[metamemetics]

Are you implying that Isaac Newton was having fun the wrong way? I fail to see the point. The most important thing to any organism or organization or complex system is survival, because everything that exists today got here by being good at existing.

Isaac Newton found a way to achieve immortality, he just did it by reproducing his ideas on paper as opposed to making mini-clones of himself with his dick.

[il]

Wow, my comment must have hit a nerve. I wonder if the people downvoting me have ever experienced being in a good relationship. I don't mean meaningless sex, although that is great too, I mean an emotionally involved relationship.

All I'm saying is that, although Newton accomplished great things, he would have felt more fulfilled and happier if he had also experienced a romantic relationship at some point.

Now, obviously there exist some people that are asexual and have no innate desire for sex, and there's nothing wrong with that.

However, I don't believe there is any healthy person in the world, no matter how introverted, who does not at some point desire a deep, meaningful relationship with another human being.

[metamemetics]

What about Buddhist Monks and Nuns? They must be very depressed.

I completely agree with you that relationships can be fulfilling.

I completely disagree with you that we should be so presumptuous as to let our experiences with modern day relationships say how one of the most influential people in the entire history of mankind should have lived his life in the 1600s while completely discounting societal factors such as the role of the Church in that time period and how vastly different courtship was from what we know now.

The 1600s.

[heed]

We shouldn't be so presumptuous as to define the meaningfulness of any experience of any person in any time period outside ourselves, period.

It is possible that Newton might have been happier if he had experienced a romantic relationship, but it is just as likely he would have been unaffected, or worse off even.