Archive for August, 2012

Early Porn was Intense

by Jason Stotts

io9 has an article up called “One of the earliest adult cartoons was gonzo even by today’s standards (NSFW)” that features  the very first animated porn video ever produced.  I recommend you check it out, but don’t be too surprised if it’s raunchier and funnier than you expected.  Oh, and it’s very NSFW.

Review: The Ultimate Guide to Kink by Tristan Taormino

by Jason Stotts

I recently got a copy of The Ultimate Guide to Kink: BDSM, Role Play, and the Erotic Edge edited by Tristan Taormino and after having read it cover to cover, I have to say that it’s up to Tristan’s usual standard of excellence. This book is a little different from other Tristan books in that it’s not written by Tristan herself, but rather is a collection essays from different experts on different subjects in kink.  The result is that you get a lot of good advice and opinions on a wide range of subjects. The book is split into two halves, the first half is practical sexual techniques like impact play (Ch. 2), vaginal fisting (Ch. 4), and CBT (Ch. 6), while the second half is more theoretical on subjects like feminine dominance (Ch. 13), submission (Ch. 14), and sadism (Ch. 16).

My three favorite essays:

1. “Making an Impact: Spanking, Caning, and Flogging” by Lolita Wolf.  I really liked how this author (I can’t talk seriously about an essay and call the author “Lolita”) intertwined a story about impact play and instruction on how to do it.  The effect was to see action in a story, then have it explained so you understood what had happened and how to do it yourself.  It was very well done and the information in the essay was very good.

2. “ForteFemme: The Art and Philosophy of Feminine Dominance” by Midori.  I really liked how Midori broke down the idea of feminine dominance into something that people could understand.  Sometimes the reason we can’t get started with something new is simply our own ignorance.  We don’t know what we don’t know and we don’t even know enough to ask the right questions.  By breaking the idea of feminine dominance down into understandable parts and then explaining how to build this into a “fortefemme” persona cuts right through the ignorance and will certainly be helpful to those wanting to learn more about female domination.  I particularly liked this line: “The ultimate power is that of persuasion.  To get the submissive or bottom to want to do for you what you command of them–that’s dominance.” (292) I think she’s right on the mark about this and this shows me she understands the essence of dominance.

3. “Enhancing Masochism: How to Expand Limits and Increase Desire” by Patrick Califia.  Patrick’s essay does a good job discussing terminology and drawing some clear lines to help people understand masochism and sadism.  The real gem in this essay is in the section called “consensual nonconsent,” where Patrick says: “I recommend a no-fault attitude for BDSM players.  As long as both partners respect each other, make a good-faith effort to abide by each other’s limits, and are open to feedback, I think that missteps ought to be understood as part of the price you pay for being on the edge.” (330) I totally agree with him.  To approach kink play, especially S/M, with reservations about accidentally hurting someone or going too far is to go about it all wrong.  You absolutely should be respectful of your partner and their limits, but if you’re going to engage in edge play, you can’t expect that nothing bad will ever happen.  You just have to try to prevent it, but not at the cost of enjoying yourself and your sexuality out of fear that something bad might happen.

Overall, Tristan delivers with another excellent book on sex and I recommend that you check it out if you’re interested in learning more about kink.


If you’re going to purchase The Ultimate Guide to Kink, please use the links provided here to support Erosophia with referral credit.

The Problem of Naming

by Jason Stotts

The fact that Venus is both the Morning Star and the Evening Star is something of a problem for some philosophers of language.  I think Batman would have that same problem with this particular philosophical puzzle.

This is one of my favorite CollegeHumor videos ever.

Rape and the Magical Female Body

by Jason Stotts

By now I’m sure you’ve heard about Representative Todd Akin (R-MO).  He’s pretty “famous” for saying:

“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, [abortion in the case of rape is] really rare,” Akin told Charles Jaco of KTVI. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”

Most people are attacking this because of his use of the term “legitimate rape.”  What is legitimate rape?  Does he mean forceful rape by a stranger?  Does he mean as opposed to “pleasant rape”?  Who can understand the crazy?  Even though I find that disturbing, I want to focus on something else.  Akin’s apparently insane idea of how human reproduction works.

His position follows completely logically from his christian beliefs: that the only time a woman can get pregnant is when she’s in love and gets married to a man and they share a special “bedroom-hug” and then god goes into her uterus and ensouls an egg, turning it immediately into a tiny single-celled person.  And if you believe that nonsense, that there is a god, that he hates the human body and all things related to sexuality, and that he has to ensoul eggs to make them into tiny persons, then Akin’s beliefs make perfect sense…in the completely insane kind of way.  If only god can ensoul eggs, and he’d never do that for a dirty rapist, then pregnancy cannot occur in the case of rape.  QED.

The fact that the people of Missouri elected a man who has no idea how human biology and reproduction works should really make them ashamed.  The fact that we still have people believing in magic and gods in this day and age should make us all ashamed.

Surprisingly, the Republicans are trying to distance themselves from this travesty of ignorance and the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s is telling Akin they will not be contributing any money to his campaign.  But, really, why should they distance themselves?  They, too, don’t believe that abortion should be legal because they believe that their god thinks it’s immoral.  How is that any crazier than thinking god ensouls fetuses only in marriage?  They’re equally crazy and for the same reasons.

