>waifuism isn't logic at all
To me it is as it's the pursuit of idealism. I see it as the only natural outcome when the alternative (3dpd) has become so polluted and degenerated into such undesirable filth.

Procreation isn't logical at all when we already have 7 billion people on this planet. logically people should stop procreating.

There are enough people already, we are not forced to procreate in order to survive anymore. If humans would act on their instinct less the world would be a better place.

None of us will ever have kids, but so what? There's plenty of other normals to do that. The human race won't die out any time soon, and we get to live our lives with our waifus.

If natural selection is a game then getting a waifu is like throwing your cards on the table and saying "Know what? This game blows, I'm off to play videogames". What's not logical about quitting something you don't enjoy in favour of something you do, even if it counts as a loss on somebody else's book?

>>16272
>>16273
>Procreation isn't logical at all when we already have 7 billion people on this planet. logically people should stop procreating.
>There are enough people already, we are not forced to procreate in order to survive anymore.

These. The world is actually already suffering from overpopulation, and it's only getting worse with time. Procreation is a problem, not a solution.

I understand what you mean in that we don't 'expand' as our genes are not passed down, but you must consider that:
- "Natural selection" in its basic definition no longer takes place in humans, but rather sexual selection.
- So as long as more social outcasts are born and don't find the sexual selection "dating game" appealing, there will be more after us that end up having and loving waifus of their own- even if we never reproduce. Even if our genes and bloodlines aren't passed down, the mentality/"genre" will continue to live on, and likely more prominently than it is today.

Post edited on 5th Aug 2014, 8:18pm

I think human evolution has expanded so it's more than just about passing down your genes. We've survived and expanded because of our ability to work in groups and pass down information. With the internet as an excellent form of communication and information transfer, your ideas and research will live on long after you die, even if you aren't particularly credited for them. That doesn't mean be an attention whore with your waifuism, but when the moment calls, spread your opinions and ideas on the subject -- or anything else really.

It's not logical to act like we're in need of creating more people. People act like it's the end of the world if their family "legacy" dies off. It's very primitive and I don't understand it.

Society also treats children as status symbols which doesn't help. It's fucking gross. My cousin decided he wanted a kid for attention after his brother accidentally ended up with one. Now if you're around 20-25 in my family and you don't have children you're given the "you need to settle down and have a baby!" shit.

It's fucking disgusting and insulting. A lot of them aren't in any situation to have a child financially and/or won't be good parents. I'm certainly not myself. I don't think I'll ever understand how normals can take having children so lightly.

Sorry if this post came across too ranty or a jab at you. It's been on my mind a lot lately.

>>16271

Let's see:

Your thinking of logic as the application of reason and not its theorization, it's outdated by about 2300 years (Aristotle's Organon). Your possible thinking of reason and science as effective means to provide with an objective (and not pragmatic) image of phenomena, it's outdated for at least 70 years (the end of logical positivsm, the work of Feyerabend and Gödel's achievements in mathematical logic, which set its boundaries).

Your thinking of humanity being obliged to natural selection is a misconception grounded in social darwinism, currently discredited. Technique, ancient as the invention of language and tools, turned the subject of our human sentient existence into an extra-biological (rather semiotical) problem.

Your thinking of love as a mere social extension of the reproductive drive is, at least as westerns, grounded in Schopenhauer and profoundly and retroactively faulted within the same tradition. There are threads in /mai/ and the archive that deal with the problem of defining love now, through history and under the lenses of different analogies, as well as with its relation with sex; some examples:

http://tohno-chan.com/mai/arch/res/9287.html
http://tohno-chan.com/mai/res/14383.html
http://tohno-chan.com/mai/arch/res/12657.html
http://tohno-chan.com/mai/res/13580.html
http://tohno-chan.com/mai/arch/res/12177.html
http://tohno-chan.com/mai/res/13419.html
http://tohno-chan.com/mai/arch/res/1563.html
http://tohno-chan.com/mai/arch/res/12756.html

