Naturalism and Puberty

[apperception]

As Lessing and Schiller taught, the goal of a human's education is to establish the most delicate balance and harmony between all of his faculties -- between sense and intellect, between duty and inclination -- to transform animal sexuality into human sexuality, and to allow instinct to give way to choice with regard to what is true, good, and

Comments

[virtual_anima]

Another post of 'you naturalsts are so stupid, you're like children you know nothing!' If I wanted that, I'd go to a religious board.

How about instead of drawing demeaning parallels, you give evidence of your position, and maybe people might consider it ;)

[hollowman]

Well, that shur is some purty prose thar, mister.

Apart from flowery poetics though, all you are doing is making unsupported statements and expecting them to impress everyone because you put them in an extended three paragraph form.

So, you say naturalism is grey and souless and eroticism turns into higher aspirations of the soul.

I say, nuh-uh. What a scintillating disscussion we have had.

Next time post something with substance, so we can actually disscuss it.

[anepicpoet]

I would tend to agree with you, though I don't have time to give a good response right now (I have to get to class).

For now, I just want to add a sidenote to your post.
Though I am a philosophy major, my main concentration is in religion. The parallel problem in religion is very interesting. On one hand religion re-arose as a force seeking a "spiritual amalgamation of man's endeavors" when most philosophers and scientists stopped caring about such things. On the other hand, because religion has been reconceived as a personal faith endeavor (the whole phenomenon of religion has been reduced to a "protestant" epistemology), the standard for what makes a "good" religion generally revolves around its efficaciousness in providing psychological and social stability. These are, of course, important considerations, but I'm often left wondering how a religion can take itself seriously without being concerned with truth.

[apperception]

I see the problem with religion exactly the same way you do.

[anosognosia]

Don't you think the reconception of religion into Protestant epistemology is generally limited to Protestant cultures, rather than to religion in principle?

[anepicpoet]

Yes and no.

It takes place in protestant cultures, but it is often applied to all religions.

[strawcat]

I wonder what ever happened to philosophy qua philosophy rather than lampooning the mentality of those who happen to practice it. I imagine that a much more poignant point about naturalism could have been made, that might have actually had the potential to convince some people, had the argument been presented in a philosophical form. As it is, it is merely preaching to the choir for a hearty laugh.

[boyinasuitcase]

I'd say, "Get over yourself," but I'm sure this post was meant to be taken as a joke.

[apperception]

That's a little unfair. I'm advancing a serious philosophical position. Granted, I'm doing it in an unusually "colorful" way by relating it so explicitly to eros, but as I stated in my post, this connection has been legitimately observed by both ancient and modern philosophers in the Western canon. Perhaps you and others disagree with them and their conclusions. That's okay. But that's no reason to treat it as a joke.

[boyinasuitcase]

"That's a little unfair. I'm advancing a serious philosophical position. I'm advancing a serious philosophical position."

I apologize for my comment, then. However, if you're attempting to advance a serious philosophical position, maybe you can give me some definitions and examples of how sexuality can become intertwined with the higher aspirations of the soul. And how does one merge the erotic with the intellectual? Would I know for sure I had successfully achieved this balance and was ready to contemplate a supersensible realm? I can't really disagree with your assertions if I can't understand them in the first place, right? ;)