Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.

Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post Number:#1  Postby Synthesis » September 4th, 2017, 12:37 pm

A dozen years ago or so, I attended what would turn out to be the most interesting lecture of my professional life. A top-notch reconstructive facial surgeon [who dedicated half of his time to cosmetic surgery] gave a talk on, "What is beauty?" Believing this was going to be a time-filler kind of presentation, the guy kept a room of 250 absolutely mesmerized for an hour.

If you could picture what a leading Beverly Hills cosmetic surgeon might look like, it was this guy; really good looking, killer smile, and a calm confidence that communicated that he was at the top of his game. Not only was he incredibly knowledgeable, but he was funny, engaging, and paradoxically down-to-earth. I came to find out that most of his complex accident-related and/or deformation-related reconstructive cases were pro bono. This was a seriously good person.

Subsequent to his lecture, I began to consider that although few could challenge anything this surgeon was suggesting, and despite the fact that his manner/appearance/presentation was flawless, he could not and did not know what he was talking about [in any real sense]. Although his words were meticulously crafted into this beautifully poetic narritve, it was an illusion [of the highest order] just the same.

This is how confusing the human intellect can be, be it a brilliant physician, a genius CEO, or a highly polished politician, its just so much bs. And this is how easily people can be manipulated. Simply observe what the vast majority accept as the way it is, no matter the institution, time period, or venue.

The human mind appears to be fraught with issues that give rise to the delusions that manifests themselves in social orders that are [at best] severely lacking. My personal theory is that man has this insatiable desire to get something for nothing and will do everything to this end. Regardless, the only way out of the asylum is through the non-intellectual where we deposit our theories in the trash can outside of the exit and simply accept things as they are [no explanation necessary].
Synthesis
 
Posts: 132 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm

Is it only lipstick on a pig?



Become a member for less ads

Already a member? Login
 

Re: Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post Number:#2  Postby Alias » September 5th, 2017, 9:02 pm

Synthesis wrote:Subsequent to his lecture, I began to consider that although few could challenge anything this surgeon was suggesting, and despite the fact that his manner/appearance/presentation was flawless, he could not and did not know what he was talking about [in any real sense]. Although his words were meticulously crafted into this beautifully poetic narritve, it was an illusion [of the highest order] just the same.

How did you reach this conclusion? What were your external sources of information? What false premises, what incorrect principles did you find in his reasoning?
Obviously, if that's his profession, he must have given the subject some previous thought, some consideration; he must have had ideas. How were those ideas false?

My personal theory is that man has this insatiable desire to get something for nothing and will do everything to this end.

In what kinds of transaction? Illustrate.

Regardless, the only way out of the asylum is through the non-intellectual where we deposit our theories in the trash can outside of the exit and simply accept things as they are [no explanation necessary].

By that route, "things" can never change. We become passive recipients of fortune's and nature's blows, like inanimate objects.
No animal will go along with that plan. They will try to affect their circumstances.
Reasoning is one of the methods they use to gain the necessities of life and avoid pain and death.
I don't think they'll stop.
Alias
 
Posts: 1879 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post Number:#3  Postby LuckyR » September 6th, 2017, 3:37 am

Synthesis wrote:A dozen years ago or so, I attended what would turn out to be the most interesting lecture of my professional life. A top-notch reconstructive facial surgeon [who dedicated half of his time to cosmetic surgery] gave a talk on, "What is beauty?" Believing this was going to be a time-filler kind of presentation, the guy kept a room of 250 absolutely mesmerized for an hour.

If you could picture what a leading Beverly Hills cosmetic surgeon might look like, it was this guy; really good looking, killer smile, and a calm confidence that communicated that he was at the top of his game. Not only was he incredibly knowledgeable, but he was funny, engaging, and paradoxically down-to-earth. I came to find out that most of his complex accident-related and/or deformation-related reconstructive cases were pro bono. This was a seriously good person.

Subsequent to his lecture, I began to consider that although few could challenge anything this surgeon was suggesting, and despite the fact that his manner/appearance/presentation was flawless, he could not and did not know what he was talking about [in any real sense]. Although his words were meticulously crafted into this beautifully poetic narritve, it was an illusion [of the highest order] just the same.

