Philosophy

[Millane]

Originally posted by Bombadillo

Of art and beauty, I think they are seperate things, but may be connected by the thinker.

so would you also say then that Beauty is a device of the mind (i hope we dont get entangled in what is the mind yet ), or would you think that beauty is something outside of human thought?
well i guess i will just state that for me i think of the mind in physico-chemical terms rather than some spiritual soul, and i also find it hard for Beauty to exist outside of humans (for if beauty can why cant morality, and if morality can why cant God), now my dilemma is that i dont understand how Beauty (being a human construct) can be explained through physical terms, and so we meet a dead end in Millanes thoughts, and anything is possible its when i start thinking like that when the idea of God and spirituality start seeming less impossible

[Janny]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
it wasnt supposed to show you "real beauty". The point was that you need to find that yourself. the movie hints at how beauty can be found in things we would not otherwise see as beautiful. and that ideal "beauty" can be anything but. Its a statement about our cultures point of view on beauty and truth. and about what we are missing. but its so much more then that even. its about whats surface deep and whats profound. and how our misunderstanding of beauty can cause horrific things to happen. but then perhaps what is horrific is actualy beautiful...

Okay, good answer. There were some nice ideas in there, but maybe ultimately I suppose I don't want to take my lesson in beauty and truth from Hollywood...

Originally posted by Rian
That made me crack up, Janny! I love that!

Thanks!

[sun-star]

Truth is Beauty, Beauty Truth.

IMO, something is art if it presents, or intends to present, a fundamental truth, in which case it's beautiful whether it's aesthetically attractive or not.

[Rían]

by Millane
... sorry about the specifics i will repost again tommorrow when i have the article with me ....

I'll look forward to it I've never read any of his work, just heard quotes (including the famous "God is dead" line)

Reminds me of one of my all-time favorite bumper stickers :

----------------------------------
"God is dead" - Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead" - God
----------------------------------

[sun-star]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Reminds me of one of my all-time favorite bumper stickers :

----------------------------------
"God is dead" - Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead" - God
----------------------------------

LOL

My only knowledge of Nietzsche comes from studying his influence on Fascism, which gave me a rather limited picture of his ideas, so I'd be glad to learn more too...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Janny
ultimately I suppose I don't want to take my lesson in beauty and truth from Hollywood...

err... isnt that exactly what I said?

[Janny]

Erm... possibly... I suppose you only say so as a rhetorical question. But actually whatever the movie says is 'hollywood' and, while one must find beauty and truth for oneself, one doesn't want to be told to find it for oneself by hollywood.
You said that the film made a point about truth and beauty, while I said regardless of what the film said I felt bad to take something from the film.
I can't articulate it properly... I'm just a blobbit.

I don't know anything about Nietsche either, but I thought that was rather good.

[Bombadillo]

Originally posted by Millane
so would you also say then that Beauty is a device of the mind (i hope we dont get entangled in what is the mind yet ), or would you think that beauty is something outside of human thought?

Yes, beauty is a device of the mind, dependant on the thinker's additude. And if by "outside of human thought" you mean always present (as many people believe) I guess that's true too, but it isn't there for everyone at one time.

well i guess i will just state that for me i think of the mind in physico-chemical terms rather than some spiritual soul, and i also find it hard for Beauty to exist outside of humans (for if beauty can why cant morality, and if morality can why cant God), now my dilemma is that i dont understand how Beauty (being a human construct) can be explained through physical terms, and so we meet a dead end in Millanes thoughts, and anything is possible its when i start thinking like that when the idea of God and spirituality start seeming less impossible

Do you mean that only humans are beautiful, beauty does not lie dormant in things, or that only humans have a perseption of beauty? (I expect there's a standard answer, but like I said, I have yet to take the course. )

I don't think beauty is exactly made by humans, but only noticed by different individuals, so it wouldn't be fair to compare it to the invented and universal codes of morality.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I'll look forward to it I've never read any of his work, just heard quotes (including the famous "God is dead" line)

Reminds me of one of my all-time favorite bumper stickers :

----------------------------------
"God is dead" - Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead" - God
----------------------------------

[GrayMouser]

Th Essential Nietszche, Part 1:
The Parable of the Madman

THE MADMAN----Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"---As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?---Thus they yelled and laughed

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves.

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"


Source: Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882, 1887) para. 125; Walter Kaufmann ed. (New York: Vintage, 1974), pp.181-82.]

[Rían]

Thanks for the quote, GM!

Comments, anyone? What does it mean to you guys? Do you agree/disagree?

[brownjenkins]

i've always seen this as an expression of nietszche's view on modern society... when he speaks of god as dead, he is speaking of the death of traditional values and roles in society, not calling for the death of god

the ironic part is that nietszche expressed many of the same views that many religions do... that without god there can be no morals... except he believed that there was indeed no god and took it to what he saw as it's logical conclusions

i, on the other hand, think people can be perfectly moral with or without god

[Janny]

Yes, but what is the relevance of being able to be good, if people aren't? Isn't that where religion and morality come into play? Do you feel society is now immoral, and if so what shouldbe done about it? Is it even a bad thing that society is immoral?

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Janny
Yes, but what is the relevance of being able to be good, if people aren't? Isn't that where religion and morality come into play? Do you feel society is now immoral, and if so what shouldbe done about it? Is it even a bad thing that society is immoral?

i think there has always been 'moral' and 'immoral' people in the world... just as many today as there were 2000 years ago... i don't buy the 'it was so much better when i was a kid argument'... sure, society fluctuates, but in the end, people are people

i prefer the idea that the best way to lead a moral life is to realize that in the long run it is beneficial to one's self to be reasonable with and respectful of other people... as opposed to morals based upon the influence of some divine being

while these divine morals can be good, they can just as easily be bad... and unlike the more 'down to earth' morals, they are harder to argue against if bad because, after all, they are the word of god

i think if people think more about the here and now, and less about the after, they will move towards a more moral life because they will realize that this is all they've got... and they better make the most of it

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by Sminty_Smeagol
hm, now another topic for anyone who would care to discuss...
What is Art? Is it the same as Beauty? Can art exist naturally, or occur incidently, or must it be intentionally created by someone? Does it have to express a feeling or idea, or could it be purely aesthetic? What if someone sees something-anything- that to them expresses a feeling or idea, does that make it art? [/B]

Heres a quote that I like very much that is straight to the point...

"Art teaches nothing, except the significance of life."
~ Michael Korda

I believe art can have several meanings but it all depends on the person. For me art is an expression of a feeling or idea. Art is not limited to just sculpting, painting, and drawing. For example, poetry is considered to be an artistic expression. By creating art I think that is when we realize the beauty in something. I'm not sure if art exists "naturally" because art is the result of feelings, emotions and ideas blended together.

[Janny]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i think if people think more about the here and now, and less about the after, they will move towards a more moral life because they will realize that this is all they've got... and they better make the most of it

Um... doesn't that go completely against the standard arguement that if people consider the future they think more in terms of saving the environment etc etc, and that the more people think in theterms of the present, the more likely they are to be greedy, lustful etc?

Also, the thing to remember about religion is that the people adhering to it are still human, and their failings, not to mention misunderstandings often lead to problems. It is not necessarily untrue that the proportion of 'good' to 'bad' people (though one cannot catagorise) in religion is any greater than out of it.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Janny
Um... doesn't that go completely against the standard arguement that if people consider the future they think more in terms of saving the environment etc etc, and that the more people think in theterms of the present, the more likely they are to be greedy, lustful etc?

when i talk about the here and now, i mean the 70 or so years of your life on this earth... not just today... that is the key, thinking long-term, but not too long

when people think of the moment only, they can fall into the 'i'll take what i can get now' lifestyle

when people think of the afterlife, they can fall into the 'martyrdom' lifestyle

please note that i said can... i think these people are a minority in both situations

Also, the thing to remember about religion is that the people adhering to it are still human, and their failings, not to mention misunderstandings often lead to problems. It is not necessarily untrue that the proportion of 'good' to 'bad' people (though one cannot catagorise) in religion is any greater than out of it.

