[wolf]

I didn't want to deviate from the topic in the What's your favorite novel?

Speaking of Houellebecq's "Whatever" what I really got is most people are depressed/have no meaning in life because nobody loves them. Love is conditional from women so after you realize that how can you survive knowing that?

Have many one night stands?

Have flings/LTR's/Fuck buddies?

Are we basically trying to fill a void?

[iknowexactly]

(01-17-2012 12:41 AM)wolf Wrote:  

I didn't want to deviate from the topic in the What's your favorite novel?

Speaking of Houellebecq's "Whatever" what I really got is most people are depressed/have no meaning in life because nobody loves them. Love is conditional from women so after you realize that how can you survive knowing that?

Have many one night stands?

Have flings/LTR's/Fuck buddies?

Are we basically trying to fill a void?

Existence itself is very conditional; if you ever took a stethoscope and took your blood pressure, listening to the blood in your arm, you'd hear you're just a fucking bag of liquid and if one little tube bursts in the wrong place, just like fuel supply tubes or radiator tubes burst in cars all the time after just a few years, you are dead.

The impression we have of ourselves as solid objects is so far off the mark, the absolutely amazing thing is many of us live as long as we do.

Many people die of weird diseases at eight, or twelve, or thirty-one.

[Basil Ransom]

I devoured Houellebecq's "Whatever" a couple weeks ago. Excellent. He wrote some of the very insights that I had myself realized. I'm specifically recalling how he wrote how women are essentially corrupted and robbed of any romantic potential after they start patronizing night life for just a year, and sleep with even a minimal number of men. I can get my Kindle and reprint it here later. I was stunned to see that a man who sees the world so clearly is so famous and successful.

I think Roissy is at least as talented in recognizing such realities, but Roissy unfortunately lacks the platform of a brilliant novelist.

I'm also sympathetic to Houellebecq on religion. If I've read him correctly, he thinks that the life it once offered is superior to our contemporary hollow existence, even though religion is false.

[Caligula]

There's no doubt Roissy has been hugely influenced by Houellebecq.

Truly a brilliant book. The first time the new realities of the sexual marketplace were laid out coherently in print. Even more brilliant since he attacks the aftermath of the sexual revolution in terms that will hit home with the French; comparing it unfavourably to laissez-faire capitalism.

See this quote:

Quote:

In our societies, sex represents a second system of differentiation, independent from money. It behaves as a system of differentiation at least as merciless as money. The impacts of these two systems are actually equivalent. Sexual liberalism creates a phenomenon of acute pauperization, just like wild liberalism does. Some make love everyday; some five or six times in their life or never. Some make love to dozens of women, some never do. It is called “market law”. In an economic system where lay-offs are prohibited, everyone more or less finds their place. In a sexual system where adultery is prohibited, everyone more or less manages to find a bed partner. In a liberal economic system, some build huge fortunes; some endure unemployment and misery. In a perfect liberal sex system, some have a varied and exciting erotic life; some are reduced to masturbation and loneliness. Economic liberalism is broadening the field of struggle, broadening it to all the stages of life and to all social classes. On an economical point of view, Raphael Tisserand belongs to the winners; on a sexual point of view, to the losers. Some are winners on the two criteria; some are losers on the two criteria. Companies fight for some young graduates; women fight for some young men; men fight for some young women; trouble and agitation are considerable.

One of the biggest challenges if your world view is nihilist is overcoming nihilism to approach life in a positive way.

You must face that there is no real meaning or purpose in life. Then you must go about creating meaning for yourself. Figure out what pursuits you find meaningful. You're the master of your destiny; you can do anything you like. It's not just about selfish indulgence in your base desires (though you need to take care of those too), but about a broader view of what matters to you and discovering what you find fulfilling beyond chasing the next bang.

Houellebecq doesn't dwell on the possibility of overcoming nihilism in Whatever. With good reason; many people live the kind of meaningless, directionless and soulless lives described in the book. The author describes what life is like for those people. The losers of the sexual revolution, the spiritual losers of the technological and social changes of the past ~50 years. Their poverty is defined in terms of no access to sex and even worse: lack of love and meaningful interpersonal relationships.

