Discussions on the Nature of Human Affection

Rather than start off with my typical tendency towards tedious and inflammatory discussions of politics, I have decided for my first contributions to this discussion site to perhaps begin with a lighter topic as we approach the weekend.

Lately I have been ruminating on the subject of love and lust, the nature of human sexuality. Always an interesting topic for discussion, I decided to put forward some thoughts on the matter.

I think a good place to begin such a discussion would be to examine at least superficially the different natures of being in terms of the material universe. It would seem that we can conceive of three different types of being; natural, non-rational beings, purely rational beings, and beings who are both natural as well as having some part in rational thought.

Let’s examine the first type of being. Examples of this type would be anything from inanimate rocks to animated non-rational beings such as animals. Such beings have in them no part in rational thought, and in the case of animate non-rational beings only have inclinations and desires. A puppy dog, for example, has inclinations to eat, to be petted and scratched behind the ears and so forth, but does not have the ability to rationally think out the more abstract consequences of any given action.

Moving on to the second conception of being, namely the purely rational being, we see very large distinctions between this type and a non-rational being. Primarily, such a purely rational being would in no part be natural, since being a part of nature requires having natural inclinations and desires. An example of such a purely rational being would be the conception of an all powerful God. Because such a being would have no inclinations or desires, and would always intuitively know the right course of action in any given case, such a being would not be subject to ideas such as morality. A purely rational being would by their very nature constantly behave in a moral manner.

The final state of being in the material universe may be seen as those beings that are both natural and have natural inclinations and desires, as well as having been endowed with the ability for rational thought. Human beings may be seen as being representative of this final type. Humans are both part of the natural world and obligated to adhere to natural laws as well as having the capability for rational, abstract thought. It is because of this dual nature of humanity that I would suggest true casual sex in the common sense of the term may be difficult if not impossible to achieve.

First, it would help to explain what I am referring to when I use the term casual sex. I am referring to the idea of sexual encounters free of commitment, attachments, free of emotional feelings of post-coital guilt and so forth. The question is, can such a situation truly occur for beings who are both rational and natural?

Let’s examine why we engage in sexual acts first of all and perhaps this may give us some clues as to some possible arguments for or against this idea. Why do we engage in sexual acts? Do we do so simply in order to satisfy the physical drive for sexual release? If this was entirely the case then it would seem that masturbation would be as equally satisfying as sexual encounters, and much less messy, but this is often not the case. Perhaps then, it may be the case that there is more to a sexual encounter than physical gratification. In fact it is my claim that there must be, or humans would never go through the immense pressures, trials and tribulations involved in searching out sexual partners, we would all simply satisfy our own needs by ourselves. So it may be said that human sexuality is in part physical but also part of something beyond physicality. It may be the case that this is where our rational side is coming into play. Perhaps we rationalize meaning into sexual encounters much in the same way we attempt to find meaning in other chaotic aspects of existence through our rational faculties.

But, are there not cases of individuals who do live just such lifestyles? Consider for a moment the case of someone who indulges wholly in sensory titillation. A good example would be someone who imbibes large quantities of food, alcohol, drugs and sex with many faceless and nameless partners. On the surface it may seem that such a carefree lifestyle is fun and leads to happiness. There are many arguments that in fact hedonism may be a content way of living life.

Other philosophers might say that such a person is no different than cattle grazing in a field. They are slaves to sensory titillation and go through life living simply from experience to experience, and never fully engage with the joys provided by an intellectual aspect to life. These ideas involve questions into what the excellence of a human being is, is it simply to consume mindlessly? Or is there a higher form of excellence/achievement/contentment and indeed even happiness? Here I am discussing something along the lines of Aristotle’s conception of the ‘final cause’ of humanity being our self actualization, the excellence of being happy; Eudaimonism. Such questions would involve much more exploration than this treatment has intended, and will simply be left open to discussion.

To borrow an idea from Immanuel Kant, perhaps a good way of approaching the idea of satisfactory casual sexual encounters would be to look at it this way: view other people as ends valuable in of themselves and not simply as means to an end.

It would seem to me that perhaps the best way to approach the subject of casual sex would be from the idea of a social contract, similar to the social contract we engage in with civic government. We abide by the laws of our government and in exchange the government provides protection to us. If we approach our lovers as ends in of themselves, and express these ideas to them, perhaps the negative after effects of a casual encounter may be limited. But by using this approach, have we not already invested at least some of our emotional sides? At what point does a casual encounter cease being casual?