|
| Thread: If you were madly in love... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
posted May 18, 2014 01:30 AM |
|
|
xerox said:
and no, there's nothing "natural" about it. Having a single partner isn't a natural instinct, it's a product of society.
What about animals? Still nothing "natural"?
xerox said:
I've become a feminist and realized that society is full of constricting social norms and constructs that make no sense to subscribe to if you value personal liberation.
Society is restricting, yes, but if you think Marriage is part of that...well, we have to disagree.
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2014 01:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It's related to that because you're sacrificing your liberty to a single person, instead of rejecting the stupid socially constructed idea of one, true exclusive love. So no, you should not submit to another human being by castrating yourself.
in the exemple, that one single person is in danger of death 
otherwise, one problem is "madly in love", which is a state that normally doesn't last from what I know. there may come a point when you wonder why you loved that woman, and imagine if you agreed to get castrated for her...
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 18, 2014 01:44 AM |
|
|
Fauch said:
which is a state that normally doesn't last from what I know.
Imagine it disappears while being castrated.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2014 02:14 AM |
|
|
Storm-Giant said:
Society is restricting, yes, but if you think Marriage is part of that...well, we have to disagree.
As a matter of fact, sociologists think that the necessity to avoid incest and the will from the men to take care of only their own kids are the bases to the institution of marriage and were between the reasons that presided the fountation of first tribes, so: yes, marriage is a social construct; one of the most basilar and important ones.
Now, will a society based on open relations and free love less normative? I'm not sure.
That position has been defended by many reformists from Plato to Osho, including Marx but it always ends up in other very coercive set of norms, necessary to raise the children apart from their parents and at the care of the community. I not aware of a society where those have worked for several generations.
|
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2014 02:30 AM |
|
|
xerox said:
I'm saying that people might be better off without monogamy because:
1. You become less dependent on a single person.
2. Which means you don't have to put up with as many demands.
3. You're likely to feel less bad if the relation ends.
and no, there's nothing "natural" about it. Having a single partner isn't a natural instinct, it's a product of society.
Xerox you need to get it through your skull that you're a sociopath.
This is why you can't identify with much of the socio-political things anyone here posts on any side of the debate.
You seek self-gratification in all things. Thus you see monogamy as something that might (I say might) constrict this. You might appreciate the sense of loyalty and love having such a relationship brings but you wouldn't want to codify it because you would want to be able to leave at any moment which it suites you which is also why you frankly won't be able to appreciate some of the better aspects of such a relationship.
____________
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2014 02:32 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 02:38, 18 May 2014.
|
I don't get why "free love" would lead to collectivism?
Social constructs exist for a reason, but their original reasons for existing (like prevent inbreeding) may not be relevant today. In that case, there's no point subscribing to them which just upholds those norms. The latter is why I can't just "agree to disagree" with people denying monogamy to be a social construct. Such notions are what keeps bad norms reproducing.
Aron: I am in a relationship without feeling that my partner owns me. It's great.
Also, I often agree with Artu's and Mvass's posts.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2014 02:36 AM |
|
Edited by Aron at 02:45, 18 May 2014.
|
Good for you.
Owning each other (as in the symbolism of giving someone the keys to ones heart) is only sensible if you're not a sociopath.
Now that's not to say that non-sociopaths can't be for free love. On the contrary. But all arguments you have presented here and in other threads suggest you are one. So I am trying to explain why it would be bad for you and potentially good for the rest of us.
Artu is an extreme rationalist and sometimes not fully informed about everything. I've not been hanging around here long enough to understand Mvass. The reason why you agree with Artu is because his arguments are void of emotional irrationality. But non the less his rationale is much different from yours.
____________
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted May 18, 2014 02:37 AM |
|
|
xerox said:
It's related to that because you're sacrificing your liberty to a single person, instead of rejecting the stupid socially constructed idea of one, true exclusive love. So no, you should not submit to another human being by castrating yourself.
Marriage symbolizes the submission of one individual to another. It is a sort of voluntary slavery.
To say that the concept of marriage is slavery is a paradox, you can't be the slave of someone who is your slave. It is all about mutual devotion. Albeit there are some marriages that lack devotion and usually end in the woman being a "slave", but the fault for that lies elsewhere.
And our liberty is for us to give up freely. You cannot have a society where everyone clings to their own liberty, it must be willingly given up. It's what idiots like Stalin and Hitler failed to do, they destroyed peoples' liberty with fear and terror, and their empires crumbled sooner than most's.
And more specifically you cannot have a relationship where both of the individuals retain their liberty wholly. For it is devoid compromise. If you meet someone who always agrees with you, and doesn't differ in view or behavior, then that is not your partner. That is either a bona fide slave at your bidding, or you've found yourself in a different gender. (or the same, doesn't matter)
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2014 02:39 AM |
|
Edited by Aron at 02:48, 18 May 2014.
|
Xerox doesn't want to give up any of his liberty ever, and all that must be given up is seen as contractual and beneficial for the moment.
@Tsar. Of course he may have such a relationship. It is a free relationship as they agree to interact where the derive pleasure from such interaction and refuse otherwise. And as mentioned there may be situations where it is by all means rational to compromise freely and for your self-interest as opposed to not doing it at all.
____________
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2014 02:48 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 02:53, 18 May 2014.
|
Thing is, a lot of people have sacrificed their liberty for monogamy without free will really being involved that much in the decision. A lot of people are stuck in relationships, especially marriages, because the monogamic norm is so strong, they they're not considering alternatives to it. By talking about the monogamy norm, people will become more aware of it and able to make better decisions, which will result in increased happiness. I think in the case for individual liberation, criticism of social structures and norms are just as important as supporting say, free markets and less government.
Tsar-ivor: Me and my boyfriend do share a lot of core ideologic and lifestyle values. I'm not sure that's essential but of course it makes things easier, but it's not like we don't have our differences, I think it would be incredibly boring and understimulating for me to be in a relationship with somebody who doesn't ever question or challenge me.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2014 02:54 AM |
|
Edited by Aron at 02:55, 18 May 2014.
|
Exacly. Tsars arguments are invalid from this perspective. Obviously an intelligent individual would want a stimulating relationship.
The liberty surrendered at marriage is not such (if that should even be called surrendering any which I think it should not). It is much different.
Of course you Xerox are wrong about everything else concerning marriage but that is because you can not* understand it.
To each his own.
*Biologically impossible.
____________
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted May 18, 2014 02:54 AM |
|
|
@Xerox
So I assume that you make compromises for the integrity of the relationship. Would you not say that this is infringing your liberty, since you wanted one thing, but were semi-forced into doing something else for the sake of the relationship?
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2014 02:58 AM |
|
Edited by Aron at 03:02, 18 May 2014.
|
Tsar-Ivor said:
So I assume that you make compromises for the integrity of the relationship? Would you not say that this is infringing your liberty, since you wanted one thing, but were semi-forced into doing something else for the sake of the relationship?
What is it that you don't understand? If the relationship as a whole is of greater value than the compromise itself (or if the compromise carries with it positive value from learning or stimulation) then that is fine.
Liberty is not som absolute by which if you want something you get it. If he wasns't in a relationship he'd still have to compromise in other things.
Trading away your liberty is surrendering your choice. So that in the case of marriage even if a situation is intolerable for you and of no benefit you'd still stay by that person.
In free love you always have the oppurtunity to leave when things are no longer in sum total good or enjoyable for you.
____________
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2014 03:01 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 03:02, 18 May 2014.
|
Well, Tsar, few things really get served on a silver plate. You have to make a rational cost / benefit analysis. Does this benefit me? If yes, then proceed.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted May 18, 2014 03:03 AM |
|
|
Essentially real liberty is to have no restrictions imposed on your ability to express, i.e do what you want.
I have no idea what you are trying to say Aron. My argument was that you cannot be in a relationship where both of the individuals retain total liberty. Having sex with people and free love, is NOT a relationship. It is a mutual convention between two people, and not about sharing a life together.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 18, 2014 03:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Artu is an extreme rationalist and sometimes not fully informed about everything. I've not been hanging around here long enough to understand Mvass. The reason why you agree with Artu is because his arguments are void of emotion. But non the less his rationale is much different from yours.
The reason you think I'm an extreme rationalist is that you recently witnessed me opposing to arguments that were specifically irrational. If you read the older threads, you'll see, if anything, I fall more on historical materialism rather than rationalism of an idealist extent. (I don't label myself on such matters though, I can agree with a rationalist in a certain matter better than I agree with a historical materialist) Anyway, it's usually mvass, who takes things as abstract logical propositions and not focusing on their social context, actually that's why we two debate a lot.
I am not insane to claim I am fully informed about everything but if somebody is more informed about a subject than me, I have no problem accepting that and learning from him/her. The way you put that, you seem to imply that you, on the other hand, ARE fully informed about everything, and excusing me for not being so, which I'm sure is not the case.
|
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2014 03:06 AM |
|
|
Tsar-Ivor said:
Essentially real liberty is to have no restrictions imposed on your ability to express, i.e do what you want.
Obviously not even sociopathic libertarians like Xerox would subscribe to something like this so please do not define it as such.
Again the difference between Marriage and Free Love is the surrender of choice. Not the absence of compromise.
Maybe someone practising Thelema or something like this wuld MAYBE subscribe to that definition you have. Either way we are just tossing about words here.
____________
|
|
Aron
Known Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2014 03:08 AM |
|
Edited by Aron at 03:21, 18 May 2014.
|
artu said:
Quote:
Artu is an extreme rationalist and sometimes not fully informed about everything. I've not been hanging around here long enough to understand Mvass. The reason why you agree with Artu is because his arguments are void of emotion. But non the less his rationale is much different from yours.
The reason you think I'm an extreme rationalist is that you recently witnessed me opposing to arguments that were specifically irrational. If you read the older threads, you'll see, if anything, I fall more on historical materialism rather than rationalism of an idealist extent. (I don't label myself on such matters though, I can agree with a rationalist in a certain matter better than I agree with a historical materialist) Anyway, it's usually mvass, who takes things as abstract logical propositions and not focusing on their social context, actually that's why we two debate a lot.
I am not insane to claim I am fully informed about everything but if somebody is more informed about a subject than me, I have no problem accepting that and learning from him/her. The way you put that, you seem to imply that you, on the other hand, ARE fully informed about everything, and excusing me for not being so, which I'm sure is not the case.
That's fine and probably (surely) more correct. What I meant is that you do not cloud your judgement (As some say) with irrational emotions. I do plus I am quite the relativist. Anyway this is the reason why if your historical analysis is wrong then your entire argument is wrong and also why Xerox can agree more with you than with say me.
____________
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 18, 2014 03:10 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 03:11, 18 May 2014.
|
Tsar-Ivor said:
Essentially real liberty is to have no restrictions imposed on your ability to express, i.e do what you want.
That's the ideal (within the boundaries of the non-aggression principle), and the goal I'm working towards. The open relationship with this person is one of the things I want at the moment.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted May 18, 2014 03:11 AM |
|
|
According to oxford dictionary:
Liberty:
Quote:
The power or scope to act as one pleases:
Erm, so you may wish to change thine stance Aron.
@Xer: Best of luck to you. Liberty is a fine thing, but I don't know if one can achieve liberty in a society without it coming at the price of someone else's liberty.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
| |
|
|