The challenge is to overcome nihilism and find meaning. Houellebecq discusses the possibility of overcoming in The Possibility of an Island and Platform. And there is some suggestion, as basilransom mentions, that he considers religion a possible way to overcome these problems.

To me, that's very encouraging and not particularly depressing at all. Overcoming is a challenge, it's a lifelong mission. But it isn't a depressing prospect. If you're interested in these questions read Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil. I also recommend Albert Camus' essay The Myth of Sisyphus.

If chasing pussy feels like you're constantly trying to fill a void you're doing it wrong. Spend time focusing on other aspects of your life before going back on the prowl. I've had periods where I didn't have much going on apart from the game. And I mostly remained unsatisfied no matter how many notches I racked up. Girls should be a nice complement to your life, not it's main purpose. I'm just beginning to realise this and I enjoy everything much more. Reminds me of that film Shame. The protagonist always wants more but never seems satisfied; he's a monomaniac. Nothing good comes of that.

The playboy lifestyle shouldn't be like that.

[Basil Ransom]

I forgot to mention that Houellebecq published "Whatever" more than a decade before Roissy got started, so there is that. The framing of it in terms of laissez faire capitalism as you say, is inspired. And truly, even in America, the sexual market faces far fewer regulations and obstacles to laissez faire efficiency than the economic market.

That's a great passage. And even if you aren't one of those sexual losers, Houellebecq seems to think your chances of attaining fulfilling romantic relationships are small, because Western women are so promiscuous, emotionally if not physically. Even if they aren't sleeping around too much, the inescapable presence of the sexual market has increasingly corroded their potential as romantic partners. The constant clubbing and the attempts at seduction incessantly coming their way have commoditized men for them.

Also, unlike many men, within this forum and without, he doesn't think sexual success is very dependent on economic success. If he does, he certainly doesn't say so. I would agree with him. I think some posters may be confused by *class.* Ultimately, most men will date and marry the women in their social circle. And low class women can be very unattractive, the men less so. A man may be dating down by typical standards, but within his circle, he may well be dating at his level. Being low class, independent of money, may doom you to consorting with ugly trashy broads. And class is about a lot more than money. Judging by my own experience, I would take being part of the right circles and societies over having lots of money every time.

I look forward to reading his other books and those that you have recommended, Caligula. I'm curious as to how he handles overcoming nihilism.

[wolf]

I personally don't see any meaning in life. People just focus on something and make it their life mission. I don't want to be one of those guys that focuses on something then 20 years later it loses meaning for me, even though those guys that focus on these things talk passionately about it.

[wolf]

(01-17-2012 01:56 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

That's a great passage. And even if you aren't one of those sexual losers, Houellebecq seems to think your chances of attaining fulfilling romantic relationships are small, because Western women are so promiscuous, emotionally if not physically. Even if they aren't sleeping around too much, the inescapable presence of the sexual market has increasingly corroded their potential as romantic partners. The constant clubbing and the attempts at seduction incessantly coming their way have commoditized men for them.

So true. Even if you give the woman sexual freedom of fucking who she wants she will still leave you.

[Caligula]

(01-17-2012 03:18 PM)wolf Wrote:  

I personally don't see any meaning in life. People just focus on something and make it their life mission. I don't want to be one of those guys that focuses on something then 20 years later it loses meaning for me, even though those guys that focus on these things talk passionately about it.

That's basically what I said. Except there's nothing wrong with finding something that has meaning for you and investing in it.

[Caligula]

(01-17-2012 01:56 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

I forgot to mention that Houellebecq published "Whatever" more than a decade before Roissy got started, so there is that. The framing of it in terms of laissez faire capitalism as you say, is inspired. And truly, even in America, the sexual market faces far fewer regulations and obstacles to laissez faire efficiency than the economic market.

