I voted 'Yes' and 'other'. First, I voted other because I most identify with emobodied/enactive, semiotic and process philosophy, and for me these are inherently interrelated and include phenomenology, pragmaticism and existentialism as well as elements of Aristotelianism, Romanticism and German idealism.

Secondly, I voted 'Yes' because philosophy is a progression, just as music consists in harmonic progression. BUT, it might be objected, the idea of progression is not the same as the idea of progress! Just as musical progression consists in refining musical ideas, so the progression of philosophy has resulted in refinements of philosophical ideas; in the recognition that some ideas are more or less empty, incoherent or merely reificatory, and in the elaboration of ever new concepts that allow us to look at the world in novel ways.

On the other hand, philosophical system building is motivated by a desire to come up with a metaphysical system that includes and makes sense of all of our experience. I think of all philosophers Whitehead has come closest to achieving that. But no metaphysical system can answer all of our questions; some things are basic and must simply be taken for granted. Experience and knowledge must simply be presupposed in any system and cannot themselves be explained.

Experience and knowledge must simply be presupposed in any system and cannot themselves be explained. — Janus

I hope not.

I'm not saying we cannot talk coherently about experience and knowledge; but experience and knowledge are presupposed in, and by, any discourse whatever. See the problem?

Does philosophical progress exist? — Agustino

It depends on what we see "progress" as. Is it just the "solving" of problems, in the "consumption" model of knowledge? Or can it be the appreciation of questions themselves, and the creation of new questions?

A lot of this I think has to do with whether we see philosophical issues as problems or questions. Problems implies we're anxious to figure things out and move on. Questions seems to imply a slower and more appreciative approach, where the attempt to answer a question is but an aspect of the overall "experience" or "process".

Some people may complain that this creation of questions is endless and pointless. Typically they ignore the fact that everything else is endless and pointless. The "magic" of philosophy is with the mystery, the endless folds and twists and perspectives. Once you think you've "solved" a philosophical problem it seems to end up being dull and banal, like a dead weight you drag around. You wonder what the whole fuss was about, and why it's seen as so important.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to answer these questions, but we ought to keep in mind that finding the "Truth" might and probably will result with us being disappointed, maybe scared. To the extent that we deny this probable possibility, our dreams of escaping our illusions and attaining Truth will be founded on an illusion.

Hence why I'm finding it increasingly difficult to give a damn about any overly-theoretical or academic, "intellectual" pursuit. Enthusiastically pursuing Truth seems to me to already be distorting it. In some sense I think we're not really pursuing Truth as much as we're running away from what we already know to be True. If there's still a good reason to explore the world and discover new things it's because it's fun to hang out with friends and have a common goal. It's not very "aristocratic", but who cares.

A lot of this I think has to do with whether we see philosophical issues as problems or questions. — darthbarracuda

There is another, more interesting, possibility; we can see philosophical issues as consisting in invitations to come up with new ways of understanding. Of course, this could also be thought of as the same as seeing philosophical issues as either problems or questions ; but the idea of a problem seems to presuppose the idea of a definitive solution and the idea of a question seems to presuppose the possibility of a definitive answer; so I prefer to eschew that terminology.

The same goes for the notion of a search for Truth. Philosophy cannot be a search for truth, because truth, like experience and knowledge is presupposed by all discourse. If anything it is a search for ever new ways of understanding. Whether those new ways of understanding are "better" or "more true" is a matter of taste and perspective.

For me, progress would be best defined as moving away from subjectivity and towards objectivity. So the destination is the most general or abstract view of existence.

But that viewpoint also has to be concretely historic. If existence is a product of evolution or development, then that makes the “truths” of cosmology and human mental evolution a core concern.

So it is then no surprise both that philosophy has made constant progress as a culturally evolving endeavour, and that it is focused broadly on this question of disentangling the subjective and objective poles of being.

The everyday difficulty is that people tend to then split into opposed camps, failing to see that subjectivity and objectivity are complementary directions of intellectual progress.

So contradicting what I first seemed to say - objectivity is the goal - intellectual progress also includes a contribution to sharpened notions of “being a self”. The contrast of aiming for objectivity brings with it a balancing cultural focus on the issues of personal individuation.

We see this from the Socratic invention of self-actualisation and Ancient Greek theories about democracy.

And - of course I would say this :) - pragmatism is the philosophy which offers the right kind of balance between the complementary extremes of subjectivity and objectivity. Peirce fixed the solipsistic cognitivism of Kant in particular by starting in phenomenology and deriving an idealist objectivity.

