Log in

View Full Version : Debate: - The primate of Aesthetics on Ethics and Ontology



The Stranger
11-24-2009, 21:00
In the past centuries philosophers have often preferred the question "how is this thing that is" above "is it good the way this thing is", or better said they've preffered Ontology above Ethics. There have also been philosophers who defended the notion of Supreme Good above anything else. But apart from the coincidence all of them have forgotten Aesthetics.

I would like to propose the primate of Aesthetics (that which is nice, beautiful, feels good, or any equivelant or opposite of it, or better said or pleasures and desires) on Ethics (that which is right or wrong based on our own view of it, our own moral values) and Ontology (in this context to be explained as that which is neccesary, the way things are in the neutral way of life).

Philosophers may argue what they want, but, if not always atleast nowadays, people are guided by Aesthetics more than by Ethics or Ontology. When making a descision one primarily asks himself wether or not he likes it, feels comfortable by doing so and etc and not wether it is the right thing to do (according to his own morals) or wether it is the neccesary thing to do (in the supposedly neutral happening of life).

Sasaki Kojiro
11-24-2009, 21:53
But people feel guilty when they think they are doing something wrong, and people don't like feeling guilty...

Human behavior is the field of psychology not philosophy.

The Stranger
11-24-2009, 23:32
dont really agree. psychology, sociology etc theyre are all philosophy.

and this is purely theory, it has nothing to do with awareness or neuroses and stuff. but still, its besides the point im trying to make.

I dont say that ethics (in greater extent) or Ontology (in lesser extent) dont exist, but they are used in relation to Aesthetics. So the example you make about feeling guilty is great. They feel guilty for doing something they are not supposed to do, but they do it anyway, so the Aesthetics won it from Ethics. In the secound round, Aesthetics thriumphs again because when they do feel guilty (ethics) they don't like to feel guilty (aesthetics) and the not liking of the feeling of Guilt is more important than the question of why they are actually feeling guilty (ontology or ethics, depends on the point of view) or wether they are guilty (ethics).

Sasaki Kojiro
11-25-2009, 00:14
dont really agree. psychology, sociology etc theyre are all philosophy.

and this is purely theory, it has nothing to do with awareness or neuroses and stuff. but still, its besides the point im trying to make.

I dont say that ethics (in greater extent) or Ontology (in lesser extent) dont exist, but they are used in relation to Aesthetics. So the example you make about feeling guilty is great. They feel guilty for doing something they are not supposed to do, but they do it anyway, so the Aesthetics won it from Ethics. In the secound round, Aesthetics thriumphs again because when they do feel guilty (ethics) they don't like to feel guilty (aesthetics) and the not liking of the feeling of Guilt is more important than the question of why they are actually feeling guilty (ontology or ethics, depends on the point of view) or wether they are guilty (ethics).

But people often feel guilty even when considering doing something, and that pushes them to not do it. Emotions like that evolved because they make cooperation on a large scale possible. Of course people also evolved to make up reasons why they don't have to feel guilty.

I think examining the situations which make people feel guilty and why they do is psychology, and trying to figure out if they should actually feel guilty would be philosophy.

Papewaio
11-25-2009, 01:10
Which comes first form or function?

Is something aesthetically pleasing because it performs a function beautifully?
We choose equations and solutions by those which are most elegant (Occam's razor for instance).

I would say Maslow's theory of motivation gives an insight into this issue. It is only after our basic needs (Ontology) and resources are satisfied (Most ethnical issues are only in our mind space when we have insufficient resources) that we can focus on selecting based purely on beauty (mind you beauty is also a sign of health and fertility).

IMDHO that which is primate above all is Evolutionary Survival Strategies. You can read the Selfish Gene and the following books for an easy introduction. Ethics and Aesthetics are just window dressing not penetrating insights into why we do things. Ethics is situational and part of a suite of survival strategies. Ethics is easily understood when comparing singular interactions vs long term multiple interactions. For instance most ethics would go out the window if we were told the world will end in 24 hours. Classic zombie end of the world movies have us wiping out our fellow diseased man in mass in such a situation.

Or more succinctly as Warhammer 40k puts it "Only the insane survive, only those that survive can say what is insane."

=][=

BTW it ain't philosophy if the idea can and is tested.

Pannonian
11-25-2009, 10:40
Or more succinctly as Warhammer 40k puts it "Only the insane survive, only those that survive can say what is insane."

Warhammer 40K is the greatest step forward in philosophy in the last 50 years. The Imperium is great, but I also love the Orks.

Oh, and I like CB Fry's description of Victor Trumper. Elegance is maximum results achieved with minimum effort.

The Stranger
11-25-2009, 12:25
Which comes first form or function?

Is something aesthetically pleasing because it performs a function beautifully?
We choose equations and solutions by those which are most elegant (Occam's razor for instance).

I would say Maslow's theory of motivation gives an insight into this issue. It is only after our basic needs (Ontology) and resources are satisfied (Most ethnical issues are only in our mind space when we have insufficient resources) that we can focus on selecting based purely on beauty (mind you beauty is also a sign of health and fertility).

IMDHO that which is primate above all is Evolutionary Survival Strategies. You can read the Selfish Gene and the following books for an easy introduction. Ethics and Aesthetics are just window dressing not penetrating insights into why we do things. Ethics is situational and part of a suite of survival strategies. Ethics is easily understood when comparing singular interactions vs long term multiple interactions. For instance most ethics would go out the window if we were told the world will end in 24 hours. Classic zombie end of the world movies have us wiping out our fellow diseased man in mass in such a situation.

Or more succinctly as Warhammer 40k puts it "Only the insane survive, only those that survive can say what is insane."

=][=

BTW it ain't philosophy if the idea can and is tested.

That is true, food drinking etc, they are basic needs and I would also put them into ontology. But they are not really choices. We don't really chose to eat in order to survive, we have to eat in order to survive, its not a choice. (aside of the odd person that chooses to starve himself to death). But when we choose what we eat, we are mostly guided by Aesthetics (though now a fashion of Ethics in food is rising, to eat only what is healthy and right).

I should have been more specific perhaps, and I'm talking mainly about daily life and the choices that are involved. I mean humans are about the worst species when you take a pure Evolutionary point of view. That's why we have done so much and are still doing so much to elevate ourself above that principle. So when coming to humans I think Evolution will fail to explain alot of things. I mean what would the Survival of the Fittest still mean in a world where we help everyone that lives in the West survive at all costs, even those who actually do not have a real prospect of a "normal" life. And we let other people die, who for same amount of money would have survived and grown up to be healthy adults. But thats the grim picture, or maybe the brighter one. Because we better quality of medical aid all across the world, even in the poorer and poorest parts, people that wouldve died because of their "weakness" now survive. The smart, the athletic, and the beautiful, they are usually so in their carreers or that they either have no or very few children. So the supposedly "fittest" of our society dont procreate. While "the scum of the earth" is mating like rabbits. (talking about the west now.) And living according to Evolution would also mean living according to Nature, and we've given up that some thousands of years ago.


PS I dont see why it cant be philosphy if the idea can and is tested :P

The Stranger
11-25-2009, 12:31
But people often feel guilty even when considering doing something, and that pushes them to not do it. Emotions like that evolved because they make cooperation on a large scale possible. Of course people also evolved to make up reasons why they don't have to feel guilty.

I think examining the situations which make people feel guilty and why they do is psychology, and trying to figure out if they should actually feel guilty would be philosophy.

Thats definitly true, but regarding the choises they feel guilty about, what kind of choises are they usually. If you think about the choises you have to make daily, aren't most of the luxury choises, Aesthetic choices. You think what shall I eat today and not Shall I eat today, because I might have nothing tomorrow. You think shall I buy new shoes or shall I save it to buy beer. Oke sometimes you might think shall I go to work today? But lets face it, apart from when you have children, you work alot because you want to buy a whole lot of stuff you actually dont need. How many times a day do you think Is this the way I want to live my life, is it good the way I live it? Or when you look outside, how often do you wonder Is this the world I want other people to live in, is this the way it should be?

(now I know that amongs the people that read this and are interested in stuff like this, they probably think about things like this quite alot, but they also know that they are exceptions.)

Ironside
11-25-2009, 13:38
The smart, the athletic, and the beautiful, they are usually so in their carreers or that they either have no or very few children. So the supposedly "fittest" of our society dont procreate. While "the scum of the earth" is mating like rabbits. (talking about the west now.) And living according to Evolution would also mean living according to Nature, and we've given up that some thousands of years ago.

PS I dont see why it cant be philosphy if the idea can and is tested :P

We are always living according to evolution and evolutionary minds and systems. Even when we try not to. I suspect the breeding of the lowlife is probably an evolutionary response to having enough resources to breed but not much more. Having better starting conditions will make the shift more towards having more "high quality" children instead of random quality.


Thats definitly true, but regarding the choises they feel guilty about, what kind of choises are they usually. If you think about the choises you have to make daily, aren't most of the luxury choises, Aesthetic choices. You think what shall I eat today and not Shall I eat today, because I might have nothing tomorrow. You think shall I buy new shoes or shall I save it to buy beer. Oke sometimes you might think shall I go to work today? But lets face it, apart from when you have children, you work alot because you want to buy a whole lot of stuff you actually dont need. How many times a day do you think Is this the way I want to live my life, is it good the way I live it? Or when you look outside, how often do you wonder Is this the world I want other people to live in, is this the way it should be?

(now I know that amongs the people that read this and are interested in stuff like this, they probably think about things like this quite alot, but they also know that they are exceptions.)

What you describe as aesthetics are simply a positive emotional response, about as basic you can get (but as noted, still our main driving force). In fact, a lot of the higher brain development is to hinder its immidiate response to evaluate potential greater rewards (take one candy now vs. two later) in waiting. The problem aesthetics has as the basic viewpoint is that it's simple minded. The answer is always "because I felt for it". If you want an answer on why you felt like it, you're no longer talking about aesthetics but something else.

The Stranger
11-25-2009, 16:50
what else would we be talking about then? I think were basically on the same line, just giving things different names maybe. But the conclusion would be that humans arent as rational and advanced as a lot of us like to think they are. Wether you call it aesthetics or positive emotions, its still the very basic elements of humans that guide us in most of our descisions. Ethics I think is developed very late in human history, and while it is always valued above anything else, its not used above anything else, it just a very thin layer of "civilisation" which will be destroyed or cast off very quickly as Papewaio already said.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
11-25-2009, 18:10
Which comes first form or function?

Is something aesthetically pleasing because it performs a function beautifully?
We choose equations and solutions by those which are most elegant (Occam's razor for instance).

I would say Maslow's theory of motivation gives an insight into this issue. It is only after our basic needs (Ontology) and resources are satisfied (Most ethnical issues are only in our mind space when we have insufficient resources) that we can focus on selecting based purely on beauty (mind you beauty is also a sign of health and fertility).

IMDHO that which is primate above all is Evolutionary Survival Strategies. You can read the Selfish Gene and the following books for an easy introduction. Ethics and Aesthetics are just window dressing not penetrating insights into why we do things. Ethics is situational and part of a suite of survival strategies. Ethics is easily understood when comparing singular interactions vs long term multiple interactions. For instance most ethics would go out the window if we were told the world will end in 24 hours. Classic zombie end of the world movies have us wiping out our fellow diseased man in mass in such a situation.

Or more succinctly as Warhammer 40k puts it "Only the insane survive, only those that survive can say what is insane."

=][=

BTW it ain't philosophy if the idea can and is tested.

The problem with this arguement is that Dawkensian Bio-Philosophy is based on Dawkins' own Ethics, which determine that the rational is "good" and the irrational "bad". As such, Dawkensian philosophy tries to ground everything is quantifiable and testable experience. As this criterion excludes and qualitative statement it excludes all ethics and asthetics.

This argument hinges upon one question, is our reality subjective or objective? Do the elements of our reality exist only as the subject of our perceptions, or are they themselves objects that we can be subject to?

Following on from this; is there an objective truth, or is there only subjective experience and therefore no truth at all?

in order for ethics to operate there has to be an objective reality, and actual "real" RIGHT and WRONG for ethics to evaluate. Arguably, asthetics is merely a sub-strata of ethics in this case (because truth and good are beauty).

Sasaki Kojiro
11-25-2009, 19:37
So when coming to humans I think Evolution will fail to explain alot of things. I mean what would the Survival of the Fittest still mean in a world where we help everyone that lives in the West survive at all costs, even those who actually do not have a real prospect of a "normal" life. The smart, the athletic, and the beautiful, they are usually so in their carreers or that they either have no or very few children. So the supposedly "fittest" of our society dont procreate. While "the scum of the earth" is mating like rabbits. (talking about the west now.) And living according to Evolution would also mean living according to Nature, and we've given up that some thousands of years ago.

I don't think evolution has ever been about survival of the fittest. Strength, speed, beauty, intelligence etc aren't important, it's how many kids you have and how healthy they are.

I think you can definitely explain a lot with evolution. If you are walking a long and you see someone in trouble, you feel sympathy. If you keep walking, you will feel guilty, and they will be angry. If you help them, they will feel gratitude. Basically, the set of emotions we have facilitates cooperation, which is beneficial from an evolutionary point of view. This works best with "people you know" of course.


Thats definitly true, but regarding the choises they feel guilty about, what kind of choises are they usually. If you think about the choises you have to make daily, aren't most of the luxury choises, Aesthetic choices. You think what shall I eat today and not Shall I eat today, because I might have nothing tomorrow. You think shall I buy new shoes or shall I save it to buy beer. Oke sometimes you might think shall I go to work today? But lets face it, apart from when you have children, you work alot because you want to buy a whole lot of stuff you actually dont need. How many times a day do you think Is this the way I want to live my life, is it good the way I live it? Or when you look outside, how often do you wonder Is this the world I want other people to live in, is this the way it should be?

(now I know that amongs the people that read this and are interested in stuff like this, they probably think about things like this quite alot, but they also know that they are exceptions.)

This is probably something that doesn't have a strictly evolutionary explanation. Peoples interests and what they think about and do is connected to their "life narrative", which is basically the story of our life as we write it. It's a big part of peoples personality, and comes down in large part to their culture and choices.


what else would we be talking about then? I think were basically on the same line, just giving things different names maybe. But the conclusion would be that humans arent as rational and advanced as a lot of us like to think they are. Wether you call it aesthetics or positive emotions, its still the very basic elements of humans that guide us in most of our descisions. Ethics I think is developed very late in human history, and while it is always valued above anything else, its not used above anything else, it just a very thin layer of "civilisation" which will be destroyed or cast off very quickly as Papewaio already said.

I can't remember exactly, but yeah, certain parts of the brain developed after the rest was in place (the cerebral cortex?). This leads to a lot of conflicting messages, like "I want to eat that" and "it's bad for me".

Ironside
11-25-2009, 20:07
what else would we be talking about then? I think were basically on the same line, just giving things different names maybe. But the conclusion would be that humans arent as rational and advanced as a lot of us like to think they are. Wether you call it aesthetics or positive emotions, its still the very basic elements of humans that guide us in most of our descisions. Ethics I think is developed very late in human history, and while it is always valued above anything else, its not used above anything else, it just a very thin layer of "civilisation" which will be destroyed or cast off very quickly as Papewaio already said.

I'm just saying that's its a very boring starting point (and formulating my own thoughts in text).

Basic ethics is a very early development, it's existant at least in mammals and probably earlier. It's needed for herd animals and taking care of the offspring. What makes it look weak is rather the abillity for higher functions to override it.

What makes us humans contains two questions. One is what makes us humans in total, the other is what makes us different from the animals and other humans. Evidently, most focus is on the second one, which is partly understandable.

What's the most defining trait making you you?

You're human :smartass:

Major Robert Dump
11-25-2009, 20:30
So if one's mother and grandmother and ex-wife all made one feel guilty for touching oneself, but now today one can touch oneself and not feel guilty, would that be considered "evolving?" Because it is Otnology, it must be done, one must touch oneself, but ethics would say otherwise. One really likes this thread.

The Stranger
11-26-2009, 12:47
I don't think evolution has ever been about survival of the fittest. Strength, speed, beauty, intelligence etc aren't important, it's how many kids you have and how healthy they are.

I think you can definitely explain a lot with evolution. If you are walking a long and you see someone in trouble, you feel sympathy. If you keep walking, you will feel guilty, and they will be angry. If you help them, they will feel gratitude. Basically, the set of emotions we have facilitates cooperation, which is beneficial from an evolutionary point of view. This works best with "people you know" of course.



This is probably something that doesn't have a strictly evolutionary explanation. Peoples interests and what they think about and do is connected to their "life narrative", which is basically the story of our life as we write it. It's a big part of peoples personality, and comes down in large part to their culture and choices.



I can't remember exactly, but yeah, certain parts of the brain developed after the rest was in place (the cerebral cortex?). This leads to a lot of conflicting messages, like "I want to eat that" and "it's bad for me".

Hmm not sure, I'm not an expert on Evolution. However, I do believe that the feelings of sympathy and such are manmade. they are invented, yes maybe (probably) for the purpose of cooperation and all getting along. But I dont think that we are born with those values (rather than calling them emotions which will imply that they come natural) I think that they are thought. Let me explain it better, you have values which are based on some emotions that can be found in (some) humans, these values are thought to humans. So your reaction when you feel even the slightest of resemblence of this emotion is manmade and not natural. It can be argued that later you will even conjure this reaction when there is no emotion at all (call it acting or whatever, mimetic skill is a human trait, indeed important for evolution). So in a way, yes to invoke sympathy has been very important to maintain cohesion throughout evolution, but I think that we have moved past that into a new level, where these basic emotions have been replaced by corresponding values (or at least that is what we are aiming for).

The sick thing is that now these values (or emotions) kick in when you see a poor beaten dog next to a bum, but it wont kick in when you see a bum. when you see just that bum, the response of most people is disgust. because they realise that there is another reality besides their own which they dont understand, and that is met with fear and hostility. When they are helped however, it is because the people that do so are taught they are supposed to do so.

yeah, i dont know the english names, but basically the brain is made out of layers, the braintrunk (direct translation from dutch) is the basic, to be found in all animals. there you find the basic instincts, survival mechanisms etc. than other layers have developed on top of it. and indeed this leads to conflicting messages at time. (mainly evolution works by the principle, if it aint broke dont fix it, just built another floor on top of it.)

The Stranger
11-26-2009, 12:51
So if one's mother and grandmother and ex-wife all made one feel guilty for touching oneself, but now today one can touch oneself and not feel guilty, would that be considered "evolving?" Because it is Otnology, it must be done, one must touch oneself, but ethics would say otherwise. One really likes this thread.

:laugh4:

I dont know if it is good to touch one self, it has been said that touching one self has been the reason for the black plague and also, it makes one less agressive (so in the evolution of society, it is a good thing, but if one would have still run free in the woods, it wouldve been a bad baaaad thing)

ps isnt it more/also Aesthetics? :P (usually things that are neccesary are also quite pleasurable, thats why its not good to eat vegetables)

Papewaio
11-27-2009, 02:16
Hmm not sure, I'm not an expert on Evolution. However, I do believe that the feelings of sympathy and such are manmade. they are invented, yes maybe (probably) for the purpose of cooperation and all getting along. But I dont think that we are born with those values (rather than calling them emotions which will imply that they come natural) I think that they are thought. Let me explain it better, you have values which are based on some emotions that can be found in (some) humans, these values are thought to humans. So your reaction when you feel even the slightest of resemblence of this emotion is manmade and not natural. It can be argued that later you will even conjure this reaction when there is no emotion at all (call it acting or whatever, mimetic skill is a human trait, indeed important for evolution). So in a way, yes to invoke sympathy has been very important to maintain cohesion throughout evolution, but I think that we have moved past that into a new level, where these basic emotions have been replaced by corresponding values (or at least that is what we are aiming for).

I have seen new borns reach out to comfort other newborns. Prem babies heartrates calm down with human touch. We are hardwired for emotions and emotions are actually one of best communication tools.

Quite a few animals can mimic, quite a few learn, quite a few cooperate. You don't need a PhD, just a dog to know this. Emotion is very natural and it is part of the ability of groups to act and stick together... it is a very mammalian thing (but not limited to mammals). Emotion's are motivators and communicators. 90% plus of our communication is non-verbal and emotional display is a key part of this.


The sick thing is that now these values (or emotions) kick in when you see a poor beaten dog next to a bum, but it wont kick in when you see a bum. when you see just that bum, the response of most people is disgust. because they realise that there is another reality besides their own which they dont understand, and that is met with fear and hostility. When they are helped however, it is because the people that do so are taught they are supposed to do so.

yeah, i dont know the english names, but basically the brain is made out of layers, the braintrunk (direct translation from dutch) is the basic, to be found in all animals. there you find the basic instincts, survival mechanisms etc. than other layers have developed on top of it. and indeed this leads to conflicting messages at time. (mainly evolution works by the principle, if it aint broke dont fix it, just built another floor on top of it.)

Evolution isn't design. It isn't so much what aint broke don't fix it, whatever works, works. If women prefer bad guys then those bad guys get to breds. If they prefer peacocks then that is who breds. If they prefer hardworking cooperative guys then again they bred.

The Stranger
11-27-2009, 04:34
I have seen new borns reach out to comfort other newborns. Prem babies heartrates calm down with human touch. We are hardwired for emotions and emotions are actually one of best communication tools.

Quite a few animals can mimic, quite a few learn, quite a few cooperate. You don't need a PhD, just a dog to know this. Emotion is very natural and it is part of the ability of groups to act and stick together... it is a very mammalian thing (but not limited to mammals). Emotion's are motivators and communicators. 90% plus of our communication is non-verbal and emotional display is a key part of this.

I know that :) I'm not talking about the emotions right now though but about the ethics/morals which developed sometimes according to these emotions and sometimes to counterbalance them.


Evolution isn't design. It isn't so much what aint broke don't fix it, whatever works, works. If women prefer bad guys then those bad guys get to breds. If they prefer peacocks then that is who breds. If they prefer hardworking cooperative guys then again they bred.

but in evolutionary terms than, there wouldnt be a bad guy :P It might be whatever works works, but what doesnt work anymore also dissappears. however this is going besides the point.

Papewaio
11-27-2009, 08:46
Exactly the point, ethics is a strategy for survival... and like all good strategies you got to know when to fold them. The reason why AIs suck is that they can't change, can't randomise, must always play by the same rules.