"The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot... It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."
I wonder if we all saw the world this way, if maybe things might be different. What do you think? Has anyone ever read the book? Is there anyone who's felt similar sentiment after gazing at the stars and contemplating the Universe?
Thinking about the earth that way does inspire awe. And fear. One tiny oasis of life in a dead zone; as far as the capability of sustaining human life is concerned, with no knowledge of any similar space man might inhabit. We screw this up, we're history.
But, isn't the failure to ponder the breadth and wonder of the universe an extension of the human condition? Few expand their circle of compassion to include more than a few. We don't look beyond the borders of our peripheral vision. We each, in our own way, seek to be master of our domain. The emperors and generals are simply a reflection of each of us, magnified to an extent which gives us a glimpse of the most basic problem we need to address within ourselves. Standing here on earth, seeing that image, it is easy to make the connection because looking at an image of the earth in the distance is like standing outside of ourselves, and knowing how fragile we are, as individuals. How truly separated we each are from all else.
But, were we in the position to take that picture and send it back, I'm not sure any but the initial reaction would be the same. After the fear subsides, I would think if one held that position in space, the natural reaction would be to desire to master a larger chunk of the universe; in order to allay the fear the image conjured. Because, although our peripheral vision encompasses a greater area we are still naturally prone to need to master our environment. To hide from the fear of the fact that each of us is, at the most basic level of thought, alone. That the sea of dead space which separates each of us from one another is, possibly, more frightening than the no man's land we can see from the window of our tiny ship.
I don't read a lot of things that really move me, but I have to say you have a way with words.
It is because of our insignificance in the universe that I am compelled to believe in the existence of God. Not because of anything in the bible but the complete pointlessness of the vastness of the universe. That is, if the universe via blind chance and undirected evolutionary processes brings about a planet with the right conditions for life and on that planet a sentient race comes about that observes and marvels at the beauty and vastness of that universe, yet the universe is oblivious, then what's the point? It's all meaningless yet how can the human mind, a thing of wonder be meaningless? So I conclude a creator must exist and has had a hand in events that brought us about.
Because what is the point of humanity's existence? The universe is a place of wonder and beauty, why is that? Yet it is beautiful because there is a sentient being that is able to observe that beauty and perceive it as beautiful. Only a portion of that universe is observable from the Earth, so who or what sees the hidden beauty? And if it is beautiful with no observers, what's the point, why is it beautiful? Yet in all its beauty, the universe is oblivious to the observers and its own beauty. To me it makes no sense unless there is a creator that made it beautiful (by whatever process, I am no creationist after all) in the first place and can observe that beauty when nobody else can.
The Universe is only beautiful because we can perceive it, DH. Beauty is all about perception. Nothing would be beautiful if we didn't think it was. If we were simpler minded creatures, we wouldn't even be able to perceive beauty in the same way. So would it still be beautiful? Beauty only exists in the minds of those that can define it as such.
But I certainly understand where you are coming from. I just disagree, that's all.
Ok, Then I will ask like this, How does god gives meaning?
Because god sees beauty, how does it create meaning?
This "observes and marvels at the beauty and vastness of that universe" is not enough for you? Seems to be more than exceptional, our extreme fortune that we've evolved to appreciate such splendor and beauty is vastly ample reason for a purpose.
Gods only diminish our marvel.
Imagine there was no Earth, the universe would not know any different, yet it would still be a marvellous and wonderful place. Humanity creates beautiful works of art for the purpose of sharing that beauty; to enable the remainder of humanity to appreciate what has been made. It is beautiful by design and has that as a purpose. Now when you see NASA's images don't tell me you do not marvel at what you see. Have you never asked why what you see is so amazing? If there is no observer, would that reduce its beauty? Why is the universe intrinsically beautiful when it gains nothing from it? So like the work of human art, the beauty only makes sense to me if there was a creator that made it that way in order to share it with an observer.
Is it not only beautiful to those who can enjoy it? Is it beautiful to the parents of the child riddled with cancer or parasites? Perspective.
