Homosexuality, Nihilism, and Religion
After Orlando massacre, an Afghan-American citizen killing more than 50 of homosexuals in a gay club, I asked
myself how I think about homosexuality, first, as a philosopher reflecting
on a sexual practice or orientation, second, as a lover of religions: from
Taoism to Islam. It is obvious that I am
abhorred and dismayed at this atrocious action. Killing people amass is cruel and ungodly. We shouldn't play the role of God, without God's wisdom. Critique and advice are different from coercion
and exclusion. In this note, I wish to
reflect on this loaded and sensitive topic and pray to God to guide me in the right path.
If I lived in a community of believers in any country, I couldn’t speak openly about
homosexuality as there is a sense of taboo and apathy to homosexuals. If I lived, as I do, in a liberal and mostly
atheist community, again it is difficult to talk about homosexuality for
reverse reasons, if I say anything against it, I will encounter resentment,
boycott, and exclusion. So, I put my
trust in the wisdom and awe of God and think and speak as it comes true to me,
disregarding human approval, chastisement, and rejection.
My theses are these:
1)
We can’t morally reject or approve homosexuality according to
naturalistic fallacy.
2)
We create a feedback loop by, first, homosexuals falling
into hedonism, nihilism, and existential despair due to the fact that they feel that they don't belong to any community, and by reacting harshly to homosexuals, we push
them into debauchery and nihilism.
3)
Homosexual and heterosexual nihilism differ in their
self-perception and comportment in the world.
I reflect on how all these variations are destructive. And by discussing Socrates’ views, I try to find
a way out of this dead-end: how we all can reconnect to our source.
4)
Religions reject lewdness and excess and to that extent homosexual
as well as heterosexual excess and corruption are denounced. However, religions have to differentiate
between homosexuality as a natural tendency and corruption as such, and leave
room for homosexuals to experience a sense of belonging.
Homosexuality As a Sexual Orientation
When
I look at the rainbow flag of homosexuals, it comes to my mind that homosexuals
wish to be considered as a color among colors, a natural tendency among all
natural tendencies. It is the same in
all species, we can observe same sex practices in different animals. Let’s accept the assumption or observation
that homosexual behavior is found
among social birds and mammals, particularly the sea mammals and the primates. For these animals, there is documented evidence of homosexual behavior of one or more of the following kinds: sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting, as noted in researcher and author Bruce Bagemihl's 1999 book Biological
Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species and the motivations for and implications of their behaviors have
yet to be fully understood. Bagemihl's research shows that homosexual behavior,
not necessarily sex, has
been documented in about 500 species as of 1999, ranging from primates to gut worms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
Assuming that animals show homoeroticism, it doesn’t imply that we,
humans, have to follow the path of animals.
This is usually called "naturalistic fallacy," which means that we should not draw ethical implications from the way things are factually. Long while ago, Hume meaningfully cut
off the relation between “is” and “ought”, namely Hume's guillotine. And Moore’s open-question argument also made
an interesting claim that we, as humans and not animals, can ask the goodness
of so many behaviors that might be considered “natural,” such as “is vegetarianism
morally good?”, “is homosexuality morally good?”. The point is that moral questions are
open-questions, not closed questions similar to conceptual analytic questions
such as “vegetarians don’t eat meat” which is analytically closed. In another word, we need to elaborate the
meaning of “moral good” according to some grid of intelligibility. Homosexuals may argue that their case is also
a closed-question: as vegetarians don’t eat meat is a closed-question,
homosexuals also can’t help but being drawn to the same sex. So, there is no point to ask the moral
question about it.
My thesis is based on this question: under what social-ethical-spiritual conditions can we cause minimum damage to the soul of individuals in society, heterosexual or homosexual? What kind of attitude towards homosexuality encourages us to the cultivation of our souls, rather than lewdness and downfall? So, even if we take homosexuality as an inevitable natural disposition for some individuals, there can be a spectrum of moral positions about it.
My thesis is based on this question: under what social-ethical-spiritual conditions can we cause minimum damage to the soul of individuals in society, heterosexual or homosexual? What kind of attitude towards homosexuality encourages us to the cultivation of our souls, rather than lewdness and downfall? So, even if we take homosexuality as an inevitable natural disposition for some individuals, there can be a spectrum of moral positions about it.
One might take empirical accounts as the measure of moral good,
similar to Mill who takes “pleasure” as the measure of moral good. Some like Kant, take the a priori law of reason (rational ground) as the measure of moral
good. So, in discussing moral good we
have to talk about perspective or point of view. What point of view do I hold about morality
if I am a stoic? What gestalt
disposition do I hold if I am an epicurean?
What is the state of my soul if I am a hedonist, for whom pleasure is
the only measure of moral good?
The other question is: how would I behave if I take pleasure as
the measure of moral good? How would I
organize the economy of my energy if I am a stoic? How would I direct my attention if I believe
my ethical comport is connected to universe and the divine? The question of motivation or internal disposition
is not separate from one’s behavior. So,
there is no absolute gap between the internal and external, between “a priori
maxims” or presuppositions and their social outcome. Given these brief considerations, one may ask
two different questions on the same ground of internal perspective (emotional-spiritual-belief-investment) and/or the external-behavioral effect of those emotional-belief investments.