AP and PoMo represent philosophical failures insofar as each tends too far towards one or other pole in unbalanced fashion. Sticking closer to a scientific and historical path finds philosophy achieving its most actual progress.

(But failure has value too. We need to know what doesn’t really work.)

I voted 'Yes' and 'other'. — Janus

I would have voted "No", "No", and "Platonism" most likely.

To the first "No" because I don't think there is any such thing as progress in philosophy. I do mean a different thing by progress than you do though. For me, progress is the ability to reach definitive, intersubjective conclusions on philosophical questions. That kind of progress does not exist in philosophy. I do agree though that there is a refinement of ideas that occurs over time in philosophy - and this is across the different schools. For example, take Platonism - it has continuously been adapted historically, by Plato, Aristotle, the Neo-platonists, Aquinas, and even recent scholars like Bernard Lonergan. So the school is by no means finished, and it is evolving, alongside with Kantianism, Hegelianism, and the other schools, ever fresh. Its ideas of today are a lot more refined and clear than the ideas of the Platonism of old. But, there ultimately are no grounds to decisively and intersubjectively prove that Platonism is true and the other schools are (at least to a certain extent) wrong.

To the second I also said "No", since I don't think philosophy is worthless. As stated above, it does refine ideas and becomes more coherent over time - and this happens across schools.

To the third, if I had to choose one, I'd pick Platonism, though I'm a bit more eclectic than any of the schools. I believe philosophy is useful up to a point, but beyond that point, there is only mysticism and direct understanding, intuition. Philosophy cannot travel beyond mind.

On the other hand, philosophical system building is motivated by a desire to come up with a metaphysical system that includes and makes sense of all of our experience. — Janus

I think it's of the nature of experiences though to allow a multitude of explanations. As such, no one metaphysical system will be satisfactory for all in the end - it will end up by being a matter of taste. The reason for this is that any finite number of data points (experiences) will have an infinite number of "right" possible explanations.

I think of all philosophers Whitehead has come closest to achieving that. — Janus

Whitehead is one of the few figures in philosophy that I've never read, nor have I read any secondary sources about him either. So I'm not sure where to locate him. I have heard he was one of the champions of process philosophy though... so, would you say that his thought is similar to Bergson? Or maybe more like Peirce even?

Is it just the "solving" of problems, in the "consumption" model of knowledge? — darthbarracuda

Why do you call it the "consumption" model? Consumption implies that it is something that one must do over and over again, there is no terminus. Whereas when we speak of "solving" problems, and doing so definitively, then we're really speaking about getting rid of problems once and for all, no longer having to concern ourselves with them.

I think actually the model you outlined in your post is a "consumption" model of philosophy - you have to ponder the same questions over and over again, and there is no end in sight!

And to answer your first question, in my personal view yes. The progress of philosophy is measured by whether it can solve problems, and do so definitively. But this is a matter of personality and of taste.

Or can it be the appreciation of questions themselves, and the creation of new questions? — darthbarracuda

Perhaps, if you're the kind of person who likes to go round and round for no reason, except for the going round and round. I personally disagree with the view of philosophy as end-in-itself, rather than as a means. It can, however, be a means to an end that is complementry to philosophical activity itself, such as the clarification of thought.

A lot of this I think has to do with whether we see philosophical issues as problems or questions. Problems implies we're anxious to figure things out and move on. — darthbarracuda

Yes, exactly. A lot of this has to do with personality. For me, I always experience some "anxiety" (if you can call it that - I think psychological discomfort is a better way to put it) whenever I have a problem to solve, whether it be philosophy, business, or otherwise. Indeed, it is the anxiety that motivates me to solve it and pursue the problem, at least most of the time.

Typically they ignore the fact that everything else is endless and pointless. — darthbarracuda

I'm not so sure. I think each person has a goal or mission in the world, that is part of their very being, and it's up to each one of us to discover what that is, and then do it. So I don't think everything is endless and pointless - things are quite definite. Once you finish university, you have your degree (but more importantly your knowledge), and that's that for example.

So whatever this "goal" or "mission" happens to be, in my experience it is something for which the motivation comes from inside yourself - you're not motivated to do it because X wants you to do it, or because you're anxious about something, or because you're bored etc. It's something that is authentically yours.

