By Nick Hayward.
Plato and Socrates were clear on love. There is common (pandemotic) love and there is heavenly (ouranian) love – carnal desire versus desire for the transcendental. The former, says the Symposium, is the kind of end to which seduction should not be directed. Seducers pursuing nothing but sex are the deceptive ones, manipulative, base and trapped in the cave. Love is not of a particular body or a particular thing, but rather it is the Idea of love that so many lovely things partake in. It is more virtuous to pursue this Idea (and forsake the pursuit of sexual gratification) or to inspire others (through seduction) to pursue the Idea in your step.
And Plato and Socrates also had some very practical advice for the seducer. In the Lysis, Socrates savages Hippothales, who does nothing but flatter his beloved with songs and poetry. Flattery only sets you up for a fall, he says. What you really need to do is humble your lover, take the wind out of their sails – bring them down a notch. Then they’re all yours. Socrates’ humbling of Lysis, the object of Hippothales’ affection, takes the form of a questioning, an elenctic examination. Socrates doesn’t just want Lysis to feel humbled, he wants him to feel like he knows nothing – he wants to start him on the path to philosophy and the pursuit of Ideas.
I argue that this advice – to humble your beloved instead of flattering them – has been twisted and taken to an extreme by the modern ‘seduction community’, the ‘pick-up artists’ who apparently live for little other than seduction and sex. One of the techniques advocated by this fraternity, called ‘negging’, is a subtle humbling intended to take a woman down a notch (‘great nails…are they real?’) The seduction community freely trades insults and one-liners of this sort, and sees their success as vindication of a cynical, misogynistic attitude towards the opposite sex. But they miss the point. It is never right to put someone down in order to satisfy your own (sexual) desires. Socrates, however, suggests that it might be right to put someone down in order to have them realize how little they know.
And there is more advice to be found in Plato. Towards the end of the Symposium, Alcibiades bursts into the dinner-party, drunk and belligerent. He tells the other symposiasts of the time he failed to seduce Socrates: his entreaties, his wining and dining, his embarrassment. Alcibiades talks about the nature of his desire to partake in Socrates’ virtue by seducing and having sex with him. We find, however, that this desire is perhaps not so genuine. Alcibiades finds it easy to revert to the apathetic mean and fall in with the masses when he cannot acquire virtue simply by gratifying a virtuous man. The lesson here is that the conflation of lust and love is misleading. The only way to become a better person or to pursue the Idea of love is to examine yourself, to commit to the path of philosophy. Sex and seduction are not and cannot be ends in themselves. Again, the seduction community misses the point.
Of course, all the contentions above can be vigorously challenged. Is it really virtuous to manipulate someone towards an end of your choosing? (Such as the pursuit of a Platonic Idea.) Can you ever escape carnal desire? Maybe all conversation is persuasion. If so, where do you draw the line between persuasion and manipulation? Just what is manipulation, and what is seduction? Socrates was perhaps a tad overmodest. How can a man who claims to know nothing know that it is right to humble others? (…for the sake of philosophy?) The seduction community began as a rarefied meat-market. Was it so bad then? Is there a problem with people enjoying the seduction game? What is the nature of the power relation between seducer and seductee?
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged alcibiades, formerly Mr Dean, love, lust, lysis, manipulation, negging, persuasion, Philosophy, pick-up artists, plato, romance, seducer, seduction, seduction community, socrates, symposium, virtue
By Rosie Mulray
It seems that we, as a society, are embracing invidious discrimination in the form of Reverse Discrimination. This is a good thing according to a lot of people, but is it really morally justifiable to agree with reverse discrimination, or to take part in it?
Any of the PHIL1008 students worth their salt should be able to tell you a thing or two about discrimination. Firstly, that discrimination can sometimes be perfectly acceptable, just so long as the characteristics you are discriminating against (or for) are relevant to the issue at hand.
For example, choosing to add sugar to your brownie mix instead of salt is not to say that salt is inferior, but that sugar will taste better in the brownie mix than the salt. The taste of each is the relevant characteristic and this is the factor used to discriminate.
Similarly, sports events are separated by sex because the physical limits of each sex are undeniably different, and so it would be unfair to have a woman or women competing against a man or men. Here the discrimination has a justification, a legitimate reason why we should discriminate in this case, making it completely acceptable. (An interesting anomaly here is separating the men and the women in sports like lawn bowls… it seems to me that there is no relevant difference affecting the ability of a man vs. a woman, assuming here that men and women have the same ability to be accurate with a lawn-bowling-ball. Then again, I’m no expert in lawn bowls…). This is particularly applicable to professional sportspeople. If men and women competed together, women would have a very hard time getting employed.
According to Michael Levin, “Any time you make a moral distinction based on a morally irrelevant grounds, you discriminate invidiously”, meaning if you have no morally justifiable reason for your discrimination, you’re discriminating invidiously, or being offensive (I’ll assume here that that is bad/intolerable). Assuming that Levin knows what he’s talking about, the two previous examples are in the clear, they aren’t invidious as they both have a moral justification.
If we now turn to “reverse” discrimination and examine what it’s actually doing, it becomes obvious that its name is misleading. Reverse Discrimination is not aiming to do the reverse of discriminating, it’s actually increasing the incidence of discrimination. And not just discrimination, but invidious discrimination.
Take Affirmative Action as an example. I’m not quite sure of the legal status of Affirmative Action, but I assume that under its application, employers will be required, by law, to employ a certain percentage of women in each rung of the corporation’s ladder. This means that women have been invidiously discriminated FOR, because they have been chosen over men based on a morally irrelevant characteristic, that is, their ability to fulfil the parameters of their employment. Even if there were 3 men who would make better employees than a woman, the men would be disregarded only because they are men. This hardly seems morally justifiable.
Therefore, by definition, reverse discrimination has no moral justification.
Those who argue for Affirmative Action and reverse discrimination in general make that point that its point is to counteract the discrimination of the past. i.e. fighting fire with fire. That’s just the same as hitting someone only because they hit you first. And, as Plato says in the Crito, injury as injury is wrong – regardless of how the action may be described. To truly reverse discrimination, it only seems logical that it should be removed altogether, not encouraged, and certainly not morally tolerated.