from it.
If I posted this on the philosophy forum, I think the complaint would be that this isn't really philosophy but my personal issues.
I can't just live life, and I wouldn't want to. I'm the opposite of Zen live in the moment. Maybe that makes me a failure, but until that question is settled its questionable whether success is even worth it. When you come to see humans as demonic as I do, there is little compensation in aspiring to be king of the hill.
My first post did go into a lot of detail about my personal history. About my social status in high school and how I ended up where I'm now.
Hi enamdar,
Why embrace the PUA life style at all? Its not as if they invented the evolutionary psychological underpinnings. The way I look at it, it is just a play nature runs that has yet to adjust to the human ability to modify the environment. It just happens not to quite fit into to our intellectual apprehensions. We are thus conflicted. Still, I can use any raw force to some degree. Even if my house was burning down, I would warm myself in the fire. As of now your mind in its constant attempt to justify your actions is a dysfunctional organ.
So I just ease the conflicts. I know nature will trick me into eating something sweet or entice me with some temptation. So I put something sweet at the end of a trail of industry. What do you really want?
I would also say that your consideration that humans are evil has been spawned by humanity itself. If man is entirely evil, how is it that you have created a resistance to it even to identify it?
I think the suggestions are dead on that you could use some of the sensual world to see how good and evil really works rather than how you think it works.
Well dang me, I tried to talk to him. Told him exactly how to pick me up. Do I get a hell yeah for trying to give the guy a break? We're not all vicious.
Well I wasn't always this dour. Reread my first post if you want more background on me as a person. For a friendless loser, I was a pretty happy kid all through elementary school and through middle and high school I delusionally believed that I was superpopular. But I guess there is a grain of truth to that self-help BS that self-confidence is all that matters since I did have some "objective" measures of popularity that I never would have had if I had rated myself accurately.
I guess the good thing about high school is there are two worlds. On the one hand you don't have to see what the other students do outside class, and your classmates don't have to know how big a loser you are outside school. In college that disappears. So perhaps college kids are not innately more evil than high school kids, it just was no longer possible to willfully blind myself. Girls found my story-telling very funny in middle school and would jokingly pretend to like me. I was a pretty funny guy in high school and I guess I still have it. Although neuroticism has slipped into my humor since 2 separate girls said I reminded them of Woody Allen.
I guess the world isn't as bad as nutz made it out to be. Good-looking jerks were no more successful with girls in high school than good-looking nice guys. And if anything a-hole ugly guys did worse than "beta" ugly guys. In college it seemed to me that only cavemen brutes got girls, but I was so alienated, antagonistic and isolated in college, that perhaps my view was blurred.
Theres always been a conflict in me between Id and superego. And I guess the superego has always been far more powerful than it is in most people. But to a large extent before college, my ideas were sort of used to justify my self-interest. Although there might have been missed social opportunities. It was only in college where the superego gained absolute dictatorship and the id was totally stamped out. Since college, me as a concrete person has practically vanished and been replaced by pure ideas. So when I talk about high school its possible to talk about Me, but anything after that and any talk about me, is really about philosophy. To some extent I'm now ready to make peace overtures to the world and rebuild my civil society, but it seems the world is no longer interested in bargaining.
Ironically my taste in music, tv, movies etc has actually gotten more mainstream since college. I like most adult contemporary music, and I try to listen to some hip-hop, but hip-hop is more Hegelian duty to the age I live in than leisure. I like the TV series the Office and kind of wish I could recapture that delusional lack of self-awareness that Michael Scott has.
I can be a pretty funny guy, and was known as one all through high school. But total isolation since starting college, has put me a little out of practice. But I still could make light humorous conversation with my 2 female roomates, before my depression shut me down and I cut them off to isolate myself.
So the id and superego have had a long conflict in me going back to the 7thgrade, but its only since I started college that my id has been totally eradicated. I guess now I'm trying to philosophically convince myself that the id and superego have been the same all along, but its a hard argument to make.
Why embrace the PUA life style at all? Its not as if they invented the evolutionary psychological underpinnings. The way I look at it, it is just a play nature runs that has yet to adjust to the human ability to modify the environment. It just happens not to quite fit into to our intellectual apprehensions. We are thus conflicted. Still, I can use any raw force to some degree. Even if my house was burning down, I would warm myself in the fire. As of now your mind in its constant attempt to justify your actions is a dysfunctional organ.
So I just ease the conflicts. I know nature will trick me into eating something sweet or entice me with some temptation. So I put something sweet at the end of a trail of industry. What do you really want?
I would also say that your consideration that humans are evil has been spawned by humanity itself. If man is entirely evil, how is it that you have created a resistance to it even to identify it?
I think the suggestions are dead on that you could use some of the sensual world to see how good and evil really works rather than how you think it works.
Well I myself pointed out that I was a malfunctioning Darwinian machine. Obviously the first ape to have a sense of self, and the ability to reason had an advantage. There is a risk to the gene that it could lead to a few enamdars, but those few malcontents could easily be weeded out. I recognize that I'm going against the self-interest of my genetic programming, and am proud to be malfunctioning. I have my selfish gene by the scruff of the neck and wont let go till I get some answers. If it takes us both down, so be it.
