Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Can evolutionary biology explain the human impulse to create?

#31
Secular Sanity Offline
(Dec 20, 2017 12:34 AM)Syne Wrote: So what were you really trying to say here:
(Dec 19, 2017 03:24 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Maybe you should read the book, too, because you always tend to presume a separation of subject from object.

To my knowledge, aside from grammar, the subject/object dichotomy is pretty specific to the epistemological question of how independent "things" are from our awareness of them. That's central to whether you believe objective fact exists. Sounds like you're saying that was just some throwaway snark from you.

I was originally only talking about how men don't necessarily require any intentionality in their appreciation for things, e.g. appreciating things "in and of themselves." So it would seem that you've demonstrated my point. From a woman's perspective, intentionality is what it's "all about."


How on earth did you read into that anything even approaching "blam[ing] the rock"?! O_o
Is that what happens when you don't "presume a separation of subject from object"?  Rolleyes

Will my explanation be met will an immediate rebuttal or will you actually take the time to try to understand?
Reply
#32
Syne Offline
(Dec 20, 2017 04:36 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Will my explanation be met will an immediate rebuttal or will you actually take the time to try to understand?

Depends. Can you explain yourself clearly without snide comments?

So far, it looks like you agree with me, so I'm not sure what needs explaining.
Reply
#33
Secular Sanity Offline
(Dec 20, 2017 04:52 PM)Syne Wrote:
(Dec 20, 2017 04:36 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Will my explanation be met will an immediate rebuttal or will you actually take the time to try to understand?

Depends. Can you explain yourself clearly without snide comments?

So far, it looks like you agree with me, so I'm not sure what needs explaining.

What is it exactly, that we agree on? That men like things "in and of themselves," and women like things for their usefulness, is that it?
Reply
#34
Syne Offline
You tell me. I said men differ in that they appreciate things for their own sake, and you said women appreciate the intentionality. I don't see how those two are in conflict.
Reply
#35
Secular Sanity Offline
(Dec 20, 2017 12:34 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Dec 20, 2017 12:09 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Dec 19, 2017 07:18 PM)Syne Wrote: So an atheist can believe all facts are dependent on subjective belief?
Curious why you would so scorn the beliefs of others then.

We were talking about 'things', Syne.  You know, inanimate objects.

An inanimate object can induce emotions but it doesn’t have intentionality.

A stone is an inanimate object and its existence doesn't depend on my subjective belief.  I love rocks but they don’t love me.  They’re useful, though.  They can be used as a gift or a weapon.

Male penguins present them to females because they use them to build nests.  

It’s all about intentionality, Syne.

A falling or thrown rock could harm a person but you’d hard pressed to find someone who’d blame the rock.

So the Descartes/Russell comment was completely lost on you. So what were you really trying to say here:
(Dec 19, 2017 03:24 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Maybe you should read the book, too, because you always tend to presume a separation of subject from object.

To my knowledge, aside from grammar, the subject/object dichotomy is pretty specific to the epistemological question of how independent "things" are from our awareness of them. That's central to whether you believe objective fact exists. Sounds like you're saying that was just some throwaway snark from you.

I was originally only talking about how men don't necessarily require any intentionality in their appreciation for things, e.g. appreciating things "in and of themselves." So it would seem that you've demonstrated my point. From a woman's perspective, intentionality is what it's "all about."


How on earth did you read into that anything even approaching "blam[ing] the rock"?! O_o
Is that what happens when you don't "presume a separation of subject from object"?  Rolleyes

Your comment was not lost on me.  My comment was lost on you, though.  It was from the book that you'll never read.

Syne Wrote:Or do you just favor Descartes' somewhat solipsistic view, that objects don't have "real' existence without a subject, over Russell's view, that equates objects with facts, independent from subjective beliefs?

Isn't that an odd juxtaposition for an atheist?

Women are perfectly capable of appreciating something for its own sake.  Aesthetics are sensori-emotional values.  

I think of communication as a dance, perhaps, or a musical call and response.  I would share more with you but it's painful and awkward.  You're a bad dancer, Syne.  You need to practice.
Reply
#36
Syne Offline
(Dec 20, 2017 08:08 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Your comment was not lost on me.  My comment was lost on you, though.  It was from the book that you'll never read.

You certainly gave no indication* that you understood it (not even quoting that reference, talking about non sequitur stonework, and apparently proselytizing a favorite book).

Quote:Women are perfectly capable of appreciating something for its own sake.  Aesthetics are sensori-emotional values.  

Did I say that women weren't capable of it? No. I said men and women have different preferences and tendencies.
These are differences that have been shown to generally hold true, even in infants, regardless of your personal anecdotes.

Quote:I think of communication as a dance, perhaps, or a musical call and response.  I would share more with you but it's painful and awkward.  You're a bad dancer, Syne.  You need to practice.

There's your problem right there. *Antiphony is lacking the necessary acknowledgement/feedback that a proper communication cycle requires. Like your above example of failing to acknowledge that you even read the Descartes/Russell comment, it leads to miscommunication due to the lack of feedback. Feedback is necessary in both communication and dancing to let your counterpart know that you are either leading or following. It is awkward when failing to do so means the other person has to make assumptions (like trying to guess what some book has to do with anything) and you step on their toes.

You're the bad dancer, sweetie. But I always assume it's on purpose, so you can weasel your way out of jams with equivocations, etc..
Reply
#37
confused2 Offline
Dance?
1-2-3-cut-1-2-3-trip-1-2-3-hack

One of my old drinking buddies was a priest (yes he was) - one of his (many) objections to the ordination of women was their tendency to dance. For a bloke wearing a dress - absolutely the last thing you want to do is join a bunch of dancing women.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article Brain noise doesn't explain consciousness C C 1 73 Jun 22, 2023 08:09 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Do we create the very reality that we observe? C C 5 232 Sep 19, 2021 06:23 PM
Last Post: Ostronomos
  The "US needs a Green Marshall Plan to fight COVID-19 & create stability" proposal C C 0 217 Apr 9, 2020 05:16 AM
Last Post: C C
  Multiverse can't explain reality: The idea that is even stranger C C 3 1,200 Feb 13, 2016 05:43 PM
Last Post: C C
  Rupert Sheldrake: Darwinian Inheritance and the Evolution of Evolutionary Theory C C 0 447 Jan 9, 2016 01:41 AM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)