The haunting beauty of birdsong, the provocative performance of erotic display in primates, the attraction of insects to the perfume of plants are all in excess of mere survival, which Darwin understands in terms of natural selection: these forms of sexual selection, sexual attraction, affirm the excessiveness of the body and the natural order, their capacity to bring out in each other what surprises, what is of no use but nevertheless attracts and appeals. Each affirms an overabundance of resources beyond the need for mere survival, which is to say, to the capacity of both matter and life to exchange with each other, to enter into becomings that transform each". (Chaos, Territory, Art) — StreetlightX
A painting could be considered an example of skilled, honest labor, although some art doesn't seem to care much about skill - technique. Is that a related question - does good art require technical skill? — T Clark
In what way is Picasso different from a mechanic? That's the question Pirsig raises for me. — T Clark
Effortlessness in that if flows directly from the heart onto the canvas? Effortless technical skill? — T Clark
I'm not sure about the whole "no utilitarian meaning," thing. Are self-expression and communication utilitarian? Is displaying the majesty of God utilitarian? — T Clark
I like it because it says the world is created not by God only, but also by man, which is the deepest foundation of my understanding of the world. — T Clark
Can you understand that your experience and the conclusions it might lead to are meaningless to others without explanation? — Janus
there is ample evidence that birds - and other animals - discriminate between potential partners on the basis of aesthetics — StreetlightX
"Today, Darwin’s choice of aesthetic language can seem quaint, anthropomorphic, and possibly even embarrassingly silly. Clearly, Darwin did not have our contemporary fear of anthropomorphism. Indeed, he was engaged in breaking down the previously unquestioned barrier between humans and other forms of life. Darwin’s use of aesthetic language was not just a curious mannerism, or a quaint Victorian affectation, but an integral feature of his scientific argument about the nature of evolutionary process. Darwin used ordinary aesthetic language to make an extraordinary scientific claim: mate choices based on the subjective evaluations of animals drive the evolution of sexual ornaments in nature. By using the words beauty, taste, charm, appreciate, admire, and love, Darwin proposed that mating preferences evolved for displays that had no utilitarian value, other than the pleasure they evoked to the chooser." (Richard Prum, Beauty Happens). — StreetlightX
Whoever the 'we' are that you invoke in your claim that 'that's all we know', it isn't the 'we' of biological science. It sounds a great deal more like an 'I'. — StreetlightX
But these aren't my ideas about aesthetics. These are other people's ideas, supported by a bunch of evidence. — StreetlightX
It's like someone asking me to prove that natural selection is a thing. — StreetlightX
Most of what I think is not my own! Almost all of what I know in philosophy or elsewhere is what I've cobbled together from others, and I certainly don't have the hubris to even try and pass it off as my own. I niether think it desireable nor admirable to vie for any kind of lofty 'ideas of my own' in a field as interesting and rich as philospohy, or even science. I'm a cobbler, nothing more. — StreetlightX
And my point is that sexual selection - which is a mechanism of evolution - provides evidence that animals experience aesthetics. And sexual selection is well studied, much discussed, well documented subject of study. If you want to argue about the invocation of sexual selection as evidence, then by all means. But other than showing you where you can do your own research, I'm simply not going to give you a evolutionary biology 102 lesson. At least not with a fee! — StreetlightX
And you asking this in a thread about quotes from other people? Come on. — StreetlightX
All you have to do is provide a better quote than the one you provided which demonstrates that sexual selection is real. You're backtracking and making me look uneducated because you didn't provide a good quote. — Noble Dust
Eh, I've always liked Neitzsche' quip that thinking is not something that anyone does but is that which befalls them. I have no claim to mastery over my own thoughts. It's certainly the oddest cage you might come across. — StreetlightX
I provided a quote from an article which I linked to. It's blue and everything. Did you read the article? I could copy and paste the article, but I don't think it would make for a great forum post. — StreetlightX
Eh, enough with the pseudo-psychology. — StreetlightX
I complained that you made an unsubstantiated claim, when all the established evidence shows otherwise. — StreetlightX
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.