It is true that any attempts to criticize man from a moral point of view are derived from man himself. But I would also point out that this is perhaps the most honest age in history, in that all noble illusions have been stripped away. So yes I'm the only fool who takes ideology seriously, but it is not even the ideology of our current age but historical. The last remnant is the large religious believers. But I think that too is basically naturalistic, in the desire to believe that sensual pleasure will last infinitely long. 21st century religion does not in anyway interfere with hedonism, and is in fact another manifestation of it.
I don't know if its that I want to "justify" my actions. If by justified you mean I need to explain why everything I do is perfectly moral. I want to do what I want to do. And human society being what it is, the idea of getting a degree, getting a job, working for an all-powerful sadistic boss who has the ability to fire me at-will for any reason whatsoever other than sex or race, doesn't attract me whatsoever. So in that sense it is an action against my inclinations, so I would have to be convinced to do it.
My first post had both a lot of philosophical arguments, but also a lot of personal experience. Its true it mentioned Kierkegaard, but it also mentioned how I used K. in my one attempt at PUA. And I went into a lot of detail about my social life. So its not entirely my fault if those who responded to me chose to emphasize the philosophical aspects over the personal. In my first post at least I think all mention of philosophy was directly tied to personal experience, and semi-theoretical discussion only emerged in response to other posters.
Well I wasn't always this dour. Reread my first post if you want more background on me as a person. For a friendless loser, I was a pretty happy kid all through elementary school and through middle and high school I delusionally believed that I was superpopular. But I guess there is a grain of truth to that self-help BS that self-confidence is all that matters since I did have some "objective" measures of popularity that I never would have had if I had rated myself accurately.
I guess the good thing about high school is there are two worlds. On the one hand you don't have to see what the other students do outside class, and your classmates don't have to know how big a loser you are outside school. In college that disappears. So perhaps college kids are not innately more evil than high school kids, it just was no longer possible to willfully blind myself. Girls found my story-telling very funny in middle school and would jokingly pretend to like me. I was a pretty funny guy in high school and I guess I still have it. Although neuroticism has slipped into my humor since 2 separate girls said I reminded them of Woody Allen.
I guess the world isn't as bad as nutz made it out to be. Good-looking jerks were no more successful with girls in high school than good-looking nice guys. And if anything a-hole ugly guys did worse than "beta" ugly guys. In college it seemed to me that only cavemen brutes got girls, but I was so alienated, antagonistic and isolated in college, that perhaps my view was blurred.
Theres always been a conflict in me between Id and superego. And I guess the superego has always been far more powerful than it is in most people. But to a large extent before college, my ideas were sort of used to justify my self-interest. Although there might have been missed social opportunities. It was only in college where the superego gained absolute dictatorship and the id was totally stamped out. Since college, me as a concrete person has practically vanished and been replaced by pure ideas. So when I talk about high school its possible to talk about Me, but anything after that and any talk about me, is really about philosophy. To some extent I'm now ready to make peace overtures to the world and rebuild my civil society, but it seems the world is no longer interested in bargaining.
Ironically my taste in music, tv, movies etc has actually gotten more mainstream since college. I like most adult contemporary music, and I try to listen to some hip-hop, but hip-hop is more Hegelian duty to the age I live in than leisure. I like the TV series the Office and kind of wish I could recapture that delusional lack of self-awareness that Michael Scott has.
I can be a pretty funny guy, and was known as one all through high school. But total isolation since starting college, has put me a little out of practice. But I still could make light humorous conversation with my 2 female roomates, before my depression shut me down and I cut them off to isolate myself.
So the id and superego have had a long conflict in me going back to the 7thgrade, but its only since I started college that my id has been totally eradicated. I guess now I'm trying to philosophically convince myself that the id and superego have been the same all along, but its a hard argument to make.
That will only cement your morose situation. Please don't. Michael Scott is not a good role model. Step away from the dark side.
That will only cement your morose situation. Please don't. Michael Scott is not a good role model. Step away from the dark side.
Well its just that I too had those same delusions and lack of self-awareness and over self-confidence back in middle and high school and those were far happier times. I had no real friends yet believed myself to be the most popular kid in school and acted as if I was.
It kind of goes back to the argument gwen made. For example depressed people actually rate themselves more accurately than "normal" people. So to some extent ignorance is bliss. The problem is willful ignorance is not genuine ignorance but bad faith and its hard to fool yourself.
I understand your point Gwynedd, however, the OP is basically looking for tips on how to be a pick up artist, but is launching off on tangents, demonstrating how many books he has read, and how well he can copy and paste articles.
His discussion about philosophers, etc, while all well and good, has NOTHING to do with relationships, and it has already been suggested to him to reserve that for the "philosophy and religion" forum.
His constant attempts to justify his lifestyle, his beliefs, and his inspirations, again, interesting as they are, are not really important to whether we can help him learn to be a pick up artist.
Because the OP does not appear to be receptive to our help, and opinions, and is intent on showing his "knowledge", then many of us would normally be thinking of using the word "troll".
