really
Sex is overated.
posted by Luke @ 13.3.05
26 comments
Seven Roots to One Tree
Keep looking to grow.
3.13.2005
Contributors
Previous Posts
- love
- Baby Names
- My blog
- D-mn you all!
- Arseome
- Dang.
- Huh.
- Another list!
- Cramming.
- Beverages and More!
Our Personal Blogs
- Aperture Wide Open; Enter the Light
- Marsupials' Lair
- Philisha.net
- Exploring the Infinity of God's Universe
- I Could Say More
- The Blog on the Corner
- In Memory of Those Without Shoes
We like cheese.
26 Comments:
I quote Augustine:
"If only someone could have imposed restraint on my disorder. That would have transformed ot good purpose the fleeting experiences of beauty in these lowest of things, and fixed limits to indulgence of their charms. Then the stormy waves of my youth would have finally broken on the shore of marriage. Even so, I could not have been wholly content to confine sexual union to acts intended to procreate children, as your law prescribes, Lord. For you shape teh propagation of of our mortal race, imposing your gentle hand to soften the brambles which were excluded from your paradise. Your omniopotence is never far from us, even when we are far from you. Alternatively, I ought to have paid more vigilant heed to the voice from your clouds: 'Nevertheless those who are married shall have trouble in the flesh and I would spare you' (1 Cor. 7:28), and 'It is good for a man not to touch a woman' (1 Cor 7:1), and 'He who has no wife thinks on the things of God, how he can please God. But he who is joined in marriage thinks on the affairs of the world, how he can please his wife' (1 Cor 7:32-3). Had I payed careful attention to these sayings and 'become a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven' (Matt. 19: 12), I would have been happier finding fulfillment in your embraces." Conf. II.ii.3.
well put, augustine. but smoking is overrated as well and many people can't break that habit. or drinking, but smoking is a better example. there is one image of copulation that is particularly charming though as opposed to the media driven fever pitched "sex! sex! SEX!" and the charming image is that of a natural family. You have the mum and dad, experiencing great(est?) physical intimacy with each other. Savoring each other's presence, plus the general pleasure of sex itself (with each other), and then the best thing of all is the surprise and joy of finding a few weeks later that she has conceived and they are to have a child! Familys rock.
i stress the presence aspect more than the orgasmic aspect because it is certainly the profound presence of God that is the most powerful to me in my relationship with him whereas sex.. isn't even supposed to be equivalated with that relationship. Companionship is underrated, and intimacy is leagues from Hollywood.
Depends on who's rating it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I quoted Augustine somewhat tongue in cheek. I think that his perspective has to be considered, but he's most likely wrong because he rests upon the view that sex was created for creating children, which isn't the whole story.
Anyway, I am a little uncomfortable talking about a subject I know so little about. It's easy to agree, on the one hand, that our culture over-emphasizes sexuality. I think there are an enormous number of negative consequences flowing from this, and that our church does little enough to combat it. I just don't think we've figured out how. Peter Kreeft talked a little lately about how the Pope's been working to remedy it, and it sounded more promising than anything I've heard a protestant ever doing about it.
I quoted Augustine somewhat tongue in cheek. I think that his perspective has to be considered, but he's most likely wrong because he rests upon the view that sex was created for creating children, which isn't the whole story.
Anyway, I am a little uncomfortable talking about a subject I know so little about. It's easy to agree, on the one hand, that our culture over-emphasizes sexuality. I think there are an enormous number of negative consequences flowing from this, and that our church does little enough to combat it. I just don't think we've figured out how. Peter Kreeft talked a little lately about how the Pope's been working to remedy it, and it sounded more promising than anything I've heard a protestant ever doing about it.
Jon, you posted the same comment twice.
Blogger was having trouble.
Well, I think you answered well for one so unexperienced. 'Course I'm unexperienced myself. But my orginal post was a combination of vent and shock value. Not much depth actually (aside from the vent). I could vent more, but that's so negative. (c: (and I have a paper to write and it's midnight, so why am I even posting now??!) I just wonder what a less sex crazed culture would look like. Seems to be focus of our culture's attention. Anyhoooooo...
