wilbjammin:
Quote:
|
I've always thought that it was weird to view sex only from a mechanistic standpoint. Sex is a part of life, and why can't we view it in a positive light as something that can be enjoyed for reasons other than its ends. I agree that some people have reduced themselves to sex, but why focus on sex only for its procreational ends?
|
That's why they're called "reproductive organs"; sex is a part of society, not life; procreation is a part of life. This is a distinction most people fail to make: social instinct is different than human instinct. "It's human nature to be (greedy/violent/etc.)"... no, it's social nature.
Even if we conclude that we are rational beings, and we can extend our "instinctual" urges for purposes other than the originally intended one. But at that, sex used to symbolize an intimate bond between two people; it used to be something that represented a higher level of love, and blah blah blah. Now it's just a casual thing to do for pleasure. I don't have a problem with eroticism/sensuality, but it's been so whored out (no pun intended) that it has no intrinsic value anymore except as a pleasureful activity.
Quote:
...you don't fix the problem, you just run from it. I don't know if opting out is a Good Faith solution, though it may ease your mind.
|
I don't have any delusions of grandeur to run out and change the world. I just want to live a good life and be happy. Although like
Averett said, maybe that's the problem: no one ever does anything about it, they just resign to a position that "this is the world, and I'm only one person."
Quote:
Is life in this system inherently have less meaning than anything else, or does it just highlight the absurdity of existence more clearly?... I would suggest reading Waldon by Thoreau again.
|
You pose a very good question, one that will have me up all night contemplating. It seems like more and more, we try to detach ourselves from nature. The greater dependency we develop on machines, the more we resemble them and forget that we are still animals, and should live accordingly. I can't say which way of life is better because it all depends on perspective, but being an extreme romantic (I've actually reread
Walden very recently) I tend to lean towards the primitive life.
Quote:
Love can't make up for not having an intrinsic motivator in life.
|
Finding that love represented more than just companionship. It signified a higher level of existence, and affirmed that we are not just a lump of atoms coincidentally structured to behave the way we do.
Sho Nuff:
You're absolutely right. People lack discipline, and that's the root of most of my gripes. Even if we were to accept the current "model" as being adequate, the way that people actually function is still wrong. They would rather spend $4000 on a big-screen TV than donate to a charity. I guess to most people physical/sensational pleasures are more important than emotional satisfaction.
Itchy93