However, having read the warnings by the moderator, we cannot do that, so therefore need to ask questions to get further information as to whether the thread starter is genuine or not.
Personally, I know my feelings, and I smell B/S.
I could point out that if you rearrange the username, you will see "AM A NERD".
also, having checked the OP's posting history, he also has started another thread, which you can find here. How to convince dad not to throw me out of house with no job
Note that this thread takes a similar turn, with the OP trying to blind everyone with science, and failing.
Unless the OP is willing to moderate his psycho babble, and actually look for some help with his relationship related dilemma (or lack of it) then i am unable to offer anything to him.
I'd imagine that not many people on the board HAVE widely read all of the names he mentions, and will therefore be unaware of the concepts, so therefore they are almost irrelevant.
Granted, the OP has a different perception of the world, but to be a true success, you need to be able to see the world as others see it, while still maintaining your belief system.
In simple words, "tone it down a little".
Understanding is key, but the OP does not appear to WANT to understand.
He has his opinion, and we are all entitled to it.
To the OP, if you are a genuine poster, then, as someone suggested to you before, I ask again, save the philosophical stuff for the correct forum.
If you want to talk to us about getting laid (sīc), then stop the navel gazing, grab a beer, pull up a stool, and lets shoot the sh*t.
Otherwise, I cannot help, and I leave you to your thread.
Well I myself pointed out that I was a malfunctioning Darwinian machine. Obviously the first ape to have a sense of self, and the ability to reason had an advantage. There is a risk to the gene that it could lead to a few enamdars, but those few malcontents could easily be weeded out. I recognize that I'm going against the self-interest of my genetic programming, and am proud to be malfunctioning. I have my selfish gene by the scruff of the neck and wont let go till I get some answers. If it takes us both down, so be it.
Hi enamdar,
That sounds like Schopenhauer all right. Happiness is making the mind a parasite on the species. Have you considered being symbiotic? There is no need to be predatory.
Quote:
It is true that any attempts to criticize man from a moral point of view are derived from man himself. But I would also point out that this is perhaps the most honest age in history, in that all noble illusions have been stripped away. So yes I'm the only fool who takes ideology seriously, but it is not even the ideology of our current age but historical. The last remnant is the large religious believers. But I think that too is basically naturalistic, in the desire to believe that sensual pleasure will last infinitely long. 21st century religion does not in anyway interfere with hedonism, and is in fact another manifestation of it.
Actually I recall Paul suggesting by "eyes have not seen, ears have not heard" that ultimate bliss is not sensual.
Quote:
I don't know if its that I want to "justify" my actions. If by justified you mean I need to explain why everything I do is perfectly moral. I want to do what I want to do. And human society being what it is, the idea of getting a degree, getting a job, working for an all-powerful sadistic boss who has the ability to fire me at-will for any reason whatsoever other than sex or race, doesn't attract me whatsoever. So in that sense it is an action against my inclinations, so I would have to be convinced to do it.
You certainly don't have to do that at this point.
I will agree on the point that the god of bio-mechanics is a trickster god. I really have no love for it. Though you may not be so unique in the general sense since many people have been put in an environment completely at odds with their nature.
In the end my mind stops at absurdity and even that is a faith one can believe in since absurdity does not grant our minds the authority to actually know what is an ultimate purpose. I cannot, not see it.
Well people, one cannot exactly refute his claim that people are inherently vicious. What I do see in the OP is someone who clearly sees and relates to the world differently. Its the same phenomenon I see with TVSG only in his case there is an apparent lack of depth(and no I don't spend time in his threads mocking him either). I can also generally surmise most people don't even know who Hobbes and Calvin were which precipitates into ego maintenance and hyper sensitivity to perceived arrogance in others . He just stated what he thinks.
Yet with such "odd balls" as these rather than attempt to relate, they are instinctively attacked and mocked. While he is a bit bookish for most tastes, did I really see any aggravating offense? They are actually people. Would kindness ever occur to some of you?
Sometimes gwynedd1, you've got to be cruel to be kind!
Especially, in this case.
I keep waiting for him to say, "Shall we play a game?"
Well its just that I too had those same delusions and lack of self-awareness and over self-confidence back in middle and high school and those were far happier times. I had no real friends yet believed myself to be the most popular kid in school and acted as if I was.
It kind of goes back to the argument gwen made. For example depressed people actually rate themselves more accurately than "normal" people. So to some extent ignorance is bliss. The problem is willful ignorance is not genuine ignorance but bad faith and its hard to fool yourself.
I have to disagree here, I think you may be unfairly conflating depression with self-awareness, and and Ignorance with happiness.
I have to disagree here, I think you may be unfairly conflating depression with self-awareness, and and Ignorance with happiness.
Well in this particular case I was referring specifically to the contrast between my personal happiness in high school where my self-perception had no basis in reality, and college where I was probably harsh but accurate.
On the other hand it has been found that depressed people do rate themselves more accurately than normal people. And I think a case can be made that being overly-confident is more to your advantage than being accurate. The vast majority of people rate themselves higher than others do.
A large part of PUA is based on building a level of confidence above that justified by reality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
