Ifat Glassman

I have been giving this subject some thought, and could not find any logical explanation to why Nakedness should have this or that meaning. Does "Nakedness" even have such a universal meaning, and if so - what is it and why? To explain what I mean by "a meaning" I would point out the meaning that nakedness has for most people: Something personal that should only be revealed to one's romantic partner, and only after they are intimate enough. Some people also have no problem showing their naked bodies to people of the same sex (assuming they are not homosexual). In other words there is a very strong link between nakedness and sexual interest in one's body. For me, I used to see my naked body as something very personal, regardless of the gender of the person next to me. I would not let any other person alive take a look at my naked body (unless they are my lovers), but in my art nakedness would have an entirely different meaning for me than the one I had for myself in everyday life. In my art nakedness has the meaning of bearing one's soul: of showing traits of character in the most direct way: through the shape and posture of a naked body. But in the last two years nakedness in my everyday life changed it's meaning: I have no problem with women who see me naked (in showers at the pool, for example). A few days ago, I went out of the shower and one of my roommate's boyfriend was there, with the rest of my roommates. His girlfriend covered his eyes to prevent him from seeing me with a short towel, but I realized, that heck, I really don't care if he seems me like that or not. In fact, I think I would not care to go naked through the kitchen and have all of them see me naked, if this would not have caused embarrassment on their part and problems. And now I am quite confused: I don't know how my opinion about nakedness changed or why , and I don't know if there is any reason, based in metaphysics (or epistemology) for which nakedness has a certain unchangeable meaning. Here is a question that is helpful in "cornering up" the question about the meaning of nakedness: On a really hot day, assuming that going naked on that place is legal, would you go naked or stay with clothes and suffer from the heat?

What I meant by "all of one's values" as I was asking questions about what I thought was your position (I just realized now how misleading that statement "all of one's values" is) is just values of character (independence, integrity, honesty, innocence etc', and beauty and intelligence). I need more time to think this subject through. Will post when have new conclusions. Hehehe...

You are mixing things up: You are the one who said that to enjoy sex all of one's values should be met: I was only saying that a sexual response can only be to values. Apparently, we are both saying the same thing. In the post where I presented your position I was relying on the "all values must be present is metaphysical" claim which you now make clear that you do not support. So just Never-mind that whole post (fsheew). I said that you are missing a step because I treated casual sex as being sex with someone who does not hold all of one's values, which was rather silly of me to do. Like lathanar said: I like this description for casual sex and I am going to stick with this as being casual sex from now on, However, I think a more percise description is needed for what constitutes "casual sex". This just emphasizes that we are discussing several questions that tend to collapse into one another: Casual sex is one question, sex with someone one knows but that does not share all of their values is the other one, and relation between sex and emotions (love, affection, admiration): "is sex without love immoral?". David, would you agree with claim #1 of Inspector? "1) A man (any man) cannot maintain a sexual desire (or sexual pleasure) in the presence of things which are of dis-value to him"? If so, would you agree that you need to make sure that this woman doesn't have those dis-values before you sleep with her, since "a rational man does not seek to gain any value through ignorance or evasion of reality"? (which is claim #2 of Inspector), and not knowing this woman in depth would mean that you are ignorant of her value? Casual sex would be like downloading music for free from a site that does not clearly proves to be legal. How can you enjoy the music when thinking that it has a good chance of being stolen?

Inspector, you are missing a step though. If people have the option of responsing sexually to just some of their values in other people, and suppose they are certain that those values are present in the person in question, but not about the rest of their values - then why won't a rational man be able to enjoy sex based on just those values? Why must ALL values be present for him to enjoy sex? If love is one's response to someone else having ALL of one's values then this translates the question into "why must a rational man love a woman in order to enjoy sex with her?"

