»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Are You More Willing?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Are You More Willing? |
|
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Are you more willing to do something if a beautiful woman is involved? [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-08-2008 11:10 PM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Essorant - All Rights Reserved | |||
SEA 
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 2000-01-18
Posts 22676with you |
no |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
No, but I’d probably enjoy it more. Fortunately my definition of a beautiful woman is fairly wide in scope: Born female and breathing usually covers it. |
||
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
For me the adjective is irrelevant, and it would depend considerably upon what the "something" was. Chivalry is important to me which would, say, make me more likely to help a woman being attacked by a passing dragon or with a broken down car or a heavy shopping bag than a man. Was the "beautiful" important in the question? |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Beautiful in wit and mental capacity, beautiful in heart and benevolence, beautiful in strength of spirit and integrity beautiful in soulful and gifted expression, beautiful by example and success of their endeavors, Sure! I've not met many women that are the complete reverse of those things, which shine for me well above "outward appearance" if that's what you're focusing on. So yeah, I'm willing and able to offer a hand or at least provide support if they are in need. Everyone needs help sometimes, especially those that are mean and vile and wretched from the inside out. But say... would I help Angelina Jolie over Martha Stewart? Depends. I'd prolly help Angie round up her kids while I get Martha to bake us all some COOKIES!! and I'd keep me eyes peeled for Brad. LOLOL. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Yes. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
No. But I'd be more willing to watch.  Seriously though, "do something" is rather vague. As is "involved". |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
How is this philosophical? Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
It is philosophical by dealing with it philosophically. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
nice suggestion. Care to try?  Stephen |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Ess's question is of course really: "Can we invoke the theory of Darwinian natural selection as a legitimate defence when we choose to neglect the moral imperative to assist the ugly, infirm and helpless in favour of infatuation with the strong, healthy and beautiful? Our modern day celebrity worship culture?" |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The philosophical consideration is how far we go and what we overlook for women's beauty. One does not need to go far to see much foolish behaviour on behalf of being attractive or being attracted, how people treat themselves, how they treat others, what they wear, what they watch, whom they hire, etc. We may find examples of it almost anywhere. I know all of these things may apply to men being attractive as well. But I find that the behaviours toward women's beauty and "allure" are taken much further. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
A pretty face has been known to make traffic tickets disappear. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam, It's hard to dismiss altruism even in a Darwinian scheme, since it has existed (in some measure) throughout recorded human history, and in the animal world as well. So Darwinism would have to give it some kind of survival value. Of course a mere "survival of the fittest" scheme cannot explain altruism at all, making Darwinism an unlikely candidate to many ... especially "social darwinism". But I'm with you on the moral dimension of Essorant's question. I'm not sure that's where he was heading though.Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
When I said "beautiful" I was not implying anything moral, for there is nothing morally good or evil about being a beautiful woman. But there are important moral aspects about how people behave about it. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
But for the purpose of your argument, we'd have to define "beautiful". And that we cannot do. We're all personally imprinted and programmed as to regards of what is considered beauty, or even "pleasant"--as well as the opposites of "ugly" or "unpleasurable". When my daughter was a wee lass, I did advise her to not put too much importance on the opinions of others for her self-worth. Pretty people are picked to make pretty pictures. We are inundated with constant standards of beauty, air-brushed after silicone, to please our appraising eye. I advised my daughter that there will be people who won't like her, anyway. And that fact might not have a thing to do with her. For all she knows, she reminds someone of an unpleasant experience that they have long forgotten. I told her the laws of attraction are equally dubious. (Pheremones and such...tch.) But you were asking a question about my own behavior, right? (In the context of a member of the general forum, I mean.) I think I have a tendency to relate to the underdog, and I probably over-compensate as a result. So no. I don't think I'm more likely to "do" anything for someone more "beautiful"--but quite the opposite. Which is still bias. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Well Stephen, when Ess uses the comparative "more willing" it invites the speculation more willing than what, which in turn suggests more willing to help a beautiful person than an ugly one. And it's a short step from there to the question I posed, which he posed whether he knew it or not  .And I completely agree with you. Whether Darwin himself would have subscribed to the hardline natural selection argument which excludes altruism, I am not certain, but Dawkins et al certainly do. They seem to try and justify it in two ways: either by contending that altruism isn't in fact altruism at all, but instead simply another mechanism for trying to perpetuate one's own genetic pattern, for instance when altruistically helping a relative; or by suggesting that altruism is no more than the evidence of the "misfiring" of the rules of natural selection. But the ruling out of altruism, and a total reliance upon the selfish gene, leads inevitably to a logical conclusion of anarchy. Thus the so called "misfiring" (Darwinian mistakes) becomes pivotal to the explanation of the existence of everything in life that is borne of order, compassion and poetry. In my view, when the exception becomes almost as important as the rule it's time to question the rule. To my mind natural selection is really only useful as an explanation of some physical aspects of human behaviour; for instance Brad's "yes" above, reflects, no doubt, the Darwinian urge to mate with the best gene pool around. Similarly SEA's instant "no" reflects the genetic recognition of any Darwinian good arising from the coupling of two females. So in conclusion I think you'd be on sticky moral ground to try to plead with St Peter: "It weren't me guv, it were all me genes fault", when brought to book for ignoring the old lady trying to cross the road in favour of the buxom blonde. [This message has been edited by moonbeam (12-08-2008 07:10 AM).] |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Well I don't want to mate...with anyone...right now. Just woke up. Guten Morgen! But natural selection is more than physical or objective gene pulling. I listened to Sinead O'Connor's musical history last night. She has a new album out, but I was missing her older works so I listened to all I could on Youtube. That woman has a voice that is both lilting and beseeching with angst, to me, and the way she handles a hard-held note just leaves me pierced and haunted by her soulful gift. I can't help but hand her my ears for more. So that means I'm more willing to listen to her. Even if I'd never set eyes on her, I'd find her beautiful. (Which she is an exquisite beauty who shaved her head to try to detract from that.) In all her pain, angry political outbursts, personal battles, mistakes and controversial choices, I find I have extreme admiration for her. I'm much more "willing to become involved" with her art, than say...with Britney Spears, who is also beautiful in her way. Live: Feel So Different Which calls to me like a battle cry, because I've felt different all my life. Nothing Compares to You We all have that one in our minds and hearts who no one compares to. Silent Night A perfect song for Christmas Spirit. Ciao bellas e bellos |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Karen: quote: But doesn't your anecdote undermine your first assertion that beauty is undefinable or totally relative? To my ears, the words you gave your daughter hint that you were really warning her against true mistakes about what is beautiful, not just offering her an equal alternative for her consideration. Or if not warning her of out and out mistakes, at least suggesting a real aesthetic hierarchiy (exemplified in the statement that 'personal/ moral beauty is more important than physical beauty). After all, you ended your story by assuring her that some of their opinions have nothing to do with her at all ... which says plainly enough that they misjudge. Though beauty has not the clearest definitions and contrasts of other abstract realities like mathematics, I still think it has quite an objective element and body of common recognition ... such that despising a sunset (or Mary Magdeline and her Alabaster) would call into question more the the observer, than the beauty of the object considered. In other words, there's wiggle room enough in the world of beauty for us to be really individuals, and yet definition enough for us to be really mistaken or veracious. moonbeam quote: From a Darwinian perspective, beauty can in no way be proven to be the "best gene pool around". Since both beauty and plainness (to be nice here ) are both a part of our existing populations, whether each is 'best' has only to do with survival value, which is yet to be determined. As a matter of fact, since beauty seems to be prized for its rarity, it could easily be said that the homely gene has won out thus far. Of course I don't believe anything I've just said, as I think Darwinism is an inadequate system with which to describe such things ... a procrustean bed on which any subject can be thrust, often to its detriment. But since I don't even think Darwin's mechanism can explain the differences in species (much less the origins), our views on Darwinism are bound to differ greatly. And PS) While Dawkins may be a great biologist, he is an atrocious philosopher. And it is philosophy which comprises most of his written works of late. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Regina quote: The difference with physical looks though, even though they are more superficial, is that she literally is those looks. She is altogether her body, her form, hair, eyes, etc. Britney Spears literally is her bodily being, but Sinead O'Connor isn't literally a song. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