For instance: within the different greek forms of love, Plato (in the Symposium) used the "eros" form to claim that all love is love of beauty (i.e. aesthetic passion), rendering its perfect form as the love for the abstract idea of beauty itself. From there, pursuing love is understood as a movement from our incomplete phenomenic existence towards a perfect ideal one, encompassed by the concept of a perfect entity acknowledged as God and which can very appropriately be replaced with a waifu, but never with an actual woman (notice that this classical tradition is also the opposite of the christian form of love, or agape/caritas, which is a decadent movement from God's perfection towards human imperfection). I haven't studied them in depth, but Jung seems to have a very interesting theory of love as projection which, if having enough resemblance with his theory of God, might also be compatible with my own take on love gathered largely from Villiers De L'Isle Adam.

Post edited on 5th Aug 2014, 11:51pm

>>16282
You believe that philosophies can be permanently outdated? Why isn't Plato outdated then? Do you believe that one philosophy evidently "truimphs" over another then? Where is your defense for your own idea of objectivity here? Is your defense merely saying that there is a fault in human communication and we'd all understand each other if it were otherwise?

>>16284
>You believe that philosophies can be permanently outdated?

They can if something better or more solid comes to supersede them, as is with scientific theories and political ideologies. The reason why Plato isn't outdated is because his established philosophy is strong enough to stand being challenged and the test of time.

OP here

You are right, in theese days overpopulation is a problem, but we(as the society) should see the social aging problem.
If we will stop procreating from now, for about 40 years our society will be old and no one will work for our pension, no one will work to produce food for us and our society will just die like Aztec's or Egyptians.
Of course there are solutions like eugenics(everyone hates eugenics because Hitler liked it, it is like hating chockolate cuz Bob loves it).

Yes i know that overpopulation is the real problem now, just i'm still looking forward at consequences, good and bad options.

>problem of defining love
Only problem of defining feels is denying their chemical form(hormones).

>>16286
It's not even an overpopulation problem in the first place, it's a resource allocation and logistics one. With time and changing global social and economic policies, this world will easily sustain a much larger population.

To be fair that is an extremely optimist outlook, but still.

>>16286
I really don't think a few people not having kids is going to cause something like that. The world population keeps growing each year and there is no reason for it to stop.

>>16288
You got a point

>>16288
>I really don't think a few people not having kids is going to cause something like that.

This is exactly why the appearance of waifuism isn't a threat to human existence. I mean, admit it, there would never come a time in which waifuism is the global norm, especially if people like us will never have children for us to pass on our belief systems. Waifuism is not a widespread global phenomenon much like religions, such as Christianity, or homosexuality. Even then, not everyone in the world are Christians and homosexuals still have a considerable degree of discrimination against them.

Post edited on 6th Aug 2014, 7:26am

>>16290
To be honest I'm glad waifuism isn't more widespread. It feels more special this way, like I've discovered some secret path to happiness and purpose the rest of the world could never understand.

>>16287
Overpopulation absolutely is a problem. Not in industrialized countries, sure. Things are fine here, for now. Most of the global human population growth is focused in poorer areas like sub-saharan africa, where the problems with sustainability are very real. Deforestation, mass extinctions, all that fun stuff.

And thinking it's a self-explanatorily tenable problem really is very optimistic of you. It could very well ultimately be tenable, but take for example the fact that without significant changes in the way electricity is generated around the world we probably won't be able to continue having enough of both water used for electricity production and clean drinking water for everyone anywhere on the planet. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140729093112.htm
"Resource allocation and logistics" alone won't save us on that.

>With time and changing global social and economic policies, this world will easily sustain a much larger population.
Is of course a handy catch-all phrase though. It COULD all work out just handy-dandy.
But it certainly wouldn't be simple. It wouldn't be achieved merely by adjusting existing technologies and resources. And time is something we don't necessarily have that much of. Those changing policies better be gearing up for changing pretty soon with the way things are going.
With an increasing number of people demanding an increasingly better standard of life in Asia the demands for energy, food production and clean water—problems with which are also all interlocked to various degrees, contributing to each other—will keep getting harder and harder to keep up with globally.

