Proving humans are greater beings than gods, which accords with Homer so well. — charleton

How does that particular interpretation of a scripture prove that idea? I’m guessing you don’t actually place that much stock in scripture to give it so much power.

Man being moral having everything to loose suffers in dignity, whilst the tardy, arrogant and capricious gods torture taunt and dish out arbitrary punishments on humans. — charleton

Is this a metaphor? I’m assuming you don’t actually believe that.

Lol sneaky!

Thanks.

Ain’t that Ecclesiastes?

It’s a remarkably existential book, in my view. I take the main theme to be that suffering comes to the righteous and unrighteousness alike. His friends insist he sinned, which is why he is suffering. On the other hand, God’s epic screed at the end questioning Job (and saying “I will ask and you will answer”; the irony!) about whether he controls the leviathan, the weather, is all a metaphor for the mindless, unconditional nature of suffering. Like a wild beast or an unexpected storm, suffering is uncontrollable and inevitable; suffering is existential and has no correlation with morality. the question is what to do with suffering, and this is the only point at which Jobs righteousness comes into the picture. He didn’t curse God and die, but endured his suffering, without knowledge of why he was suffering. The message here essentially renders the old half baked question “ if God is all powerful, why does he allow suffering?” Essentially meaningless. And of course God doesn’t answer. The fact that he doesn’t is in line with the Rabbinic teaching of asking the right questions, rather than providing basic answers.

Where’s the smack down emoji?

Word to the wise (?), for your own sake, you'll do just fine around here if you cut the ad homs and provide real arguments.

Is that a variant of dogatory?

Lovecraft’s writing is a guilty pleasure of mine.

Bucolic sprouts

Say it!

I like “recalcitrant”. I like recalcitrant people, and I count myself among their number.

I’ve never experienced one. But the fact that I don’t believe in them doesn’t mean my mind can’t be changed in the future.

Miracles no, “supernatural”... I don’t like the word, but something along the lines of metanatural, or “spirit”, “fundamental being”. Of course those terms are all loaded as well...

It's a nice sentiment; maybe you could expand more on your own personal views on the subject?

I think there is appropriate anthropomorphism and inappropriate. The fact is, we're animals. We're like other animals more than we're different. Our DNA is the same and, for those close to us on the bush, our evolutionary pathway is too. — T Clark

I disagree; to presume that a bird's experience of aesthetics is the same, or even similar to ours seem just as inappropriate. What leads you think that might be so?

I look at animals and I find it hard to imagine they don't feel things; some things, not all things; the same way we do. — T Clark

Yeah, epistemologically, I surely think knowledge is a continuum. But that doesn't mean the knowledge of a dog, vs. the knowledge of a human, is anywhere close to being similar.

Why do you think a belief that science can answer questions about, for example, morality is religious, but a belief that it cannot is not? — Pseudonym

The belief that it cannot is similar to soft atheism, for instance. There's no apparent evidence that science can answer any moral questions, for instance (as @Wayfarer elaborated), so there's no reason to presume anything about such a contention (of course, the issue is that those with a scientistic mindset do so presume. Yourself I might count in their number. Thus scientism).

Do you think, then, that the pejorative use of the term is something which should be admonished, or that it's OK to treat any religious belief within derision. Or maybe for some reason a religious belief in science is reprehensible but a religious belief in God is OK? — Pseudonym

It's not so clear cut. Religion gave birth to science, broadly. That's the first simple realization that should lead to a cautionary perspective about science as an arbiter of truth (and indeed, when we even use that phrase, "science as an arbiter of truth", we're already dealing in scientistic terms).

As to the pejorative use of the term, I think scientism is too soft. I'd rather say the Scientific Religion.

It's funny that Peterson doesn't even explicitly take political sides; he contends that his views are more "religious" than political. Of course, that's blasphemy. But glad to see that he continues to spark intelligent discussion on the forum, rather than the initial emotional hysterics.

I guess it's pejorative because a religious belief in science is no better than a religious belief in religion. And science, of course, can't lead you to that conclusion.

You seem to have answered you own question; "what is scientism"? It's your own belief system.

:fire:

Perhaps the participation of players makes the game real, despite lack of knowledge or game structure.

The problem is that no one is even knowingly playing. Is the game that's being played even real?...

Don't forget about:

Derdogatory?

Indeed, I’d say you’re the prime purveyor of persiflage around these parts as it is. Happy to make the introduction. Now, bandinage is nice, but what the world needs more of is bâtonnage. It’s also known as pigeage, but don’t let that confuse you with piggy-age.

This looks like a lot of Panglossian persiflage to me.

What do you think about the idea that music is higher than wisdom and philosophy?

Non-argumentative, I suppose. It does not try to refute or prove something, it describes and narrates, it offers an alternative way of looking at things. — Πετροκότσυφας

I think the best art (real art, really) is "confessional" in the way you describe it. What do you think?

Always, I'd say. To the point that different pieces of art suggest different understandings of something, the work is done. — Πετροκότσυφας

I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning here.

I would still worry that it would be an anthropomorphization. It just seems so obviously, intuitively, absurd to me, to imagine birds experiencing their own beauty in the way in which we experience their beauty. I made a whole thread about that notion.

I agree. But Jeff Koons and co represent what art has become; that art is a direct result of the art that we love. The ever-increasing experimentation of art that began...during the late romantic period (in music; that's my reference point), was inevitable. Musically, it's only logical that Messiaen followed Ravel's experimental period, and then Boulez. We can't really be angry about that art if we love the art that came before. That transitional period, for instance, of Ravel, was a period of tension and a latent emotional upheaval; now we see the results of the exposition of that latency when we see Koons, Abramovich, et. al.

Vaginas and penises are a start.

I am traveling but I recall Adorno`'s statement in his Aesthetics where he asks who could fail to be moved by the song of a Robin after a rain in the spring. He suggested that the bird is caught in the spirit of its song which we oddly find beautiful. — Cavacava

:up: We find this to be beautiful; we know nothing yet, epistemologically, starting with this anecdote, about the experience of the bird itself.

There have been a number of studies of the song of song birds. They indicate that baby birds learn their songs from their parents and birds that don't learn (there is a specific time period) will not be able to attract a mate. Other studies have followed how these songs have changed over several generations. — Cavacava

So far, this is an indication that learning a mating call serves the purpose of attracting a mate. Again, there's no evidence so far that the bird experiences anything like an aesthetic experience, as anthropomophrically understood by us humans who have said aesthetic experiences.

I read a recent study of Finch`s song, apparently the male Finch has brain structure the enable its vocalizations these structures are not found in the female Finch. The study suggested that the female Finch chooses a mate based on their appreciation of the song of competing males. — Cavacava

Again, no trace of aesthetics as we understand aesthetics as humans. The female responding to the better male call says nothing about aesthetics within the context of the birds themselves, because there's no way to know if birds have any aesthetic understanding.

So yes, I think animals like these birds make choices based on their instinctual reactions to what is aesthetic available to them. This is an instinctual process and it may have some relationship to what is described as the aesthetic effect in humans (note some cave paintings in Europe now dated back 64,000 yrs), however no animal paints images like man. — Cavacava

How does this follow? I can't see how it does..

:100:

I hope you do become wise.

Indeed. Not only that, but it's easy to judge others as "unwise".

But, that said, what do you mean by "confessional"?

I meant "when has it" as in "when has it in history". I'm asking you for specific, real life examples, not theory.

I appreciate the referee-ism, but I think @StreetlightX and I are only talking past one another in the sense that I'm trying to illicit specific aesthetic positions, whereas SLX is only pontificating talking points from his home-boys. Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone. I just want a real fucking aesthetic debate. I'm tired of the lack of real aesthetic debate around here. Everyone's views on aesthetics is fucking poor. Apologies for the emotional response. I'm aware of it, and I'm not going to edit it.

Eh, enough with the pseudo-psychology. — StreetlightX

Eh, what pseudo-pyschology?

I complained that you made an unsubstantiated claim, when all the established evidence shows otherwise. — StreetlightX

Where did you make this complaint? And the evidence you offered was insufficient, as I've said too many times now. We're going in circles now.