Sexual Perfection

I agree there is much more to be said. Take a loo...

2009-09-07T23:11:36.268-05:00

I agree there is much more to be said. Take a look at an essay on sexual attraction on my other blog
Erosophia

~Jason

I like this article. But it doesn't explain how yo...

2009-09-07T14:55:36.688-05:00

I like this article. But it doesn't explain how you can meet someone for the first time have a brief moment of eye contact and feel an instant feeling of love that is a bit shocking. Is it chemicals like pheramones. Also, how do you explain a feeling of great pressure in the chest every time you think about someone. What about if you find out this person has all these medical problems and are unhindered. For me the attraction after the initial seeing the person or meeting grew the more I encountered the person and I don't always think about him in a sexual way, I do but not constantly. I am very attracted to his intelligence.

Of course children who are engaging in explorative...

2009-04-23T19:35:00.000-05:00

Of course children who are engaging in explorative play are doing it primarily out of curiosity. However, and importantly, even though they do not have sexually mature bodies, they are capable of sexual pleasure. The fact that they do not know that some kinds of sex play are right, while others are wrong, show that sexual identity is more amorphous than most people think. (As an example of amorphous sexuality, see the book "Sexual Fluidity" by Lisa Diamond.)

I am certainly not arguing that biology plays no role in sexuality, but I do not think that it determines it. People are not born gay or straight.

Did you do your research? As someone who has inte...

2009-04-21T18:05:00.000-05:00

Did you do your research? As someone who has interest in neurobiology, I think you need to do more research. Instead of simply writing from your opinion and point of view, how about taking note that biology plays a role in one's sexual preference. I challenge you to rethink Chapter 5. Check out the research. You might be surprised.

Children who engage in playing "doctor" are doing that merely out of curiosity. Hormonal changes have not taken place yet. That is not an indication of a blank slate.

Purdue Girl

Life is not something one has, but a fact about on...

2008-10-24T11:07:00.000-05:00

Life is not something one has, but a fact about oneself. The idea of immortal soul which could persist after death that could "use life as a tool" is nothing but a fantasy told to children to make them feel better once they understand their own mortality. However, the fantasy is anathema to life.

You state that well-being is about more than living a long life and I would readily concur with this. However, living a good life is not subjective and, indeed, a good life is the principle concept of Ethics.

You state that morality is about how you treat other people, but this is just false. ALTRUISTIC morality is about how you treat other people, but this is hardly exhaustive of the field of ethics and is certainly not the only kind of ethics. An alternative to altruistic ethics is eudaimonistic ethics, or an ethics whose goal is human flourishing.

Now, on to your major point. The life of a pig is hardly a human life.

There are at least two different kinds of pleasure: physical and intellectual. Among the physical we would classify sensual pleasures, gustatory pleasure, etc. Among the intellectual pleasures we would classify the pleasure of solving a complex problem, or the pleasure of understanding, etc. Now simple gustatory pleasures (pleasures of eating) are one of the lower kinds of physical pleasures. Someone who loses control of himself and indulges in this pleasure so much so that he becomes obese is hurting his ability to have a good life by precluding himself many other pleasures of the same kind as well as higher intellectual pleasures. Further, if you grant your hedonistic conception of happiness, the obese man is still immoral as he has shortened his own life and therefore he can have less pleasure from eating.

Further, obesity related illnesses are the number one killer of americans today. Your crude social calculus that the obese will die quickly and therefore not be a burden to society is crass and vulgar. They are people too and not merely parts of a great whole we call society.

Ergo, I shall restate that obesity is immoral as it prevents one from living a good human life, as rooted in the objective requirements of man's nature.

Can you prove that unhealthy necessarily means imm...

2008-10-23T20:15:00.000-05:00

Can you prove that unhealthy necessarily means immoral?

I think of life as being a means and not an end. I would rather have 50 happy years than 100 miserable ones. Life is a tool to allow me to experience things, not an end in and of itself.

Well-being is about more than living a long life. I'm not obese. However, if a person enjoys life better eating so much they become obese (enough so that it makes up for years they will lose off their lives) who are we to judge?

