Response to DKJ's post on 9/14/11 at 9:19pm

I'm glad somebody's finally put that saying to shame, I'm quite the bird lover!

On the note of social intelligence in birds - GO BIRDS! Most humans haven't even figured out respect or the chain of command yet. Animal communication has always been fascinating to me - animals use lots of verbal commands, such as barking and whimpering - but many nonverbal commands as well, such as hand signals, staring, and other motions. For birds to be able to figure out their social structure on an intelligent level is absolutely astounding. However, the incredible thing is the Pinyon Jay's ability to recognize large groups of their "social class" at a time, and track their relationships for long periods of time. Now, your typical person may say "I can recognize a rich guy anytime, they wear suits and are well dressed". However, if we are truly to match the social adeptness of the Pinyon Jay, we must all look and dress as a typical person, and then make the distinctions from pure instinctual perspective.

Philosophy certainly ties in here. I would argue that it is the fault of the human that avian intelligence was looked down upon. Just because they are smaller beings does not signify lower intellectual functioning. It was through intellectual courage and humility that we could arrive at this new finding, and it is with intellectual honesty that we must embrace the new information to truly live a knowledgeable life filled with learning and comprehension.

Response to Carlys14's comment on Jacob Wheeler's post on 9/18/11 at 3:04pm

Nature untouched does indeed seem to have tranquil, supernatural properties. You posed your question speculating on the purity of nature. I would have to say no, nature is not pure, even when untouched. Pure, in the case of Plato's model (the thesis we are basing all of our conversations on this week) means "original" as I have discussed in my post before this one. No matter how exceptionally special or unique any natural scene seems to be, there is a model of it in the world of forms. As Mr. Johnson has told my class, nature is on the "craftspersons" level of imitation - it is simply the imitation of the form. Although it is not as far from perfection in Plato's model as art is, nature is still an imitation of its original form. Now, let us consider something Plato doesn't venture to often in his claims - change. Nature does change, through growth and weathering and other circumstances. Do the forms of these objects change as well? If so, what happens to the memories of the old objects, are they pure, or are there forms of all of these memories we hold in our heads in the world of forms as well? Another complication I love to bring up about Plato's model is that it is based on art, yet he himself and us students try to apply it to so many other things - namely, nature, memories, and so on.

What do you think happens when a tornado hits a rosebush? Does the form change, or does the rosebush become "pure" or "perfect" in a sense?

Response to Jacob Wheeler's post on 9/18/11 at 3:04pm

Plato's view of art, as we've discussed in class, is faulty at best, yet extremely intellectually intriguing. I personally don't agree with his views, being an artist myself and therefore very appreciative of unique, original works. Putting my discriminations aside, I would have to say that Plato's theory is a model of steps. As Jacob mentioned, poetry - one of the forms of art Plato mentions often in The Republic - is "thrice removed" from the realm of truth. The realm of truth, in this situation, is what we've learned to affectionately call the world of forms. Forms, in Plato's model, are the gods' creative ideas that become the blueprints of everything physical on the Earth. One main barrier between the world of forms and the Earth is that everything in the world of forms is true - perfect, eternal, and true. On Earth, however, everything is physically existing, therefore not eternal nor perfect. Truth also doesn't exist on Earth, in Plato's argument, however truth is used in place of the word "original". This is because Plato believes everything is modeled after the gods' forms, and therefore imitates its form. Art, however, is further removed from the world of forms because art - like poetry and visual art - imitates something that exists on Earth, which happens to imitate its own form. This is why Plato says art is the imitation of the imitation. In regards to what Jacob called "its [art's] potential dissemination in the utility thereof", I think Plato has an obscured vision of art. Although we've already concluded that Plato was very backstabbing to his own opinions between The Republic and The Symposium, I still think he was too carried away to place artists in a further place from truth than craftspersons, and I'm sure today's society would agree with me. Art is a staple for learning and enhancing creativity, and arguably holds more intellectual value than anything produced by a craftsperson.

Enough rambling from me, I'd like to hear from my peers; Which do you think is more intellectually stimulating and valuable; the works of a craftsperson or the works of an artist?