Matus1976 - Philosophy, Science, Politics,Art

Philosophy, Art, History, Emotions, LoveSeptember 28, 2008 10:12 pm

"300" Is One of The Greatest Films Ever Made

Frank Miller’s interpretation of the tale of 300 lone Spartan warriors fending off hordes of Persian invaders is hands down one the best films ever made. Though 300 takes some artistic license and contains historical inaccuracies, the purpose of good art is not to teach history but to convey important ideals and themes. 300 is unabashed in its representation of the highest ideals of man, of clear cut good and evil, of right and wrong, and of a heroic defense, to the death, of freedom, justice, and reason. The movie invokes and justifies feelings of empowerment and a renews your idealism, giving you the moral and spiritual fuel for your struggles for the good life by witnessing one of the most spirited defenses of ideals humans have ever accomplished.

Should a sculptor capture the scar on a man’s body or a painter a cold sore on a woman’s mouth? Are these encouragements of humility, professing that mankind is flawed? Or are these dishonest concretizations of temporary flaws into a permanent representation of reality? A beautiful Hellenistic sculpture glorifies all the highest ideals of man; honor, pride, intellect, integrity, and beauty. The broken, disembodied, disheveled forms of modern art are anti-intellectualism, de-humanization, the destruction of ideals and values, brought into permanent physical form.

Art, according to Aristotle, is in it’s best form a representation of man as he ought to be, not as he is. Art, according to Ayn Rand, is the selective concretization of abstractions of the highest ideals of the artist. When someone chooses to capture something, especially an idea or principle, in a permanent form of representation, they are left with the options of how they wish to capture it, and what language they wish to convey the idea in. A modern artist might try to represent a complex idea in an abstract and objectively rational form but when the manifestation in physical form of an idea becomes so disassociated from any rational means to interpret it, it is indifferent from useless Rorschach ink blot tests and is much more an indication of the irrational nature of the thought of the artists, the subjective psychological biases of the viewer (as the French paper Le Monde demonstrated in it’s review of the film "Hostel" when it ranked it as the best American film of that year because they somehow interpreted it as a commentary on American Imperialism, instead of the violent pornographic sadism that it really was) and a thinly veiled abdication of any objective standard in art, than it is an idealized concretization of metaphysical value judgments. Is a spattering of incoherent paint drops on a wall, like any Jackson Pollack painting to be considered "art"? Is a novel of incoherent prose "art", Is a movie with no logical progression, consistency, or plot, like "Lost Highway" art? Is a novel encompassing an entire day of nothing like James Joyce’s "Ulysses" art? These things, lacking barely any objective distinction from randomness, or being glorifications of nothingness, are not art, even though they may hang on walls or have leather bindings, to consider these art, is to take any useful distinguishing character of art away from the word and idea. Readers may disagree on what Aristotle and Ayn Rand considered Art to be, but any definition if held consistently which includes meaningless intellectual vomit indistinguishable from randomness, does indeed renders the concept of art without value.

The proper form of art in a philosophy based on reason, reality, and life as an ethical standard is one that encourages a life based on reason, which can be tangibly connected in a meaningful manner to the reality of the witness to the art, and which advocates and promulgates a ethical system which holds life as it’s standard. Such art must be objectively understandable, but the setting, context, historical accuracy, etc are completely irrelevant to the conveyance of the message. Art is a selective recreation of elements which pertain in and understandable manner to the issues we deal with in reality, based, as Rand, suggested on the artist’s metaphysical value judgments. Art is not a literal recreation of reality (cold sores, bunions, societal flaws and all) but instead is a recreation of the critical elements of reality required for conceptual conveying a message or theme.

Consider then, what great art is, and understand that "300" is probably the greatest concretization of human ideals in visual media ever created. "300" is not a historical documentary and contains technical inaccuracies from the way the Spartan’s fought to the nature and makeup of Spartan society. But if you want a documentary, turn to the History Channel. This movie is absolutely NOT a historical documentary and to dislike it because it is not historically accurate is to assert that all art must be nothing more than accurate retelling of historical accounts. Yet we do not belittle the great works of Shakespeare because they contain linguistic anachronisms or the great epics of Ancient Greece because they contained gods and monsters. "300" is a moral epic told against a historical backdrop, containing real historical figures but representing them as profound human beings we can all look up to and admire, in situations and stories indeed conceptually similar to the factual historical reality. Stories that serve to inspire and encourage us to weather difficult storms, persevere against obstacles blocking our goals, and continue to fight; not because we might win and not because it is our duty, but because it is being true to our own ideals in defense of our deepest values, that these are things ought to do because it is right.

