Plato and Pederasty

Plato and Pederasty
To Mega Therion
Marxist-Kwalishkidist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 4859
#31 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 25, 2012 - 2:40 PM:

Thatwhichis wrote:
Considering that pattern in nature, wouldn't the natures intent be to [...]


No. Nature is not an agent, and it can't have intentions, and one can't derive moral obligations from factual states of affairs, and if one could it seems it would be my obligation to split your skull and abduct any women close to you.

But you never see people arguing for that, oddly enough.
Wosret
Assassin
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 30, 2007
Location: New Brunswick

Total Topics: 73
Total Posts: 11063
#32 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 25, 2012 - 3:01 PM:

Thatwhichis wrote:


Mate with 99% of other members for what purpose?

Notice I pursue not to disregard homosexuality with these questions. We are talking about different subject but there are crossovers.


You're thinking on the individual level, and extrapolating that into a universal principle. As I said, the single celled species with more than two sexes is to increase diversity, as obviously this is a superfluous number of sexes in order to reproduce. Two sexes is more than necessary to reproduce.

For quite awhile there life reproduced before the invention of sex.
Thatwhichis
Resident
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 10, 2011

Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 476
#33 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Mar 25, 2012 - 3:15 PM:

To Mega Therion wrote:

No. Nature is not an agent, and it can't have intentions, and one can't derive moral obligations from factual states of affairs, and if one could it seems it would be my obligation to split your skull and abduct any women close to you.


Factual state of affairs is splitting skulls and abducting women? From where did you derived that? Are you referencing the interactions of animals who are supposedly closer to nature than us? Consequently trying to convey that law of nature is acquisition of what is wanted through violence? Animals are in that respect the same agents as us and do not represent nature itself. Humans and animals are subjects of nature but not the nature itself. Agents of nature do not act on behalf of nature but act on what they consider to be beneficial to them. What they consider to be beneficial for them might not truly be so.

Nature might not have intention but it has purpose. Living things are constructs of nature and living things reproduce. Hence purpose(not the only one but one of the basic ones) of living things is to multiply and that purpose is set by nature in which life or living things partake. If it wasn't set by nature than living things would stop coming in to being at all and we would have no means for reproducing.

Wosret wrote:
As I said, the single celled species with more than two sexes is to increase diversity


Diversity of life which can only diversify if it multiplies.

Wosret wrote:

For quite awhile there life reproduced before the invention of sex.

So sex is one of many means for reproduction. Hence if that is one of many means for reproduction than it's purpose is multiplication of living things.

Edited by Thatwhichis on Mar 25, 2012 - 3:37 PM
ciceronianus
Gadfly
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: An old chaos of the Sun

Total Topics: 95
Total Posts: 5872

Last Blog: Homage to Edgar Poe

#34 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Mar 25, 2012 - 4:33 PM:

Well, this seems to have been one of the longer (as it were) threads I've seen devoted at least in part to sex with children. Amazing what the name "Plato" can do, is it not?

Paging Coach Sandusky! Or his lawyers, perhaps.
pharaoh
Finitiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 16, 2012

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 108
#35 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 29, 2012 - 1:33 AM:

ciceronianus wrote:
Well, this seems to have been one of the longer (as it were) threads I've seen devoted at least in part to sex with children. Amazing what the name "Plato" can do, is it not?

Paging Coach Sandusky! Or his lawyers, perhaps.


Let it be the case, that in future, the name of Plato be reminiscent of "anal penetration".
After all, is it not philosophy’s obligation to ANAL-yze VARIOUS ANGLES of such INtrospections TO FULL EXTENT?
One good aspect of philosophy is that it can be modulated to EMBRACE a variety of discussions of choice.
The bonus is that, at the end, you’ll indulge penetrating philosophy as well.
On Mar 29, 2012 - 1:45 AM, knucklehead responded: ???*&^%@#!!!???
ciceronianus
Gadfly
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: An old chaos of the Sun

Total Topics: 95
Total Posts: 5872

Last Blog: Homage to Edgar Poe

#36 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 29, 2012 - 12:05 PM:

pharaoh wrote:


Let it be the case, that in future, the name of Plato be reminiscent of "anal penetration".


Just another, but somewhat more confusing, shadow on the wall of the damn cave of his from which philosophers may be freed.
sophiaphily
dephilosophized

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 13, 2011

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 93
#37 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Apr 1, 2012 - 9:20 AM:

pharaoh wrote:


Let it be the case, that in future, the name of Plato be reminiscent of "anal penetration".
After all, is it not philosophy’s obligation to ANAL-yze VARIOUS ANGLES of such INtrospections TO FULL EXTENT?
One good aspect of philosophy is that it can be modulated to EMBRACE a variety of discussions of choice.
The bonus is that, at the end, you’ll indulge penetrating philosophy as well.

