Image via Wikipedia
In my previous post on this subject, I considered that being a man might be merely a matter of meeting certain social norms. In short, perhaps being a man simply amounts to determining the standards set by the group in question and meeting them.
However, perhaps there is more to being a man than that. Perhaps there are objective elements to being a man. One possibility is that being a man is actually grounded in the nature of reality. That is, being a man is a metaphysical matter.
One way to look at this is to go back to the dispute over universals during the Middle Ages. To oversimplify things quite a bit, one option was to believe that metaphysical universals are real. Roughly put, this is the view that individuals are grouped into types on an objective basis and this basis is a metaphysical property. So, for example, all men would be men because they instantiate or participate in the universal of man. This sort of view dates back to Plato. There are, of course, many views about the nature of properties. For example, there are trope theories (sometimes refereed to as theories about abstract particulars).
On this sort of view, then being a man would be an objective matter. A person who has the quality in question would thus be a man. This, if Plato was right, could be a matter of degrees with some men being more men than others. This would be comparable to his account of beauty: objects come in degrees of beauty based on how well they instantiate the form of beauty. On this sort of view, how manly a man is would be an objective manner (although people can, of course, still dispute relative manliness).
This might also not be a simple matter of having a single quality-being a man might also involve having a set of properties and thus be a complex rather than a simple. This is, however, consistent with their being an objective basis to being a man.
The main alternative to this sort of metaphysical realism is known as nominalism. Crudely put, this is the view that individuals are grouped on the basis of names. In short, all men are men because they are called men. This sort of approach is like the one considered in the first blog on the subject.
While there are numerous versions of metaphysical views about the basis on which individuals are grouped into types,the division between there being an objective basis and the denial of such a basis cuts across all the various views. Clearly, whether being a man is objective or subjective is rather important.
On the plus side, this sort of metaphysical realism has a long and established pedigree (with a multitude of supporting arguments). Also, the idea of there being an objective basis to being a man has a certain appeal-if only to provide a foundation for our judgments that goes beyond mere opinion.
On the minus side, the opposition to this approach also has a long and well established pedigree. Also, the idea that being a man involves weird metaphysical entities rather than mundane factors such as character traits or behavior seems to be rather weird. But, of course, weirdness is not a very serious charge in philosophy. Finally, being told that being a man is a matter of instantiating the property (or properties) of being a man does not go very far in telling a man how he should act should he desire to be a man. To misquote Aristotle, what we are concerned with is no so much knowledge of men, but what it is to be a man. Otherwise, our study would be useless.
Thus, while the metaphysics of being a man are of interest, what seems to be of even greater interest is what it actually is to be a man in terms of how one should act.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=efdc8c97-e605-416e-9ab6-398001b537f5)
Over the past couple of years, I’ve been putting some thought into the problem of defining things in terms of what they are not. This includes the problems in dealing with infinity, which is necessarily examined only in terms of the contrary finite traits. This also includes the theistic problems that arise in describing a perfect God in terms of all of the traits of an imperfect human (particularly with regard to human finiteness). This issue becomes relevant in this discussion due to the possibility of the misguided temptation to define a man as not having female traits or define a woman as not having male traits. This is important in that in this modern time we must also allow for neuters and hermaphrodites.
So, we may find that there are traits, biological at least, that are distinctly masculine, such as sperm production. Along the same lines, a key feminine trait is egg production. Note that sperm production is not defined as the absence of egg production, and egg production is not the absence of sperm production. There are, of course, other gender traits.
Still, we have only two categories of gender traits, male and female. But, that doesn’t make the them true opposites. For instance, there is nothing that we know about gender, either metaphysically or biologically, that says there could not have been a third gender (though we would have to get very creative to speculate on a possible role for a third gender). Note that some of the so-called plumbing is described by biology has having formed into a male or female version, which some might also take to be an example of opposites. For that, I would argue that there could be a third form taken for a third gender, which means that more detail would be needed to find anything that could be regarded as an opposite.
While we can identify some traits that are absolute (or nearly so), such as the capacity for egg and/or sperm production, there are other traits that occur on a relative scale (and in relative combination), such as estrogen and testosterone. So, while we may neatly place the majority of the population into one of two genders, we do seem to need a philosophy that will account for a wide range of, and various combinations of “genderness”.
Beyond this, there are still questions of why asexual reproduction is not the primary method of propagating life on this planet. For this, I’ve been wondering if there isn’t something that can be said about this on a metaphysical level (or close to it), though nothing has yet gelled.
Tesserid,
I do not believe that the discussion benefits from the anatomical. The determination of male and female has become a very important and complex debate in sports, and organ systems seem to play only a minor role in the assignment. The case of Caster Semenya makes this point well.
As per your statement of “why asexual reproduction is not the primary method of propagating life on this planet”, I would say that your assumption is erroneous in that the vast bulk of life on the planet is single celled asexual reproducers. The bacteria, fungi, algea, and various others are what I am talking about.
Sexual reproduction confers a benefit to the species that partake in it. The offspring generated via sexual reproduction are more diverse than from asexual reproduction. That diversity allows the species to withstand environmental stresses and evolve at a faster rate. The question that I find fascinating here is why more species do not have the capacity to reproduce either way, like strawberries can. . .
Kevin,
Thank you for pointing out my lack of clarity.
I normally avoid the anatomical for just the reason that you cite. I had only mentioned it in anticipation of and to refute arguments that attempt to support a concept of opposites from the physical.
