Beauty and Darwin: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Beauty and Darwin » Beauty and Darwin

Beauty and Darwin
A Darwinian interpretation of beauty

Page: 1 2 3 4

Beauty and Darwin

nyana
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 11, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 16

Posted 09/12/09 - 12:11 AM: Subject: Beauty and Darwin	#1
I recently watched Daniel Dennett give a lecture on the nature of beauty. Unsurprisingly, his explanation is wholly evolutionary. He claims that the reason why men find certain women beautiful and vice-versa is because our brains are hard-wired that way: the women/men do not possess beauty within themselves; rather, we project what we've been instructed to find beautiful by evolution onto them. I guess I follow Dennett on that point, but since then I've started thinking about all of the things that I find beautiful. I cannot seem to find any evolutionary explanation as to why I find a desolate, barren, isolated, bone-dry desert with a sinking sun beautiful; or the Grand Canyon; or certain lyrics which advocate lonliness and despair. Have I missed something, or does Dennett's theory fall short?
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. - Tennyson

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 529

Posted 09/12/09 - 12:29 AM:	#2
I don't really see the conflict here. There is some degree of our brains being "hard-wired" in a particular way, but the perception of beauty would have to take into consideration individual perceptions and experiences as well as evolutionary programing (collective perceptions and experiences). Dennett's theory falls short if if was meant to explain EVERY aspect of the nature of beauty in one swipe. I doubt that this was his intent, then again, I don't know him personally. Beauty, like many things in nature, is like a puzzle, where we do not have all of the pieces, we don't know how many pieces are in the puzzle and are not all too sure how the picture in the puzzle looks like and perhaps it is not even a puzzle at all. This does not mean the search is senseless. It just makes it interesting. Take Dennett's perspectives as a support or critic or check of your own perspectives, as is fitting to the circumstance you find yourself in. Don't limit your thinking to just one possibility. That would be dogma. Meow! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIYJERcdHb0 Jerry Sings!

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 529

Posted 09/12/09 - 12:57 AM:	#3
Hey! I just found a good bit in the Internet about Dennett and his thoughts. I need a bit of time to get throught it all, being dyslexic doesn't help, but I'll manage. Good topic. This is really worth hashing through! Will be back soon! CHEERS! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIYJERcdHb0 Jerry Sings!

nyana
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 11, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 16

Posted 09/12/09 - 12:59 AM:	#4
mayor of simpleton wrote: I don't really see the conflict here. There is some degree of our brains being "hard-wired" in a particular way, but the perception of beauty would have to take into consideration individual perceptions and experiences as well as evolutionary programing (collective perceptions and experiences). Dennett's theory falls short if if was meant to explain EVERY aspect of the nature of beauty in one swipe. I doubt that this was his intent, then again, I don't know him personally. Beauty, like many things in nature, is like a puzzle, where we do not have all of the pieces, we don't know how many pieces are in the puzzle and are not all too sure how the picture in the puzzle looks like and perhaps it is not even a puzzle at all. This does not mean the search is senseless. It just makes it interesting. Take Dennett's perspectives as a support or critic or check of your own perspectives, as is fitting to the circumstance you find yourself in. Don't limit your thinking to just one possibility. That would be dogma. Meow! GREG Well, all generalizations face being slain by the sword known as problem of induction. I wouldn't have as much of an issue with his view if this was its only opponent, but the problem extends beyond that as there are counterexamples. Would you agree with me in saying that it's probably best to take a moderate position on Dennett's view?
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. - Tennyson

nyana
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 11, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 16

Posted 09/12/09 - 01:20 AM:	#5
mayor of simpleton wrote: Hey! I just found a good bit in the Internet about Dennett and his thoughts. I need a bit of time to get throught it all, being dyslexic doesn't help, but I'll manage. Good topic. This is really worth hashing through! Will be back soon! CHEERS! GREG Could you share the link(s)? I'm not sure if that particular idea of Dennett's is written anywhere. I heard it during one of his lectures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzN-uIVkfjg
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. - Tennyson

