> At 11:33 AM 3/6/2009, you wrote: > > > > > Book: The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution > > > > > > "A lot of what counts as philosophy," he said, "is explaining and > > > justifying fundamental human intuitions," including "intuitions > about > > > the beautiful and the ugly." The problem has been that philosophy > > > "doesn't ask where the intuitions come from. ... Human nature is a > > > traditional philosophic topic, but let's face it, a lot of it is > > > uninformed armchair speculation by people who just happen to be > > > geniuses: Hobbes, Mill, Kant.:\" > > > > > > > > > http://www.mercurynews.com/books/ci_11690473 > > > >Hey Marsha, > > > >Got it, read it. Interesting if somewhat pedantic. To a Darwinian > >everything is explained by evolution, just as to an MOQian everything > is > >explained by Quality. But, I think anyone interested in the arts will > find > >the book worthwhile. The following passage near the end especially > appealed > >to me: > > > >"The oft-described spirituality of artistic masterpieces, their > >otherworldly quality . . . involves a feeling -- experienced by atheist > and > >believer alike -- that standing before a masterpiece you are in the > >presence of a power that exceeds anything you can imagine for yourself, > >something greater than you ever can or will be. The rapture > masterpieces > >offer is literally ecstatic -- taking you out of yourself. Theists may > wish > >to attribute all this to the power of God, Darwinian humanists to the > near > >miraculous power of human genius. Both will approach such works as > >suppliants: we yield to them, allowing them to take us where they will. > " > > > >This juxtaposition of the humanist with the theist reminded me of > Pirsig's > >conclusion in his SODV paper: > > > >"As Bohr might have loved to observe, science and art are just two > >different complementary ways of looking at the same thing. In the > largest > >sense it is really unnecessary to create a meeting of the arts and > sciences > >because in actual practice, at the most immediate level they have never > >really been separated. They have always been different aspects of the > same > >human purpose." > > > >The same applies to the artists, scientists, theists, humanists and > >philosophers on this site. > > > >Platt > > > Hi Platt, > > Are all five "ists" mentioned in the last sentence of equal value to > you? What if I added communist? > > > Marsha
Hi Marsha, Political "ists" are definitely not of equal value to me, especially those like communists who enslave productive individuals to support an all powerful state. Platt Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
