Just because I prefer to focus on non-conceptual relations, does not mean I’m denying physical relations. — Possibility
But no, mosquitoes are not essential to the system. And neither are physical relations essential to the phenomena we call Love. — Possibility
Your partner doesn’t need to consciously wonder why she’s aroused by specific visual elements of the act for her relation to be metaphysical - that is, to be more about her own experiences, ideas, feelings and thoughts in relation to you or love-making in general, than about your actual junk or hers. — Possibility
No pun intended, but I'm being hard on you because of your denial's. You keep talking all around the obvious. Case in point, you just said she doesn't need to wonder about concepts, yet you just posited same ("ideas, experiences, thoughts"). Why is she wondering about "her own ideas? What are those ideas? What are her "thoughts"? Are they erotic emotions involving desire? Is his/her junk not joyful to look at? — 3017amen
Accordingly, isn't she looking at the objects (penis and vagina) because it gives her personal pleasure to look at them, together. ? Why does she shave or not shave? Why is she concerned about her appearance in general? Does she care? She must have strong feelings for her own object and her partners object, no? The only thing I think you got right there are her "feelings". And in this case, as previous illustrated, it's the act of procreation and the Will to create another person, a subjective-object (a baby). — 3017amen
It's kind of amusing Possibility, you keep talking about 'potential'. Those are concepts. The nature of beauty is what you keep denying. I'm puzzled as to why you are intimidated by questions or statements about the nature/purpose of beauty. As an ancillary note, have you studied late 18th century Romanticism? I would urge you to check it out. — 3017amen
Aesthetic pleasure, particularly, is a non-determining mode of reflecting on the relation, not between a particular subject and a particular object, but between subjectivity and objectivity as such.
This rational but non-cognitive nature of feeling, in general, and of aesthetic feeling, in particular, is perhaps the central feature that renders aesthetic feeling an attractive ingredient in addressing the epistemic and metaphysical concerns that occupied the romantics. For while all cognition is determination through concepts, Kant’s aesthetics suggests a mode of reflective awareness that is not determining, but yet a way of being aware of and responsive to aspects of the world. This is exactly what the romantics have been looking for—a non-discursive, but rational and normatively governed mode of awareness. — SEP: 19th Century Romantic Aesthetic
Maybe putting some of them into propositions would help (true/false, or something else):
1.Like it or not, people reject or accept other people (each other's aesthetics) usually within minutes if not seconds. True or false? — 3017amen
2. He/she does not like tall/short men/women just because, period. True/false?
(He/She does not like baldness; likes dark haired men/women, small feet, hair on back/face...) — 3017amen
3. We live in a world of matter and non-matter. In physics, matter matters; in metaphysics, non-matter matters---together there exists a phenomenon called Love. True/False? — 3017amen
4.The object itself, is essential to the physical aspects of Love (admiration of a new-born, etc.). True/False? — 3017amen
5. The Will to have physical romantic love is dependent upon the physical object? True/False? — 3017amen
6. "I can't wait to see you again", is dependent upon the seeing of the object. True/False? — 3017amen
7. Women purchase cosmetics because they want to look beautiful. True/false? — 3017amen
8. People go to the gym because they care about health/well being and their subjective-object. True/False? — 3017amen
I’m not going to pretend that this kind of discussion is simple. — Possibility
I could refer to them collectively as ‘phenomena’, but it doesn’t do justice to the distinction between aspects of experience that are in accordance with concepts, and what transcends them. — Possibility
That those feelings are attributed to ‘physical objects’ in the way you describe is neither objective nor necessary — Possibility
We rationalise the attribution of feelings as suits our understanding of purpose or meaning, but we are capable of simply delighting in the pleasure of the experience without necessarily attributing those feelings to any concept, object or physical aspect. — Possibility
Our capacity for this delight is dependent on relation neither to physical nor to cognitive aspects of reality: it merely requires a relation. — Possibility
There is no necessary nature/purpose to pure aesthetic beauty, except that which we arbitrarily attribute to aspects of our experience. This is what Kant points to. Potentiality itself is just as conceptually indeterminate. — Possibility
1.Like it or not, people reject or accept other people (each other's aesthetics) usually within minutes if not seconds. True or false? — 3017amen
Subjective interpretation. Just because people do this, does not mean it’s definitive of human nature. This is not all we’re capable of. First impressions are rarely accurate, — Possibility
Subjective interpretation. ‘Just because, period’ is an insufficient answer (weren’t you told this as a child?). Just because you can’t explain it, doesn’t mean no information is available. — Possibility
I’ll admit that I have preferences with regard to appearances, but I don’t think I’ve ever considered any of them a deal-breaker. — Possibility
It’s just another example of judgement from predictions based on atemporal aspects of experience, more than present empirical data. — Possibility
It is simpler (not an intellectual concept that you keep arguing) than what you make it out to be; don't conceptualize it. You're trying to make metaphysical will and intention into an intellectual exercise that determines the emotional experience.
The will determines what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know. In that sense, the will determines which objects are good, and the will itself is indetermined. Think of it as a contextual sense of the will to live and not die. It's an innate desire to be.
In contrast, you seem to be giving the intellect primacy in that the choices of the will result from that which the intellect recognizes as potentially or intrinsically good; the will itself is determined. And I'm saying the will is indetermined, much like Kant's emotional experience for aesthetics'.
The will itself being indetermined just is. Kant, particularly his doctrine of the "primacy of the practical over the pure reason" argued that humans are incapable of knowing ultimate reality. In this case, it is truly both an existential and phenomenological thing-in-itself. And that thing is the subjective-object; you. Yet we apperceived joy from viewing the object. We simply don't know why or how our own physiology is impacted by both the observer and the observed. We just know it feels good (or bad) upon initially viewing the object. — 3017amen
1.Like it or not, people reject or accept other people (each other's aesthetics) usually within minutes if not seconds. True or false? — 3017amen
Subjective interpretation. Just because people do this, does not mean it’s definitive of human nature. This is not all we’re capable of. First impressions are rarely accurate,
— Possibility
It has no relevance as to whether they are accurate. They can be arbitrary, inaccurate and subjective. The feelings themselves exist and are real. The ability to reject or accept a subject's aesthetics is a real phenomenon. — 3017amen
4.The object itself, is essential to the physical aspects of Love (admiration of a new-born, etc.). True/False? — 3017amen
False. You seem to insist on keeping the ‘physical’ subject-to-object aspect of Love isolated. — Possibility
Love as an apperception of attraction towards the physical aspects of an ‘object’ is only one part of a multi-dimensional phenomenon. You won’t understand Love by defining it so narrowly. — Possibility
When we interact with reality, the brain makes decisions based on very little present empirical information in relation to how we conceptualise reality. — Possibility
that attracts our attention and effort to look and be rewarded with more new, positive information about this appearance of reality — Possibility
. The Will to have physical romantic love is dependent upon the physical object? True/False? — 3017amen
Sort of true - the — Possibility
And while a perceived capacity for judgement is necessary to the Will to love romantically, an act of judgement is not. — Possibility
. "I can't wait to see you again", is dependent upon the seeing of the object. True/False? — 3017amen
False - although I get how it seems true in your classical understanding of reality. — Possibility
Women purchase cosmetics because they want to look beautiful. True/false? — 3017amen
Subjective interpretation — Possibility
In relation to work, it isn’t that I want to look ‘beautiful’, but that I want to appear ‘professional’. A woman who doesn’t wear make-up appears to lack a certain perceived ‘value’ in an office environment — Possibility
It’s a facade, but a few minutes spent in the morning is a shortcut to making an initial impression. In relation to social events, my aim with cosmetics is to appear more ‘beautiful’, younger or generally more valued than I would otherwise feel in certain company. — Possibility
They perceive their potential for beauty only in their physical aspects of appearance as apperceived by external agents, rather than as part of their own potential, their own agency. And you seem more than happy to keep it that way. — Possibility
It is this essentialism of Kant’s doctrine that I’m arguing against. We may not ‘know’ the reality of existence, but we at least have the capacity to understand it much more than Kant appears to give us credit for (of course, his writing is not only pre-Darwin, but also pre-QM, psychology and neuroscience, so I won’t hold that against him). I don’t agree that the will ‘just is’, that emotion concepts are inherent and therefore universal, or that their indeterminacy is an excuse to not engage the intellect in judgement. It is our capacity for ‘free play’ of imagination and understanding that allows us to then predict, create or hypothesise an aesthetic or emotional experience without presupposing the actual presence of an empirical object. — Possibility
So why wouldn’t we make use of the intellect in developing an understanding of this faculty of the will - without assuming the necessity of either concepts or empirical objects? Isn’t that what philosophy is? — Possibility
.Like it or not, people reject or accept other people (each other's aesthetics) usually within minutes if not seconds. True or false? — 3017amen
Subjective interpretation. Just because people do this, does not mean it’s definitive of human nature. This is not all we’re capable of. First impressions are rarely accurate,
— Possibility
It has no relevance as to whether they are accurate. They can be arbitrary, inaccurate and subjective. The feelings themselves exist and are real. The ability to reject or accept a subject's aesthetics is a real phenomenon. — 3017amen
What is it that you’re arguing? What do you think occurs when people ‘reject or accept a subject’s aesthetics’ this quickly? They’re not physically rejecting/accepting them. Rather, they are judging the subject by a feeling of predicted pleasure that is far from disinterested - presupposing, as it does, the actual presence of the object - with no claim to universality. And then they are determining and initiating action based on that prediction. This is NOT pure aesthetics. If you believe you are avoiding conceptualisation by focusing on the ‘feeling’ as if it is a phenomenon, then I would argue that you don’t understand Kant’s aesthetics. Kant’s title is Critique of the Faculty of Judgement - the capacity, not the act. — Possibility
Correct. And that is the part you keep denying. Love is certainly more than that, but without that, no-thing occurs. How could it? — 3017amen
When we interact with reality, the brain makes decisions based on very little present empirical information in relation to how we conceptualise reality.
