Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Exotic is a temporary fantasy.

Philosophy Forum
» Aesthetics
» Exotic is a temporary fantasy.

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Either everything is exotic, or nothing is exotic.

Exotic as defined:
1 : introduced from another country : not native to the place where found <exotic plants>
2 archaic : foreign, alien
3 : strikingly, excitingly, or mysteriously different or unusual <exotic flavors>
4 : of or relating to striptease <exotic dancing>

#1 can be refuted with tectonic plate shifting. The earth changes, and everything is virtually from everywhere now, especially considering meteors from outer space. In this light, ice would be exotic to the equator. I just can't accept that as an absolute truth.

The other three defs allude to mystery. But mystery is no longer mysterious after a very short while.

Can anything be truly exotic?

Is a Lamborghini an exotic sports car even in Italy? It's from that country. Is it still exotic to you after getting accustom to it sitting in your garage for a year? Is it still exotic to your neighbors after they have seen it drive down the street a few times?

Can anything stay "strange" after being observed?

Is it man's fate to uncover the strangeness of things?

And my biggest question here:

Proud, as humans, to possess the exotic, the exotic car, the exotic plant, the exotic rug... Yet by possessing them, are we not undoing the very exotic nature of the thing we desired because it was claimed as exotic?

Can a thing be possessed, known, and still be exotic?

Is exotic an attribute, or more akin to being a human expression of emotion?

@QuinticNon,

Things are exotic to you until you become used to them. Most things you get used to over time. Some might see it as a "hamster running in his wheel, going nowhere" thing, but hamsters love the heck out of their wheels so I don't see the problem.

@QuinticNon,

Not sure I can accept that Hamsters can love. Nor can I equate their usage of the wheel with the human pride associated with owning a Porsche. Not an analogy I could embrace.

I'm also not sure what you mean by not seeing "the problem". I didn't really present a problem. I presented an observation. I don't think exotic is a proper adjective that can describe any noun with any permanence. Hamsters cannot describe or think of the wheels they run on as exotic. Humans can and do describe their possessions or objects of desire.

So, is the "thing" exotic, or is the description of the "thing" exotic?

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;127361 wrote:

Not sure I can accept that Hamsters can love. Nor can I equate their usage of the wheel with the human pride associated with owning a Porsche. Not an analogy I could embrace.

I'm also not sure what you mean by not seeing "the problem". I didn't really present a problem. I presented an observation. I don't think exotic is a proper adjective that can describe any noun with any permanence. Hamsters cannot describe or think of the wheels they run on as exotic. Humans can and do describe their possessions or objects of desire.

So, is the "thing" exotic, or is the description of the "thing" exotic?

To use an analogy isn't to equate.

It sounded like you were presenting the problem "as people, we seek after things that are exotic, but once we acquire them they lose the quality that we sought in them". I agree, but don't think it is necessarily a problem. It can be, but not if we know what's going on, just like a hamster would only be unhappy if he was desperately trying to run out of his cage and not getting anywhere.

Unless you just wanted to talk about the definition of exotic :Not-Impressed:

@Jebediah,

I'm very glad you don't think it's a problem. No problem was presented.

The point of my observation is being missed. And although you claim your analogy to the hamster wheel is not "equating", I still don't see the point of the analogy when hamsters cannot love or classify anything as exotic. I just don't get your point with that.

Jebediah;127372 wrote:

...but once we acquire them they lose the quality that we sought in them". I agree, but don't think it is necessarily a problem...

They loose the quality? As if they had the quality in the first place?

Am I wrong to suppose that humans place the quality of exotic upon things, and thus humans remove that quality as well? The "thing" doesn't "have" any quality of exotic beyond what humans describe it with. The "thing" doesn't change whatsoever regardless if it is new to us or common. How then may we attribute "exotic" to anything?

It's very different than saying something is fast, heavy, or red. We have objective measuring tools that allow us to make those claims relative to their individual purposes. But what tool will help us decide when a thing is "exotic" or not? Certainly not age. Exotic is pure subjectivity that is always fleeting. When can we objectively say that it is no longer exotic?

@QuinticNon,

Something that's heavy to me might not be heavy to someone else. Something exotic to me might not be exotic to someone else. Things are exotic relative to the individual. They appear exotic to someone if they are foreign and interesting.

And dude, you totally presented a problem:

Quote:

And my biggest question here:

Proud, as humans, to possess the exotic, the exotic car, the exotic plant, the exotic rug... Yet by possessing them, are we not undoing the very exotic nature of the thing we desired because it was claimed as exotic?

That's not just an observation, you are presenting the fleeting nature of exoticness as a problem for humans who are proud of their possessions.

@QuinticNon,

Very well. I've presented a problem as you say. There's no need for me to argue that point.

As to "heavy", fast, or red... As I said, we have objective tools that help humans determine these things relative to the subject and to the purpose. There is no tool to determine the relative "exotic" to the subject. As well, a thousand pounds will always be heavy to you, regardless of how used to it you are. Light speed will always be fast and blood will always be red. With or without tools, these things will always be the same to both of us. We have agreed as a species what these things are and there is no reason to ever think they will change. But our perspective of exotic changes just by getting to know the object. Do you not see the differences?

I am presenting the opinion that claiming something as "exotic" is an outward expression of pride. And so, if "exotic" is fleeting, then must pride also be fleeting?

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;127342 wrote:

Either everything is exotic, or nothing is exotic.

One important thing to point out with this statement is that exoticism is hardly absolute. Specifically, outside of a truth functional framework, universal quantification as to what is exotic Is not as probable as the existential quantifier. There could be something, or more simply, there could be at least one thing which is exotic while most other things are not exotic. I fear that if you were to axiomatically state "everything is or is not exotic", then you lose the definition and rather focus on the categorical features.

QuinticNon;127342 wrote:

Exotic as defined:
1 : introduced from another country : not native to the place where found <exotic plants>
2 archaic : foreign, alien
3 : strikingly, excitingly, or mysteriously different or unusual <exotic flavors>
4 : of or relating to striptease <exotic dancing>.

You could also say that to be exotic is to be different. The danger in using the etymological roots of the word is that over times, the original meaning and definition change over time. Funny thing though, the chain of definitions in my mind concludes at #3. While #4 is still adequate (and potentially awesome), it seems to me something attributed to another thing.

QuinticNon;127342 wrote:

#1 can be refuted with tectonic plate shifting. The earth changes, and everything is virtually from everywhere now, especially considering meteors from outer space. In this light, ice would be exotic to the equator. I just can't accept that as an absolute truth.

QuinticNon;127342 wrote:

Can anything be truly exotic?

QuinticNon;127342 wrote:

Is a Lamborghini an exotic sports car even in Italy? It's from that country. Is it still exotic to you after getting accustom to it sitting in your garage for a year? Is it still exotic to your neighbors after they have seen it drive down the street a few times?

Its probably the case that the term "exotic car" is used as a selling feature for people with way too much money on their hands and need the encouragement of others to let go of their money. A Lamborghini is not inherently exotic but what we choose to say it is. You could also say a Lamborghini is a "sports car" or a "super car." Is a sports car bioequivalent to an exotic car? If an exotic car is a from a different country or foreign or unusual, does that negate any of the other multitudes of predicates we attribute to the car. And in the case of the Italians, the Lamborghini is not a foreign but a domestic car. So there are problems here.

QuinticNon;127342 wrote:

Can anything stay "strange" after being observed?

Things could remain strange even after we see them because we do not fully understand them. We see a jet airplane, but few people actually know how it works. We type on a computer and read what has been posted on an LCD (or CRT) screen, yet we may not understand how the technology works. Some people may, but some may not. It boils down to what you come to understand.

QuinticNon;127342 wrote:

Is it man's fate to uncover the strangeness of things?

It would be neat to think so.

QuinticNon;127342 wrote:

Proud, as humans, to possess the exotic, the exotic car, the exotic plant, the exotic rug... Yet by possessing them, are we not undoing the very exotic nature of the thing we desired because it was claimed as exotic?

I agree with the assertion being made here, if not on grounds of my own interpretation. It is a samsara -esque like cycle that I see in this example. You want something and you are pained because you do not have it. It could be exotic, novel, whatever. You get it, and you are further pained by the fact that you have it and either you want something else, are unhappy with the thing you have, etc. Not to say you could not be contented with the thing you have, but the nature of exoticism is essentially what you do not know predicated on otop of many other things that the thing actually is. When you become frequented with it, the luster would probably vanish.

QuinticNon;127342 wrote:

Can a thing be possessed, known, and still be exotic?

Heck yes, I have a refrigerator that I have absolutely no idea how it works but it keeps my popsicles frosty. Likewise, I have an African tribal mask that my grandfather gave me that I would in some sense say is an exotic object. I know nothing about the tribe, the details, the workmanship, so it remains a mysterious thing clouded in my own ignorance.

QuinticNon;127342 wrote:

Is exotic an attribute, or more akin to being a human expression of emotion?

Sure. I could buy into that.

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;127376 wrote:

I'm very glad you don't think it's a problem. No problem was presented.

The point of my observation is being missed. And although you claim your analogy to the hamster wheel is not "equating", I still don't see the point of the analogy when hamsters cannot love or classify anything as exotic. I just don't get your point with that.

They loose the quality? As if they had the quality in the first place?

Am I wrong to suppose that humans place the quality of exotic upon things, and thus humans remove that quality as well? The "thing" doesn't "have" any quality of exotic beyond what humans describe it with. The "thing" doesn't change whatsoever regardless if it is new to us or common. How then may we attribute "exotic" to anything?

It's very different than saying something is fast, heavy, or red. We have objective measuring tools that allow us to make those claims relative to their individual purposes. But what tool will help us decide when a thing is "exotic" or not? Certainly not age. Exotic is pure subjectivity that is always fleeting. When can we objectively say that it is no longer exotic?

right here i think you've answered your own question. I see what you're saying, how can we determine something as "exotic" when, essentially, there's nothing that changes about the object before as well as after we're accustomed to the object or agent at hand.

