carsonshepherd
comeback kid
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2004
- Posts
- 14,643
BlackShanglan said:
See the ego thread.... you gorgeous creature.
Is no one "straight"?
- Thread starter Kassiana
- Start date
See the ego thread.... you gorgeous creature.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Shanglan....well said....
"...For an absolute morality or a natural morality to exist, one would have to assume that some things were by their natures right or wrong. For things to be inherently right or wrong for all peoples and all times, they would have to be part of the natural order of things. I see nothing in the natural workings of the universe to support this theory. Otherwise, all conjectures of right and wrong tend to come down to individual human assumptions about what ought to be - and those are only as "universal" as the people who make those assumptions...."
Philosophers have long struggled with the concept of 'Universals' as I think you well know.
Being esconced in the cradle of faith, as you said you were, it is not important that you seek outside that faith for a moral foundation.
Those of us who reject 'faith' and 'belief' and prefer reason and rationality do not have such luxury. We must search for logic and reason in the Universe.
To that end we have dug up our ancestors bones and set forth on a quest of understanding the natural laws of existence and the, 'defining characteristics' of each and every existent object and thing.
If you go to the dictionary and look up moral, good, right, value, all the terms in language we use to describe those metaphysical aspects (beyond physics) of human life, you will find they all have the same root, namely, 'veritas' truth.
There are certain necessities involving human life, such as air to breathe, temperate climes, food, water...et cetera; these things are classified as 'values' for human life.
The next step is fairly straighforward, those values that benefit human life are classified as 'good', thus also, moral, right, and truthful.
Those are the physical things of course, now, beyond the physical, the 'metaphysical' as philosophers like to say, come into play.
There are those who say that the metaphysical has no connection with the physical; I disagree.
The function of the human mind, as well as the physical body, operates in the exact same 'natural' way.
Emotions, feelings, love hate anger and rage, all have very precise definitions and are 'real' aspects of the nature of man.
Being real, they can be comprehended.
The entire field of Psychology is directed at understanding the 'real' aspects of the human psyche. What is necessary to allow a human to function in such a manner so as to effectively express the 'life' that the human has.
For those who seek an ethical and moral understand of humanity outside the 10 commandments, there are means to do so.
amicus
"...For an absolute morality or a natural morality to exist, one would have to assume that some things were by their natures right or wrong. For things to be inherently right or wrong for all peoples and all times, they would have to be part of the natural order of things. I see nothing in the natural workings of the universe to support this theory. Otherwise, all conjectures of right and wrong tend to come down to individual human assumptions about what ought to be - and those are only as "universal" as the people who make those assumptions...."
Philosophers have long struggled with the concept of 'Universals' as I think you well know.
Being esconced in the cradle of faith, as you said you were, it is not important that you seek outside that faith for a moral foundation.
Those of us who reject 'faith' and 'belief' and prefer reason and rationality do not have such luxury. We must search for logic and reason in the Universe.
To that end we have dug up our ancestors bones and set forth on a quest of understanding the natural laws of existence and the, 'defining characteristics' of each and every existent object and thing.
If you go to the dictionary and look up moral, good, right, value, all the terms in language we use to describe those metaphysical aspects (beyond physics) of human life, you will find they all have the same root, namely, 'veritas' truth.
There are certain necessities involving human life, such as air to breathe, temperate climes, food, water...et cetera; these things are classified as 'values' for human life.
The next step is fairly straighforward, those values that benefit human life are classified as 'good', thus also, moral, right, and truthful.
Those are the physical things of course, now, beyond the physical, the 'metaphysical' as philosophers like to say, come into play.
There are those who say that the metaphysical has no connection with the physical; I disagree.
The function of the human mind, as well as the physical body, operates in the exact same 'natural' way.
Emotions, feelings, love hate anger and rage, all have very precise definitions and are 'real' aspects of the nature of man.
Being real, they can be comprehended.
The entire field of Psychology is directed at understanding the 'real' aspects of the human psyche. What is necessary to allow a human to function in such a manner so as to effectively express the 'life' that the human has.
For those who seek an ethical and moral understand of humanity outside the 10 commandments, there are means to do so.
amicus
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
BlackShanglan said:
I think the usual response from such people is puzzlement about what is so fascinating to most of us. I suspect it may be similar to a tone-deaf person's appreciation of music. Total absence of any sexual drive is not unknown.
Og
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Amicus said, {NOTE to the 'never' folks.}
There are certain necessities involving human life, such as air to breathe, temperate climes, food, water...et cetera; these things are classified as 'values' for human life.
