Does knowledge make things more beautiful?

[Ashen Key]

Originally Posted by caveman

We can talk the talk but indigenous groups can walk the walk, in my opinion.

Meaning....what, exactly?

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Ashen Key

Meaning....what, exactly?

Meaning nothing. It's a case of stereotyping them because they aren't the same as the person making the argument.

Originally Posted by caveman

The argument I'm seeing is that having a greater understanding of science allows us to better appreciate the beauty of nature.

But if that's the case, then why do we treat nature with less respect than those who are ignorant to the facts? Indigenous people - despite their ignorance - live as one with nature. We don't.

So who, out of these two groups, has the greater ability to find nature beautiful? I say indigenous groups - the "ignorant" ones. We can talk the talk but they can walk the walk.

**As a side note, I'm not trying to talk down upon the civilized world or it's achievements. I'm trying to make a point that knowledge does not necessarily mean greater appreciation.**

Becuase that is THREE groups. People who DON'T have the understanding are the ones without the respect. If you think all humans are equally intelligent and knowledgeable, then this would never be an argument.

As Clarke said, people have been further than anyone else, and been able to see the beauty of it, to understand it, and use that understanding to protect.

Originally Posted by caveman

Take the societies in Avatar for example.

The RDA have a better understanding of physics, biology and chemistry.

The Na'vi are oblivious to these fields, but they demonstrate a greater appreciation for nature than the RDA.

This isn't to say that knowledge is bad. Or that the RDA are incapable of knowing beauty. No. I'm just trying to make a point that anyone can appreciate beauty, regardless of their educational background.

This is your problem.

The scientists[ have the understanding - the ones who don't care are the marines and mining crews, who don't know the first thing about anything. There is every single possible difference between them.

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

The strawman is strong in this thread. If indigenous humans had access to our level of technology when it comes to, say weapons, they would send this rock to a nuclear winter never seen before. Humans are stupid, humans are violent, humans are ignorant, and that will not change whether you live in hi-tech society or in a one with sticks and stones.

And those who wish to be more holistic, should have born as an edible plant. As it currently stands, we aren't part of anything, we just consume stuff.

This is the best post in the entire thread, I think

[Fkeu'itan]

This is the best post in the entire thread, I think

Hmm, and I thought you were pro-Na'vi.

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Fkeu'itan

Hmm, and I thought you were pro-Na'vi.

He is...just not their human equivalents, though...

Aquaplant - We may not be plants, but we are definitely edible, just ask the sharks or grizzly bears that make a tasty morsel out of the occasional surfer or Yellowstone hiker.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Fkeu'itan

Hmm, and I thought you were pro-Na'vi.

It's a post about humans, and one that's right on the money.

The Na'vi understand their world in a way that most humans don't. Stop claiming that you have a monopoly on the ability to like Avatar and that anyone who is not your exact political duplicate must not understand it, especially when it is drawn from a completely unrelated post.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

He is...just not their human equivalents, though...

Having fun with that straw man?

I haven't said anything about various indigenous peoples, but if you insist...
Firstly, putting them all together into a single group is stereotyping them, especially if you then say 'all are wonderful and love everything that lives and can't ever do anything wrong'.
Secondly, the simple reason that they are from a different culture does not mean they should be unconditionally worshipped. They are humans - they exhibit infinite variation. Some may well be like the idealised stereotype espoused by some people, while others are not, and are NOT above every single problem ever suffered by a human.

With the example of animals like sharks, I'd say that again, it shows different methods of thinking. Most people respect t hem as dangerous but ultimately only acting on instinct and know that with even minimal knowledge, they can coexist with them without undue risk. People who harm them just for being dangerous are the ignorant ones without that knowledge, even if perhaps helped in their misunderstanding by older popular depictions (although that is, at least, slowly changing).

Originally Posted by Moco Loco

We kill animals if they're too nice (dodo, carrier pigeon etc), we kill them if they're too mean (sharks, bears, dogs etc) I can certainly agree, something is wrong there.