In classical Greek fashion, Frank Miller was not presenting Sparta (and man) as he is or was, but as he *ought* to be; physically perfect, morally absolute, passionate and intelligent, emotive and rational. When facing the Persian emissaries, King Leonidas does not call for negotiations and capitulations, he does not negotiate with his would be murderers, he kicks them into a well. When debating what to do against the coming Persian onslaught, Leonides abandons the advice of the corrupt mystics and gathers a volunteer force to face the Persian hordes. When faced with the corrupting offer of riches and rule over the entire Hellenistic empire, Leonides, facing certain death, declines, opting to fight in defense of his ideals instead of giving up what he values most to perpetuate his mere mechanical existence, a life which would then be of self torture as demonstrated when he condemns the Spartan Ephialtas who betrayed Leonidas and the 300 to the Persians to “a very long life". Facing absolute certain death, Leonidas and his mean nevertheless stay on and fight, knowing that delaying the Persians at Thermopylae would allow time for the rest of the Spartan army to join with other Greek city states and ultimately repel the Persian invasion - a battle which some historians rank as the most important battle in all of history.

"300" also un-apologetically and flagrantly disregards the false dichotomy between reason and passion. King Leonidas is no barbarian robot, but a passionate lover to his wife, and passionate fighter for justice. He respects and cherishes his wife, who is as morally strong as he, and he fights and dies for her freedom, not wishing to see her condemned to a life of slavery, while she fights to save his life.

When ordered not to fight by the superstitious religious elders, Leonidas disregards their feelings and edicts and mounts a strategic defense of a critical area of Greece, ultimately saving every thing and everyone he values. The coming of this movie reminds me of the context of Star Wars in the late 70’s. Where movies had disco sound tracks and nihilistic themes, coming out of the 70’s Vietnam protest and moral relativism era, Star Wars came along to tell an inspirational and uplifting grand heroic moral epic with a classical and powerfully emotive sound track. Today in our sea of moral relativism and ‘flawed’ heroes (consider the plethora of movies that actually glorify villains, like ‘Natural Born Killers’, mock heroes, like "True Lies" and "Die Hard", or celebrate violent death and torture, like "Saw" and "Hostel" ) "300" comes along to tell a powerful inspiring tale of moral absolutism and heroism. I can not recall the last time I heard people cheer at a movie, and it wasn’t just the style of the movie, it’s the message as well, presented in a good style, that resonates strongly with people. I for one find myself filled with a little more hope for America since a movie like this did so well in the box office. This movie appeals to our innermost capacity for idealism and invokes feelings of empowerment and justifies them. It brings us moral and spiritual fuel for the struggles for a good life we undertake.

Because of all these virtues, "300" has caused quite the firestorms of criticism. Most of them center around the historical inaccuracies in the film, focusing on petty details, such as the armor the Spartans wore and the methods they used to fight, while ignoring glaringly obvious historical inaccuracies, like Xerxes being 14′ tall and having a henchman with bone saw arms, neither of which had any remotely possible intention of being interpreted as a historical accuracy. These critics ignore these things and focus on petty details in an attempt to undermine the moral tale of the story. Yet nobody cries that Homer’s "Iliad" is a historical falsehood, because it is not meant to be a documentary, it is meant to represent the highest ideals of ancient Greek civilization. Nobody attacks Shakespeare for his inaccuracies in Julius Ceaser, nobody derides "Beowulf" because Grendel was not real. Nobody attempts to argue that Dante’s "The Inferno" is worthless because the hero travels into the fictional Hades. The great works of literature last not because they are historically accurate, they rarely if ever are, but usually because they convey great human moral truths in a powerful story and in a manner which people can objectively connect with. Likewise “300" is not a documentary, so critics attacking it’s historical inaccuracies (especially in a time where historical accuracies are difficult to ascertain anyway) are simply trying to make a name for themselves by attacking something better than they are ever capable of.

