Topic: What truly drives society? Does life imitate art or does art (Read 26800 times)

rogue_77 · « **on:** September 16, 2006, 03:14:29 PM »

Just wondering opinions. Does life imitate art or does art imitate life??

I ask this because I think if you look at society art can have a large influence on peoples daily lives, but being the artist and looking at the lives of people can help you create your art...

Thoughts?

Evonus · « **Reply #1 on:** September 16, 2006, 05:23:04 PM »

I'm going to go with Adam Smith's interpretation here. It's really greed that drives a society. People want what's best for them and their offspring and will try their best to achieve that, usually by acquisition of monetary or liquid assets.

12AX7 · « **Reply #2 on:** September 16, 2006, 06:42:35 PM »

Quote from: rogue_77 on September 16, 2006, 03:14:29 PM

Does life imitate art or does art imitate life??

Yes.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #3 on:** September 16, 2006, 07:20:52 PM »

I believe this is similar to:

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

rogue_77 · « **Reply #4 on:** September 16, 2006, 09:23:21 PM »

Quote from: Crystalmonkey on September 16, 2006, 07:20:52 PM

I believe this is similar to:

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

so which came first, the chicken or the egg??

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #5 on:** September 16, 2006, 10:02:52 PM »

If you happen to believe in evolution, I would imagine the egg.

12AX7 · « **Reply #6 on:** September 16, 2006, 10:46:12 PM »

A more discussion-inviting query might be "HOW does Life imitate Art / Art imitate Life?"
"Do they?" is a bit too rhetorical to collect varying answers, I would guess.

12AX7 · « **Reply #7 on:** September 16, 2006, 10:55:04 PM »

Quote from: Evonus on September 16, 2006, 05:23:04 PM

I'm going to go with Adam Smith's interpretation here. It's really greed that drives a society. People want what's best for them and their offspring and will try their best to achieve that, usually by acquisition of monetary or liquid assets.

I don't think that's greed. That's more like simple survival. Greed would be desiring to aquire excesses for one's self. To simply want a good life doesn't really rise to the level of "greed", and aquiring (or desiring to aquire) for others (your offspring) isn't greed at all.
You've heard the phrase , "He was doing alright; then he got greedy."

Evonus · « **Reply #8 on:** September 16, 2006, 11:47:56 PM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on September 16, 2006, 10:55:04 PM

I don't think that's greed. That's more like simple survival. Greed would be desiring to aquire excesses for one's self. To simply want a good life doesn't really rise to the level of "greed", and aquiring (or desiring to aquire) for others (your offspring) isn't greed at all.
You've heard the phrase , "He was doing alright; then he got greedy."

But people don't stop when they have a good life, because good is always in relative terms. Good in relation to what? And as people acquire more resources that what always continues to increase, which is why greed is the main driving factor, because no one just gets to a point and deliberately stops.

12AX7 · « **Reply #9 on:** September 17, 2006, 12:14:28 AM »

Quote from: Evonus on September 16, 2006, 11:47:56 PM

But people don't stop when they have a good life, because good is always in relative terms. Good in relation to what?

Don't you understand the concept of "better"?

Quote from: Evonus on September 16, 2006, 11:47:56 PM

And as people acquire more resources that what always continues to increase, which is why greed is the main driving factor

Simply having "more" has nothing to do with greed. Neither does "wanting better/more".

greed –noun
excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions.
[Origin: 1600–10; back formation from greedy]
—Greed, greediness denote an excessive, extreme desire for something, often more than one's proper share.[/b] Greed means avid desire for gain or wealth (unless some other application is indicated) and is definitely uncomplimentary in implication.

Quote from: Evonus on September 16, 2006, 11:47:56 PM

because no one just gets to a point and deliberately stops.

How many people do you know that have had the same job for years? Lived in the same house for years? Maintained the same lifestyle for years? Stayed with the same Spouse or Sniffacunt Other for years?
So why isn't everyone millionaires and CEOs? What's the holdup?

Evonus · « **Reply #10 on:** September 17, 2006, 09:08:48 AM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on September 17, 2006, 12:14:28 AM

Don't you understand the concept of "better"?
Simply having "more" has nothing to do with greed. Neither does "wanting better/more".

greed –noun
excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions.
[Origin: 1600–10; back formation from greedy]
—Greed, greediness denote an excessive, extreme desire for something, often more than one's proper share.[/b] Greed means avid desire for gain or wealth (unless some other application is indicated) and is definitely uncomplimentary in implication.

But all of that is subjective, and tends to change over the years. I mean who determines what's excessive desire for money? How much is ones fair share? People decide that for themselves often times.

Quote

How many people do you know that have had the same job for years? Lived in the same house for years? Maintained the same lifestyle for years? Stayed with the same Spouse or Sniffacunt Other for years?
So why isn't everyone millionaires and CEOs? What's the holdup?

A) That's because some people (most people) can't do any better. I mean promotions occur, but no one is just going to walk into a building and be made the CEO.

B) They continually acquire more even through that. Raises and such.

12AX7 · « **Reply #11 on:** September 17, 2006, 02:47:18 PM »

Quote from: Evonus on September 17, 2006, 09:08:48 AM

But all of that is subjective, and tends to change over the years.

Quote from: 12AX7 on September 17, 2006, 12:14:28 AM

greed –noun
excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions.
[Origin: 1600–10; back formation from greedy]
—Greed, greediness denote an excessive, extreme desire for something, often more than one's proper share.[/b] Greed means avid desire for gain or wealth (unless some other application is indicated) and is definitely uncomplimentary in implication.

It's a dictionary definition; it hasn't changed "over the years" since the 1600's.

You're trying to be waaaaaay too broad with a word (greed) that doesn't fit. I agree; it's peoples' desire for "more/better" that drives a society; but that is not greed. What you're putting forth is akin to stating that anyone who gets in a car is a speedfreak. By default, if they are 'driving'; they are 'speeding'.
You're smart enough to know better than that.

Evonus · « **Reply #12 on:** September 17, 2006, 05:08:16 PM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on September 17, 2006, 02:47:18 PM

It's a dictionary definition; it hasn't changed "over the years" since the 1600's.

You're trying to be waaaaaay too broad with a word (greed) that doesn't fit. I agree; it's peoples' desire for "more/better" that drives a society; but that is not greed. What you're putting forth is akin to stating that anyone who gets in a car is a speedfreak. By default, if they are 'driving'; they are 'speeding'.
You're smart enough to know better than that.

I'm not saying the definition of the word has changed, I'm saying the definition of the word is vague. Any desire for wealth can be considered greed, because to some it would seem excessive.

12AX7 · « **Reply #13 on:** September 17, 2006, 05:27:03 PM »

Quote from: Evonus on September 17, 2006, 05:08:16 PM

I'm saying the definition of the word is vague. Any desire for wealth can be considered greed, because to some it would seem excessive.

Riiiiiiight. Ok, then.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #14 on:** September 17, 2006, 06:11:54 PM »

greed

n 1: excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves 2: reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins)

What "excessive, more than one needs or deserves, reprehensible acquisitiveness" mean in terms of reality are not so easy to define. A dictionary has a definition, but the practical application can vary.

He's trying to point out that to you, buying a piece of gun (or perhaps trying to make 20 bucks) isn't excessive. To someone who has a different view of the capitalist system, or even a different value of gum, it could be. It depends on how you value something.

Evonus · « **Reply #15 on:** September 17, 2006, 09:25:03 PM »

Quote from: Crystalmonkey on September 17, 2006, 06:11:54 PM

greed

n 1: excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves 2: reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins)

What "excessive, more than one needs or deserves, reprehensible acquisitiveness" mean in terms of reality are not so easy to define. A dictionary has a definition, but the practical application can vary.

He's trying to point out that to you, buying a piece of gun (or perhaps trying to make 20 bucks) isn't excessive. To someone who has a different view of the capitalist system, or even a different value of gum, it could be. It depends on how you value something.

Thank you, I was beginning to think I was speaking a different language.

12AX7 · « **Reply #16 on:** September 18, 2006, 06:28:55 AM »

I'm sure if I unpinned the definition of something and claimed it could mean various things to whoever; I could engage in a similar style debate. But they still use the red markers at my school; and things aren't given defintion by how you "feel" or how you wish to use them. Black is still black, red is still red, and dictionary definitions are actually definitions; not suggestions to be applied however anyone sees fit. I can't debate you when you unpin the very definition of the word you're attempting to use; and go off on some tangent about how anyone could apply it to anything; depending on "what it means to them".

"Society is driven by greed."

"That's not greed- by definition, greed means <insert apparently useless dictionary definition>. That driving force would be "survival"; possibly "instinct"."

"No. . . greed means... whatever meaning anyone applies to it. If you want anything; you're greedy."

Socrates · « **Reply #17 on:** September 18, 2006, 07:07:55 AM »

Quote from: rogue_77 on September 16, 2006, 09:23:21 PM

so which came first, the chicken or the egg??

Neither, the Rooster came first.

12AX7 · « **Reply #18 on:** September 18, 2006, 07:20:12 AM »

+1

TheJudge · « **Reply #19 on:** September 18, 2006, 09:07:24 AM »

So, who's having sex with the hen? Something's missing!

/Frank

derry · « **Reply #20 on:** September 18, 2006, 11:14:42 AM »

Life and art are pretty loose terms. However, I'd say life imitates art...art being human creativity/mind. Art can imitate life, but it's really just more of a recognition of something that already has artistic value.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #21 on:** September 18, 2006, 01:29:49 PM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on September 18, 2006, 06:28:55 AM

I'm sure if I unpinned the definition of something and claimed it could mean various things to whoever; I could engage in a similar style debate. But they still use the red markers at my school; and things aren't given defintion by how you "feel" or how you wish to use them. Black is still black, red is still red, and dictionary definitions are actually definitions; not suggestions to be applied however anyone sees fit. I can't debate you when you unpin the very definition of the word you're attempting to use; and go off on some tangent about how anyone could apply it to anything; depending on "what it means to them".

"Society is driven by greed."

"That's not greed- by definition, greed means <insert apparently useless dictionary definition>. That driving force would be "survival"; possibly "instinct"."

"No. . . greed means... whatever meaning anyone applies to it. If you want anything; you're greedy."

Apples and Oranges.

There are some things that we don't usually debate about because the way in which they are "known" and defined warrants it. (Colors, Measurement like "Meters, Inches, etc..", Mathematics perhaps)

There are some things that you HAVE to debate because they require NORMATIVE values.

Justice is the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness. I think we might all agree on that, but the point we might debate about is WHAT WE THINK OF AS JUST OR MORALLY RIGHT. To some, BEING GAY IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH. Do you think that it's justice if someone were to go and kill because of that? The person doing the killing certainly would, because "Righteousness" is something not clearly defined in the dictionary, and cannot be. It changes over time, hence it being NORMATIVE.

What was completely ignored in your argument is that while greed may be the "excessive desire to acquire or possess more", you haven't told me what EXCESSIVE is. That's like trying to say that "Justice is the quality of being just" and not explaining what being JUST is.

Edit:
Just to make it clear, I'm not trying to make this personal. We're still friends. =)

rogue_77 · « **Reply #22 on:** September 18, 2006, 09:08:29 PM »

But where does wanting to "better" your life stop and greed start?

Also, I think it works both ways. Life imitates art and art imitates life.

Looking back, you'll see pieces of art that have very much influenced life. Any work that is mentioned in daily life. Books, music, etc. That alters your life, so your life is changed because of it.

I could name MANY examples. Even now days, as well as centuries old pieces.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #23 on:** September 19, 2006, 12:25:41 AM »

I'd say that greed begins when you do something to better your life excessively (that is, when it isn't necessary). The problem lies when people start pinning their own definitions of necessity on people. Personally, I'd be content to live with a lot less posessions than a log of people I know, people who buy things that they have no practical use for, yet I'm careful about calling them greedy, for all I know in their personal reality such things really ARE necessities.

12AX7 · « **Reply #24 on:** September 19, 2006, 06:45:50 AM »

Quote from: Crystalmonkey on September 18, 2006, 01:29:49 PM

There are some things that we don't usually debate about because the way in which they are "known" and defined warrants it. (Colors, Measurement like "Meters, Inches, etc..", Mathematics perhaps)

There are some things that you HAVE to debate because they require NORMATIVE values.

Justice is the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness. I think we might all agree on that, but the point we might debate about is WHAT WE THINK OF AS JUST OR MORALLY RIGHT. To some, BEING GAY IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH. Do you think that it's justice if someone were to go and kill because of that? The person doing the killing certainly would, because "Righteousness" is something not clearly defined in the dictionary, and cannot be. It changes over time, hence it being NORMATIVE.

What was completely ignored in your argument is that while greed may be the "excessive desire to acquire or possess more", you haven't told me what EXCESSIVE is. That's like trying to say that "Justice is the quality of being just" and not explaining what being JUST is.

So now we have to define "excessive" so that we can define "greed". Which word will be the next? We can go on and on and on and on like this. Which is why we, as a society, have tools to use such as a dictionary to define things ("greed", "excessive", "justice", "just") with a definate definition (how funny; definiton derives from DEFINATE); so we don't have to debate each word's meaning or find a new meaning every time we have a conversation. Can you imagine your example above in practical application? We would have to define "just"; so that we can define "justice"; which, obviously, is going to require an explanation of "Law"; which requires an explanation or "criminality"... for each and every trial.
And what if the accused demands an altered definiton of guilty? Or of "accused"? What if the accused claims what he did is not a crime at all, the way he sees it? Is he still guilty? Can he even ever be found guilty -of anything- under these circumstances?

Quote from: Crystalmonkey on September 18, 2006, 01:29:49 PM

...you haven't told me what EXCESSIVE is...

...it's in the dictionary. :p

Quote from: Crystalmonkey on September 18, 2006, 01:29:49 PM

Edit:
Just to make it clear, I'm not trying to make this personal. We're still friends. =)

--- edited to kill some stowaway commas and quotation marks. We threw their bodies overboard, so if you ha"ppen to see any grammar fragments fl,oating by, just ignor"e them.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: What truly drives society? Does life imitate art or does art (Read 26800 times)

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7