I wish to emphasize a point here. I don’t take “belief” as something that
happens in our mind or brain only as a reductive physiological-chemical
stimulus or a property of the mind. So,
I am hesitant to use the word “belief” about moral choices as it can be
misleading. Moral beliefs change the
energy of our eyes, the way we look at the world. Any organization of our internal energy based
on certain moral dictum makes us expectant to seeing the world in certain ways
and form certain beliefs about it.
We usually come to our senses, if we are lucky enough, when we are
struck with “truth”. The difficulty is
that we assume, following the moral relativism of our time, that ethical truths
are subjective. I hold that ethical
truths are not subjective, and following Socrates, I also reject the sophists’
view that “man is the measure of truth”.
The organization of our moral energy can be [self-]destructive, not only
physically in terms of survival, but also spiritually, if you wish, in terms of
Nirvana, Heaven (T’ien), or Salvation.
So the questions would be:
a) What gestalt disposition, what kind of selfhood, I would
experience if I am a homosexual or heterosexual person who believes:
1)
Our existence here on this planet is a chance event, physical-chemical
interactions of dead particles, disconnected from a divine source or universe,
nihilistic and meaningless. That there
is no divine self in us, but the soul is only the manifestations of selfish
genes, or determinate historical practices.
2)
And if I am homosexual and I believe that I
have a divine soul whose ethical practices are connected to the divine or
universe but being told constantly that I am evil and an aberrant that has to
be lynched, killed, stoned, or rejected.
And hence to be pushed to the first option: hedonism, debauchery,
nihilism, and [self-]destruction.
AND:
b) How would I behave, to
put it concretely, how would be the organization and direction of the energy of
my eyes, ears, smell, and touch, heart and spirit, my comportment in the world,
if I hold:
1)
Our existence here on this planet is a chance event, physical-chemical
interactions of dead particles, disconnected from a divine source or universe,
nihilistic and meaningless. That there
is no divine self in us, but the soul is only the manifestations of selfish
genes, or determinate historical practices.
2)
And if I am homosexual and I believe that I
have a divine soul whose ethical practices are connected to the divine or universe
but being told that I am evil and an aberrant that has to be lynched, killed,
stoned, or rejected. And hence to be
pushed to the first option: hedonism, debauchery, nihilism, and
[self-]destruction.
Socrates and Alcibiades
In Symposium, Plato tells
the story of some distinguished thinkers speaking about love. What a supreme topic and what a wonderful
piece of writing! I won’t discuss the
whole book here, but only the part that Socrates and Alcibiades speak, because
what and how they are, speak about, and show their love addresses and gives us some
epistemological/ethical indicator to reflect on above questions. What is the relation between Alcibiades and
Socrates? From the story we can say
there is a kind of “love” relation between them, or homoeroticism, at least
from Alcibiades side. It is a common
place now that in Greek antiquity a special kind of love between older men and youths was permitted or even glorified.
Symposium indeed includes
homosexual love.
Let’s see what gestalt disposition, what kind of selfhood,
Socrates and Alcibiades have. And how
they behave, to put it concretely, how is the organization and direction of the
energy of their eyes, ears, smell, and touch, heart and spirit, their
comportment in the world.
To get a sense of Socrates’ disposition, we should hear his
conclusion about what love is, which he learned from a mythical woman, Diotima of Mantineia, “a woman wise in this and
in many other kinds of knowledge, who in the days of old, when the Athenians
offered sacrifice before the coming of the plague, delayed the disease ten
years.” Socrates continues:
“'What
then is Love?' I asked; 'Is he mortal?' 'No.' 'What then?' 'As in the former
instance, he is neither mortal nor immortal, but in a mean between the two.' 'What
is he, Diotima?' 'He is a great spirit
(daimon), and like all spirits he is intermediate between the divine and the
mortal.' 'And what,' I said, 'is his power?' 'He interprets,' she replied,
'between gods and men, conveying and taking across to the gods the prayers and
sacrifices of men, and to men the commands and replies of the gods; he is the
mediator who spans the chasm which divides them, and therefore in him all is
bound together, and through him the arts of the prophet and the priest, their
sacrifices and mysteries and charms, and all prophecy and incantation, find
their way. For God mingles not with man; but through Love all the
intercourse and converse of God with man, whether awake or asleep, is carried
on. The wisdom which understands this is spiritual; all other wisdom, such as
that of arts and handicrafts, is mean and vulgar.”
Then she asks Socrates: 'if this be the nature of love, can you tell me
further,' she said, 'what is the manner of the pursuit? what are they doing who
show all this eagerness and heat which is called love? and what is the object
which they have in view? Answer me.' And
later she responds to her question:
“'I mean to say, that all
men are bringing to the birth in their bodies and in their souls. There is a
certain age at which human nature is desirous of procreation--procreation which
must be in beauty and not in deformity; and this procreation is the union of
man and woman, and is a divine thing; for conception and generation are an
immortal principle in the mortal creature, and in the inharmonious they can
never be.”