Once you think you've "solved" a philosophical problem it seems to end up being dull and banal, like a dead weight you drag around. You wonder what the whole fuss was about, and why it's seen as so important. — darthbarracuda

Ta-da! Enlightenment! >:O Ataraxia as the Pyrrhonists would say ;)

If there's still a good reason to explore the world and discover new things it's because it's fun to hang out with friends and have a common goal. It's not very "aristocratic", but who cares. — darthbarracuda

The issue here is that people who have this sort of personality often risk pursuing some goal merely to escape from boredom, which actually prevents them from fully knowing themselves. I think a truly enlightened person cannot pursue some goal merely because of boredom - indeed, such a person ought to be free from boredom even if all they do is stare at a wall all day, like the old Zen patriarch Bodhidharma.

I would have voted "No", "No", and "Platonism" most likely. — Agustino

"Would have"! What, you didn't vote on your own poll?

Anyway I think we basically agree on the kind of progress that occurs in philosophy.

I have had Bernard Lonergan's magnum opus on my shelves for about 12 years and I have only managed to dip into it a little, so I'm not sure whether I would count him as a Platonist.

I believe philosophy is useful up to a point, but beyond that point, there is only mysticism and direct understanding, intuition. Philosophy cannot travel beyond mind. — Agustino

Yes, I agree with that. You said recently you thought I was a religious mystic rather than a religious skeptic, based on the definition that religious mystics think their experiences and intuitions afford real (in the sense of discursive knowledge). On this definition I would be a religious skeptic, because, as I have argued with Wayfarer ad nauseum I don't believe there is any discursive knowledge, knowledge that philosophers could coherently argue about, afforded by mystical experience.

As such, no one metaphysical system will be satisfactory for all in the end - it will end up by being a matter of taste. — Agustino

I think some metaphysical systems are more coherent and consistent with the whole range of human experience; aesthetic, ethical, religious, scientific, phenomenological and so on, than others. The presumptions that are made that underpin metaphysical systems and that both form part of what needs to be accounted for and also the grounds of those accounts, are very often matters of feeling, intuition and taste, though. So, for example for someone who rejects the reality of religious experience there is no demand that metaphysical systems must account for religious experience; although they would still nedd to account for the belief that there are purported illusions of religious experience.

would you say that his thought is similar to Bergson? Or maybe more like Peirce even? — Agustino

I'm not familiar enough with Bergson to say; definitely influenced by Peirce, though.

" The presumptions that are made that underpin metaphysical systems and that both form part of what needs to be accounted for and also the grounds of those accounts, are very often matters of feeling, intuition and taste"

What is callled feeling, intuition and taste could otherwise be understood as conceptual understanding itself. It's only via the blindness of dualistic thinking that
conceptual meaning appears opposed to , or at all separable from such entities as feeling and intuition.
Or at least , that's what embodied approaches point to.

I agree that our feelings, intuitions and tastes are conceptually mediated, but the primordial affective dimension of being must be thought as pre-conceptual to account for the feelings, intuitions and tastes of non-linguistic animals.

the feelings. Intuitions and tastes of non-linguistic animals are symbolizations and therefore are pre-linguistic concepts. Infants also use symbolizatiions.

I don't think Philosophy makes progress, but neither does literature, music, or art. Which doesn't mean within these non-progressing fields there is never anything new or improved. Technology can make progress, because yesterday's tools can be remodeled, combined, and given new applications. A waterwheel can be replaced by a better waterwheel or better gearing. A higher dam can be built. Eventually the waterwheel can become a turbine and extract even more power out of falling water. That's "progress".

Art, philosophy, literature, or music are much less about technology and more about an individual reflecting on the realities of his times. Sophocles, Shakespeare, or Miller and Mamet all hit the target of drama. From the earliest music to today's latest, music soothes us savage beasts (or stirs us for the battle). The early philosophers take on what makes a life good may not be the final answer, but it a good answer that one is likely to get.

Art, philosophy, literature, or music are much less about technology and more about an individual reflecting on the realities of his times. — Bitter Crank

So they would be technologies of the self, technologies of social advance, surely? The humanities are suppose to point the direction of desirable cultural change.

Perhaps the question mark might be about the “progress” aspect. But there is evidence like Pinker’s claims about the diminishing levels of human violence. And individual freedom has increased in many ways.

Of course, McJobs, obesity, consumerism, inequality, etc, etc. But those haven’t been actively promoted outcomes when it comes to the humanities.

So I don’t see a problem with finding a historic progressive trend in philosophy as the technology of the self/the technology of social being. And the arts are about inventing ways to be new.

If the argument is that they are not getting better, I wouldn’t be so sure. I’m impressed by whole new areas of expression like video art, graphic novels, grafitti art and challenging TV dramas.

