text:
Talk:Ethical egoism

Balance and Multiple Sources
Rachels is the only source cited for vast majority of the article. Can this be remedied? Both on the criticism and the proponent views? Thanks.--Dchem (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean up issues
Right at beginning: ". . . self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from (1) rational egoism, which holds that it is (2) rational to act in one's self-interest." (2) reads like using a word (1) in its own definition. Though I don't like to change usage where I am not knowledgeable or expert in the field, sloppy language is fair game. Someone fix, pls? Thank you.

 * I just attempted to make at least one well-explained language cleanup change to the first paragraph and it was immediately reverted. Would someone be willing to review my change and the subsequent Undo and provide feedback? –Post Epoch (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Some issues
A couple of things in the current entry concern me:

 * The current text makes it sound as if it is impossible to seriously advocate for ethical egoism while retaining a traditional view of self-interest (i.e. that one cannot seriously advocate for selfishness). Based on the given definitions of ethical egoism, and of morality, this is untrue.
 * Ayn Rand was removed in a recent revert; the reverter (Jod) cited that Rand was "just a popular amateur" and "not really a 'noted philosopher'". While I'm not the biggest fan of Rand, this strikes me as a dangerously narrow view of what constitutes being "noted" and/or a "philosopher".  She certainly wasn't an "amateur" in the proper sense of the word, considering that she made money from her books; indeed, some much more famous philosophers from history might actually be termed "amateurs" since they never made money from their philosophical thoughts.  Rand also enjoys no small share of ongoing popularity, regardless of one's opinion of the quality of her works.  (I could never get through Atlas Shrugged, myself.)

I'd like to fix these issues without starting an edit war; please comment. I'll make the changes if I don't have any feedback in the next couple of days. Ideas on how to best incorporate these changes in a NPOV fashion are especially welcome.

- Korpios 19:52, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Misc.
Adding weasel tag for "many contend" at beginning of 4th paragraph. I cannot change this expertly but someone should.Radiooperator 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bolded text is usually a NPOV giveaway.

Christianity is anti-egoist
I just removed the sentence: "In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the pursuit of the individual's ends without consideration of the greater good is the basis for sin." It sounds like original research. As a Christian and an ethical egoist, I've never heard it put this way at all. If there is a source this can be assigned to, please replace it and source it. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See above . See also Luke 10: 30-37 in the Bible. -- Nikodemos 04:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The good Samaritan story makes no claim about the basis of sin. NickelShoe (Talk) 05:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "the basis of sin" was not a good phrase to use. But Jesus certainly emphasized altruism in his teachings. -- Nikodemos 05:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * He advocated benevolence (and of course self-interest can prescribe benevolence). I'm not sure he advocated altruism. But, I'm far from an expert on Christianity. RJII 05:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my personal beliefs aside, the issue isn't whether or not ethical egoism is a problem for Christianity, but whether or not sources say it is. When we start drawing conclusions about the nature of sin based on a story Jesus told, we're doing original research. If we find reliable sources that support the conclusions, then they go in.

And, having looked at the source we have currently, I can't see how it can be used as an authority on Christianity. Let's find a better source, or the claim has to go again. There's no point in talking about how some random book says such-and-such about Christianity. NickelShoe (Talk) 06:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Before we can do that, you'll have to define what counts as an authority on Christianity in your view. From my experience in other articles, most editors will accept anything published on a respectable website as a valid source - even if it is just a "random book" on the subject. -- Nikodemos 07:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It depends on the claim being made. If we're going to make a strong claim about the nature of Christianity, we need a Christian philopher or theologian or something, I think.  If not a very academic one, at least someone popularly known.  Because if no major Christian philosopher or theologian has made such a claim, then it can't be all that important to the religion.  For some claims on hard to source subjects, random books might be okay, at least until better sources are found. But claims about an entire religion seem to me to require a fairly good source--especially considering that there are centuries of good sources about Christianity out there.

 * If I'm applying this standard inconsistently, I don't intend to. I wouldn't object to removing similarly sourced claims of similar strength from other articles if there was doubt about them. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No criticism?
Like anything connected to Randism on Wikipedia, this article is not remotely NPOV. There have been extensive criticisms made of ethical egoism, many of which are not religious in their character at all.64.251.50.50 13:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson quote
I question whether that quotation from Thomas Jefferson was really meant as a refutation of ethical egoism. It sounds to me that he was saying that an individual's actions concerning himself are not the domain of morality; that is, that actions that do not involve others are not rightly the concern of laws regarding right and wrong. I have difficulty finding anything in that passage which claims that acting in one's self-interest is immoral; rather that purely self-regarding actions are amoral, beyond the domain of morality.

I agree. Jefferson quote is not applicable to this article. Max Stirner was quoted earlier in the article that he was the first one to use the formalized term of ethical egoism. Stirner is from latter half of 1800's, while Jefferson's quote was from much earlier, prior to the formalized definition of word egoism (please give an example if this is wrong). I recommend that changes be made on account that Jefferson's quote is either 1) inconsistent with the context of the term egoism as being described in this article (which is the term defined post-Stirner) or 2) quote is incorrectly placed in egoism article when it should be in rational egoism article. Finally the quote does not specifically state "ethical egoism," it only states "egoism," which may be used with different definition in mind. --Dchem (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Counter-Criticism?
Why there are counter-critisim existing in almost every term of critisism? It directly defeats the purpose of criticism. This is not a nice format of WP I'm afraid Anon J (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche?
This seems a very dubious claim seeing as Nietzsche considered all ethical statements to be false. I will remove his inclusion if there is no contention.–Skomorokh 19:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that Nietzsche belongs here. I understand how a superficial reading of him (like the reading offered by Nazis) might lead one to this conclusion. The problem is, the definition of the article requires a notion of "self"-interest, which requires a coherent notion of "self." Nietzsche, however, radically questioned the meaning of "self." Slrubenstein

 * The description on the page, to be fair, simply says that these philosophers might reasonably be called ethical egoists; I think that is at least a reasonable reading in all these cases, though maybe not the best one. I also don't think that a notion of "self-interest" requires a substantial notion of a "self"; the "self-" prefix can simply be construed as a reflexive pronoun.  John's self-interest is an interest in John, etc.

Nozick?
Whoa, whoa, since when is Nozick an ethical egoist? He argued for vegetarianism out of respect for animals, after all!

