Immanuel Kant regarded masturbation as a violation of the moral law. In The Metaphysics of Morals (1797), he made the a posteriori argument that "such an unnatural use of one's sexual attribute" strikes "everyone upon his thinking of it" as "a violation of one's duty to himself", and suggested that it was regarded as immoral even to give it its proper name (unlike the case of the similarly undutiful act of suicide). He went on, however, to acknowledge that "it is not so easy to produce a rational demonstration of the inadmissibility of that unnatural use", but ultimately concluded that its immorality lay in the fact that "a man gives up his personality ... when he uses himself merely as a means for the gratification of an animal drive".
Any other philosophers vehemently opposed to masturbation? Or just writers in general, or psychologists, or scientists.
nietzsche
Vatsyayana
>>7760595
Chinese Medicine says ejaculating is a bad thing. Masturbation is bad, unless your a pro-edger.
>>7760595
>>Any other philosophers vehemently opposed to masturbation?
anybody who does not promote hedonism of the flesh. in numbers, most people love material hedonism too much to leave it, but they love to claim that material hedonism is bad.
>>7760595
Kant's point is p airtight, it's just that it does not register in todays utilitarian mindset
For Kant mathematical objects are not pure objects of the understanding, although this view will later be adopted by Marburg neo-Kantians, who rejected his separate faculty of sensibility after non-Euclidean geometries were discovered. They are objects attached to pure intuitions synthesized by productive imagination, which is the constructive aspect of sensibilty, in time for arithmetic, in space for geometry. Correspondingly, Kant distinguishes symbolic and ostensive constructions. In other words, while they are a priori, mathematical objects are like empirical ones in that they stand in relation to pure intuitions as empirical objects stand to perceptions. Unlike a pure concept of the understanding, which only enables syntheses of possible intuitions which have to be supplied by sensibility, mathematical one "already contains a pure intuition in itself". This forces Kant to restrict mathematical objects to spatial and temporal magnitudes, because "qualities cannot be exhibited in anything but empirical intuition".
References are scattered throughout the Critique of Pure Reason, e.g. in the Preface to the second edition we find the famous quote:"...new light flashed upon the mind of the first man (be he Thales or some other) who demonstrated the properties of the isosceles triangle. The true method, so he found, was not to inspect what he discerned either in the figure, or in the bare concept of it, and from this, as it were, read off its properties; but to bring out what was necessarily implied in the concepts that he had himself formed a priori, and had put into the figure in the construction by which he presented it to himself".
Elsewhere in the Critique and in the Prolegomena he describes establishing 7+5=12 by a priori synthesis, see How would Kant classify the number π? How would Hume? Is π empirical? But the central place is Discipline of Pure Reason in Dogmatic Use, where he writes that mathematical "concepts must immediately be exhibited in concreto in pure intuition, through which anything unfounded and arbitrary instantly becomes obvious... to construct a concept means to exhibit a priori the intuition corresponding to it". SEP has a detailed commentary on it.
>>7760595
"The 18th-century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau saw masturbation as equal to 'mental rape', and discussed it in both Émile and Confessions. He argued that it was the corrupting influence of society that led to such unnatural acts as masturbation and that humans living a simple life amidst nature would never do such things".[citation needed]
>>7760687
I used to think this thinking was retarded Christian babble, and to an extent it still is but after reading Aristotle I see it can have merit.
They are in opposition, as Quine and Kripke generally are on interpreting modal logic, and much of what is related to it. Rigid designators are defined as those picking out the same object in all possible worlds, so unsurprisingly they do not see eye to eye on this issue in particular. To pick out the same object we must agree on how it is done, obviously we want some things to be different in different worlds, so what would the sameness cover? According to Kripke, there are some naturally existing (not theory dependent) "essences" that stay the same, e.g. being human is part of Nixon's essence, but being president is not, being H20 is water's essence, but being present in comets is not.
