HERE'S A CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC
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 thats hetero-sexuality.
Gay sexuality is similarly constructed.
Before anyone panics (or cheers), Im not submitting that sexual behavior among same sex doesnt occur in Nature. Im also not submitting gay sexuality is a choice.
Im 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 arent 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 ourthat is, our True naturesmaking; 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.
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 thats hetero-sexuality.
Gay sexuality is similarly constructed.
Before anyone panics (or cheers), Im not submitting that sexual behavior among same sex doesnt occur in Nature. Im also not submitting gay sexuality is a choice.
Im 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 arent 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 ourthat is, our True naturesmaking; 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.
Comments (40)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Quoting ENOAH
Both occur naturally in many other species that do not construct social roles.
Quoting 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.
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.
Quoting 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.
Of course; our drives and our experiences are the source of all our story-making. Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting ENOAH
But why does that need saying?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Quoting 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?
Quoting ENOAH
I'm not. Are you?
Those who do have agendas that do not include truth.
Quoting 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.
Nice. Thank you!
Mulling over. Some helpful points. Thank you. Will respond after tge events of today.
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).
sex;
gender;
sexuality;
Whoa! That's a lot to digest.
Given that you explicitly stated Quoting ENOAHHow 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?
Quoting 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quoting ENOAH
Truth has nothing to do with it. Sexuality exists; it's absolutely real. No one practice is exclusive; many practices exist.
Quoting 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.
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?
Quoting 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.
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).?
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.
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.
Quoting 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?
Quoting ENOAH
Well, you can't say that artificial things are not real.
Quoting 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.
They don't. They're not. So what?
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting ENOAH
Modern ones still do. Nothing fictional about that.
Quoting 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?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Why? Found in the wild/ made by design. Simple; gods need not enter in.
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"
Ummm. Okay.... I can't cope with that.
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.
Is it made of unnatural materials? No. Was it made by unnatural means? No. Does it follow the laws of nature? Yes it does.
Prehistoric humans built out of stone, mud and sticks which formed the base for architectural constructions of all types. The adaptions from one type of material to another and from one design to another came from the natural processes of the human brain.
What could be unnatural about the Eiffel Tower?
Quoting ENOAH
A social construct is different thing from a physical construct, while both are results of human brains they serve different purposes. A marriage certificate is unnatural because it inhibits the natural freedom to choose how and with whom you share your life. It limits what you can do with the things you own or create.
Quoting ENOAH
The need to protect yourself is natural, dress yourself up to attract mates is natural. Trying to please everyone by dressing like them or trying to be like everyone to fit in is natural.
Quoting ENOAH
The desire to be safe from disease is natural, the need not to have more children than you can feed is also part of nature.
Ok, but that's actually my point. What do you think of this? Yes the materials are Natural, it complies with the Laws of Nature. But it is the Eiffel Tower that has displaced those natural "things" with something artificial. The nature of course still is, but for us, and our perhaps inescapable condition, we see only the artificial form*.
How's that my point? Because same goes for human sexuality. The procreation/organic arousal/drive part are Natural, and that Nature still is, but for humans with our presumably unique Mind, that Nature is displaced by something artificial. And my point is that artificial nature applies to so called hetero-sexuality and so called LGBTQ +, alike.
I mean, alternatively, all sexuality is Natural. But I am more persuaded its all similarly artificial.
Quoting Sir2u
Ok, I was wondering, as I descended your stairway of responses, now I am more certain, it's possible I have an idiosyncratic way of defing Natural. I agree the need for shelter/cover, to attract mates, to bond, and survive are Natural. I think the Eiffel Tower, an Armani suit, and vaccines are human made.
*(Yes, we can look and see steel, but if one must stretch it that far, then really? Is that steel what was Natural to the earth or has it been manipulated into something so human-made tgat you're not seeing steel? And let's not forget, this was an analogy)
How so?
I never said that things were or were not artificial, I simple said that they were natural. Artificial things (artifacts) are made by natural beings out of natural material, could that be counted as unnatural?
It is just metal in the air instead of in the ground. Man used fire to reshape iron ore and create it. Just because its particular form is man made and not found in nature does not mean that is any more unnatural that a piece of tree that a caveman used to help him get around after breaking his leg. I think that we could possibly go as far as saying that a natural piece of matter has been used in an unorthodox, non-natural way.
Quoting ENOAH
You have basically confirming what I said earlier, that the wrong words are being used to refer to the wrong things. If we use the words in the sense that I specified earlier then there is no problem at all.
Quoting Sir2u
[opinion]There are lots of types of sexuality, but (from my point of view) only two genders or sexes. And anyone that says there are more are using those word incorrectly. [/opinion]
Quoting ENOAH
It is always possible I suppose, but do not let that worry you. You are certainly not alone in the world where so many want the words to mean what they think they should mean.
This whole conversation is only possible because so many people want "sexuality" and "gender" to mean something other than they were originally intended. If their meaning had stayed as a synonym to sex we would have nothing to talk about.
Nature is the world, the universe, everything is part of nature. If we decide to call everything that is constructed by mankind as artificial and therefore in some way wrong, then maybe we should not have this conversation. Because language would also have to be classified as artificial.
This is really just a lot of hullabaloo about something that is not going to change in the near future. For as long as mankind has had the capability to use words he has also had the ability to twist them to suite the circumstances.
If people want to run around saying that they are this or that gender(out of the 300 that they claim exist) or even gender fluid that is their problem. I for one am just going to sit back and watch them. And maybe have a laugh at the same time. The only thing I am sad about is that I will not be around to see them deal with their off-springs, if they ever figure out how to have them.
Quoting ENOAH
Maybe you would like to come and tell my dog that I might have to have put to sleep next week that she does not have a soul. Or maybe your "diosyncratic way of defing" soul is different from mine.
I think that the issue which arises from your op, is that ultimately it is the mind which decides what is good or bad, needed or not needed, morally or socially acceptable or not, and the judgement of "natural" need not be relevant to the judgement of "good". So a natural activity might be just as likely to be bad as an unnatural activity. For example, it's natural to pollute the environment, as creatures naturally dispense their waste in a convenient and efficient way. This occurs generation after generation, until the waste builds up to a point of being detrimental to the species. It's very clear that a judgement of "natural" is not an adequate indication as to whether the activity ought to be classed as good.
Since we cannot distinguish morally good from morally bad on the basis of a judgement of natural or artificial (fictional in your words), this is why I suggested something supernatural, as outside of those categories, to be the basis of such a judgement. I propose that the mind is supernatural, and here's the reason why I say this. Some would say that mind is natural being a part of a natural being, but as you can see from the discussion in this thread, it's really the case that the mind is what decides whether something is natural or not. So "natural" is actually just a category created by the mind. Because it is the mind which makes this category, along with its criteria and all similar judgements, we must allow that the mind is outside of this category which it is judging, in order to ensure that it makes a fair and unbiased judgement. So we need another category which is neither natural nor unnatural, to place the mind in, to make sure that the mind can make a fair and unbiased judgement about things, when placing them in these categories. This third category is supernatural.
Quoting ENOAH
According to the above, these multifarious forms which are property of the mind, are neither natural nor artificial, they are supernatural, as attributes of the supernatural mind. And, what the mind has learned is that natural/unnatural does not provide appropriate grounding for the required distinction between what ought to be sought, and what ought to be avoided, as explained above. So the mind uses a more appropriate distinction, good and bad. Further, I would propose that a judgement of truth or falsity is the principal tool for determining good or bad. This leaves the judgement of natural and unnatural as completely irrelevant to this issue, because the mind is dealing completely with forms which are supernatural, neither natural nor unnatural.
I think that is what I have been--apparently ineffectively--saying. That Mind decides what is good or bad; [that such a process is ultimately artificial--square bracketed because I almost dare not repeat that]; and that accordingly on issues like the one at hand, we have no business bring natural into the equation.
Quoting Sir2u
The Eiffel Tower is made of iron, this we know. But it appears to be something other than iron, right? Otherwise why call it the Eiffel? Why not just some Iron. If a Chimpanzee looks at it, she doesn't see Eiffel or Iron. Both in fact are "artificial" whatever that word means. In whichever way a hypothetical we, in mutual agreement define artificial, we see Eiffel as something other than what it "was" in Nature. If we can't agree on that, I'm either having a brain freeze or am just so inaccessible to the information you have, that I can't see why Eiffel is not other than iron.
