Zenith: What it means to each person

Thomas Agrusti

Prof. Barbra Andrew

Philosophy of Sex & Love

February 12, 2013

Zenith: What it means to each person

            One of the great joys that I have as a philosopher is the privilege of having poetic license with all that there supposedly is. I have the ability to say and believe whatever I want, as long as I present competent ways of justifying it.

            Due to this blessing, I am not obligated to take a straightforward approach to anything, but instead make the experience enjoyable for all.  Mind you, as I am only one mind, it would be rather difficult for me to make a claim that what I say and do is pleasing to all who experience it. The same goes for the experiences regarding sex and love (SEGWAY!)

            Perceptions of the meaning behind sex and love vary vastly between people. This is clearly evident when we look at Bertocci’s 1950’ Neo-Catholic view of the subject and compare is to Vannoy’s 1980’s contradictory view. The great part about this assignment is that I’m being asked to proceed along two arguments based on two mediums when asked the question “Who do I agree with the most”: First, I’m being asked which side I personally side with; second, I am being asked which one I find valid. Thus, I am being asked for a personal perspective as well as a logical one. To make it better, I can tear both of these men a new one as there are so many wonderful flaws with their arguments. Afterwards, I will speak on my personal perceptions of sex and love and how they integrate with the two speakers we present today.

            First up to bat is our Pole Bearer, Peter A. Bertocci. Here is a man who believes that love is a spiritual progression between two people who go from first meeting, to tender emotions, and move on into holy matrimony. It is in this secure commitment that the two can come together in order to unite as one, bear offspring, and better their country. Overtime, the two will face difficulties and tragedies, but will always have each other to lean on when times get tough. They will also have a person who will make the good times even better. It is this unity that brings two people to realize the greatest pleasure one can feel, deeper than just a physical pleasure, and even deeper than an awe at the other person’s mind and personality. The two realize a great love for each other, for their community, and people as a whole.

            Where do I start? It is obvious that Bertocci’s argument bleeds Judeo-Christian beliefs along with the “darling” 1950’s viewpoint. As such, this viewpoint is already biased due to its date and its belief system; it only works if the person shares the same Christian beliefs. Bertocci also claims that marriage is an affirmative commitment that two people are going to continue progressing as people and lovers, but this biconditional idea is invalid. If you asked two people on their wedding day if they are in love, they would undoubtedly say “Yes” (if they didn’t, the marriage probably wouldn’t last very long). However, let’s say down the road there is a disagreement, miscommunication, deviancy, and distrust. Would those two still be able to affirm their love for one another as confidently as before? If they were to divorce, would they still be in love then? Would them not being in love anymore invalidate the claim that they made on their wedding day? The progression doesn’t work if it isn’t continuous. If the two fall out of love, the progression idea breaks. Furthermore, let us suppose a new argument. Let us imagine that two people love each other, are committed to each other, and decide not to marry. They may choose this for any reason, from not believing in the social convention or religious convention of marriage, or it might be a financial difficulty. For whatever reason, love can still exist and permeate without the construct of marriage. As such, the progression is once again invalidated. Another scenario would be in a homosexual relationship, where two partners are committed to one another, may not be able to wed because of legal concerns, but show the same commitment as they would in marriage.

            Now, let us give Old’ Bertocci a crutch and say what is right about his argument. The concept of love between two individuals is beautiful. Nearly every philosopher would agree that companionship is quintessential to living. Socrates believed we can learn from one another, Aristotle believed we could lean on one another, and even Nietzsche believes the combination of two equals is more powerful than either alone. It is through unity that we grow stronger and advance as a species, and it is in love that we find an incredible awe for all of humanity, for our special someone, and for ourselves. Love is marvelous and difficult to define, but mature love is undeniably wonderful.

            Now it’s time for Mr. Russell Vannoy. Vannoy believes that sex has the potential to be sex for sex’s sake, and that any associative belief system misleads us from the true pleasure sex can bring. If two or more people are mature and appreciate each other without being in love, they can have an incredible sexual experience. By adding love into the mix, people grow different anxieties about the true meaning of what they are doing, their role in the activity, and in pleasing the other person rather than themselves. Sexual lust is separate from love, which causes many misunderstandings in how to view a sexual partner. True pleasure is found when two mature individuals can conjoin in an adult way of play.

            (Cracks knuckles) First off, Vannoy’s claim sexual lust and love are separate is invalid. To explain this, imagine if you were looking at a celebrity or a model. It is possible to find this person very attractive, and even sexually appealing. However, this may not be a person you are fond of personally. The person may be egotistical, stingy, and, in the end, it is undeniable that this person, if you never met them before, doesn’t even know anything about you. Now, picture your significant other. Here is a person who knows you better than you know yourself, who was there when you couldn’t get out of bed, who ran through the rain for you, who painted your bedroom and mowed your lawn. Here’s a person who you ate dinner with, watched movies with, played games with. Now imagine having sex with that person. That experience is amazing because you are uniting with a person you feel is wonderful in so many ways. You are not making love to their body, you do not love them for their body, you love THEM, and you are making love to THEM. This experience is far more passionate than simple sexual lust like one would feel for a porn star; this is euphoria of two people joining as one, playing together, and pleasing one another because of how much they are in love. That is why the “thrusting of a penis into a vagina” is a beautiful thing, because it is unifying and pleasurable. Furthermore, it is when you have a person who you can communicate with that you can experiment with sexually. True, you may be able to communicate with a person you have just met and appreciate to discover what they are and are not comfortable with, but this level of confidence seems unlikely. Finally, Vannoy makes a claim that there is an anxiety in a loving sexual relationship that is not present in recreational sex. However, this anxiety is founded in insecurity, and Vannoy stated before that optimal sex is only possible if the two are mature and secure individuals. As such, this anxiety is not caused by being in or out of love; it is caused by being insecure.

            Once more, let’s see what the old dog got right. It is true that marriage is not necessary for a sexual relationship, but maturity is. One thing both authors seem to grasp is that communication and proper problem solving is key to any relationship, be it marital, loving, or simply sexual. All of the people involved in the exchange must know and be clear on exactly what is going on, what is expected, and what that means, if it means anything at all. When there is miscommunication, problems arise. I can honestly say that communication and problem solving are my mantra when it comes to relationships, because this is where most problems arise.

            So, what do I believe? As a Psychology major, I feel it’s only appropriate to do what the science has done time and time again: Claim that there are similarities, truths and problems with both arguments, so the final verdict is a mix of both. (Seriously, look at the “Nature vs. Nurture debate, the Top-down and Bottom-up processing debate, the Freud/Piaget/Erickson Developmental debate and you’ll find psychology sides with synthesis time and time again). I feel that love is an ultimate positive, and sex is the unification of two people who find each other incredibly awesome. Sex can be had in or out of marriage so long as both people understand what is going on and what it means to them. Sex can be something that you share with just that one special someone, or it can be something you have with anyone you meet. Sex means to you whatever you want it to, and the experience is enhanced based on what you believe. I believe marriage is a way of committing to another individual, but does not have to be instated unto everyone because everyone has their own set of beliefs that can be justified for one reason or another. That is the beautiful thing about humanity, and why philosophers have come to love them. Overtime we think of new ideas, spawn new societies, and find more and more amazing ways to make humanity simply and incredibly awesome.

Phenomenology

To all my Metaphysical Friends: 
(For those who don't know, "Universal" = quality/adjective
As I delve into my reading alongside my Logic Exercises, I found myself writing this passage:

“The Problem with the book’s example of, “F: Fred is short” I that its universal is referential. Height is based on the measurement of one object compared to another. As such, it is not objective nor is it innate. If nothing in the world existed except for a singular object, say Fred, then he would be neither short not tall, for there is nothing to compare him to, but he would also be both short and tall, for there is nothing to otherwise disprove either of these claims, creating a paradox where one object exemplifies/represents two contradicting universals.”

As I read, I also began wondering if any universal can be truly innate.

For example, the concept of beauty is a funny one. For an object to exemplify beauty it must be experienced as beautiful by another person. Now, defining this exemplification is difficult for there are few valid ways to ultimately say what is evident of a person experiencing an object as beautiful. I believe we could make claims that they find themselves in awe of the object, or they are able to appreciate it for its qualities, or even that there is some biological process that occurs when the person experiences something beautiful that does not happen for any other scenario but that. These could very well be proper parameters to use in order to include beauty in an ontology of the world. However, this bears in mind the idea that objects are defined by those that experience them, and how the objects, in turn, experience the people, cyclically. This Phenomenological approach would then reveal that objects have no innate properties, for if there was no one to experience the object, then the object would have no one to assign it qualities. Without any qualities, the object ceases to be describable, definable, and meaningful. As such, it becomes meaningless. Without any meaning or definition, the object would cease to exist as it would have no qualities, and existence would be among those qualities, both in a material sense and a conceptual sense. This is due to there being no entity to actualize this object in either physical form or mental conception. The object also ceases to have relevancy to the ontology since, with no qualities and meaning it bears no use to the discussion and becomes meaningless, thus expunging it from discussion. 

Now, if this state of mind was continued, one could simply eliminate all humanity and animals (i.e. all conscious beings) and the world would cease to exist. With no one to actualize the world, the world ceases to exist. Now, if an object has innate universals, then it would exemplify a universal without the need for a conscious being to experience it. However, this is paradoxical, for if a quality needs an conscious mind to experience and actualize the object, then the object that exemplifies an innate universal would thereby have to experience itself. The object, being self-aware, would actualize itself, experience itself, then experience this actualization, and continue in an infinite regress of self-awareness, indefinitely realizing itself. 

Now, with this in mind, it can be reasoned that no inanimate object has a conscious mind. Therefore, only an animate object, having a conscious mind, has the ability to experience and actualize an object and the qualities associated with it. Now, if an innate universal must have the ability to actualize itself with itself, then there are only a few possibilities for naming the only things with innate qualities.

The first one, following this run of thought, would be the conscious mind. The conscious mind, on its own merits, has the ability to experience itself and actualize itself, giving itself qualities and proving its existence. 

A second proposition would be the human, which has a conscious mind. This human has the ability to experience itself using its mind and actualize itself. Thus, the human is able to exist on its own. 

A third proposition would be God, for God, like the human, has a mind to experience himself, and so on.

As such, the three innate universals would be:
1) Mindfulness
2) Humanness
3) Godliness

If this quality is lost, then the object itself ceases to exist for it ceases to have the ability to define itself. However, so long as the object exist, it has the ability to actualize its own existence. 

Now, this argument presents the idea that experience precedes existence. It is disproved by the argument that existence precedes experience, whereby the object exists and the entity experiences that object. Along this thought, the object exemplifies all of its own qualities on its own, independent of the interpretive mind. With this state of mind, it is the object that gives the entity something to experience. As such, Existence precedes Experience.