The Enlightenment Is Over

I have observed that sluts tend to behave like psychopaths.  I have an explanation for this which goes as follows:  Female promiscuity lowers oxytocin levels.  Oxytocin promotes activity in the amygdala in the brain.  Since sluts have low levels of oxytocin, their amygdala functions at a low level.  This is exactly the problem that causes psychopathy, since the amygdala is responsible for sympathy and morality.  And this is why sluts behave like psychopaths.

What I have stated is an unproven theory, in other words nothing more than a hypothesis or conjecture.  This is how all theories start.  The next step is to gather data to either verify or disprove the theory.  I have attempted to do this as I usually do by searching for relevant data on the web.  But I found nothing on the relationship between female promiscuity and oxytocin.  By nothing, I mean no data.  I found plenty of opinions on both sides of the question but no one bothered to actually get the facts.  I find this horrifying, particularly because the question has obviously been raised and the facts are easy to obtain by any research scientist interested in the question.

My view is obviously highly politically incorrect (as virtually all my views are).  So now I try to think, why isn't the data that I want available?  I can think of only two explanations.  One is that the research was done and that the results were too politically incorrect to be published.  The other is that the research was never done because the question itself is too politically incorrect to be asked.  Either way, the only broad explanation is that politically correctness prevents the truth of this matter from being found.

Unlike members of modern culture (the Left), I am not going to claim that my theory is correct just because it makes sense to me.  I believe in the scientific method.  I believe a statement should not be accepted as truth until it has objective data to back it up.  Most members of modern culture would write off my theory as being absurd simply because it conflicts with their world view and because modern culture is extremely closed-minded.  So in my defense, I will briefly explain why it is perfectly reasonable to guess that promiscuity lowers oxytocin levels in women.  It is well known that oxytocin is the pair-bonding hormone for female mammals (but not male mammals).  It is also known that premarital promiscuity in women directly correlates with divorce risk.  Since divorce is failed bonding, and since bonding is governed in women by oxytocin, I think it is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that female promiscuity lowers oxytocin levels.  But it appears that I will never know for sure whether this is true.

In researching this question and failing to find an answer, I reached a conclusion very different from my original topic.  This conclusion is that the Enlightenment is over.  The fundamental idea of the Enlightenment was to use reason to arrive at objective truth.  In my opinion, the Enlightenment both depended on religion, particularly the Reformation, and undermined religion.  In other words, the Enlightenment undermined the very thing that it depended on, and so it was doomed from the start.  The demise of the Enlightenment took time and finally ended around the year 2000, so the Enlightenment lasted about 300 years.

In order to objectively search for truth, one must place external facts above one's own opinion.  Such an approach requires humility.  Without humility, one will always rationalize away facts to protect one's cherished opinions.  The scientific method is itself an extreme expression of humility, requiring that all scientific theories provide an experimental procedure to falsify the theory, and that the theory be experimentally tested independently by several people before even being considered possibly valid.  (See The Logic of Scientific Discovery.)

The problem with this is that humility is not natural for people, particularly for people in power.  And without humility, there can be no advancement in objective knowledge.  So we should ask what is the source of humility?  There is only one answer that I know of, and that is religion.  Religion teaches us to respect something greater than ourselves.  In modern Western religions, that something is God.  But whatever it is, the important thing is to recognize something sacred and above humanity.  As long as God (or the gods) is recognized as above humanity, people learn humility.  But when people place themselves on the level of God, humility is lost.  So religion only works when religion restricts what is sacred to non-human things like God or nature.  When human institutions become sacred, and people thereby compete with God, humility is lost, and so scientific advancement becomes impossible.

Now we can understand the Enlightenment.  Before the Reformation, the Catholic Church (and also the Eastern Orthodox Church) was sacred and competed with God.  This caused the Pope and those at the top of the Church to lose humility.  And so they rejected objective truth in favor of their preferred views, and called all those who disagreed with their views heretics.  Galileo is a well known example of someone who suffered the consequences of this.  The Reformation changed all this by rejecting the Catholic Church and rejecting the idea that a human institution can be sacred.  By insisting that humanity should be humble before God, the Reformation made possible the Enlightenment which insisted that humanity should be humble before objective truth.

But unfortunately Christianity's dependence on faith came into conflict with the Enlightenment's demand for reason.  And so the Enlightenment undermined Christian faith.  As religion faded, humility faded.  Culture became arrogant.  And this arrogance has produced our modern culture which places personal opinion over objective facts.  Our current modern culture, which is basically a Leftist culture, teaches people to be selfish and to ridicule all those who don't hold popular views.  Such a culture is easily manipulated by those in power to suppress views that threaten their power.  The result is a situation remarkably similar to the Catholic Church before the Reformation.  Today, anyone who holds politically incorrect views is treated by the establishment the way the Catholic Church treated heretics in the Middle Ages.  Today there is no tolerance for differing views because tolerance requires humility, and humility requires religion, and we have no serious religion anymore.  And this is why the Enlightenment is over and why I can't find the answer to the question I posed at the beginning of this article.

Interesting theory (and hello, by the way, nice to be here :).  I would agree with you that sluts share some characteristics with psychopaths but I would stress that most of us don't really know what a psychopath is.  We generally refer to it as people who lack the ability to feel empathy for others.  The more clinical term I think is "sociopath." It's true that sluts tend to lack empathy although they don't necessarily lack in all forms of empathy.  Having worked in the public defender's office and lived in the ghetto, I know what a real psychopath is and they can't really be generalized due to being too monstrous.

At the same time, it's true that the brain builds up resistances to many happy/friendly chemicals related to emotional responses.  This is why relationships predicated only upon emotion don't last etc.  Someone who perpetually releases these feelings would in theory become desensitized to them while a person who releases them less often feels them more strongly when they do release them.

More generally and not-physically, the modern slut often lacks a form of empathy for herself.  Often she has no intention to have children or reproduce which is obviously harmful in a way.  This is sort of the female version of the playboy male who is terrified of the thought of having kids.  The slut tends to idolize such men and seeks to emulate them although it has a worse effect on the female of course than it does upon the male.

---

Also, interesting argument about the enlightenment being over.  A possible weakness (in a way) I see here is that people from the left have no interest in admitting that it could be over.  They view themselves as "enlightened" and as the natural heirs of enlightenment thought.  I totally agree with you that humility and caution is a requirement and that they reject such things along with rejecting religion.  So, it probably is over (whatever it was ;) but I don't think anyone who likes enlightenment thought would be willing to admit that it's over.

IMHO, the enlightenment was probably over the second Napoleon went off the deep end and decided he was Emperor of Democratic France.  From that moment on liberalism went from being a potentially useful philosophical mechanism to being a form of totalitarianism that can't see itself in the mirror.

Welcome to our forum, Hax Templar.  It sounds like we almost completely agree.

I am someone who likes enlightenment, and obviously I consider it over.  Most people on the left have never actually read any original writing from the Enlightenment, so they don't know what it really is, they just like the sound of it.

The French Revolution was the beginning of the end of the Enlightenment, but not really the end in my view.  Historians seem to agree with you that the French Revolution was the end, but I think the entire period from the early 1600s to the late 1900s was basically the same culture in the West, which is now over.

I have wondered about this myself.  Sluts certainly do act psychopathic. I have no desire to debate the differences between sociopathy and psychopathy (and narcissism, as these 'disorders' are frequently discussed as stemming from the same place).

But if women have frequent oxytocin (and other pair bonding hormonal dumps) going on in their brains and the results of this are being circumnavigated what effects could this have on these women?  For almost all of our history sex leads to childbirth. Hence pair bonding is a part of sex. By engaging in frequent sex that does not lead to children or to pair bonding is it wrong to assume that these women will have some sort of evolved mechanism where they lose the ability to pair bond at all?

The only women who were getting fucked and chucked throughout our evolution are prostitutes and slaves.  I can't see any benefit for prostitutes or slaves to pair bond to their johns or masters.  So the act of sluttery certainly does appear to have severe long term consequences for the sluts.

Perhaps epigenetically their very DNA is being altered as they are "butt-hexed", to quote a manosphere poster.

And we send our daughters off to universities now that are basically nothing but indoctrination centers into leftist thinking and slut training academies.

Though a woman's world will always be very self centered due to her investment in pregnancy while a man's will be centered outward.  So perhaps some of what I would call female psychopathy is simply their natural self-centered state.