That seems a very strange way to conceptualize feelings, intuitions and tastes. What kinds of things do you think they symbolize?

"Would have"! What, you didn't vote on your own poll? — Janus

At the time I wrote that, I had not voted ;) - I only voted a few hours later.

I'm not sure whether I would count him as a Platonist. — Janus

Well he is a Platonist per my understanding since he extends the tradition Plato->Aristotle->Plotinus->Augustine->Aquinas. I've only dipped into Insight very little as well, but I have read a few secondary works about his philosophy. This was a good book.

I think some metaphysical systems are more coherent and consistent with the whole range of human experience; aesthetic, ethical, religious, scientific, phenomenological and so on, than others. — Janus

I agree - this is only in the sense that some metaphysical systems are more open to certain aspects of being than others.

So, for example for someone who rejects the reality of religious experience there is no demand that metaphysical systems must account for religious experience; although they would still nedd to account for the belief that there are purported illusions of religious experience. — Janus

Yeah, this is what it means for a metaphysical system to be closed off from certain areas of being.

This was a good book. — Agustino

Looks interesting, may be a way into Lonergan, thanks. :)

The humanities are suppose to point the direction of desirable cultural change. — apokrisis

How are they “supposed” to do anything? The role the humanities have played in history isn’t static.

I don't think Philosophy makes progress, but neither does literature, music, or art. Which doesn't mean within these non-progressing fields there is never anything new or improved. Technology can make progress, because yesterday's tools can be remodeled, combined, and given new applications. A waterwheel can be replaced by a better waterwheel or better gearing. A higher dam can be built. Eventually the waterwheel can become a turbine and extract even more power out of falling water. That's "progress".

Art, philosophy, literature, or music are much less about technology and more about an individual reflecting on the realities of his times. Sophocles, Shakespeare, or Miller and Mamet all hit the target of drama. From the earliest music to today's latest, music soothes us savage beasts (or stirs us for the battle). The early philosophers take on what makes a life good may not be the final answer, but it a good answer that one is likely to get. — Bitter Crank

The idea of progress often (not always) has an end-vision in sight. We're progressing towards some particular goal. Without a particular goal, we cannot know whether a change is progressive or regressive. As you well note, we can establish such a goal when it comes to technology - technology that can do the same job with fewer or cheaper resources (or faster) counts as a tick for progress.

Now, why do philosophy, art, literature, etc. not progress? Is it because they lack a goal towards which to direct their energies? Or?

Ah, the old telos debate. Surprised it took this long.

You're welcome!

How did you vote and why?

I voted “no” to philosophical progress. First, the purpose or telos of philosophy isn’t static over history in the first place; from the pursuit of wisdom or the good life, to availing theology, to constructing logical proofs which lead to other logical proofs, ad naseum. Look at Socrates all the way to Wittgenstein. There’s no progression from shallower to deeper wisdom, or a progression from a less good to a more good life, all thanks to philosophy. Rather, cultures rise and fall; they reach an apex of complexity and moral degeneracy, and then begin to decline. Apparently the greatest wisdom of the greatest thinkers can’t inhibit this metahistorical process.

I voted “no” to philosophy being worthless; for all its lack or progression or clear telos, of course philosophical thought and discourse has profoundly shaped the course of history, rendering it valuable.

Lastly, I voted “existentialist” because that’s the general philosophical school I have the most sympathy with, but I would change that if I could, now that I think about it. I’m less interested in philosophy these days in general, and more interested in studying and beginning to practice mysticism.

Now, why do philosophy, art, literature, etc. not progress? Is it because they lack a goal towards which to direct their energies? Or? — Agustino

It's the nature of artistic creativity: It comes out of an individual's particular history, and that is unique to each person. Even if I study all prior literature extensively, when I write a novel it isn't a summation of all the previous novels, plus my special innovations. Philosophers, artists, writers--creative workers in general, start from scratch. And when they succeed, they all succeed equally well (or not).

An inventor of a mechanical object might also start from scratch -- creating a kind of device that had not existed previously. More likely he will pull together pieces of existing technology and create something new, using the features of the components. Telephones, televisions, and computers are examples.

There is no absolute rule to originally in either the arts or mechanics.

Some philosophers did build on pre-existing systems, and extend them. Chaucer didn't invent the idea of people telling stories to make a long trip pass more quickly. Boccaccio's Decameron did the same thing a few decades before the Canterbury Tales, and before Boccaccio there was... and some inventors have come up with de novo ideas, which I can't think of just off hand. X-rays? Close, but it was more of a happy-chance discovery. X-rays having been discovered, the inventor of an x-ray machine can't claim complete originality (and nobody will thing less of his invention for all that).

But cameras definitely made progress between Daguerre and the latest digital camera. (Wikipedia says Nicéphore Niépce is now usually credited as the inventor of photography and a pioneer in that field. News to me.) Serial tale-telling hasn't improved since Boccaccio and Chaucer.

Another aspect of progress, A play like Lysistrata is as good now as it was 2400 years ago. The epic of Gilgamesh is 4000 years old. Still works. Same for Homer's 3200 year old Iliad and Odyssey. Some very basic tools are as good now as they were 2 and 3 thousand years ago. A Roman's copper pan will fry an egg just as well now as it did 2500 years ago. Man's first good fishhook looks pretty much like the last fishhook I baited. I could skewer a TPF moderator just as well with a an ancient Greek blade as with a brand new bayonet. (I won't elaborate on the desirability or pleasures of doing so.)

Philosophers, artists, writers--creative workers in general, start from scratch. — Bitter Crank

I disagree. Of course an artist or philosopher builds off of what comes before. It’s well known who was influenced by who.

The epic of Gilgamesh is 4000 years old. — Bitter Crank

But what makes it compelling now can’t be what made it compelling then; the focal point of interest changes over time, and the same is true of philosophical concepts.

I disagree. Of course an artist or philosopher builds off of what comes before. It’s well known who was influenced by who. — Noble Dust

And if influence is a hair too obvious, then we sneer dismissively, "Derivative".

But it doesn't matter whether we think the arts make progress or not -- all of us put together can not tell anybody how to produce the next masterpiece.

But what makes it compelling now can’t be what made it compelling then; the focal point of interest changes over time, and the same is true of philosophical concepts. — Noble Dust

Of course, some hermeneutical effort will be needed to get the maximum value out of the thing, and we will never be THE intended audience. But I liked it when I read it, and if a dunce such as I was when I read it can get something out of it, then many others can too. It was better than some contemporary experimental literary works I have had the misfortune to come across.

You are an artist? Musician? Somebody here is, I forget. But let's say you sit down at your clean, shiny, carved oak desk (no distracting pile of mail on it), ink well, quill, and paper in front of you to write a novel, poem, play... whatever. Want a candle? Add a candle. Sure, you will be influenced by what you have read previously. You will know, for instance, that the lines of a poem can have, may have, should have (depending) rhythm and rhyme. You will know (maybe) that a novel benefits from having an intriguing plot, very interesting characters, and lively dialogue. You'll know before you begin that plays are divided into acts, are all talk, but you get to provide stage directions. You will have poems, novels, and plays floating around your head, which you will want to keep at bay so you don't end up writing something too similar to last week's very popular episode of the horror show, Writer's Cramp on Amazon.

For the most part, though, you are on your own. YOU have to come up with all the amazingly good ideas, clever comments, exquisite word choices, etc., and no amount of familiarity with literature is going to help you very much. Evidence: how many Professors of English Literature (or any other literature) are also published authors of poetry, fiction, or drama that people actually enjoy? Few, few, few. Conversely, how many prize winning authors dump writing so they can teach at your average debased university English department?

I was thinking about how the humanities departments justify their existence given the push for STEM funding there. They do seem to have to justify their existence these days.

And if influence is a hair too obvious, then we sneer dismissively, "Derivative". — Bitter Crank

And, if someone dare suggest a point of reference to understand the work of the hallowed creative genius, she doth role her eyes.

Of course, some hermeneutical effort will be needed to get the maximum value out of the thing, and we will never be THE intended audience. But I liked it when I read it, and if a dunce such as I was when I read it can get something out of it, then many others can too. It was better than some contemporary experimental literary works I have had the misfortune to come across. — Bitter Crank

The point I want to make is that it’s not so clear whether certain works have actually “stood the test of time”, given all of those factors we both mentioned. And, to stay on topic, perhaps the same goes for philosophical works and concepts.

Musician? — Bitter Crank

Yes.

