I never understood the fascination with sex in the West despite being from the West myself. — Question

It's a relatively recent phenomenon (past 150 years or so considering its roots), and in my opinion will be temporary in duration, simply because a society which behaves this way will go extinct - and that much is unavoidable. Moral degradation always leads to societal dissolution.

Why is sex so idolized in the West? — Question

Because the West has it too easy. Literarily. When life becomes so easy, people lose motivation, and they get bored and start getting interested in the pursuit of meaningless hedonistic activities like drugs, sex, etc.. Look at Baghdad in the Golden Age of Islam for example, and you'll see the same phenomenon happening, with the young becoming obsessed about sex day in and day out, rising unemployment, etc. Same for Rome back in the day...

It seems nowadays that almost every film produced for adults has to have at least one sex scene. The internet is awash with pornography. I find it disturbing that people are so mesmerized by it. — Question

Yes I do too. In fact, I've stopped watching movies because it's disgusting to see sex in every movie - that's fucked up. Sex is private for a reason.

I've never had sex myself and frankly don't want to — Question

Personally I've only ever had sex with two girlfriends (out of a total of three that I've had), so probably not much sex at all for someone my age. I would want to have sex but not with a woman whom I don't love but rather with one whom I have a relationship with that's not dependent on sex. I think that much is a natural desire - although not one that is easy to fulfil given our hyper-consumerist and highly individualistic culture.

I want to go through life not indulging in it; but, the struggle is real with sex being advertised and promoted almost everywhere you go. — Question

I live practically celibate and have done so for a number of years so far, and it's not that bad. I mean once you stop getting involved with those folks who talk about sex day in and day out, and once you start living life on your terms - it's not that bad at all. Once you get rid of the evil cultural demon whispering "you must have sex, you must have sex" in your ear, every single day, then you'll be fine. Lots of people have lived celibate lifestyles for most of their lives - for example even C.S. Lewis has. So there's absolutely no problem with it - don't let yourself be influenced by the irrational crowd.

It's quite saddening. — Question

It's provoking me to anger personally, more so than sadness, because, by adopting such an attitude, they are destroying something that would, otherwise, be beautiful. That's a disaster! These folks have lost the plot... Like look at Terrapin! He's complaining that we're too conservative! He'd probably like to come and shag my wife, because why not? What's so bad about him having sex with my wife, he would say? What a loony...

This thread quickly becomes filled by sex-crazed sharks - as with most sex related threads. Terrapin Sextation and Bitter Crank being prime examples.

Sex is a primordial instinct-even bacteria engage in it. — TheMadFool

Nope, that process of horizontal gene transfer is different than reproduction. Bacteria don't reproduce through sex.

Is it surprising if it dominates most, if not all, of human interaction? — TheMadFool

Well - it doesn't, and it's such a simplistic reductionism to think it does.

I don't know about never, but having a wife and going at it in the missionary position with the lights off and holding hands once a week sounds alright. — The Great Whatever

>:O true that

I can totally enjoy an orchestra concert which offers zero sexual innuendo or imagery. A steady diet of movies about love affairs that didn't involve any sex at all would not be acceptable. — Bitter Crank

That's very strange. Why do you need to see sex? Now that's really weird brother. In fact, I hate seeing sex in movies about love - I like those movies which imply but do not show it.

It is not so much that sex is idolized in the west, but the west is less culturally uptight about sexuality. — m-theory

Right. That's why you have so many teens keen on sex when they aren't even 14 - because we don't idolize sex. Give me a break dude. It's what all teenagers today are preoccupied with. Back when I was in school, we only started to get preoccupied by sex late - like 8th or 9th grade. But nowadays, kids do it as early as 12. That's unacceptable, and evidence of a culture in decline.

First, there may be 25 million people that may actually idolize themselves and sex. These people would be the younger, quite a bit more attractive, healthier-looking, more affluent heterosexual and homosexual hedonists who live in the larger urban centers. They are a small fraction of 1.5 - 2.0 billion people. They get a disproportionate amount of attention in the press because their hedonistic sexually active lives are much more distracting than coverage of the overweight working class people who are too tired and too poor to lead dazzling lives. — Bitter Crank

It's not about the number of people who do it, but the attitude that exists with regard to it. Most people would think that having lots of sex is a good thing. That's what it means that we idolise sex.

By the way, I suspect you'd find that your struggle to never have sex would be as difficult in the 10th century as in the 21st century. — Bitter Crank

Not true. The desire for sex is mediated through the culture in which you live. I've spoken with people who have lived in conservative cultures their whole lives, and they attest to the fact that the desire for sex exists, but it's not that great.

I'm very libertine, and I'm a big fan of sex. Contemporary culture seems rather prudish when it comes to sex to me. We are still very monogamy-oriented, we have sexual scandals, we publicly demonize women who have a lot of casual sex, prostitution is illegal, we have huge hang-ups about the idea of youths having sex, we have all sorts of behavioral restrictions on sex, we don't at all promote a casual sex culture, etc. I see all of that as rather problematic. — Terrapin Station

Oh yeah, this guy would even want to shag my wife if he could! Give me a break...

There seems to be a cross-cultural consensus that sex is good for people and that they benefit from having healthy (not abusive) sexual encounters and sexual relationships. — Bitter Crank

Ehmmmm... no. In fact, I challenge you to provide me evidence that, any kind of nonabusive sex in any kind of culture is good. That's just not true. Conservative cultures will find sex with random people to be bad for example. They would find sex within a relationship to be good though (so in-so-far as they treat sex to always occur within the relationship, they will consider it as good). So there is no cross-cultural consensus about sex. Sex depends on culture. If there is any clear fact, then it is that sex isn't required to live a good life - it's not a necessity towards that aim, and not having sex isn't psychologically bad (unless you live with a culture on your back which pushes you to have sex every single day of your life - then yes, you may go a little bit nuts). We see this not only in human beings, but also in animals. When I was a child, I used to have a dog that never had sex. He lived a very happy life. If you don't let the dog have sex, he doesn't go crazy, stop eating and die. But - if its owner dies, then it will become depressed, it will go next to the grave, stop eating, and die. There's more important things in life than sex - in animals and in humans.

"Faith" is in knowing exactly what to practice and think-- a belief, a ritual, an understanding, a feeling. It's actually crisp all the way down. So much so that it is a beacon that holds or someone returns to even in when assaulted by vagueness. The person beginning to doubt their way of life is called to "have faith," to turn away from the uncertain and the vague, to the particular crisp practice of faith. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The person who doubts their way of life don't have much faith, and therefore they don't have much evidence for their faith either. There's nothing crisp about this. As you noted in some other thread, I don't take my faith to be an act of knowledge for example. When I say I believe God exists, I'm not entirely sure what I mean by that.

I would say that anyone who thinks of "fact" as connoting "crisp, precise and uninfluenced by subjectivity" has a misconception of what facts are. Facts are simply whatever is, and if there are things that aren't crisp, precise or uninfluenced by subjectivity, then "fact" can't connote those qualities. — Terrapin Station

Sure, I can agree with that!

If it's vague, isn't the state of affairs--the fact--that it's vague? — Terrapin Station

Yes, that's what I'm saying. That's why I said that in terms of spiritual reality, there are facts, but they aren't facts in the way we generally conceive of facts in the empirical realm (ie crisp, precise, and uninfluenced by subjectivity)

For example, if you desire a surf green Stratocaster, it's a fact that you desire a surf green Stratocaster, and that's certainly not independent of you/what you do — Terrapin Station

No but spiritual reality isn't like that at all. It's not crisp - it's vague. That desire is not only subjective, it is crisp as well - precise. It's more alike desiring something, but not knowing EXACTLY what is desired. So in that sense, what is desired isn't factual - and neither is it non-factual. Fact/non-Fact fails to describe such a situation.

