HERE'S A CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC

ENOAH

Never mind gender is a construct, but I submit, so is sexuality.

We often hear that gender is one thing, sexuality another, as if sexuality is based in the act of human reproduction, and that alone defines the so-called heterosexual and endorses them as the Model Narrative.

Planting semen into the uterus, driven by mutual urges as real as hunger or the need to move bowels, or the also mutual urge to get milk into an infant, is one thing.

But, for Humans, sexuality: dating, and romance, birth control, fertility intervention, marriage and matrimonial laws, both ecclesiastical and civil; rituals, restrictions, mutilations, fetishes, and positions, references, proclivities, size, fashion, and technique, are all human constructions, some so deeply foundational to human Mind and History that they seem natural. And that’s hetero-sexuality.

Gay sexuality is similarly constructed.

Before anyone panics (or cheers), I’m not submitting that “sexual” behavior among same sex doesn’t occur in Nature. I’m also not submitting gay sexuality is a choice.

I’m saying reproductive mating and same sex mutual releases of whatever sort may or may not be natural; but all human sexuality, across the board, is Fictional.

Does that mean we have a choice? No.

Whatever Narrative it is that triggers erotic attraction and sexual arousal for you, like most other Narratives, is pretty foundational and virtually impossible to re-write. That goes for trans people and everyone on the spectrum, and not, throwing in straight people. Essentially, LGBTQ+ or straight, we are the same, estranged from Nature, experiencing Fiction.

My point is, gender, sexuality, orientation and proclivity, are Fictional as are our political, religious, or cultural preferences.

So what? Why do they have to be Natural to be accepted, when most other things widely accepted aren’t Natural? Why do the unconventional need to prove their likes are Natural, or not a choice, when the same conditions apply to all humans: we have wandered very far from our Natures, and we abide almost exclusively in a world of incessant construction, a Narrative which is not of our—that is, our True natures—making; but constructs itself, and makes us identify with it, as if it is us, and “we” are Real.

And watch the suffering which ensues from this confusion.

I expect that, owing to the liberty I take in assuming you are on the same page as me regarding Reality, Fiction, etc., that I have been too ambiguous for an opinion to arise (and I mean, opinions autonomously arise; but now, Im vexing). Sorry.

The thing is, I'd be interested in any idea which might arise even more so in those which arise from confusion. That, I know from a lot of experience, can be very fruitful in editing the Narrative/History.

javi2541997

↪ENOAH

Sexual stimuli is pretty natural though.

Anyway, you are claiming that sexual desire (doesn't matter the inclination) is a fictional convection. I disagree. We are 'created' to reproduce with each other, as much as the animals do. What did happen to sexuality is the weird eroticism which owes its origin to romanticism. Since then, we have started to conceive sex as an aesthetic act rather than the pure action of conceiving children.

The confusion you refer to arises because the TV and films show a way of sexuality which is not connected to reality. The filmmakers use sex because they know it is an easy attraction. Due to this number of sex scenes, we tend to consider that sex is fictional because we hardly experienced the sex we watch on TV. You mentioned dating, romance, etc. All of these are fictional, but not sex itself. Keep in mind that some people, to satisfy their sexual stimuli, pay money for sex.

I mean, what is fictional is the eroticism around sex. We are understanding this natural act wrongly. You cannot choose to experience or not experience sexuality. Otherwise, you will have a problem.

Sir2u

My point is, gender, sexuality, orientation and proclivity, are Fictional as are our political, religious, or cultural preferences. — ENOAH

I think fictional is a bad choice of words here.
Humans tend to organize things, it is part of the nature. To do so they need to put labels on things to try and mark/identify/distinguish clear areas of data. We do this by naming things.

Mankind and other animal's sexuality was based on reproduction of the species. To make it more that just an obligation to fulfill nature seems to have come up with the idea of making reproduction pleasurable so that at least the male of most species will actually want to go to the trouble of copulating.

Unfortunately the pleasure part can be received though many methods, many of which are not helpful to reproduction.

