--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is a great topic for many reasons for me. At the core it > discusses how we engage family members or friends in philosophical > debate and then it expressed, very well, some ideas I find inspiring. > > > What's the evolutionist's answer to the question? I would > > think it would have something to do with how enjoying > > life helps further life. Simple. The people who could not > > see beauty were more likely to say, "What the fuck," and > > give up. > > I can't speak for other "evolutionists" but I do accept that the > evolutionary theory is the best understanding we have of our origins. > I don't believe that human happiness has to have a reason. It > doesn't seem to really be a product of the gene's need to reproduce > since so often the desire to have kids beyond someone's means brings > unhappiness and struggle. Many miserable bastards seem to do quite > well in surviving and perpetuating their genes. > > For me the choice of joy at natural or man made beauty is a perk of > our wonderfully aware brains and imaginations. I'm not sure that it > has to have a reason or that one can really be given. It may be an > offshoot of our style of functioning without purpose or evolutionary > value. It is not a universal or we would see people outside at sunset > time instead of glued to sitcoms. OTOH we also were given an > awareness of our mortality and inevitable death with our awareness and > this may also just be an artifact of consciousness that isn't so charming. > > <He's an existentialist, or so he says...* > > "Existentialism is a philosophical movement that posits that > individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives, as opposed > to deities or authorities creating it for them." Wikipedia> > > I find this so inspiring. It lifts my spirits the way scriptures used to. > > > Well, I thought a moment, and said; "Hey Cyril, I know the answer to > > that question". > > Of course family history plays in here as an unknown. But if I were > to hazard a guess it might be that your assertion of "knowing the > answer" to one of life's mystery with surety closed the door on > further sharing of perspectives. He was approaching the question with > a bit of epistemological humility and you were approaching it as a > "knower." You may not have meant it that way or maybe you did. But I > also find that people who claim to have such answers with a sense of > surety turn me off in a discussion. Perhaps there were too many > buttons of past lectures to get beyond the family dynamics but it also > might be possible to come from a place of your own appropriate > humility concerning life's grandest questions. I'll bet you have your > own version of not knowing it all in these matters and you might find > it allows for a discussion among equals. Humans pondering their place > in the world together instead of one who questions and one who knows. > > Your answer had some poetic beauty on its own merit. It was not an > answer but was a sharing of how you think about it. It included many > implied pre-suppositions that your brother doesn't share (nor I), so > it couldn't really be accepted as an answer by him. > > I have been on both sides of this kind of exchange so often. I have > to admit that it is a lot more comfortable and produces more > conversations now that I don't know so much.
Well it is SCIish, unintentionally, but primarily the answer is in the domain of Philosophy and Religion. Someone once asked MMY which comes closer to the truth, the Scientist or the Artist and he said the Artist. Science holds one on the level of concrete thought whereas Art, on the other hand transcends concrete thought to embrace abstract ideas. Thanks for the compliment, indeed the question AND the answer are most beautiful.....
