--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> 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..... >
Well, the Artist *uses* Science, but usually not the other way around. Lawson
