colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (09/23/86)
> >Yep, emotion is discredited, not "as such", but as basis for in- > >quiry. > > "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. > >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"? Or even Mike's example: "My cat's name is Arctos"? Would you judge the "factuality" of whether you love somebody by "observing" your actions? > >... 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 have enough scientific training to appreciate the beauty of Darwinian evolution--have you enough human feeling to appreciate its ugliness? You were ready enough to reject the idea that you are going to die as false, ugly, and insulting! You can destroy beauty, but the living truth lives with your every breath. POZZO: He used to dance the farandole, the fling, the brawl, the jig, the fandango and even the hornpipe. He capered. For joy. Now that's the best he can do. Do you know what he calls it? ESTRAGON: The Scapegoat's Agony. VLADIMIR: The Hard Stool. POZZO: The Net. He thinks he's entangled in a net. --S. Beckett, _Waiting for Godot_ -- Col. G. L. Sicherman UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel CS: colonel@buffalo-cs BI: colonel@sunybcs, csdsiche@sunyabvc
cher@ihlpf.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) (09/30/86)
I did not get the original posting by Jan, so there is probably a thing or two missing... > "Basis" is unclear. Emotion *may* sometimes hinder inquiry. In Clarification: I was talking about decision making leading to conclusions. > >... 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). As the Colonel remarked before, some people think it's sleazy. Case in point is 'love' condition where contrary to all evidence appeal and good qualities of the loved one(s?) are exaggerated. Poetry. Beauty. A better estimate of these qualities is provided by reason. Qualities and appeal of a poem are destroyed by the attempt to express it in terms strictly understandable by our reason. So, I think that the value of specifically 'poetic' component of a poem for the poem's informational content is very small. Jan can parry by expanding the notion of beauty to overlap reason, but probably not to the point where there's no distinction between the two. Then again, he'll come with his own way to parry... Mike Cherepov