You can say it's not an overpopulation problem, but the fact remains that the global (Even if not your local, probably industrialized western nation's) population growth—whether we want to frame it as "overpopulation" or not—is the root of a great deal of seriously serious problems that will keep leading to more devastated ecosystems through unsustainable agriculture and energy production for the foreseeable future.

So I guess sure, as a matter of semantics, it's not just an "overpopulation problem," it's a huge number of separate problems in technology, global infrastructure, and culture toward which the population growth is undeniably contributing a great deal.

>>16286
>no one will work for our pension, no one will work to produce food for us and our society will just die like Aztec's or Egyptians.
I don't think anyone's suggesting we make everyone on the planet stop cold turky, obviously birth rate would need to be regulated. Besides, the Aztec's and Egyptians didn't have machinery that could do the work for them. As the years go by and technology improves it becomes less and less necessary for people to work. A single farmer today can produce what a dozen Aztec farmers together could only dream of.

>>16293
But still, you wanna live in the world where homo sapien is on the list of endangered species?
Don't think so...
>>16292
How do you think we should controll birthrate?
maybe like in the Ender's Game(Statistically Mother + Father = 2 Kids)

>>16295
I never saw Ender's Game but yes, no family should have more than two children.

>>16296
I was refering to book...but whatever.

>>16295
Ideally it'd just be a natural result of increasing levels of education and cultural changes in developing regions. I don't know that I think it's necessarily a problem that is possible to regulate away in a sane manner.
China for one hasn't necessarily done terribly great with that approach. But maybe they're not a great example with all their other problems regarding human rights and all that kind of stuff.

And more strictly on topic:
>>16276
>>16277
I think that's about right. It shouldn't be about genetics. Passing your genes on isn't half as important as passing culture and your values on. Of course raising children is theoretically a great way to do just that, but hardly the only or necessarily even among the more effective ones overall.

And a fun thought that led me to is the idea of a future with the potential legal right to adopt children for those in human-waifu/husbando partnerships.

>>16284
No, philosophies in the better sense do not supersede each other, but just take from each other historically (if such a thing, "history") and become more and less opportune/plausible within contexts. Social darwinism, however, wasn't a philosophy (not nearly) but just an allegedly scientific theory, a realm where there is a partial but effective sense of progress and replacement (Lakatos and Larry Laudan have models to explain this process beyond both naive positivism and Kuhn's lack of rigor).

>Where is your defense for your own idea of objectivity here?
Nowhere: I do not stand for the possibility of objective knowledge but just pragmatic contextual usefulness of signs. I believe there's something out there but I no longer think we can ever make an identical picture of it neither that such neutrality is a mandatory or even appropriate epistemological attitude. I believe now that the notion of reality is a semiotical construct as well (Baudrillard is the best on that) and I understand and value 2D love from those late references (I'm a former a mathematician and still work with biologists, but the world is far bigger than that).

>>16286
I have nothing against eugenics and trans/post-humanism in general. Rather, I fully support them and despise reactionary humanist stances that include conservationism (even of our own species insofar as such). My view and defense of 2D love is also framed by this ideological heritage.

>Only problem of defining feels is denying their chemical form(hormones).
You're way too green or beyond help on Sagan's preach. Go your own way, then; good luck breaking free from childishly and sickeningly obsessing over a cartoon, which is what you're positively doing.

>>16311
Well, I think that settles it. OP's a 4rd or a fresh seclusive; he's bound to have such conflicts with 2D love.

>>16282
>>16298
>>16303

I think i got it... waifuism is a replacement for religious part of human personality, same way as Schopenhauer romantic lady image, but should not lead to deppression and neurosis...

Kinda romantic and delusive in my opinion but still it's a way of life right?


