H4run
Deity
This is a nice and informative thread, Gori. I've learned another interesting term as well, "negative hedonism". The definition might fit well with this category. It's about lying flat and refusing to participate in the societal status race, resisting social pressure, and instead indulging in the minimum free and affordable things, which might come close to the definition. But I think the key point of the article is the declaration of being adamant about remaining "single" and refusing to participate in the competition for worldly success and whatever comes after that, which usually includes a girl/woman/partner of interest.
I think the combination of a reality or belief, that for heterosexual men, your significant others are only interested in you if you're economically stable, goes hand in hand with the idea that women are hypergamous by nature. Hence, if you want to get yourself a woman, you'd better prove your worth materially and get settled. This is also culturally reinforced in Asia by the older generation, who usually advise their daughters to look for a stable life and to look for a man with a good income, a vehicle, and a dwelling. I imagine that these individuals who prefer to "lie flat" just feel too tired to participate in the competition and instead choose to settle and satisfy themselves at the minimum, indulging in more affordable or even free desires.
Instead of trying to climb the social status ladder, working their way up and struggling so they can attract or attain a girl/woman and have a sexually active life, they choose to make themselves content with pornography, still achieving sexual satisfaction. Instead of having enough income and saving for a holiday in exotic places to entertain themselves, they can entertain themselves far more cheaply with Netflix, or even for free by binge-watching YouTube. The idea is that they just want to lie down in their flat and own every moment they have, not doing anything that stresses them out in order to achieve a "better" lifestyle. It's some sort of combination of minimalism and hedonism, which actually sounds like a mild case of hikikomori, in essence it's a form of escapism and rebellion against social pressure.
One thing that has been confusing me lately is the idea that women are hypergamous by nature. Speaking from the perspective of a heterosexual man, I believe I mostly target girls/women who are "out of my league", if that makes any sense. So, the way I view dating is not about trying to elevate myself to the highest tower and then cherry-pick any girl I want below me. I mostly aim for someone that I think I don't "deserve", the better they seem to be, the better it is, and I see lots of men doing pretty much the same. They are aiming for their crush, whom they think is somewhat better than them, not the other way around at least from their perspective (talking about an ideal partner). Unless we're talking about individuals like Mao Zedong or Soekarno, I always think people mostly share a similar perspective to me.
For Stoicism, I understand the frustration how it's often misquoted due to its popularity nowadays, however I don't think that should deprive the school of thought, I think stoicism is based over something that's purely rational in its core it's not all about not to give up control over something that's beyond our control, but also the concept of accepting our condition, limitation and STRUGGLE (not passivism) without or with minimum mental complain, not to be a tall strong tree who will got tumble and fell by a strong wind, but to become a grass to follow along every wind/resistance and still prevail. Stoicism is not about to achieve worldly wealth and success with discipline and hard-work (which many have misquoted), but it's to be able to see events and phenomenon with mental clarity and able to see things passed the bullcrap that society try to decorate around it. As Aurelius' stated:
"Like seeing roasted meat and other dishes in front of you and suddenly realizing: This is a dead fish. A dead bird. A dead pig. Or that this noble vintage is grape juice, and the purple robes are sheep wool dyed with shellfish blood. That’s what we need to do all the time—all through our lives when things lay claim to our trust—to lay them bare and see how pointless they are, to strip away the legend that encrusts them."
I think the combination of a reality or belief, that for heterosexual men, your significant others are only interested in you if you're economically stable, goes hand in hand with the idea that women are hypergamous by nature. Hence, if you want to get yourself a woman, you'd better prove your worth materially and get settled. This is also culturally reinforced in Asia by the older generation, who usually advise their daughters to look for a stable life and to look for a man with a good income, a vehicle, and a dwelling. I imagine that these individuals who prefer to "lie flat" just feel too tired to participate in the competition and instead choose to settle and satisfy themselves at the minimum, indulging in more affordable or even free desires.
Instead of trying to climb the social status ladder, working their way up and struggling so they can attract or attain a girl/woman and have a sexually active life, they choose to make themselves content with pornography, still achieving sexual satisfaction. Instead of having enough income and saving for a holiday in exotic places to entertain themselves, they can entertain themselves far more cheaply with Netflix, or even for free by binge-watching YouTube. The idea is that they just want to lie down in their flat and own every moment they have, not doing anything that stresses them out in order to achieve a "better" lifestyle. It's some sort of combination of minimalism and hedonism, which actually sounds like a mild case of hikikomori, in essence it's a form of escapism and rebellion against social pressure.
One thing that has been confusing me lately is the idea that women are hypergamous by nature. Speaking from the perspective of a heterosexual man, I believe I mostly target girls/women who are "out of my league", if that makes any sense. So, the way I view dating is not about trying to elevate myself to the highest tower and then cherry-pick any girl I want below me. I mostly aim for someone that I think I don't "deserve", the better they seem to be, the better it is, and I see lots of men doing pretty much the same. They are aiming for their crush, whom they think is somewhat better than them, not the other way around at least from their perspective (talking about an ideal partner). Unless we're talking about individuals like Mao Zedong or Soekarno, I always think people mostly share a similar perspective to me.
For Stoicism, I understand the frustration how it's often misquoted due to its popularity nowadays, however I don't think that should deprive the school of thought, I think stoicism is based over something that's purely rational in its core it's not all about not to give up control over something that's beyond our control, but also the concept of accepting our condition, limitation and STRUGGLE (not passivism) without or with minimum mental complain, not to be a tall strong tree who will got tumble and fell by a strong wind, but to become a grass to follow along every wind/resistance and still prevail. Stoicism is not about to achieve worldly wealth and success with discipline and hard-work (which many have misquoted), but it's to be able to see events and phenomenon with mental clarity and able to see things passed the bullcrap that society try to decorate around it. As Aurelius' stated:
"Like seeing roasted meat and other dishes in front of you and suddenly realizing: This is a dead fish. A dead bird. A dead pig. Or that this noble vintage is grape juice, and the purple robes are sheep wool dyed with shellfish blood. That’s what we need to do all the time—all through our lives when things lay claim to our trust—to lay them bare and see how pointless they are, to strip away the legend that encrusts them."
Last edited:
