Both are purely physical measurements that we assign some arbitrary scale to, and both are subject to changing due to purely physical processes. No metaphysical explanation is needed to understand such a thing. If you have some sort of reasoning or explanation for why anything metaphysical is required to better understand things like emotion or sexuality, I would appreciate it, as cannot reason why such a thing would be needed to understand these.
Metaphysical literally means anything beyond the physical. Freedom, metaphysical idea, justice, liberty, the ability to pursue one's own happiness, etc.
Casual Dating And Casual Sex Are Not The Same Thing
These are metaphysical beliefs about how people should live, our natural state. There are opposing metaphysical beliefs to these. Literally anything beyond the material which is why psychology and the metaphysical are so interlinked is considered metaphysical in nature, especially in the realm of philosophy. That is an entirely erroneous statement and you're either aware and don't care or have no clue at all what you're talking about. A basic understanding of the psychology of a human being and its capacity for variability ad infinitum is all you need to know how almost insultingly simplistic that statement is.
And if you do believe that I question whether you're even a morally serious individual. Can you imagine a therapist approaching the sheer mass of complexity that is the human psyche with the same level of callousness as a construction worker measuring a piece of wood? Again, can you even be serious and say that? When I think of love, I think of agape love— selfless love: In fact I think there are many things which are much, much more personal and soul-baring than sex.
But even then, you have to recognize whether I share my memoir with one person, five people, or the world at large— that decision is my own. A symptom of the quasi-western-buddhist ideal. You're going along in life, you have friends, family, career, life, and you meet someone and all of that is, on many levels, ruined.
Love isn't patient, it calls to us in every aspect of life, we yearn to love and to be loved.
Love isn't kind, it's angry and it razes emotional cities. You don't just get to make these massive metaphysical statements via the act of love and mask it in the false guise of selflessness. There is a burning building.
Welcome to Reddit,
You have a choice to save a stranger or your love. You choose your love. This is the inner reality of the love emotion. Even in a polyamorous setting you find a singular. Take the same situation but make it two of your partners. You will find you have a favorite. Love is not synonymous with passion.
Falling in love is not the same as love.
Free Online Training
You prove nothing by saying that if you had to choose one, you would choose one. At this point I'd just outsource to Zizek or de Botton to get a philosophical understanding of love, and maybe even more importantly here, the bullshit that is quasi-western-zen. Both philosophers have a large body of writing, and both philosophers also have a large number of critics all philosophers do.
Are there any specific points that you have drawn from these philosophers which you believe refute my earlier points? It sounds like zizek is not talking about love in the way de botton described it needs to be, but rather in the way that it currently is— the position Which de botton and I both wish to move on from. Zizek describes love as a passionate obsession, and I believe he is mistaken. When a loved one dies, we tell them to grieve and move on with their lives.
We tell them that all is not lost, that their life was important outside of this person, and this is the correct advice to give. You want sex to not be casual, yet by removing selflessness from the conception of love, you make all sex casual. You make all sex dangerous. In fact, it follows from this reasoning that the less in love a sex partner is with you, the safer you are.
A sex partner with this obsession is more likely to stalk you; take your freedom; use the intimacy you shared against you. Someone who is apathetic about you, who may not even know your name? Using the definition of love that you have given, casual sex is safe sex. How long do they have to last? Happiness and satisfaction can be seen throughout psychological research to decrease over time: Its a temporary phenomenon wherein all of the positive reward-based neurotransmitters dump into your brain at the start of the relationship: You're speaking of your own values, and thus what you say is entirely true for you.
Other people have different values and uses and fulfillment or lack thereof! Two consenting adults choosing to be intimate for their own purposes and and satisfaction is not the same as one person taking the life of another.
The reason it isn't so simple as "I believe x, everyone else believes y, and thus whatever, live and let die" is because if you were to replace my variable with any other ethically charged action you would find the premise problematic. A participant in casual sex using your argument is akin to a murderer using the same argument. Ah but I just have different values! They might not be true for you but, the lack of importance of another person's life is true for me! A better question might be, why do you condemn one and condone the other? Is it because you benefit from ignoring the metaphysical weight of sexual intimacy for hedonistic temporary fulfillment purposes?
This is just a semantics issue. The "casual" in casual sex is a reference to context of the sex within the relationship, not the intimacy of the sex itself. Casual can be defined as "not regular or permanent, in particular. You don't think there's a certain attitude about sex that goes along with "casual sex"? You act the same in a casual setting as you do in a deeply romantic setting?
The point is that regardless of your acknowledgement of the metaphysical reality of sex it ALWAYS operates as a function of "deep romanticism", at the very least on a psychological level in a literal anatomical sense, let alone on a philosophical level. Casual can mean "not regular or permanent. For instance another definition of casual is "done by chance" do you think there's no such thing as business casual because outfits that are business casual are not called so by chance?
- speed dating bingo houston?
- Daily Newsletter Sign Up.
- Is there such a thing as casual dating?.
I'm obviously using the colloquial definition about an attitude as opposed to an attempt to define the nature of the moment. That's the whole point of the argument, that casual is opposed to the true nature of the moment.
Do you think it's fair to say you're using a different definition than everybody else is? And if so, shouldn't you make that explicitly clear in you're view? It's a semantic trick, that allows you to appear to discuss the common definition of casual sex, while actually discussing something else.
Why There's No Such Thing as Casual Sex | Gina Cloud's GinaCology
Casual sex doesn't also linguistically refer to the attitude one has in participating in the event? People can have sex, outside of a relationship, that is very intimate, but it's still casual sex, because it falls in that definition. Casual sex is sexual activity that takes places outside a romantic relationship and implies an absence of commitment, emotional attachment, or familiarity between sexual partners.
Examples are sexual activity while casually dating, one-night stands, extramarital sex, prostitution, or swinging.
Related no such thing as casual dating
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved