When I pose the question, "Natural or Social?" I'd like you to consider that I am referring not to an abstract definition of "natural." Often times we refer to something being natural with the assumption that whatever is natural is generally pleasing and acceptable. In this context we must refer to natural in its base definitions: existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world; unthinking; prompted by (or as if by) instinct.
Perhaps we're reminded of this by the original word and it's suffix: nature-al, or having the characteristics of nature.
There are an increasing number of scientists who argue that appreciating beauty is not learned, but rather is a biological adaptation. For the sake of this column, let's assume that micro-evolution is fact. That is, that independent of your opinion of the origin of the world, it is WELL-established that there are biological changes that happen to species based on adaptation to their environment.
Possible Discussion:
1. Do you believe that biology rather than anthropology provides the base of what we as a society consider beautiful? Why?
2. Should we as a society in general place more or less emphasis on beauty as it relates to ACTUAL physical fitness/health? Why?
Comment within the blog or make your response HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment