Richard Feynman - Ode on a Flower

[awcoman]

It is curious to me that Feynman's response is similarly essentialist, presuming that these views, opened as the are by the work of science, are unavailable to the artist.

[PedroBlogger]

Ever since I've learned that flowers are the plant's genitals, its beauty only grew.

[AngrySnarks]

I wonder if Dawkins was inspired by Feynman when he wrote Unweaving the Rainbow. Dawkins' refutation to Keat's jesting seems very similar to this.

[insomniacgrace]

Impressive thoughts. Ikaw na talaga! I totally agree with you. Indeed, the beauty that someone sees is available to other people as well. Although it might not be quite as refined aesthetically as it is. But still anyone can appreciate the beauty of a flower.

[sulljoh1]

Keep unweaving the rainbow. The wonder will only keep growing.

[spoogegoat]

I'm sure Richard Feynman would appreciate Xkcd's cartoon #877 “Beauty”. :)

[sulljoh1]

@spoogegoat  eh. not their best.

[ForgotMyName3]

@Charles33333 As an atheist, I can tell you that's a ludicrous comparison. Dawkins isn't 1% of what Feynman is.

[moebius432]

@ForgotMyName3 Because being an atheist automatically gives you the credence to make that judgment. Both are (Feynman was) respected Scientists in their particular field of study who happen to be atheists. If you have something ignorant to say, just don't.

[ForgotMyName3]

@moebius432 Being an atheist doesn't give me credence, I just didn't want anyone to think I'm saying that because I dislike Dawkins' atheism. Yes, both are scientists, but different scientists attain different level of respect in their fields. Nobody would put Newton and Brian Green in the same level, and nobody should put Dawkins and Feynmann in the same level...

[thedeeliciousplum]

@onvgp

Thank you so much for sharing this vid.

Richard's sharings moves that which I can share and identify as being my very core and that the intent of his sharing makes me cry. He was a remarkable being. And, he played the bongos =) SImply wonderful!!!

[EquinoxParadox91]

I totally agree with Richard. There is beauty at all levels of nature - from the macroscopic world that we see day to day to the elaborate and perplexing details of the quantum mechanical world.

[bretchet23]

his friend sounds like a pretentious cunt

[jmfbsc]

@bretchet23 Having attended an art school, I can tell you that he probably is. I feel the same way Feynman does, that knowing the intricacies of something make it more beautiful, but a lot of artists posses this ideal that only what is on the surface is beautiful because knowing the intricacies prohibit one's ability to project imaginative ideas onto a subject. That ideal, to me, is decidedly bullshit.

[elimik31]

Always when I feel depressed, I can watch or read Feynman (or Dawkins) and my mood gets better. They spread a message: Life is exciting!

[melomelomelo123]

@elimik31 I do the same thing!

[Meanman332]

Feynman misunderstands the pleasure the poet takes from a flower. The less you know, often the more magical and intriguing a thing can appear. The more you know, the less beauty the flower has to you. Same with songs. Once you learn how to play them yourself, they don't seem as amazing.

Not everybody enjoys unravelling a beautiful tapestry.

[samuraiyemo]

@Meanman332 I have to disagree with you on this. Feynman is saying that beauty exists at many different levels and that, as a scientist, he is able to appreciate levels of beauty that are not directly visible to the naked eye. The fact that a simple flower is made out of millions of interacting cells and participates in a complex ecosystem raises more questions than it answers, adding to the pleasure of the unknown.

[Meanman332]

@samuraiyemo OK. However, thinking about flowers at a complex level is a completely different feeling to enjoying the colourful atmosphere and beauty of a flower. I wouldn't call scientific 'beauty' beauty at all, at the very least it's not the same as non-scientific beauty. I'll admit there's something interesting about flowers scientifically, but it's not the same thing as the beauty a poet sees. Some people prefer not thinking about anything specific and just like vacantly staring.

[HowieInTheUK]

@Meanman332 "I'll admit there's something interesting about flowers scientifically, but it's not the same thing as the beauty a poet sees."

