Is Philosophy Erotic?

Is Philosophy Erotic?

Plato certainly thought so: the Symposium is all about sex and philosophy, Eros and Logos. He believed that the two things are deeply intertwined but that the connection is obscure.  This is another iteration of the mind-body problem: the erotic body and the intellectual mind. Plato thought that the connection indubitably exists but that it is a mystery what the connection is—and he was right about that. It is not at all obvious, to put it mildly, that sex and philosophy hook up in some deep (or even superficial) way; on the contrary, they could not be more different. Sex is animalistic and corporeal while philosophy is godlike and spiritual. What have the genitals (the seat of sex) got to do with the brain (the seat of reason)? How can the one be the other? To be sure, we love philosophy and we love sex, but these seem like completely different kinds of love—what could unite them? How can love of logic be a case of love of body (anatomy and physiology)? Perhaps we can see a connection or overlap if we accept Plato’s philosophy: in philosophy we seek knowledge of the Good, a Form of inestimable value, and in sex we seek something we find especially good, the beautiful body (the form) of another human being. If we personify the Forms, likening them to gods, we can see how being attracted to them is like being smitten with another person—we want to “get with” both, passionately, intimately. But what if we don’t accept Plato’s theory of the Forms and the glowing sexiness of the Good? Then the analogy, the subsumption, seems to disappear. We could fall in love with the perfect godlike Form of the Good, but not if there is no such thing. Then the erotic conception of philosophy falls flat. Is there another way to vindicate the Platonic theory?

We must begin at the beginning: what is sex anyway? This question is much harder than it seems. You might think it is easy: sex is an activity of the genitals. But this is neither necessary nor sufficient. It is not necessary because the erotic is not confined to the genitals; we also have the lips, breasts, hands, feet, and rear end. And other activities are commonly regarded as having an erotic edge: dancing (ballet, ballroom, hip-hop), cooking and eating, gymnastics, music, painting, pottery, massage, etc. Eros has a hand in things beyond the genitals. It is also not sufficient, because there are activities involving the genitals that are not sexual: urination, medical examination, washing, photographing, and even playing silly games. The genitals are employed sexually only under certain conditions and they are what confer sexuality on the proceedings. It is even possible to experience the erotic without any involvement of the body, as in sexual fantasy; you could engage in this and have no genitals (or even a body). Sex is something more psychological, but what it is remains elusive. For present purposes, I will not attempt any further analysis, except to say that sex is the encroachment of the world on the body and soul—a certain sort of impact or interaction. It is a breaking of boundaries, an invasion of the self, experienced erotically, whatever that is. What we do know is that it is passionate, intimate, enveloping, and pleasant (generally); we are prepared to give up a lot for it. So, let’s just say that sex is erotic and leave it at that; you know it when you feel it. The question is whether philosophy is also erotic, and if so how. We know the erotic is not confined to the organs of reproduction, so it can in principle be true that philosophy is erotic without involving these organs. Maybe philosophy could cause erections in some people, but that is not necessary for it to qualify as erotic. We need something more abstract, more general, more spiritual.

I have two (connected) ideas: one about logic, the other about immortality. Philosophy uses logic to derive conclusions; it is a logic-heavy discipline. But logic resembles procreation in that both involve a purposive sequence of moves leading to a desired conclusion: in logic it is a proposition, in sex it is copulation or babies.[1] The conclusion follows from the sequence; it leads up to it. Entailment is like procreation. Logical argument reminds us of procreation; it is sexy in that way. So, when we hear a logical argument, we are put in mind (perhaps unconsciously) of the sexual act. We can be in the grip of a logical argument and we can be in the grip of sexual passion; both motivate, compel. It is like witnessing a sexual act, or performing one if the logical action is solitary. You can watch someone else do it or you can do it yourself. Logic is mesmerizing, as sex is—they both get your attention and hold onto it. So, the method of philosophy resembles the method of orgasm (or baby) production. There is an orderly sequence, a desired end-point.[2] But this is not the primary point of similarity (though it should not be underestimated): the crux of the matter turns on the connection to immortality (a Platonic theme). For both involve immortality through reproduction implicating other people. We long to live beyond our allotted span, to survive our biological death; sex and philosophy make this possible. Sex does it by natural genetic reproduction; and let us remember it concerns the soul as well as the body—we want our soul to go on. Our children are our means of achieving immortality. Philosophy does it by means of teaching: linguistic intercourse not genital intercourse. You pass on your ideas to others who in turn pass them onto others. Plato immortalized himself this way. Books provide a convenient vehicle for intellectual immortality. Sex and philosophizing are both reproductive acts, forays into the future, means of cheating death. They are anti-death. And we love what defeats death. We are passionate about achieving immortality. We strive to make it so. It gets our juices flowing. You want immortality? Then get busy with sex and philosophy! You will love it, I guarantee. Thus, we are erotically drawn to sex and philosophy, whatever “erotic” means exactly (that warm eager absorbing feeling). You love what makes you immortal; it turns you on, gets the motor running. Hence, sexual romance and intellectual romance. The great thing about this explanation is that it appeals to a profoundly powerful human desire—the desire not to die. Your thoughts will go on, in addition to your face and walk.

An objection zooms into view (oh no, things were going so well!): doesn’t the same reasoning apply to things other than philosophy—science, literature, recipes, dance moves, etc.? It does, but this is nothing to get worked up about, because the same desire is answered by these things too. Plato didn’t have our narrow conception of philosophy in mind when he enunciated his erotic view; he meant knowledge in general. All teachers are erotically drawn to their calling, according to the present theory: they all love truth (as they see it) and promulgating it. Education is knowledge transmission across generations. So, does anything distinguish philosophy from these other occupations? Yes, the role of logic: logic itself is erotically charged because of its resemblance to the procreative act, but we can also say that logical argument affords a special kind of immortality. Consider St Anselm’s ontological argument: Anselm himself is alive in this argument; he lives on in it. It isn’t like discovering a particular geographical fact or disease; it’s an aspect of him. He lives on not just an idea of his. To take another example, the soul of Berkeley lives on in his logical arguments; we feel we know him (ditto Locke and Hume). Philosophy is thus more personal than other subjects, more bound up with the self. It isn’t as detached as science or cookery. Also, we instinctively feel that logical argument has a special kind of value, being the very framework of rational thought. We value rationality highly, rightly so, so we celebrate logical productions; they give us a buzz or tingle or throb. We are touched by them, as if for the very first time. We feel Eros swelling inside when we contemplate them. At any rate, for those of us with a taste for philosophy, logic is especially prized and desired. We are like lovers who especially admire a well-turned ankle (not everyone can see why this is so damn sexy). We philosophers love not just truth but logical truth; it gives us a peculiar intense thrill. We find it beautiful, exhilarating. Oh, modus ponens!

Plato was basically right, even though he struggled to identify the erotic component of philosophy (he was too entranced by those glittering other-worldly Forms). Phenomenologically, we feel the tug of Eros in Logos; we feel our mind expanding and warming. We feel that pull, that irresistible attraction. Our interlocutors are our partners in intellectual procreation; our theories are our babies. We have intellectual romances. We enjoy nothing more than a good lecture. Our seminars are like group sex—full of trepidation and triumph (also failure). Winning an argument is like a sexual conquest. We nurture our intellectual offspring. We yearn for the immortality provided by disciples. The atmosphere is charged with erotic tension. It can even get in the way of good old-fashioned sexual intercourse! It can feel like infidelity. It is our beloved yet demanding mistress. Socrates may have been ugly, but he was a marvelous intellectual companion. Talking to him was like having a mind massage, or a bit of rough and tumble, a roll in the intellectual hay. Intercourse with Socrates was always stimulating. You could forget his physical ugliness in the beauty of his mind and come to love him. He was the most desirable man in Athens, to men and women alike. Socrates was Eros personified (and yet he spurned ordinary sex, we are told). The truly erotic exists on the mental or intellectual plane; the bodily kind is a pale simulacrum. At any rate, the truly erotic person finds time for both.[3]

[1] See my “Sexual Logic”.

[2] I like the idea of the sexual Cogito: I copulate; therefore, babies exist (you can supply your own vernacular version). The deduction is actually not that far from the classic Cogito, given its logical shakiness. There is an inner logic to the procreative act. It is written into our genes as much as logic is. We are born knowing how to reason, and we are born knowing how to procreate. Maybe the latter turned into the former at a certain point in evolutionary history. Who knows?

[3] Bertrand Russell is a good example: his love of logic and mathematics and his more human loves. Principia Mathematica is pure pornography. Jim Joyce had nothing on Bert Russell. Fred Ayer was famous for his erotical positivism. Old Ari was noted for his syllogistic prowess, or so Mrs. Ari reports. Philosophy and sex go naturally together, though puritanical types want to keep them apart. Philosophy succeeds sex in human development, but it builds on it, draws from it. Philosophy is sex (Eros) intellectualized.