.
.
.
.
.
Another example which comes to mind is one where "love" is defined as "sex". Certainly anything that is said about the relationship between two people (male and female) that is essentially a "sexual" relationship will have its counterpart in the special kind of "love" existing between a man and woman in an idealized sense of "true love" which might be understood in terms of a marital relationship of a man and woman in love. But, to define "love" as "sex", and use it in this very limited sense of a "sexual" relationship between two people, one must incorporate in the term "sex" connotations of the term "love" (those not necessarily related with sex). In effect, one is in fact developing in the term "sex" essentially the same concepts as are included in the notion of "love" (without sex), so that it can then be shown that the resulting notion of "sex" and the usual notion of "love" are no different.
If there were no need to implicitly carry over connotations of the term "love" into such an argument based on such a definition (where an equation of terms is made) as 'love is sex', there would be no need to make an equation of terms. It would not be necessary to define "love" as "sex". One could talk about sex withut any connotation of love with an equally persuasive argument, if the connotations of love were not needed. To demonstrate this, just try to consider a discussion of sex without any connotations of love. It boils down to a purely biological -- an animal -- relationship. How then could one distinguish (on the basis of personal values, or on the basis of the values of his society) between the "true" and the "perverted" if they are equated in such a way? It appears, with a little reflection, that a possible basis (or justification) for defining "love" as "sex" is to remove the distinction between the "true" and the "perverted" so that one could indulge himself (or herself) in some sensual pleasure.
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Do you agree or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via
e-mail
Hit the 'back' key to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Do you agree or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Do you agree or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Do you agree, or degree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail
Hit the 'back' button to return to where were.
.
.