That's a great passage. And even if you aren't one of those sexual losers, Houellebecq seems to think your chances of attaining fulfilling romantic relationships are small, because Western women are so promiscuous, emotionally if not physically. Even if they aren't sleeping around too much, the inescapable presence of the sexual market has increasingly corroded their potential as romantic partners. The constant clubbing and the attempts at seduction incessantly coming their way have commoditized men for them.

Also, unlike many men, within this forum and without, he doesn't think sexual success is very dependent on economic success. If he does, he certainly doesn't say so. I would agree with him. I think some posters may be confused by *class.* Ultimately, most men will date and marry the women in their social circle. And low class women can be very unattractive, the men less so. A man may be dating down by typical standards, but within his circle, he may well be dating at his level. Being low class, independent of money, may doom you to consorting with ugly trashy broads. And class is about a lot more than money. Judging by my own experience, I would take being part of the right circles and societies over having lots of money every time.

I look forward to reading his other books and those that you have recommended, Caligula. I'm curious as to how he handles overcoming nihilism.

In a way it's very Marxian in its economic determinism. Traditional social relationships are replaced by much weaker bonds. Relationships are increasingly ruled by markets (broadly defined). The freedom that affluence brings (to all classes) means female hypergamy gets a free rein. That's one reason not to get riled up about it; these developments are almost inevitable.

The most dispiriting thing about what Houellebecq describes is how inevitable the trends look. As the rest of the world develops economically similar social changes will happen.

But hey, for the international playboy it's good for business.

There will be no escape.

[Basil Ransom]

Here is the passage to which I was referring:

Quote:

From the amorous point of view, Veronique belonged, as we all do, to a sacrificed generation. She had certainly been capable of love; she wished to still be capable it, I’ll say that for her; but it was no longer possible. A scarce, artificial and belated phenomenon, love can only blossom under certain mental conditions, rarely conjoined, and totally opposed to the freedom of morals which characterizes the modern era. Veronique had known too many discotheques, too many lovers; such a way of life impoverishes a human being, inflicting sometimes serious and always irreversible damage. Love as a kind of innocence and as a capacity for other sex in a single loved being rarely, resists a year of sexual immorality, and never two. In reality the successive sexual experiences accumulated during adolescence undermine and rapidly destroy all possibility of projection of an emotional and romantic sort; progressively, and in fact extremely quickly, one becomes as capable of love as an old slag. And so one leads, obviously, a slag’s life; in ageing one becomes less seductive, and on that account, bitter. One is jealous of the younger, and so one hates them. Condemned to remain unvowable, this hatred festers and becomes increasingly fervent; then it dies down and fades away, just as everything fades away. All that remains is resentment and disgust, sickness and the anticipation of death.

Besides the use of the word 'slag,' he doesn't single out women as a sex here. But innocence has never been a desirable trait for men, while it was central to a woman's appeal, in past generations. The callousness of which he speaks doesn't diminish a man's value like it does a woman's. I wonder why he doesn't address his remarks specifically to women - his description is apt for women, but not men.

And personally, this lack of a romantic feeling, of that you as a man are really anything more than the latest phallus to penetrate her, is emasculating. You are left feeling hollow, numb, non-existent. I suppose this is what Roosh describes when he criticizes American girls. She can't single out anything she likes about you, that is unique to you. She has chosen you because you get her wet. You're just another cock in the machine.

He also clearly describes the resentment that defines single women past a certain age.

[Hoover]

This is a great thread. It's like a car crash that I want to watch even if I'm in the car.

[Samseau]

I hate to sound like a philosophy snob, but nihilism is just a philosophy for the masses. It's devoid of real thought and offers little in terms of critical thinking. It's about as deep as mainstream Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam, which is to say: not too deep.

The entire premise of nihilism is flawed: "no meaning". No meaning in what? In anything? How does the nihilist know?

The best philosophers always start from an epistemology, since what we know limits all of our beliefs.

Two good, easy examples of philosophers who used their epistemology to talk about human relationships were Plato and Aristotle. Although old, each have so much more to say on the subject of relationships than any author I've read from the last 100 years.

