VersaceEauFraiche

VersaceEauFraiche t1_j04mlih wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Existence is infinitely richer than our descriptions of it. So, rather than cling to reductive explanations that only ‘close’ life’s possibilities, we should ‘open’ reality by seeing ourselves as perpetual students | Interview with Black Existentialist Lewis Gordon by philosophybreak

I can't believe my initial comment was deleted for the reason given. 90% of the sub should be nuked given that reason.

0

VersaceEauFraiche t1_izahpn5 wrote

Reply to Amia Srinivasan, philosopher: ‘We must create a sexual culture that destabilizes the notion of hierarchy’ by Logibenq

Conversations surrounding topics of beauty and desire are always circular. It is easy to accuse the other party of having their standards of beauty be the result of social engineering, but the accusation can always go both ways (no matter if it is true or not).

Hierarchies always form, and especially so around sex, because sex and procreation are some of the few topics in which it is increasingly difficult to obfuscate the difference between one's stated and revealed preference due to the skin-in-the-game that is required for both of these topics. There are such high opportunity costs associated with these decisions, and your pick of mate speak louder than the words you say regarding what you look for in a mate.

An emergent order is always created in these fields. Look at tinder data, okcupid data. It maps on to the Pareto principle almost seamlessly: the top 20% of men are having 80% of the sexual encounters that are attributable to all men. Just look at the whole West Elm Caleb thing. The majority of women are sharing a minority of men, the top selection. Or you can see it as these men having their pick of the litter and these women are willing to wait. This is an emergent order. No one is telling these men and women that they have to do act in this way.

11

VersaceEauFraiche t1_iytz5gn wrote

Reply to Genetic Ethics: An Introduction by ADefiniteDescription

Genetic success is essentially tautological: successful genes are passed down, and they are passed down because they are successful. What does this mean for our post-Malthusian industrial landscape, when our choices for reproduction come down to aesthetics instead pragmatism (are they different? is there overlap? to what degree)? This is probably the ultimate stated-preference vs revealed-preference issue a person can face. This article about choice of sperm donor is insightful:

https://secondnexus.com/brazil-sperm-donations-caucasian-features

8

VersaceEauFraiche t1_iymopim wrote

Reply to Selflessness and altruistic deeds are often signs of weakness or a lack of belief in one’s self and one’s own goals | Guy Elgat explores Nietzsche’s critique of selflessness by IAI_Admin

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle comments that it is the mark of a virtuous man is to give gifts, but not receive them. Giving gifts denotes one's superior position, their abundance, their surplus, while their inclination towards declining gifts means they are secure in their own position and do not need material goods.

Extrapolated, this means that selfless and altruistic are signs of the superior, excellent, virtuous man while going out of one's way to not demonstrate good will to their fellow man is the sign of a small-souled bugman.

308