Lesson: All purpose is sexual.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

First Movement
Fact #1 ~ All purpose is sexual.
Fact #2 ~ All sexuality is procreative.
Fact #3 ~ All procreation is generative.

Second Movement
Fact #4 ~ Human reproduction is instinctual.
Fact #5 ~ Sexual selection is intuitive.
Fact #6 ~ Ascetic attraction is innate.

Third Movement
Fact #7 ~ Purpose revolves around truth.
Fact #8 ~ Purpose revolves around beauty.
Fact #9 ~ Purpose revolves around vanity.

Fourth & Final Movement

1. Because vanity & narcissism comprise the definitive markers of the human animal, the psyche, and ‘identity’, all purposeful events instigated and acted upon by the human animal are self-serving towards the inevitable goal of self-replication. Human di-sexuality (meaning: of two sexes) developed into the evolutionary cycle of the human animal in order to separate social roles via biological gender. This process allows for the “specialization of tasks”. 2. All sex acts are naturally-designed to successfully-pass on the genetic memory of one animal generation into the next animal generation. In terms of human sexuality, the deviation of gender away from Hermaphroditism signifies that Individuality must be sacrificed for Sociality in exchange for Common Purpose. 3. The creation of new entities, procreation, suggests that there was a distinct flaw in the previous generation which must be corrected or “purified” in the new generation. Thus life is self-generative, strengthening ‘self’ into what seems like a “living god” entity. The ‘strong’ become ‘stronger’.

4. Human animals will engage in sex and reproduce without “direct” social instruction. This means a pubescent teenager will have sex without being told to do so by a peer-superior. Every new human animal generation “rediscovers” its own sexuality for the first time. 5. When human animals enter into puberty and adolescence, feminized-individuals will actively-select which mates they are fit for. Likeness congregates with likeness and opposites attract. This implies that beautiful people will procreate with beautiful people while ugly people will procreate with ugly people. Opposition implies that an overcoming has sufficiently-bridged the gap between ascetic beauty and ugliness. For example, a “funny guy”, although ugly, may “score with a hot chick” because he is ‘funny’, not because he is ‘beautiful’. 6. Ascetic qualities such as physical beauty, physical dominance, humor, sociability, and especially-confidence are “god-given” through birth. Some people are born beautiful. Some people are born ugly. Ugly people must actively-compensate for this ascetic deficit.

7. The concept of Truth under the context of human sexuality is the actual-reward for individual & social-self-sustenance. Truth is Purpose in this context. What you are born to do is to fuck or become fucked-by another person (as per di-sexuality). Thus “being truthful” is accepting your sexual role in a social context, unless you are a hermaphrodite. 8. Is it a wonder why Great Leaders are often considered ‘beautiful’ even if they are in-fact physically-ugly? No it is no wonder because asceticism idealizes and idolizes Great Leaders. For example, females will have a “crush” on Barrack Obama because he is a “Great Leader”, not because he is necessarily-“beautiful” by common ascetic standards. 9. Vanity is the perpetual reason behind all forms of sexuality and generative reproduction, of all possible things/identities. The human ego was created to admire its own face so much that the human consciousness will bend & skewer reality to match its own self-admiring perceptions. Therefore our genitive purpose in life is to recreate our own faces, our collective visage.

This movement is now finished.

2

…that does not mean that logic cannot/does not over-ride emotion/instinct though.

3

Can you clarify? What does not mean that logic cannot/does not over-ride emotion/instinct???

4

But I fancy men.

Then I’m going to somewhat struggle to fulfill my purpose!

5

Do you believe that homosexuals who are sexually-attracted to their own sex do not want to procreate?

Do you believe that homosexuals who are sexually-attracted to their own sex, and a particular person, are attracted to that particular person for different reasons that a person from the opposite sex is attracted to them? In other words, if two men are lovers, and one is considered ‘masculine’ and one is considered ‘feminine’, then do you believe that women and men are both attracted to the ‘masculine’ personality despite his gender or “sexual preference”?

