Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!cca!mirror!.misc!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: poetry and philosophy, beauty a
Message-ID: <117400083@inmet>
Date: Wed, 1-Oct-86 16:48:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.117400083
Posted: Wed Oct  1 16:48:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 08:12:42 EDT
References: <981@sunybcs.UUCP>
Lines: 87
Nf-ID: #R:sunybcs.UUCP:-98100:inmet:117400083:000:3806
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw    Oct  1 16:48:00 1986


[colonel@sunybcs.UUCP ]
[/* ---- "Re: poetry and philosophy, beauty a" ---- */]
>> "Basis" is unclear. Emotion *may* sometimes hinder  inquiry.   In
>> other  situations, it may *help* inquiry .  Wishful thinking is a
>> vice; but it is not the only way thought and feeling interact.

>I'd go farther than this!  The basis of inquiry is curiosity, and
>curiosity is an emotion.

"The basis" is still unclear, but I agree that some emotional
motivation is necessary for inquiry.

>> >but my point was just that when  evaluating  factuality  of  some
>> >claim  (e.g.  I  have  $5), I should not let my emotions (want to
>> >have $7) fool me. That simple, despite the profound  phrasing.  I
>> >presume agreement on this point.
>> 
>> Agreed. One should be on one's guard against wishful thinking.
>> If your conclusions look too good, check again.

>Now you're talking like a scientist, in terms of "claims" and "con-
>clusions." What about statements like "I feel good," or "I'd like to
>think wishfully today"?  

Well, there may be contexts where wishes create or define  reali-
ty;  both  Mike and I were talking about a different class of si-
tuations (as his dollar example shows) - and I believe the  words
"wishful thinking" only refer to these. They do not,  e.g.,  apply
to  therapeutic  autosuggestion  a la Dr. Coue (I, too, can think
minor pains and worries away - and don't accuse myself of wishful
thinking).  A  dictionary defines it as "erroneous identification
of one's own wishes with reality".

>> >... but how about this assertion: "humans have
>> >evolved from lower animals" (no tricks with word "lower", please).
>> >True or false? Beautiful or ugly? Can one still say "both, yes and no"?
>> 
>> True and beautiful. It harmonizes an awful lot of  seemingly
>> independent facts. 

>Or false, ugly, and insulting.  Re-phrase it as "your great-grandmother
>a million times removed was an ape" and you'll see why people reject it.

I think I've explained how the reaction arises: they put a  beau-
tiful  idea in the wrong context, and the whole is ugly.  In this
case, there are two distortions: (1) "grandmother" comes  through
vividly, but "a million" faintly; (2) an ape is seen as deserving
contempt, for no good  reason.  Also,  there's  something  absent
which  logically  follows:  the implication of progress.  (You've
come a long way, baby !).

>I have enough scientific training to appreciate the beauty of Darwinian
>evolution--have you enough human feeling to appreciate its ugliness?

I'm afraid not. I have strong feelings on the subject, all positive.
But then I am a 3d-generation atheist; I've never known any
better (or worse).

>You were ready enough to reject the idea that you are going to die as
>false, ugly, and insulting!

Not exactly: I looked up the paragraph, here it is:

>>How do you know I'm going to die? I'll believe it when I do! :-)

>>Why prepare at all? Death is not a fact of life. The two
>>are incommensurable. Let the dead bury their dead.

(The last sentence is of course from the Gospel).
Note that  the  tongue-in-cheek  sign  curves  right,  expressing
amusement, not resentment.

I can well imagine some believers treating their animal origin as
curious  but  irrelevant, as most people consider their formation
from what they eat irrelevant to their nature. (In spite  of  the
saying "Man ist was man isst"). Is it more offensive to say "Your
remote  ancestor  was  an  ape" than "you were mostly junk food a
year ago"?

Such believers needn't resent evolution;  they'd  just  say  that
their  *animal* origins are not a fact of their *human* evolution
- as I said that death is not a fact of life. None of their  *hu-
man*  ancestors  were apes. They'd say "let the apes unbury their
apes". *That* would be analogous.

			Jan Wasilewsky