So man needs a way to organize his thoughts on these ways of obtaining pleasure without reproduction. He gives them names, thus arises the concept of non natural, non reproductive sex and then all of the others that follow.

The fact people do have sex in so many different ways makes it obvious that sex is real, the rest of the naming system is invented but still based on actual doings of mankind.

ENOAH

↪Sir2u

I can agree that you have given a very reasonable assessment of the very same processes I am referring to. And, sure, we can stop there and dig no deeper.

Also, "Fictional" might be too strong a word, but it is effective at contrasting these processes described differently by you and I, with what I am proposing to be the NonFiction, Nature.

And what I am getting at is that we aren't describing the things we naturally do in human sexuality--all across the so-called spectrum--we are constructing sexuality, an evolutionary process, slowly over eons, as a thing "beyond" procreation (if we accept that as the Non-fiction, natural "thing"). So that, now, hetero-sexuality has no "better" claim to being natural, "normal," etc., than other forms which this evolution has taken.

Procreation might be Real and Natural, but sexuality is not. Or at least, any Real and Natural "aspect" which still exists--to wit, the continuation of births--has been displaced by the Fictional "stuff" which has become our experience.

Finally, while I'll reassess your reply because it is reasonable, I can't help but reflect upon Reason too, and how it gets caught in the same trap: human invention to help us name and organize things such that eventually these inventions come to overshadow or displace Nature/Truth.

And sometimes to our detriment

AmadeusD

I'm not even given to saying sexuality is mutable. One can be unaware of their sexuality, or an aspect of it, but it seems to me saying that its either fictional or constructed is wrong and both violates my intuitions, and my understanding of fight for rights.

That said, I wouldn't care much if it was. It would make it easier to convince homophobes to shut up. I just think this is another sort of Critical Theory conversation that was never meant to have us bring down everything considered immutable.

Vera Mont

But, for Humans, sexuality: dating, and romance, birth control, fertility intervention, marriage and matrimonial laws, both ecclesiastical and civil; rituals, restrictions, mutilations, fetishes, and positions, references, proclivities, size, fashion, and technique, are all human constructions, — ENOAH

The mating rituals to which we are accustomed may be invented by human cultures, but the fact of mating rituals goes back 500,000,000 years. Birds and lizards do it; fish and mammals that never heard of 'social constructs'; they just follow their instinct and biological drives. That's all about sexual reproduction. However, there are always some members of many other species that do not conform to the norm.

some so deeply foundational to human Mind and History that they seem natural. And that’s hetero-sexuality.
Gay sexuality is similarly constructed. — ENOAH

Both occur naturally in many other species that do not construct social roles.

I’m saying reproductive mating and same sex mutual releases of whatever sort may or may not be natural; but all human sexuality, across the board, is Fictional. — ENOAH

Humans are story-tellers. We weave stories around everything, and more stories around the things that have the most profound effect on us: love, war, brotherhood, parenthood, awe and death. We also evolve rituals, rules and limits on those matters. The stories - superstitions, imposed regulation and rituals do affect people's lives and beliefs, but they do not alter the underlying natural drives.

ENOAH

The mating rituals to which we are accustomed may be invented by human cultures, but the fact of mating rituals goes back 500,000,000 years. — Vera Mont

Yes. And those natural drives are the source, in Reality or Nature for the Fiction which we construct. I would speculate that the human's version might have been fore the male to present some physical potential, and for the female to present a certain pelvic feature. What has evolved, uniquely for humans, is no longer a "symbol" triggering a Natural Drive while the Organism maintains its aware-ing in Nature; it is now for us aware-ing exclusively in the symbols. Believing the Symbols, like "I" have the essence/substance and Nature becomes either only the flesh infrastructure or worse, the ugliness that craves. I say the stories displaced procreation with Fiction, and that Therein lies the craving etc.

Humans are story-tellers. We weave stories around everything, and more stories around the things that have the most profound effect on us — Vera Mont

Right. And those stories become "realities" we live and die by, and they are exactly stories.

Not all of it is to our detriment obviously. See cures, art, love etc. But some is, see prejudice and bigotry.

That's all I'm saying.