As for my “erroneous assumption”, I was not intending to go into detail when I used the phrase “primary method”, and I had not intended for it to be taken as quantifying the statistic in terms of “bulk”, but rather, as you had rightly expanded, it was meant to refer to diversity.
And, your point about strawberries fits quite nicely.
Perhaps, my question would be better stated as: what is there about sexual reproduction and the benefits thereof that has made it a necessity for so many species, and is there anything that can be said about this on a metaphysical level?
My thoughts on this so far tend to involve ideas about the contrast between individuality and relationships to others. But, as I mentioned, this hasn’t gelled.
Tesserid,
Thank you for receiving my reply as it was intended. After posting I read it over and thought that it seemed as if I was attacking you. I find your thoughts on the matter intriguing and really would love to see them after they “gell”.
One thought that I did not state was that asexual reproduction is by far preferred for speed and ease of use. There is no need to find a partner, so a species that can do both would potentially receive the best of both worlds. . .
If you can fill the unforgiving minute, with sixty seconds of distance run…
Kevin,
Thanks again, I appreciate the acknowledgment, and I do find the civility here pleasant and productive.
Part of what I’m going for is to describe an essential to consciousness, sentience, and such. I’m inclined to think that we might have difficulty knowing ourselves if we also did not know some other. This comes from the notion that there is a benefit from having our individuality reflected through a similar external other. That is, we should be able to ponder common traits as well as variations in something that is every bit as alive and complete as ourselves.
Note that I’ve often wondered if this was the point of man being created in God’s image. That is God would not be a fulfilled consciousness if God were the only consciousness, and so sought to create others to act as that reflection.
In the case of asexual reproduction, the closest relationship is between the singular parent and offspring. If such were possible for sentient beings, we would likely still have nurturing–as well as the learning that a parent experiences in performing that nurturing. Peer relationships would exist between siblings, but there would be little if any obligation to explore relationships with anyone outside of the lineage. I fear that if asexual reproduction where the only means available, lineages would diverge into isolated cultures with little motivation for collaboration and sharing of the environment. Competition in such a world might be excessive. This doesn’t seem to be a problem for single cell organisms that lack a notion of war.
The intermingling of lineages seems to solve the problem of isolated and antagonistic cultures. It seems to obligate us to modify our views just enough to allow those from some other lineage to be able to tolerate us–and then share in the nurturing process so that some collaborative culture was passed on.
If we had the option to select between sexual and asexual reproduction, then I think there would need to be some mechanism to motivate and ensure that a lineage would not go too long using only asexual reproduction. Failing to intermingle lineages would a kind of cultural inbreeding that would result in an impaired collaborative consciousness.
Towards the metaphysical level, my thinking is that consciousness and even existence itself requires that everything not be the same and yet still share commonalities and similarities. That is, interaction requires a difference to make exchange meaningful and a common mechanism to allow exchange. Consciousness requires a high degree of interaction; social consciousness requires an even higher degree of interaction. Continuous lines of convergence and divergence fuels the meaningful contrast of commonality and distinctiveness.
It also seems interesting that there seems to be different behaviors for good times and hard times. Asexual reproduction would be useful in hard times when finding a mate would be difficult. Instead, what we have for hard times are mating selections that favor aggression and tenacity. In other words, tough measures for tough times. Then, when there is plenty, there is a shift towards collaboration and, one would hope, better foresight.
OT but, biologically, asexual reproduction is favoured in the good times as a way of rapidly increasing numbers when conditions are favourable. When times are hard, species shift to sexual reproduction because the variation increases the chance that some individuals will survive.
Keith, indeed, (still OT) humans also have behaviors of mate selection that increase genetic variation (in that contrasting immune function [MHC] is sensed by women via male sweat odor). Aspects of diversity are definitely interesting.
It is difficult to stay metaphysical today – biology rules; it is true that a number of important discoveries have been made in biology.
It is likely, in today’s world, that a totally masculine man or a totally feminine woman could be at a disadvantage. Even in the past, a male protrayed as clueless in relation to what was subjective or relative was the stuff of comedy as was a female portrayed as clueless in relation what was objective or abstract.
Metaphysically, or spiritually, man has been portrayed as positive and closer to divinity while woman was protrayed as negative – a creature of nature, an afterthought: Adams rib.
If biblical symbols turn out to have a basis in fact; if it is discovered that dark energy, or some other energy, is positive while negative energy arrived later in the expansion of the universe, it still would not mean that one gender is superior or has the inside track – in spite of what the orthodox believe.
TesserId,
True, it seems possible that there could have been a third gender. Sci-fi does consider the possibilities of multiple genders beyond two. Of course, this usually just involves requiring three or more individuals for the reproductive process.
As far as asexual reproduction goes, I think that the stock answer from the evolutionary folks would be that it has conferred a reproductive advantage. Of course, bacteria and viruses do not reproduce sexually and some might argue that they are the primary life forms on the planet.
Bill,
I can run for sixty seconds. Back in the day, I could do a quarter mile in that time.
clearly, there are some physical distinctions between man and women. And these physical features correlate with the manifest content of there personalities. But atnony rate the notion of male and female being some sort of immutable category that is ubiquitious across cultures is absurd. Gender is a culturally determined subjective phenomenon.
“The NFL is diversified, the Super Bowl is diversified, and the audience viewing the Super Bowl is diversified,” said Dr. Richard Lapchick, the director of The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida, who authored the study.
That is good to know.
Being a Man II: Manly Metaphysics | Talking Philosophy