>>16311
My phone/laptop are dead, i will manage to use Steam today or tommorow... i apologize for communication problems, lately i was in kinda bad condition... sherlock

>>16303
You need to lay off the thesaurus and phil 101 showboating

>>16285
Hmm, I don't believe there's a strong refutation for his ideas of beauty, but you don't think that Nietzsche's argument carries a good weight when he argues against Plato's ideal world of the Forms by stating that it detracts from our experiences in the real, natural world? (Or Aristotle's focus on scientific observation of the physical world rather than seeking truth through metaphysics) In addition, I feel that if these "outdated" thinkers were still alive, they would have rebuttals or simply adjust parts of their philosophies -- certainly they probably still have their defenders today. You could argue that Nietzsche isn't a philosopher and that he argues from pathos, but I believe even then he still has a point.

>>16303
Didn't Plato argue for eugenics in his Republic? It might've been a larger allegory for harmony in the soul, but I still think that it is part of his philosophy. Of course, you might differentiate eugenics from Social Darwinism, and rightly so.

I agree with you on your notion that reality is semiotic (pertaining to signs and symbols), and that OP is oversimplifying human reason and passion -- Even from a biological or neurological viewpoint I think it is far more complicated.

>>16313
In my opinion your waifuism can be simple or complex as you'd like it to be, and doesn't require any philosophical references.

>>16315
>In my opinion your waifuism can be simple or complex as you'd like it to be, and doesn't require any philosophical references.

Well religion may be simple or complex too, and for many people it doesn't require any philosophical references.

>>16314
My sentiments exactly.

In any case, OP, point from all of the philosophical blabber is that your idea of "logic" only pertains to a limited worldview of Social Darwinism. In my eyes, science describes the happenings in our material world to the best of human ability, but it does not set values and standards for people. If that was so, homosexuality should be disapproved because anal sex risks tearing and homosexuals do not directly contribute to the gene pool. While you don't need to be as well-read as the semiotic Phil 101 guy, the point is that you can change your worldview and still be rational.

>>16314
OP asked for justifications, though. Each one explains within his means.

>>16321
There's absolutely nothing wrong with referencing philosophies and theories relevant to the topic at hand, but he has a point. The philsophers you mentioned in parenthesis, for example, weren't relevant at all to the thread (but rather a tangent) or 2D love, and really just appeared to be blatant name-dropping. This could certainly give off the impression of showboating.

Further, using an excess of adjectives and long, unwieldy terms that refer to highly specific definitions when they're simply not needed (in other words, when "simple" terms would more than suffice) only serves to make one's speech or writing appear convoluted and hinder effective communication. Even in the works of scientists and philosophers, simple terms are not replaced with complex ones just for the mere sake of it. This behavior of word replacement is a calling card of those wishing to appear more intelligent, and I'd argue that it contributes to the showboating impression.

>>16322
Some people are just naturally pretentious perhaps.

>>16321
Yeah, I just gave OP what he asked for the best I could:

>please tell me that I'm wrong... and tell me why

...and then answered to further specific inquiries on it. Don't know why there's always guys who take offense on references and start derailing over my rhetoric and how "pretentious" I am, as if anyone should give a fuck. Just use the ideas if they suit you, or discuss them or discard them or whatever; I give you what I have and I know what I know; you deal with yourselves.

Listen!
>>16319

From biological point of view homosexualism and bisexualism are irrational, sex is to procreate, it may be fun, but it is for procreation, and only heterosexualism may lead to procreation...

From philosophical point of view, sex may lead to happines so there is no irrationalism in being gay...

Still can't understand why someone ever want to be the one.

>>16326
>Still can't understand why someone ever want to be the one.

I don't think LGBT people understand why either.

>>16325
>I give you what I have and I know what I know; you deal with yourselves.

