Little kids can be smart too! | The Coffeehouse

Massif
aim stupidly high, expect to fail often.

Minh wrote:

No they're not.

Yes they are, admit it.

Minh wrote:

Once food, shelter, & security is taken care of, we need something else to occupy our minds.

Yes, Luxuries. Once food, shelter, security and health are taken care of the rest is just for the sake of luxury.

Minh wrote:

We do care about arts, science, sports, etc... because we need to. I don't think it's a conscious deciscion to strive for things beyond minimal energy expenditures. We're probably hard-wired to do so.

The Arts Are NOT a Luxury. They are inevitable.

The inevitability of the arts doesn't mean they're not a luxury.

I would say that simply labelling them as "a luxury" and then using that label to justify not spending on the arts is shortsighted and foolish in the extreme. Frankly education is pretty much a luxury (it's a sliding scale people - do you need to read to live?) but you wouldn't skimp on it to save a few pounds.

Anyway, that's off topic. Kids are awesome!

Rory
Free Tibet While Supplies Last

Minh wrote:

Rory wrote: It's like the bumper sticker: "The Arts Are NOT a Luxury."

Wel... actually, they are.

No they're not.

Once food, shelter, & security is taken care of, we need something else to occupy our minds.

We do care about arts, science, sports, etc... because we need to. I don't think it's a conscious deciscion to strive for things beyond minimal energy expenditures. We're probably hard-wired to do so.

The Arts Are NOT a Luxury. They are inevitable.

The arts are a luxury.

Do you need them to survive? No.

If art is taken away, will you die? No.

The arts are a luxury.

Can you eat arts? Can you breathe arts?

I suppose arts could potentially be used to shelter you in a storm, but then they cease to be arts and become shelter instead.

The arts are a luxury.

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

Rory wrote:

The arts are a luxury.

Do you need them to survive? No.

Me, personally? No.

Humanity as a whole, I think the answer is also, no. Even the Spartans have arts. I would say, it's part of our DNA.

Rory wrote:

If art is taken away, will you die? No.

Me, personally? Yes.

Humanity as a whole, I think the answer is also yes.

Rory wrote:

The arts are a luxury.

Can you eat arts? Can you breathe arts?

I suppose arts could potentially be used to shelter you in a storm, but then they cease to be arts and become shelter instead.

The arts are a luxury.

That's taking "luxury" to a trivial definition. Is clean air & water a luxury? You technically can live w/ dirty air & water.

Arts is the clean air of the human experience.

SecretSoftware
Code to live, but Live to code.

Its not really about smarts. its about Repeating, or doing things by examples. Just like monkes would imitate someone. Only humans are better at it at a young age.

JohnAskew
9 girl in pink sweater

The way little children experience time is so very different from us adults.

20 minutes to them is like 5 hours to us.

So imitation and open-mindedness are at all time highs.

Art is what we define it to be.

What about "the art of hunting"? Is that not a survival skill?

Once you re-define Art to mean "only those things we can live without, most often luxury items" then I will agree it is non-essential, else I have to disagree, noting that survival itself is a form and work of Art.

AdamKinney
Agent of Change

JohnAskew wrote:
The way little children experience time is so very different from us adults.

20 minutes to them is like 5 hours to us.

That's awesome, this statement just triggered the memory of those summers that lasted forever. The summer came in three extended parts - the ecstatic beginning right after school, the serene middle of time without meaning and the end where you tried to fit in everything you hadn't done yet before school started. Good memories.

Rory
Free Tibet While Supplies Last

Minh wrote:

Rory wrote:

The arts are a luxury.

Do you need them to survive? No.

Me, personally? No.

Humanity as a whole, I think the answer is also, no. Even the Spartans have arts. I would say, it's part of our DNA.

OK. You're agreeing with me so far.

Minh wrote:

Rory wrote:
If art is taken away, will you die? No.

Me, personally? Yes.

Humanity as a whole, I think the answer is also yes.

You would not die without art. Nor would humanity.

You would die without food and water.

Shelter, too, depending on where you live.

Art? Please explain to me how not having art would kill someone.

Minh wrote:

Rory wrote:
The arts are a luxury.

Can you eat arts? Can you breathe arts?

I suppose arts could potentially be used to shelter you in a storm, but then they cease to be arts and become shelter instead.

The arts are a luxury.
That's taking "luxury" to a trivial definition. Is clean air & water a luxury? You technically can live w/ dirty air & water.

A luxury is, by definition, something which is nonessential.

The definition of nonessential is not necessary.

The definition of necessary is required.

That would mean that, if not a luxury, the arts would be required, necessary, and essential.

However, since you don't need them to survive, they are not required, necessary, or essential.

The arts are a luxury.