The next step is fairly straighforward, those values that benefit human life are classified as 'good', thus also, moral, right, and truthful.
Those are the physical things of course, now, beyond the physical, the 'metaphysical' as philosophers like to say, come into play.
There are those who say that the metaphysical has no connection with the physical; I disagree.
The function of the human mind, as well as the physical body, operates in the exact same 'natural' way.
Emotions, feelings, love hate anger and rage, all have very precise definitions and are 'real' aspects of the nature of man.
Being real, they can be comprehended.
The entire field of Psychology is directed at understanding the 'real' aspects of the human psyche. What is necessary to allow a human to function in such a manner so as to effectively express the 'life' that the human has.
For those who seek an ethical and moral understand of humanity outside the 10 commandments, there are means to do so.
I'd generally agree about basic human needs, beginning with the physiological. One might see how that's connected to a ban on murder. OTOH, what about killing? Most moral systems (including that of many objectivists) envisions killing, for example in capital punishment or in wars, not to say, personal self defense. Suppose, however, I leave aside wars, since perhaps you want to say 'defense of life,' e.g., against Hitler. That leaves capital punishment. How say you? Please deduce its morality or immorality from objective truths.
Now we get to emotional needs. The problem here is a variety of ways of meeting them. But I do agree humans are social; they're raised in families, and often families unite in clans. Fine, but should a man have two wives, or one? Should a woman have two husbands, or one? How about (common arrangement) there are (married) spouses 1-1, but one of them has a lover(mistress). Does 'objective' morality have an answer? I will for the sake of argument consider that perhaps you'll respond, "Monogamy or polygamy is a matter of taste; neither is objectively sanctioned over the other." If that's your answer, proceed to the 'monogamous, but with an outside lover question.'
-----
NOTE: A few have said, on the question "Is everyone bisexual?" "I don't feel any attraction for the same sex." I don't think that ends the matter, because of training and conditioning. The question to be considered is, "Any there any conceivable circumstances under which you might be sexually responsive to the same sex, and/or form some associated emotional connection?"
I believe Black may have a similar position to this: there's hardwiring for sexual response. So for almost everyone, there is response to stimulation, regardless of source (e.g. in the dark).
NOW, in particular circumstances (lights on), our minds kick in and say, "I'm not letting the dog lick me." or "I'm not letting a same sex person touch my genitals." There's an element of decision. Taking this one step further, it's not hard to envision creating responses to the same sex (i.e, through letting that pathway happen).
Maybe that doesn't show that most are bisexual, but that most have the capacity to be/become so.
There are certain necessities involving human life, such as air to breathe, temperate climes, food, water...et cetera; these things are classified as 'values' for human life.
The next step is fairly straighforward, those values that benefit human life are classified as 'good', thus also, moral, right, and truthful.
Those are the physical things of course, now, beyond the physical, the 'metaphysical' as philosophers like to say, come into play.
There are those who say that the metaphysical has no connection with the physical; I disagree.
The function of the human mind, as well as the physical body, operates in the exact same 'natural' way.
Emotions, feelings, love hate anger and rage, all have very precise definitions and are 'real' aspects of the nature of man.
Being real, they can be comprehended.
The entire field of Psychology is directed at understanding the 'real' aspects of the human psyche. What is necessary to allow a human to function in such a manner so as to effectively express the 'life' that the human has.
For those who seek an ethical and moral understand of humanity outside the 10 commandments, there are means to do so.
I'd generally agree about basic human needs, beginning with the physiological. One might see how that's connected to a ban on murder. OTOH, what about killing? Most moral systems (including that of many objectivists) envisions killing, for example in capital punishment or in wars, not to say, personal self defense. Suppose, however, I leave aside wars, since perhaps you want to say 'defense of life,' e.g., against Hitler. That leaves capital punishment. How say you? Please deduce its morality or immorality from objective truths.
Now we get to emotional needs. The problem here is a variety of ways of meeting them. But I do agree humans are social; they're raised in families, and often families unite in clans. Fine, but should a man have two wives, or one? Should a woman have two husbands, or one? How about (common arrangement) there are (married) spouses 1-1, but one of them has a lover(mistress). Does 'objective' morality have an answer? I will for the sake of argument consider that perhaps you'll respond, "Monogamy or polygamy is a matter of taste; neither is objectively sanctioned over the other." If that's your answer, proceed to the 'monogamous, but with an outside lover question.'