Vera Mont

And those natural drives are the source, in Reality or Nature for the Fiction which we construct. — ENOAH

Of course; our drives and our experiences are the source of all our story-making.

I would speculate that the human's version might have been fore the male to present some physical potential, and for the female to present a certain pelvic feature. — ENOAH

They just had to be healthy and willing. Later on, the males decided they didn't need to wait until a female was willing. In fact, taking females against their will was also a way of humiliating their male rivals. Eventually, societies came up with safeguards against internal strife, including rules the prescribe acceptable forms of mating. Patriarchal societies included rules that strictly enforced the rights of males (and inferiority of females) in order to assure fathers of the genetic purity of their offspring - usually for the purpose of land inheritance.

I say the stories displaced procreation with Fiction, and that Therein lies the craving etc. — ENOAH

I don't think so: people are still making lots of lots of little people. They seem quite capable of navigating the rituals of their various cultures.

That's all I'm saying. — ENOAH

But why does that need saying?

ENOAH

Patriarchal societies included rules that strictly enforced the rights of males (and inferiority of females) in order to assure fathers of the genetic purity of their offspring - usually for the purpose of land inheritance. — Vera Mont

↪Vera Mont

I don't get it. It seems like you're providing more "evidence" that what we've constructed is not natural.

I mean, I agree with you. Patriarchy (institutional/systemic), as you might be suggesting, (now, admittedly reworded by me) emerged out of the evolution (gradual construction out of the trial and errors of human made concepts) of sexuality from its natural process of procreation. You didn't say that, but surely you don't mean it evolved by natural selection--I.e., those male humans who engaged in the systemic oppression of women were naturally selected as the fittest. You don't mean that, for e.g.?

Of course there might be species which evolved behaviors over time, but none have evolved such a complexity as human Mind which effectively displaced the Organic and natural with its constructs, or stories, as you are agreeable to calling them.

So, why does this need saying?

Because we are attacking one another by weaponizing Truth, and no position is true.

Note, I am not, by insisting sexuality is Fiction, calling for a return to Nature, an abolition of sexuality. I'm suggesting that since we are all enmeshed in these Stories, which you seem to agree, even providing fresh examples, none of us is in a position to say, my story is the truth, natural, or normal. That claim cannot be the basis for the so-called sexually normative to judge the so-called sexually divergent.

The only functional judgment one can make--and as far as I'm concerned, in human existence, functional is as close as one can get to truth--is to say sexuality which harms or oppresses is unacceptable, all else is just one of our stories.

My persistence is not intended to be contentious. You might be correct that human sexuality, since the dawn of history, has been and remains natural, if that's what you're saying. It's just that either I am failing to see how your points demonstrate that, or I have not effectively explained my thinking. Either way I feel compelled to clarify.

Metaphysician Undercover

Also, "Fictional" might be too strong a word, but it is effective at contrasting these processes described differently by you and I, with what I am proposing to be the NonFiction, Nature. — ENOAH

I think a properly formed dichotomy would oppose "artificial" (instead of "fictional") with "natural". So you're mixing up categories here. This becomes a problem because then only natural things are non-fiction, and you have no real grounding for truth, since "fact", or "truth", is normally opposed with fiction, rather than "natural".

This allows you to create a narrative without any respect for truth. The narrative you have chosen to create states that our Narrative has strayed far from Reality (I assume this is truth). Since you have done a very good job of demonstrating the point you are making, (the idea that we can remove truth from our narrative, and use that narrative to exemplify principles, morals, values, and social norms, which are created for reasons other than following truth), I commend you on providing a very fine op.

ENOAH

↪Metaphysician Undercover

I can live with "artificial"--thank you.

Is the reason artificial fits better connotative or denotative? Is it for e.g. that "artificial" properly opposes natural and fictional properly opposes factual, or is it that "artificial" softens the blow?

ENOAH

I'm not even given to saying sexuality is mutable. One can be unaware of their sexuality, or an aspect of it, but it seems to me saying that its either fictional or constructed is wrong and both violates my intuitions, and my understanding of fight for rights. — AmadeusD

The physical act triggered by the Organic drives might be immutable. But to simplify it (at the risk of wandering away) all of the "associations" humans have with the word "sexuality," everything beyond organic stimulus/organic response, aren't these, to use @Metaphysician Undercover term, "artificial"?

