Richard Feynman: The Beauty of the Flower

[eliskander]

Very arrogant view.

[ILoveBlackMetal100]

Flowers are beautiful, why?

Seriously, "why", that is the most annoying question in the entire universe.

[Ostgrindarn]

@ILoveBlackMetal100 Why is a word, that will awake all these interesting questions then you will doubt, but why?

[ILoveBlackMetal100]

@Ostgrindarn doubt is natural in the human mind, it gets us to interact with others more, and interacting is one of the basic instincts of a human being

[ThereIsCake]

There's nothing that detracts from the wonder of the universe more than explaining it all by "God did it".

[kirbykidsmith]

@ThereIsCake no. that's just such a wrong way of seeing it.

[ThereIsCake]

@kirbykidsmith

Please explain how the complex beauty of nature is wrong and some conjuring trick that caused it all to just pop into existence is better?

[kirbykidsmith]

@ThereIsCake

Stop thinking of it in terms of better and worse. You're looking at beauty in the sense that its creation is something wonderful, effectively separating, something Plato referred to as true immortality, from the wonderment of a possible creator. The complex nature of science and god are both just that - complex. Seeing one being better than the other is some silly modern conception that scientists and religious folk can use to have claims to elitism.

[kirbykidsmith]

@ThereIsCake Fact of the matter is, studying science is almost exactly like studying a religion. This whole God thing, remember, is almost a purely western conception - so try to keep your mind open about how the existence of nature came into being. Neuroscience has revealed a lot about the connections between external stimuli being preinternally defined via single cell neurons, which actually strengthens the God argument in some ways, if you look at it with respect to subjective reality theory.

[ThereIsCake]

@kirbykidsmith

My mind is open, but not so open my intelligence fails me.

What you ask in fact is to let my mind accept delusional thinking.

this is in any way open. this is the complete opposite of open..

To accept something irrational just for the sake of it automatically reduces fact potential fiction closing my mine to reality at your whim.

[kirbykidsmith]

@ThereIsCake

Again wrong. You've accepted rationality as the fundamental workings of the universe, which is already flawed. That you think you have actually found a system that explains everything is completely delusional, especially because the system itself upholds the theory that a system cannot be consistent and complete. Not only this, but you cannot prove the foundations of logic - they require fundamental assumptions about the nature of things that is inherently illogical.

[kirbykidsmith]

@ThereIsCake I'm sorry you feel that way. But I'm even more sorry that you can't see your own fundamental way of seeing the world falls under the same category. Your beliefs are antithetical to what you just slammed. So, as you said, please refrain from discussion of such.

[kirbykidsmith]

@ThereIsCake matter of fact is that you simply just don't know enough. Maybe if you studied a little more in school you might have taken a metaphysics class or even a high level physics course (probably Quantum intro) that actually acknowledges that science and logic have no fundamental logical basis, except the assumption that induction is a valid way of seeing things. There are entire wikipedia pages on this. Cmon man

Anyone who denies this is delusional. I hope you can learn more someday.

[lordtoranaga]

I concur. I do not see where science subtracts from beauty.

[NahstayScience]

Does he know that there is a flower behind him? Consciously, or subconsciously? If not, was it a coincidence? Oh Dr. Feynman, you're one of my favorite inspirations. - Aspiring Ph.D. in Physics

[gamernaveen]

Prof. Feynman's so awesome !

[flamingemu]

Feynman's friend must be a pretty cruddy artist.

[bersa888]

I always get in similar arguments with non-musician whenever discussing the music of Bach (for instance), whose masterpieces are thought to be fully appreciated only by people of faith (Bach being very religious and all of that). Not at all, I say, since, as a musician, I know I can "see more" and understand more than they can, as well as being sensible to the sheer (superficial) beauty of the sounds, and being knowledgeable (often more than them) about Lutheran (Calvinist) theology etc. etc ;-)

[wonderouswonderloo]

It's funny how he mentions a flower. Siddhartha Buddha once said, if you truly realize the beauty of a flower, you will throw your head back and laugh at the sky. Feynman seemed to have done that :)

[JinxOz]

Don't watch this video stoned because: (your mind) = BLOWN!

[LordMalice6d9]

Richard Feynman is awesome!

