Aristotle and AFCdom: What would this famous philosopher say about AFC's

[narcissist]

Okay I am writing this out because I have a greek philosophy exam tomorrow and I believe that this will be a cathartic/efficient way of venting my philosophical knowledge that I have to retain.

Aristotle's Rationality and Happiness Principle:

Aristotle says that we have desires and that we act always towards these desires because actions always have a purpose or goal (goal being our desires). He says we pursue three different types of actions

1) pursuits that are chosen only as a means - example - acquiring wealth

we act towards acquiring wealth so that we may use it as a means such as buying stuff

2) pursuits that are chosen as a means AND an end - working out

we work out because working out acts as a means to a more fit body AND and end in that working out is satisfying in itself

3) pursuits chosen as ONLY an end - happiness

Aristotle says that pursuits that are chosen for their own sake and nothing else are the SUPREME pursuits. This is because every other pursuit is SUBORDINATE to this highest supreme pursuit.

He says that there is only ONE thing that is chosen as an end in itself and that is HAPPINESS

Well this begs the question. How do we achieve happiness?

he asks sensual? - do we achieve happiness from having s3x? from eating delicious food? from doing drugs? he thinks no. Because this is merely animalistic pursuits, that humans must have a higher pursuit than that.

He asks honour and stuff of this kind? well we want honour for the recognition of goodness so we use this as a means as well! so he thinks not.

He thinks rationality is the only thing that can bring us happiness because it is humanity's distinct function, which distinguishes us from animal and other sentient beings. Therefore the supreme good (happiness) should be an activity of the rational "soul."

We have two parts to rationality

1) that which exercises it

2) that which obeys it

if your rational faculties are not in concordance - you dont obey what you know to be rational actions - then you can never be happy.

How it applies to the pursuit of women and AFCdom

If we don't obey our rationality we WILL NOT BE HAPPY.

So clearly this site has a sh*t load of rational conclusions about how to attain women (such as inner confidence) and also explains a sh*t load of AFC behaviour that is irrational in the attainment of women (such as being needy)! This is clearly why when one is an AFC they are UNHAPPY, because they are going against their rational faculties that state that such behaviour is not reasonably sound.

It is our moral duty to ourselves, Aristotle thinks, that we must be rational beings. Therefore, you are commiting a morally impermissible act to your own rational being by assuming AFCness, because it is clearly irrational behaviour, considering you are using it as a means to an end - end being sleeping with women. And the reason why it is irrational is because it DOESNT WORK. You are rationally considering the actions that will allow you to get women but you are not obeying those tenants (all the sh*t that the DJ bible promotes). This is a lack of concordance between the two rational faculties you occupy. 1) you know you must follow the DJ bible but 2) you dont obey it and continue with AFC behaviour


So according to Aristotle you are pursuing your own unhappiness by being AFC.

 

[SeymourCake]

Aristotle was all about moderation. You can't fall into one end of the extreme of polarity or else you will be a lower form of a beastly animal by making vices your habits and neither should you fall into the other end of the extreme which will make you godly, hence being out of touch of reality by living a life full of extreme virtues.

I could be wrong though. I haven't taken a philosophy class in a while. Nevertheless, this is a good thread. +1

http://i.imgur.com/tYaYrEo.jpg

 

[narcissist]

^ no you are absolutely right. The golden mean!

Basically to be virtuous he says that you must fall between excessive and deficient. He puts out this theory in his nichomachean ethics.

Take courage for example. It is not virtuous to be timid, and fearful clearly! But it would lack virtue to be completely rash and run into a burning fire to save a pet hamster. He says fall in between rash and shy and you are courageous.

So not only do we have to be rational. But we have to exhibit virtuousness and do both of these things with excellence. Its a training of rational virtue.

But this also applies to women as well.

We must train ourselves to not be deficient by being AFC, because that would not be virtuous in the art of seduction. But we must also not attempt to run around like RSDjulien and grab asian girl's heads and put them to our crotch. We must find a balance between shy and excessively narcissistic. We must find a balance between no kino and borderline assualt. We must find a balance between timid and arrogant.

If we can find the mean between the extremes I think we will be efficient in the art of pickup.

 

[SeymourCake]

Fun fact: Nicomachean was the name of his son and "Nicomachean Ethics" was a book solely dedicated to his son.

 

[narcissist]

Fun fact: Nicomachean was the name of his son and "Nicomachean Ethics" was a book solely dedicated to his son.

also the name of his father well nichomachus