As for "fight for rights" I don't follow. If you mean taking the position that non-normative sexuality must be "naturalized" to be accepted; that's the very thing I'm liberating. "Accepted," for an artificial existence, has proven many times over to be artificial. Why in this unique category do we insist on natural?

Metaphysician Undercover

↪ENOAH

It's a matter of keeping the descriptive categories most accurately representative. When we use natural/artificial we are referring to types of things in the world, which we can class by that distinction. When we use fact/fiction we refer exclusively to a narrative, or propositions, about the world. A narrative or a proposition is a very specific type of artificial thing in the world. So that classification, fact/fiction, has a very narrow range of applicability, and "natural" has already been excluded as impossible, because the type of thing judged by that distinction can only be an artificial ting.

If you oppose natural with fictional you mix up the categories making understanding impossible. This is because you have no place now for "factual", as the non-natural, which is also non-fictional.

Vera Mont

I don't get it. It seems like you're providing more "evidence" that what we've constructed is not natural. — ENOAH

All human society as we know it is artificial. And yet it's natural that an intelligent, imaginative species should elaborate on its social organization, and it's natural for such a species to evolve complex regulatory systems as its numbers grow.
The fact that we have medicine doesn't negate the naturalness of illness. The fact that we build washrooms does not deligetimize the digestive process. The fact that we write laws does not make conflict unnatural. The fact that we set social norms for mating and reproduction doesn't make those activities unnatural.

I.e., those male humans who engaged in the systemic oppression of women were naturally selected as the fittest. — ENOAH

Among lions, probably. Among humans, wealth and power are also artificial. Do you really feel any society today is dominated by those most fit to lead?

So, why does this need saying?

Because we are attacking one another by weaponizing Truth, and no position is true. — ENOAH

I'm not. Are you?
Those who do have agendas that do not include truth.

The only functional judgment one can make--and as far as I'm concerned, in human existence, functional is as close as one can get to truth--is to say sexuality which harms or oppresses is unacceptable, all else is just one of our stories. — ENOAH

"just one of our stories"??? Their myths and legends and self-generated self-images are what groups of people go to war over, burn down one another's towns, kill and torture for.

So you think all the current rules and social norms regarding sex and reproduction should be replaced by one principle, written as law? Your principle - with no metric for the definition of 'harm' - while admirable, is just as artificial as any other human-created law.

ENOAH

↪Metaphysician Undercover

Nice. Thank you!

ENOAH

↪Vera Mont

Mulling over. Some helpful points. Thank you. Will respond after tge events of today.

ENOAH

So you think all the current rules and social norms regarding sex and reproduction should be replaced by one principle, written as law? Your principle - with no metric for the definition of 'harm' - while admirable, is just as artificial as any other human-created law. — Vera Mont

No. I definitely do not think that, nor is that what I intended to suggest.

In fact, it's more the opposite. I'm thinking that the "laws", any and all of them--which, to my mind, have evolved to displace the "natural" practices--are artificial, might therefore be recognized as artificial, and that none of them, therefore, should be imposed; and, especially not imposed under the guise that they are so imposed because they are true or natural.

As for your earlier points (in the most recent post from which I've quoted) about what I am calling artificial constructs being, in your reckoning, merely the natural expressions of a natural species, I still can't agree.

That might be said about the beaver's dam, an ant colony or a behive: that these are not artificial but rather the natural expression of a natural species. But for human mind, and experience, we've gone too far, and are literally at a point of no return (to our real natures).

Sir2u

Most of the problems I have found in discussions on this topic seem to stem from the way people use words and the fact that the words themselves having so many ways to use them. A lot of people use sex just to describe the act and gender to describe sexuality, which has become mainstream and common in use.
sex;

Either of the two categories (male or female) into which most organisms are divided
The properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive roles

Sexual intercourse and associated activity

gender;

A grammatical category in inflected languages governing the agreement between nouns and pronouns and adjectives;
The properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive roles

sexuality;

A person's tendency of sexual attraction, esp. whether heterosexual or homosexual
The properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive roles

If we stick to a more rigid way of using these words things become simpler.

Sex is what equipment you were born with, penis = male, vagina = female. Yes I know that there are some biological mishaps but they are few and far between so make no difference at the level we are discussing.

Gender is the noun/pronoun method used to talk about people according to their equipment, he = male, she = female.

Sexuality is the preferred method of gratification, men, women, water melons, broom sticks etc.

Gay, lesbian, unisex, polisex would then become only the handles for your particular brand of sexuality.

As I said in an earlier post, nature has provided some animals with multiple ways to partake in the pleasures of sexual without harm being caused. Causing harm is not one of natures methods because it would go against its productivity agenda. Apart from that, if nature permits or makes something possible then I doubt it can be called unnatural. So I would guess that any and all types of sex would be natural.

The rules and regulations that society has created in many cases go against what would be the natural behavior of people. For thousands of years in prehistoric times primitive humans got by with just male and female sexes, they had no need for anything else. When the women were capable of doing so they had babies and that was that.
That was the whole purpose of humanity, to continue to exist.
But it is almost impossible to imagine that those people had sexual desires that were 100% strictly for breeding purposes only. Just as looking for sexual pleasure has been observed in many animals and is recorded in some of the earliest know history of humans, they must have found other methods of obtaining the pleasure they sort. But they still managed to get by with males and females, not needing anything else as only two types of equipment were known.

What I cannot really fathom is why anyone that has the equipment of one sex thinks that they could change their gender to that of the other sex or invent another one. Get it cut and fixed and then we can talk about that.
The idea that a person wanting to be referred to as they, them seems as though they do not really know what they are or just want to be in some way different from the rest. If only they would realize that there have been "different" people around for so long and they got along fine without exaggerated social constructs that cause even more social discrimination that before. What has been needed for a long time is acceptance of people that are different for some reason to us, and I do not see how making myself stand out by forcing everyone to change their way of interacting with others is going to help that happen.

Vera Mont

In fact, it's more the opposite. I'm thinking that the "laws", any and all of them--which, to my mind, have evolved to displace the "natural" practices--are artificial, might therefore be recognized as artificial, and that none of them, therefore, should be imposed; and, especially not imposed under the guise that they are so imposed because they are true or natural. — ENOAH

Whoa! That's a lot to digest.
Given that you explicitly stated

to say sexuality which harms or oppresses is unacceptable — ENOAH

How could you have meant the opposite? In what way do you make something unacceptable, except by writing it in law?

And then: Laws do not 'displace' natural practices; they regulate human interactions in a society. Everyone still urinates just as the other animals do; they're just not allowed to do it in other people's front porches or on the on the sidewalks where other people walk. Mother's still breastfeed their babies, but in some societies, they're not allowed to do it in public. People still indulge in sexual activity, both procreative and recreational, but each society puts different limits and controls on what kinds of sexual activity are acceptable and in what setting.
Laws are artificial, and we all recognize that they are artificial; indeed, many humans pride themselves on not living by 'the law of the jungle'. We make things: houses, transport vehicles, clothing, tools, rules, music, ritual - and we know that these are man-made artifices; nobody pretends they are natural.
There is only one instance I know of where dogma decrees what sexual practices are 'unnatural', and that's in the religious doctrine of war-like peoples, whose national interest is vested in submissive females bearing a maximum number of replacement soldiers. More enlightened societies impose laws for the protection of the vulnerable, especially children.

This is the real tough nut: " that none of them, therefore, should be imposed"
You mean strong, aggressive people should be allowed to kill, rape, enslave and loot to their heart's content? No laws at all?

