Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

Philosophy's importance, sexs moral significa

Posts: 4,853
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2015 4:30:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago

I just had some thoughts. This is gonna be rambly...

I just took a calc test. On the last problem, which was integration by partial fractional decomposition, I covered the entire page with my scribbling. Literally... the entire page. Something obviously wasn't right, since an extra credit question worth 10 points shouldn't take up the entire page, and this teacher usually doesn't give extremely long problems.

I re-checked my work, but I couldn't find anything wrong with my math. The mistake, I concluded, must have been in one of the very first steps.

This made me realize something. Fundamental principles essentially form *everything* else. This is why the philosophy such as nihilism is so radically different than say Aristotle's philosophy. The starting points are different.

It reminded me of a post Ed Feser had just had recently, where he discussed the moral significance of sex. This simply means that sex is important. I realized that sex, since it literally is the means by which new life arises, must be extremely important to society. Think about it... if there is a way sex "ought" to be, and we get it wrong, this will have dire consequences for the rest of society which is based upon sex.

However, even more than that, it made me realize the extreme importance of philosophy and beliefs and religion in general. Philosophy is often seen as mental masturbation, serving no real purpose, but I think it's obviously far more important than we realize.

If you go into a physics lab and your measuring devices are screwed up, all the measurements based upon that will be faulty. If you start a math problem wrong, all the rest will be screwed up. If a building's supports aren't strong, it will collapse.

Likewise, if there is a way sex ought to be, and we get it wrong, this would have negative consequences on society.

All in all, the beliefs we hold seem to be, practically speaking, the most important.

I'm probably equivocating something in here...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Posts: 357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 12:14:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let me try to break down your problem, though if you are doing calc, I should guess you should be teaching me.

The rightness or wrongness of sex is not based upon principals other than the principal of survival, and this grows out of the instinct of survival. To judge for example the rightness or the wrongness of something like homosexuality is like judging the wrongness or rightness of schizophrenia, because both of them seem to have a biological cause. And then you must judge each of these aberrations from the norm, no on what is known, but can be guessed, that if it is naturally occurring, even if as a disease, it must pay some dividends for the investment of time into raising a child who will likely not breed. I know this is a stretch, because it rests on two presumptions stacked, when neither can exactly be proved. The first presumption is that all localized, short term adaptations to environmental stimulus offer a survival advantage. This is to say that all adaptations are a response to a certain need. Then there is the presumption that issues like homosexuality and schizophrenia really do have an environmental component.

On two different occasions, but while listening to the radio in my car, I heard first that mothers starved in Holland when the Nazi's had an embargo on food to it during WWII had a greater likelihood of having schizophrenic children. In the other incident, mothers who suffered the stress of bombing in German cities while pregnant had more of their children grow up to be homosexual..

We can imagine a world in which starvation or war were always at the doorstep of society; but can we guess a biological logic for these conditions... What possible survival advantage would these conditions offer society? If these genes did not increase survival rates they would have died out,... Since the breeding potential of homosexuals and schizophrenics is limited, their conditions must have kept the genes alive collaterally, through survival of closely related relatives carrying the same genes. Here the intelligence associated with homosexuality and schizophrenia might have an advantage. If the issue is population pressure, while homosexuals and schizophrenics may eat and consume resources today this economic pressure along with not breeding would over time tend to reduce population. Whether or not this is the biological logic behind the occurrence and reoccurrence of these issues through all known time, given the need of survival for a genetic trait to become more common or general,, a principal of a survival advantage may be presumed, In most instances, it is heterosexuality, and more normal forms of insanity that offer the greatest survival advantages. When the mother is stressed nutritionally, or psychologically the society may be considered as endangered, and there is no point in asking after the logic of it, and still a reason for it may be presumed as a principal.

In general, Principals, like concepts and forms cannot be considered as known, and true. Principals are axioms, and nothing more. Every time one can draw a correct conclusion beginning with a principal or axiom these principals and axioms gain evidence without proof exactly. If they work they work. It is possible to disprove an axiom and impossible to prove it.

The objection to homosexuality socially is based upon the organization of society. If people are living in waring societies surrounded by enemies they want warriors and not wimps. If they want many children to replace their killed and wounded Homosexuals will be anathema. The social and cultural will reflect people's understanding of their need, but at some level homosexuality must also answer a need, or again, as a biological solution, it would fail...

I hope I understand your question completely, and that this answers it.