The "poetic beauty" of a flower that the poet sees and appreciates is shared by ALL humans, scientists included. But there is a further beauty that the poet doesn't see . . the astonishing structures and interrelationships of the chemistry, physics and biology that make the flower what it is. It is a mind-blowing vision, that sadly the poor poet mises

[Meanman332]

@HowieInTheUK No. Poetic beauty is not appreciated in equal degrees by everybody, in the same way that scientific beauty is not appreciated in equal degrees by everybody.

The poet doesn't fully get the science (but he does get some of it), and the reverse is true for the poetic beauty and the scientist.

[HowieInTheUK]

@Meanman

This is somthing you just WANT to believe true Meanman. Different people may be struck differently by the beauty of a flower, but that is NOT the same as saying that all artists are struck by beauty more intensely than all scientists (or even most scientists). A sense of the sublime is hardwired into our nature by Evolution - it's innate. An understanding of science is learned, the awe it brings comes from those innate sensitivities. The lack of KNOWLEDGE is the artists problem.

[Meanman332]

@HowieInTheUK Arguing that we all have the same appreciation of artistic/poetic beauty is as ludicrious as arguing that we all have the same scientific knowledge. No, it's not 'innate'. Many people couldn't care less about the beauty of a flower or don't even perceive it. I don't know why you think that poetry is somehow immune to being learned whereas science is OH SO ELITE. We all have an innate capacity for science as well. We learn both poetry and science.

[HowieInTheUK]

@Meanman332

Errrrr.. innate means that it is knowledge/behaviour we are BORN with not learned later. Appreciation of beauty is innate and there is a Darwinian reason for it. We may be born with a DESIRE to know things but this is NOT the same as knowing those things. If we dont know something it is impossible to have a feeling of wonder/beauty about that particular thing. And I could also call you ELITE too.....for thinking poets see more beauty in flowers than scientists do

[HowieInTheUK]

@HowieInTheUK

Anywhere this debate is getting nowhere so I suggest that we call a truce.

Re your acrobatic skills can I suggest that you take up snowboarding whenever you possibly have a chance. Given that acrobatic ability you can really become a killer snowboarder... and it's a brilliant sport... carried out in the grandure of mountains and snow ....where you can also apply your INNATE appreciation of beauty

[Meanman332]

@HowieInTheUK A truce is fine by me. I do think poetic beauty is more innate than scientific beauty, but I don't think it's a dichotomy i.e. innate or not innate, but a scale. What differentiates scientific beauty from non-scientific beauty? A certain degree of complexity? I think all beauty is scientific to a degree, and thus we all have an innate appreciation of some (low level) scientific beauty as well.

I've wanted to try snowboarding but never had the opportunity. When I do, I will!

[chantellesasha]

I want to see the world as Feynman sees it. And what a wonderful world it is.

[violetazuggo]

Wonderful,

bye, bye,

The English Sisters

[theclewis]

Oh how nice,  note the flowers in the background! :)

[CrubbDaTubb]

Perfect

[Beriaal]

I love this videos.

[ucihapokujin]

@Charles33333 if you compare feynman to dawkin's again i'll kick your ass.

[SRagy]

Yes! So many times I've tried to articulate this view to ignorant people.

[mykidsarework]

This video has copyright restrictions

[GSCARDC]

I think we all know how much science is interresting and beautiful but not all of us admit it because not all of us understand it, and by the way understanding it has nothing to do with your level of learning in college pr if you have a PHD, some people have it some don't.

[LFZ15]

The same opinion I've always had, but obviously he said it better than I could ;)

[Jenkins11]

Quantum Mechanics ftw! Science is the beauty of process..perhaps the artist appreciates the larger physical aestheticism. Scientists appreciate the actions therein. Either preference is satisfactory

[rastarigate]

Go Feyman !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dyonethekiller]

I really like what he says in this because a lot of people say science takes the beauty out of things but I think science makes it even more beautiful

[mikeroephonics]

@Dyonethekiller You're 100% correct!

As far as I'm concerned, and basing this off of personal experience, the idea that science takes the beauty out of things is a defense mechanism created by those who don't want to and/or can't grasp it.