“For
love, Socrates, is not, as you imagine, the love of the beautiful only.' 'What
then?' 'The love of generation and of birth in beauty.' 'Yes,' I said. 'Yes,
indeed,' she replied. 'But why of generation?' 'Because to the mortal creature,
generation is a sort of eternity and immortality,' she replied; 'and if, as has
been already admitted, love is of the everlasting possession of the good, all
men will necessarily desire immortality together with good: Wherefore love is
of immortality.'”
Then Diotima asks Socrates to hold his very best attention to hear
her theory of ascending love:
"He who from these ascending under the influence of true love, begins to
perceive that beauty, is not far from the end. And the true order of going, or
being led by another, to the things of love, is to begin from the beauties of
earth and mount upwards for the sake of that other beauty, using these as steps
only, and from one going on to two, and from two to all fair forms, and from
fair forms to fair practices, and from fair practices to fair notions, until
from fair notions he arrives at the notion of absolute beauty, and at last
knows what the essence of beauty is. This, my dear Socrates,' said the stranger
of Mantineia, 'is that life above all others which man should live, in the
contemplation of beauty absolute; a beauty which if you once beheld, you would
see not to be after the measure of gold, and garments, and fair boys and
youths, whose presence now entrances you; and you and many a one would be
content to live seeing them only and conversing with them without meat or
drink, if that were possible--you only want to look at them and to be with them.
But what if man had eyes to see the true beauty--the divine beauty, I mean, pure
and clear and unalloyed, not clogged with the pollutions of mortality and all
the colours and vanities of human life--thither looking, and holding converse
with the true beauty simple and divine? Remember how in that communion only,
beholding beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth,
not images of beauty, but realities (for he has hold not of an image but of a
reality), and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of
God and be immortal, if mortal man may. Would that be an ignoble life?'"
What gestalt disposition and selfhood does Socrates depict in this
story? Pay attention, he includes love
of beautiful bodies and homoeroticism too, but he declares that one has to
transcend them to the highest beauty rather than being stuck at the
sensational-aesthetic level—a barren stagnated love, if it is not for
procreation, ought not to be satisfied-- and from here we have the expression:
Platonic Love.
It is not strange that exactly at this point, as Martha Nussbaum
noticed, the drunk Alcibiades enters the Symposium. It is a confrontation between concrete desire
of sexual and sensual pleasure, a particular love versus Socratic divine and
universal love.
"A little while afterwards
they heard the voice of Alcibiades resounding in the court; he was in a great
state of intoxication, and kept roaring and shouting 'Where is Agathon? Lead me
to Agathon,' and at length, supported by the flute-girl and some of his
attendants, he found his way to them. 'Hail, friends,' he said, appearing at
the door crowned with a massive garland of ivy and violets, his head flowing
with ribands."
What is Alcibiades’ gestalt disposition, what kind of selfhood does he
experience? And how would he behave, to
put it concretely, how would be the organization and direction of the energy of
his eyes, ears, smell, and touch, heart and spirit, his comportment in the
world? Alcibiades says he would speak
the truth about the selfhood of Socrates and his own:
"Socrates
makes me confess that I ought not to live as I do, neglecting the wants of my
own soul, and busying myself with the concerns of the Athenians; therefore I
hold my ears and tear myself away from him. And he is the only person who ever
made me ashamed, which you might think not to be in my nature, and there is no
one else who does the same. For I know that I cannot answer him or say that I
ought not to do as he bids, but when I leave his presence the love of
popularity gets the better of me. And therefore I run away and fly from him,
and when I see him I am ashamed of what I have confessed to him. Many a time
have I wished that he were dead, and yet I know that I should be much more
sorry than glad, if he were to die: so that I am at my wit's end….."
"Is
he not like a Silenus in this? To be sure he is: his outer mask is the carved
head of the Silenus; but, O my companions in drink, when he is opened, what
temperance there is residing within! Know
you that beauty and wealth and honor, at which the many wonder, are of no
account with him, and are utterly despised by him: he regards not at all the
persons who are gifted with them; mankind are nothing to him; all his life is
spent in mocking and flouting at them. But when I opened him, and looked within
at his serious purpose, I saw in him divine and golden images of such
fascinating beauty that I was ready to do in a moment whatever Socrates
commanded: they may have escaped the observation of others, but I saw them."
And
then Alcibiades tells the story of Socrates character. After several attempts, he says, he could
finally persuade Socrates to stay a night with him:
"When
the lamp was put out and the servants had gone away, I thought that I must be
plain with him and have no more ambiguity. So I gave him a shake, and I said:
'Socrates, are you asleep?' 'No,' he said. 'Do you know what I am meditating?