You will know, for instance, that the lines of a poem can have, may have, should have (depending) rhythm and rhyme. You will know (maybe) that a novel benefits from having an intriguing plot, very interesting characters, and lively dialogue. You'll know before you begin that plays are divided into acts, are all talk, but you get to provide stage directions. You will have poems, novels, and plays floating around your head, which you will want to keep at bay so you don't end up writing something too similar to last week's very popular episode of the horror show, Writer's Cramp on Amazon. — Bitter Crank

That hasn’t been my experience of the creative process. I don’t “know” any of those things, in the sense that that knowledge isn’t present with me at the proverbial writing desk. The creative process is instead an intuitive integration of the whole being, which includes the formative experience of listening to loads of music, learning how to play other people’s music, playing and singing with other people at the same time, understanding and being able to manipulate group dynamic for maximum creative success, etc. etc. developing a creative voice doesn’t magically happen when I sit down at the desk, it’s an ongoing process of integration and a sort of “breaking out” action which seems to be the natural result of total creative integration.

For the most part, though, you are on your own. YOU have to come up with all the amazingly good ideas, clever comments, exquisite word choices, etc., and no amount of familiarity with literature is going to help you very much. Evidence: how many Professors of English Literature (or any other literature) are also published authors of poetry, fiction, or drama that people actually enjoy? Few, few, few. Conversely, how many prize winning authors dump writing so they can teach at your average debased university English department? — Bitter Crank

Sure, I agree. But is the creative process something the professors never properly learned, or something they’re incapable of learning?

Sure, I agree. — Noble Dust

Good. Keep it up.

I think musical composition would have to be more intuitively integrative and experiential than literary or plastic arts, because the composer has to know what a voice can and can not do, as well as what a violin, kazoo, gong, french horn, oboe, piano, guitar, or whatever the instruments are that one is going to compose for can and can not do.

All creators of art have to know what they get away with--as Warhol or McLuhan said, "Art is whatever you can get away with."

The point I want to make is that it’s not so clear whether certain works have actually “stood the test of time”, given all of those factors we both mentioned. And, to stay on topic, perhaps the same goes for philosophical works and concepts. — Noble Dust

Well, right, just because there are several editions of Plato on the shelf, doesn't mean Plato stood the test of time for everybody that walked into the bookstore, or even bought one of the editions of Plato, or even read some of it. Shakespeare hasn't stood the test of time for a lot of people, because his large volume of work in early-modern English is at least something of a challenge for many to read, and there is a lot of it.

McLuhan thinks that the real art of our time is advertising, and at least to some extent I agree. One of my favorite shows is the British Television Advertising Awards that plays every year at Christmas time, at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis. The best of the ads are truly inspired, and are intense little nuggets of artistic creation.

think musical composition would have to be more intuitively integrative and experiential than literary or plastic arts, because the composer has to know what a voice can and can not do, as well as what a violin, kazoo, gong, french horn, oboe, piano, guitar, or whatever the instruments are that one is going to compose for can and can not do. — Bitter Crank

[Sorry, quoting blocks of text because I'm on my phone]

Don't literary and plastic arts also require knowledge of what the given mediums, the forms, can and cannot do? One aspect of creative innovation is breaking those rules; Philip K. Dick and Warhol both had knowledge of form, and they eventually reached that "breaking out" point I mentioned. See Dick's VALIS for a masterful example of mastery of literary form, combined with total disregard for that form. If you just mean that music, along with dance, is more kenetic, then sure.

All creators of art have to know what they get away with--as Warhol or McLuhan said, "Art is whatever you can get away with." — Bitter Crank

Didn't only Warhol say that? Regardless, Warhol making that statement in the first place is the work of art itself; it's a provocation. I would assume you're aware of that. There's more to Warhol than the banality, which is not only the irony, but the whole point, I think. I guess that's just my interpretation.

Well, right, just because there are several editions of Plato on the shelf, doesn't mean Plato stood the test of time for everybody that walked into the bookstore, or even bought one of the editions of Plato, or even read some of it. Shakespeare hasn't stood the test of time for a lot of people, because his large volume of work in early-modern English is at least something of a challenge for many to read, and there is a lot of it. — Bitter Crank

No, I'm not saying because there's not unanimous agreement that a work therefore "doesn't stand the test of time", whatever that means. I'm saying that the cultural mileu is what determines an interpretation of the work; not only that, but works that are lauded by one generation often get passed down as canon without further critical, prescient analysis; they get passed down just by celebration. Kind of like Adornos concept of fetishism in art.

McLuhan thinks that the real art of our time is advertising, and at least to some extent I agree. — Bitter Crank

This is very true, and very disturbing. The money in the creative industry, for instance, is in advertising. So, the greatest art is being made to sell shit. Look at the retail industry; music playing 24/7 in order to create a fun atmosphere where people buy more useless consumer goods.