Paul Ryan (who is a deeply religious catholic and in no way an Objectivist), the running mate of presidential hopeful Mitt Romney (who is a deeply religious mormon), was a co-sponsor of Akin’s “Sanctity of Life Act” last year that sought to grant personhood to fetuses the moment the christian god magically ensouled their tiny single-celled selfs: which, would obviously make all abortion murder. It’s funny that one person with an insane belief is crazy, but lots of people with insane beliefs are “religious.”  Why can’t we have a candidate who is really fiscally conservative and socially liberal?  By that I mean a politician that would respect rights across the board.  Why can’t we have that?

Oh wait, Gary Johnson.

Gary Johnson is the first real candidate in a long time who isn’t just the choice between the evil of two lessers.  Sure, maybe Romney is less evil than Obama.  Maybe.  But why not support a good candidate instead?  Voting for the less bad candidate hasn’t exactly been great for our country in the past, that’s how we’ve arrived here.  Why don’t we instead try a candidate who is pro-women’s choice, pro legalization of drugs, pro individual rights, for less government, for fewer taxes, and who seems to have a good understanding of individual rights?  Why not give a good candidate your vote?

Aristotle On Friendship

by Jason Stotts

I have several old philosophy papers that I wrote while I was an undergrad that I still think are interesting and good.  In an effort to keep them from disappearing forever, I’m going to be posting some of them on Erosophia in the next couple of months.

This paper I wrote for my Senior Symposium in the Spring of 2006.  The Senior Symposium at Denison is much like a qualifying test, to prove that you learned enough about philosophy and writing that you could put something philosophically interesting together.  I got a solid A on it.

I’m presenting it here unedited, the exact same draft I read and defended to get my BA in Philosophy.


On Friendship

“For without friends no one would choose to live,
though he had all other goods” ~ Aristotle (NE VIII.1.1155a5)

I. Friends and Eudaimonia

The Aristotelian Ethics is dominated by the concept of Eudaimonia – an idea of the good life for Man.  Aristotle, in both of his surviving ethical treatises[1] the Nicomachean Ethics (NE) and the Eudemian Ethics (EE), argues that in order to achieve Eudaimonia one must have certain kinds of relationships with others.  Specifically, Aristotle argues that at least some form of friendship is necessary for Eudaimonia (NE IX.9.1169b8) and there is strong evidence to support the idea that it is only “Character Friends” which can fulfill this role.  This gives rise to two questions: (1) Why did Aristotle think that one must have friends to be eudaimōn? and (2) Why can only one certain kind of friend suffice for Eudaimonia?

II. Are Friends Necessary?

The main arguments for the necessity of friendship are found in book VII of the Eudemian Ethics and books VIII and IX of the Nicomachean Ethics; in the latter Aristotle notes: “Surely it is strange, too, to make the blessed man a solitary; for no one would choose to possess all good things on condition of being alone [] therefore the happy man needs friends” (NE IX.9.1169b17).  It is clear that Aristotle thinks that friends are a necessary condition for Happiness (the happy man needs friends), but it is not clear from this what kind of friend is being discussed.

Aristotle’s claim that friendship is a necessary condition for human flourishing should not come as a surprise to most – since there would seem to be few people so misanthropic that they would wish to be completely alone.  If we do nothing more profound than introspect on our own lives, we can see that others are great sources of pleasure and that the company of certain individuals can greatly enhance our existence.  However, Aristotle’s claim is much stronger than ‘others can simply bring us pleasure’; he argues that friends are a necessary condition for human flourishing, that the happy man needs friends.

Of course, we should not lose sight of the fact that there are different kinds of friendships that can contribute to our happiness.  In the Aristotelian system, there are only three different kinds of friends, the useful, the pleasant, and the virtuous (excellent), and each kind admits of only two senses – either the relationship is between two individuals who are equal or two individuals who are unequal.  We can then see that at most there are six possible combinations of friends (EE VII.4) for the kind of friendship that is necessary for happiness.  It seems that the best path to arrive at what kind of friendship is necessary for Eudaimonia and why it is necessary, is to analyze each kind of friendship by its essential properties to see if we cannot follow Aristotle’s argument; which we will have to judge according to whether it is consistent with the Aristotelian thesis and meets our common sense intuitions about friendship.

Yet, before we begin our analysis and lest it be objected that we have missed a kind of friend or that our analysis seems vacuous, let us pause and note that for Aristotle there seem to be only three kinds of things for which one can value another – utility, pleasure, and virtue – and if this analysis holds, then it would only be possible to have three kinds of friends, each founded on a separate basis of valuation. Aristotle explicitly supports this type of analysis in passages like the following: “There are therefore three kinds of friendship, equal in number to the things that are lovable; for with respect to each there is a mutual and recognized love, and those who love each other wish well to each other in that respect in which they love one another” (NE VIII.3.1156a7) and the bases of friendship are the conditions on which one could find another lovable: “For not everything seems to be loved but only the lovable, and this is good, pleasant, or useful” (NE VIII.2.1155b17).  Therefore, there could only possibly be three types of friends and our analysis will be exhaustive of the class of friendship.

However, we should pause and notice that each kind of friendship begets of two different senses.[2]  The first sense is the univocal[3] sense of a friendship based on equality between the friends.  In such a relationship, each friend has an equal share of whatever defines that kind of friendship (i.e. utility, pleasure, or virtue) – as opposed to the equivocal[4] sense of friendship which is based on a superiority/inferiority relationship.  Aristotle thought that the sense of friendship between unequal people was equivocal because he thought that two people who had a fundamentally skewed power relation could not truly be friends: “Both [senses] are friendships, but only those between whom there is equality are friends; it would be absurd for a man to be the friend of a child, yet certainly he loves and is loved by him” (EE VII.4.1239a4).  To give another example in hopes of elucidating this complicated issue – let us imagine a professor who has a certain favorite student with whom he works frequently and with whom there is a friendly sort of mutual affection.  Now while one might certainly say that there is some sense of friendship here, the discrepancy between the respective positions of the two individuals precludes their being true friends – although they feel this mutual affection and goodwill, nonetheless one is a student and the other a teacher and this cannot be escaped or ignored.[5]  Now that we have laid out the two different senses, let us look to the three different kinds of friendship.

The first kind of friendship we will deal with is that whose essential quality is the usefulness derived from the association – or “Friends of Utility”.  These are people who love each other qua useful and not qua personhood: “Now those who love each other for their utility do not love each other for themselves but in virtue of some good which they get from each other” (NE VIII.3.1156a10) – that is, friends of utility only like each other insofar as they find each other useful.  When one is in a friendship of utility, it is not one’s friend himself that one values, rather one values only the useful benefits one receives from the friend. An example of this could be two thieves who help each other on “jobs”.

The second kind of friendship is that whose essential quality is the pleasure derived from the association – or “Friends of Pleasure”.  These are people who love each other qua pleasant and not qua personhood: “So too [similarly to friends of utility] with those who love for the sake of pleasure; it is not for their character that men love ready witted people, but because they find them pleasant.” (NE VIII.3.1156a10) – that is, friends of pleasure only like each other insofar as they find each other pleasant.  As with Aristotle’s example of people who are friends with the witty man, the friendship is based on the pleasure received from the man’s wit and not the witty man’s character – this has the implication that if the witty man was also a horrible person, but was still witty, then the friendship would remain.  It is clear in this case that one would not value the other person for their character (as it is bad), but only for their wit.

The third kind of friendship is that whose essential quality is the mutual virtue and nobility of both the parties to the friendship – it is friendship based on the mutual goodness of character between the friends so it is often called complete, true, or perfect friendship; however, following Robert Mayhew, I suggest calling it “Character Friendship”[6] since it pertains to the moral character of the friends.  In the Character Friendship, in contradistinction from the other two kinds of friendship, each friend loves the other qua essential facets of personhood – they love each other as friends for themselves and their good nature.  Character Friendship, then, is “friendship [that] is grounded on excellence” (EE VII.2.1236a10) – it is friendship based on the mutual virtue of both of the friends. An example of this could be two virtuous people who enjoy doing noble activities together, such as fellow philosophers.

Now that we have seen the nature of the different kinds of friendship, it is time to justify why Aristotle had Character Friends in mind when he asserted that friends are necessary conditions of happiness.  First, it seems as if there is a distinct similarity between friends of utility and friends of pleasure – the similarity being that the friend is loved qua attribute in relation to the loving self and not as a friend per se.  This seems to be a deficiency of character for the person doing the loving and a practical problem since any change in the status of the friend that changes the quality upon which the friendship is based causes the friendship to be destroyed.  For example, Aristotle notes that: “those whose love is based on pleasure do not seem to be friends, when we look carefully, because their friendship is not of the primary kind, being unstable” (EE VII.2.1236b17) – since a friendship based on pleasure is not based on something firm and immutable, a change in this base will cause the friendship to collapse, making it seem like the two people are not really friends.  The case is the same for friends based on utility – the ephemeral nature of the base of these relationships causes it not to last very long.  Thus, this transient nature disqualifies these two kinds of friendships from being the necessary condition for Eudaimonia – as such a shifting basis would be more detrimental to happiness than its absence.  Aristotle further elaborates the point in the NE:

Now those who love each other for their utility do not love each other for themselves but in virtue of some good which they get from each other.  So too with those who love for the sake of pleasure; it is not for their character that men love ready witted people, but because they find them pleasant.  Therefore those who love for the sake of utility love for the sake of what is good for themselves, and those who love for the sake of pleasure do so for the sake of what is pleasant to themselves, and not in so far as the other is the person loved but in so far as he is useful or pleasant.  And thus these friendships are only incidental; for it is not as being the man he is that the loved person is loved, but as providing some good or pleasure.  Such friendships, then, are easily dissolved, if the parties do not remain like themselves; for if the one party is no longer pleasant or useful the other ceases to love him. (NE VIII.3.1156a10)

The foregoing has shown that Character Friendship is the only kind of friendship possible to serve as the necessary condition for Eudaimonia since it is the only kind of friendship which is based on a person’s unchanging character and further because it is the only kind of friendship for which the other is loved qua person and not qua attribute.[7]  Furthermore, Aristotle argues that Character Friendship is the primary sense of friendship:  “The first friendship then – by reason of which the others get the name – is that based on excellence” (EE VII.2.1238a30) and that it is the only one which could serve as the necessary condition of Eudaimonia.

However, the foregoing makes it seem as if only Character Friends are truly friends and that the other five types of “friends” are not truly friends at all; but this is not what Aristotle is trying to say, as he makes clear below:

To speak, then, of friendship in the primary sense only is to do violence to the phenomena, and makes one assert paradoxes; but it is impossible for all friendships to come under one definition.  The only alternative left is that in a sense there is only one friendship, the primary; but in a sense all kinds are friendship, not as possessing a common name accidentally without being specially related to one another, not yet as falling under one species, but rather as in relation to one and the same thing (EE VII.2.1236b21, italics mine).

The point being that while the other five kinds of friendship have some deficiencies, they are nonetheless still friendships because they share some structural analogy to the primary sense of friendship that is constituted by Character Friendship.

III. On Character Friendship

Now that we have determined Character Friendship to be a necessary condition of Eudaimonia, it behooves us to look more in-depth at this issue and see if we can expand our analysis to find the essential nature of Character Friends.  Let us start by first noting that this kind of friendship requires two individuals who are themselves virtuous[8] and who base their friendship on their mutual virtuous nature, as Aristotle says:

Perfect friendship is the friendship of men who are good, and alike in excellence; for these wish well alike to each other qua good, and they are good in themselves.  Now those who wish well to their friends for their sake are most truly friends; for they do this by reason of their own nature and not incidentally; therefore their friendship lasts as long as they are good – and excellence is an enduring thing. (NE VIII.3.1156b6)

The essential and defining characteristic is the mutual virtue – but by itself, this is not a sufficient condition to indicate this kind of friendship. Just because two people are virtuous does not mean that they will necessarily be friends; there is much more to this kind of friendship, such as a mutual goodwill (NE VIII.2.1155b34), a desire to live together[9] (NE IX.12.1171b32), a passage of the test of time (EE VII.2.1237b14), shared experiences (trials and tribulations), and mutual movement towards excellence (NE IX.12.1172a10); yet each of these points bears further elaboration.

To be character friends, one of the first and perhaps most important things necessary is that the two friends need to have a mutual affinity and goodwill for each other.  This means that each friend bears affection for the other and wishes each other well for their own sake.  While this should be intuitively obvious, it is worth noting because it seems that this is one of the fundamental characteristics of friends, as Aristotle says: “goodwill when it is reciprocal being friendship” (NE VIII.2.1155b34), and if one did not acknowledge this aspect then one would be left with a paltry view of friendship – it is not even clear what “friends” would be if they did not share mutual affinity and goodwill.

Another aspect of character friends is a mutual desire to live together – although this is not to be taken literally as in the same household.  Rather, character friends desire to spend their lives together in the sense of performing activities together.  As Aristotle explains:

And whatever existence means for each class of men, whatever it is for whose sake they value life, in that they wish to occupy themselves with their friends; and so some drink together, others dice together, others join in athletic exercises and hunting, or in the study of philosophy, each class spending their days together in whatever they love most in life; for since they wish to live with their friends, they do and share in those things as far as they can. (NE IX.12.1171b32)

The description that Aristotle offers us is actually of the genus of friendship, although clearly it can be predicated of any of the kinds of friendship.  The important point though is that friends wish to spend their time together in those activities that define their lives and Character Friends are no exception.

Further, Character Friends wish to be with one another both in times of trials and tribulations, as Aristotle discusses in book IX, chapter 11 of the Nicomachean Ethics.  When one is having bad fortune one needs others to help weather the rough period and when one is having good fortune one wants others with whom to share this good fortune (1171a22).  This is why Aristotle says that friends are more necessary when one is having bad fortune (1171a25) – with the help of friends the period of bad fortune can be shortened or the ill effects can be lessened.  However, friendship is nobler in prosperity (1171a26) when the friends can share in each other’s good achievements and fortune – when they can celebrate each other and their mutual goodness.  However, while it is clear that one needs friends no matter one’s fortune, it is not as if Character Friendship just comes into being ex nihlo.

Character Friendship, as seems obvious, is not something that arises instantly.  Robert Mayhew notes these necessary conditions for its naissance:

Character friends are close.  They require that the friends know each other rather intimately, and this takes time.  The prospective friends must grow accustomed (sunetheias, NE 1156b26) to each other, which requires spending time together.  One must discover that the other is likable and trustworthy (NE 1156b24-32).  Acquiring the necessary knowledge requires comprehension or perception (NE 1161b24-27); one must gain experience of the other, or put the other to the test (empeirian labein, peiran labein, NE 1158a14-15, EE 1237b12-13, 1245b25; cf. NE 1157a20-25), and form judgments (EE 1237b10-12).  But all of this is difficult and takes time.[10]

Certainly none of these conditions seem to be beyond our ordinary conceptions of friendship – in order to be friends it does seem to be necessary to have intimate knowledge, trust, and mutual understanding.  It is for these reasons that one cannot be a Character Friend to many people; for just as Character Friendship cannot just arise arbitrarily, neither can one have too many Character Friends.  Aristotle observes that Character Friends seem to be rather rare; he attributes this first to the fact that men of true virtue are rare, which makes character friendships rare (NE VIII.3.1156b25) and second to the fact that having too many friends dilutes one’s friendship and makes one a true friend to no one (NE IX.10.1171a1).

However, perhaps the last salient feature of Character friendship is the mutual movement towards excellence that comes from the relationship.

The friendship of good men is good, being augmented by their companionship; and they are thought to become better too by their activities and by improving each other; for from each other they take the mold of the characteristics they approve – whence the saying ‘noble deeds from noble men’ (NE IX.12.1172a10-15).

By being around other virtuous people, our own disposition for virtuous action is augmented –seeing our friend acting virtuously sets an example for us and it shows us that it is not only possible, but we can see clearly the nobility in a way that we cannot always achieve when we are the acting agent[11].

In character friendship, as we said earlier, one loves one’s friend qua person and not just for the attributes which they happen to have.  A.W. Price takes Aristotle’s argument to be this:

Loving a person ‘for his sake’ (NE VIII.2.1155b31) I love him for the person he is (VII.3.1156a17-18), that is qua chooser (cf. VI.2.1139b5).  To love him qua chooser is to identify with his choices: consider the Eudemian concept of ‘reciprocal choice’ (antiprohairesis, VII.2,1236b3, 1237a32-3).  It is above all through his choices that I try to benefit him: in a life of co-operation he partly owes his choices to me, as party both to the way of life within which they operate, and to the practical thinking out of which they issue.  Consequently, his activity displays the character that we share, and the fact that we share it; it is partly in his activity that I find my own eudaimonia.[12]

The major point is that to love another for their own sake is to love them qua chooser (as a moral agent) and since in Aristotelian philosophy one chooses from practical reason and one’s dispositions of character (the defining aspects of one’s personhood) – we can see then that the love of Character Friends is the love of the other person for themselves.

IV. Conclusion

We have now come to the end of our analysis and it is time to review our position.  We have seen that Aristotle believes that friendship is a necessary condition for Eudaimonia.  After analyzing the two different senses and the three different kinds of friends, we determined that only Character Friendship could serve this important function and furthermore that it is only the univocal sense that suffices.  However, it must be remembered that our 6-point analysis of friendship is only a conceptual tool and not a natural kind classification.  We have also determined the nature of Character Friends.  Thus we have answered our original questions that we started with: (1) why Aristotle thought that one must have friends to be eudaimōn and (2) why only one certain kind of friend could suffice for Eudaimonia.

It should now be clear why Aristotle thought that friends were necessary conditions of Eudaimonia and it should also be clear why univocal Character Friends are able to fulfill this function in human life.   We have gained knowledge on this subject, and as Aristotle says: “all knowledge and choice aims at some good” (NE, I.3.1094b27).  Since the telos of human life is to flourish and to be good is to perform one’s ergon well, the ultimate good for human life is Eudaimonia, and our improved understanding of central component will help us to lead more complete and richer lives.

V. Bibliography

Quoted Works:

  1. Aristotle.  Eudemian Ethics. Found in The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation.  Vol. 2.  Ed. Jonathan Barnes.  New Jersey: Princeton U. P., 1984.
  1. Aristotle.  Nicomachean Ethics.  Found in The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation.  Vol. 2.  Ed. Jonathan Barnes.  New Jersey: Princeton U. P., 1984.
  1. Mayhew, Robert.  Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Republic.  Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997.
  1. Price, A.W.  Love and Friendship in Plato and Aristotle. New York: Oxford U.P., 1989.

Referenced Works:

  1. Barnes, Jonathan (Ed).  The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle.  Cambridge: Cambridge U. P., 1995.
  1. Barnes, Jonathan.  Aristotle.  Oxford: Oxford U. P., 1982.
  1. Cooper, John.  Reason and Human Good in Aristotle.  Cambridge: Harvard U. P., 1975.
  1. Kenny, Anthony.  Aristotle on the Perfect Life.  Oxford: Oxford U. P., 1992.
  1. Kraut, Richard.  Aristotle on the Human Good.  Princeton: Princeton U.P., 1989.
  1. Nussbaum, Martha.  The Fragility of Goodness.  Cambridge: Cambridge U. P., 1986.
  1. Nussbaum, Martha and A. O. Rorty, eds.  Essays on Aristotle’s De Anima.  Oxford: Oxford U. P., 1995.
  1. Rorty, Amelie (Ed).  Essays on Aristotle’s Ethics.  Berkely: U. of California P., 1980.

* I would like to sincerely thank Dr. Lisska and Matt Morrell for their insightful comments on earlier drafts and for the opportunity to spend countless hours in philosophical discourse with each of them, something which has indubitably improved my philosophical abilities.  Gentlemen, you are certainly aristoi.

[1] I am excluding the Magna Moralia, since its authenticity has been seriously contested – as the Oxford translation notes: “The traditional corpus Aristotelicum contains several works which were certainly or probably not written by Aristotle.  A single asterisk against the title of a work indicates that its authenticity has been seriously doubted; a pair of asterisks indicates that its spuriousness has never been contested.”  The Magna Moralia is marked by a single asterisk, indicating that its authenticity has been seriously doubted.