Science is wonderful! If it weren't for science, we would not have computers, YouTube, blah, blah, etc. I feel like a fool having to type this out, but some people are really dense. :\

[biorobotmachine]

What Feynman said was absolutely true and moving.

[MATHIOUDAKH]

this vid sucks

[mikeroephonics]

@MATHIOUDAKH Why?

[nickharvey7]

What he said is true it can only add to the beauty to know more!!

[PathogensQuest]

"If ever we unweave a rainbow, it does not become less beautiful." - Dawkins

I feel the same way about women.

[metalorg]

lol! Please don't unweave women.

[PathogensQuest]

:) No worries.

[itsfakebytheway]

@PathogensQuest yeah i feel the same about your mom, you cocksucker!

[PathogensQuest]

Will someone please put a dick in this guys mouth? Because that's what he wants.

[itsfakebytheway]

@PathogensQuest I'd like that

[LoutheFinger]

@PathogensQuest Projecting much?

[PathogensQuest]

@ LoutheFinger. I see you're unfamiliar with the late, great Carlin. Go get a fucking education.

[Tapecutter59]

@PathogensQuest: Great quote from a great book

[stomachtalk]

Ciao Feynman.

[jedimasterbooboo]

It doesn't subtract, Richard. But so many people don't know how to think, and so they reduce.

[SushantaMog]

Yes and some people don't appreciate what others do, and that is quite alright and doesn't have to subtract anything, it is the subjective view of somebody not a judgement. In fact it is important to know that any subtraction experienced is in the mind of the one experiencing, not the one expressing his/hers opinion.

[Stegocephalian]

Exactly right! I enjoy nature more, and see much more beauty and awe-inspiring depth in the natural world for having taken the trouble of learning what science has to say about these things. An experience of beauty when confronted with a flower, for someone who has no knowledge of biology and the deep evolutionary history of the plant and it's symbiotes, seems shallow in comparison to the experience available to someone who knows and can reflect on all these things.

[Zeirem]

it isn't shallow, its a more robust experience, because you can now appreciate the external and INTERNAL complexities of nature. It broadens the spectrum of your experience when you learn to be aware of more dimensions of how to appreciate things.

[Stegocephalian]

I'm not sure you read my statement correctly - either that, or I'm not understanding your point.

I was saying that appreciation of beauty in nature, like a flower, by someone who isn't familiar with biology and the developmental and evolutionary history of a flower, is more shallow than the appreciation of someone who is aware of these things. Do you really intend to argue that NOT knowing these things makes for a better grounds for appreciating the flower? That can't be your point, can it?

[greenleaf81]

Stegocephalian, I think Zeirem did not actually read your comment. He seems to second your thoughts and by the way I do too :)

[Zeirem]

LOL...you know.. I think you're right..I misread your point. Something in your wording made me think you were expressing a completely different perspective on the video. *gets on one knee*...wanna go halves on a baby?

[BallinTrollin]

smoke weed and your non linear thought process will get you "deeper" in your reflection or observation of your immediate reality. feynman did it and you can too.

[Tapecutter59]

Heh, didn't know he was a stoner but I suspected it by the way he looks at things. Most of the time dope just makes you think you understand more than you do. As evidence of this, try writing down your stoned insights when your stoned and read them when straight. However I agree it does give you another perspective through the feeling of "interconnectedness" it sometimes gives.

[SushantaMog]

Tapecutter59: The term stoner implies a person who expresses views on life which mostly appeal only to other stoners, unlike Richard. Well at least to me id does.

[monroetsd]

Carl Sagan smoked a lot of marijuana. I'd be surprised if feynman never tried it. At any rate, there's nothing in the world I love more than to get sort of high and program, read about science or mathematics, listen to lectures, etc...

[Omegashadowyoshi]

Wow, I can just picture Carl Sagan high.

"oooh...I see the cosmos...and the stardust..."

Feinman and Sagan both rock.

RIP to both of them

[BeyondOrwell]

haha that's true tapecutter...

i once wrote an essay totally stoned and when i went to bed i thought i've written a real masterpiece.

next day when i was on my way to school i've read it again and i realized that it was the biggest piece of shit i've ever written ^^ couldn't even give it to my teacher. i just said i forgot to do my homework... that's how bad it was. :)

[Tapecutter59]

That was the point I was trying to make.

Seems by the thumbs down some people took offense to the word "stoner", to me it just means someone who smokes dope.

Most intelligent people have at some stage in their lives altered their own consiousness with drugs.

Curious people will "experiment" with their own bodiy/mind no matter what others think of them. Newton went so far as to stick pins in his eyes to try and figure out the nature of light.

[featheredpines]

Reminds me of Dawkins' book, Unweaving the Rainbow.

Adds, absolutely, exponentially!

[Tapecutter59]

Yes an excellent book.

Some people think science will rob them of their sense of awe and wonder at the universe.

However the words of almost any great scientist you can think of will demonstrate that "awe and wonder" is what motivates them.

[SushantaMog]

Getting stoned is simply an experience and to some it helps understand that all is not as it seems and doing it once can be enough. Others use it to induce change from what they perceive as mundane etc.

To some the use of substances to change ones perceptions seems to lead to a whole lot of misery. But in truth it is only experience and some handle it differently than others.

[Denzy891]

I wish he were still alive and I wish my physics teacher was like that.

[greenleaf81]

I also wish that and also that there were more interviews of him taken during his life time.

[harbach]

I agree with what Feynman is saying.

[AntiGravity911]

Preach it brother !

[qigong1001]

very insightful man.

[mindtraveler2350]

To create a little flower is the labor of ages.

[ottl2]

Real genius!

[kubikmaster]

worship them and you are full circle, ROFL

[Ramanujan88]

So true...just wish everyone, including scientists, would remember this! I have a friend at school whose a math major, and he thinks there can't be any beauty in math, that's it's just nothing, but boring/usuful equations! But math is magic, and God, science is beauty!

[francescaemc2]

The ancients used mathematics purely as an aesthetic form; just for its beauty.

The thought of using mathematics for physics or for anything aside from aesthetics was looked down upon. Obviously the practical uses of mathematics won out, but that does not detract from the inherent beauty and joy.

[Nietzsche68]

Richard Feyman is AWESOME!!!

[RobinSamp]

This is my favourite of favourites.

Any of you ever read a mathematician's apology?

I think that, apart from QED and just generally being a legend, Richard Feynman will go down in history as being one of the first high profile people to help break the Science vs. Art barriers that have been invented.

And what's even greater, unintentionally; he just buzzed off of life. That's truly inspirational :)

Cheers

[kubikmaster]

nope, one of the firsts was Leonardo DaVinci...perhaps you only think americans make history?. ROFLcopter

[RobinSamp]

Mate, the last thing I can be bothered doing is getting into a pathetic youtube argument - i guess you buzz off of that.

I'm not from the USA - I'm from Scotland, and I now live in London. Why on earth would I think only americans make history? Not that anyone has a monopoly on history, but we've been making history before there were even people in America (I'm talking about PEOPLE, not white European settlers).

Fair comment but things have changed since the renaissance. History evolves.

[sciencegenius2121]

This man is one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, a truly spiritual and wacky character that I found to be very intelligent and humble. A funny man and should always be remembered

[miketheday]

I love this guy! He was such a brilliant yet simple soul. He taught me much about philosophy, physics, common sense, logic, humor and simplicity.

Read some of his books, you'll be better.

[Assaultpredator]

@miketheday

Can you send me a private message? You seem a very friendly and type of soul that cares about others who crave knowledge.

I would like to ask you some questions regarding his books and such

[CCTV9]

@miketheday

He also taught me that bangos are awesome

[mnagmobile]

@CCTV9 the fuck are bangos? you mean bongos...

[someonewhocansee]

seeing beyond the vision of norm ... this is beautiful!

[th4bizzl3]

For beauty at a smaller dimension, check out the crystal structure of a diamond.

[jack19790]

I love this man.

[ottl2]

absolutely genius!

[hakerus123]

Science Math Chemistry das ist das

[andwhatfire]

That's great about knowledge supplementing aesthetic perception.

