• unenlightened
    883
    The real fact is that your so called analysis tells us absolutely nothing. What have we found out? There are societies which have these set of values, and there are societies which have a different set of values.Agustino

    That's all you have found out because you are not willing to think. Other people have found out how the structure of society produces its values. They may also have started to see how changes in the structure of western society in the last century have led to a current conflict between 'old fashioned' and 'modern' values. And If they have followed the links I posted, they have started to answer the op's question about other societies.

    And that is a great deal more than you have achieved in your interminable pontifications.
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    they have started to answer the op's question about other societiesunenlightened
    I wouldn't even bother to call these 3 people tribes "societies". The only relevant link there was India, and trust me, if you speak with Indians you'll see that Indian society is largely very conservative.

    Other people have found out how the structure of society produces its valuesunenlightened
    So? This does nothing to settle the question which are the right values. If you're going to say something about that (matrilineal values are right) then i may have some beef with you, otherwise what you're saying is insignificant for me, and quite trivial.

    They may also have started to see how changes in the structure of western society in the last century have led to a current conflict between 'old fashioned' and 'modern' valueunenlightened
    No the conflict has always existed - just have a read about Cato the Elder for example, or Baghdad at the height of the Islamic caliphate.
  • Heister Eggcart
    677
    Unfulfilled wants and desires cause suffering.unenlightened

    Just unfulfilled ones?
  • unenlightened
    883
    No the conflict has always existed - just have a read about Cato the Elder for example, or Baghdad at the height of the Islamic caliphate.Agustino

    Can't read much? I'll highlight the relevant phrase to help you.

    To a great extent, the conflict is inherent in patrilineal and particularly aristocratic and capitalist societies, but it has become more open starting with WW1.unenlightened

    That is to say, more open in the sense that the conflicts in this thread would not have been so openly expressed 100 years ago. BC in particular would have had to be a deal more circumspect, but generally, talk questioning the value of monogamy would have been extremely controversial.
  • unenlightened
    883


    The premises of the argument are taken from the quoted post by @question. It isn't a position I hold myself.
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    Okay and? What's there to say about that, why is it that significant?

    Any developed society is by essence patrilineal in your definition, because such virtues are needed to build a robust, self-perpetuating and strong society. You'll pretty much only have savages which organise themselves in matrilineal ways.
  • unenlightened
    883
    Any developed society is by essence patrilineal in your definition, because such virtues are needed to build a robust, self-perpetuating and strong society. You'll pretty much only have savages which organise themselves in matrilineal ways.Agustino

    That it happens to be currently so is certainly true, though savagery is by no means confined to undeveloped societies. But I would like to see some argument as to why it is so 'by essence'. You might take the following into account, taken from here.

    Myers, Peter (November 23, 2001). "Aryan Invasions – Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Colin Renfew, Marija Gimbutas and Martin Bernal on the Indo-European invasions and the earlier Goddess cultures". Neither Aryan Nor Jew. Retrieved 10 March 2014. Traces of matrilineal practices have been found in recent centuries in peripheral areas of the west and north of Europe, and in the Aegean islands. In a number of islands, including Lesbos, Lemnos, Naxos, and Kos, matrilineal succession to real property was the rule at the end of the 18th century A.D. The facts were reported by an English traveller, John Hawkins, who wrote: "In the large number of the islands, the eldest daughter takes as her inheritance a portion of the family house, together with its furniture, and one third of the share of the maternal property, which in reality in most of these cases constitutes the chief means of subsistence; the other daughters, when they marry off in succession, are likewise entitled to (a portion of) the family house and the same share of whatever property remains. These observations were applicable to the islands of Mytilin (Lesbos), Lemnos, Scopelo, Skyros, Syra, Zea Ipsera, Myconi, Paros, Naxia, Siphno, Santorini and Cos, where I have either collected my information in person or had obtained it through others."
  • Question
    708
    The premises of the argument are taken from the quoted post by question. It isn't a position I hold myself.unenlightened

    I think there's a misconception here. Take the following:

    1. Unfulfilled wants and desires cause suffering.
    2. I feel compelled to not indulge in the pleasurable aspects of life.
    3. Therefore I suffer.

    One can imagine desire trying to negate it's own existence through higher level desires (super-ego if you will); but, this indeed would leave an individual constantly in contradiction with their own desires, possibly leading to abnormal/depressive/low self-esteem/yadayada behavior. The reason is the savior here when conflicting desires are at odds with one another. Reason, given enough mindfulness, can recognize desires and NOT act upon them.

    My rather important point here is that one not needs (rather wants) to fight a desire with another desire as if being stuck in a Chinese finger trap; but, rather change your values of said behavior or what I have been hoping for, placing value over a certain set of ethos regarding sexuality.

    This is not the ideal solution, though, as can be seen through the teaching of Buddhism in regards to unrestrained desires.
  • Heister Eggcart
    677
    Replace "sex" with "sexuality" in your title. Would you still agree that it's idolized or no?
  • Question
    708

    Yes, I don't see why not...
  • Wosret
    1.3k
    Personally, I could totes be a world famous rock star on a life-long sex marathon, but I'm just above all that. I'd much rather just play video games than have sex with hot girls.

    I'm definitely socially inept. Even going to places, like yoga that I frequently near daily whenever I lived close to a place I'd say nothing unnecessary, and eventually people begin to think you're stuck up, or something, because they start getting kind of nasty, and I didn't even do anything!

    It's beyond miraculous that I managed to get laid... I really made her work for it too, and didn't really put anything on the line myself, and risked nothing. Even with that, my warped by fiction, ridiculously unrealistic ideas about romance, and love proved to be too insane, and I messed that up too. Like the stars aligned to fulfill that desire without compromise, but still wasn't good enough for this romantic idealist. That's what you get for spending years reading about romance rather than doing it.

    A couple weeks ago I got messaged by a girl online too, she was attractive, and an artistic to boot, but I hadn't updated my profile info, and she lived in the town I was staying in, an hour and a half from here.

    I mean, she contacted me, which pretty much guarantees success, as long as I showed up, and didn't say or do anything obnoxious, but I still didn't do it. Although I definitely like the idea of having all of the hot girls, in reality my social anxiety makes that impossible. I simply couldn't be intimate with a stranger, it would be too difficult and uncomfortable for me.

    Maybe if they were unconscious... hmm.
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    Like the stars aligned to fulfill that desire without compromise, but still wasn't good enough for this romantic idealist. That's what you get for spending years reading about romance rather than doing it.Wosret
    I don't think it's your ideals that are at fault, but rather your expectations.

    Even with that, my warped by fiction, ridiculously unrealistic ideas about romance, and love proved to be too insane, and I messed that up too.Wosret
    Again it's not the ideas which were unrealistic, but the fact that your partner didn't share them. And it would be kinda silly to think you're the only crazy one out there - it's just that, probably like you yourself, the crazy girls are hard to find. But to this day they must be waiting for Wosret...

    You've determined that such and such a relationship would satisfy you. There's no problem in that, it's who you are. The problem is that you live in a world which, largely, doesn't share your ideals, and therefore you'll be hard-pressed to find people who do share them. But they're not impossible to find. Also material conditions are important to satisfy desires - you obviously must have enough money to be able to enjoy your time with a beloved.
  • unenlightened
    883
    There is something odd about it for sure. Try this analogy.

    You know how when your pet has been to the vet for an operation, the put this cone on their neck to prevent them from licking the wound. There is a natural itch (desire) to lick wounds, that normally helps clean them and promotes healing, but in this case it is counterproductive as the wound is deep, but also already super clean. So there is good reason in the animal's interest to frustrate its desire. But that reason is not that desire leads to suffering as a general rule, nor that the frustration of desire leads to the extinction of desire. It is particular and limited, and after a few days, the cone can be taken off.

    So if it is good to put a cone round one's privates, as it were, because it will frustrate the desire for sex, then the avoidance of suffering the slings and arrows of relationship or children or STDs or some such, or else the promotion of, (shall we say?) spiritual ecstasy on the positive side need to be posited. We might then discuss whether any of these are good reasons in particular circumstances. The latter, for example, might work for monks, but not so much for priests, and even less for the laity.
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    That it happens to be currently so is certainly true, though savagery is by no means confined to undeveloped societies. But I would like to see some argument as to why it is so 'by essence'. You might take the following into account, taken from here.unenlightened
    First, when I refer to patrilineal societies it's not of the essence with regards to them that the male plays a more important social role than the female. For all I care, it could be the female inheriting the property. What is of importance is that certain virtues exist - monogamy, virginity, loyalty, faithfulness, chastity, control of the sexual impulse. These virtues permit the creation of relatively stable families, where the members work together for the achievement of higher, common goals, with the elimination of potential sources of inner conflict like jealousy, hatred, anger, etc. Families are necessary for building up a strong and healthy society which focuses on its survival and flourishing instead of merely on pleasure.

    To say that developed societies could be matrilineal is no worse an absurdity than to suppose that an army could exist without discipline.
  • unenlightened
    883
    First, I introduced the term 'patrilineal', and I used it in the conventional meaning rather than make up some nonsense. If you want to distort the language to suit your own prejudices then there is no possibility of communication.

    And what is of importance is that you have zero basis for your declarations thereafter; as if other cultures have not been at least as stable and survived at least as long and flourished as well, with just as stable families.

    And I would point out that it is just this stable family focused sexually righteous society that has degenerated into the abomination that is modern liberalism. Now how did that happen?
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    First, I introduced the term 'patrilineal', and I used it in the conventional meaning rather than make up some nonsense. If you want to distort the language to suit your own prejudices then there is no possibility of communication.unenlightened
    Yes you did, but I have no beef with it. It's not about using language to talk about my own prejudicies, it's using it to talk about what's important (and let me remind you that you've associated those virtues with patrilineal societies as well, so I merely identified the important point and went on from there). If you care about the fact that man or woman has a more leading role in society than the other, or whatever other incoherency, that's your problem, and you can go on caring about it day in and day out. I don't. If you disagree that the virtues are necessary for a stable family environment/society, I would like to hear arguments, not quibbles about what words mean.

    And what is of importance is that you have zero basis for your declarations thereafter; as if other cultures have not been at least as stable and survived at least as long and flourished as well, with just as stable families.unenlightened
    No they haven't actually. You name me just one such society. Societies have thrived from social conservative values - the Middle East and India from arranged marriages for example, Europe from the virtue of chastity, and so forth. The only ones who thrived from other values are the savages.

    And I would point out that it is just this stable family focused sexually righteous society that has degenerated into the abomination that is modern liberalism. Now how did that happen?unenlightened
    How is that any different from the Rome of Musonius Rufus and Epictetus (who advocated chastity until marriage for example) degenerating and collapsing in its morals over time? How is it any different than the very religious Islamic caliphate started by Muhammad degenerating into the liberal Baghdad at the height of its powers? A time always comes when people no longer see the value of discipline and virtue, and think they can do without it. Their parents couldn't enjoy life because they were burdened by the virtues - at least they should enjoy life now! It's like an army - if the army is always winning, and they even forget that losing is possible, they lose sight of the value of discipline. They forget that they won in the first place because of discipline. So likewise these young people forget that virtue is actually what made enjoyment possible in the first place, and not happy with the amount of enjoyment possible, they want to extend it, and conclude that removing virtue is the way to do this, without understanding that virtue is what made it possible in the first place.

    Societies go through cycles. Growth and decay. That's all that's happening to modern Western society. People who see this and are different are few, and they are thought to be mad-men by everyone else. It's always been this way. There's nothing new under the sun.
  • unenlightened
    883
    Societies go through cycles. Growth and decay.Agustino

    Then they are not stable. People who see that progress and stability are incompatible are different and few, and they are thought to be mad-men by everyone else.
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    Then they are not stable. People who see that progress and stability are incompatible are different and few, and they are thought to be mad-men by everyone else.unenlightened
    There is no progress in terms of societies. It's the same cycle having played itself out through all of history, and which will play itself out through all of history. The reason for this is the fallen nature of man.

    Progress is restricted to technology. And all stability is temporary (though not logically temporary, it just happens in the world to be temporary because men are never, in masses, good). But it doesn't follow that because it is temporary it's not worth striving for, or that it is logically impossible to achieve it. Indeed the intelligent amongst us seek to progress towards stability, ever-aware of how effervescent the nature of stability can be, and how even their progress will one day most likely be undone. The journey up towards the peak is worth it, even if you will inevitably fall back down and have to climb up once again. As Camus would say, we must imagine such a person as happy.
  • Heister Eggcart
    677
    I dunno, I just thought it a good distinction to make. Sex is a little too narrow a topic. Sexuality, though, includes sex, sexes, genders, sociology bullshit, etc. I'd definitely say that the West is obsessed with sexuality more than just sex.
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    I'd definitely say that the West is obsessed with sexuality more than just sex.Heister Eggcart
    *nods* (Y)
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.