So, it is your argument that a parent of a sick child can't marvel at the beauty of the universe? Can't admire a beautiful work of art? I can state, from experience, that tragedy doesn't negate the ability to recognize beauty.
???? You think that the parents of a child riddled with cancer and in a hospital dying go on about enjoying nature?
He certainly is not talking about "ability".
Disagree. His statement implied that those under stress and mourning could not enjoy the wonder and beauty of the world. Our minds may be focused firmly on our own problems and trials, however we don't lose the ability, we may fail to look because we are focused else where. We may be oblivious because our mind is churning around a problem.
His statement was, in my opinion, myopic; with the assumption that myopia caused by depression and stress is a permanent condition.
People who are mourning cannot enjoy, doesn't mean can "never" enjoy, does it?
What I understood from what he said is that one should have a mind to enjoy otherwise things are not beautiful or beautiful things are beautiful only to those who can perceive it as beautiful.
In addition there is a condition called anhedonia where one cannot enjoy pleasure and nothing is beautiful for him.
I suppose it is a simple matter of how one perceived his statement. His was in response to a statement that life is beautiful. So, by my understanding, his response was that some don't think so. Now, we all know that, momentarily, we can all lose focus. A temporary loss of focus does not support his statement. The statement is only valid if it implies a permanent inability to perceive beauty. Which, it doesn't. So, it wasn't a valid argument to begin with.
Now you bring up anhedonia which, by definition, is the inability to see beauty in things which are naturally perceived as beautiful. It appears we consider this an abnormality. If so, do you consider this to be a valid argument?
Yes, because it shows that there is no inherent beauty but only that perceived, "eyes of the beholder".
"Cannot see beauty in what the general public see as beautiful", isn't so?
I wonder whether you have felt tasty food tasteless when you are stressed?
Does it show that? If we say that someone can't see what is naturally perceived as beautiful aren't we, in essence, claiming that things are inherently beautiful? Can we prove, without observation, that beauty wouldn't exist? All we can say with confidence is there would be no human to validate its beauty.
Naturally perceived by humans as "beautiful".
Does beauty "exist"? No. Beauty is a feeling.
If most people feel a thing as beautiful that means most people are similar. Most people find snakes repulsive, does that make it inherently repulsive? (At least for other snakes and herpatlogists snakes are beautiful and lions though beautiful for as is repulsive to deer and gazelles).
Your question is akin to "Does sound exist if there is none to hear it?" There is no sound but simple vibration of air molecules, if there is no brain to decipher that vibration into "sound".
So, you agree that everything still exists, the observer simply validates it. Defines it. We don't change the basic nature, simply receive input and interpret it. That still does not prove that existence is not inherently beautiful. If ours is a natural reaction to a natural condition one would assume that, minus the judgment supplied by the observer, conditions would remain the same.
Those "condition" are inside the mind only, concept. The thing exists (beauty is not a thing but a perception), say the moon, but it need a human who can "see" it as beautiful for it to be beautiful. Without that it is only a collection of mud that revolve around the earth. Or in your words moon is a thing that exist while beauty is that we see in moon.
I think that you feel the most (except those with anhedonia) of humans agree what things are beautiful, is it so? But human beings differ in what they consider beautiful, it also shows that beauty is mere perception.
Conditions would indeed remain the same, but there would be no one to define it.
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is really a true statement. If there wasn't anyone that could behold it, how could it be defined as beautiful? If there's literally no one that can place the label, it will only exist without any words to describe it.
If no one can define that beauty, then in essence, it is not beautiful.
Think about the evolution of beauty as far as women are concerned (and I'm just talking about in Western culture). At one time, plumper women were concerned more beautiful, and then more average sized women, until Twiggy arrived on the scene, and we're only just now beginning to see a wider variety of women as being beautiful. It seems very fit women are becoming the new beautiful actually, but there's always a wider acceptance that women come in different shapes and sizes. Which of those body styles are beautiful without there being people to perceive their beauty?
In other words, if we were all blind, why would we give a damn about any of it? It is only because we have eyes to see that we try to define that which we see. Beauty is only defined because it can be perceived.
Edit: People are trying to look at beauty as if it is concrete instead of abstract.
I agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, on some levels. I, personally, believe that everything is beautiful. We simply, at times, lack the proper vantage point to recognize it. But, that isn't the question, in my mind, at the moment. Were we not here, were we not able to observe the universe; it would mean no more than we aren't here. If we are natural by products of a natural process and we naturally perceive the result as beautiful, I assume that the beauty is inherent and would exist naturally whether we exist to validate, or not. Conversely, if we are created in the image of a first observer, then beauty existed prior to our existence and would exist after our existence.
Or rather, can it exist without anything that can actually bounce. But that's a little different, because bouncing is an action, while beauty is a concept.
If "we" are "perceiving" it, how can it be inherent?
If it is inherent why something that is beautiful to one person is not beautiful to another?
What is exist? If beauty exists can you take beauty from something that is beautiful? Or what makes a rose beautiful?
Why can you make that assumption? Have you ever considered that there's a reason that we are inclined to perceive it as beautiful? (And not even all of us, but maybe most) It's more likely that it's actually important for survival. It's improper logically to treat abstract things as though they are concrete.
To follow your logic, people have a natural inclination to think that things associated with them are the best, especially as children (best parents, best country, etc.). Is this phenomenon because those things are actually "the best," or are they only considered the best because that's how they are perceived? Would ideas like anything being "the best" be possible if no one could even define what "the best" is. Does that mean the same thing to everyone?
I don't think I'm following your logic because there may be some faulty premises.
The best is like anything else. It exists whether you recognize it or not. You don't recognize it because of your vantage point. Your vantage point being determined by your chosen circle of compassion and interest. Inside the circle, light shines on it and you can clearly see it. Outside of the circle it's obscured by your personal prejudices and bias. Your opinion doesn't change it. So, failure to agree on what the best is simply showcases our prejudices. Everything alive is the best in some way. Through our actions we can negate the value of the part of another living thing that is the best, we can ensure that prejudices are formed to hide from ourselves the part of them that is the best, we can limit our circle of compassion to ensure the best within other living things remain skewed. What we can't do is negate the fact that they are, in some way, the best. All we can do is ignore or deny it.
As to beauty, it may be necessary to perceive beauty for survival. But, I think it has more to do with quality of life.
Please show me the picture of "best"(as it is a "thing", it should be easy).
"Best" is comparative and it need "someone" to compare. So how does "best" become a "thing"?
You are speaking as if you have no idea about the meanings of "beauty", "best", "exist" or "concept"!
Beauty :A combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, esp. the sight.
The thing should please the aesthetic sense. Without anyone who's sense did your "beauty" please?
I'm well aware if the meanings of the words. I could show you a picture, but what point would it serve? Whether you recognize the quality within the picture which causes the image to be the best of something, or not, doesn't negate the unique value of what is shown in the picture.
My point is that all things, in their own way, are the best. Because they are unique. One of a kind. Even you, although my circle of compassion is not extended far enough to recognize it; I can accept that it is there.
Show the picture of "beauty" or "best", not things.
Value is also assigned, for a 17th century soldier a sword is the most valuable thing,but now? Value also need a person to assess the value. Without a human there is no value. I said that best or beauty are man's "conception", without anyone the thing is still there, but there is no beauty. Both beauty and best are comparisons too. What is good for us is best or beautiful to us, and what is not good is ugly. Like poison is the most beautiful thing/valuable thing for a snake, but the ugliest one to us.
I disagree. There is beauty in things of inconsequential value. There is beauty in things that are dangerous, or deadly. We don't make them beautiful because of our perception. Through our perception we recognize the beauty. Our prejudices cause the beauty to be obscured. What is there, is there. It doesn't change. We change the way we perceive it. Our observations can't change the nature of anything more than our perception.
Who decides they are beautiful? Why then the idea of beauty for each person is different?
Is a rose inherently beautiful or beautiful because a good number of people agree that it is beautiful?
Or simply,the question you avoid, what is "beauty"?
I don't avoid as much as you don't understand much. Beauty isn't something to be defined, but something to be recognized. If you choose to not recognize it, that doesn't negate it. If we all agreed to label something ugly, it doesn't make it so. Our perception does not define reality.