You know Plato's Allegory of the Cave right? (Of course you do.) Let's say you are the man who wandered out of the cave. Now, when you deal with people that might be less educated than you, or less thoughtful, which OP's writing style implies due to the excessive ellipses and simplistic reasoning style, you must ease them out of their "shadows" instead of bombarding them with what you know and expecting them to listen. You yourself don't seem to believe in objective reality and that reality and language are both based on symbols (semiotic) -- like Socrates, use simple language or cite specific parts of your references that OP and members of this board would actually know or understand. Before you communicate, you need to share these definitions and values to an extent, and if you don't think OP and most of this board has a firm understanding of
>Aristotle's Organon
>the end of logical positivism
>work of Feyerabend and Gödel's achievements in mathematical logic
>agape/caritas
>Jung
>Villiers De L'Isle Adam
>Lakatos and Larry Laudan
>Kuhn's lack of rigor
>Baudrillard
You should expect them to ignore you or think that you are pretentious. Sure, it may even be a fact that not knowing these things makes people uneducated and not worth talking to in your eyes, but you are on a board with plenty of NEETs who junk out on anime, video games, and have dropped out of school, probably not electing to study philosophy and psychology in their spare time. In addition, you go on to say to OP
>You're way too green or beyond help on Sagan's preach. Go your own way, then; good luck breaking free from childishly and sickeningly obsessing over a cartoon, which is what you're positively doing.

From what I've stated, it might be apparently to OP and most of the board that you aren't actually putting much effort into communicating (even if that means you refuse to dumb yourself down) or persuading OP, and you are just trying to act holier-than-thou.

>>16330
>(even if that means you refuse to dumb yourself down)
I don't think that putting the more complicated concepts of philosophy or anything into simpler and more understandable terms is dumbing down these concepts. If anything, it's a greater sign of intelligence, just like reducing a long and complicated mathematical equation into it's simplest form or solution.

Post edited on 8th Aug 2014, 6:00pm

>>16331
Well I'd say philosophy and math are different in that regard. Philosophy exists to question previously held assumptions and analyze them, thus exposing complications in a seemingly simple subject. However, I stand by my original statement in that you can't just explode into all of these ideas at once if you are talking to laypeople and expect them to put effort into understanding you. I suppose using well thought-out Socratic questions to lead into a more complicated idea may be a sign of greater intelligence than simply paraphrasing the sources for your current beliefs.

Post edited on 8th Aug 2014, 7:44pm

>>16332
>Philosophy exists to question previously held assumptions and analyze them, thus exposing complications in a seemingly simple subject.

Well, I was thinking more of mathematics in regards to physics or whatnot. I mean, gravity, for example. The simple concept or question of why things fall into the ground when you let them go into the air and they're not flying. We all know that there's a mathematical formula regard calculating this very aspect of the natural world. And it lead to the very concept of the Standard Model and beyond, topics which are not only complicated to understand, but also maybe considered irrelevant to people not interested to it. In this way, it complicated the simple question of why do things fall down on the ground.

Yet, we can only say that things that don't fly fall into the ground because of gravity. That's what the average person know all about it, if they listened to their physics teacher. They might not care about the exact formula, but at least they know how it works.

>I suppose using well thought-out Socratic questions to lead into a more complicated idea may be a sign of greater intelligence than simply paraphrasing the sources for your current beliefs.

Ain't that the same with simplifying a complication by reducing it into a single and mostly well-understood statement?

>>16323

A risk of sounding pretentious comes with the territory. Any highly technical or academic discussion could be dismissed as showboating or mere intelligent-sounding jargon by an outsider.

As for his part, I think he adds an interesting and in-depth perspective to threads like this one. Complex questions require complex answers. Limiting discussion to topics and fields everyone is already well-acquainted with neuters it.

>>16323

A risk of sounding pretentious comes with the territory. Any highly technical or academic discussion could be dismissed as showboating or mere intelligent-sounding jargon by an outsider.

As for his part, I think he adds an interesting and in-depth perspective to threads like this. Complex questions require complex answers. Limiting discussion to topics and fields everyone is already well-acquainted with only neuters it.

>>16339
This. The stuff he cites are usually interesting too, on the rare occasions I stop lazying around and go after them.

A wise man once said that true intelligence is a steady and patient pursuit of happiness. If you just stopped having a waifu it would be detrimental to you and thus having a waifu is the smarter choice to you.

As for natural selection, I'm failing to see how waifuism even has anything to do with it. Procreation as a main purpose of life is more Darwinism than anything else, you don't have to enforce that ideology and push it into your judgement.