Morality is about how you treat other people and how your actions affect other people and studies show that obesity actually decreases the health costs to society because you live a shorter life and cost less money overall. This doesn't mean everyone should be obese in order to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, but it does mean that obesity is not immoral.

I believe you have a spelling error here:The most ...

2007-09-05T16:37:00.000-05:00

I believe you have a spelling error here:

The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind if Reason.

should be:

The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind iS Reason.

Also, I'm going to be migrating some of the essays...

2007-06-24T09:43:00.000-05:00

Also, I'm going to be migrating some of the essays I really like to the new blog, so they won't be lost forever.

You'll enjoy exploring much of Rush's music. One o...

2007-06-20T19:35:00.000-05:00

You'll enjoy exploring much of Rush's music. One of the best(if not the only) non-collectivist band around. I've been a fan since Moving Pictures was released in the early 1980's.

I can't stand Rush, but these lyrics are great.

2007-05-30T22:02:00.000-05:00

I can't stand Rush, but these lyrics are great.

The problem with this reasoning lies in the fact t...

2007-05-25T16:20:00.000-05:00

The problem with this reasoning lies in the fact that you are talking about semantics, and semantics itself is not reasonable.

Defining objects or specific actions is generally easier than defining concepts, but they both have the same semantic problems.

Try to define what a "rock" is. Just a rock. The first definition in Merriam Webster isn't very scientific, but it'll work: "a large mass of stone forming a cliff, promontory, or peak." Okay. But, even leaving articles and prepositions out, what do "large" (adjective! adjectives are harder to define usually), "mass," "stone," "to form," "cliff," "promontory," and "peak" mean? Every word that needs to be defined must be defined by other words if we are taking the time to define them. But everyone knows what a rock is so we don't really need to do that, do we?

This takes us to concepts. With an object we can at least sense the thing in some way and then understand what it is. A concept can only be understood in words, by its definition. (We can determine what a concept means from its context, but again, that's during a discussion using words.) Atheism is a concept. So is theism. So let's take theism, since you don't like the "not" aspect of atheism. "Theism" in Merriam Webster is "belief in the existence of a god or gods." Now define the rest of those words for me. If you do, and then you define THOSE definitions' words and so on, you'll probably run across theism or some form of it again at some point. The only reason we are able to understand one another, particularly as pertains to concepts, is because of what Steven Pinker calls "the language instinct" (see his book by the same name). Through a process of some kind of instinctual grammatical and semantic functioning we come to understand, as we grow from newborn to about six, not only how words go together, but what they mean, without anyone ever defining them. We just know. And after that point in time we understand how to figure out what new words mean from then on. Trying to apply a traditional logical process to it as you have becomes troublesome because it requires one thing to equal another, reaching a logical conclusion. But there is no conclusion in semantics. The logic is circular. We all know that circular reasoning is fallacious in debate, but it's crucial in semantics, or we would never know what anything meant.

Thus we return to the definition of atheism, which becomes, simply, "not belief in a god or gods." "Not" here does not operate as a negative in the mathematical sense at all. When we were taught in grammar school not to use a "double" negative, it wasn't for any mathematical reason (e.g. a negative times a negative is a positive). Grammar isn't "logical" in that sense. Many languages require a double negative. Spanish does this. English used to. So "not" in language is quite different from "not" in mathematics and logic and therefore, perfectly valid to use in the process of defining a word.

This reminds me of the issues I had when I began r...

2007-05-19T11:53:00.000-05:00

This reminds me of the issues I had when I began reading The Twilight of Atheism, where it seemed strange to me to talk about the decline of atheism when the only thing that was happening was the rise of religion.

What do you think of the name "secular humanist"? A lot of people who are not religious and do not want to classify themselves negatively use that name to indicate that they stand for the worth of human beings.

A:The Biblical Jesus certainly seems to be startin...

2007-05-18T20:24:00.000-05:00

A:

The Biblical Jesus certainly seems to be starting a new religion. He asks people to become his disciples, and he directly goes against the commands of the Jewish religious authorities on numerous occasions.

I have heard the argument that the mind-body dichotomy is the influence of Platonism on Christianity, and while this may be true in part, it misses the point. Believing in a god that is in some way supernatural necessarily introduces a dichotomy between the natural and the supernatural. Thus, the only way for humans to be good and not just natural is for some part of them to be supernatural like god, namely their souls. So while Platonism may certainly have encouraged this idea, it was only spelling out an already-present tendency in Christianity.

With regard to the Song of Solomen, that text has almost always been interpreted by Christians as a metaphorical representation of the love between Christ and his followers. The literal interpretation is usually not considered probable, especially in light of the attitude toward sex that is presented in the rest of the Bible.

I realize, however, that your point is that you, personally, choose to interpret it literally. In doing so, you are going against the church and are taking a non-Christian position. Christianity is a tradition that is defined by its historical past, and while the positions that it holds can be changed, the fact is that they have not, so your position is not Christian. If I were you, I would think about the reasons that a tradition with which you seem to identify would hold a position that you disagree with. Perhaps it is implied by the ideas that you DO embrace.

Jestia,I think you correctly identify that it is r...

2007-05-18T19:31:00.000-05:00

Jestia,

I think you correctly identify that it is religion that is the cause of all the world's trouble. Yet it is not the root cause. Religion, and more broadly all mysticism, is a manifestation of irrationality. It is the irraitonality that is the plague of the world and the cause of human suffering.

The world is currently under the shadow of an impending religious world war. Muslims are doing the only natural thing for the "faithful" to do, they are using violence to convince others. Since one can only deal with people through reason or force and religous people have closed themselves to reason, all they have left is to force people to follow their beliefs or kill them for not doing so.

Incidentally, your responses about your god miss the very point of the essay. I believe in your god as much as I believe in back-flipping blue unicorns: I don't.

A,Insofar as you are a scientist, you are rational...

2007-05-18T19:25:00.000-05:00

A,

Insofar as you are a scientist, you are rationalizing and compartmentalizing. Why is purpose and meaning in a human life subjective? Because you say it is?

Quite the contrary, purpose is the province of Ethics, not theology, and Ethics can tell us objective things about life and human purpose. Given that we, as humans, all share fundamental similarities, we can have an objective Ethics. What do I mean by this? We are all mortal. This gives us a framework for ethical analysis - a hypothetical analysis of the form: if one wants to live as a human, then one must...

This is the proper form of Ethics, not prescriptions from a father-figure in the sky!

Ethics is objective. Purpose and human meaning are the province of Ethics. Ergo, Purpose and meaning are objective. Q.E.D

Because God forbids humans to kill one another. Wh...

2007-05-16T13:46:00.000-05:00

Because God forbids humans to kill one another. When a person committed a suicide, it is likely he killed a human [ in this matter: himself ]. Obviously that person had sinned.

Religion is something that humans need to hold onto. It is more like a remedy for all the troubles in the world, eventhough the fact is that religions only cause troubles : )

It's the basic teaching for humans so that they will live accordingly in the way of God.

the dre: How does a group of people all sharing th...

2007-05-15T23:15:00.000-05:00

the dre: How does a group of people all sharing the same epistemological framework make them all the same?

I would say that the basic foundation of my faith is the belief that there is meaning and purpose in life. That what I do matters. Not because of some promised reward after I die - that seems such a shallow and selfish motivation. To me having grown up in a religious community, God language provides a natural way of expressing this underlying belief.

btw, I am also a professional Scientist, and enjoy implementing all of my powers of reasoning to understand the natural world around me. However, Science is objective and can not explore the more subjective realm of meaning and purpose. I find a rich world view in appealing to both avenues of knowledge as appropriate for the kind of question I'm asking.

mh: I guess there are various forms of love. The deepest kinds of love are more than an emotional recognition that someone is special. If my love for my wife was based only on emotion, oh boy, our marriage wouldn't last too long. It's about a choice of how I interact with others. To see each person as a precious child of God (I hope the God language isn't a barrier to your understanding). To treat each person with respect and dignity. Jesus taught that we are to love our neighbor as ourself - and then he told the parable of the Good Samaritan to explain who our neighbor is - it's well enough known in the popular consciousness that I don't have to explain it, right? He also taught us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. For me, one practical way that I "show love" to those I meet, is by volunteering two hours a week to walk the streets of my city and spend time talking to homeless people - people who are lonely, have experienced difficult life situations, and just need a friendly listening ear.