Many other criticism lay around attacks on the Spartan way of life in general. Critics will say that the real Spartans were mystical and collectivist. They might ask, why not play this movie in Nazi Germany and see all the Storm Troopers yell in delight with the same reaction and inspired Americans do? (Obfuscating of course the ideals which invoke the reaction with the physical reactions themselves, as if rallying in the name of freedom is the same things as rallying in the name of murderous tyranny merely because in both cases one is ‘rallying’) Sparta, they will say, had slavery, was a heavily collectivist society, treated it’s women poorly, etc. In all these cases they completely ignore the context surrounding Sparta and the context of the Ancient world. It was a world where EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING WHO EXISTED was a slave, and where most societies did not even have a WORD for Freedom. Only the world of Ancient Greece even had a word for freedom (eluethera) to differentiate a kind of existence from slavery, and had portions of their populations, large or small, identified as free men. Every Ancient Civilization had slavery, ONLY ANCIENT GREECE had freedom, and yes even Sparta had free men. Only Ancient Greece had the idea of Freedom and the ability for men to achieve it.

They might argue that one could represent the heroic soldiers of Nazi Germany in the same manner. But heroism in the name of murderous ideals is merely savage brutality, Nazism advocated forced nationalist servitude in a time where half the world had decent (though flawed) systems which were based on freedom, where every culture had the concept and words for Freedom, and Nazi Germany actively crushed this. The context of Nazi Germany was totalitarianism rising in a sea of Freedom and Liberal Democracy. Nazism was a step backward in a world of freedom, Spartan and Greek civilizations were a step forward in a world of totalitarian enslavement. This film emphasized the only bastion of freedom in an entire world of slavery, indeed, they were the first steps forward toward Freedom in a march which still continues to this day. If you were to make a movie glorifying extreme nationalism and dictatorial rule, Nazi Germany is an optimal setting because it contrasts the concept of freedom embraced by much of the world, if you are making a movie defending and glorifying freedom and reason, Ancient Greece is an excellent setting as it contrasts the prevalence of slavery and tyranny which dominated every other ancient civilization.

The very concept of "freedom" had to originate somewhere for it to develop into it’s modern form. Yes Sparta also had slaves, no not all Spartans were free. But let us not forget that women in the US did not get the right to vote until the 20’s and black men until after the civil war. Give the ancient Hellenes a break as the rest of the world would not even match their limited gains toward freedom for nearly 2,000 years. Would we chide a movie about the bravery of Union soldiers in the American Civil War by saying "well women couldn’t vote"? No, every salient step toward freedom should be celebrated, and the Ancient Greek city states steps took the first and most important steps in that direction, and at the battle of Thermopylae and in the greater context of the Persian wars, would come face to face with the greatest threat that ideal would ever encounter in a victory whose repercussions resonate throughout the world for thousands of years.

My only major complaint with 300 was that the Spartan 300 did not in fact stay and fight out of duty, as was depicted in the film, but in fact stayed and fought, even knowing it would bring their deaths, to give their land the vital time necessary to collect an army to defend the city states of Greece. Though this is a historical inaccuracy, I cite it because the accurate story was thematically much more powerful. Leonidas appealed to the Spartan honor code of never surrendering in the movie, yet it was in fact this very event which founded the Spartan tradition of never surrendering.

Also, as Leonidas left his wife for the final time, the narration insisted that the Spartan code did not allow the expression of love or regret at this moment, as it would have been a sign of ‘weakness’. This, to me, deviated from the intense passion and love of values that Leonidas showed at all other times with his wife and the Spartans embraced. A minor complaint, but it was out of place with the character the Miller had established with Leonidas.

Additionally, Frank Miller appears to feel that true heroism is sacrificing ones life in the name of a higher ideal. Sacrificing ones own life for a higher ideal, for something that is more important to someone than their life, is noble and just, but only when it is the last and necessary course of action. Fighting for ones highest ideals, perpetually and indefinitely through the whole course of one’s life, is far more difficult and far more admirable. Dying in the name of a cause, many people think, is the highest and most noble sacrifice, but in reality it is a fleeting moment and temporary decision made permanent, Living for a cause and fighting perpetually for it is far more noble, far more difficult, and far more rational.

This film is not about the Greeks versus the Persians, nor is it a historical docudrama, these are only the setting where a theme is played out. Good stories transcend the backdrop they are performed on and speak to people of all eras because they speak to an important ideal. The theme of this movie, the message it was conveying, the ideals it’s characters were embracing and fighting for, was not in defense of mysticism and slavery, but was in defense of individuals fighting to their last breath for their highest ideals, but not just any ideals, specifically the ideals of reason and freedom. The theme is of these brave men (brave because courage in the name of evil ideals is not courage, but savagery) fighting against the brutal enslavement of them and the people they care for at the hands of a murderous tyrant.