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 529

Posted 09/12/09 - 01:24 AM:	#6
For the moment, I cannot say all that much at all. I need to read through what his position is. I only have a thumbnail sketch. I have also found an e-mail address on his homepage. This topic is really of interest too me. I have not read very much, as I wish to let my own mind expand and see where it goes. Then again, it is perhaps time for a new stimuli. I'll take the risk. For the moment, I can only say that I am taking a moderate position due to lack of information. Funny your comment on generalizations. I am actually a "Generalist". I find that induction can slay the "generalizations" drawn from ignorance, but when abused, often tends to use the narrowing of perspectives resulting in the elimination of factors to force a solution through with "acedemic bullying" and specialization. This is an elitist form of Dogma. For me, everything has to do with everything. Partitioning and catagorization leads to simplification (unnecessary and out of convenience) and may be very blinding. Not always, as focus is very useful, but this potential is present and real. A specialist will very rarely admit this. Cool Thoughts! Meow! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIYJERcdHb0 Jerry Sings!

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 529

Posted 09/12/09 - 01:27 AM:	#7
Links to homepage: http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/incbios/dennettd/dennettd.htm also wikicrapedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Dangerous_Idea I need a bit of time, but let's keep this one going. I'm only 44 and have a lot of time left. We do not have to solve it in 5 minutes. Meow! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIYJERcdHb0 Jerry Sings!

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 441

Posted 09/12/09 - 07:07 AM:	#8
nyana wrote: I recently watched Daniel Dennett give a lecture on the nature of beauty. Unsurprisingly, his explanation is wholly evolutionary. He claims that the reason why men find certain women beautiful and vice-versa is because our brains are hard-wired that way: the women/men do not possess beauty within themselves; rather, we project what we've been instructed to find beautiful by evolution onto them. I guess I follow Dennett on that point, but since then I've started thinking about all of the things that I find beautiful. I cannot seem to find any evolutionary explanation as to why I find a desolate, barren, isolated, bone-dry desert with a sinking sun beautiful; or the Grand Canyon; or certain lyrics which advocate lonliness and despair. Have I missed something, or does Dennett's theory fall short? Well...first, "evolutionary aesthetics" as it's sometimes called is not entirely (perhaps not at all) the brainchild of Dennett. Secondly, it may well be that evolution has ingrained conceptions of beauty in our mind, but it doesn't follow that there must be the same conceptions as applied to, say, women and landscapes. There could be one set of criteria for why we find certain women beautiful (e.g. signs of youthfulness/fertility) and why we find certain landscapes beautiful (e.g. affords natural resources, protection from predators, etc). There needn't be a single explanation for both.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 09/12/09 - 08:14 AM:	#9
nyana wrote: I recently watched Daniel Dennett give a lecture on the nature of beauty. Unsurprisingly, his explanation is wholly evolutionary. He claims that the reason why men find certain women beautiful and vice-versa is because our brains are hard-wired that way: the women/men do not possess beauty within themselves; rather, we project what we've been instructed to find beautiful by evolution onto them. I guess I follow Dennett on that point, but since then I've started thinking about all of the things that I find beautiful. I cannot seem to find any evolutionary explanation as to why I find a desolate, barren, isolated, bone-dry desert with a sinking sun beautiful; or the Grand Canyon; or certain lyrics which advocate lonliness and despair. Have I missed something, or does Dennett's theory fall short? As a hard core believer in evolution, I say Dennett's theory falls short. Genes are not as powerful as Dennett suggests. Like it or not, we have evolved into conscious, mostly rational beings, and while that provides significant advantages for survival, it also comes with the ability to think past mere survival.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 09/12/09 - 02:55 PM:	#10
I've got this awful feeling that my genes don't much care what a woman looks like, they'd happily screw anything that moves on the off-chance - sperm being cheap to produce. Also, aren't conceptions of female beauty somewhat culturally variable? It would all make so much more sense if it was women who were obsessed with male beauty. I suspect that our brains are hard-wired to be soft-wired in most respects, and adapt to culture and experience. The wilderness was generally felt to be ugly and frightening until Wordsworth et al romanticised it. Gardens, Eden-like, were the thing.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.