Sounds like God in action to me! Consider the dusty landscape of the moon and Mars. Even if you consider evolution and the good climate here on earth, that can't account for the beauty --- things can grow and multiply but why beauty? Think about the beauty of the sunsets, rainbows, butterflies, animals, flowers, lakes, forests, ocean, national parks like Grand Canyon, Mt. Rainer, Yellowstone, etc. Beauty requires an observer or it would be like painting a landscape in a dark room. You could throw paint on the canvas, but real beauty takes an artist who can see the work. What do you say?|||I am not sure about that; i mean where you say that .." beauty requires an observer..".
Without an observer,it undoubtedly would not get "attention"; but a beautiful thing may have haphazardly entered or formed in our world (including our seeing world too); thus, the role of art may change-over-time,so this reasoning goes that some things were once considered beautiful are now not so.
Our individual and our collective memory is undoubtedly fallible and our sense of beauty could be changed by the very beautiful theories,for example of the one you mention - Evolutionary theory.
To recap,i would explain the beauty of the natural world as that beauty which is discovered and which-whether or not it powers any or all of our invented theories- has a steady influence upon our imagination; a steady yet infinite influence upon the human world.
(Added; as we do not have any power over our discovered world, one could see the valid point that Ratz makes.But sticking with our theories and problems,surely there must come a time when an old one "clashes" with the newer one e.g. Popper's objective,autonomous discoveries versus Hume's psychological "dogma". So i think its quite obvious that one-or-both adherents may use available insight and language to downgrade the other,to faster learn-from-our-mistakes; and thus at least showing the old theory in a necessarily BAD way)|||how did god make it beautiful? does he do it by his will, making us think whatever he wants us to think is beautiful, is beautiful? which i think does not really mean he made it something beautiful but just used his power to cast some sort of spell on us and make us believe it was beautiful. Or is there an objective standard that is independent of god, that god has to abide by if he desires to make a beautiful thing? which leaves us with no explanation of why beauty, or the objective standard, exists.
i might be wrong, i am not a student of philosophy or anything.interesting questions.|||If you accept that, then the crane flies eating a child's eye is God too. Why can't evolution account for beauty? Things that are healthy, symmetrical, and good for our survival are seen as beautiful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment