What's wrong with the dating world.

@WhateverWorks The entire consumerist society around us is built intentionally with not letting a person find out who he/she really is. Otherwise, who would sustain the production of junk and enriching of the rich?
When people finally feel (few understand logically what happens) their lives are economically precarious, they turn to whatever sources of happiness remain: religions, relations, more consumption etc. And the numbers of fooled again keep growing.

I agree that if someone gets wrapped up in the momentum of their life which includes their society and it’s difficult to step out of that stream long enough to be introspective, but the way you worded it kind of sounds like such a copout to me. ‘ consumerist culture‘ isn’t that special. People being resistant to self examination and being focused on present, pressing issues rather than reflective is a ‘human thing’, not unique to modernism or any particular society IMO. @cosas

@WhateverWorks The general society includes particular lives, that general society educates and influences their actions, teaches them by example, not only by theory, what is acceptable and what isn't. We are all consumers, since the beginning of history. The problem is we still don't go much beyond that... Now, why don't we? Just cause it's a "human thing", or cause it's a "taught human thing"?

I agree with you about societal influence and at the same time don’t dump that responsibility on society as a villain. Societies helps create cohesion. From a survival perspective, cohesion is beneficial for people. Study show people who feel like the world makes sense report less existential dread and greater well-being. Society that advocates for focus on one self eventually crumbles from the chaos. At best, a society can offer some sort of guidelines and cultural norms to keep the boat rowing with lenience for those who want to explore alternative lifestyles/ideas. Those with the means to do so gravitate to subcultures, just most people choose not to. That doesn’t mean it’s not available to them though. @cosas

@WhateverWorks Not saying society as an idea is the villain, just society as it is currently practiced. Currently, as in, you know, the last thousands of years?


The majority of the world lives in poverty. Even the so-called middle class is unhappy as a whole, whether they admit it or not. The price they pay for bigger crumbs is just too high. What is the cause of all these miseries? Laziness, "alternative lifestyles", or something else?

And if it is this something else, does the latter influence people in a negative direction or not? In the end, does it affect their relations with each other?...

@cosas ppl want to rich. 🤑 And enjoy life.

@cosas I don’t have much to write back, except out of politeness. It sounds like you’re suggesting we skip the last thousand years+ world-over as examples of society itself and instead base our conversation on a fantasy society that can be or not be whatever is convenient for your position since there’s no way to hold the fiction accountable. If that’s the case, then I think dating would be easier if we were telepathic 😝

As for the societies that do you presently exist, I don’t have much to add it because the dating dilemmas people face culture by culture, region by region, economics by economics really can’t be dissected from a modernist lens, which includes however either of us feel about consumerism. They don’t translate over nor the varied solutions. Things that would make dating go more smoothly in the states would likely be irrelevant or not helpful in Japan or Thailand.

@Beautyisamonstrosity You mean they want to be rich? How about not being rich at the expense of those billions who also want to enjoy life?

@WhateverWorks I'm not saying we shouldn't learn from history. Repeating history just because we succumb to moral relativism, like, for example, is not something I would encourage.

Not fantasy, no. What we could have had all along, had we been educated differently, had we been given a bigger share of the whole, a just share, in fact.

There are aspects of dating that are relative to culture. Like, should you wear suits or jeans, should you give candies or flowers etc. etc. Those cultures, in turn, are created and maintained by higher factors. People have a choice to submit to the latter, or think on their own. There are also aspects of dating that are universal--economical, intellectual, affective. These are heavily influenced by the family, country, and historical period one is born into. Therefore, the dating world is radically not the same to a poor South African as it is to a rich American, assuming they have roughly the same potential to contribute to the general good of society...

Like I said, I don’t have much to add because I disagree with your premise (The fantasy society that you believe gives your position merit). The irony is that I am for self exploration obviously, but we are in disagreement that it is present, modern society’s fault industrialized people aren’t more introspective. I want to be very clear that none of what I have said has been with the intent to project my thoughts on dating challenges on to other cultures though and I strongly recommend that you be careful as well about that with your convictions.

Even though we might agree on a lot of this, which I’m not going into because it would be a rabbit hole, it’s still very apparent to me that your attitudes are still a product of your own society mentality that revers individualism, which doesn’t translate over to a lot of the world either. I don’t want to put myself in the position of expertise, because I’m not, but I have had to do a lot of reading on this topic and there’s so much more to cross-cultural dating nuances and values than the modernist examples you offered. It’s really not that universal or reductionist. Your strong value for the individual (free thinker) wouldn’t be compatible, nor the solutions you’ve conceptually proposed that would advocate for more free thinkers.

The individual freethinker as a cultural norm is also incompatible to the collectivist proposal as a better alternative than individualized consumerism. @cosas

@WhateverWorks You might have missed my words' meaning. You call it "fantasy society", I call it the more rational alternative. There really could have been way fewer poor people in the world, yesterday as well as today. That is mathematically provable. But if you want to call such a scenario "fantasy" which gives my "position merit" (whatever reason may drive you to it?!), feel free to do so.

If society is not at fault for individuals' lack of introspective, then who/what is? If your answer is the individuals themselves, then my next question is: Does that happen naturally, unavoidably? Cause if it does, why bother living like that?


Apparently incompatible, if you skim the terms, and/or go by stock definitions. If you think it carefully, though... What collectivist proposal that takes itself seriously will tell people: "Hey, you know what? We'll do the thinking for you, you just suck it up and obey!"

I understood, but I call it a fantasy because it’s a thought experiment, not a society that has ever actually existed. Since it’s never actually existed you could say whatever you want about it to support your argument. There’s no way to effectively challenge an a position when it is based on an imagined, immaterial thing. @cosas

Opportunities for introspection happen every day as we live our lives. It’s integrated into the human condition. You can either tune in or tune out. There’s no shortage of stimuli. The most common evocations come from major, unexpected, transformative life changes (the good, disorienting, and the traumatizing).

“If you think it through” is another one of those rhetoric expressions that implies the person who disagrees with you hasn’t thought it through. Now, I could elaborate as to the intricacies why a collectivist culture doesn’t emphasize individual freethinking as a core value, but it wouldn’t matter to you because you already have based your premise off of a nonexistent society articulated in a sum of ideals for which there is no measuring of. It would be like arguing with someone about the existence of God or not. It won’t go anywhere. In the end it would always come down to faith, a belief in something for which there is no evidence to confirm or refute it.

@WhateverWorks
At least you don't mean the term "fantasy" as an insult. I knew you wouldn't, but there is this meaning, too.

I assume you do not mean that just because something is an idea, that means it has less practical value than a tangible arrangement. Otherwise, we wouldn't make plans at all, we wouldn't seek any improvement in things.


Yes, it's part of the evolution mechanism. I simply like to call the deeper processing of stimuli, the deeper "tuning in" through the word "thinking". And through this, I'm also thinking through reality... 😀



I have an idea to change my thirst into water drinking. I think it would by to my advantage to act on this idea.

I have an idea to propose to a beautiful person to share with me a few beautiful moments. I will even explain every detail of my "fantasy" to her, so she may know very well in advance what to expect of our date. For now, this is an idea, but it would benefit us both.

I wrote a book with an idea of making this society a better one. Others did it before, why not me? For now, my plan is just an idea. But it could be put in practice, just like others once put their ideas into practice, and many of those ideas actually worked. Now, if my idea has value, if I am right (regardless of my vanity, if I am objectively right!), we could all benefit.

I prefer we end our discussion here. If you really have to, you win. I won't go into semantics again. I think we both want a less suffering world in the end. Thank you. It was a stimulating conversation. Good luck with your projects! Be happy!

Oh, no, definitely never intended the term as an insult or even negative critique of your idea really, just not a materialized thing we could pick apart and effectively compare to the existing realities. I do agree that ideas are important, but I don’t believe they hold weight until they’ve been applied to some extent. That doesn’t mean that someone shouldn’t follow through on making the idea happen though. If anything, I believe it’s more reason for people to act on their ideas rather than let them sit in the realm of untouchable thought experiments, neither proven nor disproven or yet reworked. I’m not interested in being right though. It’s OK for us to not come to a total agreement. Thank you very much for the good conversation. @cosas