fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
I usually like David Brooks. He often makes good points. But did he this time when he argued societies need to treat touch as a moral issue.Now Is the Time to Talk About the Power of Touch https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/...-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
This time IMHO he confuses touch with morality. Humans need touch. Humans prosper in environments where non aggressive touching is the norm. But to suggest it is something sacred, if I'm reading him correctly, goes way over the line.
So is touch critical to the good life? Or is it just a crutch for those who want the world to follow a particular order to wrap all kinds of emotional content around in a more or less religious harangue.
Am I going too far? I'm opposed to physicality based moral arguments as well since they all tend to wind up arguing for a tiny leader us and a huge regulated or worse other.
But there is something unique about positive or negative touch. Emotional touch alters the heart and soul in ways that are mostly unconscious. It can take a lifetime of analysis to get even a glimpse of understanding.
For this reason, cultures all around the world have treated emotional touching as something apart. The Greeks labeled the drive to touch with the word “eros,” and they meant something vaster and deeper than just sexual pleasure. “Animals have sex and human beings have eros, and no accurate science is possible without making this distinction,” Allan Bloom observed.
The Abrahamic religions also treat sex as something sacred and beautiful when enveloped in loving and covenantal protections, and as something disordered and potentially peace-destroying when not.
This time IMHO he confuses touch with morality. Humans need touch. Humans prosper in environments where non aggressive touching is the norm. But to suggest it is something sacred, if I'm reading him correctly, goes way over the line.
So is touch critical to the good life? Or is it just a crutch for those who want the world to follow a particular order to wrap all kinds of emotional content around in a more or less religious harangue.
Am I going too far? I'm opposed to physicality based moral arguments as well since they all tend to wind up arguing for a tiny leader us and a huge regulated or worse other.