— Possibility
There you go again plip-flopping. I agree. You are suggesting the Will precedes the intellect. — 3017amen
Nonsense. It's true not false. There is no escape from the physical object. If it was false, you wouldn't care to create a mini-me that resembles you. — 3017amen
You assert that a physical aspect of interaction is necessary to an experience of Love - I disagree. That’s all. Nothing needs to actually occur, nor physically exist, for Love to exist as part of an experience. That something often does occur, or is observable/measurable, is not denied by, nor does it preclude, my position. — Possibility
Once again, I agree. The 'facade' , like it or not, is apparently necessary. — 3017amen
They perceive their potential for beauty only in their physical aspects of appearance as apperceived by external agents, rather than as part of their own potential, their own agency. And you seem more than happy to keep it that way.
— Possibility
There's the dichotomy. They should be happy with their own appearance as; good, bad or ugly. Yet, they allow themselves to be manipulated by 'external agents'. That's simply an old paradigm that you're propagating which in turn leads to an unhealthy manipulation of self.
Nonetheless, it proves the importance (psychological impacts) of the physical. — 3017amen
They are not judging. They are simply gravitating toward or away from that which is intrinsically pleasing to them. Personally, I prefer dark haired Asian women. I have no idea why. You may prefer dark Italian men with beards, who knows. You can't use Thomism/Lisa Barret to justify your choices. Otherwise, you are with the person for some other reason (which may/may not be a good/bad thing depending on your intentions). But you still have to get past the aesthetics; there is no escape. (So why not enjoy!) — 3017amen
It may appear necessary to you, but I understand that this is a choice I make freely, for my own reasons. There is nothing ‘necessary’ about it. It’s important to me in that situation, but I don’t agree that it’s necessarily important to everyone in every situation. — Possibility
Our approach should not be to judge an apparent choice to be manipulated, nor to assume ignorance of alternatives - rather it should be to share our own positive experience of perceiving this broader potential in them. — Possibility
There are apparent features that I find particularly desirable, yes - but that’s not aesthetic experience. The first moment of aesthetics distinguishes a disinterested character of feeling from a subjective interest in sensory appearance. This is a judgement of the agreeable: You’re not claiming that everyone ought to prefer dark haired Asian women - only that you do (at the moment). — Possibility
You don’t need to justify your likes or dislikes to anyone - but nor do you need to state them as a definition or essence of your existence, because they’re not, even as they are an example of who you can be. You are not necessarily defined by what you will except in that fleeting moment of action - and it is this indeterminacy that we can recognise (and love), with disinterested pleasure, in every human being, not just those whose sensory appearance we find it pleasing to interact with. Pure beauty/sublimity lies in the inherent unpredictability of appearance - also referred to as ‘fascinating’. — Possibility
1. Possibility believes that the physical aspect of interaction is not necessary for Love. True, false, or something else? — 3017amen
2. Possibility believes Love exists without anything occurring, or physically existing, for the self-actuality of Love, as part of an experience. True, false, or something else? — 3017amen
If they are both true, am I to conclude that somehow Love exists as an innate metaphysical feature of consciousness? And if so, does that not give the metaphysical Will primacy? And if all that is accurate, does it follow that one requires apperception of a physical object, in order to manifest this metaphysical Will to Love? — 3017amen
If the answer is no to the very last question, then there must be something that is exclusively non-physical from which you can manifest your love towards... ? — 3017amen
In simple terms, if there is no object to perceive, how does or should one manifest their Love? In other words, should I love your love? And if you are exclusively metaphysical, what are you? What does that look like? Using your words, what's the 'experience' involve or consist of? — 3017amen
And so, should we gravitate toward, and value, the Venus in the female, and the Mar's in the male? Or should we simply say no to that, and instead embrace the 'complimentary', and/or conclude men and women are basically the same and really and simply both want the same things? — 3017amen
Of course I disagree. Consider the necessity of clothing. That 'facade' is as necessary as your example of 'dressing for success' because people consider appearance relevant. And so we are back to the inescapable importance of the physical object itself. — 3017amen
Our approach should not be to judge an apparent choice to be manipulated, nor to assume ignorance of alternatives - rather it should be to share our own positive experience of perceiving this broader potential in them.
— Possibility
Of course. But you're being too idealist and not realistic. In the real world, one cares about their appearance not only for health and beauty reasons (aesthetics) etc, but because it's appropriate in all of society. — 3017amen
Think of it this way, it may make you feel better if a company has no professional dress code, yet the paradox of whatever standard that's endorsed or approved is nevertheless still a standard that's accepted. It's not that no clothing at all is used to cover the physical body (your 'facade'). That standard is called a dress code appearance standard. You know, customary physical appearance kinds of things, like the requirement to wear cloths and cover or adorn the object in an aesthetically pleasing way. — 3017amen
Importance’ is neither necessary nor inescapable. You’re quick to dismiss the possibility that clothing is optional. I could get into a long, drawn out discussion arguing that the cultural standard against nakedness is mythologised in Genesis as emerging from ignorant human judgement, but that’ll take us way off track. — Possibility
instead embrace the 'complimentary', and/or conclude men and women are basically the same and really and simply both want the same things? — 3017amen
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.