Kevin Daly
Of course it *looks* like my nick is just my name, but actually, well, it's just my name.

Rory wrote:

A luxury is, by definition, something which is nonessential.

The definition of nonessential is not necessary.

The definition of necessary is required.

That would mean that, if not a luxury, the arts would be required, necessary, and essential.

However, since you don't need them to survive, they are not required, necessary, or essential.

The arts are a luxury.

The arts may or may not be a luxury, but your reasoning is open to debate: you define "required, necessary and essential" in a very narrow sense as equating to things you need to survive...but is survival adequate in itself?
If all we do is survive, what was the point in evolving past the level of little wormy things blissfully ignorant of their own insignificance, and never troubled by the slightest trace of existential angst (or any other kind of angst. Or angst-related conditions)?

Survival is a prerequisite for everything else that involves being alive, but many of us would regard survival as inadequate in itself, leading to things which add more to our existence than just survival being regarded as essential.

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

Rory wrote:

Minh wrote:
Me, personally? No.

Humanity as a whole, I think the answer is also, no. Even the Spartans have arts. I would say, it's part of our DNA.

OK. You're agreeing with me so far.

Believe it or not, when I typed "no" there, I meant "yes". Tongue Out

Rory wrote:

You would not die without art. Nor would humanity.

You would die without food and water.

Shelter, too, depending on where you live.

Art? Please explain to me how not having art would kill someone.

Given enough security & calories, we have no choice but to explore things outside of survival ... such as the arts. You take a person, who's been fed, inside a nice shelter, and say, "now, don't do anything else." He would go insane.

Your definition of "luxury" says that these are the things you don't have to do. My definition of "arts" is, these are the things we have to do beyond survival. Arts is a reflex, like a twitching knee. And like sports, science, drama, and other non-survival stuff.

Rory wrote:

A luxury is, by definition, something which is nonessential.

The definition of nonessential is not necessary.

The definition of necessary is required.

That would mean that, if not a luxury, the arts would be required, necessary, and essential.

However, since you don't need them to survive, they are not required, necessary, or essential.

The arts are a luxury.

If it is such a non-essential, why has it survive through out of human history, from the hand-paintings in a cave, to The Red Hot Chili Peppers' "Scar Tissue" and beyond? Seems essential to SOMEbody.

Massif
aim stupidly high, expect to fail often.

Minh wrote:

If it is such a non-essential, why has it survive through out of human history, from the hand-paintings in a cave, to The Red Hot Chili Peppers' "Scar Tissue" and beyond? Seems essential to SOMEbody.

Well, Religion isn't Essential but has survived just as long.

I still maintain you're all arguing black-and-white when it's pretty obvious that necessity is a shades of grey area.

Anyway, the Arts are a luxury, get over it. Your house is a luxury too, as are the clothes you wear. Practically everything is a luxury.

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

Massif wrote:

Minh wrote:
If it is such a non-essential, why has it survive through out of human history, from the hand-paintings in a cave, to The Red Hot Chili Peppers' "Scar Tissue" and beyond? Seems essential to SOMEbody.

Well, Religion isn't Essential but has survived just as long.

If religion is a manifestation of spirituality, then I'd say religion is essential for survival.

Massif wrote:

I still maintain you're all arguing black-and-white when it's pretty obvious that necessity is a shades of grey area.

It's no fun defending shades of grey.

Massif wrote:

Anyway, the Arts are a luxury, get over it. Your house is a luxury too, as are the clothes you wear. Practically everything is a luxury.

I don't know about where you are, but, umm, it's 30F (that't -1C) here, so, my clothing is a real necessity right now.

Massif
aim stupidly high, expect to fail often.

Minh wrote:

I don't know about where you are, but, umm, it's 30F (that't -1C) here, so, my clothing is a real necessity right now.

It's a Balmy 6 Celsius here in Bath, but you could move somewhere warmer Big Smile

Oh, and your clothes don't really need to be quite as fashionable / comfortable as they are.

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

Massif wrote:

Minh wrote:

I don't know about where you are, but, umm, it's 30F (that't -1C) here, so, my clothing is a real necessity right now.

It's a Balmy 6 Celsius here in Bath, but you could move somewhere warmer

Oh, and your clothes don't really need to be quite as fashionable / comfortable as they are.

My clothes can't be any less fashionable, but they are comfy.

Rory
Free Tibet While Supplies Last

Minh wrote:

Rory wrote:
You would not die without art. Nor would humanity.

You would die without food and water.

Shelter, too, depending on where you live.

Art? Please explain to me how not having art would kill someone.

Given enough security & calories, we have no choice but to explore things outside of survival ... such as the arts. You take a person, who's been fed, inside a nice shelter, and say, "now, don't do anything else." He would go insane.

Your argument just doesn't hold up. You're assuming that, once someone has all the necessities taken care of, the arts are the next logical step, and are also required for people to maintain their sanity.

I won't bother poking holes in that since the argument itself is basically just a big hole, but I'll point out, again, that you can survive without art, but you cannot survive without food, water, and, again, depending on where you live, shelter.

There's no way around it unless you want to redefine "luxury" to mean something other than "that which is nonessential."

But then you won't be speaking English, and you should alert us that you'll be using some derivative of your own construction.

Minh wrote:

Your definition of "luxury" says that these are the things you don't have to do. My definition of "arts" is, these are the things we have to do beyond survival. Arts is a reflex, like a twitching knee. And like sports, science, drama, and other non-survival stuff.

"My" definition of "luxury" actually comes from the dictionary.

Feel free to use the word "luxury" however you'd like, but understand that your message will not be understood on the receiving end unless you include a short translation guide.

In your case, I might suggest that "luxury" be defined as: "That which Minh likes a lot" rather than what we might refer to as the actual definition according to the dictionary.

Minh wrote:

Rory wrote:
A luxury is, by definition, something which is nonessential.

The definition of nonessential is not necessary.

The definition of necessary is required.

That would mean that, if not a luxury, the arts would be required, necessary, and essential.

However, since you don't need them to survive, they are not required, necessary, or essential.

The arts are a luxury.

If it is such a non-essential, why has it survive through out of human history, from the hand-paintings in a cave, to The Red Hot Chili Peppers' "Scar Tissue" and beyond? Seems essential to SOMEbody.

You're kidding, right?

Murder is nonessential, yet it's followed us through history.

War is nonessential, yet it's followed us through history.

Religion is nonessential, yet it's followed us through history.

History itself is nonessential, as its absence during prehistory suggests.

You're just having a very difficult time understanding the difference between:

1. What you really, really like

and

2. What you need to survive

The argument is actually quite easily ended if you simply stick with the denotative definition of the word "luxury" instead of all the ways you've chosen to toss it about.

Kevin Daly
Of course it *looks* like my nick is just my name, but actually, well, it's just my name.

The more I think about this, the more it strikes me that a problem with this argument is that words like "essential", "necessary" and so on don't mean anything by themselves...they are not absolute values, but only have meaning in a particular context.

Essential to whom, and for what?

Necessary for what purpose?

Bear in mind that my survival is not essential, although it might be to me (although in certain circumstances it might not).

The universe doesn't care if Kevin or Rory or Minh or for that matter the entire human race survives, so why would we imagine that our survival defines the meaning of "essential"?

The terms we're using are inherently relative, so when we try to use them as absolutes the statements are as meaningless as "Product X Washes Clothes Whiter".

Whiter than what?

Now my brain is feeling tired and soggy, so I'm going to go back to thinking impure thoughts about Katherine Zeta Jones.
Which is essential.

JChung2006

Science is a tool for understanding life. It is great at helping us understand how life works, but it sucks at helping us understand why. Darwinism is a good explanation of how life came about to begin with, but not only does it not explain why very well, it does such a horribly bad job of it that people who believe strongly enough in Darwinism believe that there is no why to explain.

Religion is a tool for understanding life, too. It is our attempt to understand why life is, or at least why we live, die, and just about everything we do. It absolutely sucks at helping us understand how life works. Religion, leave that to Science.

Art is a tool for understanding life, too. Art in and of itself doesn't help us understand how life works or even why there is life, although both Science and Religion use Art to further their goals. Every time you look at an enlightening diagram or computer graphic representation, you are looking at Science with Art's eyes. Every time you listen to a hymn, you are listening to Religion with Art's ears. Art enables the communication of ideas, whether scientific or religious or whatever.

Art is the expression of thought. When you express yourself, the you who expressed yourself communicates with the you who tries to understand your expression. If you share that with others, you communicate with them too.

Language is communication. Language is art.

You don't need to know how to speak or write to live. You don't even need to communicate with anyone or even yourself to continue to exist. Without Art though, what would your life be?

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

Rory wrote:

I won't bother poking holes in that since the argument itself is basically just a big hole, but I'll point out, again, that you can survive without art, but you cannot survive without food, water, and, again, depending on where you live, shelter.

Again, you've drawn a line in water trying to define what we really need. We can survive on Big Macs but should we?

Rory wrote:

In your case, I might suggest that "luxury" be defined as: "That which Minh likes a lot" rather than what we might refer to as the actual definition according to the dictionary.

The world would just run better with me as the benevolent dictator as I could also distribute my own Webster.

Look, you and I are talking about different things obviously. You seem like a young guy, so maybe wisdom will come with age for you and in time, you'll understand what I'm saying.