I don't know why sense would matter. "Facts is facts," even if there are two senses (whatever those senses would be). And if your characterization of correspondence theory is only one sense, and not the relevant sense, then that's why you'd say that. — Terrapin Station

Facts can describe/be states of affairs which are not affected by your very observation of or interaction with them. There is a tree in the garden - that's not changing based on my observation of it or immediate interaction. The tree doesn't suddenly disappear after I make the observation. But in the spiritual world, when I say, for example "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen", the underlying "fact" described is unlike the fact of "there is a tree in the garden". To have evidence for faith, you must have faith - so your very participation is part of what creates the underlying spiritual reality - the underlying spiritual reality is not INDEPENDENT of what you do (the way the existence of the tree outside is independent of the attitude you have towards it). So if you don't have faith, then there is no evidence for faith. But if you do, then there is evidence. That's what the spiritual truth says, and of course there are degrees of faith, and therefore degrees of evidence too, and so forth.

But when I asked you if spiritual truths are truths by virtue of being a relationship between a proposition and states of affairs, you responded with "No." — Terrapin Station

So you started asking me yes or no questions as well? >:O

I responded with a qualified no. Not facts in the same sense as facts existing in the empirical world.

it is a fact that the cat is on he mat — John

What is the fact then? That the cat is on the mat. The fact is identical with the existent state of affairs.

Not that I can make any sense out of why spiritual reality wouldn't be factual, but so then you'd say that spiritual truths do not fit under correspondence theory? — Terrapin Station

Why would I say that? They do correspond - although in a loose fashion. But the underlying reality is such that saying "this is like this" becomes impossible - once it is said, it changes the underlying reality, which is no longer precisely as described (although neither is it completely different from the description). Much alike quantum mechanics - acts of observation, in this case acts of becoming aware of what the facts are, makes them become different and change. In quantum mechanics, the nature of particles are such that - they don't have a precise combination of position/momentum. So the nature of spiritual reality is such that we can't achieve the precision that we can achieve in the empirical world - and thus we can't speak of facts. In other words, the distinction between being and non-being becomes blurred - becomes more like a gradation than a yes/no switch.

How do facts exist? What is the difference between factuality and actuality? — John

Fact is defined in relationship with actuality. Fact is part of what is actual. It belongs to their essence to exist :-O like God!

Are spiritual truths truths by virtue of being a relationship between a proposition and states of affairs under your framework? — Terrapin Station

No - because there are no "facts" in the spiritual realm the same way there are "facts" in the empirical realm. So yes, it is the relationship between a proposition and a spiritual reality, which "facts" don't adequately describe, possibly because the participant is also always involved in what the spiritual reality is. If facts are snow flakes, then that which describes spiritual reality would be alike drops of water. The liquidity of the latter cannot be captured by the rigidity and solidity of the former - and the former are ultimately a derivative of the latter.

But facts do exist, it's part and parcel of what being a fact is - to exist. It's not a category error at all. At best, it could be a tautology, but I wouldn't agree at all that it is one.

I'm asking it because you're turning out to say that truth and falsehood are the same thing I said they were vis-a-vis being a relation between propositions and states of affairs (on correspondence theory).

But initially, you were arguing that truth and fact refer to the same thing--or at least that they can. — Terrapin Station

I said I don't agree with your point of view but it's consistent, so now I understand it at least. As in, I understand why someone could think that. The reason why I don't agree is that I don't think everything that is referred to as truth could be placed within those bounds. For example, spiritual truths would have no place under your framework, would they? Yet I have reason to think such truths exist, and therefore the framework we're using to judge is wrong.