, I admire the character of Howard Roark as well. I was talking about people who misinterpret his character. If someone considers the idea behind the "syndrome" then they too realize that there is nothing wrong with the character of Roark himself. But alright then, I am changing the name of the syndrome to the "pseudo Roark syndrome". Is this better now? There is a limit to what a man of self esteem agrees to take. For me, walking away while I am speaking to someone as a routine, refusal to consider my ideas, and general disrespect are the line. If the problem in his attitude was something less meaningful (like lack of affectionate behavior) I would not give such advice, but I would advice to talk about it further. But when someone does not even give you enough credit to hear you out, I see no point in continuing to talking to them, just like I don't see the point in talking sense into someone who does not use reason to think.

Might be the "Howard Roark" syndrome. Let me explain: The Howard Roark syndrome is a psychological problem in which the person is trying to imitate Howard Roark by trying to appear indifferent and "cool" by dropping all manners, or every type of behavior that might indicate any consideration for other people's emotions. This syndrome may include hanging up on people, walking away when they speak, not letting them know important information about their schedule that have influence on your time and efforts. There are two types of Roark syndromes: One is the second hander, who's main interest is to create the impression of being a Roark in the eyes of the people that matter to him, and the second type is a first hander that misinterprets ethics in a social context: in other words he believes that by being polite he would be unethical, a "non-Roark". However, The person having the syndrome can only exercise this attitude on people who would be willing to take it, which are usually the closest people to that person, and the ones that value him the most (which are willing to stick around). This is the same reason why children talk nastily to their parents and why some husbands beat up their wives while being nice to strangers: They know their loved ones will stick around. Well, you have to bear in mind that when Howard Roark works, he is indifferent to everyone around him . Don't know, maybe I am completely off with the Roark syndrome, you would have to consider this based on your knowledge of him. My advice is: Force him to make a choice about how he treats you. Having the right person with the right traits isn't enough: if he doesn't value you enough or if he fails to understand the proper ways to communicate with someone he values, those are his problems and he needs to work them out. By staying you will only make those problems persist.

Just to make myself clear, I did not say that some people are born with the tendency to not examine other human beings in depth but to project an ideal image on them (lol!), in case that is what you were asking me. We are saying very similar things about what is metaphysical in sex. I said that metaphysically, sexual desire can only be triggered by one's values presented in another person. You say, that not only that, but also a man must have all of his values presented in someone else to trigger their sexual desire. But you need to understand that those statements are very bold. We can't just say "this is metaphysical" and then proceed. Such a claim has to be at least reviewed somehow (because a proof for something being metaphysical involves brain research), we need to present some evidence that suggests it and to think of possible evidence that contradicts it, to make sure that we are not making a mistake. Assuming that we are not making a mistake, your answer to why casual sex cannot bring pleasure to a rational man, goes like this: Man (any man) has no choice about the need to have ALL their values presented in a woman (I'm making the sexes fixed to make this discussion easier) A rational man would make sure that his requirements are met in reality: which cannot be achieved by having sex with someone outside the context of a relationship in which you know the woman in depth. (= casual sex necessarily involves projecting one's image of the ideal partner without verifying it). (I love it when arguments in philosophy start to look like proofs in mathematics) Let me know if I didn't present your arguments correctly. I agree with your observation that subconsciously, people tend to project their image of the ideal on someone else that has some of the traits. But, I do think that the assumptions about what is metaphysical need further consideration.

Ask yourself what would allow your friend to enjoy a strip club? For people who value sex very highly, sexual pleasure is attained by (well in your case) a woman of high competence, moral stature and a great mind. Those things cannot be found in a strip club. A strip club is mainly meant to allow people to experience sexual pleasure based on viewing direct sexual contents. A stripper does not show off her great mind or moral stature in such a job. How can such a thing be sexually appealing to any Objectivist is beyond me. Sexuality divorced from a woman's mind is not a rational value.