[2] The division between senses is based on passages such as: “There being, then, as has been said, three kinds of friendship – based on excellence, utility, and pleasentness – these again are subdivided each into two, one kind based on equality, the other on superiority.  Both are friendships, but only those between whom there is equality are friends” (EE VII.4.1239a1).  This clearly indicates to me that the division between senses is important and subtle, so that one must be careful to pay it special attention.  The subdivision itself seems to be novel as it’s not usually found in Aristotelian scholarship.

[3] The univocal sense is “when things have the name in common and the definition of being which corresponds to the name is the same” (CAT 1.1a6-7).

[4] The equivocal sense is “when things have only a name in common and the definition of being which corresponds to the name is different” (CAT 1.1a1-2).

[5] Of course, after graduation and grad school, the former pupil could return as a fellow professor and have a full friendship with his former professor – since at that point the power differential would have been closed, as long as they could get beyond their past history and treat each other as equals.

[6] Following Robert Mayhew’s description and distinction from Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Republic, chapter 4 (specifically page 74).

[7] This distinction between loving someone “qua attribute” versus “qua person” seems to be novel as it does not usually appear in Aristotelian commentaries.

[8] A supposition will be made that the reader understands what it means to be virtuous in the Aristotelian sense, since the issue is outside the scope of the present paper.

[9] This should not be taken literally, rather it is closer to “spending time together” or “spending your life together” in English – see the second full paragraph below this footnote in the text.

[10] Robert Mayhew, Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Republic, 75.

[11] By “acting agent” I just want to distinguish an agent who is actively acting versus one who is capable of acting, but is not currently acting – it is not meant as a redundancy.

[12] A.W. Price, Love and Friendship in Plato and Aristotle, 124.

Cis and Trans: Untangling Confusions

by Jason Stotts

There is a new movement underfoot now, coming from the transsexual community, to rename non-transsexuals “cis-sexuals”.  The name comes from a play with the Latin prefixes.  The Latin prefix “trans-” means “across” and is used to signify that one’s gender is “across” (different than) one’s biological sex: that while one might be biologically female, one might feel like a male.  In contrast, the Latin prefix “cis-” means “on this side” and is used as a contrast to “trans-” to signify that there is not this sense of sex and gender being across from one another and that they are on the same side: that is, that sex and gender align.

My purpose with this essay is twofold: First, I want to argue that the idea of a “cis-sexual” is fundamentally misguided and is the result of epistemological confusion.  Furthermore, that such a term is neither necessary nor appropriate and that it must be avoided.  It should be understood that I attack this concept in the interest of truth and not in any way out of animosity towards transsexuals.  Frankly, being sex-positive, which I am, does not mean having a lack of epistemological standards or being absolutely permissive regarding sex.  Second, I want to discuss transsexualism as a phenomenon that is primarily the result of fetal developmental problems, but which may also be psychological in origin.  I want to briefly show that it is not volitional and, moreover, that it is not a moral issue.

Transsexual and Cissexual?

There is currently much debate about whether transsexuals experience their “sex/gender misalignment” as a result of physiological reasons, as a result of psychological reasons, or a combination of both.  I am going to address physiological transsexualism and psychological transsexualism separately.  The combination, of course, will combine elements of each.

Let’s start, though, by noting that concept formation is a process whereby a person abstracts essential characteristics from existents and integrates this into a mental unit that one uses to understand a broad range of existents.  In order to do so, one casts as wide a net as one can for things that are likely to fall under a concept as well as things that are obviously not part of the concept.  Concepts are formed using the normal cases of the existents.  That is, in the way in which we usually find these things in reality and where there are no problems with the growth or development of the existent (if it is a living existent) and where the existents are undamaged.  For example, you don’t use diseased oak trees as exemplars of oak trees (nor, for that matter, do you use acorns, which are potential oak trees), rather you use full grown healthy oak trees.

Now, this relates to transsexualism because if it is true that transsexualism is a result of the brain incorrectly forming or of hormones incorrectly releasing, then they are damaged cases and are, for that reason, epistemologically non-normal.  If, on the other hand, transsexualism results from psychological reasons, they are non-normal in the statistical sense and are not damaged cases, at least in the direct sense.  There is no moral import from non-normality: morality is about a person’s chosen actions and character, and not about unchosen facts about himself.  In the normal case of humans, one’s biological sex matches how one feels about the fit, or appropriateness, of that sex.  Realistically, transsexuals do need a special term to signify how they are different from the normal case person.

Where the term “cis-sexual” goes wrong is that it tries to signify that agreement between sex and gender is somehow different than the normal case.  However, it needs no special signifier because it is the normal case and special signifiers are only used to highlight the difference between a normal and a non-normal case.  If this point hasn’t sunk home for you yet, spend a minute thinking of concepts you know and then think about differences from normal: a broken X, a good X, a red X, a small X, a fast X.  The modifier tells you in what way the particular existent X is different from the abstract normal case of X and this is not necessary for the normal case.

Biology, Neurobiology, and Fetal Development

Now, to complicate things, there is another factor that needs to be discussed: neurobiology.  Although the subject is not perfectly understood, there is mounting evidence that one of the things that can happen to a growing fetus in utero is that certain hormones that help to actualize or suppress certain sex characteristics are either released at the wrong time or in the wrong amount and cause neurochemical changes to happen that are incorrect for the actual sex of the fetus.