Like great historical fictional figures of Antigone and Hector, like the true to life historical figures of Cicero and Cato, and Raul Wallenberg of the modern era, and countless others who refused to capitulate and turn in their loved ones or loved way of life and died because of it at the hands of murderous thugs, the theme is of these valiant people standing up for and defending what they know is right and just in the face of the most brutal forms of oppression and savagery. It is a theme not only of moral courage but also of perseverance and overwhelming tenacity, of struggling through the most tremendous odds for what you know to be right, even if you face death along the way.

For the purpose of life is not to perpetuate the mere mechanical structure of our existence, it is to perpetuate not just life but a particular kind of life, an Aristotealan Eudaimonic life, a life of productive and intellectual growth, a life of goals and challenges, a vibrant life of learning and experiencing new ideas, new cultures, a life where your highest values, the health and well being of yourself and your loved ones and the growth you pursue, are passionately identified and defended at all costs, and are never surrendered and never abandoned. Where your passion and your goals drive your life and your friends and lovers are fellow travelers in your journey.

When you struggle at pursuing your goals and values, think of Leonidas and the brave 300, fighting for days on end through piles of bodies, the Persian hordes in front of them and their wives and children in the cities behind them. Know you have it in you to push yourself that much harder in pursuit of your goals and ideals. But be sure your goals are sound and ideals are good, fancy clothes and big houses do not necessarily make a good life, and pursuit of the irrational may actually damage the things you do value. When you are exhausted and battered, think of the 300 Spartans facing millions of Persians, fighting for freedom and justice and reason, think of their courage and tenacity and find strength in yourself that they as fellow humans found and that you know you have in you. Always fight for your ideals and the things you value in homage to Leonidas and the 300 and your own highest potential. This is one of the greatest movies ever made, see it, enjoy it, feel it, love it.

300 (Widescreen Edition)

Philosophy, Emotions, LoveSeptember 4, 2008 3:09 am

Newsweek ran an interesting article recently

“Why Young Men Delay Adulthood to Stay in Guyland”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/156372/page/2

What this article identifies and attacks is the cultural celebration of masculine immaturity.  The celebration of this aversion to responsibility in men can easily be seen in men living their college party years far into adulthood, or mooching off their parents well into their 30’s, whose mothers keep track of their checkbooks and pay their car insurance.  Men well into their 20’s or 30’s who do nothing but party and play video games, who do not conceive of looking beyond the expediency of the moment and who subsequently can not pursue long term goals.

Some notes from this article particularly astounded me

- To turn on television or see a movie is to find a smorgasbord of regressive adventures for the single man of every stripe. Movies like "Pineapple Express," Judd Apatow’s latest celebration of beta male bonding; TV shows like HBO’s hypermasculine pal party "Entourage," and beer commercials like Miller Lite’s "Man Laws" ads make delayed adulthood seem like a lark—roguish, fun and, most of all, normal.


- According to a study released last month by the Parents Television Council, prime-time broadcast audiences are three times more likely to hear about people having sex with pets, corpses or two other people simultaneously than they are to see a blissed-out married couple between the sheets…"Today’s prime-time television," the PTC concludes, "seems to be actively seeking to undermine marriage by consistently painting it in a negative light."

These particular examples relate to my previous post “Your Philosophy and Your Culture.”  Here we see a philosophical attitude creeping into the mainstream cultural manifestations of male adulthood.  Sex, all of our media shouts to us, is not something a loving husband shares in intimacy with his wife, but is something you chase after perpetually with as many different partners as possible.  Life is not the long term pursuit or a continual salient progression of rationally identified goals but is merely the means by which one parties and is entertained.  To choose to engage in an intimate monogamous relationship is not the long term rational choice bringing you to a more fulfilling life, but a sellout of ones soul and psychological impediment on the pleasurable life style.  To pursue a promising career is not recognition of the tasks necessary to live a fulfilling life, but selling out to the man of corporate boredom and monotony.

I feel the fashion trends of uncombed hair, pre torn and faded clothing, to be manifestations of this as well.  I doubt we will ever see a mainstream idea of women being ‘dressed up’ to be something which includes hair artfully styled to look like it is not styled at all, or wearing pre-torn, pre-faded, and pre-stained ‘new’ jeans.  I’m always inclined to laugh when I see a ‘dressed up’ man with disheveled hair and torn $100 jeans next to his dressed up girlfriend, who looks stunning.