Okay, so the only difference between what I wrote and what you wrote is the parenthetical "(judgment of)", right? — Terrapin Station

Yes, but I don't understand why you're asking this. My judgement can be wrong if I don't know the facts for whatever reason, but think I do. For example I have a hallucination, and thus think there's a tiger in front of me. "There's a tiger in front of me" is false, but I judge it to be true, because I don't correctly understand the fact that I'm having a hallucination and am not actually perceiving a real tiger.

Could you answer first if you realize that that's what I said above? — Terrapin Station

Above where? I realised that's what you said in our conversation, not in your conversation with John. But I don't agree with it.

You realize that what I said above was that truth and falsehood are (judgments of) the relation of a proposition to states of affairs (on correspondence theory), right? — Terrapin Station

What would be the judgement except becoming aware of the relation between a proposition and states of affairs? I don't get to choose what the relation between a proposition and states of affairs is, do I?

In any event, you're saying that the being of truth and falsehood is the relationship between a proposition and states of affairs? — Terrapin Station

Yes, it would be, after a correspondence theory of truth at least, the relationship between a proposition and states of affairs. Propositions which describe possible but not actual states of affairs are false (in other words the proposition relates in such a way with the states of affairs present, in this case by not matching them) and propositions which describe actual states of affairs would be true (because the propositions match the states of affairs existing).

So his point is like - truth and falsity can both have being, because they represent the relationship between meaning and states of affairs. A false meaning is still a meaning, albeit one which doesn't correspond with the facts of existence. HOWEVER non-facts can't exist. You're mistaking the existence of false meanings to mean the existence of non-facts.

I don't agree with Terrapin's way of looking at things, but in this discussion it seems to me he is right - although he's terrible at explaining things and seems rather uninterested in making you understand. What he means by how non-factuality obtains ontologically is as follows: since facts represent those states of affairs which ARE, non-facts clearly represent inexistant states of affairs. So in what sense can you say non-facts are? That's like saying non-existent things exist, ie absurd.

How do you this? — Heister Eggcart

I do this like this bruv... :D

I think predicting the future is irrelevant here, at least to the degree that you demand that it be predicted. For example, see how Warren Buffet makes his money. And surely, the economy is almost at 20k, an all-time high. — Question

If you want to become like Warren Buffett is today, you can't do what he is doing today, you have to do what he was doing when he was young. Why? As the capital you control increases, you have to change the way you play the game quite significantly. It's very difficult to place 300 billion or whatever Berkshire's assets add up to. The most important thing for him is to beat inflation. The more money you have, the more you will be hurt by inflation, and the harder it will be to beat it. Why? Because the big risk is having so much money that a share of it sits unused because you're not able to find the right investments fast enough. The idea is that you have to find very big deals (and there's not many big deals around) - a big deal is useful because you get rid of a large chunk of money in one go. Let's say you could get a return of 100% on investments of 10,000 each. You're not going to get involved in that if you're a billionaire because each 10,000 investment takes time. You'll prefer the 2% return on 1 billion beating inflation over the 100% return in 10K pieces, because you simply wouldn't have the time to make all the deals required and to manage them.

There's a reason why Warren Buffett is suddenly arguing against hedge funds, for long-term investments at low rates, etc. This is exactly what he needs. When he was young though, he was involved in a few risky deals. He was running what used to be probably one of the very first hedge funds. Inventing a new way to invest is what made him so rich. Because when he was small he had to take risks. Now he hates risk. Of course. Risk injures him more than helps him now. But this used to be the other way around.

If we do a simple cost-benefit analysis, then investing in solar or renewables now is impractical — Question

You can start it though. Buy a few panels, land them on top of your house, or appartment building, make some energy! You're young, you have lots of time to recover the costs. Sell to your national grid, or use the electricity yourself!

The contents of your post basically amounts to: be good — Wayfarer

But this is what I'm asking you. You claim that there is something higher than this. And I don't see how there can be something higher than this, from a logical point of view.

