janw@inmet.UUCP (10/01/86)
[colonel@sunybcs.UUCP ] [/* ---- "Re: poetry and philosophy, beauty a" ---- */] >> "Basis" is unclear. Emotion *may* sometimes hinder inquiry. In >> other situations, it may *help* inquiry . Wishful thinking is a >> vice; but it is not the only way thought and feeling interact. >I'd go farther than this! The basis of inquiry is curiosity, and >curiosity is an emotion. "The basis" is still unclear, but I agree that some emotional motivation is necessary for inquiry. >> >but my point was just that when evaluating factuality of some >> >claim (e.g. I have $5), I should not let my emotions (want to >> >have $7) fool me. That simple, despite the profound phrasing. I >> >presume agreement on this point. >> >> Agreed. One should be on one's guard against wishful thinking. >> If your conclusions look too good, check again. >Now you're talking like a scientist, in terms of "claims" and "con- >clusions." What about statements like "I feel good," or "I'd like to >think wishfully today"? Well, there may be contexts where wishes create or define reali- ty; both Mike and I were talking about a different class of si- tuations (as his dollar example shows) - and I believe the words "wishful thinking" only refer to these. They do not, e.g., apply to therapeutic autosuggestion a la Dr. Coue (I, too, can think minor pains and worries away - and don't accuse myself of wishful thinking). A dictionary defines it as "erroneous identification of one's own wishes with reality". >> >... but how about this assertion: "humans have >> >evolved from lower animals" (no tricks with word "lower", please). >> >True or false? Beautiful or ugly? Can one still say "both, yes and no"? >> >> True and beautiful. It harmonizes an awful lot of seemingly >> independent facts. >Or false, ugly, and insulting. Re-phrase it as "your great-grandmother >a million times removed was an ape" and you'll see why people reject it. I think I've explained how the reaction arises: they put a beau- tiful idea in the wrong context, and the whole is ugly. In this case, there are two distortions: (1) "grandmother" comes through vividly, but "a million" faintly; (2) an ape is seen as deserving contempt, for no good reason. Also, there's something absent which logically follows: the implication of progress. (You've come a long way, baby !). >I have enough scientific training to appreciate the beauty of Darwinian >evolution--have you enough human feeling to appreciate its ugliness? I'm afraid not. I have strong feelings on the subject, all positive. But then I am a 3d-generation atheist; I've never known any better (or worse). >You were ready enough to reject the idea that you are going to die as >false, ugly, and insulting! Not exactly: I looked up the paragraph, here it is: >>How do you know I'm going to die? I'll believe it when I do! :-) >>Why prepare at all? Death is not a fact of life. The two >>are incommensurable. Let the dead bury their dead. (The last sentence is of course from the Gospel). Note that the tongue-in-cheek sign curves right, expressing amusement, not resentment. I can well imagine some believers treating their animal origin as curious but irrelevant, as most people consider their formation from what they eat irrelevant to their nature. (In spite of the saying "Man ist was man isst"). Is it more offensive to say "Your remote ancestor was an ape" than "you were mostly junk food a year ago"? Such believers needn't resent evolution; they'd just say that their *animal* origins are not a fact of their *human* evolution - as I said that death is not a fact of life. None of their *hu- man* ancestors were apes. They'd say "let the apes unbury their apes". *That* would be analogous. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/03/86)
[cher@ihlpf.UUCP ] >> >... but how about this assertion: "humans have >> >evolved from lower animals" (no tricks with word "lower", please). >> >True or false? Beautiful or ugly? Can one still say "both, yes and no"? >> True and beautiful. It harmonizes an awful lot of seemingly >> independent facts. >Truthfulness of this statement does not depend on what we think or know >about it, whereis 'beauty' is never divorced from human perception >(in every usage of the word except for Jan's, it seems). NO. Common usage recognizes intrinsic beauty as well as beauty- to-somebody. Consider the statement: "I have never noticed be- fore how beautiful this is." Does it jar your ear? The usage seems quite common to me. This proves the beauty is *not* in the eye of the beholder. Otherwise, it would not have been *there* to notice until it *was* noticed. But it was, just as the fact of human descent - ascent, rather - from lower animals was always there to be discovered in its truth, and its beauty. Truthfulness of this *statement* *does* depend, however, on what else we know. One could modify the language so that the statement would be blatantly false. Truth of a statement is the function of the statement *and* external reality *and* the background of the person who understands the statement. "Antipodes, if they existed, would have to walk upside down" - true or false? Depends on what up and down mean to you. Yet the meaning changes with knowledge; there was a time when that state- ment was enough to disprove the existence of antipodes. The way human evolution shocks some sensibilities is similar to the way the existence of antipodes used to clash with common sense. The *statement* is all right, *potentially* true and beau- tiful *in the right context*. Beauty is no more subjective than truth. Jan Wasilewsky
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (10/06/86)
> > NO. Common usage recognizes intrinsic beauty as well as beauty- > to-somebody. True, but this is a mistake. Language can play tricks. Just because we use words in that way does not mean that that is the most useful way to use them. > > Beauty is no more subjective than truth. > Truth is completely subjective. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382
cher@ihlpf.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) (10/06/86)
> NO. Common usage recognizes intrinsic beauty as well as beauty- > to-somebody. Consider the statement: "I have never noticed be- > fore how beautiful this is." Does it jar your ear? The usage > seems quite common to me. This proves the beauty is *not* in the > eye of the beholder. Otherwise, it would not have been *there* to > notice until it *was* noticed. Actually, I considered that statement when composing my previous article. It is about the potential of an object or an idea to exite and please *human* senses or mind. Sounds like it has everything to do with mind and senses and nothing to do with anything 'intrinsic' in the object. Humans can be fascinated with anything from roses to incest. > "Antipodes, if they existed, would have to walk upside down" - > true or false? Depends on what up and down mean to you. Yet the > meaning changes with knowledge; there was a time when that state- > ment was enough to disprove the existence of antipodes. Well, as long as the meanings of the words are explained the people can communicate ideas, and figure out the root of the disagreement... 'Truth' to me means reality or actuality. Here we may get stuck with different metaphysical presuppositions, though. I explained my further objctions to "truth=beauty" in e-mail. > Beauty is no more subjective than truth. I guess I have no idea what you mean by 'truth'. So we have "beauty=truth". Why not "truth=reason" and "beauty=truth=reason"? In my view all of these formulas do little but sterilize the language. What did the whole thing start with, eh? Poetry and what? Oh, well, as long as it's fun... Mike Cherepov
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/09/86)
[cher@ihlpf.UUCP ] >> NO. Common usage recognizes intrinsic beauty as well as beauty- >> to-somebody. Consider the statement: "I have never noticed be- >> fore how beautiful this is." Does it jar your ear? The usage >> seems quite common to me. This proves the beauty is *not* in the >> eye of the beholder. Otherwise, it would not have been *there* to >> notice until it *was* noticed. >Actually, I considered that statement when composing my previous >article. It is about the potential of an object or an idea to >exite and please *human* senses or mind. (1) Not all pleasure is aesthetic in nature. E.g., a fruit may be more beautiful before bitten into, but more pleasurable after. On the other hand, there is such a thing as beautiful suffering. (2) Potential to please is one property of intrinsic beauty, just as potential to convince is one property of intrinsic truth. One may define beauty as that which can please (in certain ways) just as one can define truth through its potential to be verified. Each has a facet turned to an observer, and an objective side, too. >Sounds like it has everything to do with mind and senses and >nothing to do with anything 'intrinsic' in the object. Humans can >be fascinated with anything from roses to incest. And they can also recognize the existence of roses or incest. And they do it with their mind and senses. Does it follow that that existence "has everything to do with mind and senses and nothing to do with anything 'intrinsic' in the object" ? Existence, size, color, beauty are characteristics of objects, equally objective, equally recognized by mind and senses, equally capable to be defined through potential recognition. >> "Antipodes, if they existed, would have to walk upside down" - >> true or false? Depends on what up and down mean to you. Yet the >> meaning changes with knowledge; there was a time when that state- >> ment was enough to disprove the existence of antipodes. >Well, as long as the meanings of the words are explained the people >can communicate ideas, and figure out the root of the disagreement... Quite true: and the same applies to aesthetic disagreements. Taste can be educated. The same statement that was untrue or ugly before certain words were redefined, may become true or beautiful after. E.g., "Antipodes walk upside down" implies at first both "in reverse position to us" and "reversed with respect to gravi- ty". In everyday experience, the two meanings always go togeth- er. One needs education to split them apart, and then the state- ment becomes true (or false). A similar clarification transforms the statement "we are descended from apes" from an ugly one into a beautiful one. The analogy is precise. Jan Wasilewsky
cher@ihlpf.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) (10/14/86)
> >Well, as long as the meanings of the words are explained the people > >can communicate ideas, and figure out the root of the disagreement... > > Quite true: and the same applies to aesthetic disagreements. > Taste can be educated. The same statement that was untrue or ugly > before certain words were redefined, may become true or beautiful > after. E.g., "Antipodes walk upside down" implies at first both > "in reverse position to us" and "reversed with respect to gravi- I realized that I took your "truth" to mean "something independent of human existence". Your comparisons of aesthetics to reasoning suggest that you had something like "current educated opinion" in mind. I guess I was induced into barking up the wrong tree. Woof.. Nevertheless, this should not have an effect on the great poetry debate. My next article is my final(?) opinion on the matter. Mike Cherepov