a darwinian theory of beauty

Philosophy, Politics, Humor, what ever should have its own place far, far away from galleries and feedback... here we can go for it almost shamelessly! :)

Forum rules
More than anywhere on this forum I'd ask you all to be courteous and respectful to each other, but don't hesitate to speak your mind! :geek:
Please, do not advertise commercial software here!
User avatar

Posts: 1941

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:58 am

Post Tue May 24, 2016 10:26 pm

a darwinian theory of beauty

Is beautiful that please without concept!
http://moiscript.weebly.com/ http://piloumaison.weebly.com/
Latop: Geforce GTX 950M, Intel Quad Core i7, Windows 10, 8 Gigas, 2.4ghz
User avatar

Posts: 440

Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 8:39 pm

Location: France

Post Thu May 26, 2016 11:19 am

Re: a darwinian theory of beauty

Well presented but not convincing. For me "all darwinian" theories of beauty seem nearly as wrong as "all cultural" theories of beauty. :shrug:
System info: Nvidia GeForce GTX 980 4GB, i7-5820K 8GB, Windows 10, Wacom Intuos Pro M
Visit my photostream: http://flickriver.com/photos/24151359@N ... teresting/
User avatar

Site Admin

Posts: 5887

Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 1:38 pm

Post Fri May 27, 2016 7:15 am

Re: a darwinian theory of beauty

Besides that I'm completely nauseous from having to listen to this utterly unpleasant speaker, I find it damn near complete bullshit, if I may say so. It's only "near" complete bullshit, because there is really something to the admiration of skill, BUT NOT LIKE THAT! It's an idiotic propaganda crap to justify labor over passion and understanding. Look at Rodin sculptures, for example, which are absolutely brilliant and beautiful, because of how the convey existence. You do not look at them and ponder for one second about any labor involved. You do not marvel at "skillfully crafted details". He just felt proportion, motion, weight and balance in ways he could contain and capture. And thus you could witness life inside a coarse looking sculpture. The power to recognize and then experience a "real" moment within you, inspired by a "dead" chunk of metal, has you personally translate it into beauty. If you asked me, this is enough to disproof all the nonsense this T.E.D guy was yapping on about (disturbingly so).

Beauty and function do have far more of a relationship than all that. Function, in this case, really only indicates integrity. That means, something allows itself to exist. That can be split and distributed into symbiotic relationships, displaying a functioning together instead, extending the complexity of a scenario that could be considered as beautiful. But even a single thing that integrates into our imagination as symbiotic to something invisible could feel beautiful. All our various instincts and preferences offer paths to something we may consider as beautiful. Therefore I find it as foolish here as it is in pharmaceutical contexts to isolate components, synthesize a specific something and declare it as the one thing that "works" or was responsible.
With only one little additional clarification, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" could become the most accurate explanation again.
Here to help! :D
System Info: NVidia Gforce GTX 970, 2x 8core Xeon (2.67 Ghz), Windows 7

Posts: 23

Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 9:09 pm

Post Fri May 27, 2016 1:45 pm

Re: a darwinian theory of beauty

The beauty is in experience. In the eye of the beholder. A consciousness. As subjective as spectator, as unique as "Schrödinger's cat". There's no other function but one found/revealed through co-existence, interaction, consciousness. The meaning, the reason - to be or not to be - to feel good.
Or are we not allowed to just play and enjoy, grow and share?

Stuart Hameroff - Quantum Consciousness & Mind over Matter

Just a personal preference, grown into belief.

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software