So then at least some things in nature do have reasons for happening? — Agustino

I don't understand what you are driving at here. Some things happen for a reason in the sense that they are pre-meditated by a rational agent. Other things happen for a reason in the sense that they perform a function. Still other things happen for a reason in the sense that they are caused. Reasons can be proximate or ultimate, singular or plural. Yes, some [all?] things in nature happen for a reason, but reasons come in many different flavours.

The strange thing though is that Nature is a lot more perfect than you imagine it to be. That's what's really surprising. It's not the mistakes of nature, which are so rare in comparison to what it gets right. — Agustino

Nature is ingenious, but it proceeds by trial and error. There are thought to be some organisms or some features of organisms that perform optimally in a given environment. Features that confer an acute adaptive advantage are typical of these traits. There are numerous other examples, however, where nature functions just well enough to get the job done, more-or-less (e.g. the reptilian heart). In nature we also find examples of vestigial features that appear to serve no biological purpose whatsoever (e.g. the pelvic bone of a snake). Nature is wonderful, awe-inspiring and inventive, but it is also an ongoing work in progress.

Do things in nature have reasons for happening as they do? For example is there a reason for your heart pumping blood around the body? — Agustino

It is uncontroversial that the heart and the vascular system together perform the function of circulating the blood to and from the extremities of the body. The reason for this is not as easy to state. The naturalistic explanation is provided by history and genealogy. There may also be ultimate reasons, but they remain highly speculative. My own view is that the advanced vertebrate cardiovascular system was a requirement of the increasingly complex biota of our planet.

I see quite the opposite! Nature is fantastically well organised and developed, quite the opposite of clumsy and inefficient. My gosh, I wonder how you can even claim that Nature is inefficient. Just imagine how every day your body does thousands, if not millions of tasks that are needed for your survival, and it does them perfectly and in harmony most of the time. Sure there are errors, but the errors are the exception, not the rule. Nature is so beautifully organised, that one is moved by merely regarding nature towards worship of the divine. — Agustino

Nature is complex, sophisticated and, at times, beautiful, but by no means does it perform optimally. Nature is imperfect, as we are imperfect. Nature may reflect the divine, but it is not itself divine. Beware of idolatry in your views of nature.

I agree, but listen to this. You don't have a natural desire for JUST sex, and if you don't clarify what this desire actually is, and how it relates to different parts of your psyche, you'll never figure out what will fulfil you, and what you actually want. Most people don't even know what they want. So the irrational indulgence of sexuality is just as bad as its irrational repression. The point is that you need to figure out what will satisfy your sexual nature as a human person. — Agustino

No argument here.

Are you purposefully misinterpreting what I wrote? There's nothing wrong with having sex for pleasure, so long as at least one of its essential aims isn't frustrated. And no, this doesn't actually take a massive amount of discipline and will power. The fact you think it does only demonstrates that we live in an age that is excessively promiscuous with regards to sexuality, and where people have been led to think that it's some crazy amount of self-discipline and willpower that is required to abstain from immoral sexual behaviour. — Agustino

No, it's not my intention to misinterpret you, but you are taking such a hard line that you will no doubt perceive me as an adversary.

No that's not the aim of sex. I've explained a billion times why not. Nature did not give you sex to satisfy an urge. Rather it gave you an urge to satisfy what? Procreation and intimacy. — Agustino

This embodies an overly simplistic view of nature as a rational agent. That is not to say that there isn't or couldn't be a rational agent behind nature, but nature itself is rather clumsy and inefficient. The reasons that nature made us the way that we are involves complicated historical processes, not all of which are ascertainable to us.

That's a problem for many people, and it leads to a lot of unhappiness. They should deliberate about it and consider it. — Agustino

You are now guilty of misinterpreting me. I did not say that people should not deliberate and consider how to behave responsibly with respect to sex. However, the basic human desire for sex is non-negotiable, and the denial of our sexuality has led to its own fair share of misery.

Just like pleasure isn't a valid end of eating, so pleasure isn't a valid end of sex. A valid end of sex is what is essential for sex, what sex is aimed at. It's aimed at reproduction and intimacy, the same way eating is aimed at nutrition. Simple. — Agustino

Sex is aimed at a plurality of ends, but let's be honest: at its most basic the goal of sex is the satisfaction of a biological urge. Sex is not a rational activity in the sense that people generally do not deliberate about whether or not it is something they want to pursue, but rather they are driven to pursue it, often without reflection. The sex drive is biologically determined.

For some people sex is unattainable, or rarely attainable. That pretty much takes care of the problem of overindulgence. Those for whom sex is an option, the fact that we have even a minimal capacity to overcome our basic urges is amazing. In the context of readily available sex, behaviour that is purely devoted to procreation and intimacy would certainly require an impressive amount of discipline and will power.

I know that I know nothing

Is this really a paradox?

A. Yes

B. No — TheMadFool

Strictly speaking, it is a paradox when translated from Greek into English and given a logical reading. On a more generous reading, however, the paradox is easily resolved.