Almost unbelievably, the article states this

- Almost 20 percent of college guys said they would commit rape if they knew they wouldn’t be caught


If true, an absolutely stunning manifestation of the pejorative morality being integrated into college men, which teaches that it is ok to do something as long as you can get away with it, and that other humans are not ends of their own, but merely means in order for you to achieve your goals, even when they are limited to the short range hedonistic moment.

- College guys believe that 80 percent of their friends are getting laid each weekend, says Kimmel, whose survey of 13,000 kids, mostly 18 to 22 years old, puts the actual figure at closer to 10 percent.


Here we have an almost religious faith based concoction.  There is a garden of eden out here, where the best man, characterized by the most skillful partier and seducer, can have a different woman nearly any time he desires.  That this life is not characterized by a hollow ringing shallowness that comes from having no objective sense of self worth, but is instead is full of a brilliant egoistic ladies men.  But men can only fool themselves for so long before the shallow truth shines through, as we see in this next quote.

- But on their own and without their liquid courage, there is also isolation and discontent. A 28-year-old Emory graduate, who declined to be named for fear of ridicule, talked of feeling ashamed of his life, which has led to countless conquests but not the literary success he’d hoped for; he’s living at home in New Jersey and working at a hotel front desk in the meantime. Another guy, 26, an Arizona State alum who lives in Tempe, is a coupon-book salesman, but clearly self-conscious: he carries fake business cards touting him as an MTV entertainment executive


Absolutely pathetic!

The hedonistic pleasure for it’s own sake life, full of parties, sex, and drugged euphoria’s, is characterized, more than any other lifestyle, by the economists concept of the “diminishing margin of utility”  What this fancy term means is that the more you do the same thing over and over again, the less value you derive from it.  Ultimately, if you do it too much, you are merely swimming against a current stronger than you.  Expending all your energy but moving nowhere, or even backwards.  Diminishing marginal utility, if left unchecked, leads to disutiliuty.  The perpetual conquest of video games, women, and consciousness, leave a man nowhere to go but downhill.  Each successive conquest is less meaningful than the previous ultimately spiraling into an unfulfilled unhappy confusing mess.

By contrast, the value based goal orientated productive life, Aristotlean Eudaemonism, is the only life characterized by a perpetual increasing margin of utility.  Our goals must be rational, and achieving them leaves us with an objective standard of our ego, we feel confident that we can face the world, and succeed in it, not by manipulating other men, which is in essence living parasitically off of them, but by engaging in voluntary beneficial trade for every other man, and wanting what is best for each person for their own sake, as they do for you.  Our goals must be productive, our lives should be full of intellectual, physical, and emotional stimulation and challenges, not the parasitic conquest of women, but the conquest of nature, the vagaries of existence, and responsibilities and challenges of consciousness.

On Happiness, the article states:

- A raft of recent studies suggest that married men are happier, more sexually satisfied and less likely to end up in the emergency room than their unmarried counterparts. They also earn more, are promoted ahead of their single counterparts and are more likely to own a home.


Psychology shows us that happiness doesn’t just come from the achievement of values, but the non-contradictory fulfillment of rational life affirming values.   Why non-contradictory?  Because finding fulfillment at achieving a value which blatantly contradicts another value can create only a muddled confusion between joy and sadness.  Hedonism is a celebration of pleasure for it’s own sake, whether a drug induced euphoria or a sexual binge.  Pleasure, psychologically, is the joy we receive from achieving something we value.  The more meaningless our values, the more hedonistic pleasure is possible, and so we have people with a psychological motivation to derive as much pleasure as possible with as little effort as possible.  It is not WHY something brings you pleasure that we concern ourselves with, but only that it does, and anything that does must be pursued.

Thus we are led to a culture which idealizes sex, partying, the evasion of responsibility, the pejorative Machiavellian manipulation of individuals.  You might rightly call this attitude, the of celebrating masculine immaturity, as the “Peter Pan culture” or, as one of the most interesting blogs I’ve found on it refers to it as “Pyschological Neotony” [http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/search/label/Psychological%20neoteny]  which is this psychological state that comes from a parental shielding of children from challenges in life, from the things that might hurt their feelings, and from deliberately avoiding challenges and growth in life.  This parent usually does not prepare their child to live a life on their own, but instead shields them from all the difficulties of life, leaving a child psychologically crippled with they face their first real challenge.   