Chinese Buddhism, wherein an emperor asks a Buddhist master, 'what is it you teach?' - to which the reply comes 'learn to do good, cease to do evil, purify the mind'. The Emperor a replies 'a child of seven knows that', to which the master says 'but many men of 70 have failed to practice is.' — Wayfarer

Bodhidharma? One of my favorite Buddhists. I loved his pragmatism.

He did go to the trouble of constructing lengthy and recondite texts, in the style of geometrical propositions, the aim of which is to remedy ignorance and to advocate the supreme importance of virtue, and was ostracised by his own culture for so doing. — Wayfarer

Exactly, but what is there to do more than this?

The rest of your post is basically venting of spleen. Hope you feel better for it. — Wayfarer

Well what's the point of finding excuses for answering? Whether or not I'm venting spleen or whatever is irrelevant to the contents of my post. Why do you deal in these superficialities instead of tackling the very real philosophical problems that I'm bringing up for you?

Didn't you notice the very phrase from Spinoza that I quoted to Willow about the 'intellectual love of God', which is the pinnacle of Spinoza's system? — Wayfarer

Yes I did. But as you see Spinoza identifies blessedness with virtue. The intellectual love of God is merely understanding of the world. He who understands the world will be virtuous, because again, if you understand, would you pour poisons down your throat? >:O

Mind you, I can hardly make head or tail of Spinoza, but he did at least say that. — Wayfarer

Well I can see that.

Yes and I pointed out that the consequences tend to be that people will not trust if you lie, and people won't keep your company if you are insulting. — m-theory

Right, so all you mean is that harm should be punished, just not in legal manners. But there are other means. Social pressure, etc.

If you don't infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others you are not legally responsible for any harm. — m-theory

But consequences for harming someone don't necessarily have to be of a legal nature...

They do not harm anybodies freedoms. — m-theory

So? If they don't harm someone's freedom that means they don't do any harm at all?

There is an extent to which we can control our emotions though.
And it is our responsibility to do so, — m-theory

Sure.

No this is the most sensible position to hold. — m-theory

So it's a sensible position to hold that lying to my girlfriend, insulting you, or emotionally blackmailing people aren't harmful?

It would be my fault for being upset, I am responsible for my own emotions. — m-theory

According to scientific findings, only to a certain extent. There are situations when you can't control the emotions that you feel.

How do you add them? — jorndoe

You don't, the Admins have to add them.

You have not caused any harm unless you have violated my rights and freedoms. — m-theory

No that's just an ideology which you use now because you realise that your argument doesn't hold. Everyone here can probably testify that if I do that I will cause harm.

I have no idea what you are saying here? — m-theory

For example, after I insult you, you get upset and report it to the moderators, they could come and tell you that it's your fault for getting insulted so easily. That would be, in the name of my freedom to insult, applying social pressure to maintain that freedom.

Interesting video! Thanks!

So individuals are not qualified to manage their own emotional well being?
Sorry I disagree.
I — m-theory

Yeah, now this is just changing the subject. I never said anything like that.

If you don't not violate a persons rights you are not responsible for any harm. — m-theory

So if I tell you i fuck your mom, I'm not responsible for the harm I cause you? Good to know!

Say for example I say something you find offensive.
Since I have not violated your rights I am not responsible to you.
It is your fault that you have become offended.
Blaming me because you are not mature enough to ignore an insult is not ethical in the least. — m-theory

No the question isn't something you find offensive for whatever reason that is peculiar to you and to no one else. Maybe I imitate someone with Parkinson's and your father suffered of that, and so you find it offensive. That's the case you're describing. I'm not talking about that case. I'm talking about things everyone finds offensive, about which there is no doubt. If I tell you I fucked your mom, neither of us has any doubts that I've insulted you. If I lie to my girlfriend, nobody has any doubts that I've harmed her. Even you don't have any doubts about that. You've admitted it before.

It does not matter if it ought to have consequences, the fact is there are consequences for lying and being offensive.
People will not regard you as trustworthy(because you lie) and people will not want to keep company with you(because you can't conduct yourself with civility). — m-theory

Yes, but in the name of freedom we could encourage people not to enforce these consequences via means of social pressure on folks who lie. So should we do that?

Blackmailing might be a violation of a person rights and hence the person being blackmailed should have legal recourse in such cases. — m-theory

I never said blackmailing. I said emotional blackmailing. That's different than other sorts of blackmail. And blackmailing doesn't have to be obvious (and when it's not obvious, the law can't do anything about it). For example, I know you've cheated your brother out of money in a business deal, it's enough to bring up the subject when we're having an argument, or I'm trying to get you to do something, and you will be pushed to comply or else I will tell your brother. I never even have to tell you or threaten you that I will tell your brother. I can suddenly ask you "How'd you feel if your brother knew?" and then if you try to push the conversation down that way, I can change subject.

No being offensive does not violate anybodies rights.
Lying does not violate anybodies rights.
Blackmailing might be a violation of a person rights and hence the person being blackmailed should have legal recourse in such cases. — m-theory

So if they don't violate rights, then they aren't harmful?

If you are a liar and an offender this does have consequences. — m-theory

So then it should have those consequences? If yes, then you're agreeing that you shouldn't be free to lie (there should be consequences for it).

Non-sense.
Words might cause offense, but you have not violated any of my rights or freedoms in being a fowl mouth. — m-theory

No, but causing offence is harming you (and as you note, not all harm is a violation of your rights or freedoms). As is lying to my girlfriend, or emotionally blackmailing my sister. And yet these things are not taken care of by their "rights and freedoms" - it doesn't follow from this that it's ethical to insult you, lie to my girlfriend, or emotionally blackmail my sister. Neither does it follow that I should be free (there should be no consequences) if I do this.

Again if you have not infringed upon the basic rights and freedoms of others you have not caused any harm. — m-theory

That's nonsense. If I tell you that "I fucked your mom, and your child is a hopeless retard", have I done you no harm? If I lie to my girlfriend, have I done her no harm? If I emotionally blackmail my sister to get something in return, have I done her no harm?

You have a very narrow view of harm my friend, if you think the law (rights and freedoms) includes all possible harms.

It would be objectively wrong to prevent people from defining for themselves what it means to flourish. — m-theory

Why?

Provided they do not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others they should be allowed to live their lives as they decide. — m-theory

So if their actions cause harm upon others, we should fold our hands, and say "sorry, can't do nothing about this"... that sounds quite unethical to me.

To be flourishing is a thing that individuals should be able to decide for themselves. — m-theory

That's false, because the actions of individuals have consequences on the well-being of others. To say they "should decide for themselves" without further specification is not engaging in ethics at all. For example if they decide that flourishing is being individualists and doing whatever satisfies them, without regard to their loved ones, then such a decision is objectively wrong, and would contradict the idea that "they should decide for themselves what flourishing is". Yes, they should have freedom, but limited freedom.

And the idea of giving them more freedom, and then seeking ways to mitigate the evil that they create through that use of greater freedom is nonsensical. You don't break windows, and then go around fixing them - that's unethical.

Yeah, I mean indications of human flourishing. — Emptyheady

We can't really measure human flourishing that way. They're more like conditions for the possibility of flourishing of a higher number of people than otherwise, sure. But they're not indicative of flourishing at all. For example, would you say a society in which divorce rates are close to 50% is flourishing? That indicates a high level of conflict and disharmony amongst its members, and would certainly not count as flourishing in my books.

Quantifiable: reduction in violence (e.g. rates of homicides and rape), poverty and all its aspects (e.g. death by starvation, death by diseases); and increasing life expectancies, the standard of living (in GDP) and the universal human rights (which I consider the maximisation of negative liberty). — Emptyheady

This isn't flourishing though. This is the bare minimum of well-being, before we can even talk about flourishing.