This is how confusing the human intellect can be, be it a brilliant physician, a genius CEO, or a highly polished politician, its just so much bs. And this is how easily people can be manipulated. Simply observe what the vast majority accept as the way it is, no matter the institution, time period, or venue.

The human mind appears to be fraught with issues that give rise to the delusions that manifests themselves in social orders that are [at best] severely lacking. My personal theory is that man has this insatiable desire to get something for nothing and will do everything to this end. Regardless, the only way out of the asylum is through the non-intellectual where we deposit our theories in the trash can outside of the exit and simply accept things as they are [no explanation necessary].


I am sure out of a one hour lecture, you can remember three facts/statements that Dr Beverly Hills mentioned, that you have found to be "bs". Please share them with us.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
LuckyR
 
Posts: 2184 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post Number:#4  Postby Synthesis » September 6th, 2017, 2:06 pm

Alias wrote:
Synthesis wrote:Subsequent to his lecture, I began to consider that although few could challenge anything this surgeon was suggesting, and despite the fact that his manner/appearance/presentation was flawless, he could not and did not know what he was talking about [in any real sense]. Although his words were meticulously crafted into this beautifully poetic narrative, it was an illusion [of the highest order] just the same.


How did you reach this conclusion? What were your external sources of information? What false premises, what incorrect principles did you find in his reasoning?
Obviously, if that's his profession, he must have given the subject some previous thought, some consideration; he must have had ideas. How were those ideas false?

Lot of questions. I reached this conclusion because this is how all things work. There are no false premises, only illusory/false thinking. Those ideas were false because we can not know.

My personal theory is that man has this insatiable desire to get something for nothing and will do everything to this end.

In what kinds of transaction? Illustrate.

Millions of people have retirement accounts [401K's, IRA's, etc.] that are invested in various monetary instruments/equity/equity funds, etc.. People send company X their money and expect the same company to send them interest, dividends, and other profits made off of these "investments" for doing absolutely zero. This is something for nothing.

Regardless, the only way out of the asylum is through the non-intellectual where we deposit our theories in the trash can outside of the exit and simply accept things as they are [no explanation necessary].


By that route, "things" can never change. We become passive recipients of fortune's and nature's blows, like inanimate objects.
No animal will go along with that plan. They will try to affect their circumstances.
Reasoning is one of the methods they use to gain the necessities of life and avoid pain and death.
I don't think they'll stop.

Just the opposite. We become free living beings, unattached to our delusions and available to pursue life as it actually is.
Synthesis
 
Posts: 132 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm

Re: Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post Number:#5  Postby Alias » September 6th, 2017, 4:34 pm

So, actually, people are not doing "everything" to get "something" for "nothing" (which would be an oxymoron anyway); they're merely following the dictates of the economic system under which they live. The same people are also working for their wages, paying their taxes and interest on their mortgages, putting a huge amount of effort into the raising of ungrateful children and doing volunteer work for their communities and favours for their friends.

Not that I see any connection between that and your differing notions of beauty from those of an anonymous plastic surgeon you heard one time.
Or, for that matter why pigs ought not to wear lipstick, if it makes them happy. http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0000531/

But I suppose detaching yourself from delusion is good, too.
Alias
 
Posts: 1879 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post Number:#6  Postby Synthesis » September 6th, 2017, 7:56 pm

LuckyR wrote:I am sure out of a one hour lecture, you can remember three facts/statements that Dr Beverly Hills mentioned, that you have found to be "bs". Please share them with us.

It was all false [no matter how glamorously it may have been presented], only because we are incapable of knowing truth.

-- Updated September 6th, 2017, 8:01 pm to add the following --

Alias wrote:So, actually, people are not doing "everything" to get "something" for "nothing" (which would be an oxymoron anyway); they're merely following the dictates of the economic system under which they live. The same people are also working for their wages, paying their taxes and interest on their mortgages, putting a huge amount of effort into the raising of ungrateful children and doing volunteer work for their communities and favours for their friends.

Not that I see any connection between that and your differing notions of beauty from those of an anonymous plastic surgeon you heard one time.
Or, for that matter why pigs ought not to wear lipstick, if it makes them happy. http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0000531/

But I suppose detaching yourself from delusion is good, too.

The point of the post was that no matter how incredible the packaging, the content always comes up short.
Synthesis
 
Posts: 132 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm

Re: Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post Number:#7  Postby Alias » September 6th, 2017, 11:10 pm

Synthesis wrote:The point of the post was that no matter how incredible the packaging, the content always comes up short.

