The video is interesting... but it explains the importance of beauty from an evolutionary viewpoint... but it only grazes on *what* beauty is. A shame given that Denis Dutton has passed away, leaving us to ponder deeper understanding on the issue.
Consider though that genes can only encode so much information - the specifics of what we find beautiful can't really be genetically transmitted - so it relies on persistent features in our environment that is able to interact with genes.
It still doesn't explain why or where the impulse to create comes from, or how we can even have the concept of something "well done." For that, we'd need to establish what is commonly "good" in a universal sense, and the academic community seems to have quite a hard time doing that, because it would suggest other things can be "good" objectively, like morality.
@nessx007 Hehe, thanks for this. I was writing my thesis, found Denis Duttons book, panicked because there seemed to be overlap, watched this video and then read your comment and realized I was writing my thesis on the subject you just mentioned in your post, and there was enough difference to hold it up..
@Petrolianzoolbar A thesis on beauty? That sounds very intriguing! Glad I could be of assistance, I've always enjoyed reading, writing, and debating such topics. If you happen to remember, could you message me when you complete the project? I'd be interested in reading it.
A long way to go to fill out a theory like this... Naturally, there will be a evolutionary explanation for pretty much everything about us. However, the group of things we call "beautiful" won't likely have a single type of evolutionary explanation - that same word refers to a group of ideas should not be taken to imply that those ideas have similar evolutionary explanations.
Someone please help me. I'm 13, and music is my passion. In September, I was given pills for my anxiety, and I worried it would affect my love of music because music helped my anxiety. And then I told myself, that has nothing to do with the music. I have now created a web of why I love music, and I'm trying to get out of it. I'm trying to remember how I used to listen to it. Someone out there please help me and tell me why we like certain melodies.
@Evan42881 I don't really have a simple answer for you, but I can suggest that a good place to start looking is Dan Levitin's book "This is your brain on music"
I don't understand the problem that most commenters seem to have with this theory. Obviously, he's trying to explain beauty from an evolutionary stand point, which makes sense. This doesn't lessen our appreciation of beauty, just explains it. Of course, there is more to beauty and aesthetic theory than what is discussed here, but he couldn't go into those details in a 17 minute lecture.
i do hope this speaker did not mean to limit our perception of what is beautiful. there are so many things that are beautiful, everything can be beautiful! food, colours, words, mannerisms, lines, dots, patterns, rhythms, there's beauty in speed, shape and space and light coming together with darkness. any two or three or a thousand things together can be beautiful or even on their own. you cant define beauty! leave it as the mystery that it is.
@000BITTER000 and that's just from our senses! emotions are even stronger and more beautiful (as long as they are good) and there so many other beautiful things that we dont sense or feel
@paulthehanna It's called a "theory" for the same reasons as the terms "germ theory" and "gravitational theory". It's well established and have predictive and explanatory power. The word "theory" in scientific theory is commonly mistaken for "hypothesis" where it's still in speculation.
This doesn't make much sense. There are many things that are unnecessary and dangerous to us that are 'beautiful' or 'desirable'.
This entire talk is made on assumptions of artefacts discovered with an observed assumption of evolution in mind. I can't help but put a sprinkling of salt.
I am surprised at how few appreciate this guy...good thoughts to ponder... the "Black Face" someone took exception to is a take off on Al Jolson's film "The Jazz Singer" and is used when he touches on the topic of Jazz...once again in the comments people picking at his words and carping and being cynical wise-asses rather than simply trying to hear what he is saying!
@ladyrender everyone with a liberal arts degree thinks they're a genius, rather than the run of the mill member of the upper middle class they really are
"Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know." - Socrates
To our ancestors those stones would've been like the 'one ring' was to Gollum. They would've bound their souls to them: the original philosopher's stones.
I have a hard time following speakers most the time but by adding the visual drawings I find I get a lot more out of what they are saying. I guess I am a visual learner.
As and artist I was surprised that in Dutton's hypothesis (and that is what I feel it is, albeit an interesting one) there was no mention of man's natural attraction to things in the proportion of Phi (or the Golden Ratio) which is exhibited in nature and the human body and self-consciously in man-made design and art. Prominently both the Greeks and Da Vinci employed it consciously in their work as have countless other artists instinctively before and after their time. unconsciously.
I love the use of illustration animation! I've seen some of Park's work before and this is my favorite so far! Helps really visualize the talk so much better!
"So is beauty in the eye of the beholder? No! It’s deep in our minds, it’s a gift handed down from the intelligent skills and rich emotional lives of our most ancient ancestors." See, that confuses me. If beauty is not in the eye of the beholder than how do you explain tastes? Some may find a dead corpse beautiful and stunning while others may find it disgusting and repulsive.. I didn't quite understand... ?
@Riyell That is still in our minds from our ancient ancestors. I think it depends on your specific ancestors too, like we all may come from the same early humans but what adapted after that may be different for everyone. I think the "taste" thing is different that what he is talking about being "beauty". It can be speculated but you probably can find your answer if you look deeper into his lectures
Want to make some real money, join , you become a affiliate, promote product for the seller without worrying about the shipping, return and all that stuff. Know a woman who is making 12000$ a month withing just a year being a affiliate. Join now for free, they will take you step by step to be a successfull affiliate. They will show you how to advestive and give you all the tool you need, I just join a month ago and it is really good, take a look now:
You're interpreting it in a way that makes it sound like he was implying that women haven't been essential in the history of the world. Instead, he in in fact talking about sexual selection and mating rituals which have "actually pushed" history, against the idea of natural selection. He's not saying "derr woman haven't really done anything and this is one case that they have".
Thanks for your 21st century feminist input though. Give it a rest.
@VJWU and @answerOfstupids... You two must be youngsters. You've missed the point entirely, or perhaps need to look up the definition of 'virtuoso' and watch the video again.
@JediMindJerret... You apparently wrote some kind of paper on fatalistic determinism last year in secondary school perhaps and it filled you with some kind of righteous energy. You also seem to have missed the point.
What is being alluded to, is that recognizing beauty is less of an apperception than we may think. It
We are not attracted by fatalistic determinism of evolution but our own choice of we like or dislike. Do you believe in yourself??? Then believe that you are a individual that has choice and not fatalistic determinism of evolution.
Even when we look at art what has been consider beautiful has changes through the ages. Look Leonardo’s renaissance art, Diego’s expressionist art, Picasso’s Cubism, or modern artist today. What person considers art and beautiful is very different than the others.