Basically, the brain of the fetus has been affected in such a way as to be more like a brain of the sex other than what the rest of its body is.  Let me repeat this, because it is exceedingly important to this issue: the brains of some, perhaps even all, transsexuals that are born as women actually have brains with are much closer to male brains, and vice versa.  There are differences in their brain structure and chemistry that make their brains more male than female.  Indeed, this has been confirmed in multiple studies and with MRI scans. So, there is no doubt that for a least some, and maybe all, transsexuals, there is more than just a psychological feeling of something being wrong.  There literally is a mismatch between brain and body.

One case of this that is better understood is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome or AIS, which is: “when a person who is genetically male (has one X and one Y chromosome) is resistant to male hormones called androgens. As a result, the person has some or all of the physical characteristics of a woman, despite having the genetic makeup of a man.”  I personally can’t imagine being in the position where I knew my body and brain didn’t match and I would think that I, too, would want to receive treatment to correct this developmental defect.

At this point the research has not progressed to the point where it is understood what percentage of transsexuals suffer from this neurochemical problem, as opposed to a strict psychological problem.  It’s also not well understood whether the dramatic hormonal changes of puberty actually serve to help correct this to any extent or only serve to reinforce the phenomenon.  Thus, in some cases of transsexualism, the phenomenon is caused either primarily or exclusively by neurochemistry and thus is outside of the volitional control of the person (which is not to insinuate that psychological transsexualism is inside of volitional control either).  For an easy to read summary of much of the neuroscience to date, pick up Simon LeVay’s Gay Straight and the Reason Why, which goes into the neurobiology in depth and does a better job than I could hope to do with these issues.

Psychological Transexualism

Now, to take a slightly different tack, part of the problem with people’s understanding of transsexualism is the concept of “gender”.  Sex is an aspect of living organisms that do not spontaneously reproduce.  While there are some organisms that reproduce asexually through cellular division, humans are not this kind of creature.  In sex, there is necessarily a male and female: all organisms that reproduce sexually have males and females.  All cases of sexually reproducing organisms where a particular organism is neither male nor female is a damaged case.

But what is this concept of “gender”?  What aspect of reality is trying to be captured by this word?  It’s obviously not the physical sex of the person, since if it was, the concept of gender would be redundant and unnecessary.  Indeed, this thing “gender” must be something different than sex, but which has some connection to sex.  What these people are trying to capture with the word “gender” is actually something that does not need a new concept: it is simply the societal sex role.

Every society has roles that members of each sex are expected to fulfill.  In some societies, women are thought to be the inferiors of men and have no rights or privileges in society, their role is simply to be subservient to a man and to take care of his domestic needs and bear his children.  In some societies people of a certain skin color are considered superior and anyone that does not look the same is inferior and their role is to serve the superior race.  The point is that societies impose, or try to impose, roles upon its members.  One of the most common methods is using the physical sex of the people, since that is something that every person has and which can typically be easily discerned.

In our society, for example, we have seen the sex roles rapidly changing since the founding of our country.  For example, at the founding of our country the role of women was to stay in the house and to tend it and bear offspring.  At the same time, the role of men was to work hard to support his family.  Things have changed since then and although these ideas are still around, they are no longer enforced.  But sex roles cut much deeper than simply this.  There are proper types of garments for each sex to wear, proper types of haircuts that are acceptable, proper types of grooming that is required, and even expectations about how a person will engage in sex.  For example, there is a strong societal sex role in our society, from christianity, that women should not like sex, unless they are married, and then they are only supposed to tolerate it.  Any woman who violates this sex role gets social censure and is degraded with pejoratives like “slut” or “whore.”  Each society will come to some understanding of the “correct” way for men and women to act and from that point on will try to enforce the sexual roles onto its members.  Whether this is desirable or preventable is a good question.

When some people feel like their “gender” doesn’t match their physical sex, what they are actually feeling, in cases of psychological dissonance (i.e. cases whose cause is not neurobiological), is that the societal sex role doesn’t fit their self-conception.  They are rebelling not against their physical sex, but against what society tells them must follow from their physical sex; what the “correct” way for a person of that sex to act is.  This is at least one source of psychological transsexualism, and I think it’s most common source, and the easiest solution to it is to just deny the validity of the societal role and cast it off.  However, few people are able to question the status quo to such a degree and unfortunately accept it as a fact.  Since some people accept it as a fact and they nonetheless cannot accept that they should be that way, they instead rebel against their physical sex — a thing that can now apparently be changed.  A transsexual, so he or she believes, has no power to change the societal sex role, but his or her physical sex can be altered.  For many transsexuals, this means that they will begin to present themselves to others as if they were the opposite sex.  They will assume the societal role of the other sex and other societal sex characteristics (manner of dress, action, speech, etc.).  This is the first stage of transsexualism and many transsexuals never proceed beyond it.  Those who want completely change their sex will have hormone replacement therapy and/or sex reassignment surgery to completely bring their body in line with what they think it should be.