[muchtoomuch1]

there's also beauty at a smaller dimension...what a simple and brilliant idea. If heaven exists, and I manage to be allowed in, here's a guy I'd love to spend some time with. RIP Richard.

[mary0114]

I disagree. IQ tests are only overrated if the person lacks the drive and ambition to go along with the intelligence. You can have high IQ and nothing else. Or you can have average IQ and live a much fuller life. But to conclude that there aren't different levels of mental ability out there just isn't correct.

[Favel22]

Well there are many levels of mental ability, but IQ tests fail to test them, so... thats it. Maybe one day a new meaningful test will be available and we could all finally discover what we already know: Who is smart and who is not-so-smart.

IQ tests are also a failure because results are not reproducible. I have taken multiple tests and my IQ apparently oscilates between 130 and 80. Ridiculous.

[mary0114]

INcredible genius and humility.  I wish I had the ability to understand his lectures.

[confederationcup]

Ok- he told us, he has the better view on life, than ordinary persons. fine. genius.

[crashtv]

That sounds rather like you've given up. Let the lord jesus inspire you. Ahem no, let Feynman rap you on the head and start you thinking...

[mary0114]

His IQ was probably base on those tests in school which test crystallized g or memorized stuff instead of fluid g, which is the ability to figure things out without book knowledge.

[crashtv]

Yeah and he probably read like three books. Or got resulkts by not reading three books. Yeah that's how he invented new maths concerning Quantum Electro Dynamics and changed the entire outlook of physics, Second only to Newton.

[ottl2]

genius!

[reneloera]

Nadie comprende la teoría cuántica (Richard Feynman 1967)

[seunghwane]

this man is a God among men.

[AlexAnCapAdvocate]

For the life of me, I cannot figure out how it is, that there are not more people in the world like this man. There are certainly many great intellects, yet few have that quality that Feynman has. To just look at an everyday object or situation and to analyze it in an absract philisophical way, but a different 'kind' of philosophy - looking at the world from a scientific view, yet tying it in perfectly with observable beauty.

[zadeh79]

I never understood how Feynman 'only' had an IQ of 124.

[Guaguanco11]

Well perhaps this should tell you that intelligence is a very complicated thing and IQ tests are not the be all and end all of intelligence.

[DionysianAssassin]

You can say that again, IQ tests are incredibly misleading. A few of the things they fail to measure include; Imagination, Intuition, Introspection, Depth, Empathy, Insight, Independence of thought, Originality of thought, Wisdom, to touch but the surface of the issue.

[mr12333]

IQ tests are nothing but bullshit....to determine how smart you are, it all depends on how u spend you life, what you say, what you do, how sensible your are above of how you make the most of your life...THAT indicates intellgience

[Guaguanco11]

IQ tests are overated, but I don't think success is a good test of intelligence either. Intelligent people can be unsuccessful!

[crashtv]

I think you'd score very high on an IQ test like 60 or something ;) You can't even use the current english language correctly. I bet you say Haitch rather than aitch haha. Sorry, you are clearly a young male. Or female. I am Derek Acorah. Thank you.

[itsabomberscope]

Alfred Binet the inventor of the IQ test said this

"The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not super-posable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured."

"Some recent thinkers...(have claimed) that an individual's intelligence is a fixed quantity, a quantity that can't be increased. We must protest and react against this brutal pessimism; we must try to demonstrate that it is founded on nothing."

[danalan666]

That is one of those infamous persons I wish I could have had a dinner with.

[Fabricwarp]

Feynman, we need more like him. A true Legend.

[aysesagay]

richard feynman is a great brain!! I LOVE HIS BOOKS!

[crucius]

Richard Feynman is one of the greatest scientists of all time. I just LOVE him!

[jkov420]

Thanks for the upload! I'm going to check out the BBC interviews.

[y45y45]

hahaha lol

[lordcelio]

Great! I love feynman's books! he really has the right point of view about science!

[ottl2]

your right! i love his books and his character soooo much

[r299792458]

absolute legend

[simtech111]

This is one of several clips taken from a 1981 BBC interview. Many more can be found on the BBC website; the name of the progamme they're from is horizon.