Exactly, it has to be recognized and each person recognise beauty differently. Just because you find something beautiful does mean everyone should.
And you do realize that 'to recognize', there should be somebody.
Disagree again. I may look at you one hundred times in a day. You don't change between the glances. When I recognize the beauty in you I am simply seeing something that already existed. You haven't changed. I did. Do changes in me change reality? I don't think so.
If you look at me a hundred times a day, nothing changes in me["I am simply seeing something that already existed" -and that is me/my body]. What changes is your "perception" about me. "perception", 'an act of perceiving' is object/intelligence dependent. A bronze bust of your may be made like that it "looks at me", but that will never recognise neither beauty nor ugliness. Similarly another human will look at me and see only ugliness. I do not change, but what changed is the perception and for perception there "needs" a human. Without anybody I am neither beautiful nor ugly. If beauty was inherent, then whoever looks I should be beautiful and if beauty did exist you could easily take it from me and give it to someone else, can you?
Yes. My perception changed. That's the point. Reality never changes. We see what we want to see. I changed. I wanted to see the beauty and I saw it. It's always there whether I validate its existence or not.
The reason it isn't perceived in the same manner is that we see what we want to see. Not everyone wants to find the good at the same time.
Do you understand how you contradict your own words? First you say beauty is perception then you say beauty is thing. If it is always there, what is it? You wanted to see beauty hence you saw it, the only thing that was there is "thing" itself not beauty.
Say rose, a flower was there it was you who decided it is beautiful because it fit your perception of beauty. For another person it does not fit his perception so he does not. Irrespective if what you or him perceive the 'rose' exist and only the rose exist. You are also insisting that whatever you find beautiful should be beautiful to others too that others have some deficiency if they don't do so. Irrespective of whether they agree that rose is beautiful or not, everybody agrees that rose exist.
You are allowing semantics to hinder your ability to follow. All living things are all things in some form of balance. Beautiful, good, ugly, bad....whatever. It is through judgment that we discard some attributes in favor or others. We ignore some and bring others into the light of our mind. We choose to do so. It is our choice to label and categorize. But, our need to judge doesn't change the basic nature of things. Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. It is simply brought to the forefront because we choose to see it. Since finding the beauty brings us pleasure and we are prone to search for similarities, I assume beauty was the first attribute in life and maintains a higher percentage of the whole.
Going on the premise that life which has arisen from the fabric of the universe is a reflection of the fabric it was molded from, I assume that the universe is also in a similar form of balance and reflects all things. At this level we can choose what we see. The fact that we naturally see beauty, the farther out we look, tells me that beauty is the higher attribute.
We can talk all day long. We can attempt to show the reason behind our thoughts, however, we are simply tiny burps passing through the cosmos. We don't change a thing with our thoughts
Our thoughts are the beginning of all our actions.
That changes everything.
My tongue-in-cheek comment, however, still applies.
How do you know you have no effect on the cosmos?
You are here, a part of it, and that alone has an effect.
You may not change the course of planetary orbits, or dim a twinkling star, but you DO have an impact.
It's just that you (as we all do) see yourself as too small to be significant.
I think life is significant. I, as a piece of it, play a part. But, this form I now inhabit is simply a moment within the entire span of the part I play. I see no reason to take it too seriously. As far as I'm concerned we are a piece of a greater whole. Not even that. We are a union of parts of the whole and when this lifetime ends, so does the union.
It is because we follow semantics that we understand each other.
If we don't chose to see it, what happens then? What happens if we don't "recognise" beauty? Or how does one "recognise" beauty?
Take a hydrogen atom, where is beauty situated in it? What happened to the picture of beauty that you said you can show?
The 2nd and 3rd paragraph I didn't even understand except this "We don't change a thing with our thoughts". So how does your thought, 'that the thing is beautiful' becomes inherent on it? What happens if one does not find a thing beautiful? Most humans do not find a snake a beautiful thing, mostly they find it as a disgusting thing, so are they lacking something that you have?
