S
SurprizdbyLewis
Guest
I seem to remember that Thomas Merton had something to say about this.
- Status
S
SurprizdbyLewis
Guest
Alright, so on this unpleasant subject:
What about the theory- in general, not just in this issue- that making the side-effect of pleasure the PURPOSE of any act which ought to mean more than that… will have the result of those very side-effects being harder and harder to effect? (Not to mention making you frustrated and perhaps poorer… but I digress.)
Quick examples:
We mentioned porn. Think of people having to watch stuff that was increasingly perverted, in order to feel “pleasure” (ugh, I hate even writing that!!)
Drinking- making the buzz your GOAL, might make the buzz harder and harder to achieve after a while. You’d have to drink more and more to even get that little, ever-fleeting sensation of “pleasure”.
My problem is, in essence: making pleasure the end (as in, “purpose”) of one’s life would not seem to be even pleasurable… after a while. Not if you end up increasingly frustrated, unhappy, and very predictably selfish!
In fact, selfish “my-pleasure-is-all-that-matters” types might well see a deleterious effect from this philosophy on their social life.
S
SurprizdbyLewis
Guest
But, Tyrion. Can I empirically prove to you that there is any act, or any human life, that “ought” to mean something?
Not that I am aware. BUT, I would have thought that “meaning” could be suspected through the use of our reason. Because, as I quoted before:
“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there was no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
Not that I am aware. BUT, I would have thought that “meaning” could be suspected through the use of our reason. Because, as I quoted before:
“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there was no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
L
levinas12
Guest
But there was a sudden doubling in the divorce rates in the mid-1960’s when the use of artificial contraception exploded.
And contracepting couples today have a much higher divorce rate than non-contracepting couples.
How would you explain this?
Quoting Cicero is not sufficiently analytical.
S
SurprizdbyLewis
Guest
Fantastic question. Here are a couple possible answers from somebody with an agenda:
Sheer coincidence!
You are committing the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy!
So, my question is different:
What would be the reflections of a completely unbiased observer?
S
SurprizdbyLewis
Guest
Not that any of us CAN be this “completely unbiased observer”. So, this is merely a thought experiment. No Tyrion, it does not empirically prove anything. It is just something a philosopher such as yourself might like to reflect on.
T
Tyrion
Guest
When was the time that simple, no fault divorce was introduced? Right, pretty much at the same time. It was the time when sexuality “came out” from the closet. Sure, it was the time of the sexual revolution, with all its good and bad aspects of it.
I suggest you read the great book written by Allen Sherman (the author of the song “Hello Faddah, Hello Motha”), its title is “The Rape of the APE*” where the abbreviation stands for the “American Puritan Ethics”. It is partially fact, partially fiction, and it is simply hilarious. It probably can be found in the libraries, of in second-hand book stores. Of course it talks about the sexual revolution.
What kind of statistics are you quoting here? Not that it matters. Divorce is not necessarily “bad”. It is much worse to be trapped in a bad relationship.
T
tonyrey
Guest
In the UK we see the horrific effects of the contraceptive mentality which has led to more than one million one-parent families…
S
SurprizdbyLewis
Guest
See, this answer by tonyrey hearkens back to the fact that- I think- the OP’s question has been asked in a problematic way, with all due respect to him. It also might be the key to why the apologists ignore his questions (IF they really do ignore his questions.)
According to Benjamin Franklin (random thinker… not a Catholic theologian):
“Sin is not hurtful because it is forbidden, but it is forbidden because it is hurtful. Nor is a duty beneficial because it is commanded, but it is commanded because it is beneficial.”
NOW. Tyrion wants to know if, through reason alone, we can know whether there is anything “harmful” or “sinful” or “objectively bad” about contraception.
But, before I can demonstrate this to Tyrion, he and I have to come to some real agreement about what “good” and “sin” and “harmful” and “beneficial” are.
I will continue to keep quoting C.S. Lewis until we receive a proper refutation of “Mere Christianity”. And today, the relevant quotation is:
“Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.”
S
SurprizdbyLewis
Guest
With all possible respect to Tyrion, in asking about contraception, angels, revelation and other such truck he is again getting too far ahead of himself. HERE is the question which, I suggest, anybody interested in this thread attempt to answer:
“What, if anything, can we know about metaphysics from reason ALONE?”
Btw Tyrion: you are effectively going to the apologists- theologians- with questions that should be asked of philosophers. Here is what you are telling them: “I want you to answer this question, without any reference to your field of expertise.”
You shoulda gone to a philosopher.
I am not that, but since I do enjoy trying to see how far we can get with reason alone, here are two book recommendations:
“An Introduction to the Love of Wisdom”, by James A. Harold (former chair of the philosophy department at Steubenville, and my favorite professor.)
“Mere Christianity”, by C.S. Lewis.
It is of course true that you are a busy man… possibly too busy to read books that are relevant. But if that is true, why are you wasting your time with posts which, as you continually and accurately point out, are not at all relevant?
“What, if anything, can we know about metaphysics from reason ALONE?”
Btw Tyrion: you are effectively going to the apologists- theologians- with questions that should be asked of philosophers. Here is what you are telling them: “I want you to answer this question, without any reference to your field of expertise.”
You shoulda gone to a philosopher.
I am not that, but since I do enjoy trying to see how far we can get with reason alone, here are two book recommendations:
“An Introduction to the Love of Wisdom”, by James A. Harold (former chair of the philosophy department at Steubenville, and my favorite professor.)
“Mere Christianity”, by C.S. Lewis.
It is of course true that you are a busy man… possibly too busy to read books that are relevant. But if that is true, why are you wasting your time with posts which, as you continually and accurately point out, are not at all relevant?
L
levinas12
Guest
Nice try but “no-fault divorce” came on the scene well after the divorce rate exploded. Probably in reaction to the massive breakdown in marriages (which has continued more or less unabated).
T
tonyrey
Guest
Those who reject spiritual development are bound to accept a hedonistic view of morality - like Bertrand Russell’s definition that good is “that which is desirable”, the principle on which he advocated and practised “free” love - which has contributed to widespread promiscuity and its disastrous consequences.
L
levinas12
Guest
I’ve been arguing for a connection between the doubling in divorce rates and artificial contraception. And in particular for a “biological” connection.
Well, there may be evidence for a biological connection if we confine our attention to the pill and other chemical means of artificial contraception.
Research from the University of Liverpool has provided the first indications that that the pill may be disturbing the natural selection process by which a woman identifies her perfect match.
Specfically, the research suggests that the pill is disturbing “odor attraction”. Women are naturally attracted to men with dissimilar but complementary genes that are identified through their scent. This process, which revolves around the genes responsible for the major histocompatibility complex MHC), ensures that the children will be genetically stronger.
The pill reverses this process and makes women attracted to men with genes similar to their own.
When women go off the pill, their attraction to their partner decreases. They realize they’ve picked the wrong man. And this may lead to a breakdown in relationships and, in the case of married people, divorce.
OK, I know argument on this thread is supposed to refrain from discussing the impact of specific means of artificial contraception.
But perhaps research on the pill may lead to a more general exploration of the effects of artificial conception. It’s not implausible that the female body may “know” it’s being fooled even if the woman herself is unaware of it. And this may have adverse consequences for the biochemistry of “bonding” (just like what happens with respect to the pill).
Well, there may be evidence for a biological connection if we confine our attention to the pill and other chemical means of artificial contraception.
Research from the University of Liverpool has provided the first indications that that the pill may be disturbing the natural selection process by which a woman identifies her perfect match.
Specfically, the research suggests that the pill is disturbing “odor attraction”. Women are naturally attracted to men with dissimilar but complementary genes that are identified through their scent. This process, which revolves around the genes responsible for the major histocompatibility complex MHC), ensures that the children will be genetically stronger.
The pill reverses this process and makes women attracted to men with genes similar to their own.
When women go off the pill, their attraction to their partner decreases. They realize they’ve picked the wrong man. And this may lead to a breakdown in relationships and, in the case of married people, divorce.
OK, I know argument on this thread is supposed to refrain from discussing the impact of specific means of artificial contraception.
But perhaps research on the pill may lead to a more general exploration of the effects of artificial conception. It’s not implausible that the female body may “know” it’s being fooled even if the woman herself is unaware of it. And this may have adverse consequences for the biochemistry of “bonding” (just like what happens with respect to the pill).
A
Aloysium
Guest
the argument on this thread is supposed to refrain from discussing anything negative concerning artificial contraception
T
Tyrion
Guest
I am not aware of this study, but I see nothing impossible about it. I think that there are only a few chemicals, which only have “good” effects, and no “bad” ones. This is not the point here. Do the people who use those chemicals consider the good effects make up for the ones? Do they think that the risk of the bad effects is worth to have?