I also have to agree with you, if, in fact, this is what you were trying to get across. Humans tend to attach a certain greater, or lack of, value to things for no other reason than we appreciate something more than others occasionally. In which case I feel as though that perhaps after something exotic is introduced, and you've grown accustomed to it, a better term can be provided. As for before comprehending the object first hand, I do feel the term is accurate.

I had always wanted a turtle, they're unique and fun to watch bumble around their tanks. After acquiring one recently (I named him Berkeley Very Happy

) he's no longer what you could consider exotic in my perspective, still interesting nonetheless, but as for someone who doesn't own one or hasn't come in contact with one, they may still be exotic. So maybe it's not a question of where they come from, rather growing accustomed to them.

:shifty:... in essence, "I see wut you did thurrrr"

@QuinticNon,

"Can anything stay "strange" after being observed?"

this is the question that really stuck out to me, so i started thinking about it
here's the definition of strange

1.
unusual, extraordinary, or curious; odd; queer: a strange remark to make.
2. estranged, alienated, etc., as a result of being out of one's natural environment: In Bombay I felt strange.

3. situated, belonging, or coming from outside of one's own locality; foreign: to move to a strange place; strange religions.

4. outside of one's previous experience; hitherto unknown; unfamiliar: strange faces; strange customs.

5. unaccustomed to or inexperienced in; unacquainted (usually fol. by to): I'm strange to this part of the job.

6. distant or reserved; shy.

most of these fall on the same rule as previously stated, that things were used to are not strange or exotic. BUT, i was thinking about the way something could stay strange and i believe the only way it could is to change constantly. As far as i'm aware, Depending on what your beliefs are your either in the camp of most things change constantly (i fall in this camp) or most things dont. it's kind of a big generalization, but it seems to me people are of one belief or the other. The problem with that is people can get used to things that change. The seasons is an example right off of the top of my head, or weather in general. So for something to stay "exotic" pr strange it would have to be completely and utterly chaotic, im talking chaotic in it's most absolute. It does seem to me only people or maybe animals change this much, i couldnt imagine anything inanimate be completely chaotic. Not to sound cheesy, but could this have something to do with finding new attraction in one's partner?

@QuinticNon,

It's exotic if:

- it can't be mass produced, Ferrai may lack it's exotic feel over years, but still give great prestige.
- if things comes from afar (in Denmark cod fish is common and dull, but considerd a rare delicasy in Canada where salmon is dull but a delicasy in Denmark)
- if it's very new thus very rare, untill it's common you go for next new and rare thing.
- exotic'ism is in the eye of the beholder

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;127376 wrote:

I'm very glad you don't think it's a problem. No problem was presented.

The point of my observation is being missed. And although you claim your analogy to the hamster wheel is not "equating", I still don't see the point of the analogy when hamsters cannot love or classify anything as exotic. I just don't get your point with that.

They loose the quality? As if they had the quality in the first place?

Am I wrong to suppose that humans place the quality of exotic upon things, and thus humans remove that quality as well? The "thing" doesn't "have" any quality of exotic beyond what humans describe it with. The "thing" doesn't change whatsoever regardless if it is new to us or common. How then may we attribute "exotic" to anything?

It's very different than saying something is fast, heavy, or red. We have objective measuring tools that allow us to make those claims relative to their individual purposes. But what tool will help us decide when a thing is "exotic" or not? Certainly not age. Exotic is pure subjectivity that is always fleeting. When can we objectively say that it is no longer exotic?

I've read through most of your arguments and I want to ask, to a man is a beautiful women exotic? Think about to the man, as he compared all other women to her, yet she is so beautiful to him. Yet he doesn't know why. He can tell what features make her beautiful just as he could with other women, yet to one certain women he finds her amazingly beautiful. If exotic means strange or different then to a man a beautiful women is exotic. I'm speaking of love or attraction, but of beauty, though it may play a small role. Compare it to a certain car or picture or some object that is beautiful just for what it is. Then the object will be exotic compared to other objects.

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;127342 wrote:

Can a thing be possessed, known, and still be exotic?

Great topic, QuinticNon. I think the problem is that many people can 'possess' a thing, even for a very long while, and yet not know it. To someone like this the thing may continue to seem exotic. The question then, I think, is does a philosopher experience the thing in the same way? I am inclined to say no. But then that begs the question - what things retain their exotic character to a philosopher? What is alien to a philosopher? What can a philosopher not know, if anything, that others can? That's what I wonder about the exotic. One suggestion I would offer for consideration - words. Philosophers are taken with words to a degree that others generally are not. Words, even old familiar words, under the philosopher's gaze can seem new and exotic - potentially permanently so. No?

Philosophy Forum
» Aesthetics
» Exotic is a temporary fantasy.

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Exotic is a temporary fantasy.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know