Dunamis2009
Posts: 44
Joined: 7/9/2012
Status: offline
|
I hope that you don't mind me taking out a lot of the fluff while I respond.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
I've recently come to the conclusion that BDSM is ultimately inevitable, although [the modern world] not quite yet [reflects this].
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
I'm not saying that BDSM is being held up. BDSM has been practiced since Marquis de Sade in the late 18th century as far as I'm aware. However, you can safely ignore and avoid BDSM if you don't like it. People who are engaging in BDSM activities these days are simply trading BDSM for vanilla sex, prostitution and/or pornography/masturbation.
However, I've come to the conclusion that BDSM will become inevitable as the world becomes a smaller and smaller place and economic pressures subside, simply because it will become more and more difficult to pretend that you care about your own family, when in fact you're an unemployed idiot with no girlfriend.
Okay, so we have a lot of linguistic confusion here. I'm still confused as to what you mean by the term, "BDSM". Do you mean the social stigma surrounding BDSM won't exist forever (or even go so far as becoming some "social obligation")? Do you mean that so-called tribes will exhibit BDSM characteristics on a larger scale (e.g. hierarchical order is similar to power dynamics in a BDSM relationship)? Are you simply stating that BDSM relationships are better in some objective way?
The phrase "it will become more and more difficult to pretend that you care about your own family, when in fact you're an unemployed idiot with no girlfriend" is unclear to me. Is the purpose of this statement to highlight the number of individuals engaged in BDSM that are employed and have girlfriends? Because I know, for a fact, that some people happen to not be interested in BDSM and still have girlfriends/a job/care about both. Why are we assuming that people must pretend that they care about their own families, rather than actually caring?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
This comes from my social theory that each positive human trait/value is accompanied by a negative one
How do you figure out which traits are positive and which are negative? Virtue Ethicists have had this problem since (at least) Aristotle. I don't think your theory would be complete without an explanation of why your categorization is better than, say, the list of virtues put forth by Aristotle or Catholicism.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
which needs to be transferred to the sexual realm in order to be rendered harmless.
Well, this is a pretty bold statement. So, causally, not getting laid effects some set of harmful traits and social problems... And here I thought it normally happened the other way around. How does your theory apply to celibates? to psycopaths/rapists/serial killers? Are you sure the sexual realm is the only outlet for people with such traits?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
Social problems arise when sexual desires are mixed up with social/family-like values.
Again, is this the only way social problems arise? Do social problems always arise in this situation? Besides those, I also have a fundamental disagreement with Freudian theories- not everything in this day and age is about sex; sometimes a cigar is simply a cigar.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
Protective instinct/Control addiction
Freedom/Humiliation
Empathy/Power addiction
Well-being/Submission
Reputation/Contempt
Friendship/Self-restraint
Omnipotence/Sadism
Responsibility/Self-sacrifice
These traits are not opposites (one can be both controlling and protective, free and humilated, empathic and addicted to power, etc). There's also no explanation as to how the items in the "positive" column ARE good; in fact, often the opposite is the case (overprotectiveness, inconsistent, etc). Same with those in the "negative" column (Since when is self-sacrifice a negative trait?). It's hard to see why some of these traits are matched up with their "opposite"- they don't follow any established pattern, so they need expansion.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
Maybe this will clarify things for you. If a family member says "Good girls just don't do things like that", they are transfering their control addiction (which is sexual) to the social/family setting, which will result in frictions within the family and thus causes social problems.
It doesn't always cause friction; saying such things is not necessarily prompted by a control addiction. Though I do believe our sexual desires SOMETIMES cause social problems (normally when publicized), I don't think that to be the general case. Hell, sex itself is a sexual desire that we experience with our partners in a social setting.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
Sadism is not in the natural order because it doesn't usually occur within tribes.
citation needed
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
However, it shows up during times of war. Have you never watches WW2 movies, where everything gets blown up and the enemy is torn apart by mortar splinters and you thought "Wow! That was amazing and powerful."
I really think that you have a very weak grasp of what sadism itself is. It's not to be confused with numen or awe, and it isn't simply enjoying destruction. If you're masturbating to it, maybe I'd think differently, but I also think that's not the norm.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
I doubt that sadism can be suppressed through social institutions. Every newborn is a potential terrorist. And how do you deal with a terrorist ready to sacrifice himself for a cause that you consider to be utterly tribal, if not through sadism?