In my intuition, there is nothing wrong about sex itself. The only things that can make sex wrong is the internal state of the participants. So, yeah, I guess that I'm intuitively not against sex outside of wedlock if it is done in the right spirit. However, I would assent to the opposite, just because I don't know enough and I wouldn't want to guide anyone wrong.
This is also my intuition on the whole of moral action. Actions only seem wrong to me based on the inner state of those involved. E.g. one could never wrong a saint, since a saint would never resent anyone or despair because of anything done to them. Consequently, saints could have sex orgies if they were so inclined.
And, again, that is just my intuition and not what I would officially ever assent to.
I agree that ethics mainly concern inner states of affairs.
The reason that it would be immoral to have sex outside of marriage, then, is that marriage is a necessary precondition of having the proper inner state regarding sex. I think this is true, because unless you've committed your whole life to someone, you shouldn't have sex with them.
Assuming that there was a person with a completely or mostly proper inner state, then, this person would not have orgies, because he would not have met the necessary preconditions that enables such a state to obtain.
This is where classical views of freedom enter. Freedom is the abililty, to people like Boethius, to do what they want to do, not to be able to do anything at all. So Saints are freer, because they are able to more completely actualize their will than non-Saints. The reason sinners are less free, is that they desire happiness more than anything else, but will be unable to find it by pursuing their sinful desires.
Well said, again Jonathan. (though this is more your words than the augustine post which I previously praised). I was thinking.. "no, sex out of marriage is wrong, strictly from the Bible. And so your analysis of why internal ethics must go a certain way and thus agree with the Bible. Yeah. I agree. Commitment." Anyhoo.. I think this post is well along in blogger years and it is high time for something NEW! Someone.. go for it. (youth, always pushing for something new, tsk)
Well, Lem started a new post, but we can still go for an all-time record. I'm curious to see what Eric has to say.
I think this is true, because unless you've committed your whole life to someone, you shouldn't have sex with them.Jonathan, The problem with your reasoning is that it's possible to commit your life to someone without marrying them.
Good point, anonymous. As stated, the sub-argument you reference is plainly inadequate to prove my point. Here's my attempt to bolster it.
Marriage, in essence, is a formal commitment between a man and a woman to unending love and fidelity in a monogamous relationship before God. If this is marriage, then marriage is not just any kind of life commitment, but a specific kind. As a different species of life commitment it is a different species of interior state, since commitments are a movement that originates in the interior of a person. Ethics originate in proper interior states. Therefore, marriage is a necessary precondition to having the proper interior state, and by extension an ethical precondition for sex.
I can foresee some objections to my definition.
One, can atheists marry?
They may not be able to have a Christian marriage. The weight of the "before God" statement is that it is a particular kind of vow, which answers the objection Anonymous raised, if it were to obtain. Therefore, there seems to be an essential difference between atheistic and theistic marriages, because it lacks the (at minimum) perceived accountability of a normal marriage. Such a perception gives us a new interior state.
Further, I think it is possible that God recognizes some arraingements of atheists as marriages and other arraingements as not marriages. In this case, of course, the "before God" is not conditional on the person's conscious beliefs, but on the nature of their commitment. Of course, this seems to beg the question since we're back to asking what the conditions are that make their marriage meet this criteria. I'd reply that "formal" may be a critical distinction that leads to this "before God" clause being acceptable, and I'll address that below.
So, Foreseen Objection Two: why formal?
There is such a thing as a common-law marriage, which may be another response to Anonymous. I find this dissatisfying, though, because there are obvious differences between someone living in common-law marriage and someone living in a formalized normative marriage.
To formalize your commitment is to express a deeper commitment, because it expresses a complete willingness of soul. This is why marriage requires witnesses, becuase the formal nature brings through these witnesses a kind of accountability, like the theistic marriage. So, I'd ask, is someone who is unwilling to formalize their marriage really in any kind of intense life commitment? They may be committed to committing their life, but this is manifestly a distinct interior state, it is a second order interior state instead of a first order interior state.
There is certainly more that I can say, for example, why is sex the sort of thing that demands a life commitment?, but this is already a very long winded post. Please point out more inaccuracies and errors if you find them, it brings me the pleasant opportunity of stretching my mind. Writing this up I learned quite a bit about marriage. I welcome the opportunity to learn more!
