Body-language and nonverbal communication

Sex and moral

 

 

 

 

Sex and moral

Relating to my post on Petraeus and the issue of sex and politics in the US, I want to put it in another way: to have this love affair, Petraeus as well as others who did the same (men or women), proof the fact that moral categories never can win against love and sex in this way.

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant was convinced that being rational, man can suppress love and sex by his rational conviction. Here ………………a short definition:

The categorical imperative is the main focus in the moral philosophy of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. It is said to be a way of evaluating motivations for action of man.

” According to Kant, human beings occupy a special place in creation, and morality can be summed up in one ultimate commandment of reason, or imperative, from which all duties and obligations derive. He defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary.

Hypothetical imperatives apply to someone dependent on them having certain ends:

  • if I wish to quench my thirst, I must drink something;
  • if I wish to acquire knowledge, I must learn.

A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that asserts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.…..”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_Imperative

In contrast to this life as well as psychology, psychoanalysis and science proof that Kant was and is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis

If you are more interested in this approach have a look here at Wilhelm Reichs works……

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich

….and the orgastic potenca of man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich#Orgastic_potency

0 comments
Submit comment