This is a slice of my philosophical, lay scientific, musical, religious skepticism, and poetic musings. (All poems are my own.)
The science and philosophy side meet in my study of cognitive philosophy; Dan Dennett was the first serious influence on me, but I've moved beyond him.
The poems are somewhat related, as many are on philosophical or psychological themes. That includes existentialism and questions of selfhood, death, and more. Nature and other poems will also show up here on occasion.
Since I don't post here as often as my main blog, I don't do a monthly update of the most-read items.
But, I do post a quarterly roundup, and here we go.
With all of them, I'll have a bit of explainer, but more with ones more than a few months old, as well as nothing their original time provenance, etc.
No. 10? Aeon, in a piece puffing John Rawls and puffing the author's new book about Rawls, ignored that, at the time, Walter Kaufmann crushed Rawls. I helped Aeon out.
No. 9? From not quite a year ago, with the help of Paul Davidson of "Is That in the Bible?", I riffed on Idan Dershowitz about the development of the book of Deuteronomy and other things.
No. 8? From more than a year ago, but timely for upcoming US elections, I talked about fascism in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.
No. 7? A recent book review. Tim Alberta's "The Kingdom, The Power, and The Glory" was sadly lacking in several areas, above all, a failure to discuss eschatology, millennialism and US support for Israel.
No. 5? Back to biblical criticism, and again, bank-shotting off Davidson. My "Paul, Passover, Jesus, Gnosticism" piece from back in 2009 takes a critical look at 1 Corinthians 11 and the institution of the Eucharist by Paul.
No. 4 is my takedown of Chris(sy) Hanson, someone who isn't totally what they claim, but with whom the AcademicBiblical subreddit is infatuated.
A couple of weeks ago, while on vacation, I was hiking the Grove of
Titans trail at Jedidiah Smith Redwoods State Park. I was coming back to
the trailhead, when a young lady, I'm guessing early 20s, perhaps late
teens, asked me, "Isn't this the most beautiful spot in the world?" or
something very similar.
(My photo from a different spot on the trail.)
It was quite a nice spot. And, since the
various state parks in the Redwood State and National were created
before the national park, they arguably have the best lands within the
system.
That said, per the old Latin phrase, de gustibus non
disputandum, this is to some degree a subjective question. Having stared
at Lake Louise as well as hiked to one of those tea houses at Banff
National Park, I'd offer that as one option off the top of my head. Or
Bear Lake and nearby at Rocky Mountain National Park, especially when
the lotus pads are in bloom. Or a sunset on the ocean strip of Olympic National Park. Or, outside of national parks entirely, one
of the aspen groves and surrounding land on Grand Mesa. Or, speaking of sunsets, one out over the ocean at Big Sur.
Or inland, a sunset at a national wildlife refuge 30 miles away.
Author photo, Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge
Those are just off the top of my head.
So, what does constitute the best of natural beauty?
Savannah-like areas are definitely pleasing to the human eye, perhaps in part due to evolutionary heritage. But, none of the places I mentioned above, nor others that flit into my mind like Painted Rocks National Lakeshore, are close to savannah in nature. Well, I'll modify that. Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge is fairly close.
Is it that they are that much different from savannah that makes them beautiful? What about the presence of water? That redwood grove didn't have it. Bear Lake does, and of course, there are many cataracts and falls in Rocky. Obviously, the Pacific Ocean and Lake Superior are covered. But Grand Mesa is similar to the land of the redwoods. That said, both sites have fairly large meadow areas that intrude into the forest. Neither one is the Black Forest on steroids.
What about deserts? For whatever reason, a place like Artist's Palette at Death Valley didn't spring into mind when I talked to this young lady, and I pondered about it even now.
Artist's Palette, author photo.
There's also the matter of personal background and experience. The young lady was from Los Angeles, where any site with that level of lush greenery would flash "beautiful." Someone from Washington State or British Columbia might have a more subdued, while yet interested, feeling.
That might be even more true in places in Redwood State and National where redwoods don't predominate. As in, walking along Prairie Creek, in Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park.
One will notice I mentioned one place above that not only is not a U.S. national park, it's not even a part of the National Park Service. That's of course Jedidiah Smith Redwoods State Park.
Well, others I mentioned aren't part of the national park service. Hagerman NWR is US Fish and Wildlife Service. Grand Mesa, or another great area, land north of Steamboat Springs, Colorado, is US Forest Service. So is "the Bob," the Bob Marshall Wilderness beloved of Montanans.
Jedidiah Smith isn't US government land at all of course, but California State Parks.
Big Morongo Preserve, beloved West Coast birding Mecca, isn't even state land; it's county-level.
While not denigrating US national parks, or those in other countries, nor trying to get into a philosophical demarcation issue of what should constitute a national park, as well as what should constitute an idea of beauty, I personally don't fetishize national parks.
Here's my take
on fakery in aesthetics at philosopher Massimo Pigliucci's new
long-form science and philosophy site. I already have a follow-up on
this issue in the works, and hope to do some other occasional writing
there.
The follow-up will be about the work of developing
artists as public intellectuals. As such, it will focus on funding, via
the National Endowment of the Arts and other organizations, better K-12
arts programs, within the context of improved academics in general, and
more.
Love is not beauty. Love is not sex. Beauty is formed in the eye of a loving beholder. But itself cannot create love instead of lust. Love is more than sex, and extends and exists beyond it; And even better without it at times.
Beauty is not sex. Beauty is not love. Many people, at swingers’ parties and clubs Have engaged in sex when not beautiful, or with those not beautiful And many beautiful people either cannot or will not Find or give love.
Sex is not love. Sex is not beauty. As John Holmes said, without love Sex is but mutual masturbation. And we have plenty of mutual masturbators, as well as solo ones, In our world. And sex doesn’t make me, or a partner Any more beautiful in and of itself.
Apparently experimental economists have either never heard of, or are totally clueless about, the old maxim de gustibus non disputandum,; otherwise, we wouldn’t have nutbar experiments like this, trying to determine which of AC/DC’s two lead singers, Brian Johnson or Bon Scott, is better on the basis of student’s economic efficiency while listening to each one of them.
As I posted on Washington Monthly, where I first read this:
Look at the world of classical music and try this same experiment. I'm sure I would be more economically efficient listening to Leopold Mozart than to Stravinsky, due to Stravinsky's dissonance, instrumental timbre combinations, polyrhythms, etc.
