Originally posted by robbie carrobieSimply because we want to avoid misery -and at the same time we want to express ourselves and to live and to prosper in a unique way; beauty (a subjective thesis) and Fine Arts (a subjective expression) and Music (a subjective expression too) are as distinctive and real marks as the traces and the smell of a lion who roams in his area (there is sharing, but there is also blood and competition). They are also equivalent to a specific language understood and spoken fluently solely by the members of a specific team; etc. etc.
ok, thats fine, after being soundly whupped in all three occasions, i understand your reticence.
Can anyone provide a single example in evolutionary terms, of why we appreciate beauty and art? Letters on a postcard to Robbie at RHP.
So it 's always "Them" and "Us" -a struggle, a competition, a war, a friendship and mutual respect, you name it. And finally it's only Us: we are eager to become "immortal" amongst else in the world we have created out of our consciousness, and this attitude is also well proved in evolutionary terms.
😵
Originally posted by sonhouseThe Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny. The Inquisition was s
You worship Judo? What about the other ones, Karate, Savate, MMA, Akido? Didn't know anyone would worship them, except maybe for Bruce Lee....
So your religion is the religion of love? How do you explain the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch hunts, the attempted forced teaching of creationism to be taught in a science class as opposed to a religion class? Exactly where is the love there?
special ecclesiastical institution for combating or suppressing heresy. A
witch-hunt is a search for witches or evidence of witchcraft, often involving
moral panic, mass hysteria and lynching, but in historical instances also
legally sanctioned and involving official witchcraft trials. The USA is
supposed to provide freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. To deny
the right of a teacher to present his creationists view together with the
atheistic evolutionary view is in violation of freedom of religion. But even
the majority of the supreme court justices have failed to see it. Evolution
is also a religious view of atheists and should not be taught in science class,
if religious prohibition is to be upheld. Idiots can not understand this, even,
highly educated idiots.
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetlethat is fine dear beetle , its just not very convincing. We are aware that those creatures around us must kill each other in order to survive. We are human, we are conscious of inflicting pain, we do not need to kill each other in order to survive, thus the comparison between beast and human, between marking a territory and composing a symphony is a little tenuous to say the least.
Simply because we want to avoid misery -and at the same time we want to express ourselves and to live and to prosper in a unique way; beauty (a subjective thesis) and Fine Arts (a subjective expression) and Music (a subjective expression too) are as distinctive and real marks as the traces and the smell of a lion who roams in his area (there is sharing, t of our consciousness, and this attitude is also well proved in evolutionary terms.
😵
How does engaging in art relieve us of misery? for many its the cause of their misery! for art is a very jealous mistress. Ok you may may make the comparison between the 'struggle', to express oneself, to master the medium, to find those elements and arrange them, to bend them to our will that the vision is realised, but this is more of a reflection of the constraints of our chosen medium, rather than of the struggle itself. What is more, this is off set by the fact that many have no struggle, that they have an innate sense which finds expression not through struggle, but naturally.
ok, the language may be discernible to those who are initiated, but there are differing levels of understanding, as in chess, as in art. What is more, through study one may become more intimately acquainted with the differing levels leading to a broader understanding, to the point, where one can disseminate this understanding to others. Can the same be said of the sound of the blackbird? what about the cackle of the magpie? who understands what he is saying? Is a composer who gives a rendition of Bach really saying to other composers, i plan to set up my pitch here, you had better watch out, i plan to attract females through my orchestra?
Thus dear Beetle the struggle which you intimate seems to me to be distinct from that which arises in nature. Mathematics may confer some benefit to humans but art and music are simply spiritual, the arguments which try to validate them in evolutionary terms seem to me, not to be entirely convincing. It may eve be argued (heaven forbid), that they are superfluous to our survival.
holy blade of grass😵
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWe kill other animals to survive, we kill each other to make money.
that is fine dear beetle , its just not very convincing. We are aware that those creatures around us must kill each other in order to survive. We are human, we are conscious of inflicting pain, we do not need to kill each other in order to survive, thus the comparison between beast and human, between marking a territory and composing a symphony is be argued (heaven forbid), that they are superfluous to our survival.
holy blade of grass😵
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobfirst of all, its not an inaccuracy, i was not speaking of species within a species killing each other, but what we observe in nature, foxes killing rabbits, my mistake was in assuming that this was already understood. Secondly we do not need to kill any other creatures in order to survive, we can quite happily survive on vegetables and pulses and products derived from milk. 'Economics is a monster', for sure, it is no surprise that it devours people as well, however the ethical human will try as far as he can to distance himself from inflicting all manner of suffering on others for we are conscious that they too have a will to live. Is it not the case dear Noobster?
I read the first paragraph and stopped after this glaring inaccuracy.
[b]We are aware that those creatures around us must kill each other in order to survive
Animals very rarely eat members of their own species. They eat other species, just like we do.
We are human, we are conscious of inflicting pain, we do not need to kill each other in order to survive
We kill other animals to survive, we kill each other to make money.[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobiefirst of all, its not an inaccuracy, i was not speaking of species within a species killing each other,
first of all, its not an inaccuracy, i was not speaking of species within a species killing each other, but what we observe in nature, foxes killing rabbits, my mistake was in assuming that this was already understood. Secondly we do not need to kill any other creatures in order to survive, we can quite happily survive on vegetables and pulses and p ...[text shortened]... ting all manner of suffering on others for we are conscious that they too have a will to live.
I edited my post after realising my mistake. The still unescapable fact is that we kill each other for greed, have done for millenia and no doubt will continue to do so as long as we're on this planet.
6 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsSo in your view all that death for religious reasons is justified?
The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny. The Inquisition was s
special ecclesiastical institution for combating or suppressing heresy. A
witch-hunt is a search for witches or evidence of witchcraft, often involving
moral panic, mass hysteria and lynching, but in histori ...[text shortened]... ous prohibition is to be upheld. Idiots can not understand this, even,
highly educated idiots.
And the creationist science teacher denied the right to teach creationism along side evolution in a science class is unconscionable?
So in your mind, creationism, even though unproven scientifically, should be ruled to be fully equal with, nay, infinitely more correct than evolution in spite of it being faith based?
Should creationism therefore be forced to be taught along side Hindu ideas of creation in India then? Or should Hindu's be able to teach their ideas of creation without being forced to teach christian creation in the same class?
Should Hindu's in a science class be forced to tell the christian creation story and the hindu creation story along side evolution?
http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/Y7/2-2Hinduism/hindu_creation_story.htm
Or the aboriginal creation story in Australia, should they be forced to tell the christian creation story along side their own in their own aboriginal classes?
http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_13.html
Originally posted by Proper Knobsure i realised that after i had posted, no worries, but what you mention is really really disturbing. Surely this goes beyond the will to survive?
[b]first of all, its not an inaccuracy, i was not speaking of species within a species killing each other,
I edited my post after realising my mistake. The still unescapable fact is that we kill each other for greed, have done for millenia and no doubt will continue to do so as long as we're on this planet.[/b]
Originally posted by avalanchethecatNo, I didn't take it that way, although ok if we do - just adding some more thoughts. Cheers, and I enjoy your input too. ATC.
Oh I wasn't really disagreeing with you, friend, I see a lot of good stuff in your posts and respect your opinions. I was just clarifying my own position following rvsakhadeo's question. I'm pretty confident that the behavioural traits that lead to religious belief are consequent to genetics, but I reckon it's probably a bit more complicated than a simple genetic predisposition towards religiosity.
The boundary between the mind and "Mind" is an ever elusive one, if one understands a wider more embracing aspect of awareness.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFine!
that is fine dear beetle , its just not very convincing. We are aware that those creatures around us must kill each other in order to survive. We are human, we are conscious of inflicting pain, we do not need to kill each other in order to survive, thus the comparison between beast and human, between marking a territory and composing a symphony is ...[text shortened]... be argued (heaven forbid), that they are superfluous to our survival.
holy blade of grass😵
Ye know well the time when the minutes wingd their way wi pleasure for me is almost melted; I ride an ant to everywhere and I surf in a butterfly's teadrop, but I hope I'll soon have the chance to give you a detailed answer my trusty feer
😵
Originally posted by black beetleWhat if anything can keep your joy up knowing that you have no hope?
Simply because we want to avoid misery -and at the same time we want to express ourselves and to live and to prosper in a unique way; beauty (a subjective thesis) and Fine Arts (a subjective expression) and Music (a subjective expression too) are as distinctive and real marks as the traces and the smell of a lion who roams in his area (there is sharing, ...[text shortened]... t of our consciousness, and this attitude is also well proved in evolutionary terms.
😵