6

Whether they do or do not want to procreate, thier sexuality is obviously not an expression of (or the result of) a desire to procreate.

Not that this is a necessary qualification to reveal your ‘fact’ that ‘all sexuality is procreative’ is false. There is literally no possible way you can argue that ‘all sexuality is procreative’ whilst aknowledging the existence of homosexuality. It is a counter example: a form of non-procreative sexuality that proves the rule false. Which is unfortunate: as your entire essay seems to rely on it.

The mere existence of homosexulaity disporves the theory absolutely.

No I believe that can’t be the case. Which is why it is clear to me that sexual attraction is not simply a desire to procreate.

By 'masculine and ‘feminine’, do you mean that one goes to work whilst the other stays in and does the hoovering? If not, what exactly do these terms mean?

Whatever dogma you attach to the labels, there will be plentiful relationships in which neither label is applicable to either person (and others where both are ‘masculine’, both ‘feminine’ etc). And I think whichever way you explain the terms it would still be true that people of any gender could be atrracted to either types.

Gender labels are for animals- its a matter of empirical fact that human sexuality doesn’t operate in such confined constraints (ask your local queer community)

7

btw, it’s ‘aesthetic’ not ‘ascetic’ :blush:

8

QFT! (Quoted for Truth!)

9

This is false because you cannot produce any evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps you should research how homosexuality has arisen in civilized societies and why.

Just because a particular sex act is non-reproductive does not mean that the sex act-itself was not designed for the purpose of reproduction.

You are saying something akin to “heroine is good for you because it feels pleasurable”. That does not seem reasonable to me, or many others.

It is sexual attraction that directly-leads to procreation. What is your counter-reasoning to believe otherwise?

You are merely-suggesting and implying ulterior motives. You are not pointing anything out.

You tell me what you think the terms mean.

Personally-speaking, I am familiar with a homosexual couple (men) where one cooks and cleans, and the other appears much more ‘masculine’. The ‘masculine’ one of the relationship, the ‘male’, also speaks with a deeper voice. Is this all just a coincidence, some mystical delusion, or are my perceptions & observations just incorrect?

You are telling me I am incorrect without saying why, which is invalid and fallacious reasoning.

I attach your dogma to my labels here…

That is impossible lest I completely-ignore what I blatantly-see, which is a ‘masculine’ half of a relationship with the ‘feminine’ half.

If you wish to describe your own life or that of others in a different way, then be my guest as to why I should accept your explanation over my own.

That presupposes a great deal of things about gender. Why do you not enlighten me about the differences then???

According to you…?

What is your gender? Do you have one? How many genders do humans have?

Then how does it operate if you are so much wiser than I?

I will wait for your wise response with bated-anticipation!

It must have been a “Freudian Slip” then, eh?

10

Generally speaking anything for which no evidence to the contrary can be presented is considered true.

For example: you will find no reliable evidence to the contrary that water is not h20, therefore, ‘water is h2o’ is considered true.

Your statement was: “all sexuality is reproductive”.

My argument is that:

  1. Something is reproductive if and only if it facilitates reproduction (a simple and uncontestable definition).
  2. Homosexuality does not facilitate reproduction (fact of life)
  3. Therefore: Homosexuality is not reproductive.
  4. Therefore: It is not the case that all sexuality is reproductive.

The argument is a simple, complete and conclusive refutation of the statement "“all sexuality is reproductive”.

Whehter or not homosexuality arose from some skewed desire to reporoduce is utterly irrelevant. It still remains a biolgical fact that human homosexual relationships are not reproductive (if you aren’t sure - go try it). I am not prepared to enter in to a debate over queer theory or anthropology with someone with such a limited and antiquated knowledge of it, especially when it isn’t necessary to prove my argument is both sound and valid.

11

You are correct! ~ but it is my contention that “All purpose is sexual.” And anything contrary to this must be proven to me, by you, not the other way around, which was my point. I have already-stated my stance, point, and proof. Your logic here that “homosexuality is the norm” runs contrary to common view and common belief. If homosexuality is the basis for human sexuality and human nature (which it is not), then the pressure is on you to explain how early human social tribes were predominantly-homosexual in their behaviors while ‘natural’ heterosexuality was both a derivative and/or a mutation of the sexual process. And for that reason, I warned to you that you cannot prove the opposite (in this case) because it is not true to begin with. Homosexuality runs contrary to heterosexuality, not the other way around. If your assumptions were remotely-true, then ‘homosexuality’ wold be a social norm across all human species & societies. It is not. The reasons for this should be apparent to both you & I, are they not???

If the entire human population were biologically-born as homosexual, with no intent to heterosexually-reproduce, then everybody would die-off in one generation.

Ah ah, my friend, you are mistaken. You should be careful and read my statements more carefully & clearly…

I hit “ctrl+f” on my keyboard and typed in “all sexuality is reproductive” and guess what? I did not say that anywhere in this thread.

I said: “All sexuality is procreative.”

I hit “ctrl+f” on my keyboard and typed in “repro” and guess what? The only time I said anything remote to what you assume is here:

That is fine because it does not run contrary to anything I have said, stated, or implied by this thread.

Even if homosexuality is non-reproductive does not mean that sexuality-itself was not created with the intention of procreation.

I would entertain your argument if the premise “all sexuality is reproductive” was not so misconstrued…

:wink:

12

One slip of a word, granted. But I can just re-run the argument with ‘procreative’ (its equally sound and valid):

  1. Something is procreative if and only if it facilitates procreation (still a simple and uncontestable definition).
  2. Homosexuality does not facilitate procreation (fact of life)
  3. Therefore: Homosexuality is not procreative.
  4. Therefore: It is not the case that all sexuality is procreative.

You haven’t yet helped yourself out of this quandry. I suggest this is because you can’t, without resorting to simply changing the definition or procreative from that used in English, or by denying the existence of homosexuality, or by some other poor philosopher’s trick.

Normally, if a desire to do something causes an action, the desire will cause an action that is at least concieved or believed to fulfil the desire. Or in the case of evolved responses, a desire will result in something that would have fulfilled the desire a long time ago.

So the desire to procreate would normally result in an action that is procreative (or that was procreative at some point in history). In defending this, I see myself as something of a bastion of common sense, to be honest.

If you are going to argue that homosexuality is a form of the desire to procreate, you have to have a way of explaining how the desire to proceate results in an action that is clearly not (nor has ever been or will be) procreative. The onus of explanation here is clearly on you.

Notably I did not once claim that homosexuality is the basis of human sexuality. Nor does any part of my argument entail, suggest or rely on this claim. Why would you put such an absurd statement in my mouth then ask me to prove it?

13

brevel_monkey,

No, I am sorry, but you cannot make a concession of that magnitude and then hope I defend my argument against it. You leveled an attack, which was completely off-base. The difference between ‘procreation’ and ‘reproduction’ is very, very wide. The two concepts are not synonymous, hardly at all. Procreation is much more generalized as a concept than reproduction is. Because of this, you have not created any new or serious premises to your changing-argument. You should start over.

When I use the term ‘procreation’ to refer to reproduction, I say this “sexual procreation”. The addition of the term “sexual” necessarily-implies that not all procreation is sexual. Can the human mind procreate ideas for example? I believe the human mind can procreate ideas. I believe the human gonads can procreate sperm. I believe that the sun procreates light. This is how I conceptualize the term ‘procreation’.

So it seems to me you have no point.

If homosexuals engage in non-reproductive sex, then how is it procreative except as a sexually-pleasurable experience???

I do not see how it is. Then again, I am not a ‘homosexual’. So I would ask one to tell me how homosexuality is procreative if I were so interested…

14

Utterly false: the difference between the two is extremely slight. Check your dictionary: it is still true that something is not procreative unless it facilitates procreation. And homosexuality is not procreative, on any definition of the word you will find. So the argument is still perfectly sound.

“all sexuality is procreative” is still a flase sentence in the English language.

Whether you have some private language in which this utterence is true is utterly irrelevent to everyone but yourself. Your post was in English, your sentence is false in English.

15

I should also note that even under your conception of the word, homosexuality is still not procreative.

16

Finally: can I point out that you defined procreation yourself as “The creation of new entities” and that you wrote the sentence: “This implies that beautiful people will procreate with beautiful people while ugly people will procreate with ugly people”.

and that with your latest concessions the statement:

“all purposeful events instigated and acted upon by the human animal are self-serving towards the inevitable goal of self-replication”

is also proved to be on thin ice by the example of homosexuality.

Why would I re-write my argument when it defeats yours so succintly?

17

No, it is not. There is no such thing as a “false sentence”. How can a sentence-itself be ‘false’.

“Pigs fly.” That can be ‘true’ or ‘false’ depending on the context. Thus, the sentence-itself is not ‘false’.

This is a solipsistic approach to language and it does not refute my point. Even if I define ‘procreation’ to mean exactly what I said, then it does not necessarily-help/hinder my case as I presented it. My logic revolves around the fact that “All purpose is sexual.” and “All sexuality is procreative” … You must refute either of those two statements before you can defeat the rationale of any further-possible-implications.

That is not necessarily-true. I just stated that if I wanted to know how homosexuality is procreative, then I would ask a homosexual. I have no need to do so, because the underlying-argument is “All sexuality is procreative.” Therefore, I do not even need to ask a homosexual how his/her sexuality is procreative in the first place. It depends what is or is not procreative.

Before you go further, note that I have not made any ‘concessions’ at all in this thread.

You have made a concession, not me. I apologize to point this out to your ego. I have made no concession here.

No, you are not addressing the cause of what is “purposeful”.

Do homosexuals have sex with the intent to sexually-reproduce, or not???

I will giddily-await your answer to this question…

18

Mine is a decidely un-solipstic approach to language. I am using the defintions of the word that I am finding in the oxford english dictionary and the merriam webster dicitionary along with my knowledge of how the word is used by the vast majority of speakers of english language (along with some knowledge of the word origins). Alongside this, I was using your own usage of the word as a guide to what you meant by it (for example, when you wrote “The creation of new entities, procreation” and “This implies that beautiful people will procreate with beautiful people while ugly people will procreate with ugly people”).

You seem forgetful. I argued that:

  1. Something is procreative if and only if it facilitates procreation (still a simple and uncontestable definition).
  2. Homosexuality does not facilitate procreation (fact of life)
  3. Therefore: Homosexuality is not procreative.
  4. Therefore: It is not the case that all sexuality is procreative.

(We may want to add that (based on all the evidence above) procreation is to concieve some new thing.)

This argument is a refutation of your statement that “all sexuality is procreative”. A very basic knowledge of logic, or even an ounce of common sense, will tell you that this argument is valid.

You also wrote the statement:

"All sex acts are naturally-designed to successfully-pass on the genetic memory of one animal generation into the next animal generation. "

Which (again) is proved false by the simple counter example of homosexulaity.

19

By the way: there may be one final escape for you to try.

You could deny that homosexuality is a form of sexuality.

This is an assault on the English language for a start. But I’d be willing to ignore that if you want.

Try it if you want: see where it gets you.

20

I will use this dictionary definition to suit you.

Gay people procreate with gay people. Do you believe that gay people have sex with gay people???

You are the forgetful one. You changed your entire argument by misplacing a crucial concept…

Then demonstrate this “very basic knowledge of logic, or even an ounce of common sense” to me.

If it is so simple, then I should be able to understand it, I hope. Or am I too ignorant and stupid for that?

Cannot the human mind, the human brain, conceive ideas, or things? Are ideas things? How does conception even work?

Then homosexuality is ‘unnatural’, an artificial result of a phenomenon where human sexuality comes to serves us for pleasure rather than purpose.

That is, of course, supposing that “pleasure is not purposeful in-and-of-itself”. Is eating a chocolate bar, feeling good, the end goal of all life forms???

Have I been snared by a net? Where has my logic been trapped here?

That is unnecessary.

There is no need for you to get rhetorical, thank you.