I interpret the statement as a gesture of intellectual modesty and an admission that it is difficult if not impossible to possess a complete understanding of even simple matters that is free from all error. The wisdom of the statement is situated in its functional contrast with scholarly arrogance and the tendency of people to overstate their degree of understanding and knowledge.

A thought I find especially interesting is that the memes and their behaviour could be explained via the theories of biology, such as evolution and survival of the fittest. — BlueBanana

The important difference being that genes have a basis in biochemistry, while memes have no physical basis whatsoever. Evolution by natural selection is a biological process; the cultural transmission of ideas should not be thought of in quite the same way.

Overall I thought what you wrote was quite persuasive. I suppose my difficulty with it can be summed up in the cliche that "no man is an island". The view you present is quite insular. By interacting with the world-in-itself (which includes, by the way, other people) we are able to modify the world-for-us in significant ways.

↪unenlightened You may be interested in this.
— Agustino

Yes, I was. — unenlightened

Which was William James' infamous reply to this.

Is something going on in your life that is making you think this way? People should never have to live with evil being done to them.

In this article it is stated that, “Simply put, hedonism says that your well-being is fully determined by your pleasures and pains..."

So if killing people is pleasurable to a serial killer then his well-being is increased by killing people, and, therefore, his killing people is morally good? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

One argument for rejecting hedonism.

One does not have to wear shoes to exist. Right now I I'm not wearing shoes. — Rich

Presumably though you have feet that are of a certain dimension.

This is just one illustration of your existence and Harry Potter's non-existence. One of the features of an existing person is that there is an infinity of details we can describe about them. The amount of description we can produce about Harry Potter is limited to what J.K. Rowling has included in her books. There is no answer to the question of what shoe size is worn by Harry Potter (unless it is given by his author). Even where there are answers to questions like this, they are not based on existence but rather on what the author has imagined. So J.K. Rowling could have it that Harry Potter wears size 9 shoes, but that does not somehow cloak Harry Potter with existence.

I see nothing but confusion and mischief arising from the notion that imaginary objects are part of the furniture of the universe, or that "possible worlds" are worlds actually in existence somewhere. I am not ruling out all non-physical entities from existence, but Harry Potter is purely imaginary.

Thank heavens there is at least one woman here to keep things grounded.

And the opposite is also true - a good man is one who most benefits his woman, not himself. — Agustino

I guess that depends on whether he is a man's man, or a ladies' man.

It's a biological response that is culturally and psychologically mediated. — Agustino

This is a secondary effect.

I am skeptical of this. Yes, it does have a basis in biology, but that doesn't play as big of a role as we're often made to think it does. — Agustino

No one has ever had to convince me to get a boner. It's a biological response.

Sexual attraction occurs largely because other people are attracted to the person in question. — Agustino

The phenomenon you are citing has more to do with status and competition than sexual attraction. Sex appeal has a very real basis in biology.

Exactly what it says? :s — Agustino

But it doesn't say. What is the teleology directing a woman's beauty?

Yes, beauty is more general than sexual appeal. Also sexual appeal can be elicited in ways that are independent of beauty, but rather dependent on social standards. — Agustino

Then what is behind your assertion that "the pregnant body of a woman isn't meant to be beautiful"?

I'm suggesting that the pregnant body of a woman isn't meant to be beautiful — Agustino

Do you know the difference between beauty and sexual appeal?

The beauty or ugliness of a woman will probably have at least something to do with her racial make up. Would one be a racist for saying so? Or a sexist? — Bitter Crank

I'm not sure I understand. Judging beauty by reference to race seems obviously racist to me. How can you avoid the racism in a statement like, "that woman is ugly because of her nappy hair and big butt typical of black women"?

You used Harry Potter twice in a sentence, so Harry Potter must exist in some way, shape, form, constitution, state, etc.--even if it is only as symbols on a piece of paper, computer screen, etc. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

If Harry Potter exists, then tell me, what size shoes does he wear?

History is a story. If there is no one there to hear or tell stories, there is no history. — T Clark

An exception would be natural history. There is a history of nature that is independent of the records we create.

God is an advocate for my point of view.

God prefers me over others.

God believes in my worth and virtuosity, especially when others do not.

But if Harry Potter does not exist, how are we able to talk about Harry Potter? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

We are able to speak about imaginary objects because language transcends reality.

I think the error you are making is that you are confusing the possibility of the existence of Harry Potter, with the existence of a possible Harry Potter.

Looks ugly to me, does that make me sexist and/or racist? — Heister Eggcart

Um, well are you saying that she's ugly because she's a black woman? If so, then I think you might be guilty on both counts.

If women weren't vastly inferior to their male counterparts in almost every sport, we wouldn't have gendered sporting events in the first place. — Heister Eggcart

Right there is the elephant in the room. But that is hardly surprising since most sports were created to showcase male abilities.

So what (if anything) is the difficulty that some people will have with McEnroe's comments? Perhaps it is that he is too strident with his remarks and seemingly insensitive to some of the negative overtones.

Not a little bird, but a big mean Gyrfalcon.

Bu bu but Geospiza, some women are "airbrushed, photoshopped distortions of reality". — Bitter Crank

Not on closer inspection. Except maybe the outlying ones mentioned by

The sport was so much less competitive and developed when they had that match that the genetic disadvantage wasn't so hard to overcome. (there wasn't this massive pool of stand-out male specimens training for life and competing for millions). — VagabondSpectre

That ad is too funny.

The other factor to remember is that Riggs was well over the hill at the time of his match with King. It was perhaps more illustrative of an age vs. youth contest than of male vs. female. Even for ultra-masculine males, the advantages of superior genetics (if that is in fact the differentiating variable) diminish with age.

Don't deny it. You also are clearly in love with Hillary.

you are clearly repressing your sexual attraction for Serena.

I can tell you his statements were made in earnest. Tennis has very very competitive cultures which surround them, and while this is a part of where the "controversy" originates (the human desire to competitively compare and contrast, and the resulting dilemma when the top men are compared to the top women), it's also why there is such a clear divide in the first place (concerning tennis and soccer specifically). — VagabondSpectre

Interesting. There is also a long history of the "battle of the sexes" in tennis (e.g. the Bobby Riggs vs. Billy Jean King match) that may still pervade the culture of the sport.

Pair-bonding species tend to have low sexual dimorphism and "tournament species" tend to have high degrees of sexual dimorphism. — VagabondSpectre

Sexual selection is only one factor contributing to sexual dimorphism. Consider most bird-of-prey species: the female is significantly larger than the male, and they both contribute to the rearing of young. The adaptive significance of this difference in size appears to be unrelated to sexual selection, but instead related to a division of labor between the parents. Research suggests that the difference in size permits each sex to specialize in different prey items thus ensuring a broader pool of food items in times of scarcity.

Yes, but those depictions certainly did not mean to illustrate beauty. The pregnant woman's body is not supposed to be beautiful, but rather nourishing, protective and other qualities. That Serena picture actually wants to tell us that she's proud of her body - as if anyone gave a damn. She is indeed quite smug, and the idiots are paying money for this. — Agustino

The beauty in the photo, to me, is found in its candour about the female body. Most published photos of women depict an airbrushed, photoshopped distortion of reality.

Are you suggesting that he has some hidden motivation for pointing out the difference between male and female tennis athletes?

Are you suggesting that his statements are somehow improper because of his motivations?

It's uncontroversially true that male athletes have a rather large advantage in just about any sport which requires physical strength to play at a high level. — VagabondSpectre

I don't know what his motivations were. I don't know that even he understands his motivations. I do think it is a strange thing for him to be so opinionated about. Although I have to admit that the interviewer's questions were very leading. Maybe it springs from an ultra-competitive mindset, or perhaps he was just being cheeky (although to me he appears to be earnest).

I'm not exactly saying that his statements were improper, but I do think that there are understandable reasons why certain people (e.g. female athletes in general, and Serena Williams in particular) would be annoyed by them.

Serena very graciously tweeted this reply:

Williams photo was done by Annie Leibovitz, a very well known and well regarded photo artist. — Cavacava

That's an understatement.

The photograph of Serena on the cover of Vanity Fair has an almost identical composition to the photo of a 7-month pregnant Demi Moore that appeared on the cover of the August 1991 issue. The 1991 photo was also taken by Leibovitz. Is Vanity Fair making some kind of statement by this?

I'm not saying that. I'm disagreeing with your claim that my suggested consistent evidence is confirmation of McEnroe's claim. — Michael

Okay, so I think we are in agreement that your historical facts have at least some relevance to the question in issue whereas my breakfast habits do not.

If the relevance of your facts is not in the nature of confirmation, what is their relevance?

I don't have any problem with anyone having whatever opinion they do. There's simply no reason to put much weight on it (well, unless you're betting on a game and the person has a good track record so that their predictions have a better than random percentage of making you some money). — Terrapin Station

But as a person of some influence, will not others put weight on his comments, even if they shouldn't?

Yes, but not confirmation of McEnroe's statements. So, contrary to your claim here, that "the best thing we have to assess the claim is evidence that is consistent with the claim" is not "confirmation nevertheless". — Michael

We agree that consistency is not sufficient for confirmation, however you seem to be arguing that the fact that I ate cereal for breakfast is equally relevant to the issue in question as the fact (alleged by you to be "the best thing we have to judge the claim") that a professional male tennis player formerly defeated Serena.

Just to clarify, I do not claim or agree that your additional facts are "the best thing we have". I do however claim that those facts are more than merely consistent with McEnroe's statements; they provide confirmation of those statements. Confirmation does not entail that the matter is settled in favor of McEnroe.

Anything that doesn't refute a claim is consistent with a claim. Consistency isn't sufficient for confirmation. — Michael

That I ate cereal for breakfast is consistent with McEnroe's statements. The additional facts adduced by you are relevant to the question at issue in a manner that is confirmatory.