[chopin65]

I have a couple of this man's books. I was thinking of early Vedic sources and their cosmic view while watching this. Beauty is not a quality of a paticular object but the event of its reception, that is to say when we view it. The event on a atomic and sub atomic level has as much beauty as on traditional levels. I am a web developer and think that the script (the Html and other mark up styles I use) is like poetry. Would Shakespeare agree to this?

[rictheis]

Feynman just happens to be one of my very favorite physicists, and I love his manner of explaining physics ... thank you for this video clip.

[parispeter2]

Or as Umberto Eco put it: "gynaecologists still fall in love with women". But art is also interesting because it's about HOW we see things, not about how they are in themselves i.e. it makes us think about how we look at things and people and why, and THAT is also fascinating. Neither art nor science is superior, and we need both.

[mbar128]

I totally agree and I'm of a scientific personality.

[xiner]

I'm not a very artistic person, so I see more beauty in the sciences than in the arts. I get more enjoyment out of physics. I know everyone doesn't agree, though.

[parispeter2]

My feeling is that everybody is potentially artistic and scientific, and that our outlook becomes more complete if we develop both sides. Personally I'm more artistic (emotional-imaginative?) but I've profited from finding out more about science and thus developing my scientific (rational-imaginative?) side. I would add that the philosophical-spiritual side, which deals with the search for meaning, also makes up the complete personality in my view, and should not be neglected.

[wdeboer0]

I'm a scientist and my girlfriend's an artist. I thoroughly enjoy art and I believe similarly to what parispeter2 says that developing both sides (artistic and scientific) is very important and deepens and enriches one's understanding of both subjects. The only problem with art that I can see is that as a scientist I can expect to see regular paychecks whereas it tends to be a lot more volatile with art. :)

[parispeter2]

Don't forget philosophy :)

[Baphomet3110]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with the viewpoint that you become a more complete person from studying the humanities.

I have read from Schopenhauer to Eliot, from Shakespeare to Wagner. I have founding nothing in them but what other people thought about the world. I don't care what they thought; my thoughts are my own, and are born from the originality and drive that powers my being, not from the musings of long dead authors. I don't care what other carbon-based lifeforms think.

[parispeter2]

So do you think you have nothing to learn from others? Or that they have nothing to learn from you? What you say implies that there is no such thing as shareable wisdom - something that I know is not true because I have learned a great deal from authors, though I wouldn't have chosen the ones you mentioned, but rather Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza and Nietzsche. Of course we have to relate their lessons to our lives, but that doesn't mean they - or the living wise - have nothing to say to us.

[Baphomet3110]

I've read all of those. Wisdom is a farce.

Remember Nietzsche? Don't take the words of others for truth, take your own. He also attacked the other people you mentioned pretty harshly ;)

There, you have some great, old philosopher giving you guidance (anti-guidance?), now you can put it into effect.

[kedarbarak]

@Baphomet3110 Isn´t it quite naive to suspect yourself of being completely untouched by the influence of other people? I believe only autistic people are so unlucky to live in the state of total mental independence... On the other hand originality is very important, but I don´t think it is a matter of internal powers alone. Any relation would be pointless then for a "really original and creative" personality, wouldn´t it?

[chris45520702]

I think that the arts and the sciences are both sides of the same coin. You have to be very creative to success in both. And they fill our desire of growing as a human being.

[kubikmaster]

I am a physicist and I have always enjoyed more my sexual experiences...physics is exciting, make no mistake, but it is my vehicle to get money and swing like an angel ~_^, I guess I should have been a pimp, but hey!, science is my bitch too

[xiner]

Anyone going into science for the money is deluded.

[shakyl008]

Indeed.

The only job that may aply to people looking for money, is, I think, a banker, or whatever you do in Wall Street.

[Mu5clehead]

@shakyl008

Not everyone on Wall Street are in for the cash. Some people are just passionate and curious to how the economy and the anatomy of modern business.

It's just beautiful.

[kirbykidsmith]

@Mu5clehead

I'd like to see you prove that. 16 billion dollars in bonuses given in 2010. Check the numbers. Some people are just passionate and curious about getting more money. (I think that's most people actually).

Whether its beautiful or not remains to be seen

[Rellics]

@xiner I can't upvote this hard enough.