 * I confess, I stopped reading Nozick when I lost patience with his habit of trying to address too many subjects in too little space. So I am not in a good position to answer this query.  But I know he stated that Ayn Rand's writings are worthy of attention, so maybe that caused someone to conclude this (?). Michael Hardy 19:58 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

Philosophical Aspects of Privacy
Question. Which school of philisophical thought would hold closest to the idea that individual privacy is valued above all other societal needs?--Dr who1975 17:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ayn Rand
Jod is mistaken about Ayn Rand; we had this discussion last November on the discussion page for list of philosophers; here is an excerpt:

I would submit that the authors and editors of the following works are among those who "seriously stud[y] philosophy":

 * Encyclopedia of Ethics by Lawrence C. Becker (Routledge 2001), p. 1440.

 * Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Routledge, 1999).

 * Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia, edited by J. J. Chambliss (Garland 1996), p. 302.

The above list Ayn Rand among philosophers, contrary to the troll's bigotted assertion.

The following professors of philosophy will tell you that Ayn Rand was an important philosopher, contrary to the bigot's assertion:

 * Lisa Dolling (head of the honors program in theology at St. John's University in New York)
 * Tibor Machan, (Stanford University. See his home page at .)
 * Douglas Den Uyl (Bellarmine University, Louisville, Kentucky)
 * Douglas Rasmussen (St. John's University, New York)
 * Eric Mack (Tulane University)
 * Aeon Skoble (Bridgewater State College, Massachusetts)
 * Tara Smith (University of Texas at Austin)
 * Lester Hunt (University of Wisconsin, Madison)
 * Randall Dipert (C.S. Peirce Professor of American Philosophy, SUNY Buffalo)
 * Roderick Long (Auburn University)
 * Slavoj Zizek (The European Graduate School)
 * Michael Huemer (University of Colorado, Boulder)
 * Jonathan Jacobs (University of Pennsylvania)
 * Wayne Davis (Chair of the Philosophy Department, Georgetown University)
 * Stephen Parrish (Concordia University, Ann Arbor, Michigan)
 * Stephen R. C. Hicks (Rockford College, Illinois)
 * Fred Seddon (University of Pittsburgh? (I'm not sure of this affiliation -- more later))
 * Allan Gotthelf, (University of Pittsburgh), (who is also Secretary of the Ayn Rand Society, an official 'group' of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association).
 * Andrew Bernstein, (Duke University (I'm not sure this one is up to date))
 * Gary Hull, (Duke University)

Michael Hardy 19:46, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

By the way, the list above is of course a partial list. And also, one may list professors in other humanities fields than philosophy. I will also take up the anonymous posters challenge to list journal articles. That will take some time, but let's start with this one:

 * Leonard Peikoff, Aristotle's Intuitive Induction, The New Scholasticism, Vol. 59, p. 30-53, 1985.

Michael Hardy 22:15, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Recalling the dishonest claim again:

 * "Quite literally no one who seriously studies philosophy anywhere considers Ayn Rand a philosopher. Hunt through the index of any philosophy book or journal you like, and you won't find her name cited; look through the philosophy section af any library, and you won't find books on her. Look through the course syllabi for any philosophy department you want and you won't find them reading anything she wrote."

A scholar at New York University has told me that Ayn Rand has been discussed in the following scholarly journals (contrary to the claim about "any ... journal you like"); I'll try to cite articles on this discussion page as I find the cites:

 * Philosophical Books
 * Review of Metaphysics
 * The Monist
 * The Personalist
 * Social Philosophy and Policy
 * Catholic World
 * American Journal of Economics and Sociology
 * Germano-Salavica: Canadian Journal of Germanic and Slavic Comparative and Interdisciplinary Studies
 * College English
 * University of Windsor Review
 * Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, Impact of Science on Society
 * Journal of Popular Culture
 * Cycnos
 * Aristos
 * Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
 * The Occasional Review
 * Reason Papers
 * Critical Review
 * Journal of Libertarian Studies
 * The Humanist
 * Commentary
 * Nomos
 * English Journal
 * Journal of Thought
 * Journal of Philosophical Research
 * New University Thought
 * Journal of Business Ethics
 * Library Journal
 * Choice
 * Journal of Canadian Studies
 * Social Justice Review
 * Teaching Philosophy
 * Resources for American Literary Study
 * Policy Review

Contrary to the claim about "any philosophy book ... you like", she is the topic of articles in the following encyclopedias:

 * Encyclopedia of Philosophy
 * Encyclopedia of Ethics
 * Encyclopedia of Libertarianism
 * Encyclopedia of New York State
 * American Authors and Books
 * American Novelists of Today
 * Encyclopedia of World Literature
 * Contemporary Authors
 * Contemporary Literary Criticism
 * Contemporary Novelists
 * A Handbook of American Literature
 * Contemporary Women Philosophers
 * Oxford Companion to American Literature
 * Reader's Encyclopedia of American Literature
 * Twentieth Century Authors

You forgot the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Of all the sources listed surely having an entry in the SEP makes one a philosopher -- though it's hard to read the entry without laughing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.157.53 (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

clarification needed in "types of ethical egoism" section
Hi, everyone. I just made some attempts at clarifying a few lines which I thought were very unclear (or at least difficult to understand) in the Intro and "Types of E.E." section. Hopefully my edits retained the intended meanings of the original text; feel free to review and edit them.

However, I was unable to really understand the difference(s) between "individual ethical egoism" and "universal ethical egoism" as they are currently defined. It would be great if someone who knows the difference could clarify, as it seems to me that their definitions are currently semantically equivalent ("An individual ethical egoist would hold that all people should do whatever benefits them", "a universal ethical egoist would argue that everyone should act in ways that are in their own interest"). I suspect that part of the confusion may arise from ambiguity due to the misuse of third-person plural pronouns. In the second definition, "their" disagrees with its antecedent, "everyone"; in the first, it seems to me that "them" should be replaced with "each individually" to clarify its meaning. However, even if both of these were changed, the meanings of these two definitions still seem equivalent to me.Brad Gibbons (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree with all of the above, I was coming here to say just that, i.e.,
 * I don't see the difference between "individual ethical egoism" and "universal ethical egoism".
 * I suspect the problem is the use of third-person plural pronouns.
 * If anyone knows the difference between these two kinds of ethical egoism please do fix this. Thanks. --PoisonedQuill (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Pro-ethical egoism arguments
As we have a section on criticisms of the theory, we ought surely to have a correspondent on lines of reasoning in its favour. James Rachels was not far wrong when he asserted that "the theory is asserted more often than it is argued for." Best, Crusoe (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No matter. I have just done a rough job of it myself, using the arguments outlined in Rachels's "Ethical Egoism" (1986).  Ever, Crusoe (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The article says "All of our commonly-accepted moral duties, from doing no harm unto others to speaking always the truth to keeping promises, are rooted in the one fundamental principle of self-interest." On the face of it, this makes no sense. In other words, please explain it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.24.67 (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Rand again
As regards the statement above which declares that "[t]he following professors of philosophy will tell you that Ayn Rand was an important philosopher", it is interesting to note that, according to Rachels, Rand is "a writer little heeded by professional philosophers". I have duly quoted this in the article. Crusoe (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

egoism, altruism, and libertarianism
There was a pre-existing comment indicating that libertarianism can be based on egoism, but not necessarily. I made it more concise by stating that libertarianism can be driven by a sense of altruism. From the cited source:
 * It is hardly altruistic, in the ordinary sense of the term, to coerce other people to behave in supposedly selfless ways in order to achieve your personal vision of the greater collective good even if that greater good is thereby realized. But it is unarguably immoral to coerce others using that rationale when, in fact, it becomes painfully obvious that the exact opposite results.

72.95.247.153 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Cleanup
The section on criticisms should be cleaned up by someone who knows more about the topic than I do. -Jaardon (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Retort?
As someone relatively unfamiliar with the finer points of Wiki etiquette I am curious about that rules regarding retorts. I suspect it would do no good to hold an active debate by editing the article itself. Indeed, what I have read of Wikipedia's history indicates that this is a source of trouble.

In the interests of disclosure, I consider myself an ethical egoist and I find the conclusion on which this article ends somewhat frustrating. I understand that it falls under the heading of "Criticisms" so there is no rational cause to assume egoism would have a defense there but nevertheless, it seems a somewhat weak criticism, if the editor of this article will take no offense as none is intended.

To wit, "Failing an answer, it turns out that Ethical Egoism is an arbitrary doctrine, in the same way that racism is arbitrary. [...] We should care about the interests of other people for the very same reason we care about our own interests; for their needs and desires are comparable to our own."

My concern is twofold. First, that this comparison with racism seems an appeal to emotion and unnecessarily inflammatory (although if a valid concern, the blame lies with the original source, not the editor). Second and more importantly I am concerned that this quote presumes that ethical egoism and all the advocates thereof, fail to provide an answer to why one's own interests are treated differently from those of others. By its placement at the end of the article it seems to read such that it can be taken as the de facto conclusion of said article as well. However, the objection has an easy enough retort.

To wit, One's own interests are treated differently because oneself is a distinct entity from others with a distinct experience of the world.

To elaborate (skip past this and the next two paragraphs if uninterested in elaboration). It is a simple scientific reality that all of an individual's commonly acknowledged senses have their only source in one single body, and that further, we have an instinctual imperative to self-preserve. Further personal knowledge and memories have the same center in the individual. Therefore, it is not only not arbitrary, it is perhaps imperative and essential that human beings make a distinction on some level between the self and not self, whether this informs their ethical decisions or not.

Anything else involves turning a blind eye to a certain, never fully escapable (except arguably in certain transcendent traditions) separation. And if transcendental traditions are the sticking point than doesn't this objection to ethical egoism amount to challenging an ethical system because its followers have not reached (or necessarily aspired to) transcendental enlightenment?

Indeed the body text contains a fine enough (although still incomplete) counter argument for the article's final criticism, if it's comparative placement didn't make it's impact less than the critique. To wit, One treats an other differently from the self out of respect for said other's sovereignty.

To conclude my point, my concern is that, not necessarily through anyone's intention, the POV of this article reads as somewhat slanted against the ethical position which it describes and ends by leaving an easily refutable criticism as the last word (possibly implying to some extant that their is not an effective counterargument). Is there a proper recourse in Wiki etiquette for this problem I perceive? 67.42.9.141 (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Too much Rachels-responding-to-critics
The criticism section gives undue weight to Rachels' responses to critics, and creates the impression that the debate has been settled or has reached an equilibrium based on these arguments. That would be inaccurate. We should consider giving a little less space to Rachels, adding more egoist philosophers (from above), and trying to find a good statement of where the debate ultimately stands. I'll try to take a look and see if I can find anything relevant.65.184.183.118 (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What has been removed is not Rachels material but Rand material which contrasts with it. It would be a gross distortion to exclude Rand's positions on the very issues that Rachels raises in this section. Having indicated Rand's view earlier, it would make it appear as if Rand had no answer to these issues. Rand's view informs Professor Machan, Professor Gotthelf, Professor Tara Smith, etc., and the ~ entire ~ list of contemporary "Proponents" (listed above in the article), and thus it is her view that would appear to be lacking if the the entire article ends on these criticisms without mentioning her response.Pelagius1 (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Poor Article
Does anyone else think this article is poor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.242.123 (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you explain more specifically what you would like to change to this article?  Lova Falk     talk   12:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Rachels' Quote from "Elements of Moral Philosophy" and "Justifications" Section
In regards to the section on ethical egoism's justifications, does it seem like the amount of direct quotation from James Rachels' book is a bit excessive with regards to copyright and/or basic overview to anyone else? While directly quoting a few words seems suitable, pulling a whole paragraph from a frequently-updated book just doesn't seem like the best approach. Just on that note if Rachels' work is to be used, perhaps some paraphrases from what his summary of the argument could ameliorate such faults. Furthermore, I feel that the whole section on "Justifications" would be be objective if not taken solely from Rachels. Thoughts? RyanQuinlan (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ethical egoism


text:
Erasmus Darwin

Erasmus Robert Darwin (12 December 1731 – 18 April 1802) was an English physician. One of the key thinkers of the Midlands Enlightenment, he was also a natural philosopher, physiologist, slave-trade abolitionist, inventor, and poet.

His poems included much natural history, including a statement of evolution and the relatedness of all forms of life.

He was a member of the Darwin–Wedgwood family, which includes his grandsons Charles Darwin and Francis Galton. Darwin was a founding member of the Lunar Society of Birmingham, a discussion group of pioneering industrialists and natural philosophers.

He turned down an invitation from George III to become Physician to the King.

Early life and education
Darwin was born in 1731 at Elston Hall, Nottinghamshire, near Newark-on-Trent, England, the youngest of seven children of Robert Darwin of Elston (1682–1754), a lawyer and physician, and his wife Elizabeth Hill (1702–97). The name Erasmus had been used by a number of his family and derives from his ancestor Erasmus Earle, Common Sergent of England under Oliver Cromwell. His siblings were:
 * Robert Waring Darwin of Elston (17 October 1724 – 4 November 1816)
 * Elizabeth Darwin (15 September 1725 – 8 April 1800)
 * William Alvey Darwin (3 October 1726 – 7 October 1783)
 * Anne Darwin (12 November 1727 – 3 August 1813)
 * Susannah Darwin (10 April 1729 – 29 September 1789)
 * Rev. John Darwin, rector of Elston (28 September 1730 – 24 May 1805)

He was educated at Chesterfield Grammar School, then later at St John's College, Cambridge. He obtained his medical education at the University of Edinburgh Medical School.

Darwin settled in 1756 as a physician at Nottingham, but met with little success and so moved the following year to Lichfield to try to establish a practice there. A few weeks after his arrival, using a novel course of treatment, he restored the health of a young fisherman whose death seemed inevitable. This ensured his success in the new locale. Darwin was a highly successful physician for more than fifty years in the Midlands. In 1761, he was elected to the Royal Society. George III invited him to be Royal Physician, but Darwin declined.

Personal life
Darwin married twice and had 14 children, including two illegitimate daughters by an employee, and, possibly, at least one further illegitimate daughter. In 1757 he married Mary (Polly) Howard (1740–1770), the daughter of Charles Howard, a Lichfield solicitor. They had four sons and one daughter, two of whom (a son and a daughter) died in infancy:

 * Charles Darwin (1758–1778), uncle of the naturalist
 * Erasmus Darwin Jr (1759–1799)
 * Elizabeth Darwin (1763, survived 4 months)
 * Robert Waring Darwin (1766–1848), father of the naturalist Charles Darwin
 * William Alvey Darwin (1767, survived 19 days)

The first Mrs. Darwin died in 1770. A governess, Mary Parker, was hired to look after Robert. By late 1771, employer and employee had become intimately involved and together they had two illegitimate daughters:
 * Susanna Parker (1772–1856)
 * Mary Parker Jr (1774–1859)

Susanna and Mary Jr later established a boarding school for girls. In 1782, Mary Sr (the governess) married Joseph Day (1745–1811), a Birmingham merchant, and moved away.

There was also a rumour that Darwin fathered another child, this time with a married woman. A Lucy Swift gave birth in 1771 to a baby, also named Lucy, who was christened a daughter of her mother and William Swift. It has been suggested that the father was really Darwin. However, it is more likely that this child was the legitimate daughter of Lamech Swift, at that time owner of the Derby Silk Mill and his wife Dorothy, who became a friend of the two Parker girls. Lucy Swift, later known as Lucy Hardcastle after her marriage, went on to be known as a botanist and teacher.

In 1775, Darwin met Elizabeth Pole, daughter of Charles Colyear, 2nd Earl of Portmore, and wife of Colonel Edward Pole (1718–1780); but as she was married, Darwin could only make his feelings known for her through poetry. When Edward Pole died, Darwin married Elizabeth and moved to her home, Radbourne Hall, 4 mi west of Derby. The hall and village are these days known as Radbourne. In 1782, they moved to Full Street, Derby. They had four sons, one of whom died in infancy, and three daughters:
 * Edward Darwin (1782–1829)
 * Frances Ann Violetta Darwin (1783–1874), married Samuel Tertius Galton, was the mother of Francis Galton
 * Emma Georgina Elizabeth Darwin (1784–1818)
 * Sir Francis Sacheverel Darwin (1786–1859)
 * Revd. John Darwin (1787–1818), rector of All Saints' Church, Elston
 * Henry Darwin (1789–1790), died in infancy
 * Harriet Darwin (1790–1825), married Admiral Thomas James Maling

Darwin's personal appearance is described in unflattering detail in his Biographical Memoirs, printed by the Monthly Magazine in 1802. Darwin, the description reads, "was of middle stature, in person gross and corpulent; his features were coarse, and his countenance heavy; if not wholly void of animation, it certainly was by no means expressive. The print of him, from a painting of Mr. Wright, is a good likeness. In his gait and dress he was rather clumsy and slovenly, and frequently walked with his tongue hanging out of his mouth."

Freemasonry
Darwin had been a Freemason throughout his life, in the Time Immemorial Lodge of Cannongate Kilwinning, No. 2, of Scotland. Later on, Sir Francis Darwin, one of his sons, was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge, No. 253, at Derby, in 1807 or 1808. His son Reginald was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge in 1804. Charles Darwin's name does not appear on the rolls of the Lodge but it is very possible that he, like Francis, was a Mason, as he held many Masonic beliefs such as Deism throughout his life.

Death
Darwin died suddenly on 18 April 1802, weeks after having moved to Breadsall Priory, just north of Derby. The Monthly Magazine of 1802, in its Biographical Memoirs of the Late Dr. Darwin, reports that "during the last few years, Dr. Darwin was much subject to inflammation in his breast and lungs; he had a very serious attack of this disease in the course of the last Spring, from which, after repeated bleedings, by himself and a surgeon, he with great difficulty recovered."

Darwin's death, the Biographical Memoirs continues, "is variously accounted for: it is supposed to have been caused by the cold fit of an inflammatory fever. Dr. Fox, of Derby, considers the disease which occasioned it to have been angina pectoris; but Dr. Garlicke, of the same place, thinks this opinion not sufficiently well founded. Whatever was the disease, it is not improbable, surely, that the fatal event was hastened by the violent fit of passion with which he was seized in the morning."

His body is buried in All Saints' Church, Breadsall.

Erasmus Darwin is commemorated on one of the Moonstones, a series of monuments in Birmingham.

Botanical works and the Lichfield Botanical Society
Darwin formed 'A Botanical Society, at Lichfield' almost always incorrectly named as the Lichfield Botanical Society (despite the name, composed of only three men, Erasmus Darwin, Sir Brooke Boothby and Mr John Jackson, proctor of Lichfield Cathedral ) to translate the works of the Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus from Latin into English. This took seven years. The result was two publications: A System of Vegetables between 1783 and 1785, and The Families of Plants in 1787. In these volumes, Darwin coined many of the English names of plants that we use today.

Darwin then wrote The Loves of the Plants, a long poem, which was a popular rendering of Linnaeus' works. Darwin also wrote Economy of Vegetation, and together the two were published as The Botanic Garden. Among other writers he influenced were Anna Seward and Maria Jacson.

Zoonomia
Darwin's most important scientific work, Zoonomia (1794–1796), contains a system of pathology and a chapter on 'Generation'. In the latter, he anticipated some of the views of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, which foreshadowed the modern theory of evolution. Erasmus Darwin's works were read and commented on by his grandson Charles Darwin the naturalist. Erasmus Darwin based his theories on David Hartley's psychological theory of associationism. The essence of his views is contained in the following passage, which he follows up with the conclusion that one and the same kind of living filament is and has been the cause of all organic life:

"Would it be too bold to imagine, that in the great length of time, since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind, would it be too bold to imagine, that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end!"

Erasmus Darwin also anticipated survival of the fittest in Zoönomia mainly when writing about the "three great objects of desire" for every organism: "lust, hunger, and security." A similar "survival of the fittest" view in Zoönomia is Erasmus' view on how a species "should" propagate itself. Erasmus' idea that "the strongest and most active animal should propagate the species, which should thence become improved". Today, this is called the theory of survival of the fittest. His grandson Charles Darwin posited the different and fuller theory of natural selection. Charles' theory was that natural selection is the inheritance of changed genetic characteristics that are better adaptations to the environment; these are not necessarily based in "strength" and "activity", which themselves ironically can lead to the overpopulation that results in natural selection yielding nonsurvivors of genetic traits.

Erasmus Darwin was familiar with the earlier proto-evolutionary thinking of James Burnett, Lord Monboddo, and cited him in his 1803 work Temple of Nature.

Poem on evolution
Erasmus Darwin offered the first glimpse of his theory of evolution, obliquely, in a question at the end of a long footnote to his popular poem The Loves of the Plants (1789), which was republished throughout the 1790s in several editions as The Botanic Garden. His poetic concept was to anthropomorphise the stamen (male) and pistil (female) sexual organs, as bride and groom. In this stanza on the flower Curcuma (also Flax and Turmeric) the "youths" are infertile, and he devotes the footnote to other examples of neutered organs in flowers, insect castes, and finally associates this more broadly with many popular and well-known cases of vestigial organs (male nipples, the third and fourth wings of flies, etc.)

Woo'd with long care, CURCUMA cold and shy

Meets her fond husband with averted eye:

Four beardless youths the obdurate beauty move

With soft attentions of Platonic love.

Darwin's final long poem, The Temple of Nature was published posthumously in 1803. The poem was originally titled The Origin of Society. It is considered his best poetic work. It centres on his own conception of evolution. The poem traces the progression of life from micro-organisms to civilised society. The poem contains a passage that describes the struggle for existence.

His poetry was admired by Wordsworth, while Coleridge was intensely critical, writing, "I absolutely nauseate Darwin's poem". It often made reference to his interests in science; for example botany and steam engines.

Education of women
The last two leaves of Darwin's A plan for the conduct of female education in boarding schools (1797) contain a book list, an apology for the work, and an advert for "Miss Parkers School".

The school advertised on the last page is the one he set up in Ashbourne, Derbyshire, for his two illegitimate children, Susanna and Mary.

Darwin regretted that a good education had not been generally available to women in Britain in his time, and drew on the ideas of Locke, Rousseau, and Genlis in organising his thoughts. Addressing the education of middle-class girls, Darwin argued that amorous romance novels were inappropriate and that they should seek simplicity in dress. He contends that young women should be educated in schools, rather than privately at home, and learn appropriate subjects. These subjects include physiognomy, physical exercise, botany, chemistry, mineralogy, and experimental philosophy. They should familiarise themselves with arts and manufactures through visits to sites like Coalbrookdale, and Wedgwood's potteries; they should learn how to handle money, and study modern languages. Darwin's educational philosophy took the view that men and women should have different capabilities, skills, interests, and spheres of action, where the woman's education was designed to support and serve male accomplishment and financial reward, and to relieve him of daily responsibility for children and the chores of life. In the context of the times, this program may be read as a modernising influence in the sense that the woman was at least to learn about the "man's world", although not be allowed to participate in it. The text was written seven years after A Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft, which has the central argument that women should be educated in a rational manner to give them the opportunity to contribute to society.

Some women of Darwin's era were receiving more substantial education and participating in the broader world. An example is Susanna Wright, who was raised in Lancashire and became an American colonist associated with the Midlands Enlightenment. It is not known whether Darwin and Wright knew each other, although they definitely knew many people in common. Other women who received substantial education and who participated in the broader world (albeit sometimes anonymously) whom Darwin definitely knew were Maria Jacson and Anna Seward.

Lunar Society
These dates indicate the year in which Darwin became friends with these people, who, in turn, became members of the Lunar Society. The Lunar Society existed from 1765 to 1813.

Before 1765: After 1765:
 * Matthew Boulton, originally a buckle maker in Birmingham
 * John Whitehurst of Derby, maker of clocks and scientific instruments, pioneer of geology
 * Josiah Wedgwood, potter 1765
 * Dr. William Small, 1765, man of science, formerly Professor of Natural Philosophy at the College of William and Mary, where Thomas Jefferson was an appreciative pupil
 * Richard Lovell Edgeworth, 1766, inventor
 * James Watt, 1767, improver of steam engine
 * James Keir, 1767, pioneer of the chemical industry
 * Thomas Day, 1768, eccentric and author
 * Dr. William Withering, 1775, the death of Dr. Small left an opening for a physician in the group.
 * Joseph Priestley, 1780, experimental chemist and discoverer of many substances.
 * Samuel Galton, 1782, a Quaker gunmaker with a taste for science, took Darwin's place after Darwin moved to Derby.

Darwin also established a lifelong friendship with Benjamin Franklin, who shared Darwin's support for the American and French revolutions. The Lunar Society was instrumental as an intellectual driving force behind England's Industrial Revolution.

The members of the Lunar Society, and especially Darwin, opposed the slave trade. He attacked it in The Botanic Garden (1789–1791), and in The Loves of Plants (1789), The Economy of Vegetation (1791), and the Phytologia (1800).

Other activities
In 1761, Darwin was elected a fellow of the Royal Society.

In addition to the Lunar Society, Erasmus Darwin belonged to the influential Derby Philosophical Society, as did his brother-in-law Samuel Fox (see family tree below). He experimented with the use of air and gases to alleviate infections and cancers in patients. A Pneumatic Institution was established at Clifton in 1799 for clinically testing these ideas. He conducted research into the formation of clouds, on which he published in 1788. He also inspired Robert Weldon's Somerset Coal Canal caisson lock.

In 1792, Darwin was elected as a member to the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia.

Percy Bysshe Shelley specifically mentions Darwin in the first sentence of the 1818 Preface to Frankenstein to support his contention that the creation of life is possible. His wife Mary Shelley in her introduction to the 1831 edition of Frankenstein wrote that she overheard her husband talk about Darwin's experiments with Lord Byron about unspecified "experiments of Dr. Darwin" that led to the idea for the novel.

Cosmological speculation
Contemporary literature dates the cosmological theories of the Big Bang and Big Crunch to the 19th and 20th centuries. However, Erasmus Darwin had speculated on these sorts of events in The Botanic Garden, A Poem in Two Parts: Part 1, The Economy of Vegetation, 1791:

Inventions
Darwin was the inventor of several devices, though he did not patent any: he believed this would damage his reputation as a doctor. He encouraged his friends to patent their own modifications of his designs.
 * A horizontal windmill, which he designed for Josiah Wedgwood (who would be Charles Darwin's other grandfather, see family tree below).
 * A carriage that would not tip over (1766).
 * A steering mechanism for his carriage, known today as the Ackermann linkage, that would be adopted by cars 130 years later (1759).
 * A speaking machine, which was a mechanical larynx made of wood, silk, and leather and pronounced several sounds so well 'as to deceive all who heard it unseen' (at Clifton in 1799).
 * A canal lift for barges.
 * A minute artificial bird.
 * A copying machine (1778).
 * A variety of weather monitoring machines.

Rocket engine
In notes dating to 1779, Darwin made a sketch of a simple hydrogen-oxygen rocket engine, with gas tanks connected by plumbing and pumps to an elongated combustion chamber and expansion nozzle, a concept not to be seen again until one century later.

Major publications

 * Erasmus Darwin, A Botanical Society at Lichfield. A System of Vegetables, according to their classes, orders... translated from the 13th edition of Linnaeus' Systema Vegetabiliium. 2 vols., 1783, Lichfield, J. Jackson, for Leigh and Sotheby, London.
 * Erasmus Darwin, A Botanical Society at Lichfield. The Families of Plants with their natural characters...Translated from the last edition of Linnaeus' Genera Plantarum. 1787, Lichfield, J. Jackson, for J. Johnson, London.
 * Erasmus Darwin, The Botanic Garden, Part I, The Economy of Vegetation. 1791 London, J. Johnson.
 * Part II, The Loves of the Plants. 1789, London, J. Johnson.
 * Erasmus Darwin, Zoonomia; or, The Laws of Organic Life, 1794, Part I. London, J. Johnson.
 * Part I–III. 1796, London, J. Johnson.
 * (last two leaves contain a book list, an apology for the work, and an advert for "Miss Parkers School")
 * Erasmus Darwin, Phytologia; or, The Philosophy of Agriculture and Gardening. 1800, London, J. Johnson.
 * Erasmus Darwin, The Temple of Nature; or, The Origin of Society. 1803, London, J. Johnson.

Commemoration
Erasmus Darwin House, his home in Lichfield, Staffordshire, is a museum dedicated to him and his life's work. A secondary school at Burntwood, near Lichfield, was renamed Erasmus Darwin Academy in 2011.

A science building on the Clifton campus of Nottingham Trent University is named after him.

In fiction

 * Charles Sheffield, an author noted largely for hard science fiction, wrote a number of stories featuring Darwin in a role similar to that of Sherlock Holmes. These stories were collected in a book, The Amazing Dr. Darwin.
 * The forgetting of Erasmus' designs for a rocket is a major plot point in Stephen Baxter's tale of alternate universes, Manifold: Origin.
 * Phrases from Darwin's poem The Botanic Garden are used as chapter headings in The Pornographer of Vienna by Lewis Crofts.
 * Darwin appears as a character in Sergey Lukyanenko's novel New Watch as a Dark Other, and a prophet living in Regent's Park Estate.

Biographies and criticism

 * King-Hele, Desmond. 1963. Doctor Darwin. Scribner's, N.Y.
 * King-Hele, Desmond. 1977. Doctor of Revolution: the life and genius of Erasmus Darwin. Faber, London.
 * King-Hele, Desmond. 1999. Erasmus Darwin: a life of unequalled achievement Giles de la Mare Publishers.
 * King-Hele, Desmond (ed) 2002. Charles Darwin's 'The Life of Erasmus Darwin'  Cambridge University Press.
 * Krause, Ernst 1879. Erasmus Darwin, with a preliminary notice by Charles Darwin. Murray, London.
 * Pearson, Hesketh. 1930. Doctor Darwin. Dent, London.
 * Porter, Roy, 1989. 'Erasmus Darwin: doctor of evolution?' in 'History, Humanity and Evolution: Essays for John C. Greene, ed. James R. Moore.
 * Pearson, Hesketh. 1930. Doctor Darwin. Dent, London.
 * Porter, Roy, 1989. 'Erasmus Darwin: doctor of evolution?' in 'History, Humanity and Evolution: Essays for John C. Greene, ed. James R. Moore.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Erasmus Darwin


text:
Ediacaran

The Ediacaran is a geological period of the Neoproterozoic Era that spans 96 million years from the end of the Cryogenian Period at 635 Mya to the beginning of the Cambrian Period at 538.8 Mya. It is the last period of the Proterozoic Eon as well as the last of the so-called "Precambrian supereon", before the beginning of the subsequent Cambrian Period marks the start of the Phanerozoic Eon, where recognizable fossil evidence of life becomes common.

The Ediacaran Period is named after the Ediacara Hills of South Australia, where trace fossils of a diverse community of previously unrecognized lifeforms (later named the Ediacaran biota) were first discovered by geologist Reg Sprigg in 1946. Its status as an official geological period was ratified in 2004 by the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), making it the first new geological period declared in 120 years. Although the period took namesake from the Ediacara Hills in the Nilpena Ediacara National Park, the type section is actually located in the bed of the Enorama Creek within the Brachina Gorge in the Ikara-Flinders Ranges National Park, at -31.33161°N, 138.63336°W, approximately 55 km southeast of the Ediacara Hills fossil site.

The Ediacaran marks the first widespread appearance of complex multicellular fauna following the end of the Cryogenian global glaciation known as the Snowball Earth. The relatively sudden evolutionary radiation event, known as the Avalon Explosion, is represented by now-extinct, relatively simple soft-bodied animal phyla such as Proarticulata (bilaterians with simple articulation, e.g. Dickinsonia and Spriggina), Petalonamae (sea pen-like animals, e.g. Charnia), Aspidella (radial-shaped animals, e.g. Cyclomedusa) and Trilobozoa (animals with tri-radial symmetry, e.g. Tribrachidium). Most of these organisms appeared during or after the Avalon explosion 575 million years ago and died out during the End-Ediacaran extinction event 539 million years ago. Forerunners of some modern animal phyla also appeared during this period, including cnidarians and early bilaterians such as Xenacoelomorpha, as well as mollusc-like Kimberella. Hard-bodied organisms with mineralized shells or endoskeletons, which can be fossilized and preserved, were yet to evolve and would not appear until the superseding Cambrian Explosion some 35 million years later.

The supercontinent Pannotia formed and broke apart by the end of the period. The Ediacaran also witnessed several glaciation events, such as the Gaskiers and Baykonurian glaciations. The Shuram excursion also occurred during this period, but its glacial origin is unlikely.

Ediacaran and Vendian
The Ediacaran Period overlaps but is shorter than the Vendian Period (650 to 543 million years ago), a name that was earlier, in 1952, proposed by Russian geologist and paleontologist Boris Sokolov. The Vendian concept was formed stratigraphically top-down, and the lower boundary of the Cambrian became the upper boundary of the Vendian.

Paleontological substantiation of this boundary was worked out separately for the siliciclastic basin (base of the Baltic Stage of the Eastern European Platform ) and for the carbonate basin (base of the Tommotian stage of the Siberian Platform). The lower boundary of the Vendian was suggested to be defined at the base of the Varanger (Laplandian) tillites.

The Vendian in its type area consists of large subdivisions such as Laplandian, Redkino, Kotlin and Rovno regional stages with the globally traceable subdivisions and their boundaries, including its lower one.

The Redkino, Kotlin and Rovno regional stages have been substantiated in the type area of the Vendian on the basis of the abundant organic-walled microfossils, megascopic algae, metazoan body fossils and ichnofossils.

The lower boundary of the Vendian could have a biostratigraphic substantiation as well taking into consideration the worldwide occurrence of the Pertatataka assemblage of giant acanthomorph acritarchs.

Upper and lower boundaries
The Ediacaran Period (c. 635–538.8 Mya) represents the time from the end of global Marinoan glaciation to the first appearance worldwide of somewhat complicated trace fossils (Treptichnus pedum (Seilacher, 1955)).

Although the Ediacaran Period does contain soft-bodied fossils, it is unusual in comparison to later periods because its beginning is not defined by a change in the fossil record. Rather, the beginning is defined at the base of a chemically distinctive carbonate layer that is referred to as a "cap carbonate", because it caps glacial deposits.

This bed is characterized by an unusual depletion of 13C that indicates a sudden climatic change at the end of the Marinoan ice age. The lower global boundary stratotype section (GSSP) of the Ediacaran is at the base of the cap carbonate (Nuccaleena Formation), immediately above the Elatina diamictite in the Enorama Creek section, Brachina Gorge, Flinders Ranges, South Australia.

The GSSP of the upper boundary of the Ediacaran is the lower boundary of the Cambrian on the SE coast of Newfoundland approved by the International Commission on Stratigraphy as a preferred alternative to the base of the Tommotian Stage in Siberia which was selected on the basis of the ichnofossil Treptichnus pedum (Seilacher, 1955). In the history of stratigraphy it was the first case of usage of bioturbations for the System boundary definition.

Nevertheless, the definitions of the lower and upper boundaries of the Ediacaran on the basis of chemostratigraphy and ichnofossils are disputable.

Cap carbonates generally have a restricted geographic distribution (due to specific conditions of their precipitation) and usually siliciclastic sediments laterally replace the cap carbonates in a rather short distance but cap carbonates do not occur above every tillite elsewhere in the world.

The C-isotope chemostratigraphic characteristics obtained for contemporaneous cap carbonates in different parts of the world may be variable in a wide range owing to different degrees of secondary alteration of carbonates, dissimilar criteria used for selection of the least altered samples, and, as far as the C-isotope data are concerned, due to primary lateral variations of δ l3Ccarb in the upper layer of the ocean.

Furthermore, Oman presents in its stratigraphic record a large negative carbon isotope excursion, within the Shuram Formation that is clearly away from any glacial evidence strongly questioning systematic association of negative δ l3Ccarb excursion and glacial events. Also, the Shuram excursion is prolonged and is estimated to last for ~9.0 Myrs.

As to the Treptichnus pedum, a reference ichnofossil for the lower boundary of the Cambrian, its usage for the stratigraphic detection of this boundary is always risky, because of the occurrence of very similar trace fossils belonging to the Treptichnids group well below the level of T. pedum in Namibia, Spain and Newfoundland, and possibly, in the western United States. The stratigraphic range of T. pedum overlaps the range of the Ediacaran fossils in Namibia, and probably in Spain.

Subdivisions
The Ediacaran Period is not yet formally subdivided, but a proposed scheme recognises an Upper Ediacaran whose base corresponds with the Gaskiers glaciation, a Terminal Ediacaran Stage starting around, a preceding stage beginning around 575 Ma with the earliest widespread Ediacaran biota fossils; two proposed schemes differ on whether the lower strata should be divided into an Early and Middle Ediacaran or not, because it is not clear whether the Shuram excursion (which would divide the Early and Middle) is a separate event from the Gaskiers, or whether the two events are correlated.

Absolute dating
The dating of the rock type section of the Ediacaran Period in South Australia has proven uncertain due to lack of overlying igneous material. Therefore, the age range of 635 to 538.8 million years is based on correlations to other countries where dating has been possible. The base age of approximately 635 million years is based on U–Pb (uranium–lead) and Re–Os (rhenium–osmium) dating from Africa, China, North America, and Tasmania.

Biota

The fossil record from the Ediacaran Period is sparse, as more easily fossilized hard-shelled animals had yet to evolve. The Ediacaran biota include the oldest definite multicellular organisms (with specialized tissues), the most common types of which resemble segmented worms, fronds, disks, or immobile bags. Auroralumina was a cnidarian.

Most members of the Ediacaran biota bear little resemblance to modern lifeforms, and their relationship even with the immediately following lifeforms of the Cambrian explosion is rather difficult to interpret. More than 100 genera have been described, and well known forms include Arkarua, Charnia, Dickinsonia, Ediacaria, Marywadea, Cephalonega, Pteridinium, and Yorgia. However, despite the overall enigmaticness of most Ediacaran organisms, some fossils identifiable as hard-shelled agglutinated foraminifera (which are not classified as animals) are known from latest Ediacaran sediments of western Siberia. Sponges recognisable as such also lived during the Ediacaran.

Four different biotic intervals are known in the Ediacaran, each being characterised by the prominence of a unique ecology and faunal assemblage. The first spanned from 635 to around 575 Ma and was dominated by acritarchs known as large ornamented Ediacaran microfossils. The second spanned from around 575 to 560 Ma and was characterised by the Avalon biota. The third spanned from 560 to 550 Ma; its biota has been dubbed the White Sea biota due to many fossils from this time being found along the coasts of the White Sea. The fourth lasted from 550 to 539 Ma and is known as the interval of the Nama biotic assemblage.

There is evidence for a mass extinction during this period from early animals changing the environment, dating to the same time as the transition between the White Sea and the Nama-type biotas. Alternatively, this mass extinction has also been theorised to have been the result of an anoxic event.

Astronomical factors
The relative proximity of the Moon at this time meant that tides were stronger and more rapid than they are now. The day was 21.9 ± 0.4 hours, and there were 13.1 ± 0.1 synodic months/year and 400 ± 7 solar days/year.

Documentaries
A few English language documentaries have featured the Ediacaran Period and biota:
 * The Time Traveller's Guide To Australia (2012, ABC Science; Part 1 of 4).
 * The Geological History of Canada, as part of The Nature of Things series, CBC-SRC; 2011; Eastern Canada.
 * The first episode of a BBC documentary titled Life on Earth, with David Attenborough as narrator.
 * Another documentary narrated by David Attenborough titled First Life featuring Charnia, Dickinsonia, Spriggina, Funisia, and Kimberella animated in CGI.
 * In our time - Ediacara Biota, BBC, 9 July 2009

title: Ediacaran


text:
Erotica

Erotica is literature or art that deals substantively with subject matter that is erotic, sexually stimulating or sexually arousing. Some critics regard pornography as a type of erotica, but many consider it to be different. Erotic art may use any artistic form to depict erotic content, including painting, sculpture, drama, film or music. Erotic literature and erotic photography have become genres in their own right. Erotica also exists in a number of subgenres including gay, lesbian, women's, bondage, monster and tentacle erotica.

The term erotica is derived from the feminine form of the ancient Greek adjective: ἐρωτικός (erōtikós), from ἔρως (érōs)—words used to indicate lust, and sexual love.

Curiosa are curiosities or rarities, especially unusual or erotic books. In the antiquarian book trade, pornographic works are often listed under "curiosa", "erotica" or "facetiae".

History
Erotica exists in many different forms, both modern and ancient. Erotic art dates back to the Paleolithic times, with cave paintings and carvings of female genitalia being a point of immense interest to prehistorians. Ancient Greek and Roman art depicted erotic acts or figures, often using phallic or erotic imagery to convey ideas of fertility. Modern depictions of erotic art are often intertwined with erotic photography, including boudoir photography, and erotic film. Discussions of modern erotic art are also often merged with discussions on pornography.

More specifically, erotic photography found its mass-market roots in pornographic magazines. The most iconic of these magazines is Playboy, a men's magazine founded in the 1950s that helped to shape the modern Western perception on sex and sexuality in the media. Pornographic magazines could also include boudoir photography or pin-up models, though pin-up models are not definitively sexual by nature.

Erotic film has evolved greatly with modern filmmaking capabilities, including developing a large subgenre of cartoon pornography, the most popular form of which is Japanese hentai. Erotic film is the form of erotica most often seen as interchangeable with pornography due to their similarities in form and function.

Erotic literature also dates back to ancient times, though not quite as far. Arguably the most iconic erotic piece of literature, the Kama Sutra is a Sanskrit text largely describing and depicting ideas of sex, sexuality, love, and human emotion. Eroticism in ancient Greece and Rome was not contained to only visual art, as poets such as the Greek Sappho and the Roman Catullus and Ovid wrote erotic verse and lyrical poems. Modern erotic literature, often called 'smut', is quite popular, especially among women. In the 21st century, fan fiction erotica has gained popularity. Stories on online websites like Archive of Our Own and FanFiction.Net account for a large percentage of modern erotic fan fiction literature.

Views
The topic of sex is often taboo in modern culture, especially in media. Censorship is an issue often faced by creators of erotic work, be it art, film, or literature. The legality of creating and publishing erotic works differs in different parts of the word, but it is not uncommon to see heavy regulations placed on the publication of erotic or pornographic media.

The legality of cartoon pornography or animated erotic films is one of the most controversial aspects of erotic censorship. This is because of the gray area surrounding the portrayal of animated, fictional minors engaging in erotic or sexual acts. The legality of pornography with non-animated individuals is only slightly more definitive. Legal and moral issues regarding pornography and erotica can tie into arguments regarding the legalization or decriminalization of prostitution and sex work at large, a topic that is hotly debated. Pornography is often far less regulated than sex work and has fewer legal barriers to production, though it is still a morally controversial profession to some.

In the United Kingdom, the Obscene Publications Act of 1857 made the selling of "obscene" materials a statutory offense. This act has been criticized heavily, not just in retrospect, but at the time of enacting. Topics of erotic media have been brought to U.S. state and federal courts for centuries. Some notable cases include People v. Freeman, in which the state of California upheld that hiring actors to engage in sexual activity for the sake of creating erotic films was not considered pornography, and Miller v. California, in which the idea of erotic work providing serious artistic or literary value was introduced to the legal sphere.

Feminism
A majority of erotica centers women as the object of sexual desire, demonstrated in the sharp rise of popularity of pornographic magazines centering women in the mid-twentieth century. In the 20th century, a cadre of female artists, authors, and other creatives began to create a new kind of erotica.

Women's erotica exists to cater for the sexual gratification of women consuming erotic material. Feminist erotic media often centers female pleasure instead of catering to the male gaze. Feminist erotic art had a boom in the mid-20th century, most iconically transforming the idea of the nude female figure from an object of sexual pleasure to a symbol for a woman's sexual liberation. Martha Edelheit was a pioneer of modern women's erotica, flipping the genre on its head by focusing her art on the nude male figure. It was not unusual for a man to be seen as an object of sexual desire in erotic media, but these portrayals were often found in gay pornography, and were often created or published by another man. Edelheit's work as a woman and as an artist was foundational for modern-day feminist erotic media.

Erotica and pornography
A distinction is often made between erotica and pornography (and the lesser-known genre of sexual entertainment, ribaldry), although some viewers may not distinguish between them. A key distinction, some have argued, is that pornography's objective is the graphic depiction of sexually explicit scenes. At the same time, erotica "seeks to tell a story that involves sexual themes" that include a more plausible depiction of human sexuality than in pornography. Additionally, works considered degrading or exploitative tend to be classified by those who see them as such, as "porn" rather than as "erotica" and consequently, pornography is often described as exploitative or degrading. Many countries have laws banning or at least regulating what is considered pornographic material, a situation that generally does not apply to erotica.

For the anti-pornography activist Andrea Dworkin, "Erotica is simply high-class pornography; better produced, better conceived, better executed, better packaged, designed for a better class of consumer." Feminist writer Gloria Steinem distinguishes erotica from pornography, writing: "Erotica is as different from pornography as love is from rape, as dignity is from humiliation, as partnership is from slavery, as pleasure is from pain." Steinem's argument hinges on the distinction between reciprocity versus domination, as she writes: "Blatant or subtle, pornography involves no equal power or mutuality. In fact, much of the tension and drama comes from the clear idea that one person is dominating the other."

title: Erotica