Very smart, what you said. It's not so "science fiction" as you think it is. For example, blind-from-birth people get no stimuli to the visual cortex. Instead neighboring neurons invade into that space, and form meaningful connections with those neurons to encode other types of information, like information about shapes that are attained using touch. So the region that uses normal people to process visual information, uses blind from birth people to understand Braille. This characteristic of the brain is called "plasticity", and it refers to the brain's ability to change it's architecture in response to stimuli. In the case of neurons that are responsible for sight: suppose you would use special glasses that would divert the real image a meter to your left, and you would be forced to wear those glasses for, say, 3 months. At first, for someone looking at you from the side, you would turn your head a meter too left to look at an object. But since you still have your hearing sense, your brain would be able to correct this problem, and with time you would start looking at the right direction to see an object again. The wiring in your brain has changed: It has been changed (probably) in the connection between the retina and the brain. So after the glasses are taken off, you would think that objects are not really located where they are located, and using your sense of hearing your brain will re-adjust itself. However, if you had no reference, you would have no way to correct the mistake. If someone started to excite the neurons in your cochlea in the opposite order to the actual frequencies, you would simple hear things in a distorted way, I don't know if your brain will be able to correct the mistake, because I'm not sure if the information of frequencies is compared with information from other senses. An experiment with a frog suggests that you would simply hear distorted sounds but your brain will interpret them as the real ones: A frog's retina has been surgically turned up-side-down. The neurons from the retina connect to the cortex by markers that are determined genetically. The result was that the frog saw the world up-side down. When a fly was above it's head it would leap down to catch it. I think this suggests that since the brain is not counting on light rays to change direction, or on high frequency sounds to appear in the location of the low frequency sounds, that it has no flexibility in interpreting those images/sounds. But the brain does have tremendous plasticity.

GreedyCapitalist, what do you mean by "require" in "sex requires love"? Obviously, sex as a physical act, can be done without love. "Can" as in "physically possible". I understand your question as "Why does enjoyment from sex require love?". Now the next question is what do you mean by "love"? Or rather what is enough to trigger this emotion for another person? Can love only be felt for someone who is perfect according to one's standards? Or can one love someone who has most of one's values, some specific ones? or just for any value? If one's sexual desire is metaphysically triggered by values in the person in question, then sex becomes like an X-ray for a person's true values. The amount of pleasure that can be gained from sex with that person metaphysically depend on one's appreciation for that person. When will the potentially-gained pleasure be enough for a rational man to decide to go ahead and consummate? I turn now to softwareNerd's post: I don't see how it is possible to want sex in the first-place with someone who is not a representation of one's highest values. What I have claimed is that a man can only want sex when their highest values are met in someone else. Therefor if one desires to have sex with someone because they look good and are honest, and doesn't care for any other traits, that means that those things are the highest values for that person. Otherwise, I claim, it would not be possible for them to want sex in the first-place. If one merely wants physical pleasure, stay home and masturbate. I bet you can get great results with various devices (or whatever). But when someone wants sex with another person it is necessarily because they hold their highest values. Now, there might be a giant hole in this assumption of mine of what is metaphysical about sex, but this is what I have been saying so far. So to go back to the question: At what point will the potentially-gained pleasure be "good enough" for a rational man to decide to consummate? (Gosh this subject is difficult ) Is there even such a threshold for a "rational man"? I think there is. Suppose someone does hold a rational set of values. And one knows person X who is independent, and does their job terrificly, but one doesn't know anything more about that person. One can get X amount of pleasure from sex with that person, but sex won't allow them to celebrate everything that they are. --I'm a bit stuck at this point, so I'll go back to it later--