I've been thinking about it some more since I talked with you in the car. I've changed my mind since then-I think I don't agree afterall, although again this is at the intuitive level.
I was going to write out a carefully developed outline of my own understanding of morality. However, while doing so, I remembered something I have thought before that seems to render morality meaningless:
We do not damn or save ourselves or others, and we cannot harm God. Consequently, no action of ours is truly moral or immoral, as long as a deontological view of morality is incorrect (I can expand on this if requested). I personally do not know of a good reason to hold to deontological morality, basically because nothing seems to be moral or immoral in itself and any other reason would render deontological morality incoherent.
For the outline of my understanding (or at least rationalization) of my idea of morality and ethics, check my blog.
Addition to my post on morality:
I realized after I posted that deontological morality could be true even if I could not perceive the moral nature of any actions, so I guess I don't have any way to defeat deontological morality. So, since the Bible seems to state a deontological morality I guess such a morality is as true as the Bible, it just doesn't make sense to me.
Deontological ethics has to do with actions, and we were talking about inner states (the principle of actions). Deontological ethics has to do with fulfilling duty, no matter how.
The OT system is reminiscent of this, but Jesus speaks later of the critical nature of inner states. I think this sounds like virtue ethics: Aristotle instead of Kant.
It seems to me that an immoral internal state is one that intends an immoral action. Consequently, if there are no truly immoral actions there are no truly immoral inner states.
That just makes us ask what makes something immoral.
Morality seems to me to ultimately mean some system whereby we determine whether our choices are justified or not. That being said, the monkeys ate your head. Thus, If there is no morality, then we do not seek to conform our choices to any standard.
There are two ways that I can see such a justification system arising:
1. From a fact, from our cognitive faculty.
2. From something we want, from our appetitive faculty.
I call justification systems based on 1 deontological and systems based on 2 utilitarian.
So, previously, when I said there is no grounding for morality, this was assuming that morality was of type 2. If our desire can either be eternally satisfied or dissatisfied, then bringing about the state where our desire is eternally satisfied or not eternally dissatisfied is the basis for morality. However, if we cannot aquire our daily allotment of
spandex wearing monkeys, then we will bring about the apocalypse of muffins. Thus, if it is not in our power to affect the ultimate fulfillment of our desire there is no objective morality, i.e. a morality that is correct for all situations. All there is is a subjective marmalade, or morality. Deliver up the probiscus! This is why I said a deontological morality is the only defeater.
I agree, we need some sort of event-value pregnant ethics. To address your dissatisfactions with it, then, I am writing this post.
Why don't you have any intuitions that some actions are intrinsically valuable as good and some are intrinsically valuable as bad? Throw monkey poo! That doesn't fit with my intuitions at all. Things like rape are always bad, all the time. The actions have value, or a lack of value. This seems intuitive, and I'm not sure I can argue for it.
I think that I can expand on that point. Take item A. Item A is not B. It is A. Someberly, the mission insects picked up their shells and walked home. At last the long day had opened the flowering picknerflower blooms, and the clowns got their due. Above, the friar laughed a slow maniacal cackle. So you see, A's B-ness can't be expressed modally.
I think Lewis will address, to some degree, meow your conception of utilitarian ethics with meow his idea of intrinsic value (the tao) in Abolition meow of Man. Meow. He'd say that you can't judge the value of meow getting the things meow you want (your meowppetite) without an appeal to some kind of meow value. That seems to be meow about right.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Pah! Pahdiddidaa!
Clearly implied implications flow forward flowingly from ethical ethical systems. Your ethical system isn't ethical but chemical, which system chemically accounts not for vice. It does account nicely for salty saltine crackers with creamy smooth buttery cheesy cheese.
Furthermore, furthering pursuits of furlong lengths embraces the eternity of longevity most half-heartedly, lessly lessingingly the lessers' lungs. And that's not an acceptable conclusion. So I guess my point is that you've absurdumed your way to nausea, at least the picnic's still on.
See you at four.
Post a Comment
<< Home