Examination V
Friday, 7/5, we will take the fifth of our five examinations for the semester. You will have the full two hours of class-time in which to write the exam. Please be sure to arrive on time for class. Contra to the , the fifth examination is worth 200 points, as opposed to the 100 points I had originally planned. This, however, is only to your benefit, as the fifth exam is simply extra credit, to be added on to your four previous exam scores to calculate your semester total. You should try to outline answers to each of the questions and be sure you can write clear, complete, and comprehensive answers to them all. You may bring a single handwritten 4inx6in notecard to keep track of your outlines, for which you may use both sides of the notecard.
1. The Unbearable Complexity of Being Human
Explain as clearly as you can Frankfurt's conception of love and Blackburn's conception of lust. Using these conceptions and in light of all the various forms of sex and sexual entertainment we've examined this semester, explain the relationship between love, lust, and sex so as to explain:
- The tension between love and lust;
- How casual sex with a friend-with-benefits can lead to 'catching feels';
- The distinction between mere assault and sexual assault (rape); and,
- The relevance of love, lust, and sex to human flourishing.
Harry Frankfurt, "The Reasons of Love", Chapter One
Harry Frankfurt, "The Reasons of Love", Chapter Two
Harry Frankfurt, "The Reasons of Love", Chapter Three
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", Intro
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 1
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 2
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 3
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 4
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 5
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 6
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 7
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 8
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 9
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 10
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 11
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 12
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 13
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", ch 14
Simon Blackburn, "Lust", Notes
2. The Joy of Kink
Nagel (Thomas Nagel: Sexual Perversion pdf) develops an account of sexual desire in order to establish a standard for normal sex and thus make sense of its perversion. Nagel's account is more liberal than the traditional view, which counts any sexual activity not involving vaginal intercourse between a man and woman married to each other for the purpose of procreation a perversion. Nevertheless, Nagel concludes that many sexual activities are perversions on his understanding of what counts as normal. What, precisely, is Nagel's account, and how does it allow for a greater range of normal sexual activity than the Church?
One puzzle for Nagel's account is whether it always correctly identifies sexual perversions. For example, someone might argue that anal sex is perverse, yet Nagel's account treats it as normal sex. And in class we briefly mentioned how Nagel very much wants to conclude that the sexual relationship between a sadist and a masochist is perverse, yet it is not clear that his own account of normal sex justifies this conclusion. There seems, in other words, to be some tension between our intuitive understanding of perversion and Nagel's account of perversion. For each of the following examples of sexual activity, explain whether it is perverse on Nagel's account, whether it is intuitively perverse, and, in those cases where intuition and Nagelian perversion diverge, explain which you think correct.
- Group Sex (Orgies, "Dogging", etc.)
- Anonymous Sex ("Glory Holes", "Mask Parties", etc.)
- Public Sex
- Swinger Sex ("Key Parties", Cuckolding, etc.)
- Sex with ET (Yes, ET)
Finally, Priest (Graham Priest: Sexual Perversion pdf) argues that we cannot make sense of sexual perversion because we cannot make sense of natural or normal sex. Do you find Priest's argument persuasive? Why or why not? If so, is nothing so peculiar as to be off the table, sexually speaking?
3. The Erotic Mystery
This course is predicated on the notion that thinking carefully about romantic love can help us understand these important features of our lives and so, perhaps, lead better lives.
A skeptic, however, might argue as follows:
Romantic love is a mystery, else there would have been no course on the philosophy of love and sex in the first place. Since any attempt to understand the mystery of romantic love will either succeed or fail, the course finds itself in a dilemma. For 1) if the attempt to understand romantic love fails, the mystery will have proven to be impenetrable to us, and the course fails. Yet 2) if it succeeds and we do manage to understand romantic love, we will thereby have erased the mystery of romantic love, which is precisely what made romantic love so important to us in the first place. So again the course fails. All things considered, then, it is better if the course were never offered!
Is the skeptic right? If you agree with the skeptic, which horn of the dilemma do you think impaled the course? If you disagree with the skeptic, how did we escape the dilemma? Finally, what do you think Plato would say in response to the skeptic?