this didn't happen until...

[jdonn]

the reason it is can be seen by the fact that in debate after debate, their existence is denied (out of necessity)

But in those debates, is it not you who deny them?

deny what?

Are you serious?

 

(Discussion about apples)

Post about apples

Post about apples

Post about apples

Lukewarm: I am going to get one out of the fruit basket.

PassedOut: You can get one out of the cupboard instead.

Lukewarm: Get what out of the cupboard?

[luke warm]

the reason it is can be seen by the fact that in debate after debate, their existence is denied (out of necessity)

But in those debates, is it not you who deny them?

deny what?

Are you serious?

 

(Discussion about apples)

Post about apples

Post about apples

Post about apples

Lukewarm: I am going to get one out of the fruit basket.

PassedOut: You can get one out of the cupboard instead.

Lukewarm: Get what out of the cupboard?

we were, i thought, talking about laws (or abstracts, or metaphysical entities)... he said i deny they exist (i suppose that's what he's saying, which is why i asked for clarification) if that's so, quote something i said to back that up... and no josh, making up apples, baskets, and cupboards doesn't count

[jdonn]

Am I really seeing this?

 

You used a pronoun.

He referred to the same pronoun.

You asked him what the pronoun referred to.

 

Uh, you used it first?

[Winstonm]

Jimmy, you got upset with me on an earlier post in which I said that theists and atheists used the same words but spoke a different language (altho when you quoted me, you truncated my sentence, which served to distort what I had written).

 

But your posts about self-evident laws is an example of what I was saying.

 

To me, and I think to helene and winston, there is a fundamental difference between an axiom and a law.

 

I refreshed my memory by recourse to wikipedia, and I commend the same to you.

 

At the risk of over-simplification, an axiom is something that we postulate to be true, and upon which we build a description of the universe (whether the universe we observe or some hypothetical different realm). The laws are then determined (usually, as far as I can tell) by observation and then formalization.. with the mathematical expression of the laws being contingent upon the formal method that is founded on the axioms.

 

It appears to us self evident that A=A.

 

Neither the law of gravity nor the 2nd law of thermodynamics, to cite two 'laws' referenced in this thread, appear, as far as I know, to be self-evident to anyone.

 

To the extent that you intend to refer to both axioms and laws as the same concept, you are using the same words as, for example, I and winston and helene (I hope I am not being too presumptuous in referring to them) but you are speaking a different language.

 

Indeed, that is a common problem, as I see it, in most of the posts where you and I, or you and richard, or you and winstom, etc, disagree. You use the same words, more of less, but they mean something different to you than to us. So when you read what I have to say, I suspect that you either do not grasp my meaning or you wilfully respond as if you don't.. either would present the same way to an observer B)

 

BTW, may I suggest something? When a theist posted here a suggestion that I, as an atheist, read a work by Lewis, I did so. I have suggested you read a work by Pinker (Say: How the Mind Works). I read a theist book... Pinker's book is not even an atheist book... I don't know if he is an atheist or not, but his book is not written to espouse any opinion in that arena... but it does deal with morality, in part, since he deals with current views (in the scientific community) of what makes us act the way we do.

 

Admittedly, Pinker's books are much longer than Lewis' Mere Christianity and may be harder slogging, since they are based on science and data, but he is a very lucid writer. So why not try it? Or are you too closed minded to risk contamination by information that contradicts your preferred world view?

 

I fear the latter, but hope for the former.. and would be delighted to hear from you some cogent observations after you have read the book.

Mike,

 

You can speak for me anytime - as long as I don't get billed. ;)

 

I think your post sums up nicely what I have been trying to say. It is not that anyone clearly demeans (or at least means to do so) metaphysics but it is difficult to debate or even have a conversation when one side is attempting to explain the physical processes that cause colors in the sky while the other side is attempting to quantify the meaning of why we see beauty of the sky - and each side cannot understand the confusion because the language used is similar.

 

It is like the evolutionary debate. For many of us who accept evolution as the best current explanation, the concept of a god-being who kick-started the whole process is mute: I have no problem in an argument either way as it is only non-provable speculation. But when you add a certain type of Christianity into the mix (usually evangelical), you now have to cope with the concept of original sin. Original sin is the aspect of Christianity that requires a sacrificial Christ to forgive that sinful bloodline. It appears to me that without the concept of original sin the argument fails for a need of a Christ who dies on a cross to forgive that sin.

 

If I understand the theology correctly, the original sin concept when confronted by the concept of evolution would create a powerful amount of cognitive dissonance .

[luke warm]

Am I really seeing this?

 

You used a pronoun.

He referred to the same pronoun.

You asked him what the pronoun referred to.

 

Uh, you used it first?

here's my original post

laws, in the sense i'm speaking, are axioms... that's what i was trying to say to winston... an axiom *is* a self-evident law... so when you saw the 'law' of identity is the 'axiom' of identity, you're saying the same thing... the important thing is, they are not material and they exist and *that* is important... the reason it is can be seen by the fact that in debate after debate, their existence is denied (out of necessity)

and this is his entire post

the reason it is can be seen by the fact that in debate after debate, their existence is denied (out of necessity)

But in those debates, is it not you who deny them?

if he is saying what he *appears* to be saying, i challenge him to show me where i made such a denial... but if on the off chance i'm reading it incorrectly, i simply asked for clarification... why does it bother you, anyway?

[jdonn]

if he is saying what he *appears* to be saying, i challenge him to show me where i made such a denial

I don't think that's what your words mean but if that's your intent then np.

 

I only involved myself because I couldn't believe you were saying what it still looks to me like your words mean. I'm out of this one starting now.

[PassedOut]

Am I really seeing this?

 

You used a pronoun.

He referred to the same pronoun.

You asked him what the pronoun referred to.

 

Uh, you used it first?

here's my original post

laws, in the sense i'm speaking, are axioms... that's what i was trying to say to winston... an axiom *is* a self-evident law... so when you saw the 'law' of identity is the 'axiom' of identity, you're saying the same thing... the important thing is, they are not material and they exist and *that* is important... the reason it is can be seen by the fact that in debate after debate, their existence is denied (out of necessity)

and this is his entire post

the reason it is can be seen by the fact that in debate after debate, their existence is denied (out of necessity)

But in those debates, is it not you who deny them?

if he is saying what he *appears* to be saying, i challenge him to show me where i made such a denial... but if on the off chance i'm reading it incorrectly, i simply asked for clarification... why does it bother you, anyway?

Just pick any of the debates (1) in the set of debates you specified and (2) in which you participated.

 

Consider:

 

If p then q

Not q

Therefore not p

[mikeh]

It seems to me, and many will no doubt argue that this has always been apparent and that any failure on my part to note it reflects poorly on me, that Jimmy is extraordinarily literal. He construes the posts of others in the narrowest possible way, rather than by trying to understand the underlying thought processes, and then responds to that narrow construction... often engendering frustration in those to whom he purports to be replying.. altho I concede that this may be merely another example of a post by me in which I am generalizing my own p.o.v.

 

So when I invite him to read, as an example, a book by Pinker... he responds as if my suggestion were limited to that book, rather than to other texts that deal with the currently prevailing scientific view as to how a moral sense is an evolved adaptation, rather than an externally-imposed/created Moral Law originating with some Supreme Being.

 

Yes, the post in question bears that narrow interpretation, but when one reads the thread, in terms of my posts about Lewis, and his posts to me in response, inviting elucidation, a non-literalist might well form the view that I was suggesting that he read a relevant text, and that my reference to Pinker was illustrative, not definitive.

 

But Jimmy jumps to the conclusion that a refusal or unwillingness on his part to read a specific text is thought by me to be an example of closed-mindedness.

 

Let me spell it out, Jimmy, in simple, unambiguous words that you can properly take at face value.

 

You ask questions of me about my views on the assertions I made about evolutionary psychology affording an explanation of what Lewis referred to as the Moral Law... in which I suggested that there is a strong argument that the human moral sense is the product of evolution.

 

You asked me to eludicate. I suggested, instead, that I was not up to the task... and while I did not make this specific, part of the reason is that a forum such as this doesn't fit such a task.. I suspect Pinker himself would decline such an invitation even were he a regular poster... the length of posts here is too short. Just as no one posted the entire text of Mere Christianity (which is a fraction of the length of the books I have read on evolution, and the structure or workings of 'mind').

