# The Aesthetical Jesus, Part I **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 16, 2009, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611 "2009-05-16T03:40:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/41 "2009-05-19T07:35:23Z")
I don’t think it’s a disservice to the human mind to think all choices should be based on rationality alone. Though, to be clear, I don’t think aesthetics is inherently irrational. I don’t see anything wrong with weighing aesthetic criteria when making _some_ choices. It’s only irrational to use aesthetics as criteria in choices of _what to believe_. In fact, other than choices of what to believe (and I actually doubt that belief is a _choice_ anyway) I’m not sure any choice can be made without aesthetics playing a crucial role. At least, as far as I’m aware nobody has successfully managed to define ‘good’ and ‘bad’ without getting into aesthetics. The problem is when you allow aesthetics to influence your understanding of the world around you. It can be tempting to assume that things work in a way which is meaningful or moving to you, but if you allow your understanding of the world to be distorted in this way, no matter how aesthetically pleasing this may be to you, you will ultimately be less pleased with the results. Without being able to accurately predict the results of your actions, you will be less able to make choices which result in outcomes you find preferable, aesthetically or otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/42 "2009-05-19T07:44:34Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > I refer only to the scientific sense: as near as we can tell, all matter and energy is quite literally _nothing_. Simply bits of nothing moving very fast. And that’s is all we are in the material sense, and arguably in the spiritual. That is just…all kinds of wrong. Wrong about physics, wrong about spirituality too. > [@](#): > > You have said that you find the universe aesthetically pleasing: _elegant_ and beauitifully so in its fundamental simplicity and unity of design. No, that is distinctly \*not \*what I said. Elegant, yes, but elegant in its _complexity_, its chaotic disorder and emergent surprises, not any simplicity. No wonder you think I’m a mechanist. Far from it. I’m a chaotician. > [@](#): > > I can certainly imagine a much neater, more elegant universe. Neater, yes. That doesn’t make it more elegant, necessarily. > [@](#): > > Of course, one could feel anything at all about it, but those feelings have no scientific validity, and not even any spiritual one I don’t think we’re using one of two words in the same way - either valid or spiritual, I’m not sure which. > [@](#): > > I’m am not here to convince you, not today. Could have fooled me. > [@](#): > > Nature can only teach the lessons you already know: if you are an artist, you will see art. If you are a cruel man, you will see cruelty. If you are spiritual, you will see spirituality. Which is to say that nature does not teach anything at all. There is no truth in her. Platitudes. And, in my experience, wrong, too. Everything I know about complexity, I learned from rocks. > [@](#): > > I said it was cruelly kind and joking, but not a cruel joke. And the while the joke is divine, the cruelty is not. If not divine, then from where? If god made everything, why not from him? > [@](#): > > Are you sure? Yes, I am > [@](#): > > I can’t say for certain that it is or is not. I can say that many things within her do, and not limited to humanity. That doesn’t mean nature does. > [@](#): > > Yes, I know you are disagreeing with me. That’s why you are wrong. “I know you are, but what am I” is not much of an argument. > [@](#): > > I believe the self-evident fact is that I can tell you, based on the self-evident act that I just did. You can say it all you like, but that doesn’t make me feel it, which is what I meant by “tell me how to feel”. > [@](#): > > Although, I will relent: in strict truth I was actually noting that you contradicted yourself. Please, quote this contradiction. > [@](#): > > As I said, you strongly implied it. No, I flat-out said I am as emotional an atheist as a rational one, “if not more so”. If you get “mechanistic” from that, your reading comprehension sucks. > [@](#): > > I did not say it was a certainty. But if not, then what do you believe? That the Universe is non-deterministic, so not completely mechanist. That there is plenty of room for chaos and surprise. > [@](#): > > I do not believe love is an emotion, if that’s what you mean. …and they say I’m the one using my own definitions for words! > [@](#): > > An emotion, a feeling - it cannot be right or wrong. I disagree. It can be wrong (in the sense of “based on misinformation or formed by an illness” > [@](#): > > There is no pity in your words: contempt is not pity. It is the exact opposite of pity. Pity is humility, and even love. There is no humility in pity. And I love everyone just a little. > [@](#): > > But you have naked contempt for me Now you’re projecting from my (wrongly perceived) attitude to you, specifically, to my attitude to all proselytizers. Not a coherent argument. Aslo, note that wishing you to drop your delusion is emphatically not a hostile act on my part, it is one of love. > [@](#): > > Ah, but as near as I can tell from what you yourself have said, those concepts cannot be right or wrong under your beliefs. They may be incorrect if they assert certain scientific facts which are incorrect, but they cannot be incorrect values, for nothing in nature demands any of them to be true or false. Where in anything I have written have I used nature as the standard for making moral judgements? You’re projecting again. > [@](#): > > Humans can hold them or not, but they cannot be good or evil for doing so. Since good and evil are human constructs, yes, they can be. Because we decide they are. More specifically, because I decide they are. I need no external justification for this judgement, and I only need any justification if I wish to convince others of my belief. Thankfully, in the case of the three I mentioned, this work is already done. > [@](#): > > If, however, you have some claim to truth which does not allow them, please present (in another thread if you wish, and I shall try to respond). You want me to start a thread defending the stance that sexism, slavery and homophobia are wrong? Gods, man, I still have to do some \*work \*this week. > [@](#): > > Lastly, speaking as to your definition of atheist, you must also recognize that if you refuse to define your concepts (both in the immediate sense of this conversation and the universal sense internal to you), then we are not going to get very far, and furthermore, you can hardly criticize us for our beliefs without contradicting yourself. Which is why I am more than happy to define them over and over again. > [@](#): > > Thus, I must respectfully ask you to define them reasonably tightly in order to continue. What would you like defined? A atheist is someone who lacks belief in any god or who actively disbelieves in the possibility of existence of any god. A Classic Atheist is an atheist who also would disdain the idea of divine rule or the worship of a god, even if the existence of gods is accepted. See also _[goðlauss](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrafnkels_saga)_, lest we get hung up on this being just a Hellenistic thing. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/43 "2009-05-19T14:40:12Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > That is just…all kinds of wrong. Wrong about physics, wrong about spirituality too. I’m afraid you are apparently incorrect there. The most accurate known theories suggest that energy and matter are essentially distrorted space (i.e., nothing). I will grant it cannot be proven outright, and may be never be proven. > [@](#): > > No, that is distinctly \*not \*what I said. Elegant, yes, but elegant in its _complexity_, its chaotic disorder and emergent surprises, not any simplicity. That is almost the opposite of the word elegant, unless you are deliberately using the vaguest and least useful meaning of the term. 1. tastefully fine or luxurious in dress, style, design, etc.: elegant furnishings. 2. **gracefully refined and dignified** , as in tastes, habits, or literary style: an elegant young gentleman; an elegant prosodist. 3. **graceful in form or movement** : an elegant wave of the hand. 4. **appropriate to refined taste** : a man devoted to elegant pursuits. 5. excellent; fine; superior: an absolutely elegant wine. 6. (of scientific, technical, or mathematical theories, solutions, etc.) gracefully **concise and _simple_; admirably succinct**. The universe, frankly, is none of these. It is a ridiculously complex thing, arising from unknown sources. Any judgements about (aesthetical judtgements) are neccessarily personal or universal. If personal, they have no validity beyond opinion. If universal, they must have a standard of value to which they appeal. > [@](#): > > What would you like defined? A atheist is someone who lacks belief in any god or who actively disbelieves in the possibility of existence of any god. A Classic Atheist is an atheist who also would disdain the idea of divine rule or the worship of a god, even if the existence of gods is accepted. See also _[goðlauss](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrafnkels_saga)_, lest we get hung up on this being just a Hellenistic thing. Perhaps. But you evidently believe your values and beliefs are not merely opinions but correct ones. That is, you have a standard of value you believe correct to judge by. I would very much like to know the source of said value. Second, you claim to be an atheist but disdain the term mechamicstic (functionally equivalent to materialist). > [@](#): > > You want me to start a thread defending the stance that sexism, slavery and homophobia are wrong? Gods, man, I still have to do some work this week. \ No, sir. I want you to explain from what you derive the specific belief or opinion that these things are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/44 "2009-05-19T15:17:45Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > I’m afraid you are apparently