How do we decide what constitutes an essence? "Consult your metaphysical intuitions", as Almog put it in Naming without Necessity. In Naming with Necessity Kripke refers to something called "metaphysical possibility", and argues that it is "intuitive" to many people. So it is metaphysically possible that Nixon loses the 1968 election, but not that he is an alien, possible that Earth is not overflowing with water, but not that water is not H20, that much is a posteriori necessary (after the chemical composition was discovered). The idea is that essences of "natural kinds" (Mill's term resurrected by Russell in 1948) like water are discovered by science, and reflect truths about reality. This is even more controversial than Kripke's modal metaphysics for proper names, see e.g. Ben-Yami's recent critique in Semantics of Kind Terms.
Quine anticipated this approach in Reference and Modality before it was fully developed by Kripke, and dismissed it outright:"...the way to do quantified modal logic if at all is to accept Aristotelian essentialism. To defend Aristotelian essentialism is not however part of my plan. Such a philosophy is as unreasonable by my lights as it is by Carnap's or Lewis's. And in conclusion I say as Carnap and Lewis have not: so much the worse for quantified modal logic. By implication, so much the worse for unquantified modal logic as well..."
An engaging historical survey of Kripke's development of modal metaphysics as a response to Quine's technical and philosophical objections to modal logic is Tuboly's Quine and Quantified Modal Logic.
>>7761178
How does this relate to wanking?
>>7760858
I think it's still a fairly good point. It's certainly oriented towards a religious mode of thought; but, I've started to realize, even as an atheist, that the difference between indulging in something you choose, and capitulating to basic impulses is quite large. I think everyone has done hedonistic things they regret, and even in there most minor cases it's still damaging and habit forming. I think Kant's duties to oneself hit the nail on the head insofar that they acknowledge self respect is one of the most important things to uphold.
I would go so far as to say that people who masturbate on impulse do damage something in themselves; perhaps they are only reinforcing the view that they are base or impulse driven, or maybe it's something worse. I don't think it's always bad to jerk it obvs, but Kant's on to something. And I think no-fap movement plays on this kinda thinking to some extent.
>>7760595
It is clear that none of these philosophers ever did a month no fap or otherwise they would know the futility of their words.
>>7761496
Philosophers do not have to live the lifestyle of their life philosophy for it to be a valid philosophy. No doubt you think This Is Water was negated or nullified by the author's suicide after the fact.
>>7760800
>citation needed
well regardless of that, I can see the point, when I visited France's castles years ago, I did not felt like I was lacking my PC in over a month.
It can also be conduced to drug use, I remember reading about an experiment
ah yes I found it
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-real-cause-of-addicti_b_6506936.html
>The street-addict is like the rats in the first cage, isolated, alone, with only one source of solace to turn to. The medical patient is like the rats in the second cage. She is going home to a life where she is surrounded by the people she loves. The drug is the same, but the environment is different.
>Professor Peter Cohen argues that human beings have a deep need to bond and form connections. It's how we get our satisfaction. If we can't connect with each other, we will connect with anything we can find -- the whirr of a roulette wheel or the prick of a syringe. He says we should stop talking about 'addiction' altogether, and instead call it 'bonding.' A heroin addict has bonded with heroin because she couldn't bond as fully with anything else.
Great article, I think is a must read, I think it can help make a point that chronic masturbation would not occur if someone had not a void to fill, which, alas I personally do.
>>7761537
Not him, but I didn't. This Is Water is invalidated simply for being a poorly presented, poorly articulated, and weak enunciation of piecemeal ethics.
>>7761453
>the difference between indulging in something you choose, and capitulating to basic impulses
there is no difference
>>7761543
>huffingtonpost
>Great article, I think this is a must read
>>7761578
*tips*
>>7761581
enjoy your fantasy world. the second you stop stroking your dick you start stroking your ego.
>>7761496
Celibacy and greatness of mind go hand in hand. You can abstain for the rest of your life. The incredible amount of energy you build up just has to be channeled properly. Relapse is a failure to do just that.
>>7761579
You know what's great about 4chan? Anonimity, being judged not by your name but the content of your post, can't you try do the same with that?
>>7761608
>anything being great about 4chan
>>7761608
I read it and it was indeed crap. Happy now?
>>7761646
why was it crap?
>>7761650
>pop sci
>The wisest sentence of the twentieth century was E.M. Forster's -- "only connect." But we have created an environment and a culture that cut us off from connection, or offer only the parody of it offered by the Internet. The rise of addiction is a symptom of a deeper sickness in the way we live -- constantly directing our gaze towards the next shiny object we should buy, rather than the human beings all around us.
>The writer George Monbiot has called this "the age of loneliness."
Peak trite.
>>7761658
I think in general some things bear the duty of repetitions, one could say that a lot of stuff in philosophy is derivative or just a paraphrase or even outright stolen from those that came before, yet not everyone might get the message, this reminds me of the "this is water speech" by David Foster Wallace
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZjpihl2pfg
it bears a striking similarity I think to this, but all in all, back to the argument presented there, I think it makes a good argument for being against the idea that once one is hooked up on a drug, an addiction, he is done for, that is a chemical hook, if that is such a peak trite and all, why does this stigma persists? You could confront someone and let him admit that certain notions or even way of thinking are obvious and still see him fall into those very fallacies he said he would not touch.
It was known for long that Galileo Galilei did not invent the telescope, heck I remember seeing it on a book from the 80s, still I also remember my history book from the 2000s claiming the opposite and an history teacher in this decade doing so too.
What is the endgame then?
>>7761690
>this reminds me of the "this is water speech" by David Foster Wallace
Do you self harm ? If not, why not?
>>7760595
http://youtu.be/SZz_rbAmfmY
>>7760729
Very accurately and precisely written, but I don't see how it pertains to the specific Kantian issue of the OP.
>>7762293
It was a joke.
>mental masturbation
>Kant's a hypocrite, see guys?
Get it? huehuehuehue
I guess I am just awful then....fap fap fap
>>7760595
"I answer that, As stated above (A6,9) wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called "the unnatural vice." This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call 'effeminacy.'"
-Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Theologica" II.II Q.154 A. 11
Note that saying the "venereal act is rendered unbecoming" is not simply a fancy way to say that he thinks the act is bad. In other words he is not begging the question by saying it's unbecoming. Rather he is saying that masturbation is wrong because it violates the nature of sexual acts. The sexual act is rendered "unbecoming" because you are committing a sexual act where the natural end of sexual, the procreation and raising of children, is prevented by the very nature of the act.
>>7760595
why the fuck do you faggots still respect or even listen to these out of touch philosophers who literally argue from "nature", as if it means anything
>>7762512
You're going to have to spit on your screen a little more. There's not a lot to get from that post.
>>7762521
If you struggled to infer anything then I suggest you work on your reading comprehension and maybe ask your dad to stop ass fucking you while you browse /lit/, fag
>>7762512
Yeah, I mean it's 2016 ffs.
>>7762551
Can you try a little harder?
>>7762512
Kant didn't argue from nature, retard. And the philosophers who did, e.g. Aquinas, weren't arguing that the birds and the trees don't jerk off so we shouldn't, he was arguing that it goes against HUMAN NATURE, i.e. it violates the philosophical essence of a human being. In other words it is based on a complex and well-thought out metaphysics which you are clearly completely unaware of.
>>7762512
you're out of your element here
>>7762606
>a complex and well-thought out metaphysics which you are clearly completely unaware of
that darwin dismantled 50 years later
>>7762880
Dismantled how?
>>7762945
>Kant believes in god
>darwin disproves god
wow, that was tough.
>>7762965
Darwinian evolution isn't compatible with all, or even most, god concepts - though it's incompatible with a young-earth creationist's kind of god. But Kant didn't conceive of his god in this way, nor did Kant rely on empirical data for arguments for god; he thought that science and the natural world could neither prove nor disprove that there is a god, but rather that the consistent use of moral reasoning pointed to a god and an afterlife, in which we could have rationally justified faith but not proper knowledge.
Nice try though.
>>7760595
Kant was basically a secular Christian.
>>7762990
Or just a Christian.
Rousseau had qualms about it.
>>7762988
Darwinism refutes Kant by providing a secular explanation for the development of moral reasoning, i.e. it is a side effect of the evolution of the mind and not a teleological faculty of rational beings. Evolution empirically shows the actual goal of rationality is survival and not to think about God.
Nice try though.
>>7763300
if evolution shows that the goal of the organism is survival which can only be achieved through infinite reproduction as organisms are finite systems themselves, can it not be argued anything which diminishes this reproductive drive compromises your sense of self? For example, masturbating diminishes your sexual drive so you're less likely to procreate.
Can we get more actual philosophers in here and less huffington posts? Or if anyone knows about other cultures/philosophical systems which address masturbation, I know Taoism is all about the replenishing energy of dat seed yo.
>>7761581
there legit isn't a difference. Whether pleasure be the result of physical interaction, or be it the result of mental gratification (i.e. the result of glory, fame, high status, etc.), pleasure is nonetheless received as pleasure, and to distinguish between pleasure derived from one versus pleasure derived from the other is an arbitrary distinction regarding the acts themselves and not the result. the only difference, which I here state phenomenologically, is in their immediacy; however nonetheless pleasure = pleasure.
christian-influenced thinking does this a lot (make inappropriate arbitrary distinctions). for example, the ludicrous assertion that animals do not possess reason.
>>7763300
Biosemiotics has proved that evolution IS teleological
>>7763599
can you elaborate plz? legit interested
reminder that Christianity despises ''mysticism'' and bet everything on ''rationality'' to talk about god. This is why Christianity is the worst religion on earth.
>>7763300
>Evolution empirically shows the actual goal of rationality is survival and not to think about God.
wow, for some guy who thinks that he is rigorous, you show a complete lack of rigor, both in the writing and in your claim.
>>7763602
The basic premise that that the functions and growth of life is co-extensive and completely dependent with life's ability to interperate, receive and signify different signs from their environment.
It argues that to look at only the material nature of what is happening fails to recognize that almost all processes of life, from the intracellular to ecological, are in a constant symphony of communication. Every living organism is using the messages (signs) it receives from its environment and from other organisms to guide its growth, movement and homeostatis, and in turn emits other signs to its environment. Everything lifeforms do is in some sense meaningful; it has a direct impact on those who listen.
For more on this I'd look to the works of Jesper Hoffmeyer for starters. He provides an account of how purposeful and meaningful communication is a nautral result of the processes of life, and indeed is instrinsic to our understanding of it.
>>7763645
how is that teleological though? ps ty 4 info
I guess it can be a problem for some people, but I've never felt that way about it. I just relieve myself every 2 or 3 days and go about my business.
Quite surprised me to learn that the "no fap" crowd literally can't keep their hands off their dicks and play pocket pokey and that's why they freak out about it. Maybe there is some disorder, but it shouldn't ruin a pleasant activity for everyone.
>>7760595
Kant was such a stupid goy, he fuckin killed morals by trying to rationalize them
he is the cause we have so many sjw retards
fuckin kant i can't believe it
>>7763847
adding to this, i killed my overthinking and high IQ by drinking a lot, and now i can just enjoy having good morals and being a dickhead from time to time without fearing i'm being a stupid asshole
>>7763847
> 'kant was the first to talk about morals!'
gr8 b8
>>7763566
>can it not be argued anything which diminishes this reproductive drive compromises your sense of self? For example, masturbating diminishes your sexual drive so you're less likely to procreate.
There's really no connection between the fittest humans (those who procreate the most) and masturbation. I mean, black guys jerk off all the time and still manage to get all the white bitches pregnant.
>>7763599
>>7763645
Okay, there's no doubt the idea of a metaphysical God helped humans evolve for a short period of time. Once evolution was understood, the construct lost its purpose, as I originally wrote: Darwinism dismantled Kant's metaphysics. There is even a bit of Kant's teleology in Schopenhauer, though S is beginning to detect the evolutionary process (blind striving will). Nietzsche's writing is obviously full of the effect of Darwin.
>>7763620
You forgot your argument m9
>>7763300
All of that, again, is merely empirical. I addressed this in a recent thread. Pic related.
Try reading what you're opining about before opining about it.
While there is a thread up, can anyone help me define these terms in a simple manner?
teleology
epistemology
ontology
a priori
a posteriori
>>7762467
so he'd see it to be just as bad to have sex with birth control
>>7764074
Yes. Which is why the Catholic Church is against contraceptives.
>>7764058
just go to wikipedia
>>7763599
Kek
>>7764058
>nietzsche image
>asking about basic phil terms
neo /lit/ is awful
Instead of doing retared Hypersphere meme novels, /lit/ should compile an anthology of writers discussing certain controversial topics.
>>7764012
>thinking you "addressed" something
Whether you want to admit it or not, Kant's transcendental system is based on the empirical assumption that existent beings and their faculties (moral rationality) were created purposefully and serve a purpose. Evolution shows that creation to be chaotic and that purpose to be simple survival. You can't flee to the transcendental when the assumptions it's built on are no longer justified. Everyone reads biology textbooks and not Kant today because Kant was merely speculating while evolutionary theory provides actual evidence.
Try to understand what you're paraphrasing next time before acting like a big shot on a Laotian furryporn messageboard.
>>7765405
> Whether you want to admit it or not, Kant's transcendental system is based on the empirical assumption that existent beings and their faculties (moral rationality) were created purposefully and serve a purpose.
Nope - Kant uses no such empirical assumption of purposiveness in his transcendental arguments for the mental faculties. Have you read the first critique? And have you read the third critique, where he argues that judgements of purposiveness are the *result* of the constitution of our faculties, not a ground pressuposed by those faculties? For Kant, our faculties of sensibility, understanding, reason, and (reflecting) judgement do not arise from natural processes - natural processes instead arises from them.
And, further, since judgements of purposiveness are regulative for phenomena, we could at best judge *as if* our cooperating transcendental faculties were designed by a creator, without knowing *that* (and without having to assume from the start of our philosophical reflection!) our faculties were so designed, or that there is such a supersensible creator.
But please, regurgitate my own insults against me some more!
>>7760595
>a man gives up his personality ... when he uses himself merely as a means for the gratification of an animal drive
what a fucking idiot
>>7765970
>For Kant, our faculties of sensibility, understanding, reason, and (reflecting) judgement do not arise from natural processes - natural processes instead arises from them.
Your autism is really unbelievable. Kant never conceived that the natural processes arising from our faculties could ever in fact be the cause of the existence of those faculties themselves. Evolution shows systematically how our mind developed completely within Kant's forms of our understanding, space and time, therefore these "forms" are not merely our faculties since their preexistence is a necessary condition for our existence. There is literally no ground to posit idealism when mind itself is demonstrated to be a temporal phenomenon in the process of spatial becoming.
>>7766632
I'm more and more confident that you haven't read, enough or at all, the relevant works of Kant here; especially his distinction of empirical reality vs. transcendental ideality, his antinomies arguing for the impossibility of space and time being independent of the mind, and the 80th section of the third critique where Kant defends the plausibility of a natural history in which species, including our own, develop gradually from different, more archaic species (he says that we'd have to think of this quasi-evolutionary process *as if* it were designed by an intelligence - just as with any other teleological judgement - but the relevant point is that, in his own system, he offers an empirical conjecture of humanity's gradualistic emergence as physical animals, yet this empirical account is not ultimate; like any empirical representation, it does not explain, but rather presupposes, the transcendental faculties that are the very conditions of empirical possibility).
>>7766632
Why mention evolution at all?
>causation exists
>the world existed before humans
>hurrr durr therefore kant is wrong xD
What a stupid post
>>7767787
You keep dodging the obvious, that what Kant calls transcendental faculties cease to be necessarily transcendental if their existence can be sufficiently explained empirically. It could not until the theory of evolution. To continue positing transcendental ideality as the precondition for empirical reality becomes as unjustifiable as positing an anthropomorphic God that cares about its creation as the precondition for reality. This should be obvious to anyone who has read a bit of the philosophy following Kant.
>>7767837
Ignoring the retard
>>7768083
>what Kant calls transcendental faculties cease to be necessarily transcendental if their existence can be sufficiently explained empirically
I'm not dodging - I understand what you're saying, but you don't seem to understand why it misses the point. Kant's transcendental faculties cannot be explained empirically - again, you have his antinomies to refute (do you even know what they are?), and you also have his Transcendental Aesthetic (which I didn't mention earlier) to refute before you can claim that space and time exist in-themselves, independently of minds (and I expect that compelling refutations are possible, maybe even published - but I'm not counting on them coming from you, since you've shown only a superficial familiarity with Kant's system). Recall that you intially claimed that Kant made empirical arguments for the transcendental faculties - empirical arguements that evolutionary theory has undermined - but my point has been that Kant never made such an argument, and that he himself advanced empirical accounts of the gradual emegence of our planet and of our species, so evolutionary theory alone isn't something he'd find threatening.
>>7766056
On the contrary...
>>7760800
Fucking animals do such things. Goddamn noble savage complex.
>>7766056
>implying he's wrong
>>7763617
you don't know what you're saying, friendo
>>7765405
>Evolution shows that creation to be chaotic
>I can't trace a line through a maze, therefore the maze is chaotic and has no exit
nice reasoning, Socrates
>>7764074
no shit
>>7768128
>Recall that you intially claimed that Kant made empirical arguments for the transcendental faculties
I did not; I said Kant's system is based on an empirical assumption, namely that nothing in becoming/nature explains the existence of being/mind, therefore it makes sense to posit noumenon and to make our mental faculties the first principles of a philosophical system. You have to think for yourself and not simply regurgitate Kant's language to consider why he thought what he did. The antinomies and explanation of our sensibility are inconsequential; I haven't been trying to refute Kant, but merely to show that his system lost its relevance when evolution revealed the assumptions behind it to be verifiably false. I did use the word 'dismantled' which I apologize for because it may have led to confusion taken literally. Philosophical systems are almost never refuted, it is the assumptions that spark them that either stand or fall. I have read the first critique but not the others since you keep asking, and I've read Schopenhauer and Nietzsche wherein the effect of the development of evolution is readily apparent.
>>7771088
>>Recall that you intially claimed that Kant made empirical arguments for the transcendental faculties
>I did not
So here >>7765405 when you said
>Whether you want to admit it or not, Kant's transcendental system is based on the empirical assumption that existent beings and their faculties (moral rationality) were created purposefully and serve a purpose.
you meant that this was an implicit assumption that Kant never explicitly made part of his argument. I wish you had been less vague about this subtlety. You've rephrased it:
>Kant's system is based on an empirical assumption, namely that nothing in becoming/nature explains the existence of being/mind
as if it's obvious enough that Kant was committed to this assumption from the start and just crafted his critical arguments to be in favor of it. You have plenty of confidence in your ability to detect Kant's unwritten, motivating assumption - and I'd be interested in any sources from which you draw support - but I tend to stick more to the text, and this isn't incompatible with thinking for myself; I don't consider myself a transcendental idealist, and I'm constantly coming up with questions, hypotheses, and possible counter-examples while reading Kant, as with any philosopher. But I wouldn't turn such a question or a suspicion into an assertion without mastering the text, the author, and enough of the era.
But even *if* your assertion is true - that is, if Kant was just committed to the thought that the mind cannot ultimately have an empirical explanation, and merely contrived arguments to defend this founding assumption - the fact is that Kant still has arguments for it! Even if he was biased in this way, that doesn't automatically invalidate his arguments; they could still demonstrate what Kant wanted them to demonstrate about the mind's priority over nature, so they need to be addressed - otherwise you merely have a lousy appeal to Darwin's current popularity over Kant's. So it's just shallow for you to say
> The antinomies and explanation of our sensibility are inconsequential; I haven't been trying to refute Kant, but merely to show that his system lost its relevance when evolution revealed the assumptions behind it to be verifiably false.
because my point has been that evolution has *not* shown the falsity of Kant's view regarding the mind's priority over nature, regardless of whether his view was assumed at the start or concluded as his project advanced. Evolution occurs in time and space - but without an additional demonstration that time and space can exist apart from minds (which involves demonstrating the invalidity of Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic and antinomies), evolution and natural history don't threaten Kant's idealistic foundations. Schopenhauer saw this too - if your readings of him didn't include section 85 of "On Philosophy and Natural Science," then I'd strongly recommend it to you, as it bears on this issue directly. I haven't read Nietzsche yet.
kant was a deformed little manlet who never got any pussy, he obviously wacked it all the fucking time, dude needs to shut the fuck up
>>7771417
>they become the medium through which he increasingly adores himself
and eventually it goes so far that he becomes a fucking tranny who wants to fuck himself...i think the removal of any shame from thwacking it and massive amounts of porn at our fingertips is leading to the rise in trannyism and shutin neets
>>7771816
You mean the proper function of the mouth? And the direct satiation of the cells by the manner in which they were designed to be sated?
>>7771816
>a life without masturbation is comparable to death
>>7771828
>And the direct satiation of the cells by the manner in which they were designed to be sated?
So sexuality is not a natural part of the human bodet then?
>>7771836
Kindly describe to me the constructive function of whacking off; then, juxtapose that to the act of reproduction.
>>7771839
There's a shitload of research showing that masturbation is beneficial to health, you can google that yourself.
>>7771844
*tips*
>>7771844
Okay, now show man one man on earth who jerks off because it's "healthy".
also
>not providing sources for your statements
>>7771850
is that you butters?
>>7760598
source on this someone
>>7761453
The habit forming thing is the only true part, the stuff about self image only happens if you already think fapping is inherently degrading or some kind of submission of will.
>>7771884
Yeah, he seems like he'd be the last person on Earth to be against wanking.
>>7772672
Nietzsche wrote that it was probably bad for your creative energies, he passes no moral judgement on it though. He's more forceful in arguing against alcohol and even coffee in Ecce Homo. I forget where his aphorisms on wanking were, probably in Ecce Homo or human, all too human.
Wagner accused him of being a chronic masturbator after their friendship collapsed.
>>7771828
>proper function
>in which they were designed
How can you tell what is the "proper function" of something for which it was "designed"? What kind of design are you talking about?
>>7773861
Do you think evolution/God made sexual organs for internet pornography? Orgasm makes one feel euphoria, as a reward for procreating. Why would your body reward you for sitting alone in your room and jerking off?
>>7774236
In a creationist perspective, yeah, you can talk about God designing things with ends.
However there is no such thing in biology, we call something a "function" of a organ but it is just a way of speaking. In a purely materialistic view there is just a bunch of matter that behaves in a certain way just because, there is no evolution "making" something with an end in view. What we call a sexual organ is just matter that behaves in a way that when certain conditions are satisfied it makes a bunch of matter that we call a living organism pass through a process which we call "to be born", and that is just it.
>needlessly spilling your mana
Good luck writing that novel.
>>7762467
based Aquinas