Aristotle in particular should be of interest to the men of this forum, since he found that the best quality of life lived came from having good friendships, and not from lovers.

[Basil Ransom]

(01-17-2012 10:45 PM)Hoover Wrote:  

This is a great thread. It's like a car crash that I want to watch even if I'm in the car.

?

[wolf]

(01-17-2012 10:56 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I hate to sound like a philosophy snob, but nihilism is just a philosophy for the masses. It's devoid of real thought and offers little in terms of critical thinking. It's about as deep as mainstream Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam, which is to say: not too deep.

The entire premise of nihilism is flawed: "no meaning". No meaning in what? In anything? How does the nihilist know?

The best philosophers always start from an epistemology, since what we know limits all of our beliefs.

Two good, easy examples of philosophers who used their epistemology to talk about human relationships were Plato and Aristotle. Although old, each have so much more to say on the subject of relationships than any author I've read from the last 100 years.

Aristotle in particular should be of interest to the men of this forum, since he found that the best quality of life lived came from having good friendships, and not from lovers.

Enlighten us more..

[Samseau]

I'd say that there is meaning everywhere in the world: morally, aesthetically, heuristically (pleasure), spiritually, and relationally (the relationships we have with others).

I would elaborate more, but I'm too lazy. Maybe you'll read about it on my blog someday.

[Hoover]

(01-17-2012 11:37 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(01-17-2012 10:45 PM)Hoover Wrote:  

This is a great thread. It's like a car crash that I want to watch even if I'm in the car.

?

On second thought, I agree. It doesn't make sense. I meant to put a spin on being unable to turn away from a car wreck and how this thread's theme applies to me even as I read it.

Do elaborate here, Samseau. Might as well now that we're all interested.

[Caligula]

(01-17-2012 10:56 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I hate to sound like a philosophy snob, but nihilism is just a philosophy for the masses. It's devoid of real thought and offers little in terms of critical thinking. It's about as deep as mainstream Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam, which is to say: not too deep.

The entire premise of nihilism is flawed: "no meaning". No meaning in what? In anything? How does the nihilist know?

The best philosophers always start from an epistemology, since what we know limits all of our beliefs.

Two good, easy examples of philosophers who used their epistemology to talk about human relationships were Plato and Aristotle. Although old, each have so much more to say on the subject of relationships than any author I've read from the last 100 years.

Aristotle in particular should be of interest to the men of this forum, since he found that the best quality of life lived came from having good friendships, and not from lovers.

Nietzsche and Kierkegaard offer little in terms of critical thinking?

I agree that epistemological nihilism is not particularly profound. But whether you like it or not moral nihilism is a big current in modern societies and it's important to think about it and understand it.

[Samseau]

Quote:

Nietzsche and Kierkegaard offer little in terms of critical thinking?

Neither were nihilists, although nihilists love to claim these philosophers were nihilists.

Kierkegaard - extremely religious man, and reduced all value in the world to religious commitments.

Nietzsche - Worshiped beauty, reduced all value to aesthetic value (an aestheticist)

Quote:

I agree that epistemological nihilism is not particularly profound. But whether you like it or not moral nihilism is a big current in modern societies and it's important to think about it and understand it.

Exactly - philosophy for the masses

[Caligula]

(01-18-2012 04:19 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

Nietzsche and Kierkegaard offer little in terms of critical thinking?

Neither were nihilists, although nihilists love to claim these philosophers were nihilists.

Kierkegaard - extremely religious man, and reduced all value in the world to religious commitments.

Nietzsche - Worshiped beauty, reduced all value to aesthetic value (an aestheticist)

Quote:

I agree that epistemological nihilism is not particularly profound. But whether you like it or not moral nihilism is a big current in modern societies and it's important to think about it and understand it.

Exactly - philosophy for the masses

Neither was a nihilist but both expended significant effort to understanding nihilism, which isn't a trivial phenomenon.

[Samseau]

(01-18-2012 04:41 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

(01-18-2012 04:19 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

Nietzsche and Kierkegaard offer little in terms of critical thinking?

Neither were nihilists, although nihilists love to claim these philosophers were nihilists.

Kierkegaard - extremely religious man, and reduced all value in the world to religious commitments.

Nietzsche - Worshiped beauty, reduced all value to aesthetic value (an aestheticist)

Quote:

I agree that epistemological nihilism is not particularly profound. But whether you like it or not moral nihilism is a big current in modern societies and it's important to think about it and understand it.

Exactly - philosophy for the masses

Neither was a nihilist but both expended significant effort to understanding nihilism, which isn't a trivial phenomenon.

Nihilism is trivial as any other hypothetical. "What if an evil deceiving demon is creating all of our thoughts right now?" - Descartes

Existentialist philosophers aren't even that original compared to the philosophers who came before them.

Men who reduced the world's phenomena into meaninglessness? David Hume and other empiricists.

Guys who understood morality could be reduced into nothingness? Goes back to the sophists and skeptics.

And of course, the idea that we don't know how things REALLY are is just Socrates. Aristotle summarized Socratic teachings with his argument concerning "The First Principles".

Nihilists, aka a shitload of academic philosophers, love to pretend their worldview is important, which is ironic considering their central premise.

But rational minds know that nihilism is a trivial musing for consumption by the masses.

[sine wave killer]

(01-18-2012 12:06 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

I'd say that there is meaning everywhere in the world: morally, aesthetically, heuristically (pleasure), spiritually, and relationally (the relationships we have with others).

I would elaborate more, but I'm too lazy. Maybe you'll read about it on my blog someday.

You have a blog? provide a link...

[Bill]

Maybe the philosophy of Epicur might suit to some in the forum.

Quote:

Epicurus: The Happy Philosopher

Few philosophers have presented the world with a better answer to “how to be happy” than Epicurus (341-270 BCE) who lived and taught in ancient Greece. Epicurus was no epicurean glutton or wanton consumerist. He believed in a simple life, where the true path to happiness was through "friends, freedom and thought"

Epicurus was born on the Greek island of Samos, off the coast of modern Turkey. Although all of his books have been lost, his ideas have lived on. This free thinking philosopher maintained that everyone could be happy, it’s just that we were pointed in the wrong direction.

Epicurus was also a big proponent of love, sex, and beauty, but he didn’t think these were things you could go out and buy.

greenlotus.hubpages.com/hub/Epicurus_how-to-be-happy

[Caligula]

Found a great interview with Houellebecq - http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews...ouellebecq

This quote is especially telling and reflects what a lot of us on the forum think about the social changes we observe and discuss:

Quote:

What I think, fundamentally, is that you can’t do anything about major
societal changes. It may be regrettable that the family unit is disappearing. You could argue that it increases human suffering. But regrettable or not, there’s nothing we can do. That’s the difference between me and a reactionary. I don’t have any interest in turning back the clock because I don’t believe it can be done. You can only observe and describe. I’ve always liked Balzac’s very insulting statement that the only purpose of the novel is to show the disasters produced by the changing of values. He’s exaggerating in an amusing way. But that’s what I do: I show the disasters produced by the liberalization of values.

[wolf]

(01-26-2012 06:41 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

Found a great interview with Houellebecq - http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews...ouellebecq

This quote is especially telling and reflects what a lot of us on the forum think about the social changes we observe and discuss:

Quote:

What I think, fundamentally, is that you can’t do anything about major
societal changes. It may be regrettable that the family unit is disappearing. You could argue that it increases human suffering. But regrettable or not, there’s nothing we can do. That’s the difference between me and a reactionary. I don’t have any interest in turning back the clock because I don’t believe it can be done. You can only observe and describe. I’ve always liked Balzac’s very insulting statement that the only purpose of the novel is to show the disasters produced by the changing of values. He’s exaggerating in an amusing way. But that’s what I do: I show the disasters produced by the liberalization of values.

Looking forward to reading the interview..

I recently started reading Platform

[freshcream]

Took an introductory course in philosophy at uni. Some really mind opening stuff.