'What are you meditating?' he said. 'I think,' I replied, 'that of all the
lovers whom I have ever had you are the only one who is worthy of me, and you
appear to be too modest to speak. Now I feel that I should be a fool to refuse
you this or any other favour, and therefore I come to lay at your feet all that
I have and all that my friends have, in the hope that you will assist me in the
way of virtue, which I desire above all things, and in which I believe that you
can help me better than anyone else. And I should certainly have more reason to
be ashamed of what wise men would say if I were to refuse a favour to such as
you, than of what the world, who are mostly fools, would say of me if I granted
it.'"
"To these words he replied in the ironical manner which is so
characteristic of him:--'Alcibiades, my friend, you have indeed an elevated aim
if what you say is true, and if there really is in me any power by which you
may become better; truly you must see in me some rare beauty of a kind
infinitely higher than any which I see in you. And therefore, if you mean to
share with me and to exchange beauty for beauty, you will have greatly the
advantage of me; you will gain true beauty in return for appearance--like Diomede,
gold in exchange for brass. But look again, sweet friend, and see whether you
are not deceived in me. The mind begins to grow critical when the bodily eye
fails, and it will be a long time before you get old.'"
"Hearing this, I said: 'I
have told you my purpose, which is quite serious, and do you consider what you
think best for you and me.' 'That is good,' he said; 'at some other time then
we will consider and act as seems best about this and about other matters.'
Whereupon, I fancied that he was smitten, and that the words which I had
uttered like arrows had wounded him, and so without waiting to hear more I got
up, and throwing my coat about him crept under his threadbare cloak, as the
time of year was winter, and there I lay during the whole night having this
wonderful monster in my arms. This again, Socrates, will not be denied by you.
And yet, notwithstanding all, he was so superior to my solicitations, so
contemptuous and derisive and disdainful of my beauty--which really, as I
fancied, had some attractions--hear, O judges; for judges you shall be of the
haughty virtue of Socrates--nothing more happened, but in the morning when I
awoke (let all the gods and goddesses be my witnesses) I arose as from the
couch of a father or an elder brother."
"What
do you suppose must have been my feelings, after this rejection, at the thought
of my own dishonour? And yet I could not help wondering at his natural
temperance and self-restraint and manliness. I never imagined that I could have
met with a man such as he is in wisdom and endurance. And therefore I could not
be angry with him or renounce his company, any more than I could hope to win
him.”
This
is about the homoerotic encounter between Alcibiades and Socrates. It is at the time that love of older men for
the youths was justified and praised.
Socrates argues that the right direction of soul is a movement upon the
ladder of love from procreation to love of bodies, of arts, of laws and
political institutions, to the love of divine beauty, untainted and undefiled. Plato makes a clear contrast between
homosexual and heterosexual desires and debauchery, without accusation and
damnation, to the cultivation of the soul.
Now, what is this “soul”?
In
his Hermeneutics of the Subject and the Ethics of the Care of the Self, Foucault discusses Plato’s
Alcibiades and what Socrates means by “the care of the self”. It is strange, as you will see, that for him
this soul, is a subject, an invention, a
carved statue by certain practices from outside in. The inside of the mask, the soul, the self,
accordingly is empty. Foucault defines
the self as a form which is not identical with itself and tries hard to show
that the care of the self for Socrates, is not the care of the soul as a divine
source, but by the care of the self he means how to carve out a subject of care
for oneself. In "Care of the Self,
Foucauldian Ethics, and Contemporary Subjectivity," Menihan summarize Foucault’s discussion on Alcibiades:
By addressing Plato’s
Alcibiades, Foucault points to epimeleia heautou’s [the care of the self] early
fundamental notions. In this text, Socrates exclaims, “One must care about
oneself,” but quickly realizes that there are intrinsic intricacies and
complications to work out within this expression. Foucault notes Socrates’
daunting query: “who knows exactly what “taking care of one’s self” is?”
(Hermeneutics 51). Delving more intuitively into the predicament, Plato’s “text
then naturally divides into two parts”: First, “what is this thing, this
object, this self to which one must attend?” Second, “What form should this
care take, in what must it consist?” (51).
The general answer to the latter
question will remain constant—although the specific practices will vary depending
on circumstance—throughout antiquity: The care of the self must consist of a
tekhnē, a set of techniques performed by the self on the self (51).
[pay attention that Foucault disconnects between the essence of the self and the tekhnē, as if it doesn't matter if the tekhnē is based on certain inner disposition, divine soul, because he is anti-essentialist and rejects a theory of the subject.]
Likewise,
the answer to the former inquiry is composed of a general constant thread
throughout the period of antiquity in question. What is this object that one
must care for? It is the “element which is the same on both the subject side
and the object side” (53): “You have to take care of yourself: It is you who
takes care; and then you take care of something which is the same thing as
yourself, [the same thing] as the subject who “takes care,” this is your self
as object” (53).
However, the specifics of this answer—the specifics of
“self”—prove quite malleable throughout Foucault’s lectures. "Proper governing
was the aim of care-of-the-self practices in early Socratic dialogue. A young
ruler must care for oneself, govern oneself, and do so ethically (I will return
to the importance of this ethics) in order to properly care for and govern
others as a ruler" (Hermeneutics 51-52). Thus, the self one cares for in this
instance is the self-as-governor, self as-ruler with the aim of being able to
rule properly. In later Socratic dialogue regarding epimeleia heautou, however,
the self for which one must care becomes one’s psukhē, one’s “soul” (53).
In
this later dialogue, Socrates illustrates that epimeleia heautou [the care of the self] practices are
no longer limited to the realm of young men associated with political
governance, but have instead transcended to a more generally applicable
philosophical practice: “in the Apology, for example,” Foucault explains,
“Socrates says that he encourages his fellow citizens, and everyone he meets,
to care for their soul (psukhē) in order to perfect it” (53, emphasis added).
Notwithstanding, the care of the self in later Socratic dialogue is still a
principle that is generally directed toward youth. As was the case with the
young ruler, those who are directed to take care of themselves do so with the
aim of reaching a perfected old age: “The young man will not take care of
himself in order to become the citizen, or rather the leader who is needed. The
adult must take care of himself…to prepare…[f]or his old age” (75).
There is a
paramount point to be expounded upon in regard to this soul-as-object that must
be cared for. By caring for the soul-as-object, one does not discover the
“soul-substance” (as will become common with Christianity), but rather forms
the soul-subject (57). Foucault clearly
reiterates his understanding of the distinction: “It seems to me that the
outcome of the argument of the Alcibiades on the question “what is oneself and
what meaning should be given to oneself when we say that one should take care
of the self?” is the soul as subject and not at all the soul as substance”
(57).
So, Foucault introduces the false dichotomy of
either the self is a “subject” (a mask) or a “substance” (a rigidified
ahistorical thing). As the metaphysical Medieval
understanding of "substance," as an empty static self-sameness, had lost its
credit after the critiques of Heidegger, Foucault assumed that, following the
Nietzschean “God is dead”, the self as well is dead, there is no author, no
self, but a subject of care which is being constructed by historical determinate
practices. He insists to show that Socrates
also thinks the same (!). Is it not
strange to ascribe such a definition of the soul to a person like Socrates who
obviously believes in a theory of recollection—that
our souls knew everything before birth but forgot them at the time of birth—and
sees himself as the midwife to give birth to our innate virtuous souls? It is a fact that we are constantly exposed,
by Heidegger and Foucault, and generally postmodernism and Anglo-American philosophy (in a different way), to a false dichotomy: we
have to accept either the inner, interpreted as, rigid substantial self (ousia, parousia), or a subject that is determined purely by historical
practices from outside in. So, there is
no soul to be taken care of; the self is an arbitrary invention of historical
practices or bundle of sense impressions or memories.
In Heidegger’s Historicisation of Aristotelian Being, Susan Roberts,
shows clearly this dissolution of the active inner soul along with rejection of the rigid substantial self [1]. This is another excessive pendulum swing of human psyche to
throw the baby out with the bath water. This tendency to nullify the self into a
negative force ends up to exactly the reverse of what Socrates asked for: ascend theory of love and cultivation of the soul. It ends up
to limit-experiences, excess, and downfall.
A wonderful and soulful character such as Foucault, who was homosexual,
devoting all his life to philosophy and exposing the boundaries of a punitive incarcerating
society, couldn't understand the real meaning of the care of the self and took a
self (soul)-destructive path:
When in California, Foucault spent many evenings in the gay
scene of the San Francisco Bay Area, frequenting sado-masochistic bathhouses, engaging in sexual intercourse with other
patrons. He would praise sado-masochistic activity in interviews with the gay
press, describing it as "the real creation of new possibilities of
pleasure, which people had no idea about previously.” Through this sexual activity, Foucault
contracted HIV, which eventually
developed into AIDS. Little was known of the virus at the time; the
first cases had only been identified in 1980. In summer 1983, he developed a
persistent dry cough, which concerned friends in Paris, but Foucault insisted
it was just a pulmonary infection. Only when hospitalized was Foucault
correctly diagnosed; treated with antibiotics, he delivered a final set of
lectures at the Collège de France. Foucault entered Paris' Hôpital de la Salpetriere – the same institution that he had studied in Madness
and Civilisation – on 9
June 1984, with neurological symptoms complicated by septicemia. He died in the
hospital on 25 June. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault#Final_years:_1980.E2.80.931984
Given this brief discussion of Socrates and Alcibiades, I hope I could show that the gestalt disposition or selfhood or soul of Socrates and Alcibiades are fundamentally different. Alcibiades surrenders to hedonistic pleasure along with the homosexual practices dominating in the Greek culture at the time, and Socrates advises, in the court before his execution, that:
“Men of Athens, I honor and love you; but I shall obey God rather than you, and while I have life
and strength I
shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy, exhorting anyone whom I meet
after my manner, and convincing him, saying: O my friend, why do you, who are a
citizen of the great and mighty and wise city of Athens, care so much about
laying up the greatest amount of money and honor and reputation, and so
little about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul, which you
never regard or heed at all? Are you not ashamed of this? And if the
person with whom I am arguing says: Yes, but I do care; I do not depart or let
him go at once; I interrogate and examine and cross-examine him, and if I think
that he has no virtue, but only says that he has, I reproach him with
undervaluing the greater, and overvaluing the less. And this I should say to
everyone whom I meet, young and old, citizen and alien, but especially to the
citizens, inasmuch as they are my brethren. For this is the command of God,
as I would have you know; and I believe that to this day no greater
good has ever happened in the state than my service to the God. For I do
nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take
thought for your persons and your properties, but first and chiefly to care
about the greatest improvement of the soul.”
The fact is that as long as I didn’t believe
in having a divine essential soul and in the ascending characteristic of love and the relation between our virtues
and the divine, as Socrates and Plato held, I was prone to fall into the whims
of aesthetic and sensual pleasure. One
is prone to become experimental, why not trying bisexuality? Bestiality?
Sado-masochism? I actually participated in the Janus Sado-masochistic Society, and I was ready to give bisexuality a try. But I didn’t find myself in these
practices. What I mean is that certain
perception of the self, creates certain indulgence in desires. Holding onto the ascending theory of love and
life, of the divine soul within, urges us to heed a genuine care of the
self. I have seen some homosexuals who
are basically misanthropist and nihilist.
It might be partly due to the social rejection of their existence,
partly due to their barren state of life, partly due to lack of possibility to
reconcile their sexual orientation to the state of species. However, I have met homosexuals who have a
serene and sensible understanding of their sexuality, without glorifying it or
taking a nihilistic position, relate and connect to the divine source, and
receive compassion, mercy, and guidance from that source. So, for them, as soulful believers, sexuality
and pleasure lose the central place that they have in a hedonistic life
style. Consequently, they become careful about the
state of their soul.
Dangerous notions such as "pride" in homosexuality, and kind of glorifying it, leaves the boundary open for homosexuality to become an experimental practice, which means it transforms a natural disposition into a kind of excess. What we see in Gay Pride parades is overexposure to nudity and lewdness rather than a solemn declaration of the rights of certain people. So, I disagree with “homosexuality” as a manifestation of nihilistic tendency and experimental downfall. And I assume this is the original point of religions in resisting it, however, this resistance itself, when turns into hate and fury, could create backlashes and devalue some of religious principles such as empathy, care, admonishment, and advice, and turn religion itself into a compulsory and coercive behavior and fanaticism.
Dangerous notions such as "pride" in homosexuality, and kind of glorifying it, leaves the boundary open for homosexuality to become an experimental practice, which means it transforms a natural disposition into a kind of excess. What we see in Gay Pride parades is overexposure to nudity and lewdness rather than a solemn declaration of the rights of certain people. So, I disagree with “homosexuality” as a manifestation of nihilistic tendency and experimental downfall. And I assume this is the original point of religions in resisting it, however, this resistance itself, when turns into hate and fury, could create backlashes and devalue some of religious principles such as empathy, care, admonishment, and advice, and turn religion itself into a compulsory and coercive behavior and fanaticism.
The
Non-Nihilistic Homosexuality
Now I can come to the second part of my question:
a) What gestalt disposition, what kind of selfhood, I would
experience if I am a homosexual person who believes:
I have a divine soul whose ethical practices are
connected to the divine or universe but being told constantly that I am evil
and an aberrant that has to be lynched, killed, stoned, or rejected. And hence to be pushed to the first option:
hedonism, debauchery, nihilism, and [self-]destruction.
AND:
b) How would I behave, to
put it concretely, how would be the organization and direction of the energy of
my eyes, ears, smell, and touch, heart and spirit, my comportment in the world:
If I believe that I have a divine soul whose
ethical practices are connected to the divine or universe but being told that I
am evil and an aberrant that has to be lynched, killed, stoned, or
rejected. And hence to be pushed to the
first option: hedonism, debauchery, nihilism, and [self-]destruction.
The way I put these questions, of course, makes the answer
clear. We violate the selfhood of a person if constantly reject
him or her and threaten him or her to be killed just for having
certain sexual orientation (beyond experimentation). We
push that person to [self-]destruction, rather than containing the damage. Let’s look how religions react to homosexuality.
It is obvious that
Religions of the Book reject homosexuality as a misconduct or sin. It is the same with variations of Hinduism
and Buddhism[2]. In the Old Testament, Leviticus, it asks for
death penalty for homosexuality, as well as for cursing one’s parents, and so
many other cases[3]. I can see by saying certain behaviors have to
be punished, they want to say these behaviors, when excessive and decadent, are
not life-promoting. I already agree with
this tendency in religions. What I don’t
agree is the harshness and the apathetic language that they use. I assume this was one of the reasons that
Jesus rebelled against legalism, that the law has to be justified with Love. Jesus urged us to hold onto the principle of Love
even against our enemies. So, I assume
the language of hate in the Old Testament is already reformed by Jesus of the New
Testament. But Jesus made it clear that
homosexuality and heterosexuality as excess and downfall are not
acceptable.
In Mark, 7:
20-23:
“He said, That which comes out of the man, that defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, sexual impurities, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.”
“He said, That which comes out of the man, that defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, sexual impurities, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.”
And in his letters, Paul clearly rejected homosexuality[4]. In the Old Testament and in the Quran, the
story of Sodom and Gomorrah is mentioned and rejected as homosexual nihilistic
and decadent behavior which included rape and aggression[5]. The people of Lot wanted to rape even angles
of God[6]. But in the Quran, there is no
death penalty for homosexuals. All we
have is this:
“If two men among you are
guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and
amend, leave them alone; for God is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.” Quran 4:16
It is later in narrations from the time of the prophet that, in
contradiction to the Quran, it is said that the prophet asked
for capital punishment for homosexuals, which is not reliable.
contradiction to the Quran, it is said that the prophet asked
for capital punishment for homosexuals, which is not reliable.
Religiously as well as philosophically, as I discussed, the central issue of our and all times is cultivation of the soul. So basically decadence, excess, and hedonism are nihilistic and should be admonished. However, homosexuals should live along with others in peace and without threats and dehumanization. We should treat homosexuals with the same love and care that we treat other people.
[1] In Heidegger's Historicisation of Aristotelian Being, Susan Roberts wrote: “If, as Heidegger has endeavored to show,
the only significant movement so far as being is concerned pertains to the
accomplishments of history, then it would seem to follow that the entity whose
beingness is in question – ‘ousia’ – is impervious to any form of inner
activity and can only be moved externally. And this is precisely the way in
which Heidegger chooses to present Aristotle’s term designating ‘beingness’.
And he does this largely by conflating the term ‘ousia’ with ‘parousia’ even
though they designate ontologically distinct entities. For whereas ‘ousia’
refers to a being as a process, i.e., in a process of being and becoming,
‘parousia’ designates a fixed and static entity. As Joseph Owens points out in
his detailed study, ‘The Doctrine of Being in the Aristotelian Metaphysics’,
‘ousia’ is the primary instance of Being from which all others flow and upon
which all other beings depend: “it is the very core of Being.” And for that
reason Owens asserts that this is the most important instance of Being to
maintain in any translation if its true meaning is to be kept. As he explains,
the word ‘ousia’ is derived from the verb ‘to be’, but has the ending of an
abstract noun to be something like ‘beingness’. However, its meaning is not
conceptual but concrete, as the ‘beingness’ it points to is that of the dynamic
and self-organising world.
The
ontological significance of the distinction between Aristotle’s metaphysical
understanding of ‘being’ - as an individual’s inner activity directed towards
the knowing of reality - and Heidegger’s more political, historical
presentation of Dasein – as man’s productive way of ‘being in the world
together’- is lost in the conflation of the Greek terms ‘ousia’ and ’parousia’.
Since the former denotes a being capable of ontological activity and the latter
does not. Heidegger insists, however, that “ousia is an abbreviation of
‘parousia’”, and generally treats the terms as synonymous. But what is lost
when the ‘‘thinghood’’ of ‘ousia’ is swallowed up in the entity that is
‘parousia’, is the internal activity of ‘being’ that constitutes that
‘‘thinghood’’. Aristotle makes this very point in ‘De Anima’, contrasting the
cutting activity of an axe, which makes the axe what it is, with the steering
activity of a sailor in a boat, which is an action that is not intrinsic to
what he is. Whilst the Aristotelian sailor – considered here by Aristotle as
‘parousia’ i.e., in a context where ‘thinghood’ is not in question – may steer
a boat, and undertake other doings, his ‘thinghood’, i.e., ‘ousia’, and the
activity he needs to keep on ‘being’ in order to be it, are not discernible in
these external activities.
Aristotle
actually points out that it would be impossible to recognize the ontological
significance of inner activity in entities engaged in external actions: “it
would be difficult to see why the soul is not separate from the body if the
soul were the being-at-work of the body in the way that a sailor is of the
boat.” Because these are clearly
separable entities, the sailor can leave the boat. However, the cutting cannot
leave the axe, without taking the identity of the axe with it. What Aristotle
is explaining is that the nature of our ‘‘thinghood’’, or ‘ousia’, is
constituted by activities, such inner
activities being intrinsic to what we are. They are not like the external
motions of ‘parousia’, because they inhere in us and individuate us: they are
not ‘doings’ but ‘being’. If an entity‘s ‘parousia’ is made the starting point
for a study of being, how can ‘being’ as an activity that determines the state
of being of that entity be examined? The answer is that it cannot, and neither
can the question of that being’s ontological vulnerability to change. For the
obvious reason that an entity viewed as ‘parousia’ is deemed to be fixed and
therefore invulnerable to ontological change.
If ‘ousia’
is conflated with ‘parousia’, the inner activity that ‘ousia’ is being
disappears from view. As a result, form, which Aristotle regarded as inherently
active, comes to be regarded as something static or structural that is simply
imposed on passive matter, without necessitating any activity, or doing, on the
part of matter itself. In such an event, the activity that matter is ‘supposed
to be’ engaged in falls beneath the metaphysical horizon, and what is left is just a static entity."
http://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/309/548
http://www.cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/309/548
[2] The third of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to
refrain from sexual misconduct; this precept has sometimes been
interpreted to include homosexuality. The Dalai Lama of Tibetan Buddhism interprets
sexual misconduct to include lesbian and gay sex, and indeed any sex other than
penis-vagina intercourse, including oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation or
other sexual activity with the hand; the only time sex is acceptable is when it
performed for its natural purpose of procreation. When interviewed by Canadian TV news
anchor Evan Solomon on CBC News: Sunday about whether or not homosexuality
is acceptable in Buddhism, the Dalai Lama responded that "it is sexual
misconduct." This was an echo of an earlier
response in a 2004 Vancouver Sun interview when asked about homosexuality in
Buddhism, where the Dalai Lama replied "for a Buddhist, the same sex, that
is sexual misconduct". However,
the Dalai Lama supports human rights for all, "regardless of sexual
orientation."
[3] Leviticus 20-21
9
‘If there is anyone who
curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed
his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him.
10
‘If there is a man who
commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his
friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11
‘If there is a man who
lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of
them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
12
‘If there is a man who
lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they
have committed incest, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
13
‘If there is a man who
lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a
detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is
upon them.
14
‘If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is
immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be
no immorality in your midst.
15
‘If there is a man who
lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death; you shall also kill the
animal.
16
‘If there
is a
woman who approaches any animal to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the
animal; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
17
‘If there is a man who
takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, so that he
sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace; and they shall
be cut off in the sight of the sons of their people. He has uncovered his
sister’s nakedness; he bears his guilt.
18
‘If there is a man who
lies with a menstruate woman and uncovers her nakedness, he
has laid bare her flow, and she has exposed the flow of her blood; thus both of them
shall be cut off from among their people.
19
‘You shall also not uncover the nakedness of your
mother’s sister or of your father’s sister, for such a one has made naked his blood relative; they will bear their guilt.
20
‘If there is a man who
lies with his uncle’s wife he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness; they will
bear their sin. They will die childless.
21
‘If there is a man who
takes his brother’s wife, it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother’s
nakedness. They will be childless.
[4] In the Epistle to the Romans 1:26-27, Paul writes:
"For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error."
"For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error."
1 Corinthians 6:9-10:
Amplified Version (1987): "Do you not know that the
unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality"
1 Timothy 1:9-10
Amplified Version (1987): Knowing and understanding this: that
the Law is not enacted for the righteous (the upright and just, who are in
right standing with God), but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and
sinful, for the irreverent and profane, for those who strike and beat and
[even] murder fathers and strike and beat and [even] murder mothers, for
manslayers,[For] impure and immoral persons, those who abuse themselves with
men, kidnappers, liars, perjurers--and whatever else is opposed to wholesome
teaching and sound doctrine
Jude 1:7
English Standard Version: "Just
as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in
sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by
undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."
[5] "And (remember) L0t: behold, he said to his people: "Ye do commit lewdness, such as no
people in Creation (ever) committed before you. "Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway?- and practice wickedness (even) in your
councils?" But his people gave no answer but this: they said: "Bring
us the Wrath of God if you tell the truth." He said: "O my
Lord! help Thou me against people who do mischief!" When Our Messengers
came to Abraham with the good news, they said: "We are indeed going to destroy the people of this township: for truly
they are (addicted to) crime." Quran 27:54
"And Lot: when he said to his people, 'You practice outrageous acts that no people before you have ever committed. How can you lust after men, waylay travelers, and commit evil in your gatherings?' the only answer his people gave was, 'Bring God's punishment down on us, if what you say is true.'" Quran 29:28-30
[6] "And when Our messengers came to Lot, he was anxious for them, feeling powerless to protect them, and said, "This is a truly terrible day! His people came rushing towards him, they used to commit foul deeds. He said, 'My people, here are my daughters. They are more wholesome for you, so have some fear of God and do not disgrace me with my guests. Is there not a single right-minded man among you?' They said, 'You know very well that we have no right to your daughters. You know very well what we want.'" (The Quran, 11:77-80)
"And Lot: when he said to his people, 'You practice outrageous acts that no people before you have ever committed. How can you lust after men, waylay travelers, and commit evil in your gatherings?' the only answer his people gave was, 'Bring God's punishment down on us, if what you say is true.'" Quran 29:28-30
[6] "And when Our messengers came to Lot, he was anxious for them, feeling powerless to protect them, and said, "This is a truly terrible day! His people came rushing towards him, they used to commit foul deeds. He said, 'My people, here are my daughters. They are more wholesome for you, so have some fear of God and do not disgrace me with my guests. Is there not a single right-minded man among you?' They said, 'You know very well that we have no right to your daughters. You know very well what we want.'" (The Quran, 11:77-80)
