although one may derive pleasure from the eyes or ears, the end or function of the eyes or ears is not pleasure. Do you agree or disagree?
2006-09-17 13:38:57 · 10 answers · asked by sokrates 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
The broader context of this question has to do with natural law, as formulated by Plato, Aristotle and Christianity. If everything has a purpose or telos based on its nature, then there are serious implications for other body parts that seem fit for reproduction. However, I don't want to get off-track here.
2006-09-17 13:59:01 · update #1
There are a number of things that Plato/Aristotle had wrong. However, I don't know if I would classify their thoughts concerning natural law as fairy tripe. Cicero is also another major advocate of natural law.
2006-09-17 14:22:27 · update #2
Ok, we could reword my original question and say that sentient beings derive pleasure by means of the eyes or ears. I believe it is evident that you will not receive any pleasure from a sensible object (whether the sensible object is a lovely woman or a beautiful painting or a fine delicacy or a haunting melody) unless you use one of your body members, in this case, the eyes or the ears. So, while there may be a sense in which pleasure emanates from a given sensible extra-somatic object, the sensory experience which brings it about that pleasure occurs, happens through the medium of some human organ or the body proper.
2006-09-17 16:06:56 · update #3
You pretty much said it, the eyes are to see, and the ears to hear..... both good and bad. It's what we choose to look at and hear that makes the difference. That's the function of the brain, and unless the brain isn't functioning properly, we almost always choose pleasant over unpleasant or neutral.
Gotta admit, though, some people sure have a twisted idea of pleasure.........
2006-09-17 13:54:35 · answer #1 · answered by Squirrley Temple 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't really understand this "one may derive pleasure from the eyes or years" thing... Did you mean: "sometimes, what we SEE or what we HEAR gives us pleasure"? Well, then, it is nor the eyes, neither the ears that give us pleasure, it is what we see or what we hear. The image of a naked woman is the one that can create pleasure, and not the eyes that see the naked woman. I don't care who said that: Plato, NATO... whoever/whatever, but I suppose that you didn't understand what they wanted to say or, maybe, they were so wrong.
If what you say is that people might be attracted to someone because of her/his beautiful eyes or give/receive pleasure by kissing the ears or licking them during the intercourse, well, then, of course, you're not talking about the function/purpose of the eyes and the ears, but about people's ability to use one thing for many purposes. What is the purpose of a leaf? I know you know it. Then what happens to that leaf when people use it as a musical instrument?
2006-09-17 22:42:17 · answer #2 · answered by mrquestion 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The eye and the ear detached from the overall context in pure abstract terms serves only its function in isolation of all other considerations. However, following the logic of the statements provided the purpose of life itself would be to live, it's function. Ironically, the logic provided precludes a substantive purpose to life and leads to nihilism, absurdity. What is missing from the logic provided is an inherent principle first established from which all other principles are derived. For example establishing the first principle as duty to country, the end or the purpose of the eye would be to see duty to country in reality, the end or pupose of the ear would be to hear duty for the country. The same is true if the first principle is pleasure.
2006-09-17 20:48:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They're called sensory perceptions because they convey a sense of the world around the individual to the individual's brain. To personify them with a sentient purpose would be pure fairy tripe.
2006-09-17 21:13:45 · answer #4 · answered by Em 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree. The function of the eyes and ears, in seeing and hearing, is to give us necessary information about our environment. If our environment is pleasant then the seeing and hearing of it will be also pleasant, if unpleasant then the seeing and hearing of it will also be unpleasant. We seek pleasantry and tend to avoid unpleasant things,, for instinctual survival reasons,,, BUT,, sometimes our brains get fooled and things can seem pleasant, like 'all that glitters is not gold' , that are actually not good for us.
2006-09-17 20:52:22 · answer #5 · answered by mary_n_the_lamb 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When is anything purely positive or negative. When does a human have no spirit, no art. Is knowledge of sense only from their negation, destruction? The end-gain is better than the end-loss, no? I am broken into properties.
2006-09-17 22:34:00 · answer #6 · answered by Psyengine 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The purpose of the eyes,ears,nose,tongue, skin is to absorb sensations and the brain processes them to determine whether it is pleasurable or not.
2006-09-17 20:46:38 · answer #7 · answered by dogman 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the essence of seeing or hearing is realization. accepting, embracing, validating the truth of what is, and why is (or how is), is the ugly pain of thorn in life. you see what constitutes the truth, can you accept it's truth? you hear about the truth, can you embrace it's philosophy? the reality of nature is to accept whatever is learned, good or bad... that way, wisdom would be attained. so your statement holds valid in it's truth. realizing it's wisdom is up to your own interpretation...
2006-09-17 21:53:18 · answer #8 · answered by VeRDuGo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
depends if u like listening and seeing
Pleasure is in the purpose
2006-09-17 20:41:53 · answer #9 · answered by punkvixen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
therefore...what we see and what we hear...affects us deeply....
2006-09-18 10:34:27 · answer #10 · answered by avava9 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