But for human mind, and experience, we've gone too far, and are literally at a point of no return (to our real natures). — ENOAH

Especially in energy technologies, profligate reproduction and overconsumption.
But there is nothing to be done about that.
Beavers have to live someplace; finches have to live someplace; mice have to live someplace. They construct what their mind and imagination can design from the materials available. If those are considered artificial constructs, fine. Man also constructs. And that's the way it is. Evolution doesn't run backwards, even if some disagree with its outcomes. Perhaps we can be cavemen again after the total collapse of civilization.

Metaphysician Undercover

All human society as we know it is artificial. And yet it's natural that an intelligent, imaginative species should elaborate on its social organization, and it's natural for such a species to evolve complex regulatory systems as its numbers grow. — Vera Mont

So I assume that you are saying that "artificial" is just a special type of "natural". Then I suggest to @ENOAH that the "fictional" is a subdivision of the artificial, which is a subdivision of the natural. And, it makes no sense to try and divide the artificial into natural and unnatural because it's all natural.

Vera Mont

So I assume that you are saying that "artificial" is just a special type of "natural". — Metaphysician Undercover

No: I'm stating that artifice is an attribute of creatures whose intelligence and imagination enable them to build complex structures from simple materials. The creatures are natural; what they do is in their nature to do; the things they produce are artifacts. Artificial means "made by human beings" as distinct from things that occur naturally. (Nobody, finding a pocket-watch on the forest floor, would mistake it for a pine-cone, and nobody except a theist already pledged to a particular mythology, would think either was created by a supernatural being: one grew; one was made. )

On the conceptual level, the same intelligence and imagination enables humans to extrapolate and project, analyze and juxtapose, elaborate and embellish ideas, including those ideas that originally arose from biological drives, desires and instincts. You can still divide the natural from the artificial - in fact, you'd better, when it comes to fruit, or another person's sincerity, or your own behaviour.

Archeologists and anthropologists spend a good deal of time and thought on the reconstruction of how human cultures evolved, so you can to a large extent trace our laws and mores backward through changes to their influences and discover the probable reasons they came about.

ENOAH

↪Vera Mont

Sorry friend. Clearly I am not communicating my thoughts effectively.

Instead of addressing all of your points which equally reflect that my submissions were not clear, I'll address the first.

I am not saying there should be laws imposed or not imposed. Rather the opposite. Since sexuality is, in my submission, artificial, no one practice is "true."

Now as for suggesting that the only "functional" law might be one protecting against harm etc., I am not saying the opposite. I am suggesting that we cannot impose normative forms of sexuality on one another, given that they are Fictional, while recognizing there are limitations which might be functional (such as protecting those without the full capacity to consent).

Stating sexuality is artificial, and therefore cannot be divided into true forms and false forms, while acknowledging that Truth or Falsehood aside, there are functional limitations which might be artificially imposed...I don't see the contradiction you do.

Vera Mont

I am not saying there should be laws imposed or not imposed. Rather the opposite. — ENOAH

Please stop saying something and then telling me you meant the opposite and then saying you didn't mean the opposite. It's very confusing.

Since sexuality is, in my submission, artificial, no one practice is "true." — ENOAH

Truth has nothing to do with it. Sexuality exists; it's absolutely real. No one practice is exclusive; many practices exist.

I don't see the contradiction you do. — ENOAH

I wish you could!
I think I understand what you mean, but you have a peculiar way of expressing it.
I agree that people should not tell other people what their sexual preference or practice ought to be, except insofar as they're protecting potential victims. But it's not tied to truth and falsehood; it's tied to social values. And they're not all rational or practical.

ENOAH

Archeologists and anthropologists spend a good deal of time and thought on the reconstruction of how human cultures evolved, so you can to a large extent trace our laws and mores backward through changes to their influences and discover the probable reasons they came about. — Vera Mont

Ok, but how do any of my points suggest archeology/anthropology cant? Or how does the fact that they can trace the root of our laws etc. suggest they are not artificial, or that being artificial, they are simultaneously natural?

So I assume that you are saying that "artificial" is just a special type of "natural". Then I suggest to ENOAH that the "fictional" is a subdivision of the artificial, which is a subdivision of the natural. And, it makes no sense to try and divide the artificial into natural and unnatural because it's all natural.
5h — Metaphysician Undercover

No thank you. I liked your suggestion about replacing Fictional with artificial becauease it leaves open the ability to contrast fact and Fiction. But the whole purpose of using either artificial or Fictional is to contrast it with Natural, and therefore, according to my submission at least, Real.