Okay. You're disappointed. Meh.
Democracy in Truth! Equal votes for fact and fantasy!
Alias
 
Posts: 1879 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post Number:#8  Postby Synthesis » September 7th, 2017, 3:20 pm

Alias wrote:
Synthesis wrote:The point of the post was that no matter how incredible the packaging, the content always comes up short.

Okay. You're disappointed. Meh.

You mis-understand.

What I am saying is that no matter how much we are impressed by what somebody else has to say, we must keep in mind that they are only able [at best] to spout-out the current take on matters, something that will be soon proven to be false. Therefore, why not acknowledge such up-front? Would this not lead to a much healthier intellectual climate?
Synthesis
 
Posts: 132 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm

Re: Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post Number:#9  Postby Alias » September 7th, 2017, 4:49 pm

Synthesis wrote:What I am saying is that no matter how much we are impressed by what somebody else has to say, we must keep in mind that they are only able [at best] to spout-out the current take on matters, something that will be soon proven to be false.

In your dissertation, I have seen no support for this assumption. However, it may still be true.
Therefore, why not acknowledge such up-front?

What, like preface every opinion or thesis with "As far I know at this moment in time," or "Until refuted by new evidence," ?
I thought that was taken for granted. But, okay.

Would this not lead to a much healthier intellectual climate?

Maybe. Or it could lead to utter stagnation, as everyone gives up on forming a conviction or building a factual data-base.
Why bother?

You haven't said anything about beauty or why pigs shouldn't wear lipstick.
If your only intellectual contribution is: " Everything everybody knows is wrong," what's your stake in an intellectual climate?
Alias
 
Posts: 1879 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post Number:#10  Postby Synthesis » September 7th, 2017, 5:48 pm

Alias wrote:
Synthesis wrote:What I am saying is that no matter how much we are impressed by what somebody else has to say, we must keep in mind that they are only able [at best] to spout-out the current take on matters, something that will be soon proven to be false.

In your dissertation, I have seen no support for this assumption. However, it may still be true.

You mention ahead that this is taken for granted, no? While this may be case, this is not the way people behave. People (in general) are very attached to their thinking.

Therefore, why not acknowledge such up-front?


What, like preface every opinion or thesis with "As far I know at this moment in time," or "Until refuted by new evidence," ?
I thought that was taken for granted. But, okay.

This is EXACTLY what should happen. It would prevent a great deal of pain in this world.

Would this not lead to a much healthier intellectual climate?

Maybe. Or it could lead to utter stagnation, as everyone gives up on forming a conviction or building a factual data-base.
Why bother?

Dealing with something much closer to the truth can only lead to better outcomes.

You haven't said anything about beauty or why pigs shouldn't wear lipstick.
If your only intellectual contribution is: " Everything everybody knows is wrong," what's your stake in an intellectual climate?

I assume you are making an attempt at humor in the first sentence above, but the second is germane. My stake is in finding those who are not interested in being "right." These are the only conversations that interest me.
Synthesis
 
Posts: 132 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm

Re: Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post Number:#11  Postby Alias » September 7th, 2017, 7:12 pm

Synthesis wrote:[that an assertion will be false]
You mention ahead that this is taken for granted, no?

No. It's taken for granted that one realizes that an assertion may be proven false at some time in the future.
You have proven nothing, either true or false, nor even made any attempt at refuting anyone else's assertion on any subject.

While this may be case, this is not the way people behave. People (in general) are very attached to their thinking.

So? People make an effort to learn things; they figure they've earned their convictions, their knowledge and professional expertise.

Therefore, why not acknowledge such up-front?

Formally, every time someone opens their mouth or set fingers to a keyboard?
How would that be any more significant than prefacing a statement with "I think" "I believe" or imo?

This is EXACTLY what should happen. It would prevent a great deal of pain in this world.

"Until such time as I'm proven wrong, I declare nuclear war on Country X." Yah, that'll work.

[Why bother?]
Dealing with something much closer to the truth can only lead to better outcomes.

How do you get any closer to the truth if nobody believes that truth is possible?

[You haven't said anything about beauty or why pigs shouldn't wear lipstick.
If your only intellectual contribution is: " Everything everybody knows is wrong," what's your stake in an intellectual climate?]

I assume you are making an attempt at humor in the first sentence above,

Why assume? I thought you've just been arguing against assuming things. I've asked you twice now, how the title of this thread figures in its content.

but the second is germane. My stake is in finding those who are not interested in being "right." These are the only conversations that interest me.

Ah. Good luck.
Alias
 
Posts: 1879 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post Number:#12  Postby Synthesis » September 7th, 2017, 10:39 pm

Alias wrote:
Synthesis wrote:[that an assertion will be false]
You mention ahead that this is taken for granted, no?

No. It's taken for granted that one realizes that an assertion may be proven false at some time in the future.
You have proven nothing, either true or false, nor even made any attempt at refuting anyone else's assertion on any subject.

Perhaps you can give me an example of an Absolute truth?

While this may be case, this is not the way people behave. People (in general) are very attached to their thinking.

So? People make an effort to learn things; they figure they've earned their convictions, their knowledge and professional expertise.

It is attachment that causes all suffering. That's the difficulty.

Therefore, why not acknowledge such up-front?

Formally, every time someone opens their mouth or set fingers to a keyboard?
How would that be any more significant than prefacing a statement with "I think" "I believe" or imo?

You should be able to speak with confidence [with the above implied]. And not confidence that you are right.


[Why bother?]
Dealing with something much closer to the truth can only lead to better outcomes.

How do you get any closer to the truth if nobody believes that truth is possible?

Just because you can not do anything perfectly does not mean that you should not do it.

[You haven't said anything about beauty or why pigs shouldn't wear lipstick.
If your only intellectual contribution is: " Everything everybody knows is wrong," what's your stake in an intellectual climate?]

I assume you are making an attempt at humor in the first sentence above,

Why assume? I thought you've just been arguing against assuming things. I've asked you twice now, how the title of this thread figures in its content.

"Putting lipstick on a pig" is another way of saying that you are attempting to make something bad look good. "What is beauty?," was the name of the lecture presented, nothing more. IOW, the lecture was about what constitutes beauty [to a cosmetic surgeon].

but the second is germane. My stake is in finding those who are not interested in being "right." These are the only conversations that interest me.

Ah. Good luck.

Thank you.
Synthesis
 
Posts: 132 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm

Re: Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post Number:#13  Postby LuckyR » September 14th, 2017, 3:02 am

Synthesis wrote:
LuckyR wrote:I am sure out of a one hour lecture, you can remember three facts/statements that Dr Beverly Hills mentioned, that you have found to be "bs". Please share them with us.

It was all false [no matter how glamorously it may have been presented], only because we are incapable of knowing truth.



Hhmmmm, not one measly quote? Now who is guilty of spewing bs?
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
LuckyR
 
Posts: 2184 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post Number:#14  Postby Synthesis » September 14th, 2017, 3:21 pm

LuckyR wrote:
Synthesis wrote:(Nested quote removed.)

It was all false [no matter how glamorously it may have been presented], only because we are incapable of knowing truth.



Hhmmmm, not one measly quote? Now who is guilty of spewing bs?

You mis-understand. What he was saying was perfectly acceptable according current thinking, but not actually true.
Synthesis
 
Posts: 132 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm

Re: Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post Number:#15  Postby LuckyR » September 14th, 2017, 6:04 pm

Synthesis wrote:
LuckyR wrote:(Nested quote removed.)


Hhmmmm, not one measly quote? Now who is guilty of spewing bs?

You mis-understand. What he was saying was perfectly acceptable according current thinking, but not actually true.


Most folks who declare that something is not true, do so because a different thing (than the original) is in fact true. However, reading between the lines I am starting to get the feeling that your opinion is that nothing is true. Is this correct?
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
LuckyR
 
Posts: 2184 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Next

Return to Epistemology and Metaphysics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Philosophy Trophies

Most Active Members
by posts made in lasts 30 days

Avatar Member Name Recent Posts
Greta 162
Fooloso4 116
Renee 107
Ormond 97
Felix 90

Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST

Most Active Book of the Month Participants
by book of the month posts

Avatar Member Name BOTM Posts
Scott 147
Spectrum 23
Belinda 23
whitetrshsoldier 20
Josefina1110 19
Last updated January 6, 2017, 6:28 pm EST