That’s true. Sinead in not literally a song, but she is an unforgettable voice for me, while her looks may change with age and her presence may cease to be, I’ll identify with her voice for life. I suppose that’s why I have no trouble finding beauty to be a philosophical issue, because one seeks out beauty in life and, usually, for the duration. All forms of beauty. Such as “a love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline” (dictionary.com) which is one definition of philosophy, and another is the investigation of truths, here, more particularly, in the workings of nature: Human nature. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think even a stoic has to “passionately” embrace the ideology of stoicism to free himself from passion, pain, and happiness. It’s natural for humans to be drawn to the beautiful aspects of other humans. What each one feels is a beautiful aspect is up for individual selection, and it’s a process that changes from one day to the next--thank goodness, because a strong relationship depends on such. We’re not forever young, on the outside, and such “stays” in physical attributes do carry too much merit (and plastic surgery/Botox injections) for most, when we should be more accepting of age due to what we attain together, around us, and within us in our years. It’s a painful process of growing and learning, sometimes. I’m highly attracted to older men. My ex-husband was 14 years my senior. One day he came to me and said he was aging and I wasn’t. This produced too much inner struggle for him, so he let me go. 9 years of marriage thrown away. All because he could not accept that I deeply loved him, and he felt I would eventually leave him for a younger man. I could not do anything to relieve him of his insecurities. Not only did I not leave him for a younger man, but I didn’t date for nearly 2 years afterward, due to being so wounded inside. I felt like my appearance was a curse!!! Especially when I finally did begin to date again! JEEESH! It’s scary out here! Lots of stories, but here are two examples: 1: I was asked out by my 22 year old Western World Lit classmate. I didn’t even know he was asking me out due to not being able to entertain the thought at all. When I realized what he was asking? I said: “OH MY GOSH! I’m so sorry. I didn’t have a clue, but here’s one for you. My son is 22 and I’m old enough to be your mother.” Which he was equally shocked and we parted ways, respectfully; though he did go on to win a few bets in class about my age!! Little rascal. 2. I was working totally too hard, feeling very rundown to an unhealthy degree. I’d even packed on quite a few pounds due to poor diet and terrible routine. I felt like haggard crap. I took a break and decided to visit my son in Germany. In that 2 week span I was inundated with male attention and a marriage proposal! TRAVEL abroad ladies. Travel outside your circle of self-cozying-state of depreciation and you may find you’re a goddess to too many. but that’s my point. Step outside yourself, find your own attributes, and try to see them even when others don’t, because we don’t. That’s human too. Just as human as NOT being able to see all the things that are not attributes, sometimes because of physical beauty and allure. We don’t get to see how mean or abusive people are until after time has passed and their true colors come out on you…behind closed doors. So it’s helpful to one’s self to be physically, mentally and emotionally strong enough for any kind of involvement with another. Sticking to one’s principles and having a good sound (though investigative) philosophy on life helps. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Of course a mere "survival of the fittest" scheme cannot explain altruism at all, ...and what can? I think your prejudice against Darwinism has it's base in your religious beliefs, not science. One thing I have found to be interesting is that, many times, a person's looks define their personality in different ways, both good and bad. How people are treated, especially when they are young, goes a long way to determining their personalities and visions of self-worth and manifests itself in their personalities as adults. How people are treated when they are young (especially by fellow youngsters) are normally based on appearance. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: I was with you all the way until the last sentence. "Normally" is wrong. A stunning body and visage are certainly a help in gaining initial respect, but then so is a stunningly witty personality or a fantastic intellect or superb prowess in sports. After the first few days acquaintance I think personality becomes at least as important as looks, even in the young. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: I am not sure Stephen. I think we are talking about slightly different things because I think it's possible to argue that humans generally have become steadily more attractive over the millennia, while still acknowledging, as you say, that within a specific time frame extreme beauty is rare. Which, however, when you think about it, is really a given, because if it wasn't rare it wouldn't be extreme beauty. I rather think in fact your point doesn't impair the reasoning because at any one time there will always be "cutting edge" traits of beauty strength intelligence etc etc, leading the genetic way into the next generation. So, today's Miss World or Mr Universe will be tomorrow's bank clerk (hope there are no bank clerks here )quote: As I have said I too have reservations about what I might term "pure" Darwinism (or modern day Darwinism) which in the hands of practitioners such as Dawkins seems to preclude any form of divinity. But as you correctly surmise, I guess we will diverge substantially in WHY we both agree that natural selection is a suspect theory as an explanation of the origins and development of everything we perceive. While I'm perfectly happy to let Darwinism try and explain most of the matter based activity we see around us - and I even believe a lot of it - I am not at all happy to let those propositions rule out a spiritual dimension to our existence, which might help to explain some of the "aberrations" that occur in the natural selection model and some of the holes in the philosophy that some have sought to build from it. I apologise because I have not read sufficient of your comments here to know more about your theological stance, but if you rule out Darwinism and immediately rule in a creationist view to replace it, then clearly I'm going to disagree. Moreover, if you do take that line I'd have to say that I have the same problem with your position as I do with that of the radical Darwinists. Umm, we are probably way off topic by now. quote: I wouldn't go that far. In fact I was talking to Dawkins' biology teacher (who also taught me a few years later as it happens) a couple of months ago, and we got on to discussing The God Delusion and how we both felt that Dawkins himself had become increasingly deluded as he got older. I think that it's not so much that he is an atrocious philosopher, but more that he sets himself an impossible philosophical task, in that he is not really interested in a philosophical debate at all. He is simply trying to dress up an attack on the established churches in a way that seems philosophically convincing to the average reader. For since school he has been on a vendetta to expose the absurdity of the mainstream religion, and it was only some time later that he enlisted the assistance of Darwin, and developed a "philosophy" along the lines we now see. I certainly don't object to his crusade against some organised religions, in fact I agree with a lot of his criticisms, but he goes far too far. His underlying assumption that the C of E and the Vatican are charlatans does not logically project into a "therefore there is no god" result - even, dare I say it, by bolstering his arguments by borrowing and radicalising Mr Darwin's ideas. Now I really am off topic, sorry Ess. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Personality. intellect and prowess in sports is certainly important (even more so than looks) but I was referring to initial reactions. Yes, when one takes the time to know someone, everything else comes into play. In the same vein, one may gather an instant high appreciation for another based solely on looks but, after getting to know the person, that appreciation will fade with the discovery of a bad personality. Men are not wild about the Victoria's Secret models because they know them. There is an interesting new tv show starting this week called Perfect Beauty, or something like that, where absolutely gorgeous people are interviewed and observed for what they think is a beauty contest. In reality, it's a contest of their INNER beauty, their personalities and character. They are then given their grades, which seems to be quite a conflict to what they think about themselves. Could be an interesting show.... Kids are not kind. They make fun of fatties, of stutterers, of kids with any kind of a physical defect or others that are simply not "cute". Many times this leads to defensiveness, low self-esteem and a shrinking away from any kind of spotlight. This can easily follow them into adult life. I've seen it many times. Good looking kids, based on their constant immediate acceptance, can result in social, outgoing, self-confident people. Does it always work that way? Of course not but it happens more often than not. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
I agree with you Balladeer that specific physical defects like obesity or stuttering can potentially lead to a loss of self-esteem. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: Laugh. Great quote. quote: True, but so can the assumptions/expectations toward those who are attractive or who do excel above others. There will be a time when they are not as attractive anymore or maybe they've never thought as highly of themselves as others do think of them. And there will be a day when one doesn’t get the A on the paper or someone else breaks your sports record, etc. This can cause a crash and burn affect for the beautiful/over achievers. Eating disorders and body dysmorphic disorders, surgery obsessions, steroids and injury from pushing oneself way too far just to stay in competition. Competition/pursuit is seen as game to many. I heard a couple guys talking the other day and they were discussing dating techniques and one guy said he’d not had any luck in meeting a nice girl. His friend advised him what he should do: “When approaching a group of girls, approach the ugliest one first, because the hot chicks expect being approached and it will make them want you if you go after the least one in the bunch!” So yeah, it’s amazing what some people will do to make butts outta themselves while hoping to land a pretty woman. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Tell me about it. I shoulda changed my name to anus years ago!  |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Hahaha...don't tell me you fathered that idea, or has that been a long used strategy and I'm just too long outta the game?? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Human beauty, from a Darwinian perspective, can be better understood, I think, if we approach it as a potential measure of good health. Cultural bias aside (Twiggy was an exception, not a rule), one doesn't entrust one's genes to the sickly. Generally, I think we are attracted not just to beautiful people, but to healthy people. It is only later we begin to define that state as something we consider beautiful. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, most often beauty is not a measure of good health, though the retention of beauty may be. And many unalluring folk are born healthy and live a long long time. Stephen |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Actually I think it's a combination of many "attractive" features that snare the wandering gene. But, having said that, I do wonder whether, now that humanity has moved from the wilderness to the metropolis, natural selection is becoming anything but natural - the "rules" are being distorted, just like everything else in nature is being distorted, by our behavioural interference. Ironic isn't it, the thought that as well as deleting the planet we could actually be deleting the genes that enable our survival too. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ok! Add those to the list. We are deleting the planet, deleting the genes, depleting the ozone layer, destroying the environment...and the list goes on. I have it on good authority that Mother Nature laughs at the tiny human creatures with the big egos |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam: quote: There is a still a large mass of humanity that hasn't. quote: I don't believe in Darwinism beyond the ability to produce small-scale change within species ... However, granting a full-blown-Darwinian perspective, how could anything be "unnatural"? What rules? Balladeer: quote: Mike, I tend to take a middle ground on this (though for me, God would stand in the place of the Mother Nature here). Whenever the environmental left gets too paranoid and sure that we will obliterate the entire human race and nature along with it, I remember the kind of humility you imply. Do we really think we creatures can do all that? But when I consider the cornucopian industrialist rape-the-earth mindset, I remember that we are made in God's image ... and so can cause a lot of damage when we go awry. We need to take care of the environment the best we can. But to get back to the subject of the thread, here are a couple of questions: How is beauty related to vanity? Is it less-than-beautiful to favor the beautiful too much? many of our stories have this theme, from the Gospel right on down to the ugly duckling. "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not" (Isaiah 53:2-3) Stephen |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Not to mention that Jezebel wasn't admired for her cooking... |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Oddly enough I'm reading "The Idiot" right now, which seems to touch on these themes. Stephen |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Deleting the genes was a joke Mike, in the sense that even if we are impairing the "survival" gene we are probably talking about another 100,000 years or so before we know it, by which time we'll all be glorified computer chips in any case. Deleting the planet is not a joke, and depleting the ozone layer and destroying the environment are of course all part of the same concern. Can "puny" humans make material impacts on the environment? I think that chuckling about "big egos" or "crazy green socialists" is great as an antidote to those very egos and left wing activists who would have us believe that Armageddon is just round the corner, but that's as far as it goes. Certainty that we can have no effect on the planet (especially as an excuse for lazy and wasteful consumption of resources) is as arrogant as certainty that we do have. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
There is a still a large mass of humanity that hasn't. I was speaking with a metaphorical slant, implying that only the last few years of human existence have been post agrarian and industrial revolutions. Not many humans nowadays live in caves and hunt mammoths. Not many humans even in darkest Africa have not heard of TV, or Britney. quote: That was why I put "rules" in inverted commas Stephen, implying that "decision making" by genes and memes is outwith the control of the organism. One of the reasons I have reservations about full blown Darwinism is that the self awareness that comes with what we call civilisation substantially increases the chances of repeated host/gene conflict, and, as I understand it, natural selection assumes that an organism will be driven by the interests of its genes. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: People do relate or equate beauty to vanity, and many times throughout history women have been subjects of great oppression due to virtues, means, and values surrounding beauty and the avoidance of vanity. Part of being a virtuous woman was keeping plain her appearance, covering her glory, causing not any man to look upon her with lust. Modesty was and still is in some countries an insurance policy for men to keep their prized possessions virtuous only unto them and their heirs undoubtedly theirs. Each time period produces new standards to follow in behavior, presentation, appearance, poise, and dress. But the concept of vanity doesn’t only apply to females, by depiction. Vanity is seen as the worst sin of the “seven deadlies,” and it has many different names, Pride, hubris, vainglory, narcissism, superbia…et al of which Lucifer is the most noted “fallen one,” from pride and was supposedly the most beautiful of all angels. “The evil one’s” appearance is very interesting in art history and contemporary film. Usually, a more beautiful portrayal indicates Lucifer whereas the more beastly and horrific portrayal indicates Satan, after the fall…which can be symbolic of pride resulting in the worst kind of ugliness. quote: As in obsessed? I think it’s fair to say that obsessions lead to all kinds of complications, but simple admiration or appreciation shouldn’t be seen as faulty or flawed. The extreme opposite of “to favor” would be “to abhor.” If the beautiful are seen as prideful, and the prideful are to be deemed the infidels because they are placing themselves above, before or without, any God, then yes, that type of mentality is not only less-than-beautiful, but it suggests that they have a God complex which entitles them to make such judgments upon others and, in essence, they are what they hate. I don’t think there’s anything beautiful about that, but some believe this type of hate entitles them a most high place in the afterlife. They are the most beautiful examples of warriors for their faith. It’s also not beautiful to be envious of others to a mad degree or to despise beauty enough to want to eradicate someone for personal gain. Many pretty women suffered a “Hexa’s” fate during the witch hunts. This was a great way to get rid of the competition. Plain girls could point the finger at innocent beauties and voila! Their chances for a husband went from very slim to high by default. gotta do what you gotta do for survival, I guess, since being a spinster was nearly as shameful for a woman as being a harlot. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
There is a great difference between the beauty of what we are (human bodies) and the beauty of what we do (good and evil). The first beauty is bodily, but the second is artistic and moral. It seems most of you would agree that artistic and moral beauty is more beautiful and important. But nevertheless the other always interferes to some extent and that is where we must needs try to measure a bit how much we allow our choices to be influenced by it. Unfortunately when it is stronger, the judgement is in more danger of being weaker. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: By "favoring the beautiful", I meant to neglect those who aren't, not to despise beauty. Sometimes we can artificially surround ourselves with who and what we perceive to be healthy and beautiful ... and miss the greater beauty of humility. quote: You seem to be referring to religious hatred (which is rightfully criticized where it is to be found). But among the religious who deems beauty as equal to pride, or despises beauty? I can't seem to grasp a real example of what you're alluding to. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-11-2008 01:42 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess, I think the answer is to recognize that beauty is hierarchical in nature, and in some ways objective. We get into trouble when we are enamored by lesser beauty at the expense of greater. If looked at too closely, even a small object can block one's vision from seeing a much larger one. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-10-2008 11:35 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam: quote: The mysticism crept into Darwinian philosophy always makes me chuckle. "decision making" by genes? And what is in the definition of meme that isn't just foisting a Darwinian scheme onto an older phrase like "influential idea"? quote: I think you are describing the newer forms of Darwinism (a' la Dawkins et al) which have more than a bit of mysticism thrown in. Natural selction, in the purest Darwinian sense, assumes nothing. It wouldn't matter if self-awareness was in conflict with human survival any more than it would matter if a third wing on a fly rendered its particular genes doomed to extinction. Remember that Darwinism in its most basic form, states that the origin of species is nothing but a series of fortuitous flukes (random mutations that happened to work). Even big dogs like Stephen Jay Gould say that genes aren't "trying" to get anywhere. By saying such, people are only smuggling in a telos or design mentality from another worldview altogether (Judeo-Christian Theism most prominently). So that trifle shouldn't give you reservations about Darwinism, since the irony or absurdity of it wouldn't bother Darwinism in the least. But, having said that, I think there are other things that should give you pause in regard to Darwinism. These 'other things' are the lack of scientific evidence for macroevolution, and the enormities of difficulty that increased knowledge of micro-biology have presented us with, in regard to the origin of species. Stephen |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Stephen I do think it's quite amusing that somebody who presumably subscribes to the theology expounded by the principal christian churches uses the word "mysticism" in relation to what Dawkins has tried to do to Darwinism. Still, I agree with much of what you say. Perhaps I might not have used the same words, but it comes down to the same thing. By "full blown" Darwinism I did indeed mean "modern" Darwinism - I suppose I use "pure", as in original, when I mean the Origin of Species. And I have to admit that it is rare now that I think of "Darwinism" in that pure way, having, I suppose, been influenced (brainwashed even) by the contemporary usage of Darwin's ideas to try to found a kind of new philosophy. And it's interesting that you mention the importing of a design mentality from, more generally, Dawkins would probably claim, a monotheistic view of the world. I visited Down House couple of years ago and got talking to one of the curators who had just read the newly published God Delusion. He was saying much the same thing as you, except he went further, being somewhat partisan, to say that Darwin would have been astonished and amused by the irony of the way in which his ideas had, not so much been mysticised, as popularised and "developed" to serve a cause. All of which modifications, discussions and later refinements are the only things which really interest me about Darwinism, because the original theory, while no doubt revolutionary at the time of course, is altogether too broad brush and neatly explanatory of "everything" to appeal to my need to see conflict and complexity. Which is why new biological (as opposed to philosophical) challenges to Darwin's original theories don't surprise me in the least, I would expect them. Yet I have a feeling, that modern day Darwinists will continue to have "no problem" accommodating new science into their theories by increasing their complexity, or, as you would say, their mysticism! Pretty soon in fact, after they've shifted their ground a few more times to take account of new Truth, there will be little to choose between the scientific atheist and theists or deists for mysticism. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam, I have no problem with mysticism. In fact I think, as human beings, we need it. So much so, that when a theory threatens to reduce things to random motion, even its proponents end up smuggling the mystical (or religious if you like) back in. What I don't like however is mysticism under the guise of 'pure science'. The atheism of Dawkins is a religion that requires something very much like faith. I just wish he'd admit it. Christianity, on the other hand, has always been forthcoming in saying that some degree of faith is required. Stephen |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Oh this is disappointing, no controversy, I seem to agree with that as well. Although whether they do it simply because a theory is aimless, or whether they do it because of a genuine and honest belief that it needs contemporizing, or whether they do in order to make it more sexy and mould it to their own purposes, or whether it's a combination is debatable. quote: I agree again, and I think any form of masquerade in propounding something a important as theories of source and existence is pretty unforgivable. Moreover you are absolutely correct that Dawkins has in effect "created" a religion to defeat religion, and that in itself is a bit of a turn off for me. I always remember reading in one of Dawkins' earlier books (before he became completely fixated with God demolition) about Cairns-Smith's clay crystal theory for the origin of DNA, which he (Dawkins) seemed, if I remember correctly, to think quite feasible, and wondering to myself if in fact one required more faith to believe in it than was required to find parts of Genesis credible. Yes Christianity has been open about the role of faith. In fact Christians almost seem to revel in the fact that their religion is faith based as if that is a plus point (which seems to me rather extraordinary). I really don't have any problem with that at all, and the honesty is nice. But quite a few Christians do seem to move on from there and, without any bashfulness, make the statement, but (nevertheless) "we are right and you are wrong". I find that difficult to handle. |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
"Are you more willing to do something if a beautiful woman is involved?" "something" is vague, but I will go with it. The answer, generally, is no. If I see someone in need, I will probably help. However it really depends on my mood. Some days I simply hate all people. Other days, not so much. "beauty" is subjective (I feel like I am repeating myself). I don't have a womb anymore so I can't really be accused of choosing a mate based on reproduction value. I do enjoy a good looking man. But that would be my perception of good looking. "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
...and your perception would be someone who looks like me?? (hope hope hope) |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Yes but your genes don't know that, so Balladeer still has a chance , even if a slim one. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Moon, I think the confusion regarding altruism and natural selection is one of definition - biological altruism as it pertains to natural selection isn’t the same thing as the tendency towards philanthropic or seemingly selfless acts. For starters it can be easily argued that one of them doesn’t actually exist. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos I agree with you about the beauty of what we do, for deeds are and ought to be measured by how well they express or treat something, especially life. But I don't think there is such a hierarchy as far as what we are. Even being humans doesn't make us superior than other animals, in like wise neither does being more attractive make anyone more of a human. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, Of course physical beauty doesn't make one person "better" than another. But I have to ask you a question ... do you eat meat or wear wool? I don't believe for a minute that you believe that humans are equal to animals. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, Yes, for sure I eat meat and wear wool. But that is not because I think other animals are inferior and humans superior. As the sun shines more on the planet that is closer and not as much on the planets that are further, likewise my heart cares more about the race that it is closer to, as a human, the human race. Naturally I love my mother too more than someone else's mother but that does not mean I believe she is superior as a human. I don't care about anyone more because I think he or she is superior, but because he or she is closer to my heart, in one way or another. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-11-2008 11:37 PM).] |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: Very true and I appreciate your mind, here. However, it’s really nice to find/encourage a good balance of humbleness and confidence in others and for oneself. But along with the aspects of beauty, humility has facets, too. Some of those facets are not seen as virtuous to everyone: Such as the concept of freedom, tolerance, temperance, equality, etc. quote: No, not religious hatred. Intolerance. Religion may be the unifier of a group of people, and they may use religion to back them up, but I wouldn’t say that their religion is what drives them or else they’d embrace the examples of love and tolerance within those same doctrines. I’m speaking along the terms of behaviors such as fear, envy, jealousy, prejudice, and systems like elitism and fascism, that do reject others for superficial reasons or for personal gain. quote: Other than Lucifer?  I personally feel that God loves each of us and finds us all beautiful in our own way. It’s people who like to equate outward beauty with pride. Anything can be taken too far, and some people feel beauty is something that needs to be constantly preened or forcibly kept under wraps or made plain, again, to keep things under control, like lust or competition. Haven’t you ever heard someone say, “She thinks she is so hot.” There’s probably some sort of personal issues or insecurities going on. Taking too much pride in one’s appearance is not only a religious faux pas, but the focus of many mythological symbolisms as well, which led to the psychological term: Narcissist. anyway, there’s all kinds of shallow aspects to beauty, but I think most know there’s so much more to beautiful, just like life. On Darwin: I don’t think he accounted for eccentrically unique behaviors of humans. We fall in love with people who have no arms or no legs. No hair or tons of it. Big and tiny people. Many of us are drawn to opposites on the opposite side of the earth with opposite colored skin. We don’t want to “voluntarily correct” them, because we love them just as they are. And we don’t always want to have kids. He lost me when he made natural selection something too convenient. Maybe the whole "survival of the fittest" was more like “how far can I get from here to find me somebody else?” I know someone ventured out, risking ridicule, ostracization, death and dismemberment to embrace different. Or maybe they were just too tired to go back. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Well expressed Ess. And Stephen, I don't believe for one moment that you really think humans are superior to other life forms. Tell me you are teasing to provoke debate! Perhaps the word superior is unfortunate. Is more specificity required to close the apparent gap? Probably you could argue we are better at making cars than other species, although even that is perhaps now in doubt .Grinch, I need more than one coffee to think about that proposition. Later. [This message has been edited by moonbeam (12-12-2008 05:14 AM).] |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Beautifully and poetically said, Ess. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: Ain't buyin it. Though "superior" might be too clumsy a word for the subtleties involved, if you are willing to put animals to death for your culinary delight, there is a hierarchy in practice no matter your ideology. Put your money where your mouth is. quote: I'm not saying you have to love Fido like your mother. But you still treat humans who are strangers with basic moral convictions that are not extended to the animal world indiscriminately. The gulf between our polite indifference to a stranger, and our slay-and-eat approach to animals, is too large (and radically different) to explain by mere proximity among equals. Reg: quote: Yes but it is rare that it is said because of someone's looks ... but rather about someone's attitude. Sure, sometimes such a statement is petty, or stems from jealousy. But it is nonetheless true that beauty is a temptation to arrogance (which as you've already pointed out is not beautiful). quote: And not without good reason, I think. Don't misunderstand. I love beauty ... even physical beauty. Moonbeam: quote: You're right. Superior doesn't exactly capture it. Nonetheless my view of humanity possessing a significant aspect of divine likeness (imago Dei) that the animal world does not, is more consistent with the practices of most people, whatever their ideology is. Stephen |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: You are almost certainly right. Which statistic however results I suspect from an amalgam of selfish convenience and an inability to think through, or disinterest in, the arguments. As you know, majority opinion isn't a certain indicator of objective rightness. I don't understand your problem with wool. And, as you know from the other thread, I view any killing as wrong, even killing to eat (albeit a lesser wrong that hunting for pleasure); we do wrong; suffer it to be so for now, it will change, as other wrongs have changed. And I certainly don't accept that imago Dei the Chain of Being or indeed any facet of Judeo-Christian metaphysics, or for that matter, other traditions such as Greek humanism or Cartesian dualism, provide evidence of human superiority. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
MB: quote: I already knew that. I only said that pragmatically you are more consistent with it, than with your own view. quote: So people are too wicked and ignorant to see what is "right"? From your words it would seem you're closer to Christian orthodoxy than you think ... sounds similar to Original Sin and Divine Law. Stephen |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
"...and your perception would be someone who looks like me??" I cannot compete with your lovely wife.  "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: ~chuckling~ Now don't be naughty Stephen . Quote in context. I was talking specifically about the ability of Judeo-Christianity to address the question of human superiority. Of course I'm consistent with much of Christian thought, I was raised in it, and accept much of the morality, if not the theology.quote: "Wicked and ignorant" is far too Old Testament, to the point where it changes my meaning. "Selfish, lazy, disinterested or intellectually unable" is more the mark. I don't condemn people as sinners for not having the inclination or ability to reason their way out of subjectivity - that would indeed be very fire and brimstone. I suppose there ARE people out there who reason the position out, mentally accept that other beings are not inferior, and then go out and deliberately persecute them for kicks. But the vast majority just go along with the prevailing mood without even thinking about it much, it doesn't make them wicked and ignorant. I guess it's back to the slave trade analogy again. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, Did you forget about this thread already? "It makes sense to say that humans are most important to humans. But it doesn't make sense to say humans are most important to the animal kingdom or to the world." quote: It is not a hierarchy Stephanos, but a relationship. Since we are humans our relationship with humans is obviously more important than our relationship with other animals. It is not that all animals are not equal, but that relationships are not. Consider how relationships differ among humans, not because these are better than those, but because these get along better with those. That kind of distinction is only the more apparent when we consider the relationships with human and other humans, in contrast with humans and other animals. quote: Again since we are humans it is humans and our relationship with humans that are both naturally and artfully much more important to us and therefore we do as much as we may to respect and protect us foremost. It is not because other animals are inferior, but because human and human relationships are naturally more appropriate and more important to humans. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-13-2008 03:14 PM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