Do you remember the picture of Barrack Obama's face when he watched Osama bin Laden die? That was sadism.
Wait. What? Sadism as a tool to stop... terrorism? You can stop baby terrorists by taking away their methods of terror, for one. Or, one might resort to violence, but violence in itself is not sadism. Oh, and I'm in agreement with everyone that Obama's face when he watched Osama die was not sadism.
You'd also be surprised at what can be suppressed through social institutions- read up on the Stanford Prison experiment.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
I don't know why dominants should be empathetic. You cannot submit to empathy, only to power addiction.
People can submit to anything they damn well feel like.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
Yes, I do believe that omnipotence is a universal human goal. Every little kid wants their daddy to be omnipotent. And every good father would love to be seen as omnipotent in the eyes of their children.
I do not want to be seen as omnipotent to my (future) children. I want them to see me realistically, but know enough of my limitations to surpass me. I also plan on being a good father, thank you very much. I also did not want or believe my dad to be omnipotent for any measurable length of time- after all, that would mean he would know when I was a bad child and spank me. :(
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
Well, if you do not believe in omnipotence as a universal goal, you will eventually have to wage war on tribes that DO believe in omnipotence (like the Germans), which in turn will force you into sadism in order to beat us.
Yes, because probability dictates I will be waging war constantly once I "grow up". Again, sadism is not the same thing as violence.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
quote:
ORIGINAL: chemeli
What kind of social problems? If they are transferring their control addiction as protective instinct (which in your list, you claim to be the yin and yang of one another) isnt that much more about them transferring values and mindset ? How are values being social problems?
I guess, this particular philosophy only makes sense if you accept that every human has both dominant and submissive tendencies. Since your profile states that you are a submissive female (rather than a switch), you might have problems understanding (or rather accepting) that control addiction is an expression of dominant sexual desires. But since you insist on being purely submissive, you probably think that control addiction is a mindset, a strategy to achieve certain social goals, which it clearly shouldn't be.
One can be addicted to control without being a dominant or a top. Perfectionists and people with OCD come to mind- and I don't think people who feel compelled to wash their skin off, feel so because they are sexually stimulated by the diseases that they are so afraid of developing.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
So, people get killed because they can do things, which others cannot. They can go to a dance because they have the right pair of shoes, and you don't, so you go ahead and kill them.
That's exactly my point. Omnipotence and sadism are two sides of the same medal.
Not necessarily. What if they don't have a ticket or date to go to the dance? And besides, going to a dance is *hardly* omnipotence. Power, maybe, but I don't think you're breaking any ground when you say "So and so was killed because he had power that murderer X wanted".
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
Well, I frankly admit that I'm not familiar with Hobbes. But from the way you are describing his theory, I'm not convinced. Life was never solitary and lonely. Apes hunt in packs, and so did the first humans. There is even evidence that the first humans performed primitive surgery on one another. If life was brutish and short, it was due to the lack of technology, not due to the lack of social contracts. Claiming that socially more advanced civilizations are also more technologically advanced is putting the cart before the horse. When a certain group of people gains a technological edge over other groups, some members within the group will become lazy and try to sponge off the system. They might aspire to professions, which are not really necessary, like bankers, lawyers, musicians. When other groups catch up, the system collapses.
What?
1) Without social contracts, life is solitary and lonely. Otherwise, you HAVE THE DEFINITION OF A SOCIAL CONTRACT. I sincerely doubt that the first humans walked up to each other, grunted, and started hunting together- it's much more likely that they AT LEAST experienced failure from the hunt before attempting to share. Sharing implies less resources for the self, which limits the self's survival- this is only done when a demonstrable benefit is gained from creating the contract. This is also demonstrated in children- we have to teach the concept of sharing, but the concept of ownership is already biologically imprinted in their minds.
2) Lack of technology? What technology are you referring to? It's pretty common knowledge that, without food for an extended period of time, people die. It's also known that humans can be eaten by creatures bigger than them. It would help, y'know, if you got a warning while you were asleep and, I dunno, a bear comes up and thinks you a tasty morsel or tries to protect her young.
3) What is the purpose of your entire technological edge tangent?
