Sex

Is cybersex a sexual encounter? If you discover that your partner engages in it, is he/she cheating on you?

This is a nice question, and one variants of which have been turningup lately in the advice columns in newspapers. I don't have anyfirsthand experience of cybersex, but from what I understand, it is akind of virtual sex, involving assumed identities and purely electronicinteractions. So, is it a sexual encounter? I would say 'yes' and 'no'.On the 'yes' side, it is an encounter of some sort--it involvescommunication, back-and-forth response, mutual acknowledgment--and itclearly has a sexual content or character. On the 'no' side, it is notliterally sex, which would seem to require, at a minimum, physicalproximity and contact, and certainly it has little of the practicalconsequences or risks of literal sexual interaction. I suppose it iscloser to phone sex than it is to literal sex, but with greatershifting or concealing of identity. (I should say, for the record, thatmy knowledge ofphone sex comes only from Seinfeld episodes and Nicholson Baker's novel Vox !) Anyway, the answer to whether you are...

I was thinking, Is "absolutely nothing" logically possible? And I would just like to know what you would think of this argument. IF it is accepted that 1) "X is true if X corresponds to reality" then it would be logically impossible for "absolutely nothing" to exist. "Absolutely Nothing" implies no reality. If there is no reality then one can never say that "absolutely nothing" can exist, since "absolutely nothing" does not correspond to reality. But I ask you, if "absolutely nothing" is even possible. And if it is not possible, then what logical proofs are there. Thank you!

Assuming that in some sense no statement can be true unless it corresponds to reality or to how things are, which is not that bad a principle, the possibly true statement in question, note, is not, say, that absolutely nothing exists (which, as the other respondent suggests, has a tricky logical grammar), but most likely, that there being absolutely nothing is possible, or a possible state of affairs. Well, that might indeed be true, but then it does also correspond to reality, in the sense that reality, as we understand it, indeed contains or admits of that possibility.

Bonjour, I am considered an attractive 26 year old woman. I have at times been asked to model but never have. I find our culture's obsession with beauty unappealing and it has led me to sort of play down my beauty in dress. Should I be worried or at least concious of society and its issues around beauty? Or should I just strive to be the most beautiful I can be, disregarding other things, purely for the sake of aesthetics?

I don't disagree with the first respondent, but I'll give you a somewhat different response, and taking my cue from the 'Bonjour' with which you open, will give it en français. (If the cue was misleading, I'll be happy to translate subsequently!) Premièrement, la beauté est une chose rare et précieuse, et ceux ou celles qui s'en réjouissent ne devrait jamais se sentir coupable à son égard. Deuxièmement, même si la beauté n'était qu'une affaire d'esthétique, qui dit que l'esthétique est moins importante que l'éthique, ou que l'esthétique ne comprend pas, d'une certaine optique, un aspect éthique? (Certainement pas Kant!) Troisièmement, personne n'arrive vraiment à négliger ou à nier complètement les valeurs de la societé entourante; de plus, ces valeurs ne sont jamais avec du moins une certaine justification. Quatrièmement, c'est vrai que la beauté ouvre beaucoup de portes qui autrement resteraient fermées, mais ce n'est pas la sagesse de refuser d'y entrer pour cette raison seule; on n'a que d'y entrer...

Am I correct to think that learning one's native language greatly is the best method to becoming an intelligent, much thinking person? For it seems to me that words relate one to reality (to the extent that one can become related to reality). As I learn new words each day (I buy books similar to Merriam-Websters Vocabulary Builder and read them daily, among other books), I feel as though they are figuratively unlocking doors to new thoughts that were not accessible by my mind without the words. Is this a fact: one is literally superior in thought (not in an imaginative sense) to one without the words the former knows? Or am I an arrogant charlatan, and think I am better for just knowing some words? Or, better yet, why are words so powerful? Could you please recommend some books that elucidate the answer to my questions?

I think you are correct to think that expanding one's vocabulary expands one's ability to think, because it expands one's ability to formulate thoughts of greater complexity and sensitizes one to subtle distinctions one may not otherwise have noted. It also makes one's thinking and communication more efficient, if one is able to deploy 'flange', rather than 'something that sticks out from something else with some purpose or other...', and or to categorize someone as 'pusillanimous', rather than as 'someone who behaves in such and such ways...' Relatedly, one of the fascinations of learning other languages is becoming more aware of the distinctions and categories recognized in one's own language, which are not always the same as those recognized in other languages. Both expanding one's grasp of one's native language and acquiring facility in other languages is in effect a way of becoming more aware of one's conceptual scheme, or perhaps equivalently, of alternate ways of dividing and organizing reality....

I've heard it said that philosophers as a demographic are overwhelmingly single (in the unmarried sense). I don't know if this is true, but if it is, could it be because love and reason conflict? For example, if your lover has a habit of losing valuable items, locking him/herself out of the house, etc., practical reason forces you to confront them with suggestions implying "you ought to be better - I'm telling you how you should be better", a suggestion which is often infuriating to someone who's supposed to be in an equal relationship with you. Love, on the other hand, urges you to look with forgiveness and even humor on your significant other's faults. Given these consequences, if you're agreed that love and reason pull us in these separate directions, shouldn't humanity focus on love and forgo reason?

I think it's true that philosophers tend to be single more often than non-philosophers, but I'm not sure I would attribute that to their being bound by the dictates of practical reason to regularly and overtly draw the attention of their partners to their moral or prudential failings. It may rather be, perhaps, that philosophers are on the average more argumentative, more idiosyncratic, more perfectionist than other folk, and more needful of personal time and private space for reflection and writing. But going back to reason, I think there's no good argument that a commitment to rationality, which we'll assume no respectable philosopher will shirk, requires one to act as a monitor and corrector of those around one, especially those one loves, since as you suggest, love is more important than being right or improving others. That isn't to say that you should never try to modify the behavior of others for the better by your own, presumably fallible, lights, and in ways that will also benefit them,...