Lest you paint me an advocate of traditionalized marriage, let me espouse my major qualifier.  As most well know, about half of all marriages end in divorce.  Of the remaining half, it’s safe to say a large portion of those (my guess will again be half) are bad enough to warrant a divorce but one or both members are too afraid, cowardly, abused, or confused to seek one.  Of the remaining quarter, half of those are probably merely mediocre, stifled and without passion, with partners just going through the motions.  Of the now remaining eighth, let me suppose that half of those are ok, or even pretty decent by most standards.  To determine these real numbers a detailed philosophical and psychological study would be required, in lieu of such a large study my educated guesses will have to suffice for the purpose of this article.  That leaves us with about 1/16th of marriages being fulfilling, happy, perpetually positive, and even encompassing a increasing marginal utility, to use that economics terminology.  Another term might be capitalizing on the growth of the compound interest of mutual admiration, respect, and quality interactions can provide.

My guess is that only 1/16th of marriages are good?  Well, the outlook is not so gloomy, the reason why so many are so poor is because so few people hold their partners up to any significant standards.  They associate love as a mystical quality or an emotion of duty, feeling obliged to love someone because that is what they are supposed to do, promised themselves they would do, or have been convinced by society to do.  But the rational integration of a few core values, and an objective estimation of one’s self and one’s partner, coupled with a mutual ideal of striving for a fulfilling relationship together, can do marvelous wonders for a marriage.  It is the fact that so many people put up with poor behavior that so many people perpetually get away with it.  When we are taught that love is unconditional, the abusers and thieves receive as much love as the honest hardworking compassionate respectful partner.  When we abandon our standards for love, it is those who are least deserving of it that benefit the most, and those who are most deserving that are hurt by it.

Imagine the life of the Peter Pan man as he attempts to convince a seemingly virtuous girl of his worthiness as a partner, that sleeping with him will give her an elevated sense of self esteem.  And by her surrendering to him, his self esteem is superficially boosted as well.  The worth of this interaction is the doubt, the ‘challenge’, the control, and the conquest.  Repeated affairs with the same person are of no value, the chase and conquest are over.  The short term elevated sense of self comes only from the conquest, not from the tribute that such an act represents.  Now imagine this situation removed of all pretenses.  The woman says to the man that she is his, he has won her, perpetually.  She will sleep with him at any time.  She likes him as he is; there is no race, no challenge, no competition, but only the naked and explicit recognition of self worth.  At first, the man will derive value from sex with this woman, it still holds the potential of a conquest and challenge.  But as the sincerity becomes more obvious, the source of their spiritual fuel for their ego is put in doubt, and the sexual act is robbed of the stolen value and relegated to a mere physical hedonistic act.  Ultimately, the man would stop sleeping with this woman, because he’s all ready got her, he already conquered her, and so gained his short term ego boost.  Sex to him is not a celebration of self worth, existence, and admiration and respect for his partner, as it is for her.  It is little more than a Machiavellian power struggle sometimes topped with an orgasm.

Conversely, consider two partners who have a deep respect and admiration for each, even through their non-essential faults, and who both strive to be the best person possible, who embody to a significant degree the core values of each other.  When sexual they will be celebrating their own ego, celebrating their own self worth, celebrating their love for existence and paying the greatest homage they can to the person most important to them.  They both continue to grow and change, in a positive direction, and with each other.  These are the people who find fulfillment and lifelong love.

A person can not have a thousand best friends, both logistics and psychology prevent it.  Similarly, he can not have 10 loving partners that he shares the deepest of intimate connections with.  The depth and strength of an intimate connection is inversely proportional to the number of people one tries to have that connection with and directly proportional to the quality and length of time of interactions with the few individuals they choose to wholly devote their intimacy with.

It’s not just that marriages generally produce happier people, who live longer lives, who are less stressed.  A bad marriage can sabotage all of those, it’s important not to confuse the average with the particular.  The point is that that a good marriage can be all of those things, but can also ultimately produce the most fulfilling life possible to us, forged on the most profound intimacy once can share with another human being built up over time with the best match possible and sharing the best quality interactions possible.

On this, the author sums up nicely

- “Guyland is not without its charms, but it pales next to what I have known with my wife over the past three years.”


The Peter Pan syndrome is a radical confusion on the nature of happiness and fulfillment.  It’s hedonistic pleasure sought for it’s own sake, not pleasure or joy which comes from the achievement of values, nor joy which comes from explicitly identifying the most fulfilling life possible characterized by always striving for ones best. It is the deliberate avoidance of values, the deliberate avoidance of real challenges in life, and subsequently creates a real absence of self esteem and fulfillment.  It psychologically cripples men, turning them from potential productive rational beings into sniveling children full of deluded senses of self and unable to cope with the real world.