Unless you WANT to play the natural selection game, you have no reason to participate in it.

>>16339
>Limiting discussion to topics and fields everyone is already well-acquainted with only neuters it.

Simplifying a discussion by using words that can be easily understood and digested by the majority is not the same with limiting it topics and fields everyone already knows. Just because you have to introduce someone to mathematics doesn't mean you have to start talking about chaos theory to them immediately. They don't even understand algebra yet. So how can you teach someone who doesn't understand anything yet or who knows nothing initially?

The point here is people have to be eased into the subject before anything else. That's not neutering it.

>>16339
>>16342
No, those who dare to ignore my brilliant citations and references in favor of a more simplistic explanation are ignorant plebeians unworthy of my intellect. It is their job to humble themselves before a true member of academia and intellectualism, and exhaust their own efforts on determining what I really mean! I hope to be a professor one day.

>>16339
>intelligent-sounding jargon
On the contrary, overusing complex terms that are out of place just makes one sound like a pseudo-intellectual trying too hard to appear intelligent.

>Limiting discussion to topics and fields everyone is already well-acquainted with
Nobody even suggested this. Hell, it's not even the subject matter itself that raises the issue. But when someone is so insistent on using a thesaurus to proofread their text that it doesn't even resemble coherent English anymore, it not only looks pretentious, but it's a serious determent to discussion.

>>16339
But it's not really a technical or academic discussion. It's just some guy spouting philosophies and names no one on a site like this is likely to know or even care about.
There's nothing wrong with the topic but when you expect everyone else to be familiar with or spend hours looking up the dead guys you name drop that's just pretentious.

>>16338
>Complex questions require complex answers.

Except this isn't a complex question. It's not rocket science to realize it doesn't matter if you don't have kids since normals pump them out at rates that are highly detrimental to the well being of humanity.

Purple prose never fails to make the user look like an irritating pseudo-intellectual, so it should be avoided at all costs. On this matter I defer to Orwell, a master of the plain prose style:

"Never use a long word where a short one will do."
"If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out."

>>16345

>spouting philosophies and names no one on a site like this is likely to know or even care about.

Speak for yourself.

>>16343
Like Einstein said, you do not understand thing well if you can't explain it by simple words.

Using "Inteligent Jargon" and complex words isn't even close to finding the answer, if you guys think that educated or thoughtfull man should use long complex words, references to old philosophies et cetera... you are false

OP is just saying that he can't stand nonsense of waifuism in the light of darwinism and social psychology... it is true, waifuism is nonsense, just like any religion, any tv show or advert, actually only procreation, finding food and feeling good makes sense ALWAYS... because theese are required to live happy...

Math, physics, biology, all of the real science stuff is logic, but pointless in theory... Finding solution in math is fun, building thing with physics is fun and so with biology chemistry etc etc...

Life is about fun, if you think it is for something more, something bigger... you are dumb...

>>16396
> only procreation, finding food and feeling good makes sense ALWAYS... because theese are required to live happy

PS. procreation and food is needed to live, feeling good is needed to live happy

>>16396
>Life is about fun, if you think it is for something more, something bigger... you are dumb...
But what if the universe actually is a hologram and life is actually specifically about making some ginormous alien dude's credit card work?
What if I don't like fun? What if the officially certified wisest, most enlightened person on the planet® doesn't like fun?
What exactly makes not thinking hedonism isn't necessarily the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything stupid?
Who are you to decree that for other people?

Of course, you're free to think that, but you'll just sound like a silly crank to anyone you're calling stupid because of a differing value judgment.
And what if the resulting non-communication leads to a malfunction with the universe's credit card home and it gets incinerated right before we find out there was a glorious Haruhi-given meaning behind everything after all?

>>16399
>What if I don't like fun? What if the officially certified wisest, most enlightened person on the planet® doesn't like fun?

Definition of fun is something you like, so it is impossible to not like fun.

There is nothing you should do for others, you do not have to listen to them, actually you don't have to do anything... so only thing making sense is doing what are you like to do...
It is called fun.

