No, I don’t think so. An infant’s first movements are intuitive as far as I can tell. He doesn’t recognize that he can ‘move’, or that he has control of a bodily apparatus beforehand.
And absent any notion of what is to be achieved? What then?
You’ve answered your own question. We tend to treat ‘intent’ as if it were the whole origin, or primary importance, of an act. Motive and intent are two entirely different things, and that distinction is precisely where a majority of misinterpretation takes place. A “causal model” explains very little if you consider that there is no causal mechanism – meaning ‘intent’ is not something wholly predictable or determinate. In fact, I think intent becomes far less significant when we really begin to understand our actions.
And intent is not the ‘cause’ of an action. It is, at best, an approximation of an expected outcome.
The “tragic” part was hyperbole. It was a “joke”. I actually think your assertion is a little ridiculous and unfounded. I agree that social context is important. However, I disagree that any real notion of an “alpha” is at all relevant to modern social contexts. And I don’t think intention is much of what you make it out to be at all.
Why would you come to ILP to challenge the assumption that ILP exists? Do you go to the pool to question the existence of water, or to swim?
In the infant’s case, I agree it is imprudent to posit any pre-meditated intention. My mention of the word “intention” was all related back to philosophy, so infants are somewhat irrelevant in this case. When I said “thought requires intention to think, and intentions depend on environment, including social circumstance”, this was in reference to philosophical thought - as consistent with how I followed up with this: “That is to say your rank correlates with your philosophical outlook and thoughts in general”.
I am not so naïve as to put all action down to intention - as shown by my recognition of things like reflex reactions lacking intention. You could put much infant movement down being to at least very similar to reflex reaction - to excess energy and simple immitation. There is more cognition going on, but you get my point about its seemingly mechanical nature.
There is also exploration and absent-mindedness, yes. Exploration could be intention to explore, though absent-mindedness is unintentional. Going back to my reference to philosophical thought, absent-mindedness is no more applicable to what I meant than infants. Is there such a thing as being accidentally philosophical?
So seeing as philosophical thought requires intentional thought, and intentional thought depends on social environment, it is entirely reasonable to base one’s philosophy on one’s social standing/rank/role.
What is the difference between intent and motive?
And is there a difference between intent and motive in philosophy?
Is motive what drives one to do something, which can be unintentional? At this point I could point out that strictly, intention only implies simple tendency or inclination - which may or may not be pre-meditated or consciously or morally desired. This gives it much more of the same feel as “motive” - though intention is generally used as pre-meditated and conscious as I’ll use it. Moral intentions can differ from what one “really” wants - I think this highlights much of any difference between intent and motive. Someone’s motive might be something they didn’t intend to act upon - in philosophy, someone might not intend to think in accordance with their social rank but that would be their motive for philosophising in the way they do. I would regard this as very poor philosophy, since good philosophy has a solid understanding of what went into such philosophy - otherwise it is not very deep and often very presumptive. So perhaps I should rephrase my 2nd question to “is there a difference between intent and motive in good philosophy?”
You will notice that I said “Most might say the idea or notion causes the action”. Before this I explained how I see causation (as, here, applied to intention): “a word for that which goes on in someone’s mind before they act in a certain way, which is associated with such action”. My view fits in with intent being “an approximation of an expected outcome” - except intention consistently does seem to coincide with action that attempts to satisfy that intention. In order to treat intention on its own, without it coinciding with any corresponding action as normal, one has to intend to keep one’s intentions contained with plenty of frontal cortex action. But normally it is more than just an approximation of an expected outcome.
A mechanism can be approximated, though obviously the human body is proving very complex to model so it’s not as precise as it could be. Intention is neuron firing, giving a picture of the intention (one’s outcome approximation), which also involves firing down the spinal cord and to the relevant muscles, and also activation of the limbic system such that the right chemicals are released for such action. There is stuff that reliably goes on in between the intention and the action. Whilst I am skeptical of the whole “causation” thing, it fits in this case just as well as any other case where the word is used.
I don’t go to the pool to philosophise (well, I probably philosophise everywhere), and I don’t go to ILP to swim. It’s not a good analogy. Of course philosophy can involve challenging the assumption of the existence of anything, even itself. There’s nothing abnormal about coming to ILP to challenge the assumption that it exists - I’m not expecting it to disappear if I conclude that it shouldn’t exist, though I do expect good philosophers to have challenged the existence of anything and everything. It’s a valid philosophical concern to consider at least the way in which philosophy forums exist - what the dynamics are that go into such a social environment - since socio-environmental factors effect every single philosophy that constitutes it.
Btw, did no one notice that Saturd (can’t mention his name lest he looks it up, now!) never came back after that belittling post of mine?
So you’re saying the rules being self-evident are that we can feel emotion/unconscious? Cool. We still look to society to frame it, or else how does it arise consciously? I’m not saying there must be an actual referee, obviously.
It’s way clearer when you look at unconstrained social interaction. I agree.
No. Just because the individual can present a rational, logically based argument to himself about why he has ‘asserted dominance’ or whatever it does not mean that it’s even available - at all - to anyone else. Someone in the audience sees a draw, cause it is a draw.
Case in point: you ever get beat in an argument by laughter? You present some super argument that impresses even you, and then other person farts and everyone laughs. It trumps you. The discussion ends. It doesn’t matter that logically you won cause you didn’t win; the fart one. Same thing. Data didn’t win. No one won.
This is… Wittgenstein, as far as I can tell. Otherwise anyone can be alpha as long as they’re delusional enough to see everything they do as some ‘assertion of dominance.’ Hey man, I didn’t win the game, and he took my girl, and for some reason I shit my pants – but, like, logically if you consider all this stuff, really I asserted more net dominance so technically I won. Hey, guys? Are you listening? Guys, where are you going?
When does affect become intent?
As it becomes conscious - what? By which criteria does an “it” arise?
Intent becomes intention when an outcome is contemplated.
In kung fu one does not hold an intention, but I would say that there is an intent, a wide awake alertness to an opening to deliver (give) a blow (energy), to “act”.
I would say intent to act is prior to the conception of a goal.
Physically strong and fit, creatively expansionistic on the behalf of the group and therefore rewarded with the attentions of the highest ranked women.
It’s hard to think that I made this topic as anything more than a troll to the KT trolls at the time, but no doubt I thought there was truth enough to it as to make something of it. People still respect me as a leading figure now though never in the name of something that I am passionate about, and I’ve completely fallen out of the sexual market place since I made the thread…
I’ve since heard that the whole notion of alpha male was abandoned by the very man who came up with the term - turns out the alpha was just the father or something - yet it still means something to people, or at least resonates with their imaginations…
What then does it mean to people and/or how do they imagine the “alpha” to be? Strong, fit, creatively expansionistic on behalf of the group? Sure. Maybe I would reduce strength to “fitness” in the more broad sense, and “creatively expansionistic” - I would say that both of these are a necessity for more than just “the alpha” for society. It would seem that we accept that there are plural alphas within society, which somewhat diminishes the term, but doesn’t invalidate it I guess. Leaders? “The more attractive”? I think there are better terms than alpha. I probably dismissed those who echoed such sentiments at the time, ha.
In terms of what women seem to want, you seem to value height above all else - willing to compromise on looks and intelligence to a significant degree when it comes to reality and not just a wish-list. Don’t believe me?
Pick A, B or C:
a) 5’10, nice looks, 140 IQ
b) 5’10, hot as fuck, 100 IQ
c) 6’6, nice looks, 100 IQ
If you say A you’re lying for public show or you’re settling for what you can get/don’t know what you’re getting into, you know you wouldn’t have anything more than a fling with B unless you’re equally shallow, but C at worst is rejected because there’s too much competition between you and other females…
surreptitious has listed what guys tend to want in themselves to feel like a man, but it’s amusing how little of his list is actually required to be attractive to a female. Yeah you can be tall and goofy, and get nothing. Yeah not only tall guys get all the female attention, but I know enough guys who’re short who have to seriously make up for that to even get a look-in.
