Richard Feynman: The Beauty of the Flower

June 15th, 2010 | by admin |

http://www.FreeScienceLectures.com

This video is from 1981. The interview is also the subject of Feynman’s book The Pleasure of Finding Things Out.

I have a friend who’s an artist and he’s some times taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say, “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree, I think. And he says, “you see, I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you as a scientist, oh, take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing.” And I think he’s kind of nutty.

First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me, too, I believe, although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is. But I can appreciate the beauty of a flower.

At the same time, I see much more about the flower that he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside which also have a beauty. I mean, it’s not just beauty at this dimension of one centimeter: there is also beauty at a smaller dimension, the inner structure… also the processes.

The fact that the colors in the flower are evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting – it means that insects can see the color.

It adds a question – does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms that are… why is it aesthetic, all kinds of interesting questions which a science knowledge only adds to the excitement and mystery and the awe of a flower.

It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

—
It’s Never too Late to Study:

http://www.FreeScienceLectures.com

—
Notice: This video is copyright by its respectful owners.
The website address on the video does not mean anything.
—

Duration : 0:1:42


[youtube ZbFM3rn4ldo]

  1. 17 Responses to “Richard Feynman: The Beauty of the Flower”

  2. By LordMalice6d9 on Jun 15, 2010 | Reply

    Richard Feynman is …
    Richard Feynman is awesome!

  3. By shakyl008 on Jun 15, 2010 | Reply

    Indeed.
    The only …
    Indeed.
    The only job that may aply to people looking for money, is, I think, a banker, or whatever you do in Wall Street.

  4. By kedarbarak on Jun 15, 2010 | Reply

    @Baphomet3110 Isn´t …
    @Baphomet3110 Isn´t it quite naive to suspect yourself of being completely untouched by the influence of other people? I believe only autistic people are so unlucky to live in the state of total mental independence… On the other hand originality is very important, but I don´t think it is a matter of internal powers alone. Any relation would be pointless then for a “really original and creative” personality, wouldn´t it?

  5. By xiner on Jun 15, 2010 | Reply

    Anyone going into …
    Anyone going into science for the money is deluded.

  6. By kubikmaster on Jun 15, 2010 | Reply

    I am a physicist …
    I am a physicist and I have always enjoyed more my sexual experiences…physics is exciting, make no mistake, but it is my vehicle to get money and swing like an angel ~_^, I guess I should have been a pimp, but hey!, science is my too

  7. By chris45520702 on Jun 15, 2010 | Reply

    I think that the …
    I think that the arts and the sciences are both sides of the same coin. You have to be very creative to success in both. And they fill our desire of growing as a human being.

  8. By Baphomet3110 on Jun 15, 2010 | Reply

    I’ve read all of …
    I’ve read all of those. Wisdom is a farce.

    Remember Nietzsche? Don’t take the words of others for truth, take your own. He also attacked the other people you mentioned pretty harshly ;)

    There, you have some great, old philosopher giving you guidance (anti-guidance?), now you can put it into effect.

  9. By parispeter2 on Jun 15, 2010 | Reply

    So do you think you …
    So do you think you have nothing to learn from others? Or that they have nothing to learn from you? What you say implies that there is no such thing as shareable wisdom – something that I know is not true because I have learned a great deal from authors, though I wouldn’t have chosen the ones you mentioned, but rather Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza and Nietzsche. Of course we have to relate their lessons to our lives, but that doesn’t mean they – or the living wise – have nothing to say to us.

  10. By Baphomet3110 on Jun 15, 2010 | Reply

    I’m afraid I’m …
    I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with the viewpoint that you become a more complete person from studying the humanities.

    I have read from Schopenhauer to Eliot, from Shakespeare to Wagner. I have founding nothing in them but what other people thought about the world. I don’t care what they thought; my thoughts are my own, and are born from the originality and drive that powers my being, not from the musings of long dead authors. I don’t care what other carbon-based lifeforms think.

  11. By chopin65 on Jun 15, 2010 | Reply

    I have a couple of …
    I have a couple of this man’s books. I was thinking of early Vedic sources and their cosmic view while watching this. Beauty is not a quality of a paticular object but the event of its reception, that is to say when we view it. The event on a atomic and sub atomic level has as much beauty as on traditional levels. I am a web developer and think that the script (the Html and other mark up styles I use) is like poetry. Would Shakespeare agree to this?

  12. By rictheis on Jun 15, 2010 | Reply

    Feynman just …
    Feynman just happens to be one of my very favorite physicists, and I love his manner of explaining physics … thank you for this video clip.

  13. By parispeter2 on Jun 15, 2010 | Reply

    Don’t forget …
    Don’t forget philosophy :)

  14. By wdeboer0 on Jun 15, 2010 | Reply

    I’m a scientist and …
    I’m a scientist and my girlfriend’s an artist. I thoroughly enjoy art and I believe similarly to what parispeter2 says that developing both sides (artistic and scientific) is very important and deepens and enriches one’s understanding of both subjects. The only problem with art that I can see is that as a scientist I can expect to see regular paychecks whereas it tends to be a lot more volatile with art. :)

  15. By parispeter2 on Jun 15, 2010 | Reply

    My feeling is that …
    My feeling is that everybody is potentially artistic and scientific, and that our outlook becomes more complete if we develop both sides. Personally I’m more artistic (emotional-imaginative?) but I’ve profited from finding out more about science and thus developing my scientific (rational-imaginative?) side. I would add that the philosophical-spiritual side, which deals with the search for meaning, also makes up the complete personality in my view, and should not be neglected.

  16. By xiner on Jun 15, 2010 | Reply

    I’m not a very …
    I’m not a very artistic person, so I see more beauty in the sciences than in the arts. I get more enjoyment out of physics. I know everyone doesn’t agree, though.

  17. By mbar128 on Jun 15, 2010 | Reply

    I totally agree and …
    I totally agree and I’m of a scientific personality.

  18. By parispeter2 on Jun 15, 2010 | Reply

    Or as Umberto Eco …
    Or as Umberto Eco put it: “gynaecologists still fall in love with women”. But art is also interesting because it’s about HOW we see things, not about how they are in themselves i.e. it makes us think about how we look at things and people and why, and THAT is also fascinating. Neither art nor science is superior, and we need both.

Post a Comment