3 ms·

What's your point? This doesn't relate to what you originally said, or to my reply to that.

• coldtea 8y ago
  Doesn't relate to your reply? I directly quoted the part of your reply I responded to. My point is, to repeat myself, that what we consider the reality behind the way something is made, what it is composed of, etc, does play a role on whether we like or dislike it. Like or dislike extends beyond the final artifact. We could even like something (e.g. a painting) and stop liking it, even though it's the same, if we find that it's e.g. an imitation and not the original, or that some romantic story of how the painter created it is not real, etc. The same can happen when we discover a reductionist explanation of something we admire or are in awe of, that makes it less intriguing and mysterious. E.g. "you think love is some glorious connection to this particular person, but the feeling is just a chemically induced thing, and we can arbitrarily make you feel it for any random person if we inject you with this".
  • jamesrcole 8y ago
    I said it's a matter of how reality is, and that our likes have no bearing on how that reality is. You replied "What we know about how reality is or isn't has a very big impact on what we like or dislike.", and does not relate to what I said. They're completely separate points. (Also, the point of yours that I was originally replying to was "Because we (well, some of us) don't really like breathtaking complexity that's reducible to some simple rules." which is clearly referring to what is out there in reality not our view of it, and whether we like or dislike that characteristic of reality out there.).