PS. What i call fun is not the same thing you calling fun

>Who are you to decree that for other people?
I'm the guy who is glad of his life.
I have no problems and sadness... so i thought you should know what is the secret of not being deppresed

>>16400
>>16401
I figured it'd just be a bottomless rabbit hole of semantics.
Still not true though, and still narrowly hedonistic.
You certainly could argue that someone who embraced an ascetic lifestyle of self-denial would just be doing it for their idea of "fun" just like you could argue any altruistic act is not altruism because it's motivated by some internal reward. But you can't really definitively say anything about the motivations of others, hell you can barely definitely say anything of your own. Not to mention that broad a definition of "fun" renders the word essentially meaningless. It's just "People do the things they do because they feel like they should do them for whatever reason." at that point. Hardly a revelatory secret that will lay all your inner demons to rest for good.

Pedantry aside I do basically agree with the notion that any deeper "meaning" to existence is whatever you make it. Just vehemently not your view or framing thereof.

>>16402
> ascetic lifestyle of self-denial
I'm not doing that, for me fun is having hobby, doing new thing every time i have the occasion, having waifu and doing science, i like helping people when i can... this is what i'm calling fun

>>16396
Where did Einstein say that?
And how come you yourself are now referring to an old figure of intellectual authority?
And how is it possible for you not to realize that Einstein (not a scientific realist) wouldn't support anything of what you're saying?
How can you mistake an ethical problem (happiness) for an epistemic one (as those of science)?
Finally, how can you mistake "wrong" for "false" and pretend to tell proper usage of language?

My impression is that you're not even aware of your own bias and lack of comprehension of the terms and concepts you use, including science. That's why language shouldn't be taken lightly nor problems simplistically. Here is an actual quote of Einstein, for you to consider:

"He [the scientist] therefore must appear to the systematic epistemologist as a type of unscrupulous opportunist: he appears as realist insofar as he seeks to describe a world independent of the acts of perception; as idealist insofar as he looks upon the concepts and theories as free inventions of the human spirit (not logically derivable from what is empirically given); as positivist insofar as he considers his concepts and theories justified only to the extent to which they furnish a logical representation of relations among sensory experiences. He may even appear as Platonist or Pythagorean insofar as he considers the viewpoint of logical simplicity as an indispensable and effective tool of his research. [However] The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind. They are dependent upon each other. Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is—insofar as it is thinkable at all—primitive and muddled. "

----A. Einstein, “Autobiographical Notes”, 1946 (trans. Paul Arthur Schilpp, 1979)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

>>16416
I'm not the one who posted that but lemme reply this.
>Where did Einstein say that?
It's a falsely attributed quote to him, that's for sure. However, Ernest Rutherford, as quoted in the book "Einstein: The Man and His Achievement", did say “If you can't explain your physics to a barmaid, it is probably not very good physics.” That quote is the same in spirit.
>And how come you yourself are now referring to an old figure of intellectual authority?
Because everyone knows, for sure, who Einstein is. He's become an indispensable part of our academic culture. We all know that he discovered relativity, which was said to have put the world into the atomic age. On the other hand, nobody really knows who the people and the concepts you have cited.
>That's why language shouldn't be taken lightly nor problems simplistically.
>[Einstein's quote about how people who methodically question how knowledge can be acquired and how far can we go are philosophically diverse and therefore, every scientist should have the same mindset.]
How is that even relevant here?

>>16423
Again, that's not what Einstein said there. He criticized scientists' dilettante and contradictory attitude towards knowledge, and remarked on the lack of foundation of science that springs from ignorance or deprecation of philosophy (in particular, epistemology) which renders scientists' unaware view of their practice as "primitive and muddled" (as in the contents of >>16396).

How is that relevant to this thread? you guys have derailed for over 20 posts and you choose to ask that to me? I provided you with several on topic references about love (including past threads), which you just disregarded as pretentious and proceeded to freely throw a bunch of uninformed opinions about rhetoric, science and whatnot, one of which I just refuted from end to end so you might reconsider. I've been sharing with you very specific information and far more sophisticated and matured tools to regard 2D love than what you usually use against me, yet you insist on defending some naive realistic path that inevitably throws your love away as nonsense, and which I've additionally provided you with elements to refute as a former science and maths student myself.

I do believe in the value of my 2D love, which is a very serious matter to me (guides my entire life) and so I test it constantly with increasingly demanding standards. Honestly, I'm a proven defender of this board; how far are you willing to go against 2D love (like OP and his inconsequential concern with human reproduction) just to keep unfairly dismissing me as out of place?

>>16434
>how far are you willing to go against 2D love
What kind of argument is this? If someone finds your choice of references poor or finds your manner of speaking to be unnecessarily convoluted, they're "going against 2D love"? I'm not the person you're responding to, nor am I making the claim that you don't belong here (I actually agree with your stance against OP), but I'm not seeing the reasoning behind this statement.

I'll agree that the derailing has gotten silly at this point though.

>>16434

This guy, >>16435, gets it with his statement:
>If someone finds your choice of references poor or finds your manner of speaking to be unnecessarily convoluted, they're "going against 2D love"?

Sure, your references or arguments might be more "mature or sophisticated", but the way you say it and how you tell it to us prevents us from understanding it. Whatever our arguments are right now, it's because we never really bothered to think too deeply about it, might it be that it "renders our love useless". We know nothing beyond what we know now and you, as former student, should know that there used to be a point where you were just like us. The only difference is you learned these things slowly over time, which made you reach this point of your knowledge. But that's another point here: You learned things slowly. As in carefully and methodically.

I'm pretty sure that if you told the things you know now to your younger self before you learned anything, he's not gonna understand anything, will he?

In other words, if we can't understand you, how could you teach us?

Post edited on 13th Aug 2014, 6:21pm

>>16434
Is 2D love a science now? Should every part of our lives have to be lived in a scientific, mature, and sophisticated manner? Does everything need to be studied to be justified and validated, having to cite previous conversations before coming up with original ideas? If so, doesn't that mean you frown upon others' waifuism if they lack a similar amount of education and work to understand you, despite how much original thought or passion they put into their relationships? If not, what is our incentive to go out of our way and look up 6-10 things you drop every post? First of all you have to persuade your audience that they should know what you're talking about. As I said in >>16330
>you are on a board with plenty of NEETs who junk out on anime, video games, and have dropped out of school, probably not electing to study philosophy and psychology in their spare time.
Even if these NEETS were theoretically more welcome than normals many of them probably have a contempt for school, precisely the part where teachers, professors, or competitive students look down on them when their performance is less than stellar, and you resemble that professor very much. (And we are not directed to the most reliable sources like students normally would in a class with textbooks, nor are we earning credits for listening to you.)

What makes an opinion informed? The amount of citations that support it? Could racism against blacks be informed by statistics of black crime rates, their lack of achievements through history compared to other races, and IQ test among the races then?

>Honestly, I'm a proven defender of this board

Proven to who? Yourself? Maybe one or two people that will bother to understand you? Or have you gone out and argued against normals who talk shit about tc and /mai/ and convinced them? Do you think talking to people is okay as long as you think you have proven your point even if it seems you haven't actually seemed to gotten it across?

Bottom line is: Do you want most people here to understand you or not? If you do, you shouldn't expect them to go out of their way to understand you just because you appear more educated -- most people wouldn't if they met someone like you on the street. Maybe you've experienced otherwise in your college or university or grad school or even at the dinner parties you're invited to, but keep in mind that those friends of yours would be the top 1% and most people wouldn't care about what you're saying, and if you want them to listen you have to make it more accessible. If you don't, then you should be fine with people dismissing you and calling you pretentious.

Post edited on 13th Aug 2014, 8:33pm

Donate your sperm, there, done. You've now spread your genes into the world and fulfilled your "biological imperative" which seems so incredibly important to a lot of NEETs...

>>16460
Unless you're 6'6 and have a 4.0 GPA at MIT, don't count on being a sperm donor. Sperm is the least valuable commodity in existence.