i agree, there are good and bad people everywhere... it may very well be that some people are born with a certain genetic makeup that leads to the kind of insanity we call violent crime, or it may be a bad upbringing... these people may or may not be religious, it doesn't matter

what i am talking about is the generally 'good' people, who do bad things as a result of their belief system... do you think a terrorist would lay down his or her life if they knew in their heart that there was no afterlife to be redeemed in?

does this mean that all or even some religious people are terrorists?

absolutely not!

but the belief in a divine being, and more importantly the belief that some humans on this earth can express the will of this divine being allows people to toss aside common sense morals for what they see as a greater absolutes

and the problems with this kind of belief system do not have to necessarily be the 'life and death' kind... it can be as simple as 'i don't trust him because he's a muslim' or a catholic, or a jew

[Bombadillo]

We just had an argument in school today on this very topic.

My atheist and violently anti-religious schoolmate believed that nothing was a moral issue, and he somehow tried to justify this with my friend's response that everything is a moral issue. I delved deeper, saying that if any one person believes something to be either moral or immoral, it becomes a moral issue (or "issue of morality," because that apparently made for some confusion).
Ultimately, there was no point whatsoever to that argument, but I found out what I had already only partially known, but more fully than either of them: morality is definately an individual decision.

Catholic school preaches about morality, calling it something like a code of behaviour established by God for human souls to diffrentiate between what is good and what is evil. That sounds acceptable, but nah. Different people can always disagree over what is acceptable and what is not, and both will usually disregard the Church's standards. They don't have any reason to care; this is what they are accepting, their morals, their detailed principles. God doesn't seem to come into there at any point for anybody, but I guess the Bible's just calling the Beeadditudes God's own morals he expects us to live by. (They're too vague.)

The social average of these arguments is ethics, to lay down exactly which side of the debate will be generally frowned upon.

[Janny]

*is horrified to discover established member Bomb is actually younger than self*
This is the problem I have in moral debates. People our age seem to be split into three groups. The religious, the philosophic, and the immoral. The religious stick to religious teaching, the philosophic attempt to make reasonable debate, and the immoral throw everything out on the grounds that there is no God, so morality just inpinges on their chosen lifstyle. It kills debate.

Brownjenkens, sorry I didn't realise... how long short-term was

In reference to your point reguarding genes and predispostion, and the ADD thread, do yo actually agree with the notion of diagnosing people based on our understanding of genetics/psychology? I feel that while people can have ADD, it becomes excusism. I think it essentially de-humanises, no longer can you attribute the actions to the human but only to the conditon. But, by induction, intelligent people have genes which make them so. So intelligence is a condition and no intelligent action or discovery can be attributed to the individual, only their condition.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i think there has always been 'moral' and 'immoral' people in the world... just as many today as there were 2000 years ago... i don't buy the 'it was so much better when i was a kid argument'... sure, society fluctuates, but in the end, people are people

i prefer the idea that the best way to lead a moral life is to realize that in the long run it is beneficial to one's self to be reasonable with and respectful of other people... as opposed to morals based upon the influence of some divine being

while these divine morals can be good, they can just as easily be bad... and unlike the more 'down to earth' morals, they are harder to argue against if bad because, after all, they are the word of god

i think if people think more about the here and now, and less about the after, they will move towards a more moral life because they will realize that this is all they've got... and they better make the most of it

But that still doen't give the motive for being 'good'- after all, it's just as easy to argue that if this life is all we've got, then the most important thing is to enjoy yourself as much as possible, and not worry about anybody else.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by brownjenkins



what i am talking about is the generally 'good' people, who do bad things as a result of their belief system... do you think a terrorist would lay down his or her life if they knew in their heart that there was no afterlife to be redeemed in?

Have to disagree here- many people throughout history have been willing to die and kill for nationalist/ethnic/political goals that have nothing to do with an afterlife.

After all, modern suicide bombing started with the Tamil Tigers, whose goal was the creation of a Tamil homeland in northern Sri Lanka.

I think identification with a cause greater than the individual, religious or not, is the root motivation of martyrdom.