Some people like skinny people, some like athletic people, some like larger people, some like funny people, some like smart people, some people like dangerous people. In fact we can the idea of beautiful women has change throughout the ages and has not stay the same.
The sad thing is when we reduce beauty to evolution then it takes away from our appreciation of beauty and takes away our wonder for beauty. Also Evolution does not explain how people taste for beauty changes from person to person. Also what people consider being beautiful person of the opposite sex is not same.
This is fatalistic determinism. In the end evolution would say that we do not think at all but all we are doing is acting on instinct. Evolution would say that we do not make any decision at all but everything is fatalistic determine. Thus evolution would so that I am not choosing to write this comment right now but evolution is. Do one subscribe to fatalistic determine of evolution but all people will insists that they thing for themselves.
@JediMasterJerett Evolution would favor the animal that thinks. If you can think and not just react on instinct. If you can think of sultion that could be gotten to by instinct it may alow you have more kids and keep you genes going or keep you being killed before you can have kinds. Back in the last iceage some people hunted wooly mammoths by chasing them with torches till the mammoths run off a cliff. Cont.
@kokofan50 The problem you fail to follow your evolution beliefs to conclusion. According to this video we do not choose what is beautiful but our evolution subconscious. Evolution would also say that I did not choose my wife but our evolution subconscious chooses the characteristics best for breeding. Evolution would also suggest morals are not something we choose but ou but our evolution subconscious.
@kokofan50 If you follow evolution to its conclusion it says that our evolution subconscious dictates all of your actions. You see when you enter the evolution paradigm you get lock to saying that everything is a result of evolution. In fact evolution would say this conversation we are having is result of evolution subconscious of us trying to show who is stronger mentally than other person.
@kokofan50 The reason you stop short of believing this is because you know that you think, you know that have self awareness, and you know you make decisions for yourself. So would encourage you to leave the evolutionary world view.
@kokofan50 The reason you stop short of believing this is because you know that you think, you know that have self awareness, and you know you make decisions for yourself. So would encourage you to leave the evolutionary world view.
@kokofan50 As you saying I’m “make a lot of unsupported claims” then have prove why they are unsupported and which ones. In fact you show how have not even consider my arguments because you only read “some” of my arguments.
@kokofan50 For your wooly mammoth example, it has false conclusion that it was because it could think that it ran away. However that is false conclusion because evolution would say that mammoth did not choose to run away but his instincts told him to run away. You forget that evolution is a blind undirected process.
@JediMasterJerett Sorry about taking so long to comment back. You seem to not understand what I said. You talk about how it didn't think about running away was bad; that was my whole point. Evolution will favor the animal that thinks and doesn't run off the cliff. It's not my job to prove you have nothing it's your job to prove you have something. You really need to learn to shorten it a bit. You gave five comments to my two and two is rather long for me.
@JediMasterJerett Cont. If the mammoths hadn't run away from the fire do to instinct they wouldn't die and would better pass their genes on to the next gen. I've read some of your comments and I don't think they are very well thought out. On top of that you make a lot of unsuported claims like "In the end evolution would say that we do not think at all but all we are doing is acting on instinct."
People like looking at views of open oceans more than of lakes with trees. There is no evolutionary advantage in salt water. Also evolution does not explain in any convincing way why people enjoy listening to music. Humans also have long hair on their head that needs to be cut. I don't see what evolution advantage there is in that either.
@VJWU You're hung up on the example he used, he didn't limit himself to just landscapes. You missed the point that people that weren't familiar with the idea of a landscape they had no experience of, found it beautiful. You seem also very unware of the role of music in other species, and why that wouldn't be passed "up" the evolutionary tree and its gaining complexity as it did so.
@telemannNnyc He assumes evolution is true by ignoring any counterevidence. So you use music as evidence that evolution is true...but humans are terrible at smelling things....is this evidence against evolution? Apparently not. Scientists will only include what supports their view and discard what doesn't.
@telemannNnyc Aww sorry looks like I hit a sore spot. Please explain how homosexuality is derived from darwinian evolution. Wouldn't people who choose not to have children be detrimental to the survival of the species? Oh wait, it's counterevidence...so either ignore it or rationalize it away. lol
@telemannNnyc oh what a surprise, ignoring counter-evidence again. I couldn't have summed up my argument any better than the way you've "responded" to each and every post you've made. lol
@telemannNnyc Yeah I consider causation to be part of evidence. I realize that you simply ignore it because it doesn't fit into your assumptions. Your original point was defending how people wanted to drink salt water. Wonderful.
@VJWU Well considering you're replying to comments I made several weeks ago, I don't recall making any such point and I did review my comments here, so I'm assuming you confusing me with one of your many interlocutors .
@telemannNnyc Sorry to break this to you but you're the only person on this thread who decided to directly argue with me. There was 1 other person who replied a handful of people in one message that included my name among others.
@VJWU Actually that was my thought too, since you keep replying to my comments on a public video in a public forum. It must be those pesky word definitions that seem to trip you up. I guess you're "stalking" me then too. This is a fun game. I can play it too!
@telemannNnyc you initiate talking to me by attacking me and now you think you're the poor victim. lol....dig around to find your age?! uhhh....it takes a couple seconds to click on a person's name haha....I realize that must be a difficult task for you though since you have difficulty with figuring out how to view past comments on a Youtube video. I kind of guessed that you weren't exactly young from that alone.
@telemannNnyc well I wasn't gonna go on but since you want me to, okay. I am not angry at you...I just think of you more as a cautionary tale. I would really regret living a life where when I'm at your age I spend my time attacking people on youtube in petty disputes. How sad must it be to be your age and not accomplished much...instead to spend it on such trivial things.
Beauty in everything done so well....hmmmm who defines well. This argument is pretty weak and shouldnt be taken seriously. Yes, we have developed some wired perceptions of things in our brains, but present culture and environment can override that so hard that it becomes non existent.
"Survival of the fittest" explains the passing along of strength, cleverness and stamina to the next generation. Useful in obtaining food, shelter, and clothing, these traits propelled mans existence beyond the level of perpetual camping trip. With the needs of daily survival more easily met, beauty emerged as a determining factor in the survival of humans. Darwins theory of evolution isn't the antithesis of creation--it is the mechanism by which man has created himself in the image of God. ; )
Genetic information (DNA), like other forms of information, can't happen by chance, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Read my Internet articles under my name: Babu G. Ranganathan
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived while their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Unfortunately, Dennis Dutton passed away late last year. He was a philosophy lecturer at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. Although I did not take his courses, I was fortunate enough to sit in on one of his 100-level 2-hour lectures.
I'm not so sure that these hand-axes couldn't have been more of a form of currency than a form of beauty. This would have had the same effect on sexual development, and wouldn't have required language either. And besides, how many of us assign an idea of beauty to money?
So our ancestors thought it was beautiful, therefore we are subconsciously forced to also think it is beautiful? I'm sorry, but what the f$#k? What made them think it was beautiful in the first place? And aren't those the same things that make it beautiful to us today? So why do we need to even consider the evolutionary history? It's irrelevant. Certain things are attractive while others are not. Everyone and their mother is trying to ride Darwin's coat tales to make a buck.
I'm still waiting for the Darwinian Theory of Everything, since we SHOULD absolutely credit any and all scientific theories to Darwin and all. Sarcasm. Seriously though, how about a Darwinian theory for football, or perhaps a Darwinian theory for the evolution of dance or puppetry. Wait, I've got it! A Darwinian theory for ugly!
we've bastardized Darwinian theory for economics and now art. that's not to say there's no evolutionary connection between what people found beautiful then and find now. it's just not the whole story.
You might be right. I don't know why, but it gets annoying how dependent theorists are on the Darwinian framework for everything. I guess that was the prime motivation for my comments.
so is he saying "X is beautiful because a lot of skill went into X" or ..."because X is done well." that sounds like more of a type of beauty rather than a theory of what beauty is.
because there is beauty found in things not made well (tattered biblical manuscript or aimlessly throwing paint on a canvas) or made by much skill (children's artwork or curious arrangement of soapboxes). we'd have to dig deeper into what is meant by "not made well" or "made by much skill".
@xjustamem0ryx Accurate generalizations are never negated by a single or very few counterexamples, and to mind you've provided none. Tattered biblical manuscripts are valued as artifacts, not works of art -not the same thing at all.
There are no legitimate artists who aimlessly throw paint onto canvas. Pollack's drippings for instance are anything but aimless. It is amazing how carelessly philistines assume that if paint is *thrown*, then surely aimlessness *must* follow as a matter of course.
a philistine? I compose and arrange for piano lol. I'm not trying to be hostile toward art or culture. I'm just saying that his definition of beauty is not as complete as he thinks--much like every other theory of beauty one may find in aesthetic philosophy. It looks as if your argument with me is over definitions. that's more tossing water out of the boat than plugging the hole.
"There are no legitimate artists who aimlessly throw paint onto canvas. Pollack's drippings for instance are anything but aimless. It is amazing how carelessly philistines assume that if paint is *thrown*, then surely aimlessness *must* follow as a matter of course."
Legitimate artists? that sounds rather elitist and not encompassing the total freedom of art. Even so, the idea isn't to say all paint thrown on a canvas is aimless, but rather consider the type THAT IS.
there are a lot of things considered art or beautiful in which people know not their entire context. sometimes not knowing allows them to accept a beauty transmitted from it. sometimes knowing it will make that permission.
ex: say I throw paint aimlessly on a canvas, then a person from a different country stops by and looks at it and happens to perceive some kind of pattern of color/texture in it that I have trouble seeing. does the fact it was thrown jeopardize the beauty they see
an example of beauty stemming from context might be someone stumbling upon a beat up series of pillars, initially thinking them to be tired and stale. But, upon realizing they were made during the age of Rome might permit their mind to receive a beauty in how the pillars have lasted so long and admire their structure.
there's no telling what connection will be made between facts about the object or about the observer.
Honestly, this seems like a big assumption about cutting devises. It doesn't seem to go unmerited, but I am a bit skeptical. It just seems like a better story than theory.
@Q8379 Our genes change vastly more slowly than our culture. That's why this talk is relevant, because as far as evolution is concerned we're still on the savannah. We still have basically the very same genes.
I just found out about Denis Dutton's passing in December... another brilliant mind gone forever. His arguments form part of my master's thesis, which doesn't even come close to one 1/100th of the brilliance of his last book, The Art Instinct.
The drawings are actually really cool and not a very typical addition. The lecture is thought provoking and relevant and doesn't need any visual aides. So if you don't like the drawings, you don't have to look.
There are plenty of less than simple minded people who can appreciate both an intelligent lecture and a series of playful, skillful cartoons. How ever silly they may seem. Why do people assume you cannot enjoy both without being a total idiot?
I enjoyed the cartoons -- I thought they were interesting, well done, and a nice touch, and don't think they detract at all from the lecture. Really, these days, the alternative is a slide show or just watching the lecturer. If you don't enjoy the cartoons, then just don't watch, like you said.
TED filled this talk with those horridly cutesy drawings for those with the attention span of a gnat. It reflects the low esteem in which Aesthetics is held by tarting it up with the same taste as a food court at a suburban mall. At least they didn't, in typical YouTube taste, pipe in some inappropriate music to drown out the speaker.
I despair for my fellow citizens ever elevating their taste past their mouths.
TED filled this talk with those horridly cutesy drawings for those with the attention span of a gnat. It reflects the low esteem in which Aesthetics is held by tarting it up with the same taste as a food court at a suburban mall. At least they didn't, in typical YouTube taste, pipe in some inappropriate music to drown out the speaker.
I despair for my fellow citizens ever elevating their taste past their mouths.
As always anything to do with "Drawin" is pure mumbo jumbo. Maybe those stones were a form of currency, maybe the youth made it for some sort of game they played, maybe a sign of dominance, maybe the women made the stones to cut umbilical cord at birth, maybe they were markings for a grave... Evolution is not about science, its about fighting religion. I stand by neither of them, they both fail miserably. P.S Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
@kokofan50, Take a recent vogue magazine check out the women, compare them to renaissance paintings. Yes, notice the difference, skinny vs fat. Back then chubby women were considered beautiful. Go to Nigeria, if her 'rear' looks reeeally fat she will get married; Enter 10th century china, please read how erotic the lotus feet of Chinese women were (hint:by todays standard, disgusting). So while you are looking into Darwinism, bullish capitalistic markets are defining beauty to their benefit.
@deadbirdflyinghome Being fat or skinny is a sign of health in different times and cultures. Being chubby in times when food is hard to shows you can keep your self feed and for gils makes you a good mate. When food isnt hard to get being skinny means you are healthy and active making you a good mate. A big butt can mean wide hips that will make giving birth easier or some other thing i cant think of. The chinese thing i know nothing about so i cant comment on it.