Pseudo-seriously taking this thread again: alpha? Be tall with little more than averageness in other respects.
I would not choose, nor would I have a fling with, any of the above males… better to be content alone, than to make an attempt at it that is doomed to fail… my years of single status is testament to that.
My thinking was that the height looks and intelligence combination… taken as a bare minimum, would be infilled with qualities acquired throughout their life (such as those shared, in surreptitious’ list) up until the point of meeting.
MagsJ would be called a “shoulder girl”, women who look for men who they’re shoulder height to.
The broad picture is that this is a zero sum reality, non consensual at that… this reality itself is evil by nature.
Women objectify more than men do. What’s funny is that 2% of men get almost ALL the female partners in terms of diversity, and then, having sown their wild oats, settle for someone. It’s not that men are hornier than women, it’s that women are more satiated than most men.
What’s funny about women criticizing men who objectify them, is that they cause the problem by only fucking rich dudes who are tall with big dicks.
Rich means the most
Women also only have sex with the three abuses of the species:
1.) proclivity to marry (slave/master mentality)
2.) sexual jealousy (if a woman has sex with another man, she will leave you if you either don’t beat the shit out of her or the man she slept with)
3.) approach escalation: women have said no to all escalations - so any escalation is a no means yes scenario…
This is why men are destroying the ecosystem … because that’s all women consent to sexually
Perhaps Alpha is different things to different women… trait adjustments made, for individual needs… males, having to be able to keep other males at bay, even after pairing.
Metropolises know no loyalty… unlike smaller societies, and even then…
There’s a difference between “alpha male” in the dreams of females (ought) and alpha males in reality (is).
There’s also a difference between what females have come to learn is within their ability to attract. If they can’t attract the most attractive, they adjust their expectations and preferences to avoid cognitive dissonance. If they didn’t, they would all be after a much smaller number of males, with less male attention to their individual offspring than would be possible if females would “settle”, which they do because that works so much better.
There’s what females say they want, and what gets wanted in reality - and I trust the latter and not the former one bit, sorry.
While what you said is mostly correct, that isn’t exactly why men destroy the ecosystem.
Men destroy the ozone mainly because they all know that if they don’t work really hard to impress a woman, they will have a tougher time getting a girl. So they use gasoline instead of wind turbines because, 2 reasons. Wind turbines are weak, and makes them seem soft and caring. And there are women who say they want brutish men who don’t care about the environment. And the women who say they want a man who cares about the environment, they really do care about the environment, but won’t date a man unless he has money. So they use gas to make more money. Then there’s the occasional guy who invents a technology that women date him for his money, and say “Oh he’s such a great guy who cares about the environment.” Meanwhile, someone born later, who didn’t invent the technology, and who cares about the environment, is bullied at school and called gay, women try to ban the bullying and give sympathy, and some women are even willing to put out in highschool when he is young and virile, but once that person becomes an adult, and loses their neoteny, they can’t get laid. And women could care less what’s in that man’s heart. Gravitating to the money. If you can’t follow the cause of something, follow the money. Anyway that kid will grow up to a villain who could care less about the environment, and probably litters for fun just to get back at what is often a zero-sum world.
Agreed. Tallness is not the deciding factor, but rather, the ability to be douchey, and to fit in with a crowd. That, and money.
Again, modern civilization sees another inversion of reality: In nature it is males who stand out who get noticed. But nowadays, its about blending in, following the latest trends, not being too aggressive, and regurgitation. Mainly its about looks, men who look like models get full inboxes. But if they can’t get the looks, then most women will settle for someone they will use for money. And by looks, I mean its kind of like a binary system. Men who look like 10s will get everything, 9 and 8s will get hardly anything, anything below a 7 will get nothing unless they have a big dick or money. And again, its another inversion of reality, feminists claim its men who care about looks the most, but everybody knows horny men will fuck anything, even a tree, as long as it doesn’t look totally ugly. In nature its females who care about looks, and colourful glamourous males get the chicks, but again another inversion of nature colourful glamourous drag queens do it to get the dudes. During the 80’s there was a brief moment where nature wasn’t inverted but that time has long since passed.