Some enjoy reading in the bedroom.

Some enjoy making love in the library

BlueGalaxy
Unmoderated Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Jan 11, 2012

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 45
#38 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Apr 1, 2012 - 11:38 AM:

To Mega Therion wrote:


No. Nature is not an agent, and it can't have intentions, and one can't derive moral obligations from factual states of affairs, and if one could it seems it would be my obligation to split your skull and abduct any women close to you.

But you never see people arguing for that, oddly enough.



I'm afraid you've made the mistake of supposing that these sorts of moral issues exist to begin with(they are nonsensical).

The idea of what is right and what is wrong, not the imperative(which has no veridical existence outside of anything short of a deontological ethic), undeniably comes from nature. You are deliberately opting out of a preset language game when you challenge the wordplay as you have done. Of course nature has no intentions or no such purpose, or what have you, in mind. This much is self-evident ab origine. By using that word he describes a general 'direction' which nature has arbitrarily pursued, and, seeing as how the game of ethics comes specifically from this pursuit, it makes absolutely no sense to speak of morality outside of this context. When one tries to do this he will inevitably end (and begin) in nonsense.

Homosexuality is definitely 'unnatural' and 'wrong' when compared to heterosexuality... the real argument lies in whether or not those signs are possessive of any sort of significant meaning.

By the way, merely disagreeing with something that everybody else seems to hold a dogmatic view over does not under any circumstance deem one a 'bigot'. A bigot is somebody who refuses to subscribe to impartiality in their system of beliefs. I personally have no opinion over the matter, but just saying.
To Mega Therion
Marxist-Kwalishkidist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 4859
#39 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Apr 2, 2012 - 5:02 AM:

BlueGalaxy wrote:
I'm afraid you've made the mistake of supposing that these sorts of moral issues exist to begin with (they are nonsensical).


I'm afraid I've done no such thing. The single moral "claim" in my post was a parody of fascist arguments.

BlueGalaxy wrote:
The idea of what is right and what is wrong, not the imperative(which has no veridical existence outside of anything short of a deontological ethic), undeniably comes from nature. You are deliberately opting out of a preset language game when you challenge the wordplay as you have done. Of course nature has no intentions or no such purpose, or what have you, in mind. This much is self-evident ab origine. By using that word he describes a general 'direction' which nature has arbitrarily pursued, and, seeing as how the game of ethics comes specifically from this pursuit, it makes absolutely no sense to speak of morality outside of this context. When one tries to do this he will inevitably end (and begin) in nonsense.


Good grief, I had not though it possible to cram so many bare assertions into one paragraph - bravo, sir. Of course, no notion of purpose appears in modern biology, and only the overwhelming majority of modern ethical theories and systems fail to rely on "natural purpose" - but don't let that deter you.

BlueGalaxy wrote:
Homosexuality is definitely 'unnatural' and 'wrong' when compared to heterosexuality... the real argument lies in whether or not those signs are possessive of any sort of significant meaning.

By the way, merely disagreeing with something that everybody else seems to hold a dogmatic view over does not under any circumstance deem one a 'bigot'. A bigot is somebody who refuses to subscribe to impartiality in their system of beliefs. I personally have no opinion over the matter, but just saying.


The more you deny it...

Edited by To Mega Therion on Apr 2, 2012 - 5:31 AM. Reason: clarification / fixed personal idiocy
BalanceofEquilibrium
Concept of Equilibrium

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 29, 2012
Location: From the sky (above) and from the ground (below).

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 816
#40 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Apr 2, 2012 - 9:14 AM:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles_and_Patroclus

"... Contemporary readers are more likely to interpret the two heroes either as non-sexual "war buddies", or as an egalitarian homosexual couple"

We are all correct because we will never know what was the actual truth. Arguing about what happened in the ancient past is foolish when the future will happen. Interpret it anyway that you feel it meets your needs/wants. During the ancient time, homosexualuality was taboo. Therefore, the writer might not have directly meant they were gay, but might have implied it.

Edited by BalanceofEquilibrium on Apr 2, 2012 - 9:23 AM
locked
Download thread as
  • 40/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


Recent Internal Replies
On Mar 29, 2012 - 1:45 AM, knucklehead replied internally to pharaoh's Let it be the ca....
On Mar 25, 2012 - 1:29 PM, Wosret replied internally to Thatwhichis's One of the homosexua....

This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.