I’m writing a series on Red Pill’s worldview using Taves and Asprem’s (2018) definition of worldview as the answer to the 5 big questions of philosophy - ontology, epistemology, axiology, praxeology and cosmology.
I was hoping to get feedback and opinions from people well-versed in philosophy, psychology, especially from an Integral perspective. I haven’t mentioned Integral Theory explicitly yet, although many of the things I cover are pointing that way.
I’ve already covered Red Pill’s ontology, but you don’t need to watch that to understand this essay where I tackle their epistemology. Here’s an excerpt:
“If you remove every other indication of a woman’s interest other than her compliance to your demands, then all you’ve come to measure is whether or not she complies, rather than why she complies. It ceases to be a good measure of anything other than compliance. Unfortunately, Red Pill can’t see that. With a radical behaviourism in which controlling the frame is the only measure of a successful relationship, and with a post hoc outcome bias that tells you that you got the result so you know exactly why, you essentially make the erasure of a woman’s autonomy the measure of love itself.”
I prefer to go deeper.
Red Pill is a placebo. It does not have any effect nor value outside of what the person believes it gives or has.
Red Pill is ironically still obsessed with women. It has a desperate, awkward neediness in regards to femininity. The question isnt why women like a man - or whatever. The root question is why this has such a pervasive presence in all Red Pill discussions.
Men who are needy “take the red pill” and believe that it shows them some kind of truth. Instead, it really just doubles down on the mans neediness and his red pill discussions continue to be obsessed with how to “get women”.
Its all completely absurd for any self actualized man to be so completely obsessed with how to gain external validation
Thanks for replying. I agree with you for sure. Red Pill influencers “create” the sexual marketplace that keeps these men focused on external validation and acquisition of sex as a stand in for emotional intimacy. They bring OnlyFans models onto their podcasts so they can teach men that all women are antagonistic sluts with ridiculous beliefs and standards. This not only teaches men that the women they desire are all hypergamous manipulators, connecting resentment and violence that’s already taught within patriarchal standards with the ideology of Red Pill itself. These men are often funneled into these OF models businesses, which teaches them to objectify the women they desire and contributes to them being the kind of men who have even worse issues connecting with real life women.
When they go into the real dating world their resentment alienates mature women and attracts immature women, if it attracts any women at all. Successes are used as evidence that their strategies work and failures that women really are brainwashed by feminism. It’s a sad state of affairs.
Most importantly, the dialogue generally ignores the most important kind of emotional intimacy, and that is with oneself. Second in importance would be emotional intimacy with siblings, parents and children. With those in place as anchors, emotional partnerships with others finds a proper perspective. It’s only when one is emotionally estranged from pretty much the entire human species when the “Red Pill” dialogue starts to have any relevance. This emotional estrangement is common in modern society because of the popular culture we have creted, which places far too much weight on the importance of finding an emotional partner.