Someone please explain, can artificial be natural? And I don't accept that because it arises out of the activities of a natural species, therefore it is. If artificial can be natural, then to hell with that, I'm reverting to Fictional.

ENOAH

I agree that people should not tell other people what their sexual preference or practice ought to be, except insofar as they're protecting potential victims. But it's not tied to truth and falsehood; it's tied to social values. And they're not all rational or practical. — Vera Mont

Ok. Then so I understand, these social values, they're natural?

Your disagreement is not in the "social message," but relates to how I arrive there, relates primarily to the fact that you believe sexuality from its base procreation, to fetishes, proclivities and social values, is all natural. We shouldn't tell others what social preferences they should have...because all sexuality is natural (as opposed to my, we shouldn't tell others what social preferences they should have...because all sexuality is artificial--for post prehistoric humans).?

ENOAH

if nature permits or makes something possible then I doubt it can be called unnatural. So I would guess that any and all types of sex would be natural. — Sir2u

That might be helpful.

But the following question may also illustrate my point.

Beavers build dams; bees hives, birds build nests. Natural.

Prehistoric humans built their shelters. Natural.

But is the Eiffel Tower natural? I mean, maybe it is. Maybe 1000 philosophers will tell me why, and maybe I will be impressed enough by their reasoning to throw in the towel. Is it?

Some birds dance as mating ritual; some mammals fight. Maybe prehistoric humans danced and fought. Natural.

But is a marriage certificate natural? An article of clothing? A condom? Etc.

Metaphysician Undercover

No: I'm stating that artifice is an attribute of creatures whose intelligence and imagination enable them to build complex structures from simple materials. The creatures are natural; what they do is in their nature to do; the things they produce are artifacts. Artificial means "made by human beings" as distinct from things that occur naturally. (Nobody, finding a pocket-watch on the forest floor, would mistake it for a pine-cone, and nobody except a theist already pledged to a particular mythology, would think either was created by a supernatural being: one grew; one was made. ) — Vera Mont

I don't see how you can maintain this distinction between natural and artificial, if you insist that human beings are natural. Don't human beings actually make other human beings when they procreate? But if that type of "making" is supposed to be natural, then what about making knowledge through teaching, and making ethics, norms, and social conventions? I think you need another category "supernatural", to account for the existence of human beings who can create some things by artifice, and some things by nature.

You can still divide the natural from the artificial - in fact, you'd better, when it comes to fruit, or another person's sincerity, or your own behaviour. — Vera Mont

What's your point here? Why would it be necessary to distinguish between a natural fruit and a synthetic one? If they both taste good and provide nutrition, why would it be necessary for me to distinguish?

But the whole purpose of using either artificial or Fictional is to contrast it with Natural, and therefore, according to my submission at least, Real. — ENOAH

Well, you can't say that artificial things are not real.

Someone please explain, can artificial be natural? And I don't accept that because it arises out of the activities of a natural species, therefore it is. If artificial can be natural, then to hell with that, I'm reverting to Fictional. — ENOAH

This is the issue i took up with Vera Mont above. I think that to maintain the distinction between natural and artificial, we need a third category, supernatural, to provide for the separation between them. Maybe it's the supernatural which ought to be described as fictional.

Vera Mont

Or how does the fact that they can trace the root of our laws etc. suggest they are not artificial, or that being artificial, they are simultaneously natural? — ENOAH

They don't. They're not. So what?

Then so I understand, these social values, they're natural? — ENOAH

Natural and truth simply don't enter into it. It's true that humans are social animals, that all social animals have social rules and norms; it's natural that they should, else their social structure would break down. The values human societies elaborate are in response to their experiences, beliefs and requirements over time. That's where the anthropologists come in. But I guess you think how things evolved is irrelevant. I disagree; I think what's irrelevant is classifying human ideas as Fact/Fiction; Natural/Artificial; True/False.

We shouldn't tell others what social preferences they should have...because all sexuality is natural (as opposed to my, we shouldn't tell others what social preferences they should have...because all sexuality is artificial--for post prehistoric humans) — ENOAH

Neither. Why we shouldn't tell others what preferences they have - whether social or sexual - because, as long as they're not hurting anybody or disturbing the peace, their preferences are none of our damned business, and oppression, especially in the realm of personal conduct, is detrimental to social coherence.

I don't see how you can maintain this distinction between natural and artificial, if you insist that human beings are natural. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't believe that we were built by aliens and dropped on this planet. I cited the meaning of the word artificial: "made by human beings". I use it according to its dictionary definition. Made on purpose, out of raw materials that are found, dug up or growing wild.

But if that type of "making" is supposed to be natural, then what about making knowledge through teaching, and making ethics, norms, and social conventions? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I mentioned the construction of ideas: conceptual artifacts. The creative process comes naturally to species with volition and reason; the product of artifice practiced by artisans is an artificial artifact.

I don't see how you can maintain this distinction between natural and artificial, if you insist that human beings are natural. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's easy. Living organisms are generally natural - that is, growing out of other organisms, rather than constructed by design (although some lines are becoming blurred with genetic technologies), while machines and implements and structures are man-made. Once we have a truly bionic man, another line will be blurred.

Some birds dance as mating ritual; some mammals fight. Maybe prehistoric humans danced and fought. Natural. — ENOAH

Modern ones still do. Nothing fictional about that.

What's your point here? Why would it be necessary to distinguish between a natural fruit and a synthetic one? — Metaphysician Undercover

The wax, plaster, wooden, ceramic or plastic one would have no nutrient value and probably taste bad, even if it didn't break your teeth. Which artificial fruits are synthesized in such a way that they taste and nourish like the real ones?

I think that to maintain the distinction between natural and artificial, we need a third category, supernatural, to provide for the separation between them. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why? Found in the wild/ made by design. Simple; gods need not enter in.

ENOAH

Maybe it's the supernatural which ought to be described as fictional. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is interesting. Assuming that what I'm really getting it is that Nature is (ultimately) Real, and Mind is artificial (formerly Fictional) [this part I am not elaborating on at this moment]. In that case, then Mind is Super natural. But you don't mean supernatural in the conventional understanding. You mean "exterior to" Nature, right? And yet, throughout the history of metaphysics, and one of the things I grapple with, Mind has been associated with spirit or soul--for dualists, at least.

I know you don't mean spiritual, yet there is that connotation in convention.

So, yes, the human soul is Fictional (To relate my perspective to your suggestion that maybe the supernatural be described as Fiction).

That doesn't alter the substance of what I was saying.

The Body responds to certain natural drives which are tied to procreation. The soul, a thing, we think of as -unique to humans*-has displaced Body's procreation with its multifarious made-up forms. Some individual souls believe their made-up forms to be Natural to the Body, and accordingly "right." But they are the workings of the soul, supernatural, made-up. Their form has no better claim to natural than those of other souls.

*I know, some think animals have "souls"

Vera Mont

The Body responds to certain natural drives which are tied to procreation. The soul, a thing, we think of as -unique to humans*-has displaced Body's procreation with its multifarious made-up forms. Some individual souls believe their made-up forms to be Natural to the Body, and accordingly "right." But they are the workings of the soul, supernatural, made-up. Their form has no better claim to natural than those of other souls. — ENOAH

Ummm. Okay.... I can't cope with that.

ENOAH

Neither. Why we shouldn't tell others what preferences they have - whether social or sexual - because, as long as they're hot hurting anybody, their preferences are of our damned business, and oppression, especially in the realm of personal conduct, is bad for the welfare of a society. — Vera Mont

Now I think we're just approaching the topic in different ways. Obviously that's fine. We agree people shouldn't dictate others' sexuality. But as to the means at arriving there, we take divergent paths. I completely understand that my means is unconvincing to you. I don't entirely understand why? So be it. My weakness. Thank you.

HERE'S A CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions