Simplistic. If you have a pile of plutonium atoms, which is just one atom shorter than the critical mass, it will just “sit” there. If you add just one more atom to it, it will explode. There will be a qualitative change, caused by a quantitiative one. Which is the “essence” of a pile of plutonium?
You’re being intentionally obscurantist. It is irrational to talk about the essence of a group of identical things – each of those things are the instantiation of a single essence.
You know how I know this? Because you can call it a “pile of plutonium” – meaning you have a clear and definitive sense of what plutonium is, and hence can recognize pluralities of it.
Arbitrary and irrelevant. Dogs, wolves and jackals are classified differently.
i.e., because there is something that distinguishes them.
It would be some of the possible attributes, which the classifier deems important - and which decision aready presupposes a value system, on which the classification is based. The “essence” of a ball for a child is that it is nice toy, he can play with.
With due respect, that’s quite retarded. A ball is a sphere – therefore a ball is that which is spherical. A ball would still be a ball if it were red or blue – therefore color is not essential to something being called a ball. And it would still be a ball if it were made of rubber or plastic – hence the material of which its made is not essential to something being called a ball. Who cares what the child calls it?
And that is precisely what? Stop being imprecise, and start to become precise… if you can, that is.
How the hell should I know? I’m not a bovine biologist.
Always arbitrary. And as such, the “essence” is also arbitrary.
And yet there is a basis for distinguishing between man and cow, no? Or do you deny this? (I’ve asked you this multiple times and you keep evading the question).
If there is in fact nothing that is essential to our classification of “man” and “cow” then we would not in fact be able to have this conversation, since there would be confusion about what I mean when I say “man” or “cow.” Yet clearly you know what I mean when I say “man,” and you know what I mean when I say “cow.”
That is precisely what it means. There is no “red” and “orange”. We use an arbitrary dividing line on the spectrum, and that line is contingent upon our eyes.
And yet that “arbitrary dividing line” is based on an objective sense of there being such a thing as red-ness or orange-ness – hence why everyone can agree that orange is orange and no one (except those with sensory disorders) mistake orange for blue.
And the fact that we can differentiate them has nothing to do with this nebulous essence.
The essence of a thing is hardly “nebulous.” You keep speaking of it as if the essence of a thing were some kind of spiritual substance it possesses. It isn’t. The essence of a thing is simply what it objectively is, that without it would be something else.
Again, do you deny that there is a difference between a man and a starfish? This is literally what you are denying here – that there is a meaningful basis to acknowledge the differences between things.
Nonsense. It is unitive because it feels good for both.
And why does it feel good?
Because it induces couples to procreate.
Again, handshaking doesn’t feel good because it isn’t procreative. It also isn’t unitive. Surprise!
The fact that it may lead to procreation is totally irrelevant. Even people who are unable to reproduce subscribe to the unitive part.
Hello? The faculty is still
essentially procreative – even if some individual instantation of it is either chronically or temporarily incapable of procreation. Hence its use is always
essentially unitive.
This is why the post-orgasmic chemical reactions of the infertile are *identical *to those of the fertile.
And also the waste elimination system.
What is in name???
Biological redundancy hardly alters the purpose of the REPRODUCTIVE system. If the human sexual configuration existed merely for the purpose of discharging waste there would no need for sexual differentiation. But it is different – and these differences moreover are suggestive of and conducive to the end of procreation, as every evolutionary biologist knows. Or do you deny this, too?
If there is a conception. But if there is none?
The faculty is ORDERED IN PRINCIPLE toward procreation. Hence its use must be ORDERED IN PRINCIPLE to the procreative end – whether or not procreation is objectively even possible of occurring.
Hence why the Church teaches that even chronically infertile couples may marry – provided they are capable of completing the sexual act in a manner consistent with its end. Castrati, by contrast, don’t get to marry.
It is yet another vaild and natural use for the same organ.
The sexual faculty includes a good deal more than just external genital configurations.
Again, the fact of biological redundancy does not mean there is no basis for distinguishing between the reproductive system and the excretory system. As witnessed by the fact that everyone nowadays continues to distinguish between the reproductive system and the excretory system.
And at any rate as has been mentioned, the illicit use of a faculty is that which FRUSTRATES its natural end, not that which is merely used in addition to it. I have legs so that I can get around; but there is nothing to object to about me using my leg to balance something. There is plenty, by contrast, to object to me sawing off my leg if such isn’t medically necessary.
npatrol Christ, His Living Church, added The Most Important missing element: Morality, Honesty: Social Conscience: ** Always helping Others, Not oneself.
