Andypandy7

Well thankyou all for your replys

I have sorta come to the conclusion that some people are more "suited" to be philosophical rather than others.

I think many of the qualities required to deal with the thought provoking (sp?) issues are qualities i dont have.
If i work from the facts, before i started on this journey i was relativly happy and now im pretty depressed. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

I do find it interesting to see how you lot deal with this subject, im impressed by alot of your veiws also.

Now where are those pills that make it all better again....

&gt;&gt;You asked for it, you got it - now don't whimper!

you're right 99percent. I must apologise for it, although i am a brit so i have an excuse to moan right?

WJ

Welcome!

Thomas had it right. Just as right as any other rational Platonic thinker who yields to a faith in believing that their own truth exists.

Don't put all your faith in philosophy. Remember, philosphy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation. There will always be something that will glimmer and twinkle but which will never be captured. Think about the primacy of your own existence.

When you go to bed at night, and after all the intellectualizing, what do you have but your thoughts and feelings? Truth is Subjectivity! Moreover, to know these things is not enough, we must express that knowing by actually living them.

Warus
---------
The Religious Existentialist

Ierrellus

Andypandy7:

Welcome! Believe it or not, friend, I've been to the heights of heaven and the depths of hell all in my mind. When thinking becomes overwhelming, I grab my guitar and make joyful noises. Note that the noises do not have to be good, just joyful.

Primal scream therapy seemed to help John Lennon. At least it stopped him from going to bars with a Kotex on his head!

Ierrellus

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Samhain

&lt;Busts out the ceramic box cutter&gt;

*Nudge* It was a joke my friend. I understand your concerns, I'm just fooling with you

Also, because of your concerns they have caused me to search for that compromise of emotions & logic. My girlfriend also seems to be quite a bit happier. The sex has definately been better.

&lt;Ends Hijack&gt;

WJ

Speaking of high jacking, sex and feelings, other than pardon the expression, 'getting-off' and/or continuing the existence of the human race, what's the point of all this emphasis on sex anyway? I mean, speaking of the downside of philosophy, what if you couldn't have sex, would you still want companionship? And if so, could love for an animal be the perfect substitute for sex? Or must we ultimately satisfy our need to get-off with 'some-one'?

Is that the "downside' of overthinking?

You sthexy sexpot you.

Walrus

Samhain

Walrus,

Hmm, what can I say. I think there is some pervasive need for companionship for many people apart from sex. Let me elaborate. I know a woman at my firm who has been with the same guy for about 10 years. She's a very shy person, but a real freak in the bedroom from what she tells me. Her partner has recently developed ED, but while she's not completely satisfied sexually, she finds numerous other reasons to stay with this man out of companionship. I suppose she has a certain "love" for him, even though they have never married.

Sex is an important part of all relationships, and usually it's at the beginning of many of them in which sex is a main focus. The more one is with a partner, though, it is my belief that the more they have an ability to bond or break, regardless of sex. Sex doesn't really make a true relationship, in the end, it's a minute factor when regarding long-term companionship.

And no, I don't think love for an animal could substitute for companionship. I think the major point of companionship is the ability to truly "relate" to another person of the opposite sex. It's in a sense taking two unequal, imperfect sides, and molding them together into one perfect form (ok, that sounds corny, I know). But I think that that is the whole idea of dating and searching for a partner, one who can truly make you feel like a "whole" being.

snatchbalance

The fun and challenging part is capturing an abstraction in words.(Of course, "fun" and "challanging" may exceed verbal formulation.)Can one really be a philosopher(not that I consider myself to be a "real" philosopher) through a medium other than language?

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

WJ

Hi Samhain!

Thank you for the warm reply.

Just to be clear, I enjoy a good romp in the 'hay', or on the boat in broad daylight, or wherever and whenever the creative urge of my Dr. Ruth mentality takes me; however, I'm just wondering that if men and women were not physically and/or sexually attracted to one another, would there be a 'need' to get together in the first place? I suppose one cannot answer that one as it appears like chicken or egg.

I mean, I agree to the need to share life with a 'partner' (and that's what I was alluding to viz. animals from the suppos-ed study that says old folks with pets tend to live longer) but, you have to wonder to what degree sexology plays a role.

Let's say you find a very physically attractive person in a wheelchair, but know that sex is not going to happen, I wonder how one would react? Say that it is further complicated by a strong connection, as you alluded, with the whole mental thing going-on, yet you feel compelled not to commit because you know you are going to want to 'have sex' and/or share that experience with this person, at some point.

I must sadly admit, it would be a very difficult challenge for me to seriously consider a relationship under those circumstances. Thus, sex must be play an important role when looking at it in those 'extremes'. The bottom line question(s) for 'ethical' philosophy has to be, does a loving relationship somehow seem less of a relationship without the pleasure of sex? And, if sex is (or can be) seperate from love, why should it matter anyway?

To that end, it seems like your friend has had to do some introspection here of late... . (On the other hand, there are many folks, so I'm told, who've been married for many years and who've consciously decided they 'don't need to do it'.)

Oh well, getting past 40 is starting to worry me...perhaps nature has a strange way of dealing with these kinds of issues-whatever that means.

Walrus

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Samhain

I think I understand what you're trying to say, and I will say this in reply. Companionship does not necessarily mean that it must derive from sexuality. Sexuality is, like you said, another experience open to partners. I think that sex is a prerequisite for many "loving" relationships, and when searching for a lifetime partner or a "mate" sex is definately a large portion of of what makes a relationship "work," mechanically speaking, for the first few years of the partnership. Do I believe that one can find their life mate without consideration of sex? Yes, all things are possible, but you don't really see this happen much unless it's in a movie. Like I said, sex seems to be a prerequisite for a healthy relationship. My girlfriend has often told me that she wouldn't date anyone seriously if the sex wasn't good (*puffs out his chest, pounds on it, and says "I am man!"), but I think those feelings would change eventually with time if there was a solid connection between us apart from sex (I say "if" because I don't exactly know yet if it's a "relationship" connection or a "friendship" connection).

Sex is definately an important part of any relationship, but for "most" people the need for sex diminishes and is downplayed in a long-term relationship by other, more important attributes of that relationship. You must admit, as a free-thinker and a philosopher (sorry, I must use the term of philosopher generously since I take the title of a "lover of wisdom/knowledge" for myself also) that having someone who can understand you and rationalise and concurr with logical ideas is much more preferable in a relationship than someone who is just good in bed. The trophy wife only really appeals to hedonists, I doubt many free-thinkers can ever be content with someone is more subservient rather than independant and rational.

On the flipside, the reason I do think sex is an important part to any relationship has a lot to do with what you mentioned before. It has to do with sharing every experience possible with someone who you wish to spend a good portion of your life with. If you cannot share one of the more important reasons for being in a relationship, then it would definately be hard to relate to someone in this way. Sex is not just for pleasure, it has a lot to do with intimacy and mutual caring, but when one knows that that caring and intimacy is there without the sex, then it tends to become "less important."

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

ju'iblex

yeah i know, just covering all bases

im glad ive had an positive effect.

&lt;aargh! stop hijacking!&gt;