@deadbirdflyinghome good point on the chinese foot binding tradition. I remember seeing a documentary about the first english man to enter china in the 1800's with a video camera, he had footage of women who had lotus feet walking. Interesting enough, their small feet forced them to walk slowly with a sway in their hips almost identical to the way women walk today in high heals.
@deadbirdflyinghome Well, no, all your options are things Denis would agree with or ones that make no sense. Currency doesn't exist when your species doesn't have an economy. The stones would work as grave markings because they're art, and the speaker CLAIMS they were dominance symbols. Umbilical cords? Use an unfinished rock, or teeth! You've got to work harder to correct a theory a serious thinker spent a lifetime on and not make yourself look silly. Respect those who try to know.
Haha this is not a fact people, he did not state his case logically and with any evidence. It is possible but just guesswork
TheFeardom 1 week ago
oh my, i wish this man was my grandfather.... story time would be so AWESOME!
ChibiVampie 1 week ago
The video is interesting... but it explains the importance of beauty from an evolutionary viewpoint... but it only grazes on *what* beauty is. A shame given that Denis Dutton has passed away, leaving us to ponder deeper understanding on the issue.
Consider though that genes can only encode so much information - the specifics of what we find beautiful can't really be genetically transmitted - so it relies on persistent features in our environment that is able to interact with genes.
Zaptruder 1 week ago
extremely well done!
angelxluffx 2 weeks ago
did the guy drawing broke his hand?
jackhsu1009 2 weeks ago
why the need for the blackberry advert at the end? kinda ruined a great video.
AntonioRepiso 1 month ago
does that mean ugly people are REAAALLLY ugly!
OrganicKing 1 month ago
@OrganicKing Whaaat? Did you even watch the video? That sentence doesn't even make sense.. Are you okay?
Petrolianzoolbar 1 month ago
@Petrolianzoolbar yes evolution has determined what beautiful and UGLY are!
OrganicKing 1 month ago
awesome!
MrWaddefak 1 month ago
Someone get him a glass of water. his mouth is so dry.
lancer4224130 1 month ago 12
Need some help
Looking for Mr. Dutton's
Thesis
and what his supporting reasons are to back up his thesis
thanks!
MrIneedsomehelp 1 month ago
It still doesn't explain why or where the impulse to create comes from, or how we can even have the concept of something "well done." For that, we'd need to establish what is commonly "good" in a universal sense, and the academic community seems to have quite a hard time doing that, because it would suggest other things can be "good" objectively, like morality.
nessx007 1 month ago
@nessx007 Hehe, thanks for this. I was writing my thesis, found Denis Duttons book, panicked because there seemed to be overlap, watched this video and then read your comment and realized I was writing my thesis on the subject you just mentioned in your post, and there was enough difference to hold it up..
Petrolianzoolbar 1 month ago
@Petrolianzoolbar A thesis on beauty? That sounds very intriguing! Glad I could be of assistance, I've always enjoyed reading, writing, and debating such topics. If you happen to remember, could you message me when you complete the project? I'd be interested in reading it.
nessx007 1 month ago
A long way to go to fill out a theory like this... Naturally, there will be a evolutionary explanation for pretty much everything about us. However, the group of things we call "beautiful" won't likely have a single type of evolutionary explanation - that same word refers to a group of ideas should not be taken to imply that those ideas have similar evolutionary explanations.
JLPKG 2 months ago
TARDIS!!
Wheelsgr 2 months ago
He's thinking too hard.
jimthecookie 2 months ago
His deep breaths are kinda disturbing
member186 2 months ago
why do people fall in love with unattractive people if they dont think they're beautiful?
ChatFreak101 2 months ago
@ChatFreak101 their feelings are also beauty
AJwentyoyoyoyo 1 month ago
By what software is the presentation slides made? It's absolutely awesome.
V2PRC 2 months ago
Someone please help me. I'm 13, and music is my passion. In September, I was given pills for my anxiety, and I worried it would affect my love of music because music helped my anxiety. And then I told myself, that has nothing to do with the music. I have now created a web of why I love music, and I'm trying to get out of it. I'm trying to remember how I used to listen to it. Someone out there please help me and tell me why we like certain melodies.
Evan42881 2 months ago
@Evan42881 I don't really have a simple answer for you, but I can suggest that a good place to start looking is Dan Levitin's book "This is your brain on music"
choirguy100 1 month ago
I don't understand the problem that most commenters seem to have with this theory. Obviously, he's trying to explain beauty from an evolutionary stand point, which makes sense. This doesn't lessen our appreciation of beauty, just explains it. Of course, there is more to beauty and aesthetic theory than what is discussed here, but he couldn't go into those details in a 17 minute lecture.
d34d23 2 months ago
i do hope this speaker did not mean to limit our perception of what is beautiful. there are so many things that are beautiful, everything can be beautiful! food, colours, words, mannerisms, lines, dots, patterns, rhythms, there's beauty in speed, shape and space and light coming together with darkness. any two or three or a thousand things together can be beautiful or even on their own. you cant define beauty! leave it as the mystery that it is.
000BITTER000 2 months ago
@000BITTER000 and that's just from our senses! emotions are even stronger and more beautiful (as long as they are good) and there so many other beautiful things that we dont sense or feel
000BITTER000 2 months ago
This only works for you if you believe in evolutionary theory...
YouWantCHEEZE 2 months ago
@YouWantCHEEZE the evolutionary theory is not something you can or cannot believe, it's the truth. Unless you think science doesn't exist.
s3cco 2 months ago
@s3cco If it was truth it would be known as the evolutionary law. It's a theory for a reason
paulthehanna 2 months ago
@paulthehanna It's a theory because we can't still travel back in time. Still the only valuable theory there's out there.
s3cco 2 months ago
@paulthehanna It's called a "theory" for the same reasons as the terms "germ theory" and "gravitational theory". It's well established and have predictive and explanatory power. The word "theory" in scientific theory is commonly mistaken for "hypothesis" where it's still in speculation.
SyDemon 2 months ago
This doesn't make much sense. There are many things that are unnecessary and dangerous to us that are 'beautiful' or 'desirable'.
This entire talk is made on assumptions of artefacts discovered with an observed assumption of evolution in mind. I can't help but put a sprinkling of salt.
