Thread replies: 20
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: eliz1-scrots.jpg (60KB, 370x495px) Image search:
[Google]
60KB, 370x495px
Are there really that few people who think sex is inherently revolting and disgusting? As the philosopher Kant says: "Because sexuality is not an inclination which one human being has for another as such, but is an inclination for the sex of another, it is a principle of the degradation of human nature, in that it gives rise to the preference of one sex to the other, and to the dishonouring of that sex through the satisfaction of desire. The desire which a man has for a woman is not directed towards her because she is a human being, but because she is a woman; that she is a human being is of no concern to the man; only her sex is the object of his desires. Human nature is thus subordinated. Hence it comes that all men and women do their best to make not their human nature but their sex more alluring and direct their activities and lusts entirely towards sex. Human nature is thereby sacrificed to sex. If then a man wishes to satisfy his desire, and a woman hers, they stimulate each other’s desire; their inclinations meet, but their object is not human nature but sex, and each of them dishonors the human nature of the other. They make of humanity an instrument for the satisfaction of their lusts and inclinations, and dishonor it by placing it on a level with animal nature. Sexuality, therefore, exposes mankind to the danger of equality with the beasts."
>>
>>2254329
TL;DR: Kant was fedora-ing before fedoras.
>>
>>2254340
Not that he was unattractive, really. I'm sure he had a higher reason for his celibacy.
>>
File: Socrates.jpg (375KB, 843x1024px) Image search:
[Google]
375KB, 843x1024px
>>2254329
What's the difference between Human nature and the subnatures of man and woman?
Wouldn't it be the ultimate appreciation of human nature found in the perpetuation and unification of Humanity?
>>
>>2254766
>humanity
>subnature
>>
>>2254329
Kant's moralfaggotry knew no bounds, what's knew? People like to fuck around. No amount of kraut butthurt will make it any less pleasant or healthy.
>>
>>2254329
>***continental philosophy***<
>2017
>>
>>2254329
Wow that was very interesting, it's like the guy is in my head.
>>
He's pulled my loosely formed ideas about same concept into form. Ive always had a distgust for sexual acts on some level and yet i cant help but want and enjoy it. Ive noticed this disgust also more highly pronounced when it is the sex of two others who seem more humanized or rather when they seem familiar somehow. Example: porn with actors/pornstars doesnt phase me; the fakeness sheilds their humanity and thus my disgust. In the other hand, anything closer to reality with couples really turns me off and I feel revolted by watching.
>>
>>2254329
its the same thought process 4chan follows, that is, modern hypergamy is degenerate but at the same time any user would jump on the opportunity. in this fashion it is therefore degrading even though it can be considered nature. its the difference between the ideal and the sacrifice
>>
>>2254329
Kant would have loved /r9k/
>>
>>2254329
Sex is just one of the many behaviours the animal has been programmed to follow. It is impure, but not more than shitting or eating.
>human nature
Kant fails to recognize the natural domain. There is no human nature different from the regular animal nature, as nature is always related to living automatons.
>>
File: 543143_3621928085736_831815643_n.jpg (29KB, 480x640px) Image search:
[Google]
29KB, 480x640px
>>
>>2254914
>>2255615
>>2255621
His point isn't as simple as "sex bad." His point is that sex and sexuality are aspects of human conduct where we are more or less slaves to instinct, and most sexual conduct is essentially objectifying. There's a difference between using someone's body as a glorified masturbatory aid (think hook-up culture) and sharing sex with a long-term partner. Kant is definitely not against the latter, but he thinks the latter is required for sex to be "human" rather than "animal."
>>
>>2255786
The long term partnership is just another evolutionary strategy and can be observed in many species.
Although not as primitive as sexual drives, its main purpose is to increase the probability of surviving and therefore serves the primitive instinct of surviving. Hence is also a natural behavior.
>>
>>2255786
>human sex vs animal sex
Whether its sex for the purpose of reproduction or sex for the purpose of pleasure, its not something that comes from your own will, but rather you are forced by the animal to do it.
In any case it is you being programmed to behave in a certain way, hence natural (automatons=nature).
>>
Kant was a fucking massive autist.
>muh sex is icky
>muh ridiculously absolute morals
>muh carefully planned strolls
>>
>>2254810
>men an women are the same
>>2254914
I too enjoy wasting my life in vain pursuits.
>>2254964
Being an analytical retard
>muh squared logic
>>2255293
I feel the opposite, it's nice to see love blossom.
>>2255662
>implying animals sing, dance, make art, fall in love, laugh, explore, reason, worship, contemplate
The more you try and make man an animal the less he looks like one.
>implying animal nature is pure
stop
>>2255884
long term is objectively the best strategy.
Degeneracy is devolving.
>>2255929
>I am not a genius, but I will criticize those who are through random and illiterate heckling
>>2255893
If you tell someone they are programmed to do a certain thing they will seek the opposite only to prove they are spiteful beyond determination.
It's a psychological phenomena.
>>
>>2254340
More like he was a faggot trying to promote homosex
>>
>>2254329
>Are there really that few people who think sex is inherently revolting and disgusting?
Why does it surprise you that this is rare? Avoiding sex is not a trait that's going to be selected for.
Thread posts: 20
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3