-----
NOTE: A few have said, on the question "Is everyone bisexual?" "I don't feel any attraction for the same sex." I don't think that ends the matter, because of training and conditioning. The question to be considered is, "Any there any conceivable circumstances under which you might be sexually responsive to the same sex, and/or form some associated emotional connection?"
I believe Black may have a similar position to this: there's hardwiring for sexual response. So for almost everyone, there is response to stimulation, regardless of source (e.g. in the dark).
NOW, in particular circumstances (lights on), our minds kick in and say, "I'm not letting the dog lick me." or "I'm not letting a same sex person touch my genitals." There's an element of decision. Taking this one step further, it's not hard to envision creating responses to the same sex (i.e, through letting that pathway happen).
Maybe that doesn't show that most are bisexual, but that most have the capacity to be/become so.
impressive
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2003
- Posts
- 27,372
Pure said:
This is question I ask as well. IMO, "NEVER" is short-sighted, defensive response. (Flame away.)
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Pure...nice post...and Happy New Year if I have not offered that before....
A couple of forays here...exploratory kinda thing...
Monogamy is natural to some animals. Agreed? They mate for life.
Do you believe in love? The 'Soul Mate' kind that most of we romantic hacks and poets write about.
I pretty much see mate selection among humans as being the attraction of opposites ( in general) and I figure there must be a 'natural' reason; what that might be is up for discussion.
In many societies that experience a lack of males, several females and one male make up a family unit.
In many societies with a dirth of females, it is just the opposite.
In prison or military environments where only one sex is involved, bi sexual and homosexual activity flourishes.
Certain religions functionaries practice abstinence.
Some societies have brothers share wives and relatives deflower young girls as a matter of ritual.
Practically any arrangement one can imagine has at one time or another been practiced.
In the past few centuries, in the Western World at least, most of the 'environmental' factors have been removed; no shortage of men or women, most religious practices brought under control.
Another factor is that most of the 'gender specialized factors' have been removed also. That which once defined masculine and feminine as determined and defined by the necessities of life, are no longer needed.
Thus, in my opinion, we are somewhat adrift in terms of both gender identification and family structure.
It is for that reason, (with 8 children trying to cope) that I seek answers that are 'objective' and not dependent upon scarcity of available mates, famine or religious dogma or any other environmental situation.
What is the 'natural' role of sexuality in human beings?
Is it all and only social? Depending upon where we were born? Indonesia or Indiana?
Or are there some underlying absolutes, universals, defining characteristics that will enable us to understand our own nature?
Not having, "...and God created adam and eve...' as a foundation, I have only the logical facility to seek answers.
I tend to view all of the 'exceptions' to monogamy as just that, exceptions to the general rule.
Because of the 'possible' benefits of a long term relationship between a man and a woman, it appears to me that nature leans towards monogamy as the best means to accomplish survival of the species.
That begs your next question of legality and just how 'government' might enter the mixture, but I imagine if you want my thoughts on the subject you will ask.
Again...a very interesting and thoughtful post.
regards...
amicus
A couple of forays here...exploratory kinda thing...
Monogamy is natural to some animals. Agreed? They mate for life.
Do you believe in love? The 'Soul Mate' kind that most of we romantic hacks and poets write about.
I pretty much see mate selection among humans as being the attraction of opposites ( in general) and I figure there must be a 'natural' reason; what that might be is up for discussion.
In many societies that experience a lack of males, several females and one male make up a family unit.
In many societies with a dirth of females, it is just the opposite.
In prison or military environments where only one sex is involved, bi sexual and homosexual activity flourishes.
Certain religions functionaries practice abstinence.
Some societies have brothers share wives and relatives deflower young girls as a matter of ritual.
Practically any arrangement one can imagine has at one time or another been practiced.
In the past few centuries, in the Western World at least, most of the 'environmental' factors have been removed; no shortage of men or women, most religious practices brought under control.
Another factor is that most of the 'gender specialized factors' have been removed also. That which once defined masculine and feminine as determined and defined by the necessities of life, are no longer needed.
Thus, in my opinion, we are somewhat adrift in terms of both gender identification and family structure.
It is for that reason, (with 8 children trying to cope) that I seek answers that are 'objective' and not dependent upon scarcity of available mates, famine or religious dogma or any other environmental situation.
What is the 'natural' role of sexuality in human beings?
Is it all and only social? Depending upon where we were born? Indonesia or Indiana?
Or are there some underlying absolutes, universals, defining characteristics that will enable us to understand our own nature?
Not having, "...and God created adam and eve...' as a foundation, I have only the logical facility to seek answers.
I tend to view all of the 'exceptions' to monogamy as just that, exceptions to the general rule.
Because of the 'possible' benefits of a long term relationship between a man and a woman, it appears to me that nature leans towards monogamy as the best means to accomplish survival of the species.
That begs your next question of legality and just how 'government' might enter the mixture, but I imagine if you want my thoughts on the subject you will ask.
Again...a very interesting and thoughtful post.
regards...
amicus
C's Button
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2004
- Posts
- 127
Belegon said:
Please pardon the snippage.
I am one of the persons for whom gender is irrelevant. Crownie is male, but I would love and want him just as much if he was a female. I fall in love with people, not there plumbing. It appears that the person who will be my long term lover has an outie instead of an innie..
This is not to say that he is not willing to indulge my passions for the ladies, too, though. (Ladies, the queue forms to the left.. 
)I do not understand how one can only be attracted to one gender, be it the same or opposite to them. It just does not compute to me. However, my complete inability to comprehend single sex attraction makes me more sympathetic to those who cannot understand my dual sex attraction. So long as the lack of understanding does not lead to lack of compassion or outright antagonism, I am fine.
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
Why does my sexuality have to be decided by who I would let massage my genitals? Sure, if you think of sexuality as something purely mechanical, then yes, stimulation by touch is a pretty gender independant thing. I let a bloke fondle my balls on a regular basis: me.
It is my belief that sexuality sits in the head, that sex does not equal putting things in holes, but that the word derived from 'sex' as in gender. What ideas and prospects sets the heart and hormones in motion? It's not who do you fuck. It's who do you love. 'Love', again an imperfect verb that covers too many variations. but you know what kind of love i mean. The kind that you fall in.
The sight of a man, however physically perfect, does not do anything for me. But I still consider myself bisexual, since i have been and still probably is able to have the kind of relation to both men and women. The right emotional bond, and I'd engage in the mechanics of it all with anyone. If it's a good looking woman, that'd be a bonus. But it's quite a low priority when looknig at the bigger picture.
#L, hopeless romantic
It is my belief that sexuality sits in the head, that sex does not equal putting things in holes, but that the word derived from 'sex' as in gender. What ideas and prospects sets the heart and hormones in motion? It's not who do you fuck. It's who do you love. 'Love', again an imperfect verb that covers too many variations. but you know what kind of love i mean. The kind that you fall in.
The sight of a man, however physically perfect, does not do anything for me. But I still consider myself bisexual, since i have been and still probably is able to have the kind of relation to both men and women. The right emotional bond, and I'd engage in the mechanics of it all with anyone. If it's a good looking woman, that'd be a bonus. But it's quite a low priority when looknig at the bigger picture.
#L, hopeless romantic
BlackShanglan
Silver-Tongued Papist
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Posts
- 16,888
amicus said:
I can only say, amicus, that you must have the most remarkable dictionary ever written, as I can find none that bear you out.
These are, unless you are still using that very unusual dictionary of yours, classified as "necessities." "Values" do not enter into this, unless you are thinking of the word "valuable" or monetary "value," which has a rather different meaning to "moral values."
This again I think a very odd supposition, if by "values" you still mean - as you say you do - the physical necessities of life, such a climate, food, water, etc. You are discussing inanimate objects and unguided events. They are not capable of good, morality, or righteousness any more than they are capable of sin, malevolence, or evil. They are simply useful or not. There is no moral element in it.
I would only ask you to note the quagmire you have created in that last sentence. Who decides how best to "effectively express the 'life' that the human has"? This is entirely relativistic.
Shanglan
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Well, Shanglan...my dictionary is a Random House Unabridged, 14 pound (weight) variety.
Pick any of the words I referenced and look it up, note also the variations in definitions. You will find, quite amazingly, that all those words relate to one another.
Of course to admit that would destroy your basic assumption that there are no absolutes, no universals, no meaning to existence.
I do not begrudge your refuge in secular humanism, be my guest in your private thoughts. But there may be a young mind here and there who needs to hear that reality does exist outside your own mind and it is to them I speak, not you, my friend.
amicus...
Pick any of the words I referenced and look it up, note also the variations in definitions. You will find, quite amazingly, that all those words relate to one another.
Of course to admit that would destroy your basic assumption that there are no absolutes, no universals, no meaning to existence.
I do not begrudge your refuge in secular humanism, be my guest in your private thoughts. But there may be a young mind here and there who needs to hear that reality does exist outside your own mind and it is to them I speak, not you, my friend.
amicus...
sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
oggbashan said:
Good point Og.
I believe that there is some male in every female and some male in every female*- so the question of bisexuality is somewhat moot.
However, I will vote for the first option. (sorry all)
*Like the consept of yin and yang- there is yang within the yin, and yin within the yang- there is more to it than that and it it rather fascinating.
So yes- I believe that everyone is 'sexual' (that is neither homosexual or heterosexual, so therefor 'bi-sexual') by nature- and yes, I believe that some don't know it. There's lot's of things we don't know about ourselves, or think we know but are wrong about, or change our minds on later. And I don't define it as being able to enter into a long term relationship either (that would mean that a playboy/ladies man who can't settle down isn't heterosexual) I define it as a capacity in us all weather we know it's there or not to love and find sexual and sensual pleasure from others of either gender. Call it bi-sexual or simply sexual- call me wrong or irrational- but I believe that we all are.
It's just my belief- I don't go around insisting that everyone act on it. And feel free to declare your hetero (or homo-only) status from the rooftop- but it is my belief that the possiblity is inherent in us all- weather we know it or like it or not.
Like I said- sorry. I know that many will find this deeply offensive.
but the question was asked.
nikkijames
bitch
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2004
- Posts
- 2,745
I probably shouldn't be sticking my nose in here, however when I saw this thread it made me cringe a bit. For the simple fact that, I truly believe that the person who said 'Nobody is straight.' on another thread was only saying it in a joking manner and that it was more of a comment between myself and that person. Obviously any posts made on a thread become public information and therefore others may comment on them, which I don't have a problem with. I just don't want anyone to think that a comment on a public board should be taken to heart by someone you don't even really know. I don't think that anyone meant any harm.
I am straight as straight can be and yet find it can be fun to flirt with the same sex. Yes I can admire the beauty of a woman with no sexual desires for her as I can a man also. Maybe it is not the gender I am admiring, but the beauty in what is portrayed.
Sorry to rant.
I am straight as straight can be and yet find it can be fun to flirt with the same sex. Yes I can admire the beauty of a woman with no sexual desires for her as I can a man also. Maybe it is not the gender I am admiring, but the beauty in what is portrayed.
Sorry to rant.
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
Personally, I think that culture and environment are critical in defining human attitudes in some matters. Sex is one area. Food is another.
Most of us don't eat locusts or bugs, but to a large segment of humanity they're a legitimate foodsource. Asking if we all might be bisexual is something like asking whether everyone might have a repressed taste for bugs.
It's just a silly way of looking at things. It assumes we have a "true" nature.
---dr.M.
Most of us don't eat locusts or bugs, but to a large segment of humanity they're a legitimate foodsource. Asking if we all might be bisexual is something like asking whether everyone might have a repressed taste for bugs.
It's just a silly way of looking at things. It assumes we have a "true" nature.
---dr.M.
sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
After rereading the choices- maybe I should have put the 3rd option.
In truth, I think it's a combination. I think it is difficult- especially for men, to admit to feelings or impulses they may have had at some point in there lives, however fleeting they may have been, when they are so strongly discouraged by society (regardless of how open and accepting we may think we've become)- and of course those feelings are fleeting- because often we don't *let* ourselves expericence, let alone explore them. And after a point- we have conditioned ourselves not to react. NOt just in sexuality, but I believe we condition ourselves all the time not to know our own feelings and thoughts. Usually, as a defence mechanism to avoid realizing this, our brain fills in other motivations, emotions, ect.
Weather it's healthy or not- I do believe that we can condition ourselves (or be conditioned) into or out of most anything. You could be conditioned to be turned on by flickering lightbulbs or by the smell of stale cigerettes. The mind is incredibly powerful that way.
My belief is that sexuality is inherent and preference (or lack thereof) is conditioned. And to me, sexuality is as much about pleasure and sensuality as it is about procreation or commitment.
In truth, I think it's a combination. I think it is difficult- especially for men, to admit to feelings or impulses they may have had at some point in there lives, however fleeting they may have been, when they are so strongly discouraged by society (regardless of how open and accepting we may think we've become)- and of course those feelings are fleeting- because often we don't *let* ourselves expericence, let alone explore them. And after a point- we have conditioned ourselves not to react. NOt just in sexuality, but I believe we condition ourselves all the time not to know our own feelings and thoughts. Usually, as a defence mechanism to avoid realizing this, our brain fills in other motivations, emotions, ect.
Weather it's healthy or not- I do believe that we can condition ourselves (or be conditioned) into or out of most anything. You could be conditioned to be turned on by flickering lightbulbs or by the smell of stale cigerettes. The mind is incredibly powerful that way.
My belief is that sexuality is inherent and preference (or lack thereof) is conditioned. And to me, sexuality is as much about pleasure and sensuality as it is about procreation or commitment.
cantdog
Waybac machine
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Posts
- 10,791
A lot of research purporting to investigate the mind (as opposed to the brain, if you follow me) is inconclusive. People's minds are very malleable. There will always be people who can do the inexplicable, even in the realm of the brain. Aphasics, due to injury or even removal of the proper centers, who develop speech nonetheles. And with regard to the personality, people can bring about the most amazing changes in themselves.Joe Wordsworth said:
I think, because of this, we have co concede the potential for everyone to reinvent themselves. I've never had the sexual response to a male, I daresay because the smell is wrong, but there are too many anomalies in every permutation of the question to rule anything out.
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
I have always viewed sexual orientation as a continum or scale rather than an absolute. I suppose there are a few people who are 100% gay or 100% het, but i suspect they are a minority. I suspect too that 100% bi people, absolutely no preference are a rarity as well.
I think most of us exist on the scale somewhere other than the absolutes. Many young men have at least a homoerotic experience in adolescence. Many women consider themselves "curious" at least.
It seems to me orientation is probably a scale that looks something like an elongated hourglass turned on it's side, with very tiny ends and a pinched middle, representing the absolutes and pretty large bulges in the spectrum that represent people who are mostly "straight" or "gay", but not absolutely either.
I think most of us exist on the scale somewhere other than the absolutes. Many young men have at least a homoerotic experience in adolescence. Many women consider themselves "curious" at least.
It seems to me orientation is probably a scale that looks something like an elongated hourglass turned on it's side, with very tiny ends and a pinched middle, representing the absolutes and pretty large bulges in the spectrum that represent people who are mostly "straight" or "gay", but not absolutely either.
sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
dr_mabeuse said:
Hmm,
Insightful as always, doc.
Do you think that this relates at all to this statement: "sexuality is nature, preference is nuture"? or "sexuality is inherent, preference is conditioned"
We seem to be at least partially in agreement.
C's Button
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2004
- Posts
- 127
Amicus, not wanting to be all rude and picking a fight, but. I am not sure if you mean truth as it relates to the discipline (or study) of Philsophy, or if you are being literal, as to the etymolgies of the words in question.
I have a young mind that does not speak english as a first language.. Also, have a Webster's 25Th unabridged college dictionary that is bigger than the Gutenberg Bible. giggling at the thought of amicus and I, drawing dictionaries at 20 paces.
While the some of definitions of all these words are similar, and do relate to each other, the lineages of only two of these words are from the Latin, and neither one mentions veritas or truth. (I did not look them up to be a pain in the neck, I did it because I did not know for sure what you were talking about, amicus)
Etymology wise:
moral: Middle English, from the Old French, from the Latin moralis, from mos, or custom.
good: again from Middle English, god or [i/]gode[/i]; it then refers us to the root ghede in the appendix, which is "to unite join, or fit". If you place the definitions in a chronological order as to when they evolve, you can see how it went from "common good," or "unity" to the generic adjective it is.
Right also comes from the Middle English. the root is riht, or right and references an upstanding position.
Value is rooted in Middle English, and they borrowed it from the Old French. The root word is from the feminine past participle of the word valoir which does come from the Latin valere which is to be strong, to be of value.
We must remember that one's vision of right and wrong and good and bad are subjective; to paraphrase Obi Wan Kenobi "You are going to find Luke, that a great many of the truths we cling to depend solely on our point of view." I do not mean to devalue anyone else's experience, but merely point out they are not the same as mine.
That being said, if you meant that all are related to truth Philosophy wise, I apologise for my pedantry and will attempt to locate my philosophy texts and notes from my one semester several years and two continents ago, so we can hash that out some other time.
I have a young mind that does not speak english as a first language.. Also, have a Webster's 25Th unabridged college dictionary that is bigger than the Gutenberg Bible. giggling at the thought of amicus and I, drawing dictionaries at 20 paces.
While the some of definitions of all these words are similar, and do relate to each other, the lineages of only two of these words are from the Latin, and neither one mentions veritas or truth. (I did not look them up to be a pain in the neck, I did it because I did not know for sure what you were talking about, amicus)
Etymology wise:
moral: Middle English, from the Old French, from the Latin moralis, from mos, or custom.
good: again from Middle English, god or [i/]gode[/i]; it then refers us to the root ghede in the appendix, which is "to unite join, or fit". If you place the definitions in a chronological order as to when they evolve, you can see how it went from "common good," or "unity" to the generic adjective it is.
Right also comes from the Middle English. the root is riht, or right and references an upstanding position.
Value is rooted in Middle English, and they borrowed it from the Old French. The root word is from the feminine past participle of the word valoir which does come from the Latin valere which is to be strong, to be of value.
We must remember that one's vision of right and wrong and good and bad are subjective; to paraphrase Obi Wan Kenobi "You are going to find Luke, that a great many of the truths we cling to depend solely on our point of view." I do not mean to devalue anyone else's experience, but merely point out they are not the same as mine.
That being said, if you meant that all are related to truth Philosophy wise, I apologise for my pedantry and will attempt to locate my philosophy texts and notes from my one semester several years and two continents ago, so we can hash that out some other time.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Some very interesting things being said here...
"...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dr_mabeuse
Personally, I think that culture and environment are critical in defining human attitudes in some matters. Sex is one area. Food is another.
Most of us don't eat locusts or bugs, but to a large segment of humanity they're a legitimate foodsource. Asking if we all might be bisexual is something like asking whether everyone might have a repressed taste for bugs.
It's just a silly way of looking at things. It assumes we have a "true" nature.
---dr.M.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm,
Insightful as always, doc.
Do you think that this relates at all to this statement: "sexuality is nature, preference is nuture"? or "sexuality is inherent, preference is conditioned"
We seem to be at least partially in agreement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nature and Nurture...into that mixture should perhaps be added, 'choice?'
By that, I mean the focused mind, viewing the options and making a 'rational' choice.
Of course, Dr. Mab considers that human might have a 'true' nature as somewhat silly.
I find it somewhat silly to believe that humans have 'no' nature, or at best an ambivalent one, capable of infinite adjustment as circumstances merit.
While that may be partially true, aka evolution, there are of course limits both physiologically and psychologically.
While 'unhappiness' is not an accurate measure of mental health, I would venture that the terrific increase in medication for such things as depression and bi polar afflictions might be in some way related to the uncertainty as to gender function, both male and female.
Wonderfully adaptive is homo sapiens from the polar regions to the equator, from total abstinence to fully libertine.
The middle ground, hourglass analogy of Colly, that each individual possesses both male and female inclinations seems logical...but....again, if we have choice, free will in order to express that sexuality, we are back again to basic nature and if so, by what means do we choose one or the other?
interesting...
amicus...
"...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dr_mabeuse
Personally, I think that culture and environment are critical in defining human attitudes in some matters. Sex is one area. Food is another.
Most of us don't eat locusts or bugs, but to a large segment of humanity they're a legitimate foodsource. Asking if we all might be bisexual is something like asking whether everyone might have a repressed taste for bugs.
It's just a silly way of looking at things. It assumes we have a "true" nature.
---dr.M.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm,
Insightful as always, doc.
Do you think that this relates at all to this statement: "sexuality is nature, preference is nuture"? or "sexuality is inherent, preference is conditioned"
We seem to be at least partially in agreement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nature and Nurture...into that mixture should perhaps be added, 'choice?'
By that, I mean the focused mind, viewing the options and making a 'rational' choice.
Of course, Dr. Mab considers that human might have a 'true' nature as somewhat silly.
I find it somewhat silly to believe that humans have 'no' nature, or at best an ambivalent one, capable of infinite adjustment as circumstances merit.
While that may be partially true, aka evolution, there are of course limits both physiologically and psychologically.
While 'unhappiness' is not an accurate measure of mental health, I would venture that the terrific increase in medication for such things as depression and bi polar afflictions might be in some way related to the uncertainty as to gender function, both male and female.
Wonderfully adaptive is homo sapiens from the polar regions to the equator, from total abstinence to fully libertine.
The middle ground, hourglass analogy of Colly, that each individual possesses both male and female inclinations seems logical...but....again, if we have choice, free will in order to express that sexuality, we are back again to basic nature and if so, by what means do we choose one or the other?
interesting...
amicus...
sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
amicus said:
Stop making sence- I don't like having to agree with you (even partially)
Then again- I read some of your other posts here- and they are just as murky and absurd as ever- so carry on.
Sweet.