Unfortunately, no matter how much a body looks like the other gender after surgery and hormone therapy, it is not currently able to actually be a body of the other sex because it is incapable of sexual reproduction as that sex: a male-to-female (MTF) transsexual will not start producing eggs after surgery and a female-to-male (FTM) transsexual will not start producing sperm.  Surgery for “sex reassignment” is not magic and will not change our genetic code nor make us capable of reproducing as though we had naturally developed as the other sex.

To return to our point, since a psychological transsexual feels that they cannot be their true self as the sex they are, since the societal sex role for their sex prevents them from behaving in accordance with their self-conception, they feel that the other sexual role would liberate them to act in accordance with their true self.  Of course, this line of thought is probably not the literal line of thought they follow mentally.  It is unlikely that the average transsexual person thinks about the societal sex role and its connections to their authentic self.  Nonetheless, I think that this is the actual process that they go through in their development and their understanding of their difference from the people around them.  Unfortunately, to introduce the empty concept of “gender” into this equation only serves to obscure what is really going on.

What should be done?

Ultimately, until transsexualism is better understood and better solutions exist to help transsexuals correct their dysmorphia or come to terms with it in a healthy way, we should try to be supportive and understanding, as best as we can, and certainly not to treat transsexualism as immoral (only someone completely ignorant of the relevant issues could think it a moral issue).  However, what we should not do is allow a corruption of our language to be perpetrated.  We must vehemently deny this concept of “cis-sexual” as based on faulty epistemology and bad concept formation.  Transsexualism is statistically rare and to define non-transsexuals as “cis-sexuals” is simply bad epistemology and sloppy thinking.

Birth Control Throughout the Ages

by Jason Stotts

Birth control throughout the ages has been a little…shall we say, dicey?  Sometimes the methods worked and sometimes they didn’t.  And sometimes they are just disgusting.  The Awl has a great piece up right now called Hideous Birth Control Methods  Through the Ages that is both fascinating and disturbing.

Worst: • Inserting tar or elephant dung into the vagina after coitus (11th-century Persia)

Best: • Some women in rural North Carolina still use a traditional oral contraceptive made from Queen Anne’s Lace seeds, which are chopped and put in a glass of water, which is then drunk. Cutting the seeds releases terpenoids, which block progesterone

Runner-Up for Best: • Half a lemon skin used as a cervical cap (recommended by Casanova) [Acidity kills sperm]


Question: The Moral Hazard of Bisexuality

by Jason Stotts

I love getting questions from readers, even though  I don’t always feature them on Erosophia.  This question is one that many people probably have, so I thought I’d share it and my response for those of you who won’t ask, but still want to know.

Today’s question is on the moral hazard of bisexuality:

Hey Jason,

I just discovered your blog today and it is truly enlightening. It’s great to see such reasoned application of Objectivism to sexuality.

My question is whether you’ve covered this topic before (I did not see it by searching the tab under “Bisexuality”)

Should a bisexual male who can love women and is attracted to them, also have sex with men who he is only attracted to sexually? I am very turned on to the idea of receptive sex with men, sometimes, but I don’t think I can ever “love” them. I guess I’m a Kinsey 2 maybe. I rarely, if ever, see a man in real life and get turned on. But I know receptive sex and having someone turned on by me is appealing.

If one were to fulfill those sexual desires, wouldn’t they be divorcing sex from emotion if they can’t love a man?

Thanks a lot,


PS: My girlfriend knows about this attraction (and she is perfectly fine with me exploring it).

It’s a good question, isn’t it?  Here’s my response:


I haven’t covered this topic explicitly in terms of bisexuality, but I have covered issues of non-monogamy before, like in my essay “On Polysexuality” or “Sex without Love.” Basically, my position is just because you have sex with someone you don’t love doesn’t necessarily divorce your sex from your emotions. I don’t think you can think of this issue in terms of “will this particular sex act divorce my emotions and sexuality,” but rather, “is the general way I approach sex and relationships going to divorce sex and emotions from each other.” I think that a person in a committed relationship has less to worry about divorcing sex from love than does a single person, since the person in a committed relationship has already firmly connected love and sex in his life through his relationship. So, check out those essays first.

Now, some practical suggestions. If you don’t want to worry about the risks and strains associated with bringing a new partner into your relationship, there is always the option of pegging (1, 2, 3, 4). If your girlfriend is open to the idea, that would be a way to experience receptive anal sex without the risk of disease, opening of your relationship, or any worry about divorcing sex and emotions.

Also, have you considered a threesome with another bisexual man? if you don’t know any personally, try an alternative sexual lifestyle website like Kasidie or another good site. I would not, however, suggest Craig’s List. There’s a really big difference between the people who are seeking out sex in a swinging context with its established guidelines about how to behave and emphasis on safer sex (no sex is truly safe) and those who are seeking it out on CL. A threesome can make both you and your partner feel safer, since you’re experiencing everything together.

Ultimately, I think that you can safely fulfill your desires and not run any sort of moral risk if you are honest and open with yourself, your partner, and any future lover about what you want and need.


P.S. Feel free to write me if you have more questions.

If you have a question you want answered, write to me.  If you want private consultation about your sex life or relationship, we can work out an arrangement for that too.  I’ve been wanting to get into some sex and relationship direct-advice-giving (it’s illegal to call it counseling)  and there’s no time like the present to start.