Nobody is perfect. No group of people should be judged by its best or worst, but only by overwhelming tendencies if unavoidable, while ideally, not even that. Some humans hunted it to extinction - but that was not the first animal that it happened to - and indeed, there are countless species the action of even a few humans has managed to save.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by caveman

We can talk the talk but indigenous groups can walk the walk, in my opinion.

I can't help but notice that our walk, silly and inferior as it may be, extends to the Moon...

[Moco Loco]

Nice, Clarke

Yeah caveman, I'm a little confused as to how that's an argument

[caveman]

The argument I'm seeing is that having a greater understanding of science allows us to better appreciate the beauty of nature.

But if that's the case, then why do we treat nature with less respect than those who are ignorant to the facts? Indigenous people - despite their ignorance - live as one with nature. We don't.

So who, out of these two groups, has the greater ability to find nature beautiful? I say indigenous groups - the "ignorant" ones. We can talk the talk but they can walk the walk.

**As a side note, I'm not trying to talk down upon the civilized world or it's achievements. I'm trying to make a point that knowledge does not necessarily mean greater appreciation.**

[Ashen Key]

Originally Posted by caveman

The argument I'm seeing is that having a greater understanding of science allows us to better appreciate the beauty of nature.

But if that's the case, then why do we treat nature with less respect than those who are ignorant to the facts? Indigenous people - despite their ignorance - live as one with nature. We don't.

So who, out of these two groups, has the greater ability to find nature beautiful? I say indigenous groups - the "ignorant" ones. We can talk the talk but they can walk the walk.

**As a side note, I'm not trying to talk down upon the civilized world or it's achievements. I'm trying to make a point that knowledge does not necessarily mean greater appreciation.**

So, because I am an atheist raised in a Western society, I can't tell what I find beautiful or not?

And I actually find that people who DO know about nature actually care about it. But given the knowledge isn't general, I'm not sure you can say that 'all of the cultures-with-science know about nature and treat it badly', because it's not a culture-wide thing. There is 'us, as in the people talking' and 'us, as in our culture'. I think in this, we are talking 'us, as in the people talking'.

[caveman]

Originally Posted by Ashen Key

So, because I am an atheist

What does that have to do with anything?

...raised in a Western society, I can't tell what I find beautiful or not?

What? No. Of course you can decide for yourself what is beautiful and what is not. I think you misunderstood my post, or I'm not making myself clear. If that's the case then I apologize.

My argument is no, knowledge does not necessarily make things more beautiful. It can for you; it does for me. But I think it would be ignorant to say that I can appreciate flowers more than someone else, simply because I have more knowledge in biology.

As for the different societies - I was just trying to point out that the most scientifically ignorant people can also have an astounding appreciation for nature and it's beauty.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by caveman

So who, out of these two groups, has the greater ability to find nature beautiful?

Us; We have access to an artifact that no civilisation before us has produced. I would say that it is one of the most important products of, if not of the entirety of science, certainly of all of space exploration. IMO, and I'm sure many people would agree with me, that when you fully understand what it means, it is more mind-shattering than all religious revelation put together.

It is, quite simply, this image, the Pale Blue Dot. Everyone who has ever lived - including everyone you have ever heard of, and everyone you will ever know - has lived out their entire lives on that dot; everything anyone has ever wanted through their whole lives is contained in that image, as well as everything anyone has ever worked for, lived for, or died for. The greatest warlords conquered fractions of that mote of dust, and the influence of the most powerful leaders ever known stops after less than a single pixel of that image.

The only exception to this tiny, insiginifcant, vulnerable mote of dust is those beings who soared in imagination, exploited that imagination, and flung themselves and their machines into interplanetary space. No civilisation before us has ever conceived of, let alone succeeded at, escaping Earth and as a consequence, realised how insignificant we are in comparison to reality.

