10/31/2012 Is pleasure a sin?

For the Ideas Cafe this coming Wednesday, we are discussing whether pleasure itself is a sin.

The topic came to me after reading a post from the New York Times about the Vatican's reaction to a catholic nun's endorsement of masturbation as an acceptable practice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/opinion/dowd-is-pleasure-a-sin.html?_r=0

We couldn't help starting the discussion in last evening's meeting when the group got wind of this topic for the next meeting.

Shula did not think there is such a thing as sin. Unless we accept the doctrine from a holy book, we have no set standards for sin which I take to be the result of acting against the doctrine.  But is being immoral for an atheist also being sinful?

Temptation, sin, guilt, punishment, repent; what a wealth of ideas to discuss!

Then there seem to be the built in trepidation that may occur when we are having a lot of fun. Do we not have experiences when we were really enjoying ourselves that it was unreal and that we may better be careful that we may be doing something we shouldn't be?

My first experience in driving a convertible was such that when a police car passed by I was struck with concern that I maybe given a ticket.  But for what? It was such an unusual experience that the police must be able to interpret "driving with undue care and attention" into this!

So is guilt and pleasure closely associated in our upbringing?  That we must "pay" for pleasure in some way?
 
Raffi offered that it may be our evolutionary response that we start getting ready to prepare for the end of pleasure while we are in the middle of it just so that we are better at surviving afterwards.  Of course this takes us away from enjoying the pleasurable moment but perhaps it is the price we pay for being the better survivors of the species.

Yet why does the church have to suppress the pleasurable aspects of sex? That it should only be for procreation and not for recreation?  That we should feel sinful if we enjoy it?

Does it serve any purpose?

Can we safely dispense with the guilt without any negative consequences to regret later?

Maybe like "winning" discussed in the last meeting, sex is such a powerful motivator that we need to control it in some way so that it does not take over to become the purpose of our being?

Like winning, perhaps sex is just provides the incentive to achieve procreation and later on to promote stable family to nurture children?

Can we have sex with no guilt if we satisfy the bargain of having children and bringing them up?

Masturbation on its own is also full of complexity. As the traditional opinion of sex being heterosexual give way to acceptance of same gender sexual preferences,  is it time to also accept sex as something that can be an individual solitary act?
 
Is this degeneration of our social norms or liberalization in our thinking? 

Meeting on Winning and wanting to be right

We had our Ideas Cafe meeting last night on why we want to win and be right.

Shula suggested that it may be a survival instinct to win and that non social animals like tigers are more territorial than wanting to be the best among their peers.  Being non social, by definition they do not live in groups and have no peers.

Dan mentioned that we routinely let children win at games to bring them happiness and build their confidence, even if it caused us to have a tinge of uneasiness that we do not get to win ourselves.  That speaks volumes about how wanting to win is innate in us and as adults we can suppress it while using it to advantage in dealing with others.

Winning and being right seems to be part of us being social animals and wanting the approval and admiration of others in our social group. 

As mentioned in the previous blog post, mothers know how to use winning as a motivator to get their unwilling toddler to get going.

So are there similarities in chasing win after win compared to chasing after a higher and higher euphoria from drugs or some other stimulus? 

The win at the local arena no longer seem satisfying. The athlete or musician needed the win from the next bigger event against more worthy competitors that requires more effort and resources.

Eventually, this leads to the Olympic type events which requires complete dedication of one's time and resources while still being an "amateur".

There seem to be a striking similarity with the drug addict giving up more and more of the rest of his life in order to get the next high with an increasing larger dose.

Maybe winning and being right belongs to one of those human conditions that make us feel good but we also need to be aware of its intoxicating potential. 

In the larger picture, should we not let our rational part of our emotional-rational two part consciousness make the long term planning, prioritize what it is we want, then aim with the appropriate allocation of our limited time and resources?

Winning can be used by our rational self as motivators towards these long term goals but it should not become the goal setting mechanism for our lives.

10/26/2012 Why is it so important to win and be right?

This coming Friday at the Ideas Cafe, we will be discussing why it is so important for us to win and to be right.

From a very young age, children seem to be motivated by wanting to win. Parents use this to their advantage to motivate as well as bring happiness to their children.

This desire to win and to admire winners continues as we grow.  The Olympics, any kind of sport, popular music, career advancement, all appears to be built on the winning motivation.  The measurement of good is based on being better than others.

There is no doubt that comparison with others in similar situations is the easiest way of measuring success and this may indeed be the appeal of winning; that it validates whatever we do as successful.

But why is successful appealing?

Can we say the same about wanting to be right?

In any group discussion,  very often the group separates into camps representing the various argument on the issue.  In most political discussion, the party line becomes easy separation points for groups to form. Soon the discussion becomes a competition to be right rather than listening to  others, to possibly reframe and modify one's viewpoint to improve understanding of the issue.

Here, the wanting to be right strikes a remarkable similarity to wanting to win.  Is it possible that the desire to win is overtaking the supposed aim to discuss and reach better understanding?

When I first started wondering about this,  Mike suggested that it is all about sex.  That winning is what gives us alpha male or queen bee status, that we are biologically programmed to want to win over others of our species in order to try to rise to be leader of the social group and to enjoy the fruits of being the leader.

