Nominalism on Steroids

If as the libertines insist sex has no inherent meaning of its own regardless of what we might think, then it can mean “only” whatever we happen to think. Say with modernity that it were so. In the first place, then, a sexual act that had been at first understood by the participants as agreeable, and indeed urgently desired by all of them, might later be understood retrospectively by one or another as rape (or vice versa, for that matter); and no assessment of its sexual meaning at any time, by any one, could be rightly construed as in any sense true. But in the second, the inherent meaninglessness of the sexual act would entail the utter vacuity of the term “rape,” as denoting a peculiarly sexual crime. Rape would then be an empty category, and reduce to the more basic, asexual category  of assault.

But assault is likewise vulnerable to a similar nominalist reduction to morally meaningless contact: not inherently problematic, but only subjectively so. I.e., not really problematic at all. It’s just atoms meaninglessly hurrying about, nothing more.

Under a nominalist epistemology, no juridical procedure then can ever arrive at a verdict that can be properly characterized as such – as, literally, a true speech (vere dictum). If there’s no truth about acts in the first place, such truths cannot be apprehended or spoken of, nor therefore may there be any justice done about them. But if justice be impossible, so is society. All that is then available to us from each other is war.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

4 thoughts on “Nominalism on Steroids

  1. Pingback: Nominalism on Steroids | Neoreactive

  2. Pingback: Nominalism on Steroids | Reaction Times

  3. Sex is a very special category of things even for a wise secular, naturalistic or evolution-oriented person – because it is not an inherently egalitarian act, but something like power exchange. It is about someone’s body getting conquered by someone’s organ. The penetrated person enjoys a submissive, the penetrator a dominant trip. It drives home the idea that dominant-submissive relations are not accidental but essential to even the creation of life – there is a reason testosterone is both a dominance hormone and a sex hormone, it seems for many men being able to get it up and having some kind of a power trip are inherently linked. And for a woman it is a very sensitive thing what man to trust and when with basically temporarily handing control over the privacy and autonomy of her body to him.

    In short, sex simply puts a lie to the modern liberal idea that personal autonomy and happiness are inherently linked. In our happiest, most ecstatic moments, a woman hands over autonomy over her body and being to a man, who proudly accepts that gift. And that is how both ecstasy and babies are made. Autonomy or freedom or equality has hardly any comparable experiences to offer.

    And this view I summarized here is not even Christian – it is that basic naturalistic and hedonistic Roman-Viking pagan view you can try to build a Christian view on top of, but it is not in itself that.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.