[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 19 KB, 220x313, 220px-Unweaving_the_Rainbow,_first_edition.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14883452 No.14883452 [Reply] [Original]

>lmao dude science destroyed every last bit of wonder but that's okay cause I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE n shieet
>yea I mean Newton btfo'd the wonder of the rainbow by explaining it but you see now it's even more wonderful cause it's so boring and mundane

>> No.14883477

>understanding something makes it mundane and removes any sense of wonder
Is this how low IQ brainlets view the world?

>> No.14883494

>>14883477
Okay mid-IQ midwit, tell me what's so interesting about the rainbow in a materialist worldview

>> No.14883553

>>14883494
“I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is ... I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.”

― Richard P. Feynman

>> No.14883584

>>14883553
It subtracts because once you understand everything about your own perception and reaction to the flower, and once you understand why and how the emotion of "wonder" arises, there's no immediate, innocent emotional response anymore.
You cease to be taken in by an emotion and you become a detached observationist.

>> No.14883595

>>14883553
cells are not beautiful though, they are profoundly disturbing

>> No.14883601
File: 64 KB, 680x940, 1583670218766.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14883601

>>14883452
>‘After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn’t it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked-as I am surprisingly often-why I bother to get up in the mornings.’
— Richard Dawkins

>> No.14883642

>>14883584
I doubt you're saying this as some biochemist. You're imagining what it's like and asserting that imagination as fact.

Rather, everyone has that initial reaction. I could easily argue that this innocent emotional response is only experienced by children, that adults of any education lose it by the fact they've experienced it so many times in their life.

What the understanding nets you is still further wonders. The wonder of eons of evolution, of the fact that the genetic line that has created this flower has been interacting with the genetic line that created you for longer than you or the flower can even conceive of.

>>14883595
They are incredible micro-machines. Awe inspiring creations of nature that give rise even to your shitposts. "Fear of God is the beginning of all knowledge."

>> No.14883647

>>14883642
I'm fully aware of how incredible they are but that does not make them beautiful. Again it is absolutely disturbing that we are made of billions of minuscule squirming machine things.

>> No.14883652

>>14883647
I disagree, I find it beautiful that matter can exhibit such a fine structure.

>> No.14883654

>you have to be a retard to find things wonderful

>> No.14883656

>>14883584
>innocent
Yes, once you are learned, you are no longer naive.

However that emotional response is replaced by one much more mature, much deeper, and a great deal more satisfying. There's a nous-ness that is layered over it like a blanket, creating a snug feeling of appreciation that comes from having a deeper contextualization.

>> No.14883658

Reddit thinks that Dawkins is some 4chan type right wing nut

4chan things that Dawkins is some reddit suoybuoy atheist fag

How can one man be so based?

>> No.14883660

As a chemist knowing about nature only made me appreciate its simple beauty even more
Our current synthesis processes essentially consist of the equivalent of throwing two different bars of playdoh at each other and hoping we get something out of it
To realize how utterly optimized even the most basic of biological entities are is truly awakening

>> No.14883664

>>14883654
To be fair, retards ARE easily mystified. I suppose it's the smallness of some peoples' imaginations to think God cannot continue to impress them.

>> No.14883696

>>14883601
why isn’t the head thing gray too

>> No.14883729

>>14883656
Cope

>> No.14883751

>>14883642
But why are these things wonderful?
Dawkins would reply something like: "we evolved to find things around us beautiful to help us survive". That's kinda gay tbqh

>> No.14883974

Is he gay? I mean, come on.
>Dick Dock-ins

>> No.14883985

>>14883751
>But why are these things wonderful?

It's a good question. I can only provide you with a tautology: because they contain wonder.