Have no idea what you were talking about with that "defined that way" business... You cannot make something metaphysical by defining it as such, you can identify it as having a certain nature. I've claimed that 2 aspects of sex are metaphysical: (1) That the object of desire is determined metaphysically (=The same reason why animals don't sexually desire trees). (2) That sexual desire is metaphysically triggered by values in the object of desire. As for determining that certain aspects of sex are metaphysical: If you're looking for a proof that they are metaphysical, I don't have one. Getting a proof for this would be very difficult. However, I base the statement that those aspects of sex are metaphysical on observation: People cannot want something that they don't value. Sexual desire can only be triggered by something a man subconsciously values. Pleasure cannot be attained by doing something a man truly (subconsciously) holds as repulsive. Of course people can value things that are destructive and then get pleasure from having those things, but still, pleasure is only enabled because they value those things first. The more bold statement I've made though, is that human beings necessarily react sexually to their values in the opposite sex, and that they have no choice about that being the criterion for their sexual desire. Reality could also have been that some values trigger sexual desire but the rest just trigger other emotions ("I only want this woman sexually because she is good looking, her intelligence just makes me respect her"). The more I think about it though, the more I realize that this is more complex... Sexual desire is also triggered in some by a partner that allows them to see themselves the way they want to be. So conclusion is: Will think about this further...

Sex is a celebration of one's values - that is metaphysical. The meaning of it being metaphysical is that man's sexuality will always be triggered by his values presented in another person (usually of the opposite sex). Metaphysical means that man has no choice about it, meaning that our brain is built this way to connect between those two things: sex (the desire for the physical act), and our values presented in another human being (of the opposite sex). * Notice that animals have a similar mechanism for choosing their squeeze: They look for the strongest in the herd, the one with the biggest horns etc'. For human beings our values can range from mere physical appearance (in the same way that animals judge), and to things like intelligence, honesty, independence, etc'. If a man has no choice about having their sexuality triggered by their values, then people who's sexuality is triggered by physical appearance alone have a very poor set of values, one that resembles the basic values of animals. I think that people who have no real understanding of morality would not actually consider it as a value in other people, which would only leave the physical properties as a value. Another question that can be asked here though, is why can't people just respond to some of their values in other people as a sexual response? In other words, why isn't it possible to hold as values both physical beauty, and values of morality (independence, honesty innocence etc'), but have their sexual desire be satisfied on the basis of just one of those values (physical beauty)? My answer is that it is possible, but the amount of enjoyment someone would get out of sex depends on how high on their hierarchy of values physical beauty lies. If it is on top of the list, it will be enough for them to have sex, but if it is lower (as it should be for rational people) then they will require other values in another person in order to enjoy sex. Just to be fair, I have to say that I didn't reach those conclusions all on my own: I should Thank This blogger.

Raising kids is also a sort of a creative job. Since nobody is going to pay you to do it though, it does justify choosing another job that would bring you the most money in the least time. The point is: You have to have some creative activity in your life, that will call upon your special abilities and potential (intellectually). I think that this creative activity should be the purpose of your life, and not necessarily a paying job, though ideally, if there were no annoying forms and government regulations, you should aspire to get paid for what you love to do. I don't see how deadlines would necessarily be a bog-down if you love what you're doing. Your business, you make the deadlines. Man can only have fun if he is first proud of himself, and he can only be proud of himself if he creates something worthy. This is why work should be the main purpose in man's life. The purpose of work is to fulfill the deepest psychological need, on which all other emotional pleasures depend upon: your pride. Try thinking of how it would feel like to spend an evening with your wife, if you cannot look at yourself and be proud of things you have achieved, or how much fun it would be to visit those places, if you never created anything by yourself your entire life (but just used the money you got from someone else). Pride is such a basic emotion, or recognition, that nothing else can exist without it. If you have any other method to gain pride other than creative activity that is aimed at achieving the best you can do - please let me know. You might ask, why should that need be satisfied in just one career, why can't I just create in many small fields (like designing and building furnitures every once in a while, investing in the stock market sometimes, write an essay once a month, and educate my kids part-time). The only answer I can think of is that this doesn't allow you to achieve anything great at one field, but just small achievements in many fields, which would probably be less satisfying, but I don't see anything bad about it. So in fact my answer is that even in your current lifestyle you probably are acting according to the principle of Ayn Rand that you quoted here, only your job and creative activity that gives you pride are not the same thing. And if the society is rational enough and the country free enough, it would be irrational to do something else for a living than what challanges you and interests you. One cannot base one's life on trips and walks on the beach alone, since the basis of the pleasure from those things is pride.

