read in Dutch translation by Thomas Nicolaas
I guess I chose to read this book in the context of this project to find out more about the historical biological roots of some of humans’ behaviour. But the historical context of this book itself prevents me from taking it seriously or even finishing it. After explaining the evolution of the human species as a Darwinian wet dream that could only be accepted as truth if you present it in a time frame that cannot be comprehended by the feeble human mind, it reads as such a blatant celebration and justification of the “succesful American male in the nineteen sixties” that I can’t bare to continue.
Sorry Mr. Morris, you may have been meaningful to the longhaired monkeys of your own era, but present-day naked apes don’t fall for that stuff so easily anymore. We have evolved. 😉
Posted on June 5, 2006 at 10:19 am
It actually makes me think that perhaps science as a method is just plain wrong. Nothing is as simple as science discribes it. Everything is ambiguous. And science is obsessed with facts but it ignores the actual experiences of humans. Art is far superior in talking about truth and reality. And far less constrained by time and place.
Probably because because to become meaningful, art requires the spectator. While science is supposedly pure and only needs the spectator for convincing him or her.
Posted on June 5, 2006 at 1:49 pm
I disagree. I believe Art has nothing to do with truth and reality!
It all depends on your definition of truth and reality of course. Since that’s very hard to do, I don’t tire myself with trying to find out what ‘the Truth’ would be. For me, Truth doesn’t exist – or rather, there’s no point in calling anything the Truth, since you’ll never be able to use it as such.
Science is all about describing simplified models, I agree with you on that. I like the methods of science, but not its goals. I like how scientists simplify situations, but not how they then extrapolate models to the real world.
Posted on June 5, 2006 at 1:56 pm
I always have the feeling that scientists, by simplifying, actually miss the essence. When they disect a human, they find no soul. When they travel through space, they find no god. Yet soul and god do exist. If only as ideas. Very influential ideas. Ideas that art can express. Art is at once the biggest lie and the biggest truth, at once completely artificial and the most real thing you can experience. Art is always about you, the spectator. And in terms of judging truth, “you” is the only thing that you know.
Posted on January 25, 2007 at 3:05 am
I recently read a book somewhat related to your comments called Life is a Miracle, by Wendell Berry. The title is kind of misleading, as it is mostly a criticism of the goals of science.
I would recommend it if you’re looking for a book to read. 🙂
Posted on November 20, 2009 at 4:29 am
Truth is, and always will be the opposite of a lie. That is what gives the word meaning. Truth does not negate imagination however, which is typically the root of indefatigable debate.
Posted on November 20, 2009 at 9:49 am
Some think life would be better of it were that simple. I tend to disagree.