BlackShanglan
Silver-Tongued Papist
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Posts
- 16,888
Thank you very much, button, for clarifying the dictionary issue. I think that amicus really cannot use his very often, as evidenced here:
As this is in fact the opposite of my beliefs and in fact rather a better description of his own, I think amicus might be having some difficulty with definitions and/or dictionary usage.
Shanglan
amicus said:
As this is in fact the opposite of my beliefs and in fact rather a better description of his own, I think amicus might be having some difficulty with definitions and/or dictionary usage.
Shanglan
sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
ps- I don't believe that by and large our choices are 'rational'
But I do believe that we 'rationalize them.
am I the only one here who believes in the subconcious mind?
But I do believe that we 'rationalize them.
am I the only one here who believes in the subconcious mind?
Last edited:
carsonshepherd
comeback kid
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2004
- Posts
- 14,643
I'm not getting into this subject much because I think it's all a matter of being aware of your own sexuality, thoughts and emotions and not projecting them, or your values and opinions, onto anyone else, but this made me laugh my ass off.
Carry on with your discourse while I go look at pornography.
Liar said:
Carry on with your discourse while I go look at pornography.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Button...thank you and New Years wishes for you and yours as we stand at 20 paces with dictionaries in hand...
I am far beyond my college years and the philosophy class that gave as an assignment the task of looking at the definitions of commonly used words that are often used inaccurately.
Although I have a degree, I am not a scholar, don't have the disposition to be. However, the etymology of words relating to reality, truth, or veritas, good, right is an interesting journey.
I refer to those words on this forum as most who post here do not accept 'words' as actually identifying concepts with precision, which allows them to use and misuse words and concepts as it suits their purposes.
Most even doubt that 'language' in general can give more than a vague approximation of reality. In doing so, they can then claim than man cannot 'know' anything and that all is subjective and relative.
To which you may have fallen victim also:
"...We must remember that one's vision of right and wrong and good and bad are subjective; to paraphrase Obi Wan Kenobi "You are going to find Luke, that a great many of the truths we cling to depend solely on our point of view." I do not mean to devalue anyone else's experience, but merely point out they are not the same as mine.
That being said, if you meant that all are related to truth Philosophy wise, I apologise for my pedantry and will attempt to locate my philosophy texts and notes from my one semester several years and two continents ago, so we can hash that out some other time....."
"...We must remember that one's vision of right and wrong and good and bad are subjective;..."
That is a very dangerous position for someone with a 'young mind' to adopt.
Reality exists, independent of observation.
The old A is A, of Aristotle, i.e. a thing is that which it is', is a basic, self evident axiom of absolute truth, not subjective to the whims of the individual.
"One's vision of right and wrong....are subjective..."
I could not disagree more. There is an objective reality and an objective moral code that determines right and wrong, good and bad.
Of course, it is much easier to think otherwise and wallow in subjectivity.
You are now free to travel the world.
ciao
amicus...
I am far beyond my college years and the philosophy class that gave as an assignment the task of looking at the definitions of commonly used words that are often used inaccurately.
Although I have a degree, I am not a scholar, don't have the disposition to be. However, the etymology of words relating to reality, truth, or veritas, good, right is an interesting journey.
I refer to those words on this forum as most who post here do not accept 'words' as actually identifying concepts with precision, which allows them to use and misuse words and concepts as it suits their purposes.
Most even doubt that 'language' in general can give more than a vague approximation of reality. In doing so, they can then claim than man cannot 'know' anything and that all is subjective and relative.
To which you may have fallen victim also:
"...We must remember that one's vision of right and wrong and good and bad are subjective; to paraphrase Obi Wan Kenobi "You are going to find Luke, that a great many of the truths we cling to depend solely on our point of view." I do not mean to devalue anyone else's experience, but merely point out they are not the same as mine.
That being said, if you meant that all are related to truth Philosophy wise, I apologise for my pedantry and will attempt to locate my philosophy texts and notes from my one semester several years and two continents ago, so we can hash that out some other time....."
"...We must remember that one's vision of right and wrong and good and bad are subjective;..."
That is a very dangerous position for someone with a 'young mind' to adopt.
Reality exists, independent of observation.
The old A is A, of Aristotle, i.e. a thing is that which it is', is a basic, self evident axiom of absolute truth, not subjective to the whims of the individual.
"One's vision of right and wrong....are subjective..."
I could not disagree more. There is an objective reality and an objective moral code that determines right and wrong, good and bad.
Of course, it is much easier to think otherwise and wallow in subjectivity.
You are now free to travel the world.
ciao
amicus...
