it has to do more with availability of use. If everyone could afford a painter everyone will be getting selfies
Not true. Considering the ubiquity of portable cameras today, not everyone is a "selfie freak". Some people (and I argue here that it's loads of them) possess the uncanny ability to stifle their narcissistic impulses. The rest, do abuse the opportunity given - they are truly show-offs. OP's point is valid.
So there is no survival instinct because there is a teleological aspect to it but there is a social one. This is what we call intellectual dishonesty. Literally.
I would say that the term "social instinct" might not be accurately descriptive. If we rephrase it into "social trend" we can also attribute a teleological aspect to it and as such we can either accept or deny it ("put it to use - or not"). You are off the mark, again.
It's bullshit. It is not your "theory of use". You take the dictionary meaning of the word "use" and spin the words around in order to say pretty much "water is wet and its meaning is humidity'.
You are not arguing on point. It seems that all you are trying to do is discredit the OP for whichever personal reason or gain. The OP is plainly saying "what's the use of a toned, honed, muscular body if it cannot be "compared" with it's polar opposite?" I will not argue here whether this is true or false but I will heed you with this: Be contemplatively fair and mind your language.
The use of my toned legs is I can take those hills a lot better now :)
nah. everybody takes selfies and tries to appear good. clothes do the same job. cars, names on the spike of a book. we are all narcissistic mate.
unless you are alexander with another profile, this is an old discussion and you are completely off.
everything can be compared and you don't need philosophy but rather economics to speculate what is useful and what is not. you don't need a "theory". the OP is obsessed with "discovering" new "theories" for some fuck up reason and most of the times he regresses to simple realisations about life but spins them around in order to label them as "his theory".
and who the fuck made you a cheerleader anyways?
An absolutist, extremist naysayer. You will do exceptionally well on any discussion panel.
Looks like you pasted the wrong lines of text. Correct yourself and enlighten me further if you please. Postscript - I Am that I Am.
According to "The Artist (once) formerly known as Prince" nothing compares to U(se) so we definitely know that at least one high ranking official who disagrees with your statement. Economics might dictate whatever is engineered to be pushed outwardly as a trend (which is what i believe the OP was pointing out) but you need a higher authority (i.e. philosophy) to analyse whether economics are useful or to utilise a better term beneficial (hint: they are not). I still insist and it's most evident here that you've got a beef with the OP so you better clear that (and your language) out.
It's dead certain that it wasn't you bud.