When women reach the time of menopause, their bodies go through some unpleasant changes. They can decrease this unpleasantness by taking hormones. Hoever, the side effect of those hormones is an increased risk of heart problems. It is their prerogative to make that decision for themselves and decide if the risk is worth to have.
Yes, and the reason was simple. I am curious if there are valid arguments against a “clear and clean” contrception, which has no side effects. After all the church is not against contraception on “medical” ground. It would fight against it ON PRINCIPLE, even if such medical problems were not present.
Without going into a side-conversation, if the issue were “late-term abortion”, then the theists could bring up totally secular and valid arguments against it. They did not have to rely on pure theological arguments. I simply wanted to find out, if there are pure, secular arguments against contraception. I never heard of one, but I am painfully aware that my knowledge is limited, and MAYBE there are fully secular arguments “out there”. Looks like there are none.
Empty speculation.
D
davidv
Guest
Your curiosity should be satisfied by now. Whether “against a “clear and clean” contrception, which has no side effects” is true or not, these are not the basis for the immorality of contraception. It is irrelevant.
S
SurprizdbyLewis
Guest
I think this young man said something very profound. And he didn’t really on faith, the Bible, or the magic crystals Tyrion is certain I carry in my pocket:
Contraception:
How much does Tyrion really love you?
Contraception:
Think about it, ladies.
How much does Tyrion really love you?
S
SurprizdbyLewis
Guest
But, of course, Tyrion’s PERFECT example was of a “committed” married couple… who simply weren’t “ready” for children.
Be it so. Whatever their intentions for the future… has anybody ever noticed how very often those get side-tracked?
May I humbly submit that the very act of contraception makes it much easier for those loving intentions to get side-tracked!
As Fulton Sheen said:
“There are only two words in the language of Love: You, and Always.”
Want to know what contraception says to me?
“I can always get out.”
Be it so. Whatever their intentions for the future… has anybody ever noticed how very often those get side-tracked?
May I humbly submit that the very act of contraception makes it much easier for those loving intentions to get side-tracked!
As Fulton Sheen said:
“There are only two words in the language of Love: You, and Always.”
Want to know what contraception says to me?
“I can always get out.”
S
SurprizdbyLewis
Guest
What interests me most of all about this thread, is that I believe it contains nothing less than an actual betrayal by Tyrion of the relativism he has affected up til now.
You see, what Tyrion did NOT say is, “social ills are actually fantastic!”
What he DID say, was: “These social ills are all the result of the sexual revolution. They are in no way linked with my beloved birth control pill”.
Oops.
You see, what Tyrion did NOT say is, “social ills are actually fantastic!”
What he DID say, was: “These social ills are all the result of the sexual revolution. They are in no way linked with my beloved birth control pill”.
Oops.
S
SurprizdbyLewis
Guest
There we have it from Tyrion: the sexual revolution caused “social ills”.
But, are we altogether certain the birth control pill was not one of the most important reasons for WHY the sexual revolution happened just WHEN it did? Why did the S.R. take place?
I know I’ve heard this analogy before, but, let’s hear it again: if I knew there was an anti-drunkenness pill I could pop… and poof! Five minutes later I’m sober and ready to drive home, or go to work…
I don’t think I would drink LESS, because I could do it “safely”. I would do it MORE, because I was told that I could do it and be “safe”.
My idea is, that the young people who were told they could have “safe sex”- by means of birth control- were lied to. Why do I think this? Because, like Tyrion said: The sexual revolution caused many of the social problems that have been continuously brought up in this thread.
This IS just a theory, though. I am not making dogmatic assertions; I’m trying to think my way through this.
But, are we altogether certain the birth control pill was not one of the most important reasons for WHY the sexual revolution happened just WHEN it did? Why did the S.R. take place?
I know I’ve heard this analogy before, but, let’s hear it again: if I knew there was an anti-drunkenness pill I could pop… and poof! Five minutes later I’m sober and ready to drive home, or go to work…
I don’t think I would drink LESS, because I could do it “safely”. I would do it MORE, because I was told that I could do it and be “safe”.
My idea is, that the young people who were told they could have “safe sex”- by means of birth control- were lied to. Why do I think this? Because, like Tyrion said: The sexual revolution caused many of the social problems that have been continuously brought up in this thread.
This IS just a theory, though. I am not making dogmatic assertions; I’m trying to think my way through this.
- Status