-A

I caution you about your classification because I ...

2007-05-15T22:37:00.000-05:00

I caution you about your classification because I see that you make a whole set predeterminations as to what it means to be Christian.
I call myself a Christian because I seek to be a disciple of Christ (following his example and teachings). Jesus asked us to worship God, not himself. I think the last thing he wanted was for his followers to start a new religion and call themselves Christian - he was a Jew after all. Alas, this is the situation we have. And for two millenia the Church has added and subtracted to fit various political agendas. I believe your mind/soul dichotomy was imported from Greek philosophy. Sure, Jesus talked about our souls, but I don't think necessarily as something separate from our bodies. He spent a lot of time concerning himself with peoples physical well being. I don't know why you insist that to be Christian means having unhealthy sexuality. Have you ever read the Song of Solomon from the Old Testament? The "sex haters" as you say, have reinterpreted that to be about Christ's love for his church, but the rest of us take it for what it originally was: an x-rated love poem. Plenty of wholesome sex in the Bible.
-A

This is lovely.

2007-05-15T21:43:00.000-05:00

This is lovely.

A:I'm not sure what you mean by showing love to ev...

2007-05-15T21:40:00.000-05:00

A:

I'm not sure what you mean by showing love to everyone you meet. Love is essentially an emotional recognition that someone or something is special to oneself. If I "love" everyone, then I don't really love anyone because I am not singling anyone out as special. So what do you mean by "showing love to everyone"?

Also, I am surprised to hear that you would want to be in a different "box" from other Christians when it comes to the matter which was discussed in this post because it comes from your sacred book. It seems that this post addresses something that is fundamental to being a Christian: if the afterlife is better, even if it's uncomprehensible, why not go there now?

The philosopher Ayn Rand said that you can only de...

2007-05-15T21:09:00.000-05:00

The philosopher Ayn Rand said that you can only deal with people on one of two bases: reason or force. Given that no religion can use reason to justify itself, it's no wonder they all turn to violence.

Incidentally, I too have always been curious why the rampant contradictions don't bother the faithful.

A,Given that you are a christian you necessarily b...

2007-05-15T21:06:00.000-05:00

A,

Given that you are a christian you necessarily believe in a mind/body dichotomy. Christians favor their "soul" to their bodies. Thus, qua christian, you have already undercut your statement.

Insofar as you are proud of your sexuality, I commend you. But know that your pride in your sexuality stands in stark contrast to your professed christianity.

I wonder why you don't want to be classified in the category of christians - is it perhaps that you find yourself too different to be so carelessly classified? I hope so. Ask yourself why you are different and you will begin to see that you are in fact not a christian with respect to every one of your healthy charecteristics.

A,I think you miss the point. Qua christian you a...

2007-05-15T20:59:00.000-05:00

A,

I think you miss the point. Qua christian you are the same as every other christian. By this I mean your basic epistemological framework is that of faith. You do not, whatever you might believe, have any reasons for your belief in god. There, in fact, can be no reason to believe in god, just as I have no reason to believe in back-flipping blue unicorns.

The difference is, I don't believe in my unicorns while you do believe in your god.

I can't speak for other Christians, but for myself...

2007-05-15T20:51:00.000-05:00

I can't speak for other Christians, but for myself, I have not yet heard a compellingly believable description of the afterlife. Whatever kind of afterlife there may be, I don't think it would be remotely recognizable to any of us earth dwellers. I have no idea what God's big plan is for us, but as a Christian who seeks to follow Christ I believe it has something to do with love. I go about my day trying as best I can to love and show love to everyone I meet. It would be hard to do that if I were dead. Does that help? Again, don't put us all in the same box.
-A

I would add to No. 6 that most wealthy people are ...

2007-05-15T17:26:00.000-05:00

I would add to No. 6 that most wealthy people are skinny, on average. I have rarely seen a person of wealth who has an overeating problem.