There isn't much point in being in harmony with one forest, if it stops you noticing the cosmos; it would be like ignoring the forest because you're found a particularly nice tree and managed to delude yourself into thinking it is the only one in existence. It is very hard to imagine all the crazy things that things really are like, but it's completely impossible to even try without science. You can't see any beauty but the most superficial if you don't understand what you are looking at.

[caveman]

Take the societies in Avatar for example.

The RDA have a better understanding of physics, biology and chemistry.

The Na'vi are oblivious to these fields, but they demonstrate a greater appreciation for nature than the RDA.

This isn't to say that knowledge is bad. Or that the RDA are incapable of knowing beauty. No. I'm just trying to make a point that anyone can appreciate beauty, regardless of their educational background.

[Tsyal Makto]

It's funny the kind of cognitive dissonance that our society seems to have. Pale Blue Dot and even other images of Earth from space can fill us with such feelings of wonder and sacredness for our little world, it's true value to us (insignificant as it may seem in the universe, it is still our homeworld, our one and only home, that must be worth something, no?), but then we turn around and continue to pollute it, overpopulate it, bomb it, and generally, slowly but surely, destroy it.

Which is why I think beauty and value are separate ideas, and are relative to the eye of the beholder. Sure, we may be able to see the beauty of the Earth from whole new angles, but that beauty, outside of existential, intellectual masturbation, has become little more than the sum value of it's natural resources in the everyday world. Indigenous cultures on the other hand, even if they have horizons much closer to the Earth, at least practice the harmony that we extol but never practice.

Each culture, hi-tech or indigenous, has it's strength and weaknesses. IMO neither is "superior" to the other, each just has a different value system. One wishes to fly to the cosmos, even if it means destroying it's roots and home in the process, the other is content with the sense of wonder it gets from viewing the cosmos from a distance, but seeks to preserve and become One with it's roots and home.

IMO a truly superior culture can only emerge if we find a way to become One - both scientifically and spiritually - with not only the Earth but the universe that cradles it. A spacefairing species with the mindset of...say?...the Iriqouis, would be the closest thing to Enlightenment that any mortal species could ever hope to reach.

[Ashen Key]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

It's funny the kind of cognitive dissonance that our society seems to have. Pale Blue Dot and even other images of Earth from space can fill us with such feelings of wonder and sacredness for our little world, it's true value to us (insignificant as it may seem in the universe, it is still our homeworld, our one and only home, that must be worth something, no?), but then we turn around and continue to pollute it, overpopulate it, bomb it, and generally, slowly but surely, destroy it.

Which is why I think beauty and value are separate ideas, and are relative to the eye of the beholder. Sure, we may be able to see the beauty of the Earth from whole new angles, but that beauty, outside of existential, intellectual masturbation, has become little more than the sum value of it's natural resources in the everyday world. Indigenous cultures on the other hand, even if they have horizons much closer to the Earth, at least practice the harmony that we extol but never practice.

Each culture, hi-tech or indigenous, has it's strength and weaknesses. IMO neither is "superior" to the other, each just has a different value system. One wishes to fly to the cosmos, even if it means destroying it's roots and home in the process, the other is content with the sense of wonder it gets from viewing the cosmos from a distance, but seeks to preserve and become One with it's roots and home.

IMO a truly superior culture can only emerge if we find a way to become One - both scientifically and spiritually - with not only the Earth but the universe that cradles it. A spacefairing species with the mindset of...say?...the Iriqouis, would be the closest thing to Enlightenment that any mortal species could ever hope to reach.

Why do we have to be spiritual? I really don't get this point.

[Tsyal Makto]

Maybe spiritual isn't the best word. Existential, maybe? Holism? What I mean is that we need to remember that we are part of something bigger than ourselves, our role in Earth and the universe, a role beyond simple empiricism of science. And to me, I just think spirituality in this case, like most indigenous cultures. When we are both scientific and holistic, we are at our prime, IMO.