So like I said, call that "other" artificial. My original point is that for humans now, and arguably since the dawn of culture, sexuality is something other than what it was in Nature. Even whatever we hypothetically agree is normative.
Therefore the normative are in no position to say "yes but our sexuality is what it was in Nature, yours isnt, therefore...and so on."
If it was just that last statement, we might be on the same page?
So the question is what do we mean by artificial? Or what does being artificial mean? Does it make the thing unnatural? No. You're right. It remains natural. And I've said that all along regarding sexuality--procreation, if that's what ee want to call it, for lack of a better word, was and remains Natural. But romance, marriage, condoms, and fetishes, etc. etc. etc. are not. They are other. They are artificial.
Or hetero-sexuality falsely thinks it has exclusive claim to the Natural, when it too is other than natural. While, yes, procreation--whatever you wish to mean by the natural sexuality--remains what it is, present and natural, hetero-sexuality is something other than that.
But, even if you say hetero-sexuality, is, by definition that: procreation or natural, at least if isolated from all of those things I listed which are incidental etc., that is, in essence, I still say "hetero-sexuality" whatever it is in its essence is, the instant we think or speak of it, a concept invented to serve a uniquely human function. It is still as other from what I'm calling procreation, as Eiffel is from Iron. And so "hetero-sexuality" has no justified claim to being Natural in its hypothetical opposition to other artificial human sexualities.
That may be true. It's not exactly clear what the lines in this distinction are, though. It seems probably to me that gay men, are, on average, more naturally feminine. Intuitively, this makes a lot of sense, and genetically, even more so. But, i am absolutely on board with this being something hard to prize apart from socially enforced (even to a benefit) behaviours supposedly associated with sexualities. Definitely.
Quoting ENOAH
What i mean is that I would not have the zest I do for the right to express one's sexuality (though, apparently I'm on the outs with many others here who have the same zest... oddly enough...) responsibly (this might be the kicker :P ) If I thought sexualities were mutable, in the sense that one can adjust their sexuality somehow. I do not have any legal respect for people's personal choices of that kind. It is the immutability that, to my mind, requires the protection of fairly strong law. General protections from abuse and what not are sufficient for other types of lifestyle choices. It's not hate speech to call someone a POS for driving a Taurus :)
If she looks at you she does not see ENOAH or human either.
Quoting ENOAH
You are the one that is using "artificial", so I supposed you knew what it meant.
Quoting ENOAH
I believe that if you think about it you will see that it is the words and their usage that has changed not what people do to each other. In nature there is no normative, nature does not need nor care to judge.You do the wrong thing and you die, simple as that. And if we use nature as the norm, then pretty much anything goes.
Quoting ENOAH
Here you appear to be saying that discrimination is wrong. You are correct because all types of tastes in sexual gratification are present form the dawn of humanity. None should be discriminated against unless what they want to do is harmful to others.
I think that if everyone just stopped talking about their "sexuality", (their personal taste for sexual indulgence) and just had sex without causing any harm, the would not need to worry about what gender they were.
It is all about the words used(unnatural socially constructed utterances used to indicate or communicate some idea) and nothing about what people do to make themselves happy. The only thing I would count as unnatural is harming others intentionally for ones own benefit.
A thought, what makes a plastic flower artificial? Is it the fact that it is made of plastic that is a man made substance or the fact that it only has the appearance of a flower without the feel and smell of a flower.
Is the form of petroleum called plastic unnatural because it does not appear in nature naturally, then so is life. Life is only a combination of materials from nature so we must be artificial also.
The problem I am pointing to is that we cannot designate this, judging good and bad, as something "artificial". This is because artificial is contrasted with natural, and if human beings are natural beings, it may also be natural for them to make this type of judgement.
So what I am saying is that just like we have no business bringing "natural" into the equation, we also have no business bringing "artificial" into the equation, because we are talking about a type of judgement which transcends the judgement of natural or artificial. That's why I proposed "supernatural".
I've learned a lot of valuable things to help guide my thinking from these posts.
None as compelling as your quote above.
I'll be more careful.
Thank you
You are welcome. :wink: