Study Questions: Philosophy of Love and Sexuality
1.)
In the
speech of Pausanias, he distinguishes between two different kinds of Love. What
are they and how do they compare with one another? Is one form more
praiseworthy than the other? Why or why not?
Pausanias states that the two types of love are ‘Common Eros’ and ‘Heavenly Eros.’ Common Eros, composed equally of the male and female elements, is a ‘street love;’ one falls in love with the partner’s body rather than their mind. Common Eros is the antithesis of Heavenly Eros; in fact, he who indulges in Common Eros will seek out the most unintelligent person he can find because his sole interest lies in the sexual act. // Heavenly Eros is composed solely of the male element, it is free from lust, and it involves a male’s attraction to an older man who is “naturally stronger and of superior intelligence.” Homosexual acts between males, according to Pausanias, are committed in the pursuit of goodness and truth. Logically, then, Pausanias is saying that Heavenly Eros is more praiseworthy than the Common Eros.
2.)
What is the
main purpose of an older man taking on a younger man as his lover?
Pausanias claims that the lover (older man) “is justified in performing any service he chooses for a boy who satisfies him.” By accepting a young boy as a sexual partner, the older man is contributing to his education by sharing his wisdom and goodness with the boy.
3.)
In the speech of Aristophanes, he offers an explanation for why there
are two sexes and why we search for love. Accordingly, what are we all looking
for?
Aristophanes presents a Greek legend which provides an explanation for why we all seek love. There once was a race of primordial humans, he says, who had twice as many limbs as they do now, they were full of strength vigor, and ambition, so much so that they rose up against the gods. To punish them, Zeus cut these beings in half. Hence, we wander through the world constantly searching for our “other half;” someone who truly “completes us” (quite literally according to Greek legend).
4.)
Why,
according to Socrates, is Agathon mistaken about the nature of love – how
so? Explain.
Socrates interrogates Agathon on his exaltations of Eros as so beautiful, good, and true. Because people desire what they do not possess, something which they are lacking, claims Socrates, and love seeks out beauty and goodness, then it logically follows that love can be neither good nor beautiful. Socrates wishes to point out that love is a lacking in the individual for a quality in another individual which he does not possess. Love is not an objective thing to be desired; rather it is a personal, subjective longing for that which he does not possess.
5.)
What, for Socrates,
is love really about? How are his metaphysical views about the forms (beauty,
justice) related to other things we love?
Well, before Socrates is corrected by Diotima, he contends that such things as beauty, justice, and goodness are qualities that one will seek out in another, because he lacks them himself. One desires goodness (beauty, justice, and truth are manifestations of goodness) and to possess it eternally. Related to the two-halves example, we seek that which we lack. Beauty and goodness cannot necessarily have a distinct character of their own (if beauty had its own character, we would have to conclude that it was ugly and ‘not good’). Diotima teaches Socrates that we wish to procreate.. we wish to reproduce both mentally and physically in a medium that is beautiful and good.. this desire fuels sexual arousal by what is perceived to be beautiful and attractive.
6.)
What purpose
does Socrates’ “ladder” analogy serve in illustrating his views on Eros?
Explain
In Socrates’ ladder analogy, he outlines the levels of maturation and progression as one searches for the true nature of love and beauty. At the first stage, one seeks and evaluates the physical attractiveness of a person. A step past that, a person begins to realize that all physical beauty is of analogous value and hence loves all humans equally. The learner begins to see the inherent beauty and goodness in all human behavior. The final step of the ladder, asserts Socrates, is reached when we transcend physicality altogether and come to love beauty in the mind and in all subjects of study. Only then, will we discover the true nature of beauty.
7.)
In what ways
do Aristotle’s views on love differ from Socrates’?
Aristotle did not completely buy into the Platonic/Socratic ‘theory of forms.’ The platonic school of thought seems to idolize and idealize this abstract concept of timeless love and beauty which is inherent in all things. How is it, Aristotle asks, that such an inherent beauty can underlie all things in our concrete, temporal world? Aristotle is not interested in this pursuit of the abstract, universal concept of beauty; no human, he says, can fully actualize himself; rather Aristotle seeks to emphasize the here and now; he highlights our relationships with one another here on this Earth. {attn to: Greek term philia}
8.)
How does
Aristotle define “friendship”? What are its most essential qualities? What
makes true “friendship” so rare, according to Aristotle? Explain
Friendship, as indicated by the Greek term philia, is seeking out and fostering the good in another. Similar to Plato’s “ladder of love,” Socrates describes a few different types of friendship. The most frequently found are friendship for the sake of pleasure, and friendship for the sake of utility. Many people take someone on as a friend because they see some usefulness in that person; they see a means to acquire personal gain or gratification. These friendships do not last very long, Aristotle says. “Now the useful is not permanent but it is always changing. Thus when the motive of the friendship is done way, the friendship is dissolved, inasmuch as it existed only for the ends in question.” True friendship, he contends, is when two men come together seeking to foster the good in the other. Good men of virtue come together seeking to foster that goodness and virtue in the other. This kind of relationship will last, says Aristotle, because goodness is an enduring thing (motives of pleasure and utility are subject to impulse and circumstance). The relationship between virtuous men, however, will also prove pleasurable and useful for both parties. Such friendship is infrequent, Aristotle says, because men of true virtue and integrity are few and far between.
9.) Why, according to Aristotle, why is
“self-love” the basis of all potential friendships?
The author sums up Aristotle’s somewhat lengthy dissertation with the following: “For Aristotle, then, a person’s relationship with his or her friend is built upon that person’s relationship with himself or herself. In truly loving oneself, one seeks what is good and noble for oneself, and that implies seeking what is good and noble for others, especially for one’s friend.”
10.)
What are
Augustine’s views about the nature of “pleasure?” Why does he think that
procreation is incompatible with lust? Where does the concept of “shamefulness”
come from? What, indeed, was “paradise” like before the “fall?”
Pleasure, human desire,
is a misdirection of love. Love, says Augustine, ought to be directed solely
towards God. Only by loving something which is eternal, can our love possibly
be eternal. Pleasure for its own sake is a distortion of true love. Sex, other
than for the sole purpose of procreation, the Christians hold, is a distortion
of sexuality; an improper use of this God-given gift. Lust, by its very nature,
Augustine argues, desires privacy.. desires
to consummate itself in secrecy. Augustine claims good things desire to be
shown in the light, for all to see, but all men naturally desire a sort of
secrecy about their lustfulness, which implicates the concept of
“shamefulness.” It is sin that causes us to become aware of our nakedness, our
lust, and we notice it, we blush, we feel shame, we cover ourselves.
11.)
How does Augustine think God wants us to behave with respect to sex –
should we marry? What should our chief goal in the world be?
Sex is a gift from God; its sole purpose is procreation. If we are going to engage in the act of intercourse, it should only take place within the marital commitment. Sex, solely for the purpose of pleasure, says Augustine (and holds the Catholic Church), is a venial sin. To remain chaste and pure is most praiseworthy, even within the bonds of marriage, but if one intends on having sex, one should marry. Our chief goal in the world is to turn all of our love towards God; our chief (our ONLY) ‘goal’ in copulation is the begetting of offspring.
12.) What
does
Another term for “agapaic” love is the Christian definition “unconditional love.” Because the one and only God is the author of all truth and goodness, all of his creation is “good.” We are called upon, Paul says, to love each other and to love all of God’s creation unconditionally. The greatest of all commandments is to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The author expounds upon Paul’s philosophy, “… love that is unconditional in the sense that its origin and continuance does not depend on the lovableness of the person loved; love that can transform the person loved; love that is exemplified in God’s relationship to humankind and that humans are summoned to display towards each other.”
13.) How
does Paul’s view of Eros differ from Plato’s and Aristotle’s?
Paul’s view of love differs from the Platonic and Aristotelian schools of thought in that Paul’s concept, Paul’s mandate of unconditional love does not depend on the “lovableness,” virtue, wisdom, or goodness of the subject. Christians are called upon to love everyone and everything unconditionally, regardless of their character, their creed, or their misdeeds. The concept of unconditional love is moderately comparable, I think, to the second step of the Platonic/Socratic “ladder of love” at which stage a person loves all humans equally, and sees inherent beauty and goodness in all human behavior.
14.)
Paul says “Love is patient; Love envies no one, Love is never boastful,
nor conceited, nor rude, never selfish…” What does he mean?
I would think that Paul is referring to the qualities and positive characteristics one who loves unconditionally would have. When you love unconditionally, you are patient, you are not boastful, you are not rude, nor selfish. It is very possible that other types of love (other than the Christian-mandated unconditional love) will indeed be selfish, boastful, conceited, etc... Moreover, unconditional love allows you to possess the aforementioned virtues; without love, there can be no goodness. Love is eternal; in the absence of love, and in the distortion of love, there is only chaos and evil.
15.) What are
Four main objections are voiced in the selection from Michael Ruse’s work The Morality of Homosexuality: (1) He refutes the claim that it is unnatural because it does not exist in the animal kingdom by stating that there is a good amount of evidence that it does indeed occur in the animal world. (2) He suggests that homosexuality may have a biological function in humans (using the concept of “kin selection”). (3) He claims that humans are cultural beings, and it is fallacious to base a moral judgment solely on our purported biological nature. And (4) He argues that it is bad reasoning to conclude from individual facts what “ought to be.” He also argues (5) that homosexuality does not violate Kant’s Categorical Imperative – if one lied about his or her homosexuality and deceived his/her lover, then the greater good is not being fostered.
16.) How does
Although Kant himself was somewhat vigorously opposed to
homosexuality,
17.) How does
18.) What are Prager’s main reasons for
objecting to homosexuality?
Dennis Prager argues that encouraging homosexuality undermines western civilization in threatening the “sexual revolution originally begun by the Jewish Torah and perpetuated by Christianity.” Prager believes that the heterosexual marriage ideal contributed to the rise of western civilization and should continue to be the moral ideal to which we aspire. He argues that the heterosexual marriage ideal is crucial in channeling the potentially destructive male sex drive, he argues that past societies in which homosexuality has been accepted devalued women, and he argues from his religious perspective that the law of God denounces such activity.
19.) How does Prager use the Bible in an
attempt to support his arguments? Give examples. How does he use “science?”
Explain.
Once again, Prager establishes the fact that the Bible has lead to the rise of western civilization by giving us morals and values and channeling the male sex drive. The Bible, he says, is in an excellent position to preach about morals and it teaches that homosexuality is not based in value; in fact, it is “an abomination.” Homosexuality refutes the fundamental principles of Judaism that God willed man and woman to co-exist (God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve), and it undermines the structure that the bible “prescribes for all mankind” – the family. Moreover, God claimed in the Bible that “it is not good for man to be alone” and he created EVE (a woman) to compensate for this. He uses science (biology and psychology) to argue that (1) homosexuality may be biologically induced, but it is fostered socially, and (2) in many cases, the individual does appear to have a choice; the homosexual tendencies are not “ingrained.”
20.)What are Hoagland’s main reasons for
rejecting “Heterosexualism” as the governing model in society? Why does she
think it is “evil?” What model is she advocating in its place?
Hoagland argues that it is this very heterosexual marriage ideal of which Prager speaks which has lead to the subjugation of women in society and the perpetuation of female oppression in the “traditional” male-dominant, female-submissive societal model. Sarah Hoagland advocates the replacement of the heterosexual marriage ideal with the concept of a lesbian relationship. She believes that the term “lesbian” is not irretrievably associated with dominance, the concepts of ‘male’ and ‘female’ are, but that what is means to be a lesbian can be socially, culturally, and contextually defined.
21.)
Hoagland’s views appear very Marxist. How so? Explain
Hoagland, a feminist, is a far-left liberal democrat. She attacks capitalism, she attacks imperialism in any form, she seeks to dethrone traditional conservative values, she seems to promote class-warfare, and she speaks of a new “social order.”
22.) What does Deidre mean when she tells
the husband (Sex Monster) that he had a fantasy of what he thought lesbians were
about only to discover the truth? What is that truth, according to her?
She is pointing out that he (and many men) misconstrue lesbians to be these sex-craved women who “want it both ways.” The husband thinks he is being “cool” or “the man” for being able to “get it” from two women at the same time, himself. Perhaps he has failed to realize that two women can legitimately fall in love and develop romantic (and sexual) feelings for each other. He does not anticipate the women actually doing anything sexual (or romantic) aside from him. His wife and the other girl he introduces into the relationship end up being able to pleasure each other more effectively than does the wife’s sex with the husband and this pretty much destroys their marriage.
23.) What is the relationship between love
and the “lust of property,” according to Nietzsche?
Nietzsche claims that love is indeed little more than a desire to possess. Man’s love is a desire to possess; and women have a desire to be possessed. Like the evanescent nature of possessing material goods, so to is the nature of love (citing Nietzsche’s characterization of love as “many brief follies” and his attacks on the Christian concept of marriage). Love, says Nietzsche, is a desire to possess; it is a desire to acquire property, a desire to dominate (own) (or be dominated/owned by) another.
24.) What do you think Nietzsche means by
the following statement: “We gradually
become satisfied with the old, the securely possessed, and again stretch out
our hands; even the finest landscape in which we live for three months is no
longer certain of our love…”
I understand what Nietzsche means here and I agree with him to a very large extent. The nature of material possessions is very evanescent; the pleasure we derive from things we possess is fleeting. Everything in this world that appears to give us joy, pleasure, and happiness, loses its value in a relatively short period of time, and we become bored with it. Change, spice, and variety are what makes life (and love, Nietzsche argues) interesting. According to Nietzsche, love, like everything else in this world, the feeling of euphoria and excitement one feels when in love, will fade as quickly as does our infatuation with a new video game or a book.
25.) Why does Nietzsche claim that the
superior kind of love should be called friendship?
Nietzsche says “There is, of course, here and there on this terrestrial sphere a kind of sequel to love, in which that covetous longing of two persons for one another has yielded a new desire and covetousness, to a common, higher thirst for a superior ideal standing above them: but who knows this love? Who has experienced it? Its right name is friendship.”
26.) Beauvoir
makes several critical comments about the condition of women in society. She
specifically speaks about a woman’s loss
of personal identity when it comes to love relationships? Why? What
examples does she offer to support her criticisms?
Beauvoir observers that many women, in relationships, fall so deeply in love with their men, and become way too infatuated with him; so much so that she surrenders much of her own personal identity and instead inherits his image. It all goes back to the traditional male-dominant, female-submissive structure of society. In her submissiveness (and, yes, females are partially to blame themselves for this), she surrenders herself completely to him (another traditional image) and loses much of her own personal identity. She uses a few examples from French literature to support her claims. She also claims that men do not let themselves be possessed by their women. Men assert their strength and their confidence, and women should be doing the same thing, asserts Beauvoir, lest they continue to be regarded as The Second Sex. The existential themes of transcendence and facticity are apparent in her work (woman needs to define herself socially and contextually).
27.) In what ways does Beauvoir consider
the Bible to have created much of the problem of viewing women as inferior to
men? Explain.
Beauvoir points out that the bible has advocated the heterosexual marriage ideal and the family unit, and has always subtly encouraged the subjugation of women. She points out that Eve was crated second (and regarded as secondary) in the story of Adam and Eve, she points out that Jesus was a man, and she alludes to the patriarchal, male-dominated Jewish society which is the lifeline of the Bible. She also argues that a number of historical religious figures have perpetuated this ‘sexism.’
28.) Is Beauvoir hopeful or pessimistic about the possibilities of a healthy relationship between men and women? Why or why not?
Well, Beauvoir repeatedly preaches that the male dominance of women and the subjugation of women is a horrible evil and oppressive occurrence. She maintains that this will not be a difficult thing to completely break and overcome (or transcend), but she does seem to hold out hope that if women empower themselves and define themselves socially rather than allowing themselves to be defined by society, there is indeed hope. The last lines of the selection indicate that she intends to lay out the plan that women must follow in order to defeat male dominance and subjugation and truly establish themselves as an equal sex.
29.) Review Study Sheets for “The Sex Monster” and ‘Chasing Amy”