I can show you a picture of anything and what I've said will hold true. You simply aren't getting it. There is beauty in everything. If you choose to see it. You're choice. As far as a snake goes, you have to overcome your fear, your preconceived notions and your bias in order to search for the beauty. It's there. I, personally, have no desire to set these things aside in order to marvel at a spider, yet I accept the beauty exists. I refuse to ponder it. Does that make a spider less beautiful? No.
A hydrogen atom, to me, has beauty. You may not agree, but that simply means you disagree. It doesn't detract from its inherent beauty.
No point in continuing. We disagree.
Picture of "beauty", not thing. You said beauty exists and you can show me the picture of beauty. Things exist, I can show you the picture of any number of things, but what I want to see is the 'beauty that exists' not the thing.
Please show me this little critter "beauty" or say how one goes about "recognising" it. You only said you have some special ability to "recognise" beauty while others have "preconceived notions" and "bias", hence cannot detect beauty.
Whatever exists, exists independently. If I tell you 'apple' and if you are not english and didn't understand then I can show you either an apple or its picture, so show me "beauty". Beauty by the very definition (and it is defined as it is a concept, but you do not know the difference between a concept and object, do you?) of it is a concept and dependent on the "preconceived notion" and "bias" . However bad you want it, or however much you pretend that you can see beauty, beauty is not a thing that exist, but a simple concept. And whatever a species find beautiful is that, that helped it survive or reminded it of the thing that helped and ugly is what is against its survival.
The beauty is in the thing. But, never mind. You obviously can't follow. So, you choose to put words in my mouth I never spoke. No point in continuing.
Actually Emile, I think it's you who is not following in this case. Beauty is a concept and what we find beautiful depends on our experiences and what we've been taught. For example what today's men typically find beautiful in women is not what they found beautiful a few hundred years ago.
Then obviously it will be easy for you to take it 'out of the thing' and get a photograph or at least draw it. In spite of your repeated assertion that you can show the picture of beauty, you have not shown it. The beauty is what we think of the thing not "thing". You obviously have no idea what you are speaking. Well, as usual you were vague(deliberately or simply lacking the intelligence, I don't know) and was attacking semantics and do not even know what "beauty" or "exist" or "thing" is (in fact you have no idea what you are saying, that you continuously contradicted yourself).
Obviously no one can follow nonsense. And it was not me who doesn't follow semantics!
I didn't put any words other than you spoke. You are the person who said 'you can recognize beauty in all things' and others have 'preconceived notions' and 'bias' that they cannot do so.
I knew there was no point in continuing, but it was amusing.
Let's try this from one more angle. Is it your contention that there are things within the universe of no value? That some things are inherently ugly? If not, explain why not. If so, give me an example of one such item. I don't need a picture, just an explanation as to the lack of value.
That is part of my point. Not that I have some special skill (as you have attempted to accuse me of claiming) We say all life evolves to fill a niche. I say, life is a reflection of the fabric it arose from. A choice made by that very fabric. If we are simply an extension of a process, which we are through evolution, then there is familiarity in each level. There is an obvious connection with each new branch of life and each progression of movement.
Studies show we find what is average attractive. The more anything contains attributes that are evident in the greatest number of things, the more we are drawn to it. We, as one of the last things to arrive on the scene, would have commonality with a greater percentage of things contained within the whole so would, therefore, maintain a position of perspective to see those things. We, in our unique position, are able to find a greater number of avenues to observe those things. Although we use our minds to deny those similarities, they do exist.
We, as a product of our environment, as a life form which traces its lineage back to the primordial soup, have commonality with all life on earth. We, as products of the universe, have commonality with the universe, itself. All we have to do, in order to recognize the beauty, is to see the things which are average. The things we have in common. To trace the connections.
The problem, as I see it, is a combination of self love and self loathing as a species (your tendency to attempt to belittle in order to attempt to build yourself up in your own mind being an example). We view ourselves as, somehow, tiny universes. We choose to limit the scope of our tiny worlds. In order to validate ourselves as separate and define the boundaries of the tiny universe we consider ourselves to be. We place value through observation, choosing to exclude arbitrarily. By limiting our scope of compassion, we maintain a false sense of separation. However, these are our choices, not the reality that existed prior to our appearance on the scene.
'Value' is a human construct, so is good and bad. There is no inherent good bad or valuable. Things are just "things". Gold is "valuable" because we accept it as valuable and is ready to exchange it for other things. Do you understand the word "concept"? 'Value' is a concept.
Part of it I do not understand. You are the one who said you can appreciate beauty in all things while others cannot. It is evolution that make as like somethings while hate others, what help in our survival we like(good, valuable), what does not we dislike(bad).
This does not change the fact that "beauty" is a concept or has anything to do with the current discussion. I am saying anything for or against compassion or any of the stuff you say here.
What I say is simply this, "beauty" is a concept and it need an intelligent being to recognize 'beauty', Beauty does not exist [By the definition of beauty and exist ].
" in order to recognize the beauty, is to see the things"
In order to recognize the beauty we have to see it as beautiful. The we see is the key word, if we don't see it as beautiful, it is not beautiful.
Most of what you said is all fine and dandy, really. But the problem is that you're still treating a concept, an abstract thing, as though it is concrete and exists apart from those who have the faculties to perceive it. No one's saying that anything is inherently ugly OR beautiful. You're treating beauty like something physical like a color. Even if we were blind, a ripe banana would still be a shade of yellow. But beauty is not concrete like anything physical. As such, you can't jump to all these conclusions about it, honestly. All we can know is that if we were unable to perceive beauty, that thing would not be beautiful. It doesn't mean anything about the thing itself would change. Obviously things exist as they are, regardless of how we see them or if we can see them. But the description "beautiful" does not concretely exist apart from how our minds attempt to collectively label our surroundings, again, most likely for survival purposes.
Note: I imagine that sea lice could be an example of something naturally unpleasant (the only way for them to mate is if the male rapes the female, because her offspring eat her from the inside out, so when they're born, she's dead, ergo none of the females want to get pregnant and they hide/run from the males. And they rape multiple ones at a time, because the females are easily overpowered by them).
I get what you are saying. From a human viewpoint, with only our input to validate the ideas, this is true. But, we aren't the end all of pretty much anything. We are a product of our environment. A result of an ongoing process. My concern is that, prior to our inclusion in the circle of life...heck, before our understanding of life's inclusion in the make up of the universe and, once our species has breathed its last breath; what was and what is left?
To think the level we function on is the only sapience to the universe is arrogant. I think. And, I see no reason to think that our level of awareness is higher than any other. So, to claim beauty as a human concept is silly. We fine tune it to our liking with the limited observational skills we have. I don't see it as a concept limited to being defined on this level. I see it as an integral attribute of reality because it is readily available for definition. An integral part we make the choice to redefine. However, I do find it odd that we can accept that standards of beauty change with the growth of a society, yet we can't accept that what was beautiful once in our eyes, but is no longer, was and is beautiful.
The point is, as a recent arrival on the scene of reality, we haven't invented concepts. We don't define things. We are in the process of becoming aware of the reality we were built from. You know within you there is good and bad, beauty and ugliness, great genius and dim wittedness. You are unique, but you are the result of an ongoing process. All that you are could not have become you, had the universe not evolved in the manner it did. Tiny bits churning away at the process of change and evolution. You are a reflection of everything that ever was, in your unique way. So, an integral part of reality, and as a reflection of reality, all that is in you is in all else and always has been.
Thanks for the succinct input. It allows me to be succinct also.
Sorry you don't understand.
Instead be sorry that you cannot understand, even your own speech!
I would really like to know something. Religion and philosophy, being an exercise in speculation, doesn't appear to be your cup of tea. Since most of it involves ideas unprovable and you can't work your way beyond the knowledge that you exist, you really aren't accomplishing anything other than proving that point about yourself. Are you interested in pondering anything? Or is your sole goal to attempt to convince others that your lack of imagination and inability to think outside of the box is somehow a desirable position?
So what is your contention, as religion and philosophy are speculations one can say any nonsense one wants and say that the other does not have imagination? Religion is nonsense but philosophy is not. Philosophy is the study of concept and is bound by rules.
You still didn't get it,did you? It is not about "proving" but stating what one states unambiguously and clearly. It is treating "things" as "things" and "concepts" as concepts. So if some statement is unprovable, does that mean we can treat concepts as concrete things?
Does your pondering involve putting words together to make seemingly meaningful sentences but is actually devoid of any meaning?
Or are we discussing Hemingway's or James Joyce's novels or the symbolism in Lewis?
It is with imagination one debate? Or is it with nonsense? Than let us debate how 'love" can kiss 'anger' to produce mesons!
Does one marvel at the beauty and perfection of the earth while your child is in the hospital fighting brain eating ameba?
Rad man. What percentage of adults are in that situation? What percentage of the entirety of the lives of adults in that situation are spent in that situation? I could just as easily argue that I couldn't ponder the wonder of life when I sat in the hospital waiting for surgery to remove a tumor behind my eye, which held a probability that I would lose the eye. I could argue that my sadness at my father's death prohibited me from recognizing beauty. I would be dishonest if I did.
Tragedy encompasses all our lives from time to time. It does not define our lives. Even the poorest among us, those who struggle for survival from the day they are born until the day they die can still recognize beauty.
If you know someone whose child is suffering from a brain eating ameba, I extend my sympathies to the family. Somehow, I think you pulled that one out of your hat.
Then you have some problem, so evaluate yourself with the help of a professional, for most people are very tense before major surgeries that doctors routinely give anti anxiety drugs before surgery and if one of the dear ones are in serious condition or dead, people are not at all happy(You might be a heartless person) and if you "rub on the wrong side" you usually get an explosion(anger threshold is low) from otherwise self controlled people.
It's difficult to garner the interest to respond to gibberish. I gave up trying, other than to post this. Being happy and recognizing beauty are not mutually dependent.
Not that difficult for me, that is why I was responding all these time.
Being unhappy and not detecting beauty is, though.
No, it isn't. Now, being depressed can certainly infringe on your ability to recognize beauty. Because you've allowed unhappiness to consume you. Unhappiness, in and of itself? Not so much. Why? Because one circumstance that causes you to be unhappy about that circumstance does not inhibit your ability to recognize things that do not make you unhappy.
Beauty (marvel, order) lies only in the eyes of the beholder.
Without the observer there is no beauty only the thing and that is why we differ much in the specifications of beauty.
OK let's agree that beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, why then does nobody look through a telescope and say, "ugh that nebula sure is the ugliest thing I've ever seen"? Whatever your perception of beauty might be, the universe is a marvel as any NASA image will show you. The same might be said of natural landscapes on Earth. Why do people climb hills and mountains in order to seek a beautiful vista?
Now imagine you were born several thousand years ago, how else would you explain the beauty aside from the work of art displayed by a creator? Today we may have an understanding of the processes that form what we see, but that does not in any way detract from its beauty. So why is it beautiful when it neither cares or knows that it is?
I like to see snakes (in national geographic, of course) but my mother is disgusted by snakes. (Most people like nature because that signify their ancient habitat and signify food and peace.). Those who climb mountains are those who like it, those who don't find it beautiful sit at home or go to a beach.
So people who look up and see beautiful nebula are the people who like those things to look up. Those people who don't like usually do not look up.
Mmm that seems a little too simplistic for me.
May be, but as children we(some animals too) are all afraid of snakes(especially) and darkness and those were the most dangerous things for the prehistoric man, snake can be hidden in the foliage and darkness brings predators that can't be seen. (My grandfather when was shown the picture of nebula never gave a second look nor ever want to know anything about it but if shown a paddy(was farmer) was interested to know everything about it).
I will say, with what we know, the odds of us being exactly what we are seem highly unlikely. As far as we can see and as far as we can know, we are unique. That, in and of itself, implies a reason for being; other than blind chance.
I agree. If according to evolutionary theory life always finds a way to survive to exist, then why is that? Why should blind life care whether it succeeds or not? Why should the alpha male lion care that his genes are the ones that survive to the next generation? Why is there an inbuilt instinct to reproduce, to survive? What is the point, the universe cares not, it is oblivious to the plains of the Serengeti? If life ceased, the universe would go on regardless. Why does the instinct for life appear more intelligent than the results of that life that manifest that life. That is, why is there a driving force for that lion to pass on its genes when that lion has no conscious concept of what life means or the purpose for passing on its genes? Why is there more intelligence in the apparent design of the human mind than the consciousness that inhabits it?
This is precisely what evolution does. Allows only the needy to reproduce.
Why does evolution work; what's the driving force? Why must life survive? To say 'well that's what evolution does' is little different to saying 'guddunit'.
The predator and the prey they chase and the predator the prey attempt to avoid on a constant daily basis over millions and millions of years, that is much of the driving force behind evolution.
And perhaps, being eaten by predators is somewhat less attractive than staying alive. Go figure.
Do the math, how many stars in our own galaxy and how many galaxies. Blind chance?
You might review the math before using that statement as a challenge.
By which assumption? Since we have not discovered life, there are conflicting theories on the probability of life similar to ours. And even if we go by your figure, it isn't as if we could say out of billions and billions of planets one would have life. It would be like each scenario had billions upon billions probability that life could form. Very low odds.
I, personally, believe the universe is teeming with undiscovered life. It doesn't make it so.
Just like every jellyfish is unique, ever lion tailed monkey is unique, every tiger fish is unique, every fern is unique. ...
That's an excellent point. Infinite variety is also an oddity worthy of marvel. Isn't it marvelous that we can marvel at the infinite complexity which inhabit's this tiny corner of the universe. That we can view, and judge it as marvelous. They say God, the first observer, looked over Creation and declared it to be good. Now, here we stand and find ourselves at the same conclusion ancient man claimed God arrived at, as we peer farther and farther into the cosmos, while simultaneously peeking farther and farther into the very fabric it is made of. The complexity of each living thing taking our breath away by its intricate beauty.
Of course, on some levels the wonder, itself, can be viewed as an exercise in ego. Marveling at all we, alone, can assess as incredibly beautiful; while also critiquing as less than perfect. But, maybe not. Maybe standing in wonder is giving thanks to forces beyond our ken. Searching for an understanding is the highest compliment to the force behind the forces set in motion to bring us to this point. Our continuing inability to bridge the gap between ourselves and our fellow man being an homage to the ultimate mystery. And critiquing being little more than a mournful cry for a better understanding.
Yep. Life is truly a thing to stand in awe of.
by AKA Winston 9 years ago
I have often seen the misguided claim that atheism was at the heart of mass killings such as Stalin's murders and Mao's bloodlettings. Of course, the fallacy is confusion between correlation and causation. Seems to me that those who hold to a continuum, i.e., a life after mortal death, would...
by ElSeductor 3 years ago
The reality is that we are alone in this eternal, dark, and cold universe. Why can't we accept this reality? Death is the end. There is no heaven, and there is no hell. We do not need religion in order to have a purpose in life. The purpose is to survive and not harm...
by Emile R 8 years ago
I just read a comment on another thread that implied the poster believed in the possibility of the human species existing outside of our solar system.If we were visited by aliens that looked exactly like us; with proof positive that we did not share a common ancestor; would you consider that to...
by Abhishek Raj 2 years ago
Why are we here on Earth ?What am i supposed to do here ?that's a spiritual kind of question. But it's haunting me since morning. Everyday we wake up, go to work and then get to sleep. Is that's only the life ? Only this much ? What is your opinion ?
by Rev. Akins 8 years ago
What are your thoughts on Divine Justice?There are a group of people who want to blame or praise God for certain natural events that have happened. Many people blamed Katrina on the morality of New Orleans. I am not arguing this particular theology (although I disagree with it) I am now wondering...
by ZoEllyn 10 years ago
I am young, and my peers are young. We all seem to come from families who practice different, even opposing relgions. Yet we see that as only a minor aspect of our lives. It weighs nothing on our relationships with one another and others. Even though some of todays youth may deem themselves...
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|