Cogito Ergo I Am Right: A Sexual Analysis of Different Philosophies

By Amateur Philosopher, Penny Ham

Man if Platonism is true, then I should be able to get off by the mere abstract thought of orgasm but I can only get turned on by the thought of orgasm, ergo abstract thought must be at best semi-real but not real-with-a-capital-R.

If Platonism is real then I should be able to masturbate to the a priori abstract conception of man-ness but I can’t, ergo Platonism has got to be false.

Theism cannot be true because Catholic nuns marry God but they cannot derive any of the benefits sexually from God, ergo atheism or perhaps pantheism must be true. Pantheism could be true because women can derive orgasms from thunder and lightning, which is a physical manifestation of God. That or it is a less robust proof of Zeus’ existence.

Sexuality originated and must have originated from some unsexed sexer. But this is no proof of a god since a god would have to be omnisexual, not merely unsexed.

Deism, philosophically speaking, could be true because sexually it explains all those one nights stands people encounter.

Nietzsche’s philosophy is almost compelling but a lot of people do not feel compelled to bring a whip when visiting a woman. But an eternal recurrence of orgasm is pretty satisfying.

Ayn Rand’s philosophy can be true to the selfish masturbator. But it lacks the robust worldview of satisfying anyone else’s sexual needs.

Utilitarianism could be true but it is a philosophy that might make you give up sexual satisfaction in order to please the many.

Kant’s categorical imperative, while compelling to some feminists, treats all sexual acts as un-dignifying to anyone. This sexual philosophy can only be appealing to sexual exploiters and no one else. Ergo, Kant’s ethics is false.

Darwinism has gotta be true because the more babies you make, the more your species has to be evolving. And the undesirable babies can always be aborted.

Hedonism almost makes it as a philosophy but one must take into account foreplay, so instant gratification in no way answers everyone’s sexual needs.

Logical positivism almost is true but if someone is faking an orgasm, then an orgasm is not in principle verifiable. But Popperian falsificationism is right because when someone tells you, you didn’t give them an orgasm, you know.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s