incorrect there. The most accurate known theories suggest that energy and matter are essentially distrorted space (i.e., nothing). Space is _not_ nothing. > [@](#): > > That is almost the opposite of the word elegant, unless you are deliberately using the vaguest and least useful meaning of the term. I am using it as a synonym for beautiful. That’s hardly vague or useless in a discussion of aesthetics. > [@](#): > > If personal, they have no validity beyond opinion. If universal, they must have a standard of value to which they appeal. Opinion is valid, especially in a discussion of aesthetics. I’m not claiming a universal standard here. > [@](#): > > Perhaps. But you evidently believe your values and beliefs are not merely opinions but correct ones. That is, you have a standard of value you believe correct to judge by. I would very much like to know the source of said value. My mind. > [@](#): > > Second, you claim to be an atheist but disdain the term mechamicstic (functionally equivalent to materialist). Not so. The determinism implicit in “mechanist” is not a necessary part of “materialist”. > [@](#): > > \ No, sir. I want you to explain from what you derive the specific belief or opinion that these things are wrong. My mind. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/45 "2009-05-19T15:35:49Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I should add,\*\* Lib\*\*, if you will allow me to pre-empt your witnessing, that I am an atheist for aesthetic reasons just as much as I am for rationalist/materialist ones, if not more so. I very much appreciate that. Truly. In fact, I would have held it as axiomatic that you do. > [@](#): > > A universe without deity is more elegant to me. I’m not a blind cheerleader of humanity by any means, but the Human Story? That’s a different matter entirely. Our minds - such devices! They lie to us all the time, fill in sensory input we never actually had, create meaning _ex nihilo_, and yet the whole thing works! This wonderful emergent … _thing_ that is me never ceases to excite, interest and amuse me. And _other_ people - endlessly fascinating. A god would just clutter the Universe needlessly. Aesthetically inelegant, boring even. Prosaic. Pedestrian. A tired motif as outdated as bustles or Vaudeville. Because of your first sentence, I would say that elegance is something you value greatly. By my definition of aesthetics, then, you would hold a “universe without deity” to be something of great value and therefore aesthetically valuable. Two other main matters need to be addressed, I think. One, the question of whether sensory input is required to evaluate the value of a thing. For the purpose of this introductory thread, I won’t disagree with you. In fact, let’s take the case of a man who values philanthropy. I will allow that, even though there is not necessarily anything involved in the (pardon the pun) sense of sight, hearing, touch, taste, or smell, we can say that the man derives a certain contentment that is at the very least _emotionally_ satisfying, which is in fact the thing he values — emotional satisfaction. He merely derives it through philanthropy. And I will allow, at this point in the discussion, that the philanthropist fulfills the “emotional” contingency that you wanted to attach. Another matter to address at this point is TWDuke’s rather unhelpful quip that “So I guess Part 2 is where you give your own special definition of ‘Jesus,’” suggesting, at least to me, that borrowing terms for specialized fields from the vernacular and redefining them is somehow wrong or new or unique to me. But the fact is that disciplines (including science) borrow common terms all the time, and redefine them for a specific use. This is done so we don’t have to make up new words every time we need them, like calling what Newton quantified “xackar” instead of “force”. Force had never before meant mass times acceleration. In fact, according the the Online Etymology Dictionary, its original usage in English was as a verb, meaning “to ravish (a woman)”, taken from the Latin word “fortis”, meaning “strong”. Since then, the term “force” has been borrowed by just about everybody under the sun. Here are Google’s findings from its web definitions crawler: [ul] [li]a powerful effect or influence; “the force of his eloquence easily persuaded them” [/li][li]coerce: to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means :“She forced him to take a job in the city”; “He squeezed her for information” [/li]li the influence that produces a change in a physical quantity; “force equals mass times acceleration” [/li][li]impel: urge or force (a person) to an action; constrain or motivate [/li][li]physical energy or intensity; “he hit with all the force he could muster”; “it was destroyed by the strength of the gale”; “a government has not the vitality and forcefulness of a living man” [/li][li]push: move with force, “He pushed the table into a corner” [/li][li]group of people willing to obey orders; “a public force is necessary to give security to the rights of citizens” [/li][li]impose urgently, importunately, or inexorably; “She forced her diet fads on him” [/li][li]military unit: a unit that is part of some military service; “he sent Caesar a force of six thousand men” [/li][li]wedge: squeeze like a wedge into a tight space; “I [forced] myself into the corner” [/li][li]violence: an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists); “he may accomplish by craft in the long run what he cannot do by force and violence in the short one” [/li][li]force into or from an action or state, either physically or metaphorically; “She rammed her mind into focus”; “He drives me mad” [/li][li]power: one possessing or exercising power or influence or authority; “the mysterious presence of an evil power”; “may the force be with you”; “the forces of evil” [/li][li]pull: cause to move by pulling; “draw a wagon”; “pull a sled” [/li][li]a group of people having the power of effective action; “he joined forces with a band of adventurers”[/ul][/li]And Google’s list doesn’t even include the sense of the word in baseball (“a force play”) or in law (“the force of law”). And so the physics usage of the term was brand new at the time. It had never before meant mass times acceleration. Had TWDuke been Newton’s contemporary, he might have sneered, “And for your next trick, I suppose you will redefine ‘gravity’”. Quite honestly, I have to say that anyone unconvinced of or unfamiliar with the absolutely commonplace practice of redefining borrowed words for specialized disciplines like science and philosophy has not read enough and is not knowledgeable enough to participate in the discussion at a level of maturity necessary for the discussion to make sense. And so, I will ignore further such random and ignorant quips. But one more matter I would like to deal with is Sage Rat’s goat shit comment. It was rude, certainly, but at least somewhat better informed than TWDuke’s remark. His comment that “If you’d say that goat shit is indeed aesthetically pleasing, then I’d have to point out two things…” simply reveals that fact that he did not read the OP, or that he read into it things that weren’t there. I never said anything about aesthetics dealing with pleasure, other than to attribute that sort of use of the term to Ayn Rand. For her, aesthetics was all about what gave her pleasure. But for Schopenhauer, aesthetics was all about what gave him pain. And different philosophers have made different usages of the term. For my purposes, goat shit is aesthetically “pleasing” to those who hold it to have value (perhaps it is a source of income for fertilizers,) and aesthetically “painful” for those who hold it to have no value (perhaps they believe it stinks too much). So, here’s the short of it. I am willing to engage in discussion with anyone who will use the term “aesthetics” in the way I defined it, just so we don’t have to make up a new term like “xackar”. If no one is interested in discussing the topic of aesthetics as the assignment of value, then I’ll continue witnessing in a second part thread. But if someone is interested, then let’s have a go at a good discussion. I would say, incidentally, that the discussion has moved way off track and might not be salvageable at this point anyway. If that’s the case, I don’t mind if others take over and discuss something besides what was my interest. I can start another thread. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/46 "2009-05-19T15:53:18Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > For my purposes, goat shit is aesthetically “pleasing” to those who hold it to have value (perhaps it is a source of income for fertilizers,) and aesthetically “painful” for those who hold it to have no value (perhaps they believe it stinks too much). > > So, here’s the short of it. I am willing to engage in discussion with anyone who will use the term “aesthetics” in the way I defined it, just so we don’t have to make up a new term like “xackar”. I’d be willing to go with your definition for the purposes of debate, but I don’t think i’d agree with your first example - I don’t think any kind of value results in an aesthetic component. I don’t think i’d consider a practical value (as with a source of income) to be aesthetically anything. But i’m not necessarily sure I can back that one up, so if you can convince me i’d be very interested in hearing an argument for it. Anyway; > [@](#): > > One, the question of whether sensory input is required to evaluate the value of a thing. For the purpose of this introductory thread, I won’t disagree with you. In fact, let’s take the case of a man who values philanthropy. I will allow that, even though there is not necessarily anything involved in the (pardon the pun) sense of sight, hearing, touch, taste, or smell, we can say that the man derives a certain contentment that is at the very least emotionally satisfying, which is in fact the thing he values — emotional satisfaction. He merely derives it through philanthropy. And I will allow, at this point in the discussion, that the philanthropist fulfills the “emotional” contingency that you wanted to attach. Couldn’t an entirely imaginary input also be aesthetically pleasing (or painful)? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/47 "2009-05-19T16:11:16Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > One, the question of whether sensory input is required to evaluate the value of a thing. Let’s stop there. I think it’s also possible to have an aesthetic appreciation of your own internal mind state, which is why I included the “emotional value” definition as well as the “sensory/perception value” one. I sometimes think the world inside each of our minds is as vast as that outside, and within it, we use the same tools to evaluate our thoughts that we also use on our senses. Aesthetics being one of those. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/48 "2009-05-19T17:25:06Z")
The phrase gets thrown around a lot these days, but I made the mistake of reading this thread while eating and I literally almost threw up a bit in my mouth. If the word is to have any relation to its English meaning, then I submit that due to its oralemigenic properties, goat excrement is not aesthetical. ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/49 "2009-05-19T19:18:05Z")
> [@TWDuke](#): > > So I guess Part 2 is where you give your own special definition of “Jesus.” > > Can you use this new version of “aesthetics” in a sentence that would demonstrate how it differs from “evaluation” and “value,” because I for one don’t understand what it is you think you’re saying. > [@Liberal](#): > > Another matter to address at this point is TWDuke’s rather unhelpful quip that “So I guess Part 2 is where you give your own special definition of ‘Jesus,’” suggesting, at least to me, that borrowing terms for specialized fields from the vernacular and redefining them is somehow wrong or new or unique to me. But the fact is that disciplines (including science) borrow common terms all the time, and redefine them for a specific use. > > This is done so we don’t have to make up new words every time we need them, like calling what Newton quantified “xackar” instead of “force”. Force had never before meant mass times acceleration. In fact, according the the Online Etymology Dictionary, its original usage in English was as a verb, meaning “to ravish (a woman)”, taken from the Latin word “fortis”, meaning “strong”. > > Since then, the term “force” has been borrowed by just about everybody under the sun. Here are Google’s findings from its web definitions crawler: > > [ul] > [li]a powerful effect or influence; “the force of his eloquence easily persuaded them” [/li][li]coerce: to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means :“She forced him to take a job in the city”; “He squeezed her for information” [/li]li the influence that produces a change in a physical quantity; “force equals mass times acceleration” [/li][li]impel: urge or force (a person) to an action; constrain or motivate [/li][li]physical energy or intensity; “he hit with all the force he could muster”; “it was destroyed by the strength of the gale”; “a government has not the vitality and forcefulness of a living man” [/li][li]push: move with force, “He pushed the table into a corner” [/li][li]group of people willing to obey orders; “a public force is necessary to give security to the rights of citizens” [/li][li]impose urgently, importunately, or inexorably; “She forced her diet fads on him” [/li][li]military unit: a unit that is part of some military service; “he sent Caesar a force of six thousand men” [/li][li]wedge: squeeze like a wedge into a tight space; “I [forced] myself into the corner” [/li][li]violence: an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists); “he may accomplish by craft in the long run what he cannot do by force and violence in the short one” [/li][li]force into or from an action or state, either physically or metaphorically; “She rammed her mind into focus”; “He drives me mad” [/li][li]power: one possessing or exercising power or influence or authority; “the mysterious presence of an evil power”; “may the force be with you”; “the forces of evil” [/li][li]pull: cause to move by pulling; “draw a wagon”; “pull a sled” [/li][li]a group of people having the power of effective action; “he joined forces with a band of adventurers”[/ul][/li]And Google’s list doesn’t even include the sense of the word in baseball (“a force play”) or in law (“the force of law”). > > And so the physics usage of the term was brand new at the time. It had never before meant mass times acceleration. Had TWDuke been Newton’s contemporary, he might have sneered, “And for your next trick, I suppose you will redefine ‘gravity’”. > > Quite honestly, I have to say that anyone unconvinced of or unfamiliar with the absolutely commonplace practice of redefining borrowed words for specialized disciplines like science and philosophy has not read enough and is not knowledgeable enough to participate in the discussion at a level of maturity necessary for the discussion to make sense. 1. Personal insults rarely make for effective witnessing. 2. You do not have the credibility of Isaac Newton. No, that is not a personal insult. Few people do. 3. “Force” frequently appeared in, for example, the works of Shakespeare with a meaning not altogether different from the way Newton used it. Newton could have chosen any number of words, such as “poodle,” “grandfather,” or “thingy,” but he chose one that would mean to his readers the same thing it meant to him. 4. A list from Google of how a word is commonly used has nothing to do with arbitrarily redefining a word to mean something it does not mean to anyone else and then trying to build an argument (which has yet to manifest itself) around that definition. 5. So much time and effort devoted to the first sentence of my post and not one word in answer to the rest. I was not clear on why you would create a new definition for common words instead of using another common word that might more effectively communicate that meaning. I now feel that effective communication (in the sense of communication that informs or persuades) was not your goal, which leads me to wonder what you meant by “witnessing,” but I know better than to ask. > [@](#): > > And so, I will ignore further such random and ignorant quips. My quip may not have been to your liking, but it was neither random nor ignorant. Those words have meaning too. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/50 "2009-05-19T20:28:13Z")
> [@TWDuke](#): > > 1. A list from Google of how a word is commonly used has nothing to do with arbitrarily redefining a word to mean something it does not mean to anyone else and then trying to build an argument (which has yet to manifest itself) around that definition. I second wanting to see an argument manifest itself. Letting the thread cruise on undirected is of course **Liberal** ’s perogative, but it leaves me wondering A) why should we care that he makes (and witnesses about) a peculiar conflation of utility and esthetic appeal, and B) what in the name of the holy sainted mother of cheese does any of that have to do with Jesus? I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to learn that the thread’s title was an oblique reference to some classical god-existence-proof that I’ve ever heard of, and I completely expect somebody to come rub my face in my ignorance of it at any moment. Fair enough! But could somebody a least tell us unwashed masses what the heck the OP is _talking_ about! ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/51 "2009-05-19T20:54:20Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > One, the question of whether sensory input is required to evaluate the value of a thing. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Let’s stop there. I think it’s also possible to have an aesthetic appreciation of your own internal mind state, which is why I included the “emotional value” definition as well as the “sensory/perception value” one. I sometimes think the world inside each of our minds is as vast as that outside, and within it, we use the same tools to evaluate our thoughts that we also use on our senses. Aesthetics being one of those. One or both of you seem to think you have some knowledge of your own internal mind state which does not come through perception. I’m curious as to how you think that could be. By what mechanism can you evaluate your own internal mind state if not through perception of it? As for the redefining of the word aesthetics, I see nothing wrong with doing so in the service of making a point clear. It’s common, in the course of an argument or explanation, to refer to a subtle or complex concept using a word which doesn’t usually mean exactly that. There’s nothing wrong with doing so as long as you make it clear what you mean when you use the word. The problem here is that **Liberal** seems to have offered his own definition of a word for no reason. Hey great, if you ever get around to part 2 we’ll have a slightly better idea of what you’re trying to say when you use that word, but other than that what’s the point? There’s no discussion to be had on the issue of the redefinition itself, Your definition doesn’t extend to what _other people_ mean when they use the word so why should we care about your definition unless you’re actually _USING_ it for something? There is absolutely no purpose to this thread without a part 2 where this word is actually used to communicate something meaningful. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/52 "2009-05-19T22:55:44Z")
Aesthetics in Philosophy: [one viewpoint](http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophybranches/p/Aesthetics.htm). ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/53 "2009-05-19T23:05:30Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Aesthetics in Philosophy: [one viewpoint](http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophybranches/p/Aesthetics.htm). Thank you. Interesting. That page seems completely incompatible pholosophically speaking to Liberal’s redefinition wherein he lumps all kinds of value into aesthetics, though, on account of atheists create _lots_ of things with value, so if that’s art, then there’s plenty of atheist art. So I suspect that’s not what he was talking about. I also think that page misses the rather obvious and (to it’s point) critical fact that there isn’t atheist art because atheism isn’t a “something”, it’s a “lack-of-something”. There are piles of non-religious art on various topics - which is inevatibly the sort of art that atheists would create because a picture of “lack of a god” that wasn’t a picture of something else instead would be pretty boring (and comes pre-printed on every freshly-created piece of paper anyway). ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/54 "2009-05-19T23:44:15Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I also think that page misses the rather obvious and (to it’s point) critical fact that there isn’t atheist art because atheism isn’t a “something”, it’s a “lack-of-something”. Nope. You’ve conflated two issues, here. You are correct that the oft-heard cry from various believers that atheism is a religion or a belief on no-god is in error. A simple lack of belief is all that is necessary for atheism. You are wrong, however, in claiming (first) that there is no atheist art and (second) in basing that on the idea that atheism is a “lack” of anything. Obviously, there is no religious art that would picture people worshipping "nothing’ (_a la_ [Gahan Wilson](http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/0312437072/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_0?ie=UTF8&index=0)), but there is far more to art than representational painting and there is actually a lot of atheist art. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2009, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/55 "2009-05-19T23:51:16Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Nope. You’ve conflated two issues, here. > > You are correct that the oft-heard cry from various believers that atheism is a religion or a belief on no-god is in error. A simple lack of belief is all that is necessary for atheism. > > You are wrong, however, in claiming (first) that there is no atheist art and (second) in basing that on the idea that atheism is a “lack” of anything. Obviously, there is no religious art that would picture people worshipping "nothing’ (_a la_ [Gahan Wilson](http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/0312437072/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_0?ie=UTF8&index=0)), but there is far more to art than representational painting and there is actually a lot of atheist art. Um, unless I’m misreading, _that page_ was asserting that there was little or no atheist art, and making its case based entirely on that assertion. So perhaps your correction should have been directed at them, not me? If somebody wants to label various secular art as atheist art, good on them - that _also_ would undermine the website’s argument. But even if you don’t do that, they’re still making a serious interpretational error by looking at the situation and saying (essentially), “Look at all the pretty pictures of Christ, and look at the lack of pretty pictures of Atheismo, tch tch, those ahteists should really get a little more appreciation for beauty.” ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/56 "2009-05-20T07:24:19Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > One or both of you seem to think you have some knowledge of your own internal mind state which does not come through perception. I’m curious as to how you think that could be. By what mechanism can you evaluate your own internal mind state if not through perception of it? Not just perception - _sensory_ perception. I do not use my 6 senses to evaluate my internal thoughts. I may use \*simulacra \*of these (as in dreams), but its not the same. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/57 "2009-05-20T08:59:08Z")
If your evaluation of your internal thoughts isn’t based on sensory perception, what kind of perception is it based on? E.S.P.? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/58 "2009-05-20T10:32:31Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > If your evaluation of your internal thoughts isn’t based on sensory perception, what kind of perception is it based on? E.S.P.? Virtual perception. The recreation in my mind of images not directly based on what my sense organs are receiving at that time. You can say this is based on previous perception, but it is still _at that moment_ decoupled from my senses. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/59 "2009-05-20T10:42:56Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > If your evaluation of your internal thoughts isn’t based on sensory perception, what kind of perception is it based on? E.S.P.? Hmm. Is me knowing my thoughts based on anything but thinking them? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2009, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611/60 "2009-05-20T11:18:36Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Hmm. Is me knowing my thoughts based on anything but thinking them? Yes, perceiving them. That’s the difference between a consciously apprehended thought and the subconscious rumblings of your average mind. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-aesthetical-jesus-part-i/496611.md?page=4)