The fact that we wanted to win at a young age certainly suggest that it may be biologically programmed but I am always careful about the "hard wired" explanation as it tends to provide an easy end to a search for answers.

Are there other ideas about the attractiveness of winning and being right?

Would non social animals care to win?

If it is indeed a biological aspect of our being, would it be better for us to try to put it aside?  It will certainly ease our anxiety and help us reach contentment.

Winning at the Olympics and other pinnacles of achievement is certainly laudable. But are there more worthwhile lives aimed at a more rounded existence rather than giving everything else up in order to excel in one thing?

By definition, only a very small minority can be breaking the Guineas book of records, or win at the Olympics.  Winning as a strategy tends to create a lot more losers than winners.

Is there not value in appreciating good music instead of always looking for the best available?

If suffering is inevitable in life, then isn't there something in failure for us to value as well?

Let's have your ideas at this Friday's discussion and comments on the blog.

10/12/2012 Genetically engineering ethical babies, a moral obligation?

This coming Friday at the Ideas Cafe, we will be discussing genetically engineered babies and whether it is parents' responsibility to do this.

This topic was suggested to me by Dan following an article in the Telegraph in Britain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9480372/Genetically-engineering-ethical-babies-is-a-moral-obligation-says-Oxford-professor.html

In the article, an Oxford ethics professor said that since we know that genes affect someone's personality that it is our ethical responsibility to ensure future generation be better persons through gene manipulation.

After all, we already screen for Down syndrome and other disabilities as well as some illnesses, why not go one step further and ensure we have a future generation full of well tempered, intelligent, and patient people?  Why leave things to chance?  Or, at least, why don't we improve the odds of success towards a better next generation?

Predictably,  all the response are negative if you take a look at the comments to the article.

We genetically manipulate pets do get dogs of a certain characteristic, we graft plants to get better fruits or flowers,  (seedless watermelons!) but it is a taboo subject when it comes to humans.

There is already a lot of anxiety about genetically modified foods so perhaps there is a segment of society that is uncomfortable with genetic manipulation of plants even though the practice of grafting to combine plant species have been practiced for a long time.  (Apples are genetically modified from crabapples and some say that apples did not exist in the era of Jesus Christ, never mind the garden of eden)

What is the argument in favor of a random genetic process as we have now?  Is randomness a fundamental requirement for evolution and selection of the fittest?

Maybe we just do not trust anyone, never mind parents to take on the crucial decisions of genetic manipulation.  So we are not doing something worthwhile because we cannot decide who should be doing this?

Or is the whole genetic manipulation thinking tainted by people like Hitler trying to develop a superior race? When can we shake off the horror of eugenics from Hitler and science fiction ?

Sperm banks in the artificial insemination business already advertise sperms from donors who are graduates or students in famous universities. Women are attracted to intelligent man who are good providers to be their life mate. Men are attracted to good looking women and some believe that it is an indication of good health.  These are all traits that positively affect their children.  So we are already doing genetic selection in a basic fashion.  What is wrong with improving the process?

What is suffering for?

I went to an SFU philosopher's cafe on Thursday about suffering and there were some interesting points discussed.

The first point that hit me was the differentiation between pain and suffering.  While we may assume that pain leads to suffering.  Some at the meeting wanted to separate the two and define suffering as more the psychological reaction to pain, hunger, loss, and other physical events.

There were quite a few at the meeting that disagree that pain and hunger does not necessarily lead to suffering but I think it is definition of terms that is causing the confusion here.  If we want to carry on with the normal understanding of physical suffering due to physical pain, hunger, cold etc,  we can call the other reaction the psychological component of suffering.

The position raised was that people suffer psychologically because they are wishing things are different, that they are not in pain, hunger etc.  If they were to accept the situation and instead move on with their lives, or take concrete steps to deal with the situation, they will not have psychological suffering.

One young lady there mentioned that her father is suffering from worrying about her single status as in his mind she should be married and "settled" by now.  However, she herself does not feel any suffering at all and therefore, this is an example of expectations causing the suffering.

It is certainly true that a lot of angst is caused by questions of "why me, why now etc" when something terrible happens. There is a lot of suffering when a loved one leaves or dies. Funerals are for the living and grieving is a way of coming to terms with reality, adjusting our expectations, and eventually ending our suffering when we accepts the new "normal".

The moderator raised the noble aspect of suffering.  Well known people like Nelson Mandala and Gandhi are notable because they endure physical pain and suffering that stirred the masses through empathy and highlighted the inequity of the political systems they were under.

Suffering is also used in christianity to impressed their followers on how much they owe Jesus for the suffering done on the follower's behalf, to clear them of their original sin.

Suffering is therefore a ready tool to connect to strangers through empathy.

Then there are the joys of emotional attachment through falling in love followed by the inevitable suffering to come upon separation.  Should we avoid the euphoria of falling in love to avoid the inescapable suffering later on?  Can one be detached to avoid suffering but still relate to others in the human race?

For me, change is part of life. The inescapable ups and downs of our life is what makes it worth living.  Someone at the meeting said she tried detachment for a while and it worked but it can lead to depression. I am not surprised.  Humans are very adaptable creatures, we adjust ourselves to the situation and actually need change to keep us feeling alive.  Suffering is as much part of the picture as euphoria and joy.  I am not sure if we can have joy without suffering at some point.

Comments?