Jader7777 2 months ago
I am surprised at how few appreciate this guy...good thoughts to ponder... the "Black Face" someone took exception to is a take off on Al Jolson's film "The Jazz Singer" and is used when he touches on the topic of Jazz...once again in the comments people picking at his words and carping and being cynical wise-asses rather than simply trying to hear what he is saying!
ladyrender 2 months ago 13
@ladyrender everyone with a liberal arts degree thinks they're a genius, rather than the run of the mill member of the upper middle class they really are
twinkteaser 2 months ago
@twinkteaser wow. really?
snowmtngrl 1 month ago
Wait, why do I like desertic landscapes then?
ThisOneIsTaken 2 months ago
WTF? is that a BlackFace @ 2:58 ? ...the heck, RSA animate?
Commentary1984 2 months ago
"Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know." - Socrates
socrates757 2 months ago
what a disatifying talk.
MJapan555 3 months ago
his nose whistles. . .
emopanda87 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So what i'm thinking right now is that my G2 is a hand axe, hey baby... bright lights, sounds and colors!
hyperverbal 3 months ago
So what i'm thinking right now is that my G2 is a hand axe, hey baby... bright lights and colors!
hyperverbal 3 months ago
What a moronic ass
MrPreston49 3 months ago
To our ancestors those stones would've been like the 'one ring' was to Gollum. They would've bound their souls to them: the original philosopher's stones.
BetweenParallels 3 months ago
thumbs up if you got distracted by his inhales.
zombieinajar 3 months ago
I have a hard time following speakers most the time but by adding the visual drawings I find I get a lot more out of what they are saying. I guess I am a visual learner.
TheStylistRae 3 months ago
This was very interesting.
Al3xX420 3 months ago
As and artist I was surprised that in Dutton's hypothesis (and that is what I feel it is, albeit an interesting one) there was no mention of man's natural attraction to things in the proportion of Phi (or the Golden Ratio) which is exhibited in nature and the human body and self-consciously in man-made design and art. Prominently both the Greeks and Da Vinci employed it consciously in their work as have countless other artists instinctively before and after their time. unconsciously.
toiseywoisey 3 months ago
I love the use of illustration animation! I've seen some of Park's work before and this is my favorite so far! Helps really visualize the talk so much better!
hollypenyo2506 3 months ago
He needs to drink some water
sandmonkey92 3 months ago
"So is beauty in the eye of the beholder? No! It’s deep in our minds, it’s a gift handed down from the intelligent skills and rich emotional lives of our most ancient ancestors." See, that confuses me. If beauty is not in the eye of the beholder than how do you explain tastes? Some may find a dead corpse beautiful and stunning while others may find it disgusting and repulsive.. I didn't quite understand... ?
Riyell 4 months ago
@Riyell That is still in our minds from our ancient ancestors. I think it depends on your specific ancestors too, like we all may come from the same early humans but what adapted after that may be different for everyone. I think the "taste" thing is different that what he is talking about being "beauty". It can be speculated but you probably can find your answer if you look deeper into his lectures
littledeville83 3 months ago
@littledeville83 Hmmm.. that's really something to think about.. you know I just might try and read more on it, thanks =D
Riyell 3 months ago
@Riyell No problem, just my two cents :)
littledeville83 3 months ago
Good stuff!M
kingoslo1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
make money online without stain
makeassymoney.blogspot.com
gudnewss 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Want to make some real money, join , you become a affiliate, promote product for the seller without worrying about the shipping, return and all that stuff. Know a woman who is making 12000$ a month withing just a year being a affiliate. Join now for free, they will take you step by step to be a successfull affiliate. They will show you how to advestive and give you all the tool you need, I just join a month ago and it is really good, take a look now:
makeassymoney.blogspot.com
gudnewss 4 months ago
Wow that was stupid, just a tiny piece of thought, you would know that.
BoostedDubstep 4 months ago
Squelch. Squelch. I have too much saliva. Squelch. Squelch.
GwynnEarl 4 months ago
I can now tell people that they are objectively ugly.
axlman5 4 months ago
oversimplified
brucewool 4 months ago
@brucewool how so?
thesearewarningsigns 4 months ago
Doctor Who 3:30
stargirlcathaway 4 months ago
Everything he has talked of from Beethoven to the landscape description is terribly ugly.
derriderrida 4 months ago
"It's women who actually push history forward" @ 5:55 - very poor choice in words here.
BrownusGirl 4 months ago 6
@BrownusGirl Taken out of context.
You're interpreting it in a way that makes it sound like he was implying that women haven't been essential in the history of the world. Instead, he in in fact talking about sexual selection and mating rituals which have "actually pushed" history, against the idea of natural selection. He's not saying "derr woman haven't really done anything and this is one case that they have".
Thanks for your 21st century feminist input though. Give it a rest.
MrAlejandro314 2 months ago
his breathing is really annoying.
RainAngel111 4 months ago
this guy needs to drink water...im getting tied of hearing his saliva slapping around in his mouth
flawns 5 months ago
while evolutionary psychology can offer good stories for WHY something happens, it's still just an exercise in creative storytelling.
pretor92 5 months ago
Theory*
tiagof96 5 months ago
Where does contemporanium art comes in this theoty?
tiagof96 5 months ago
@VJWU and @answerOfstupids... You two must be youngsters. You've missed the point entirely, or perhaps need to look up the definition of 'virtuoso' and watch the video again.
@JediMindJerret... You apparently wrote some kind of paper on fatalistic determinism last year in secondary school perhaps and it filled you with some kind of righteous energy. You also seem to have missed the point.
What is being alluded to, is that recognizing beauty is less of an apperception than we may think. It
sndless 5 months ago
Metamorphosis Trailer - Illustra Media
JediMasterJerett 5 months ago
We are not attracted by fatalistic determinism of evolution but our own choice of we like or dislike. Do you believe in yourself??? Then believe that you are a individual that has choice and not fatalistic determinism of evolution.
JediMasterJerett 5 months ago
Even when we look at art what has been consider beautiful has changes through the ages. Look Leonardo’s renaissance art, Diego’s expressionist art, Picasso’s Cubism, or modern artist today. What person considers art and beautiful is very different than the others.
JediMasterJerett 5 months ago
Some people like skinny people, some like athletic people, some like larger people, some like funny people, some like smart people, some people like dangerous people. In fact we can the idea of beautiful women has change throughout the ages and has not stay the same.
JediMasterJerett 5 months ago
The sad thing is when we reduce beauty to evolution then it takes away from our appreciation of beauty and takes away our wonder for beauty. Also Evolution does not explain how people taste for beauty changes from person to person. Also what people consider being beautiful person of the opposite sex is not same.