 

I pointed out that I, on one side of the debate, had accepted the suggestion that I read a text relied upon by my opponents.

 

I suggested that it would be reasonable for you to do likewise.. and mentioned an example, as had been done by others to me.

 

I do not say, and never have intended to say, that you MUST read any particular text. I did say, and repeat, that a refusal to read even one text (of your choosing) that espouses a point of view contrary to your own is an example of being closed-minded.

 

Let me ask you a simple question.

 

Imagine you are listening to arguments on a topic on which you have no firm conviction, and your role is to determine not who is right but who is more open-minded... one debater refers to only material that affirms his p.o.v. and refuses to read material supporting the other... while the second reads material on both sides of the issue and provides reasons for preferring the material that supports the argument he is advancing.

 

As between the two, is it reasonable to suggest that the former is exhibiting close-minded behaviour while the other is more open-minded?

[luke warm]

the reason it is can be seen by the fact that in debate after debate, their existence is denied (out of necessity)

But in those debates, is it not you who deny them?

Just pick any of the debates (1) in the set of debates you specified and (2) in which you participated.

 

Consider:

 

If p then q

Not q

Therefore not p

i'll take that to mean you can't show me, or anyone else, where i denied anything...

When I see posters being indirect, evasive, or obfuscatory, I automatically classify them (sorry, but that's the way I am) as people fearful of learning the truth about their ideas. To me, that's a sad way to live.

from an earlier post of yours, quoted for reflection

You ask questions of me about my views on the assertions I made about evolutionary psychology affording an explanation of what Lewis referred to as the Moral Law... in which I suggested that there is a strong argument that the human moral sense is the product of evolution.

~~

Let me ask you a simple question.

 

Imagine you are listening to arguments on a topic on which you have no firm conviction, and your role is to determine not who is right but who is more open-minded... one debater refers to only material that affirms his p.o.v. and refuses to read material supporting the other... while the second reads material on both sides of the issue and provides reasons for preferring the material that supports the argument he is advancing.

 

As between the two, is it reasonable to suggest that the former is exhibiting close-minded behaviour while the other is more open-minded?

let me set the record straight on this... i never even mentioned lewis or mere christianity to you, the first post i can find on this subject was gwnn's on this page of this thread... after that, i only made these references, in response to some things you said

 

Personally, having read Pinker in particular, and having read of the morality studies described by Dawkins, the argument in favour of morality being an adaptive trait seems very strong. 'Right', in the sense that it is beyond doubt? No... but 'right' in the sense of plausible and avoiding the need to invoke the unprovable... yes.

i'd like to know more about your view on this (without actually having to read pinker)... how would morality being an adaptive state work? would it be consensus-based?

that's all i said, just asking your opinion... just a synopsis... i didn't even care what you thought of lewis or mere christianity... you then answered

You should read Pinker, or some of the other writers in the area.. I like Pinker because he writes in a very lucid fashion. The fact that he is Canadian is merely a coincidence :unsure:

 

I cannot do him justice, especially as I did not take notes as I went, read him several months ago (the last book of his that I read) and do not have access to that book as I write.

 

I am not trying to duck the issue, but if you are genuinely looking for knowledge.. have an open mind.. then read his books. It seems to me, from the tenor of some of our 'exchanges' that the odds are high that anything I say will merely trigger a defensive and negative reaction.

i have read many authors and texts counter to my view, just not pinker... i have no desire at this time to read pinker, and as it wouldn't have bothered me one bit had you said you had no desire to read lewis i can't see why this would bother you... i don't know why you even mention open- or close mindedness as far as this goes, since i never even brought it up... it's much like when i accused you of repeatedly making posts that try to show that others are less intelligent, or have inferior understanding of the written word, than you... you asked me to show where you made such statements and i did, and there it seems to have ended

 

where does pinker (or you) come down on the question of consensus, considering that he believes the human moral sense is the product of evolution? i would think that would be a relevant question re: his belief

[PassedOut]

the reason it is can be seen by the fact that in debate after debate, their existence is denied (out of necessity)

But in those debates, is it not you who deny them?

Just pick any of the debates (1) in the set of debates you specified and (2) in which you participated.

 

Consider:

 

If p then q

Not q

Therefore not p

i'll take that to mean you can't show me, or anyone else, where i denied anything...

But you are the one who claimed that:

 

the reason it is can be seen by the fact that in debate after debate, their existence is denied (out of necessity)

If you can actually select such a debate, I'll gladly discuss it. But I can't do so now, of course, because you haven't specified which debates you mean.

 

Does your failure to identify any such debates mean that you can't? (Just trying to understand your logic.)

 

Postscript added:

 

By the way, I apologize for my sour mood when I posted earlier today. You don't deserve that. At the time, I was working with Microsoft to resolve one of their screw-ups -- always an excruciating process, but no excuse anyway.

Edited February 6, 2009 by PassedOut

[luke warm]

If you can actually select such a debate, I'll gladly discuss it. But I can't do so now, of course, because you haven't specified which debates you mean.

 

Does your failure to identify any such debates mean that you can't? (Just trying to understand your logic.)

i've seen, read, and been a part of debates on, for example, "does God exist?" where one side denied the existence of anything not material... i didn't have you specifically in mind, it's just that i've seen so many of these

[PassedOut]

i've seen, read, and been a part of debates on, for example, "does God exist?" where one side denied the existence of anything not material... i didn't have you specifically in mind, it's just that i've seen so many of these

Okay, if anyone denied the existence of anything not material, I'd have to disagree with that position as you do. (Non-material concepts such as beauty exist.)

 

But I was intrigued by the "out of necessity" phrase when you said:

 

the reason it is can be seen by the fact that in debate after debate, their existence is denied (out of necessity)

Do you mean to say that people who don't believe in god must necessarily deny the existence of anything not material? Or am I reading too much into what you said?

 

I ask you that because I don't believe in god, I do believe that the concept of beauty is not material, and I don't see any contradiction there.

[mikeh]

I wonder if I am engaging in semantics when I question what is meant by 'beauty' being immaterial?

 

Beauty does not, in my view, exist in and of itself. Beauty is a response engendered in a brain.. in particular, as far as we can tell so far, a human brain.

 

We see or hear something and it resonates with some aspect of our brain. I wouldn't be surprised to find that some neuropsychologists have already done functional mri scanning to determine which areas of the brain are responsible for the perception of beauty.

 

Thought itself can be considered immaterial in one sense, but in another, it is clearly material in that the processes that result in our perception of thinking can be (crudely so far) mapped, and there is ongoing research into the bio-chemical-electrical activity involved.

 

It also seems to be true that much about beauty is culturally driven. Dealing solely with humans' perception of the beauty of other members of the species, different cultures viewed different body shapes, or modifications of the anatomy as 'beautiful', and these concepts change over time even within the same culture.

 

It seems to me that there is a compelling argument that the capacity to perceive something as beautiful is itself an evolutionary adaptation. Ignoring the creations of artists, most that we see in nature as beautiful seems likely to be something that would, ordinarily, be a good thing for a primitive form of man.

 

A beautiful member of the opposite sex is probably a good father/mother. A beautiful rainbow means that the sun is shining even tho it is raining. I have a dim memory of having read an evolutionary explanation for why we see vistas as beautiful, and so on.

 

I don't see any meaningful difference between reacting to something with, say, fear or anger on the one hand and with a perception of beauty on the other. We, I think, would mostly agree with instinctive responses of fear and anger are the result of evolutionarily driven adaptations... fear promotes survival by encouraging avoidance of danger, anger makes us stronger and braver, and thus more likely to prevail in a fight, whether it be for dominance or survival, and so on.

 

More to the point... even if we categorize the perception or experience of an emotional reaction as independent of the physical processes in the brain that generate that perception or experience.. we can prove that it exists, we can replicate it by stimulation of the appropriate part of the brain.

 

Of course, there is some evidence that we can do this with religious feelings as well... stimulate the brain in the right way and the subject will report a feeling of being in the presence of god. This is an area in which there appears to be controversy, but other research, with no manipulation of the brain, has suggested that certain forms of meditation trigger brain patterns that generate subjective impressions of an encounter with God.

 

The fact that we may (if not now, shortly) be able to explain such feelings on a purely physical basis does not detract from one's ability to enjoy the result. I was listening last night to some speakers I was thinking of buying.. hooked to a phenonemal system (not mine, alas) and even tho the music was recorded, there were moments of pure beauty and my perception and enjoyment of those moments was not altered at all by the fact that, on reflection, this was all caused by complex neurochemical reaction to patterns of sound reaching my ears.

[helene_t]

I wonder if I am engaging in semantics when I question what is meant by 'beauty' being immaterial?

After that introduction I expected you to muse about the meaning of the word "immaterial", rather than the much more straight-forward (to me) concept of "beauty".

 

in particular, as far as we can tell so far, a human brain.

Non-human animal certainly exhibit affections. But is that the same as esthetics? Semantics, seschmantics but see next comment .....

 

It seems to me that there is a compelling argument that the capacity to perceive something as beautiful is itself an evolutionary adaptation. Ignoring the creations of artists, most that we see in nature as beautiful seems likely to be something that would, ordinarily, be a good thing for a primitive form of man.

Yes but you shouldn't ignore the work of artist, since the evolutionary basis for our appreciation of fine arts is much more controversial (i.e. more interesting!) than that of our appreciation of natural beauty.

 

I don't see any meaningful difference between reacting to something with, say, fear or anger on the one hand and with a perception of beauty on the other.

Fear is a basic emotion, appreciation of beauty is (as I see it) something that happens (or at least may happen) at a much higher cognitive level. I could be wrong. It could also depend how you define it. Suppose I say that some piece of modern art is beautiful because I know it is associated with high social status to appreciate sophisticated art, while my gut reaction is one of disgust. Do I "really" appreciate the beauty of that piece of art?

[Winstonm]

I wonder if I am engaging in semantics when I question what is meant by 'beauty' being immaterial?

 

I think we are all at least partly engaged in a semantic debate. I can't speak for Jimmy, but my perception from his writing is that he holds a worldview where things like logic, love, ethics, morality, beauty, etc. are integral parts of a god-being, and that is not only the reason they exist but also the transmission mechanism that placed the concepts inside of mankind.

 

I can see how if you start with that premise, you can build a nice logical argument that appears to validate the premise. My own take is that whether or not these concepts involve a god-being (can make for interesting mental exercise but are)non-critical to reality - unless the definition of the god-being encompasses a punishment for non-believing. If an eternal punishment is part of your worldview, then it becomes critical.

 

On the other hand, I can see how concepts of this nature could have grown over time, and in some cases simply found terminology to express an emotional response.

 

Love, IMO, is just such a word and concept. Some languages have more than one word for love - my belief is that the feeling of passion, which is a result of neurochenistry, is part of the mix in words of love.

 

Jimmy and I have discussed this before - my personal view is that love is that which the Greeks termed Agape, and it is an action and not a feeling or emotion, that love is simply a matter of choice to act a certain way with the commitment that is acted upon.

 

How do you debate love, though, when the other party refuses your definition and insists that love is more ephemeral? I would argue along with MikeH, that the ephemeral aspects of "love" are biochemical in nature - feelings - and thus are completely explainable from either a theist worldview or materialist worldview.

 

If we are to further our discussions, we may need to write our own dictionary. :unsure:

[PassedOut]

I wonder if I am engaging in semantics when I question what is meant by 'beauty' being immaterial?

 

Beauty does not, in my view, exist in and of itself. Beauty is a response engendered in a brain.. in particular, as far as we can tell so far, a human brain.

I agree with you about the physical aspect of beauty as a response engendered in a brain. It's certainly possible to argue that without any brains, there wouldn't be any beauty. I've heard people argue that there is no sound without something to hear it.

 

When I chose beauty for my example of something I considered non-material, I considered using some mathematical or logical concept instead. I expect that more people accept that those kinds of concepts exist independently. But I wanted to choose something between those concepts and the concepts that have been weighed down by theology, such as goodness and morality.

 

For classification purposes, I do consider the concept of beauty to belong to the non-material, as I do with concepts in general. And I do so knowing that if no brains existed, no beauty would be experienced.

 

To me (wearing my computer programmer hat) it's like the difference between a class and an instance of the class. Each instance is a concrete example of an abstract concept. At any given time, there may be no instances of the class.

[mikeh]

It seems to me that there is a compelling argument that the capacity to perceive something as beautiful is itself an evolutionary adaptation. Ignoring the creations of artists, most that we see in nature as beautiful seems likely to be something that would, ordinarily, be a good thing for a primitive form of man.

Yes but you shouldn't ignore the work of artist, since the evolutionary basis for our appreciation of fine arts is much more controversial (i.e. more interesting!) than that of our appreciation of natural beauty.

 

I agree with you. But maybe our appreciation of 'beauty' in created art is merely a coincidental byproduct of the development of the adaptation that led to the existence of the concept in the first place?

 

Just as there is compelling evidence that many aspects of anatomy in existing species now perform functions far different than the functions of earlier versions of the same structures (anyone for considering jaw bones, the ear mechanism, etc?), it may make sense that the concept of beauty now engenders emotional reactions to situations that did not previously exist and therefore were not originally part of the environment that created the selection pressure.

 

Whether that idea can ever be explored is beyond my knowledge... it isn't going be done by comparison with fossils, that appears to be certain :unsure:

 

I would also argue that the concept of beauty (more accurately, the feelings that we experience in its presence) are as emotional as fear, anger etc.. but they may well arise out of more modern aspects of the brain... that they may well involve, either entirely or as essential aspects, aspects of our brains that do not appear, either at all or at anything like our level of complexity in other species. Thus, maybe, and I am writing purely out of speculation, beauty began to be perceived by ancestral or related species only after the species brain size/complexity increased to a certain minimum level, while the more primal emotions evolved much earlier in the history of life. If this is so, then it is still an emotional response even if mediated by a part of the brain other than the one(s) involved in, say, fear.

[hrothgar]

Hi Mike:

 

As I recall, there's some interesting work in evolutionary biology that studies the relationship between symmetry of features and success at mating.

 

The extension to the notion of "beauty" is left as an exercise for the reader...

[luke warm]

i've seen, read, and been a part of debates on, for example, "does God exist?" where one side denied the existence of anything not material... i didn't have you specifically in mind, it's just that i've seen so many of these

Okay, if anyone denied the existence of anything not material, I'd have to disagree with that position as you do. (Non-material concepts such as beauty exist.)

 

But I was intrigued by the "out of necessity" phrase when you said:

 

the reason it is can be seen by the fact that in debate after debate, their existence is denied (out of necessity)

Do you mean to say that people who don't believe in god must necessarily deny the existence of anything not material? Or am I reading too much into what you said?

 

I ask you that because I don't believe in god, I do believe that the concept of beauty is not material, and I don't see any contradiction there.

i don't consider beauty to be a metaphysical entity... i'm not saying it isn't, just that i don't consider it to be... i would consider things like the laws of logic to be more along the lines i'm speaking of... to answer your question, yes that's what i mean

I wonder if I am engaging in semantics when I question what is meant by 'beauty' being immaterial?

 

Beauty does not, in my view, exist in and of itself. Beauty is a response engendered in a brain.. in particular, as far as we can tell so far, a human brain.

that's more or less my view also

[helene_t]

But maybe our appreciation of 'beauty' in created art is merely a coincidental byproduct of the development of the adaptation that led to the existence of the concept in the first place?

That is very plausible. But suppose fine art has survival value to groups and/or individuals. Then genes for artistic creativity and/or appreciation of art could have evolved because of that,

[PassedOut]

i don't consider beauty to be a metaphysical entity... i'm not saying it isn't, just that i don't consider it to be... i would consider things like the laws of logic to be more along the lines i'm speaking of... to answer your question, yes that's what i mean

Okay, I'm beginning to understand. You consider logical concepts to be non-material, and I'm comfortable with that classification also.

 

You would argue that my agreement that logical concepts are non-material means that I must logically accept the existence of a god. The fact that I don't believe in a god means that my worldview is inconsistent. Am I stating your view correctly?

 

I'm also comfortable with your reasoning about the concept of beauty. Do you feel the same way about concepts like goodness and morality, or would you group those concepts together with logic?

[mikeh]

But maybe our appreciation of 'beauty' in created art is merely a coincidental byproduct of the development of the adaptation that led to the existence of the concept in the first place?

That is very plausible. But suppose fine art has survival value to groups and/or individuals. Then genes for artistic creativity and/or appreciation of art could have evolved because of that,

But what do we mean by 'fine art'? Does the 'art' have to be intentionally created?

 

A friend of mine, touring an Art school in which my wife was enrolled, asked an instructor to define 'art'... a question prompted by his reaction to some 'art' that appeared to him, and to me, to be ugly and a waste of resources. The instructor, perhaps half in jest, responded: 'Art is intention'.

 

Were the cave paintings in southern France created as 'art' or as some form of sympathetic magic? Were the finely wrought talismans buried with ancient chieftains crafted for their esthetic value or as magical instruments or gifts to the dead?

 

Did art arise out of a belief in the supernatural... as an attempt to control or appease the supernatural, and then take on a justification of its own, as more and more members of the species lived long enough and had sufficient 'spare time' to both enjoy and produce the 'art'?

 

That would be my layman's suspicion... that what we now see as art may have come about for reasons perhaps parallel to but not the same as the perception of beauty.

[helene_t]

But what do we mean by 'fine art'? Does the 'art' have to be intentionally created?

Oops, this is very far from my field for expertise. But I would say yes, art is intension, I agree with your wife's instructor. Of course, when discussing art creation and art appreciation as phenomena in evolutionary sociology (is there such a scientific field?) we will somehow have to narrow the concept.

 

Were the cave paintings in southern France created as 'art' or as some form of sympathetic magic?

The current understanding (or maybe rather, one of several competing current understandings) is that they were made by teenage boys. This makes the size of the male reproductive organs depicted in the drawings unsurprising and they may have had a function similar to the art(?) created on the walls of boys' restrooms at primary schools. If that hypothesis is correct, I suppose they should be considered art, or at least "art precursor", for the purpose of this discussion.

 

Whether the above hypothesis is correct or not, it may be useful to take a closer look at restroom drawings and restroom poems (there are also some nice restroom poems preserved in Pompeji). Do they contribute to the creator's social status? Do they convey a message, e.g. a political one, such as "the wannabe gang-leader in 5th grade (you know who I am talking about) is a wimp!" ? Do they help preserve social cohesion or some such?

 

In any case, they are not generally created for their estethic value. But their estethic value is pivotal for whatever purpose they serve. The paintings in catholic churches, as well as the music played there, have very high estethic value. This helps associate the church's message with joy, but it also makes the church's message more powerful, maybe in way similar to the message of the peacock's tail ("I am so strong that I can afford all this beauty").

[luke warm]

i don't consider beauty to be a metaphysical entity... i'm not saying it isn't, just that i don't consider it to be... i would consider things like the laws of logic to be more along the lines i'm speaking of... to answer your question, yes that's what i mean

Okay, I'm beginning to understand. You consider logical concepts to be non-material, and I'm comfortable with that classification also.

 

You would argue that my agreement that logical concepts are non-material means that I must logically accept the existence of a god. The fact that I don't believe in a god means that my worldview is inconsistent. Am I stating your view correctly?

not quite, but not bad... i'm saying that when the materialist denies the existence of entities not suspended in space and time her worldview is internally inconsistent... iow, she would have to say that things like morality are subjective, that they are like governments - elected or coerced

I'm also comfortable with your reasoning about the concept of beauty. Do you feel the same way about concepts like goodness and morality, or would you group those concepts together with logic?

there are concepts that are subjective, and it's my feeling that beauty is one of those (as i said, i could be wrong)... it's also my view that morality is objective - an act is either 'right' or 'wrong' in an objective sense... 2 people could look at the same piece of art and disagree over its beauty... i believe one or both could be right (or wrong), or neither could be right (or wrong)... they could also disagree about the morality of a certain act and both could not be right... what makes beauty and morality different in my mind is that i consider one to be objective and one subjective

[PassedOut]

Okay, thanks for making that clear. I appreciate it.