Philosophy Sexualized

Philosophy Sexualized

The basic fact of biology is reproduction; everything is centered around it. Animals live to reproduce. Reproduction is brought about by means of sex, in nearly all cases. The urge to reproduce is probably the strongest force in biology; it is the gravity of life, only a lot stronger. Prior to reproductive age, the organism is in preparation for that stage—building up to it. This is how genes make it into the next generation. Thus, sex is pivotal and prioritized. By “sex” here I don’t mean the bare copulatory act; I mean the whole process by which reproduction is achieved—courtship, copulation, conception, gestation, birth, and upbringing. We might better call it procreation, but I will stick to “sex” understood in this broad sense—copulation and its accessories. No doubt copulation is the heart and soul of the matter, the sine qua non, but we don’t want to limit ourselves to the isolated act. We are talking about reproduction-by-means-of-sex. And let us remind ourselves that sex is the intermingling of genes by means of physical contact between a male and a female, subject to species differences. Propinquity of bodies and transmission of semen—that kind of thing. It is a physical interaction. Naturally, this has a psychological component in more advanced organisms, so the mind too will be heavily engaged in the sexual act; it will be a desired act requiring detailed knowledge. We might even conjecture that it will be psychologically central—a preoccupation or obsession or compulsion. It will trade on other psychological capacities, generally pre-dating the copulatory act—perceptual, emotional, and cognitive. The organism will be psychologically (and physically) designed to perform the act efficiently and effectively when the time comes. It will have a sexually oriented psyche. It may not always have sexual desires and intentions, but it will have a mind that equips it to perform sexually in the right circumstances. That is what the genes have built it to do, and they have an intense interest in getting things right (their lives depend on it). Sex is what enables the genes to propagate down the generations; we can be sure they have planned it meticulously. Animal life is sexual through and through. This includes us and we are often regarded as the most sexual of species; we are always up for it and strongly invested in it. Our minds and bodies are sex machines (though not mechanical ones). We are set up for sex, body and soul.

What does this have to do with philosophy?[1] Well, our various faculties are designed with sex in mind, so understanding these faculties will require acknowledging their sexual origins and functions. Here I will invert Freud: he took sex to pre-date puberty and to be the source of much of our (apparently) non-sexual motivation, but I think that our non-sexual faculties are designed with later sex in mind. That is, the child is equipped with faculties whose later career will be straightforwardly sexual; these faculties are not themselves instances of sexual desire or need. The penis is not sexual in its pre-pubertal incarnation, but it is obviously there as a preparation for later sexual deployment; you wouldn’t want to have to create one from scratch when puberty comes around (the same goes for the vagina). Nature (the genes) have installed the sex organs ab initio—sex is what they are for—even though they do not yet perform this function at the time of installation. Similarly for the senses: their primary task is to serve the process of reproduction, but they exist before that time arrives. You might think that they serve other vital functions before the sexual function kicks in, such as food gathering; but they really exist in the later service of sex, since eating without procreating spells species extinction. Animals eat so they can fornicate, this being the prime directive. If eating were not essential to fornicating, it would not exist (eating is very time and energy consuming). On the other hand, if the senses were useless when it came to reproduction, the animal would go extinct. Procreation depends on senses that serve the purpose of sexual activity. Thus, the philosophy of perception must accept the fact that the senses are sexually oriented; this is really their entire point, biologically considered. Of course, they can serve other purposes, but their raison d’etre lies in successful reproduction. They are certainly not sexually irrelevant or peripheral. Take the acute olfactory sense of a dog: this is set up primarily for mating, though it also helps with eating. The vision of birds is set up for spotting potential mates, though it can also help with food gathering. Human vision is also geared to identifying mates, though it too has other uses. Given that reproduction is the name of the biological game, animal faculties will be designed so as to enable them to play that game, first and foremost.

The same thing applies to knowledge in general: concupiscence is the point and purpose of the exercise. Knowledge of the whole reproductive cycle is essential in the case of higher organisms, so epistemology should recognize this fact; it is arguably the original home of knowledge. For this to be possible there has to be a general faculty of knowledge acting as a prelude to adult sexual knowledge, but this faculty exists because of its role in procreation. Consciousness is the same: sexual consciousness is basic. You can’t do sex without consciousness, not in the higher animals anyway, so the capacity had better be installed. It is an adaptation designed to facilitate the sexual act, inter alia. One might even say that consciousness is essentially sexual at its core. Language and meaning follow suit: they exist as auxiliaries to sex, tools to get it done. Language is an adaptation designed to promote sex, enabling persuasion and communication. It exists because it makes sex easier: the better you are at it, the more sex you will have. A human possessing a pathetically primitive language will not get far in the sexual arena, which is why all human languages are sophisticated not primitive (and no peacocks have dowdy tails). The will is also sexually engaged in obvious ways: animals act so as to further their sexual goals, planning and conniving, cavorting and fighting. They can’t afford to laze around if they want their genes to be passed on. Procreative acts are front and center. The philosophy of action therefore needs to advert to sex (with some eating on the side). It isn’t all raising your arm and closing the door. What about philosophy of mathematics? Surely, number came to be important because of counting offspring, not merely random objects, so arithmetic has its origin in the reproductive process—the family. Aesthetics also connects closely with sex, because we use our aesthetic sense to assess potential mates; it goes beyond that but it is originally drawn from that well. Questions of identity also feature in procreative contexts: animals need to keep track of their offspring and mates, so as not to confuse them with others. The topic of personal identity arises because of its importance to family relations, including sexual partners. Many animals are remarkably good at reidentifying their mates after long separation, and they can distinguish their offspring from pretenders. Ethics is also about what we owe to others, particular others, and who is to get what. Sexual morality, for its part, is commonly regarded as central to morality. So, ethics must recognize sex in its cogitations, as all world religions do. The general point is that our basic mental faculties are bound up with sex in one way or another. Our very conceptual scheme (our metaphysics) has sexual elements: who belongs to what species, the organic and inorganic, the nature of causation and creation, mind and body, natural laws, existence, change, and so on. We might almost say that sex is lurking in the unconscious of philosophy, shyly remaining under cover. Philosophy, as commonly practiced, ostentatiously avoids the topic of sex, except in limited X-rated areas (like the philosophy of sex). Even the philosophy of space and time is covertly sexual: they have to be carefully negotiated in the project of sexual reproduction. Because sex is so central to life as we know it, it crops up everywhere. It is the susurrating background. Sex is the reason we are as we are (and similarly for other species), so it is central to human nature; philosophy takes its rise from human nature, especially as it relates to other things. Biology brings the organism and the world together (hence the notion of environment), and so does philosophy. Organisms are essentially sexual entities, so biology treats them that way; philosophy should do the same. I don’t mean explicitly and all the time; I mean as a background assumption. The proper meta-philosophy is sexual philosophy (this doesn’t exclude other meta-philosophies). It is a matter of fundamental attitude and orientation. The linguistic philosopher says “Pay attention to the language”; the biological philosopher says “Pay attention to the biology”. The main event in language is use; the main event in living is sex (broadly construed). The speech act and the copulatory act as philosophical touchstones. To be is to be the value of a sexual variable (nice slogan).[2]

[1] The present paper follows on from some earlier papers of mine: “Amatory Knowledge”, “Sex and Philosophy”, “Common Knowledge and Sex”, “The Sexual Gene”.

[2] Humans tend to lie down for sex, which is unknown in the animal kingdom. This is particularly odd because we are upright animals. Does this make us paradoxical creatures? (Discuss.)