JediMasterJerett 5 months ago
This is fatalistic determinism. In the end evolution would say that we do not think at all but all we are doing is acting on instinct. Evolution would say that we do not make any decision at all but everything is fatalistic determine. Thus evolution would so that I am not choosing to write this comment right now but evolution is. Do one subscribe to fatalistic determine of evolution but all people will insists that they thing for themselves.
JediMasterJerett 5 months ago
@JediMasterJerett Evolution would favor the animal that thinks. If you can think and not just react on instinct. If you can think of sultion that could be gotten to by instinct it may alow you have more kids and keep you genes going or keep you being killed before you can have kinds. Back in the last iceage some people hunted wooly mammoths by chasing them with torches till the mammoths run off a cliff. Cont.
kokofan50 5 months ago
@kokofan50 The problem you fail to follow your evolution beliefs to conclusion. According to this video we do not choose what is beautiful but our evolution subconscious. Evolution would also say that I did not choose my wife but our evolution subconscious chooses the characteristics best for breeding. Evolution would also suggest morals are not something we choose but ou but our evolution subconscious.
JediMasterJerett 5 months ago
@kokofan50 If you follow evolution to its conclusion it says that our evolution subconscious dictates all of your actions. You see when you enter the evolution paradigm you get lock to saying that everything is a result of evolution. In fact evolution would say this conversation we are having is result of evolution subconscious of us trying to show who is stronger mentally than other person.
JediMasterJerett 5 months ago
@kokofan50 The reason you stop short of believing this is because you know that you think, you know that have self awareness, and you know you make decisions for yourself. So would encourage you to leave the evolutionary world view.
JediMasterJerett 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kokofan50 The reason you stop short of believing this is because you know that you think, you know that have self awareness, and you know you make decisions for yourself. So would encourage you to leave the evolutionary world view.
JediMasterJerett 5 months ago
@kokofan50 As you saying I’m “make a lot of unsupported claims” then have prove why they are unsupported and which ones. In fact you show how have not even consider my arguments because you only read “some” of my arguments.
JediMasterJerett 5 months ago
@kokofan50 For your wooly mammoth example, it has false conclusion that it was because it could think that it ran away. However that is false conclusion because evolution would say that mammoth did not choose to run away but his instincts told him to run away. You forget that evolution is a blind undirected process.
JediMasterJerett 5 months ago
@JediMasterJerett Sorry about taking so long to comment back. You seem to not understand what I said. You talk about how it didn't think about running away was bad; that was my whole point. Evolution will favor the animal that thinks and doesn't run off the cliff. It's not my job to prove you have nothing it's your job to prove you have something. You really need to learn to shorten it a bit. You gave five comments to my two and two is rather long for me.
kokofan50 4 months ago in playlist kokofan50's favorites
@JediMasterJerett Cont. If the mammoths hadn't run away from the fire do to instinct they wouldn't die and would better pass their genes on to the next gen. I've read some of your comments and I don't think they are very well thought out. On top of that you make a lot of unsuported claims like "In the end evolution would say that we do not think at all but all we are doing is acting on instinct."
kokofan50 5 months ago
Damm the guy giving a speech should lose a few pounds, he is breathing so heavily that it is hard to concentrate on his speech!
skyforcee 5 months ago
@skyforcee The man had cancer. He died later in the year.
dtedfontenot 2 weeks ago
Dr. Who reference! 3:33
unluckylandon 5 months ago 9
i liked the drawings
Re9syr 5 months ago
People like looking at views of open oceans more than of lakes with trees. There is no evolutionary advantage in salt water. Also evolution does not explain in any convincing way why people enjoy listening to music. Humans also have long hair on their head that needs to be cut. I don't see what evolution advantage there is in that either.
VJWU 5 months ago
@VJWU You're hung up on the example he used, he didn't limit himself to just landscapes. You missed the point that people that weren't familiar with the idea of a landscape they had no experience of, found it beautiful. You seem also very unware of the role of music in other species, and why that wouldn't be passed "up" the evolutionary tree and its gaining complexity as it did so.
telemannNnyc 4 months ago
@telemannNnyc He assumes evolution is true by ignoring any counterevidence. So you use music as evidence that evolution is true...but humans are terrible at smelling things....is this evidence against evolution? Apparently not. Scientists will only include what supports their view and discard what doesn't.
VJWU 3 months ago
@VJWU Get back with us when you truly understand the scientific method.
telemannNnyc 3 months ago
@telemannNnyc Aww sorry looks like I hit a sore spot. Please explain how homosexuality is derived from darwinian evolution. Wouldn't people who choose not to have children be detrimental to the survival of the species? Oh wait, it's counterevidence...so either ignore it or rationalize it away. lol
VJWU 3 months ago
@VJWU That's nice, but you still really don't understand what the scientific method really is, but lulz at your "evidence."
telemannNnyc 3 months ago
@telemannNnyc oh what a surprise, ignoring counter-evidence again. I couldn't have summed up my argument any better than the way you've "responded" to each and every post you've made. lol
VJWU 3 months ago
@VJWU Oh, that's what you call evidence. IC. My original point still holds true.
telemannNnyc 3 months ago
@telemannNnyc Yeah I consider causation to be part of evidence. I realize that you simply ignore it because it doesn't fit into your assumptions. Your original point was defending how people wanted to drink salt water. Wonderful.
VJWU 3 months ago
@VJWU Well considering you're replying to comments I made several weeks ago, I don't recall making any such point and I did review my comments here, so I'm assuming you confusing me with one of your many interlocutors .
telemannNnyc 3 months ago
@telemannNnyc Actually you're the only person who decided to argue with me here so it would be kind of hard for me to confuse you with anyone else.
VJWU 3 months ago
@VJWU No, there are several others that have done so too. But thanks anyway.
telemannNnyc 3 months ago
@telemannNnyc Sorry to break this to you but you're the only person on this thread who decided to directly argue with me. There was 1 other person who replied a handful of people in one message that included my name among others.
VJWU 3 months ago
@VJWU That's nice, dear. I'm completely unstung. :-)
telemannNnyc 3 months ago
@telemannNnyc That's okay. It's not everyday I get to be stalked by a middle aged man who lives on Youtube :)
VJWU 3 months ago
@VJWU Actually that was my thought too, since you keep replying to my comments on a public video in a public forum. It must be those pesky word definitions that seem to trip you up. I guess you're "stalking" me then too. This is a fun game. I can play it too!
telemannNnyc 3 months ago
@telemannNnyc you initiate talking to me by attacking me and now you think you're the poor victim. lol....dig around to find your age?! uhhh....it takes a couple seconds to click on a person's name haha....I realize that must be a difficult task for you though since you have difficulty with figuring out how to view past comments on a Youtube video. I kind of guessed that you weren't exactly young from that alone.