I would make an effort to actually read Hobbes before you attempt to talk about his theories.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
#1: Ancient Egyptian/Roman religion
Greek philosophy of Sophism
The element of amoralism. Penalties and punishments by superior moral beings are dismissed as coincidence or as an act of god.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
I randomly picked sophism. If you don't like it, pick hedonism, which is similarly immoral. When I used the expression "moral being", I wasn't referring to gods but to other people who don't
believe in this particular religion or philosophy and altruistically punish the believers for reasons, which they might not understand because they don't understand altruistic behaviour.
Immoral and amoral are two different things. You said amoralism in your first post and immoral in this one. Besides that, the Greeks are not the same people as the Romans, and picking things randomly don't really help your point. Besides, these still seem like three completely different topics (but hey, every pair of objects in this world are similar in some respect and different in another, so...)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
#2: Hinduism
Greek/Roman philosophy of Stoa a la Seneca
Non-violence at all costs. Gandhi resisted the British colonialists through non-violence, while Seneca poisoned himself without hesitation after receiving the order to do so from a Roman emperor.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
Yes, but tough endurance of misfortune and inner peace in the face of adversities is also a trademark of Hinduism, isn't it?
And it's also a trademark of several other religions/philosophies. Your point?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
#3: Buddhism
French philosophy of Rene Descartes
The dualism between mind and body, meditation.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
My gosh... Have you never read about Opus dei? The rumour that pope Johannes Paul I was poisoned by his own cardinals? People don't always believe in the values that they are paid to represent.
Er... next time, pick some other similarity than the title of one of the major works that the philosopher is known for. You know, as well as I, that the "Meditations" that desCartes refers to are completely different than the meditation that one would be taught in an Eastern religion. Cartesian Dualism, as well, refers not to a yin/yang relationship of mind and body, but simply, "When I think, stuff floats around in my head... but it must not have form, because then thinking of something REALLY BIG would make my head explode, so there's this stuff that is tangible and stuff that's intangible, so there's two different stuffs." There's no morality brought about by the theory.
BESIDES, DESCARTES USED THE IDEA THAT GOD EXISTED AS THE ULTIMATE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF HIS PHILOSOPHY. His proof goes as such-
1) The cogito
2) The cogito is perfect
3) In order for something to be made, something as good as/better than it has to make it
4) Therefore God exists
5) Therefore blood and rationality and clocks and ovens that I write in to keep warm and bakers that chase me out of them
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
#4: Christianity
English philosophy of Utilitarianism
The golden rule of the holy bible "Treat your neighbour as you wish to be treated yourself" is pretty much the summary of utilitarianism.
Sorry dude, Christianity is not Utilitarianism at all. Utilitarianism is simply that which creates the most net utility is moral. You could make an argument that the golden rule (which by NO means is the defining characteristic of Christianity) is Deontological, but the fact is that Christianity is an example of a "Divine Command" theory. That which makes the rules is absolute, and those rules determine morality.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
#5: Judaism
Italian philosophy of Machiavelli
The Jews think of themselves as the chosen people. Machiavelli believed that power and respect can be earned by following certain moral principles.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
Ummmhhh... Machiavellianism = applied utilitarianism? I don't think so.
Machiavelli was COMPLETELY utilitarian. Again, Utilitarianism says that which provides the most utility (i.e. happiness) is moral, regardless of the means used to achieve said utility. As such, making public displays of power so that the people would not revolt is COMPLETELY Utilitarian (scapegoating-making one person suffer "for the good of the whole").
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
#6: Islam
German philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche
Both the Koran and Nietzsche's book "Jenseits von Gut und Boese" ("Beyond Good and Evil") are a recitation of pure spite and malice.
Have you ever read the Koran? No? Didn't think so.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
#7: Nature religions which worship female fertility goddesses
German philosophy of Arthur Schoppenhauer
Melancholy and pessimism, sexual self-castration through artwork.
Er... Not familiar (enough) with Schopenhauer to make any comments on that, but how the heck do female fertility goddesses relate to melancholy and pessimism?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Intellectual
#8: Nature religions which worship male war gods
German philosophy of Immanuel Kant
Both the use of reason and the preparation for war are not seen as a means to an end, but as an end in itself.
Such a bastardization of Kant does not deserve a response. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-morality/
< Message edited by Dunamis2009 -- 9/3/2012 8:27:25 PM >
|
RE: BDSM and philosophy - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread