[MD] Book: Art Instinct

[MarshaV]

At 11:33 AM 3/6/2009, you wrote:
>
> > Book:  The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution
> >
> > "A lot of what counts as philosophy," he said, "is explaining and
> > justifying fundamental human intuitions," including "intuitions about
> > the beautiful and the ugly." The problem has been that philosophy
> > "doesn't ask where the intuitions come from. ... Human nature is a
> > traditional philosophic topic, but let's face it, a lot of it is
> > uninformed armchair speculation by people who just happen to be
> > geniuses: Hobbes, Mill, Kant.:\"
> >
> >
> >   http://www.mercurynews.com/books/ci_11690473
>
>Hey Marsha,
>
>Got it, read it. Interesting if somewhat pedantic. To a Darwinian
>everything is explained by evolution, just as to an MOQian everything is
>explained by Quality. But, I think anyone interested in the arts will find
>the book worthwhile. The following passage near the end especially appealed
>to me:
>
>"The oft-described spirituality of artistic masterpieces, their
>otherworldly quality . . . involves a feeling -- experienced by atheist and
>believer alike -- that standing before a masterpiece you are in the
>presence of a power that exceeds anything you can imagine for yourself,
>something greater than you ever can or will be. The rapture masterpieces
>offer is literally ecstatic -- taking you out of yourself. Theists may wish
>to attribute all this to the power of God, Darwinian humanists to the near
>miraculous power of human genius. Both will approach such works as
>suppliants: we yield to them, allowing them to take us where they will. "
>
>This juxtaposition of the humanist with the theist reminded me of Pirsig's
>conclusion in his SODV paper:
>
>"As Bohr might have loved to observe, science and art are just two
>different complementary ways of looking at the same thing. In the largest
>sense it is really unnecessary to create a meeting of the arts and sciences
>because in actual practice, at the most immediate level they have never
>really been separated. They have always been different aspects of the same
>human purpose."
>
>The same applies to the artists, scientists, theists, humanists and
>philosophers on this site.
>
>Platt


Hi Platt,

Are all five "ists" mentioned in the last sentence of equal value to 
you?  What if I added communist?


Marsha


.
_____________

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.