An interesting issue that arises is if it is possible to make such content showing a different side of sex which does not always reduce people (specifically women) to objects. — Manuel
Is there a philosophy of porn? If there isn't one, I'd be happy to collaborate with anyone who wants to socratically examine the subject. — Agent Smith
Shawn: I supposed Peterson was against it, yes? — BC
That statement reveals an interesting perspective, which is that the availability of women for sexual arousal purposes is a commodity and it historically was only affordable by the wealthy. From a capitalistic perspective, it should therefore be no surprise that someone has figured out how to bring this to the regular masses, which then begs the question of whether it's worse now that the vices of yesterday's kings are available to today's pauper. — Hanover
I feel for younger generations exposed to this shit early. It’s a much more rampant issue than I thought. — Mikie
Any child with a digital phone or tablet device, anywhere in the democratic world (and in the absence of parental control software), now has instaneous access to an unlimited array of pornographic media through the same device they're supposed to use for homework. How can that *not* have an effect? — Wayfarer
Pragmaticism takes the desired end (the good) as the feature with the most power to shape knowledge and society as a whole. — Metaphysician Undercover
Does philosophical pessimism take failure to achieve the desired end as the formative feature of society? — Metaphysician Undercover
Thus different essentially induced truths may have their source in the identities of different objects - Socrates being a man having its source in the identity of Socrates, 2 being a number having its source in the identity of 2. In particular, an induced truth which concerns various objects may have its source in the nature of some of these objects but not of others. This is how it is with our standard example of Socrates being a member of singleton Socrates; for this is true in virtue of the identity of singleton Socrates, but not of the identity of Socrates.
I'm not seeing much that concerns simples. — Banno
It's time for me to take another very long break.
Talk elsewhere, as usual. — Amity
Certainly, there is a connection between the two concepts. For any essentialist attribution will give rise to a necessary truth; if certain objects are essentially related then it is necessarily true that the objects are so related (or necessarily true given that the objects exist). However, the resulting necessary truth is not necessary simpliciter. For it is true in virtue ofthe identity ofthe objects in question; the necessity has its source in those objects which are the subject of the underlying essentialist claim.
Thus different essentially induced truths may have their source in the identities of different objects - Socrates being a man having its source in the identity of Socrates, 2 being a number having its source in the identity of 2. In particular, an induced truth which concerns various objects may have its source in the nature of some of these objects but not of others. This is how it is with our standard example of Socrates being a member of singleton Socrates; for this is true in virtue of the identity of singleton Socrates, but not of the identity of Socrates.
The teenager is starting to become more independent, more resistant to demands to be, and starting to become sexual. All of which is in conflict with being good for Mummy. So that is when there is an internal conflict developing. — unenlightened
Yes, but it is because they don't, that the person they are busy not being because they are being good becomes the bad person who does want to hurt other people, and in a special situation it can to come out. Have you read about the cruelty of nuns, and the sexual antics of priests? The saint creates the sinner in himself. — unenlightened
And the being that is negated is angry, frustrated, and hungry, for its own life. The prisoner in one's own psyche hates the one who is so free as to say yes to everything. Does that resonate at all? — unenlightened
One is told to be something, always and everywhere, to be good, to be better, to be, God help us, authentic. And so everyone is always being something or other, which can only happen by negating what one is. — unenlightened
In my dull normal life, people are never that free with each other, even when drunk. But it's interesting that sex and violence is where the op's mind went, and it reminded me of Rhythm 0 because 'do whatever you want with me' is very close to 'say yes to everything'. — unenlightened