For what purpose do we keep those we love healthy?
Beacuse we love them? What has that to do with decadence in any way?
More moral confusion. I love moral confusion dot com.
I hate to be the spoiler, but sometimes loved ones are kept alive, because they have sources of income which stops at their death. This seems a bit decadent.
Decadence is a moral category.
Those only work if you don’t have moderate to severe moral confusion.
Decadence can be defined as the state of an animal with few environmental pressures. Pressures are obstacles, challenges an animal has to overcome in order to attain essential resources, resources necessary for its immediate survival and the immediate survival of its offspring, if it has any. The state of a bird in a cage, or a rich man, spending his inheritance on lavish food, wine and clothing, are essentially the same, and Kris is right when she says it can occur in nature to degrees, although it’s usually much, much rarer and less pronounced.
You can’t say - such a state necessarily leads to the decline of the species, in an objective sense, because as soon as you reintroduce genetic and psychosocial pollutants or detriments, pollutants given free reign to multiply, then you’ve introduced a pressure, one that will eventually kill the weak off and whoever’s feeding them, or at least put a damper on their prosperity. And on the other hand, if it does little to no harm, then it’s not really a pressure, so that a man can survive and relatively thrive in spite or even because of whatever it is, whether it be a heart condition alleviated by a pacemaker, or a wheel chair, or what have you.
A highly urban environment creates all sorts of new pressures our ancestors didn’t have, or have in abundance, except the very rich that is, the aristocracy. Some of our instincts, such as the will to eat, the will to drink, can become our own worst nightmare, a new pressure which forces us to adapt, biologically, psychosocially, or die. Overpopulation and environmental degradation, destruction and neglect are some others, drugs, and boredom are some more.
Decadence is short lived, as the natural propensity to overindulge can create all kinds of new pressures, ones we’ll have to deal with as individuals and as a society, if we are to survive. Whether we do survive, is ultimately attributable to luck, as I’m primarily a determinist, and luck might produce the genetics which produces the memetics necessary in order to overcome these new impediments. Whether man will become his own worst enemy - not be able to adapt to the environment he himself created, or his own best friend, remains to be seen, the Romans couldn’t, I wouldn’t be surprised if we can’t either.
The only thing I’m certain of is - Keynesian Consumerism, THE socio-economic theory of the western world in the 20th century, is on its way out. What will replace it, and whether it’ll be our temporary salvation or not (salvation is always temporary), remains to be seen. We’re all responsible for its development and implementation, all of us, it’s not going to fall out of the sky like the 10 commandments on Sinai. What we need is something timely, something for the here, for the now, something Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes couldn’t have anticipated or envisioned. Are we going to consume ourselves into extinction, or, are we going to fundamentally change ourselves and the system?
Love is actually a luxury not necessary to survival. We can afford to love. It is an indulgence and so is decadence.
[
We need love to make an attachment so the we can provide for eachother, it’s an old primadorial instinct. Children usually instinctivly need both a mother and a father to give input to their raising.
Just because in some countries we have achived such ritchness that man and woman individually can provide for themselves it doesn’t nessesarily mean it’s such for all, and minimum wages in many countries are so low that one needs 2 jobs to keep it runnning.
Still you havn’t presented any sound arguments why love is leading to decadence, you are just jumping to conclusions and using circular logic.
No, hormonal attachment to our children causes family. The primordial is hormonal. We don’t need love, we just give it and get it to feel happier. All emotion is indulgent not needed. Other critturs get along fine without so many constant emotional indulgences.
So a couple doesn’t feel like a family untill they get children, that is illogical. Also when the children moves out from home, the parents suddenly doesn’t feel like a family anymore? Also illogical.
If a father doesn’t feel love for neither mom nor child, he would move on and leave both mom and child to a dire situation, it’s love that attaches the father and bond him to provide for the family, so it has been ever since the dawn of man, only in these modern times women can in many situations provide for self and child, mainly through wealfare.
Decadence is good and evil.
Love is beyond good and evil.
Isn’t it time for a new Jesus?
I’m afraid this doesn’t reflect much of real life.
Did you read my reply or just nit pick? You said primordial, primordial is due to hormones to attract us to children and family. Love is a developed unnecessary affect. Animals thrive just fine without that emotional obligation. Males take pride in their virility. Production of offspring is a sign of Alpha. Love is an emotional construct due to societal desires.
Yep, read it and disagreed, why i write what i wrote, simple.
Real life is decadence. It’s a real death.
You boil it too much down then your words needs interpetation.
You need thousands of interpretations until you get your expected one. I would never beg for shallow help on a topic. It is not philosophical. There must be a philosophical dignity … somewhere.
If no one can use u’r words for anything, it’s futile.
It is also exciting if still noone can use it. No animal can use internet.
Dude, this is a philosophy forum, here things must follow logic and reason, anything besides that is babble and doesn’t belong here.