Apple Unveils Stunning Kuala Lumpur Store

[nutritious]

If it was a church, synagogue, mosque or lamasery, I might agree with you. What you choose to ignore is the reality that the design of a for-profit retail store has to make concessions for displays, foot traffic, lighting, and numerous other factors that inevitably curtail the "philosophical and spiritual" angles you prize above enterprise.

So let's agree to keep the money lenders out of the temple, and solipsism out of enterprise, no? A place for everything and everything in its place.

That's a false dialectic that you won't be able to justify.

See the thing is if you're going to talk about what good design is, it assumes an objective standard from which we can judge things by. And the materialistic worldview, by definition, can't account for objective standards because objective standards are immaterial and cannot be grounded in physical matter and be universal in the philosophical sense.

A lot of our belief into what good design is came from the reintroduction of humanism during the renaissance and this eventually led to our autonomous epistemology where man became the measure of all things. And then because the West became secular, we began to try and attain some type of material salvation. Let's improve our lives through manipulating nature. There's nothing wrong with that but that became the end all and be all. So what does that mean? Everything began to be about technique, efficiency and productivity. These three are what dominate modern design philosophy. It's inherently stupid. Even Dieter Rams, his principles of good design, they're just products of the thinking of the industrial revolution. It's nothing special. And because modern design is guided by arbitrary standards that can't be justified and based in cold industrial thinking, we have so many sterile buildings that don't touch the heart. There's no reason why they shouldn't. We should always be striving enrich the lives of people no matter what it is. And I can give an epistemic justification for that while you can't because if you're materialist you can't even get around the is-ought problem as articulated by David Hume.

You can make areas for shopping while still trying to reflect the divine and touch the human heart. Ideally if there is an opportunity, good design should transcend mere "practicality" and touch on deeper values.

 

[victorvictoria]

That's a false dialectic that you won't be able to justify.

See the thing is if you're going to talk about what good design is, it assumes an objective standard from which we can judge things by. And the materialistic worldview, by definition, can't account for objective standards because objective standards are immaterial and cannot be grounded in physical matter and be universal in the philosophical sense.

A lot of our belief into what good design is came from the reintroduction of humanism during the renaissance and this eventually led to our autonomous epistemology where man became the measure of all things. And then because the West became secular, we began to try and attain some type of material salvation. Let's improve our lives through manipulating nature. There's nothing wrong with that but that became the end all and be all. So what does that mean? Everything began to be about technique, efficiency and productivity. These three are what dominates modern design philosophy. It's inherently stupid. Even Dieter Rams, his principles of good design, they're just products of the thinking of the industrial revolution. It's nothing special. And because modern design is guided by arbitrary standards that can't be justified and based in cold industrial thinking, we have so many sterile buildings that don't touch the heart. There's no reason why they shouldn't. We should always be striving enrich the lives of people no matter what it is. And I can give an epistemic justification for that while you can't because if you're materialist you can't even get around the is-ought problem as articulated by David Hume.

You can make areas for shopping while still trying to reflect the divine and touch the human heart. Ideally if there is an opportunity, good design should transcend mere "practicality" and touch on deeper values.

Your claim to greater spiritual attainment while simultaneously criticizing anyone who doesn't share your worldview reveals your solopsistic arrogance and lack spiritual attainment or evolution. Your house is built on sand.

 

[nutritious]

Your claim to greater spiritual attainment while simultaneously criticizing anyone who doesn't share your worldview reveals your solopsistic arrogance and lack spiritual attainment or evolution. Your house is built on sand.

So I gave a logical, coherent argument for why I think you're wrong. I believe in epistemic holism that ideas exist as a web of beliefs and if materialism can't even give a logical account for ethics, by logical necessity it should be dismissed. I believe we have to give an epistemic justification for our beliefs, and that relativism is self-refuting as ideology. The fact you are resorting to ad hominem shows that you are not engaging with me in a logical manner. Autonomous epistemology is what is solipsistic. The idea that there's nothing bigger than us and that we should believe whatever psychologically satisfies us is nothing but pride appeasement. Modern moral systems are rooted in pride appeasement, including things like libertarianism. In order to move away from solipsism, we need to believe in something bigger than ourselves and put our ego aside. My view is relativism is solipsistic but you're free to disagree and believe what you want without resorting to personal attacks.

 

[victorvictoria]

So I gave a logical, coherent argument for why I think you're wrong. I believe in epistemic holism that ideas exist as a web of beliefs and if materialism can't even give a logical account for ethics, by logical necessity it should be dismissed. I believe we have to give an epistemic justification for our beliefs, and that relativism is self-refuting as ideology. The fact you are resorting to ad hominem shows that you are not engaging with me in a logical manner. Autonomous epistemology is what is solipsistic. The idea that there's nothing bigger than us and that we should believe whatever psychologically satisfies us is nothing but pride appeasement. Modern moral systems are rooted in pride appeasement, including things like libertarianism. In order to move away from solipsism, we need to believe in something bigger than ourselves and put our ego side and to stop suppressing the truth. Anyway, you're free to believe whatever you want. And I assure you, the first time He came, He came as a lamb. The second time, He comes as a roaring lion. Seek Him while He still comes as a lamb.

"In order to move away from solipsism, we need to believe in something bigger than ourselves…"
You should try it sometime. It would be a good first step for you.

 

[nutritious]

"In order to move away from solipsism, we need to believe in something bigger than ourselves…"
You should try it sometime. It would be a good first step for you.

Do you know what solipsism means in the philosophical tradition? It means the only thing that we can be certain of existing is our own individual minds. That's the philosophic definition. Having a theistic view is the opposite of that. Anyway, there's no point in continuing this conversation. We are so far apart. Sorry if you were offended in any way but I am just trying to challenge the current dominant paradigm.

 

[victorvictoria]

Do you know what solipsism means in the philosophical tradition? It means the only thing that we can be certain of existing is our own individual minds. That's the philosophic definition. Having a theistic view is the opposite of that. Anyway, there's no point in continuing this conversation. We are so far apart. Sorry if you were offended in anyway but I am just trying to challenge the current dominant paradigm.

You're just trying to justify your egocentric view of how we should all live our lives and conduct our business affairs. You've been exhibiting the literal definition of antithesis by claiming moral high ground based solely on your OPINION that Apple should construct its retail operations to reflect your anti-capitalist bias. That, my friend is arrogance, not spirituality. I do agree on one thing: it's pointless for you to continue.

 

[nutritious]

Could you provide some good examples?

Sure here is an idea, just a rough idea meant to show a general aesthetic that I believe is less sterile and cold but still modern and brings a more life giving spiritual aesthetic. True beauty always comes from reflecting the divine because the divine is the ground of all beauty.

 

[rehkram]

When I observe Apple's progression in their physical (bricks & mortar) public interfaces my first thought is often "Hubris made manifest. Have these people never heard of the Titanic?". However, I do still have a sense of humor, so it's immediately followed by "My my, bless your hearts, how twee!"

I'm quite sure this is not the reaction they were going for. I would be interested in reading their strategy plan, assuming they have one, so I can cut them some slack, or provide an informed opinion on how they're doing.

 

[nutritious]

When I observe Apple's progression in their physical (bricks & mortar) physical public interfaces my first thought is often "Hubris made manifest. Have these people never heard of the Titanic?". However, I do still have a sense of humor, so it's immediately followed by "My my, bless your hearts, how twee!"

I'm quite sure this is not the reaction they were going for. I would be interested in reading their strategy plan, assuming they have one, so I can cut them some slack, or provide an opinion on how they're doing.

If you look at nature you can see it looks majestic but yet is still humble and doesn't scream ego. Look at the stars, the planets, everything. BEAUTIFUL, MAJESTIC, yet still humble and inviting. Because it is a reflection of the divine who encompasses humility. When we look at brands like Mercedes, Gucci, Apple, a lot of their designs scream EGO. That's not to deny there is beauty involved in a lot of their designs but it is made to demonstrate the pride of the designer's skill and company which is then used by luxury product buyers to show off. This is the inherent problem when materialism (the idea that all there is is physical matter) is paramount. So my critique over the current design paradigm is that it is basically grounded in materialism (which is inward focused inherently), and I believe in probably some kind way contributing to the rise of narcissism.

 

[rehkram]

If you look at nature you can see it looks majestic but yet is still humble and doesn't scream ego. Look at the stars, the planets, everything. BEAUTIFUL, MAJESTIC, yet still humble and inviting. Because it is a reflection of the divine who encompasses humility. When we look at brands like Mercedes, Gucci, Apple, a lot of their designs scream EGO. That's not to deny there is beauty involved in a lot of their designs but it is made to demonstrate the pride of the designer's skill and company which is then used by luxury product buyers to show off. This is the inherent problem when materialism (the idea that all there is is physical matter) is paramount. So my critique over the current design paradigm is that it is basically grounded in materialism (which is inward focused inherently), and I believe in probably some kind way contributing to the rise of narcissism.

Well said.

 

[Harry Haller]

Interesting discussion.
Appreciate it.