Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I saw a post earlier complaining about how there's little philosophy discussion here, so I thought I would try to start one that was completely absent of religion or Atheistic thought.
Say man never reproduced in large numbers and ended up solitary like many different animals in nature, would there still be art, music and literature? Would man bother to be creative if there was nobody else around? If man and woman only came together to mate, would there be a society of humankind at all?
If human beings were very isolated I don't think many individuals would advance very far on their own because such things as music and art have been contributed to by countless millions of creative people who have added their own little bit of knowledge that ends up being spread to others. When you think about music for example, the complexity of building any musical instrument or even imagining that such a thing could exist might be more than a single person could acheive in a lifetime without outside influences. Being a musician I can appreciate and understand what I've learned from others. Could a hunter gatherer who had no social interactions whatsoever possibly build and learn how to play a piano or a violin? Of course not, and all of the other things that happen when people organize into a society and pass along their knowledge from generation to the next in any other field of endeavor would also not be possible.
In nature animals will do thing to attract their mate. I think as hard favored as most primates are (if not connected to a member of the fairer sex) they would also have to do something to attract a mate. They would surely take a bath, get a haircut, maybe some body art, a few rings in their nose and ears. (I won’t touch the other areas), a place to raise the offspring, and some cool wheels. It sure sounds like they are in the same place we are now.
Say man never reproduced in large numbers and ended up solitary like many different animals in nature, would there still be art, music and literature? Would man bother to be creative if there was nobody else around? If man and woman only came together to mate, would there be a society of humankind at all?
I don't see this thing happening, ever. In case of some natural disaster that will wipe out the entire population with few lucky survivors, those survivors will only try to survive, and hope to meet someone to survive with. I think art and music will be far away from their thoughts. Of course, as they find other survivors, the human needs will take over.
If human beings were very isolated I don't think many individuals would advance very far on their own because such things as music and art have been contributed to by countless millions of creative people who have added their own little bit of knowledge that ends up being spread to others. When you think about music for example, the complexity of building any musical instrument or even imagining that such a thing could exist might be more than a single person could acheive in a lifetime without outside influences. Being a musician I can appreciate and understand what I've learned from others. Could a hunter gatherer who had no social interactions whatsoever possibly build and learn how to play a piano or a violin? Of course not, and all of the other things that happen when people organize into a society and pass along their knowledge from generation to the next in any other field of endeavor would also not be possible.
Yes, but would a man alone in the woods not find some way to make music if he really wanted to hear a sound other than nature? He could blow into a hollow piece of wood or click two rocks together.
He may not play Purple Haze or even Three Blind Mice, but would he create his own kind of music if alone his whole life?
being that humans are extremely social creatures to begin with, i'm having a hard time coming up with any kind of situation where we would band together, but males and females "would only come together to mate". that would imply males living with males and females living with females in segregated societies.
so no. i could see one or two strange cultures doing that, but not the entire race. if we lived completely separately, we would have no culture, no arts, no sciences--at least not in the terms that we think of now. it would be limited to cave paintings and its equivalents.
that said, society and culture were one of the great advances of early peoples, along the same lines as language, math, art, and science. so it is hard to distinguish them.
I don't see this thing happening, ever. In case of some natural disaster that will wipe out the entire population with few lucky survivors, those survivors will only try to survive, and hope to meet someone to survive with. I think art and music will be far away from their thoughts. Of course, as they find other survivors, the human needs will take over.
Oh, my, god. Could you be any less able to grasp the concept of a "PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION"? It's a hypothetical. IF...that means a hypothetical question. This would be if man never developed society in the first place, not now that we've already been developed.
In nature animals will do thing to attract their mate.
What you're saying is very true but flashing an attractive coloring of feathers to attract a hot bird is very different from something that we learn through a society. The OP seems to be talking about advancements that involve language and culture which we learn about and communicate with one another.
Any form of art is expression of a human thought/attitude/being. Cave paintings are art, it might not be the most sophisticated form based on our modern standards, but art nonetheless. If you can bang your head on the tree and make music this way, will it be considered as art? Probably, as i know few people who consider bodily noise/functions as some type of art form
It's a hypothetical question. It's to see what people think is innate in man and what comes about because of society. Is music and art something within us that would manifest itself regardless of our surroundings, or is it something we subconsciously pick up because it's already such a major part of society?
If you don't get the concept of philosophy (especially existentialism), why bother answering this topic Moderator cut: edited
Last edited by june 7th; 02-02-2009 at 05:25 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The OP seems to be talking about advancements that involve language and culture which we learn about and communicate with one another.
