Re: Chez Watt Re: Common ancestor between man and ape

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:25:16 -0000, UC <uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote in <uranium-1182191116.104283.4170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
:

On Jun 18, 2:14 pm, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:40:47 -0700, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote in
<uranium-1182109247.165143.12...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :

On Jun 16, 4:30 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:32:33 +0000, UC wrote:
On Jun 15, 1:41 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]



Merriam-Webster 3rd New International, the relevant bit:

"4 a: application of skill and taste to production according to
aesthetic principles: the conscious use of skill, taste, and creative
imagination in the practical definition or production of beauty. b:
the product of skill and taste applied according to aesthetic
principles : expression of beauty : works of art."

Where, I ask again, does it say or imply "product of man"?

It's understood that on this planet, only man has these capabilities. It
goes without saying....

So you admit "product of man" is not part of the definition of "art",
that it is conceivably possible to discover a creature sufficiently
human-like to create art.

"Made by humans" is part of the concept of 'art'.

Any creature that could produce 'art' would be so similar that we
would have to call them 'men'. The "little green men" from outer space
is perfect example.

Similarly, Archaeopteryx is so similar to living birds that we call it
a "bird'.

It resembles dinosaurs more than birds.

And any "little green men" would resemble the other life forms on
their home world far more than they'd resemble humans, but that didn't
stop you from labeling them "men". Why the double standard?


In fact, it's far more similar to living birds than any
"little green men" would be to humans.

[snip]

.

Relevant Pages