VJWU 3 months ago
@VJWU Oh please, do go on. It's fun watching someone use words with no meaning. I'm flattered with your attention.
telemannNnyc 3 months ago
@telemannNnyc well I wasn't gonna go on but since you want me to, okay. I am not angry at you...I just think of you more as a cautionary tale. I would really regret living a life where when I'm at your age I spend my time attacking people on youtube in petty disputes. How sad must it be to be your age and not accomplished much...instead to spend it on such trivial things.
VJWU 3 months ago
@VJWU That's nice dear, but your hands are soaking in it too.
telemannNnyc 3 months ago
@VJWU That's also funny you whine about stalking and yet apparently were curious enough to dig around to find out my age. Oh LULz.
telemannNnyc 3 months ago
Beauty in everything done so well....hmmmm who defines well. This argument is pretty weak and shouldnt be taken seriously. Yes, we have developed some wired perceptions of things in our brains, but present culture and environment can override that so hard that it becomes non existent.
answerOfstupids 6 months ago
I am a muslim , but basicly that lecture may make me change my ideas of human existance
I will not change my faith tho , I beleive islam and evolotion can fit , just not in the strict beleifs
blalst 6 months ago
"Survival of the fittest" explains the passing along of strength, cleverness and stamina to the next generation. Useful in obtaining food, shelter, and clothing, these traits propelled mans existence beyond the level of perpetual camping trip. With the needs of daily survival more easily met, beauty emerged as a determining factor in the survival of humans. Darwins theory of evolution isn't the antithesis of creation--it is the mechanism by which man has created himself in the image of God. ; )
KastleBravo 6 months ago
I just took my clamshell style cellphone out of my pocket and had a revelation. Similarly shaped objects have facinated man for over 100,000 years.
KastleBravo 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Genetic information (DNA), like other forms of information, can't happen by chance, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Read my Internet articles under my name: Babu G. Ranganathan
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived while their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
Unfortunately, Dennis Dutton passed away late last year. He was a philosophy lecturer at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. Although I did not take his courses, I was fortunate enough to sit in on one of his 100-level 2-hour lectures.
What a terrible loss of an amazing man.
TheNeuroticBassPlay 7 months ago 27
Вот скажите мне, откуда они знают что каменный топор был сделан больше 100 тысяч лет назад? Там что дата изготовления стояла?)
toshaxar 7 months ago
im skeptical........the axes that were broken wouldnt be found cuz they were shattered.....so its not like all the axes werent used
jackthesedays 7 months ago
@jackthesedays No, we find piles of flacks broken off from flint knapping that were never used and other things like that.
kokofan50 7 months ago
I'm not so sure that these hand-axes couldn't have been more of a form of currency than a form of beauty. This would have had the same effect on sexual development, and wouldn't have required language either. And besides, how many of us assign an idea of beauty to money?
AndMyPickle 7 months ago
The guy needs a spit bucket.
NoahTheZoophile 7 months ago
It's disgusting how his lips smack after every sentence he starts. Fucking gross man.
alanpro18 7 months ago
He is smacking his lips in the beginning of each sentence so I had to stop watching this after the fourth minute.
BraveFalcon0 8 months ago
@BraveFalcon0 um ok...
BigBen81 8 months ago
Horrible concept. I was too distracted by the beautiful animations and didn't hear a single thing he talked about!
LeadBlimp 8 months ago
So our ancestors thought it was beautiful, therefore we are subconsciously forced to also think it is beautiful? I'm sorry, but what the f$#k? What made them think it was beautiful in the first place? And aren't those the same things that make it beautiful to us today? So why do we need to even consider the evolutionary history? It's irrelevant. Certain things are attractive while others are not. Everyone and their mother is trying to ride Darwin's coat tales to make a buck.
circusOFprecision 9 months ago
I'm still waiting for the Darwinian Theory of Everything, since we SHOULD absolutely credit any and all scientific theories to Darwin and all. Sarcasm. Seriously though, how about a Darwinian theory for football, or perhaps a Darwinian theory for the evolution of dance or puppetry. Wait, I've got it! A Darwinian theory for ugly!
circusOFprecision 9 months ago
@circusOFprecision
we've bastardized Darwinian theory for economics and now art. that's not to say there's no evolutionary connection between what people found beautiful then and find now. it's just not the whole story.
xjustamem0ryx 9 months ago
@xjustamem0ryx
You might be right. I don't know why, but it gets annoying how dependent theorists are on the Darwinian framework for everything. I guess that was the prime motivation for my comments.
circusOFprecision 9 months ago
@circusOFprecision
definitely. there is such danger in man's continual attempt to coronate his mortal ideals.
xjustamem0ryx 9 months ago
I'm going to sum this up in the only way a college sophomore could.
ass X waist / boobs=beauty
Ravengaurd6 9 months ago
though, there is no doubt our history and evolution affects what we perceive as beautiful. but I don't think it's enough for unification.
xjustamem0ryx 9 months ago in playlist 2011 ones to watch
so is he saying "X is beautiful because a lot of skill went into X" or ..."because X is done well." that sounds like more of a type of beauty rather than a theory of what beauty is.
because there is beauty found in things not made well (tattered biblical manuscript or aimlessly throwing paint on a canvas) or made by much skill (children's artwork or curious arrangement of soapboxes). we'd have to dig deeper into what is meant by "not made well" or "made by much skill".
xjustamem0ryx 9 months ago in playlist 2011 ones to watch
@xjustamem0ryx Accurate generalizations are never negated by a single or very few counterexamples, and to mind you've provided none. Tattered biblical manuscripts are valued as artifacts, not works of art -not the same thing at all.
There are no legitimate artists who aimlessly throw paint onto canvas. Pollack's drippings for instance are anything but aimless. It is amazing how carelessly philistines assume that if paint is *thrown*, then surely aimlessness *must* follow as a matter of course.
polymath7 9 months ago
@polymath7
a philistine? I compose and arrange for piano lol. I'm not trying to be hostile toward art or culture. I'm just saying that his definition of beauty is not as complete as he thinks--much like every other theory of beauty one may find in aesthetic philosophy. It looks as if your argument with me is over definitions. that's more tossing water out of the boat than plugging the hole.
xjustamem0ryx 9 months ago
@polymath7
"There are no legitimate artists who aimlessly throw paint onto canvas. Pollack's drippings for instance are anything but aimless. It is amazing how carelessly philistines assume that if paint is *thrown*, then surely aimlessness *must* follow as a matter of course."
Legitimate artists? that sounds rather elitist and not encompassing the total freedom of art. Even so, the idea isn't to say all paint thrown on a canvas is aimless, but rather consider the type THAT IS.
xjustamem0ryx 9 months ago
@polymath7
there are a lot of things considered art or beautiful in which people know not their entire context. sometimes not knowing allows them to accept a beauty transmitted from it. sometimes knowing it will make that permission.
ex: say I throw paint aimlessly on a canvas, then a person from a different country stops by and looks at it and happens to perceive some kind of pattern of color/texture in it that I have trouble seeing. does the fact it was thrown jeopardize the beauty they see
xjustamem0ryx 9 months ago
@polymath7
an example of beauty stemming from context might be someone stumbling upon a beat up series of pillars, initially thinking them to be tired and stale. But, upon realizing they were made during the age of Rome might permit their mind to receive a beauty in how the pillars have lasted so long and admire their structure.
there's no telling what connection will be made between facts about the object or about the observer.
xjustamem0ryx 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Search online Asian women # oneman4u.info #
katriosa 9 months ago
Take that F.R Tennant
dexontape 9 months ago
great vid. Speakers got mad cotton mouth though
MrKennyiskickass 9 months ago
Great video!
naturesuphoria 10 months ago
Honestly, this seems like a big assumption about cutting devises. It doesn't seem to go unmerited, but I am a bit skeptical. It just seems like a better story than theory.
kielpease 10 months ago
@Q8379 Our genes change vastly more slowly than our culture. That's why this talk is relevant, because as far as evolution is concerned we're still on the savannah. We still have basically the very same genes.
thecribbage105 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
some should tell him that the DARWIN THEORIES ARE LEGENDS ...
polpettaification 10 months ago
Tell him that DARWIN WAS WRONG
polpettaification 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@polpettaification
"Tell him that DARWIN WAS WRONG"
What good would THAT do? It wouldn't change his mind, nor would it change the stone-cold fact of evolution.
nolobede 10 months ago
Am I the only person who saw the TARDIS
kokofan50 11 months ago
I just found out about Denis Dutton's passing in December... another brilliant mind gone forever. His arguments form part of my master's thesis, which doesn't even come close to one 1/100th of the brilliance of his last book, The Art Instinct.
erinloveshobbers 11 months ago
The drawings are actually really cool and not a very typical addition. The lecture is thought provoking and relevant and doesn't need any visual aides. So if you don't like the drawings, you don't have to look.
There are plenty of less than simple minded people who can appreciate both an intelligent lecture and a series of playful, skillful cartoons. How ever silly they may seem. Why do people assume you cannot enjoy both without being a total idiot?
Oh, the burden of the intellectual.
limespider8 11 months ago 55
@limespider8 I agree with you completely.
I enjoyed the cartoons -- I thought they were interesting, well done, and a nice touch, and don't think they detract at all from the lecture. Really, these days, the alternative is a slide show or just watching the lecturer. If you don't enjoy the cartoons, then just don't watch, like you said.
lotrfreak2010 9 months ago
TED filled this talk with those horridly cutesy drawings for those with the attention span of a gnat. It reflects the low esteem in which Aesthetics is held by tarting it up with the same taste as a food court at a suburban mall. At least they didn't, in typical YouTube taste, pipe in some inappropriate music to drown out the speaker.
I despair for my fellow citizens ever elevating their taste past their mouths.
studioprod 11 months ago
TED filled this talk with those horridly cutesy drawings for those with the attention span of a gnat. It reflects the low esteem in which Aesthetics is held by tarting it up with the same taste as a food court at a suburban mall. At least they didn't, in typical YouTube taste, pipe in some inappropriate music to drown out the speaker.
I despair for my fellow citizens ever elevating their taste past their mouths.
studioprod 11 months ago
wonderful. See also Geoffrey Miller "The Mating Mind" chapter 6. Ofcourse is beauty a part of our evolution.
snof001 11 months ago
Novel about an alternative view of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 1 year ago
simply beautiful - gets better every time I watch this. Thank you.
johnjosmith42 1 year ago
This was insightful but the lecturer sounds like he ate a whole box of crackers.
YouSmellLikeACat 1 year ago 4
As always anything to do with "Drawin" is pure mumbo jumbo. Maybe those stones were a form of currency, maybe the youth made it for some sort of game they played, maybe a sign of dominance, maybe the women made the stones to cut umbilical cord at birth, maybe they were markings for a grave... Evolution is not about science, its about fighting religion. I stand by neither of them, they both fail miserably. P.S Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
deadbirdflyinghome 1 year ago
@deadbirdflyinghome sorry but you are very wrong and stupid.
kokofan50 11 months ago
@kokofan50, Take a recent vogue magazine check out the women, compare them to renaissance paintings. Yes, notice the difference, skinny vs fat. Back then chubby women were considered beautiful. Go to Nigeria, if her 'rear' looks reeeally fat she will get married; Enter 10th century china, please read how erotic the lotus feet of Chinese women were (hint:by todays standard, disgusting). So while you are looking into Darwinism, bullish capitalistic markets are defining beauty to their benefit.
deadbirdflyinghome 11 months ago
@deadbirdflyinghome Being fat or skinny is a sign of health in different times and cultures. Being chubby in times when food is hard to shows you can keep your self feed and for gils makes you a good mate. When food isnt hard to get being skinny means you are healthy and active making you a good mate. A big butt can mean wide hips that will make giving birth easier or some other thing i cant think of. The chinese thing i know nothing about so i cant comment on it.
kokofan50 11 months ago 18
@deadbirdflyinghome good point on the chinese foot binding tradition. I remember seeing a documentary about the first english man to enter china in the 1800's with a video camera, he had footage of women who had lotus feet walking. Interesting enough, their small feet forced them to walk slowly with a sway in their hips almost identical to the way women walk today in high heals.
punrabihabaja 5 months ago
@deadbirdflyinghome Well, no, all your options are things Denis would agree with or ones that make no sense. Currency doesn't exist when your species doesn't have an economy. The stones would work as grave markings because they're art, and the speaker CLAIMS they were dominance symbols. Umbilical cords? Use an unfinished rock, or teeth! You've got to work harder to correct a theory a serious thinker spent a lifetime on and not make yourself look silly. Respect those who try to know.
thecribbage105 10 months ago