I agree with that completely. Great essay. Thank you for that one. I agree with almost everything in it (except the comment about letting the palestines own the Gaza strip as a bad thing). I think I am your opportunity to answer your question of why people are ignorant of History. All my years, except the last 4-5 years of my life or so, I was alergic to History. Everything that started with the words "In 1879..." was automatically marked and deleted from my brains, and everything that would be said after those words would go in trough one ear and go out through the other. History, for me, was the essence of boredom on earth, and the worst enemy of fun . If you consider the fact that I grew up in Israel, it would tell you that even people who do grow up in an atmosphere of danger and constant life-threat can remain indiffrent to the need to know History, though, I think that the reson you gave for the lack of motivation is correct. In my case, the atmosphere of danger and life threat simply wouldn't go through. I never watched the news or read the newspapers, and treated any danger with a dismissing attitude and just ignored it. After discussing this with a former friend, I realized that one of the reasons why I hated History so much is because it was taught in a very dry way (Dates, names etc') and without any guiding line, or something to connect to life today (I mean life back then). For example, Instead of teaching us how the roots of the Arab Israeli conflict connect to the more recent History (like the Intifada's), we were just taught the basic facts of the British mandate and the immigration of Jews to Israel. I had to learn the important facts on my own, and I am still doing that. It was only a while after I discovered Objectivism that I strated thinking about the meaning and significance of political systems, and begun to realize the importance of History. It is very easy for people who's life are good to not see the need to think about problems of the past. "If everything is going good now, it must have always been like this and always remain like this. What reason can there be for things not to be good?". I guess this is what I was thinking to myself.

I am going to give my own answer, which is not an interpretation of what Ayn Rand said, but probably a result of things that I learned from her philosophy: A basic psychological need, which is also a high value for every man, is pride. How does one gain pride? By becoming good at something, exercising one's abilities to the maximum, and achieving something worthy and useful with one's mind. A man that can look at what he has created and know that it is good is (should be) proud. Now normally, if you are good at something, and able to create something useful, someone should be interested in it, and interested in paying you for it. Suppose nobody is interested in what you can create - does this mean that you should choose another occupation and focus on it as your main purpose in life? of course not. If your case is the unfortunate case that I've mentioned, I suggest to look for the easiest way to make the money you need to use the rest of your time to do what you enjoy and that brings you pleasure and pride. The main purpose of a career, as I see it, is to satisfy your need of pride, intellectual challenge, and pleasure of creation. The second purpose is to make a living. Normally, those two should not collide. You stated that one of your hobbies is to read books and gain knowledge about things. While this is enjoyable, think of how it would make you feel if this was your career. Nothing to create by yourself, no new conclusions of your own to write about: just sit down all day and read. Kinda... not satisfying, right? That's because satisfaction comes from some sort of creation, something that would make you think of your achievement and be proud. There are other enjoyable things in life, but if you try to break it down, I think you will find that even a walk in a beautiful wood can only be enjoyable if you are proud of yourself, if you know you have done enough and are now free to enjoy other things. And it is also only possible to enjoy it when you know that your survival is secured. Both needs (pride and money) normally should be achieved by your career.

RationalEgoistSG, not sure if you would like to go into more intimate details here in the forum, but my question is: Why did you ask this question ("How do you know when you are in love")? Are you afraid you don't know what love is? Are you afraid that what you are feeling for this woman is not the best you can get, emotionally speaking? It seems to me like you think that love is generated by conscious choice, which is not true: Emotions come from your subconscious.

Various things can give you happiness, but in order to experience it you first have to feel secure about your existence (or ability to survive). This certainty, that you can wake up tomorrow knowing that you have a place to sleep when you get back, is required for enjoying any other recreational activity. You cannot enjoy a sports game knowing that after that game is over you have nothing to eat or no place to sleep. (Right?) The way to ensure your survival is through work. Work that would be your source of income for the long run, and not for a day or two. What Nathaniel Branden is saying is that every man realizes this fact: that without work (long term job) there can be no certainty of one's survival. This creates a psychological need (on top of the actual need) to engage in creative work and to be efficient. Without working efficiently toward that purpose that you have chosen to serve your survival, you would not be able to be relaxed enough to enjoy other things (like a sports game, a walk in a beautiful place, conversation with friends etc'). As for the job and direction in life that one should choose: (I am not interpreting the article now, but speaking for myself): You should choose something that interests you, that brings you pleasure, that you are good at, that serves your physical well-being and sits well with other values you want to achieve in life.

My favorite TV show of all times is Profiler. I was hooked pretty bad . The show was about a special Violent Crimes Task Force that was composed of brilliant minds, each in their own field, to catch serial-criminals, criminals that repeat the same crime with a certain pattern. The lead role was of the psychologist Samantha waters (Ally Walker) who had a talent for recreating the crime through the eyes of the criminal, to try and figure out the criminal's mind, motives, and next moves. The show itself didn't provide those clues about the motives of the criminal so that the viewer can figure out the criminal as well (maybe just a little bit) and it left more room just to watch someone else do it, but the viewer is able to follow the line of thought that leads to the psychologist's conclusions. I think if each chapter had more time they could have got that element into it as well (of giving a chance for the viewer to be impressed by the crime scene). Ally walker played the role amazingly. She was the main reason why I loved watching the show. The character she played was of a woman who obviously had to be very strong mentally, because she ventured into the "dark side" of human mind, and because of the things she had to see (distorted bodies and stuff), but she was able to deal with it coldly, yet she had a special, childish vulnerability about her which was fascinating. I never seen anyone play a role so well. She has a genuine . "thinking face". Other than solving crimes she was also personally hunted by a serial killer "Jack of all trades". Another brilliant mind that played with the VCTF's minds. They tried catching him for years. He was leaving clews for Sam in crime scenes as a part of what he imagined as his relationship with her. Another show I really like is Dragon Ball Z. It is an anime show (supposed to be for kids, but I found some very mature things about it), about... well, mainly about fun and humour. The show created an entirely different universe, with many different species of intelligent lives, and amusing or disgusting villains, and a special race that was especially (physically) strong: The sajyans. The main heroes of the show were all Sajyans. The main character, Goku, had an extraordinary benevolent sense of life: he was very innocent and childish and basically did whatever he darned pleased, even if it pissed other people off, but eventually everyone forgave him because he was so happy and likable. He was a very moral character, always standing up against evil to protect what he valued, even if the fight seemed hopeless, he would never give in to evil. He was the inspiration of everyone else who knew him. There were also Sajyan kids in the show, that contributed a lot to the humour by their naughty behavior. There was a special sense of "honor" about the characters, and that honor was sometimes "broken" to produce hilarious results: for example, Piccolo, a very proud and tough, rough martial arts trainer had to teach the boys a certain magical skill, that involved doing the most silly dance on the tip of his toes, like a ballerina. the result was that you see this tough trainer trying to scam his way out of it using the most childish, silly excuses. I just loved it. Another aspect about the humour in the show that was special is how ruthless and direct some of the characters were. For example, Gohan, the son of Goku, had just been made orphan from his dad. he was a spoiled little brat, and Piccolo was his trainer. Whenever Gohan started crying Piccolo would get mad at him and teach him a lesson, by, say, tossing him to a near hill of rocks so that Gohan learns to deal with it . Eventually he made a tough man out of the little wimp, and the process was very funny. The most interesting thing, however, was presented in the character of Makita, another Sajyan. Makita used to be the prince of all Sajyan. After a while that he met Goku, Goku constantly defeated him, which cause Makita to develop strong admiration for Goku, but created inner-conflicts in him since he learned that no-matter what he does he will never be able to reach Goku's level. Makita was the proud, lone type, that nobody dared to address. Therefor his "breaking of will" was a very powerful event. Eventually he changed his philosophy, got married and enjoyed life, and became distant-friends with Goku. The whole process was interesting to watch. In short it is a very life-affirming show. It basically encourages things like enjoying life, not giving in to evil, always doing one's best and working hard to get what one wants, optimism, benevolence and daring.

The only part of my post which was directly related to what you said was the part that answered the claim "they are concerned with pleasing the client" as a way to examine all of their work. This would imply second handishness. I did not mean to say that you look down at artists that are popular, that part was not related to anything you said, nor does the part about how people tend to look down on Romantic realism because it is not "serious" enough. Your claim about their work just reminded me of other criticism on this type of paintings (which was also implied in this thread by comparing Boris Vallejo and Julie Bell to this... impressionist (??) artist, I really wouldn't know the types... ). This reminded me of the conflict between "serious" art (nihilistic, non-realistic) and realistic and romantic type. [Though I do think that this artist is ( a ) not entirely nihilistic, and ( b ) belongs (partially) to the category of fantasy art, since some of his paintings are imaginative.] I guess I should have made it more clear... Sometimes it's hard to communicate where one's ideas are coming from on the context of a forum (so I've learned). Something that might seem clear to me is not necessarily clear to others... so I'm sorry for not being clear enough . As for you being an illustrator - (ooh yeah! I love seeing new artists) - Can you show some of it in the Productivity section?

Just because their work sells does not mean they make it with the intention of selling. There are many paintings of Boris Vallejo and Julie Bell, not all of them are designed for book covers. some are just regular paintings on canvas (with prints available). I see selfish joy of creation in their work, and not a forced attempt to please the crowd. Maybe those two happen to combine nicely in their work. There are also very obvious elements of Romantic realism in their work: Searching the sky. Another important thing that I have to say about this, is that just because something is loved by the masses doesn't make it into a bad thing, or a cheap thing. Some people make the mistake of automatically dismissing every artist that is popular, and turn to the more unfamiliar artists to search for beauty. If someone is popular it night be because they are able to touch on something very basic in people, and describe feelings like love or happiness in their work in a simple way. I love it when an artist is able to portray things like love and happiness in a simple way. Often those things are looked at as "not serious" or "for teenagers". The reason for this is that people think that love and happiness only belong to teenagers, but not to the serious life of adulthood. They would treat great romantic realism works of Brian Larsen as "good as a poster for some 14 year old teenager, but not as art". A lot of people might react to things that are life affirming and fun. This does not necessarily make the artists into second handers. As for Mullin's work. Some of his stuff are appalling. I don't like the meaningless smears of color (Example,Example). But I did like some, like this.

If you can't lift a 175kg weigh, and it is essentially the same process as lifting a box of milk, then you can't lift at all. Some people have a hard time (up to no ability) to understand certain concepts in mathematics. Does that mean that they can't conceptualize? Here are several methods of identification (or selectivity): Having a mental symbol of similar characteristics of a certain group of concretes. Comparing concretes to that symbol as a method of identification. Having a mental symbol of some shape/color/smell and reacting to that shape/color/smell in the same way whether it is attached to the object at hand or not. Having an automatic behavior pattern that is triggered by a direct, invasive physical contact between a certain chemical and the organism, like a bacteria that changes the way it swims when a molecule of glucose is physically attached to it's receptors. A concept is composed of several mental images of characteristics (like shape, smell, and combination of colors) that are related in our mind to the same entity. The essential difference between the first method and the second is that in the first one, the characteristics, those mental symbols are related to some entity, while in the second they just stand for themselves. When you identify a cat you are doing this because the cat makes a certain sound, has a certain shape, way of movement etc', and you relate all those things to the entity cat. Only other option that produces the result of identifying a cat is if the characteristics of a cat would not be attached to that entity, but would be reacted to separately. An example of an experiment to check this: Record sounds of a cat, and play them as if they are coming from your mouth, and see if the dog will choose to attack you. If not, then the only explanation is that the dog has learned that the shape of a cat and the sound a cat makes has to come together, to actually be the annoying entity that they would rejoice in attacking. This connection between more than one stimuli to the entity that has them, indicates conceptual thinking. *Note: all dogs mentioned in my post are cat haters. Interesting how you think that one thing should be proven, but not the other. You are confusing method 3 with methods 2 and 1 here. A pheromone creates a physical connection that triggers automatic mechanisms. Light waves by themselves, do not trigger a mechanism of hunting. When several factors has to appear together for the animal to recognize them as an entity, yet the animal is able to recognize each element individually (and search for a cat when hearing the sound), then they obviously have made a connection between those elements to the entity, and this is exactly how humans do it.

It means both animals are able to identify objects as belonging to a certain group, and separate them from other objects. This is different from the case of ants picking up a trail of a chemical since the identification has to be done (in the examples I provided, and in this one) by different criterions about that object. If it is not conceptual ability to relate visual data + smell + other available characteristics of concretes to a group then I have no idea how anyone can conceptualize at all. When a child is sorting objects according to their shape - is that a demonstration of conceptual ability? and if so, why is it that when a squirrel is doing the exact same thing (it does not attempt to store stones for winter, and I am NOT going to waist my time searching for a proof for that) how is that different? And I supplied the definition of a concept already. I am working according to that definition.

(Wikipedia) I don't think I can find any scientific magazine that would discuss the question of whether or not some animals move in herds as a serious one. We need to agree on what demonstrates "conceptual thinking": if someone is able to sort objects according to similar characteristic, which means to differentiate them from other objects, and integrate them as belonging to the same group, and he would be able to do that based on more than one aspect of those objects (both smell and sight for example) then they would be thinking in terms of concepts. In the case of these lions they are able to tell the difference between members of their group and outsiders. According to wikipedia they also differentiate between females that belong, and males that don't belong (implied). The female that might appear in their area might be of different color and size of other lioness, but they would classify it in a certain group. This classification is visible since they give the members of that group the same treatment. The way they treat other animals is sorted according to groups: they react to snakes in a certain way, to outside lions in another way (according to gender), to prey in another manner. If they had to learn how to handle each individual animal they meet each time, you would not see a lioness storming on a young deer spotted from a distance, since it would be a new concrete for her. "But she recognizes that it is similar to others like it" you say? well what do you know, isn't that conceptual thinking. I see no difference between a squirrel sorting nuts from stones and a child sorting cubic shapes from pyramidal ones. Further burden of disproof is on you. I don't understand your last example, please explain.

It is a known, very easily observed fact, that animals can identify species. Animals hang around in herds, they make "danger" noises when encountering a certain animal (regardless of any differences it may have from other animals of it's species), and they identify types of animals that they eat (regardless of age, colors, gender). What would you consider a "scientific proof"? In this case a proof that animals move in herds is obtained by observing reality. Do you agree that animals hang around in herds? And if you do, how would you explain their ability to stick to members of their own species, if not by identification that this is "this type"? This is so obvious, that it makes me feel like the kid who is yelling "the king is naked!".

DavidOdden, I don't see how we can have a discussion about this if you just ignore every example I supply. If humans ability to identify species of animals is a conceptual ability, how is it not the same for animals who can also identify species (based on the same data that humans do, like visual data, smell, sound etc')?