So I would not consider reading a book social interaction, or painting in your home, etc. — Agustino
I have a feeling you consider things like reading and writing poetry to be social engagement, even if you do them entirely alone, without input from others. Why is that? — Agustino
Well... if you push the definition so far, then anything is interacting with things that are not you - even your body, to a certain extent, is not you, since you don't control everything that happens by sheer will. But how do dreams count as interacting with another PERSON as opposed to thing?My point was that when you do such solitary things it is experienced as an interaction with others. We also interact with others when dreaming. I'm not claiming that this is the same as bodily interacting; but I'm emphasizing that these are not solitary activities in the 'lived' sense, but only in the ostensible sense. — Janus
But how do dreams count as interacting with another PERSON as opposed to thing? — Agustino
people regularly work through it. — praxis
There are other methods and perspectives. — praxis
Assuming you're referring to cultural conditioning rather than intelligent design or something, I would hesitate to claim 'design' as that implies conscious intent. — praxis
Of course there is, the ONLY difference is that we are free, or freer, to find/construct our own narratives because there is no longer a reliance on an external authority. — praxis
people regularly work through it.
— praxis
No, they evade it [nihilism]. — gurugeorge
There are other methods and perspectives.
— praxis
Are you sure? — gurugeorge
Of course there is, the ONLY difference is that we are free, or freer, to find/construct our own narratives because there is no longer a reliance on an external authority.
— praxis
There's a certain amount of freedom yes, but it's analogous to a tether - the goat has a fair amount of room to move around, but there are limits. Similarly, the biological base forms a "tether" for the cultural superstructure; there's some leeway, but there's no untrammeled freedom to explore all possible cultural space (for example, at one type of extreme, the social rule "kill everyone you meet" would obviously be unworkable). — gurugeorge
there is a way of discovering meaning in the universe that we just haven't been smart enough to figure out yet, that will eventually raise our spirits and give us a foundation for morality that enables us to sustain it through time, going forward. — gurugeorge
In a rapidly changing world no one static source of meaning will last for long. — praxis
Aesthetic, to name one. — praxis
Memes require living hosts. — praxis
There is no one solution to figure out. — praxis
In a rapidly changing world no one static source of meaning will last for long.
— praxis
That depends on what you mean by "rapidly" human nature and the nature of the world change over time, sure, but rapidly? That's an attempt at persuasive redefinition. Rapidly relative to the timescale of stars and the formation of galaxies, glacially relative to the life of a human being, a family or the formation and dissolution of human cultures. — gurugeorge
Is the aesthetic way of looking at the world a way of "examining" the world? — gurugeorge
And is it a "method"? It's a way of looking at the world, but it's not a way of looking at the world in which true and false enter into the discussion, it's not an alternative way of being right or wrong about things. — gurugeorge
Imagine visiting a modern art gallery, and then going back to the same gallery a century later and seeing the same style of art on the walls, and it is still considered a modern art gallery. Practically inconceivable to me. — praxis
Prior to the enlightenment cultures like ancient Egypt were, by our standard, almost inconceivably stagnant. Of course it wasn't perceived as stagnant to them. Imagine visiting a modern art gallery, and then going back to the same gallery a century later and seeing the same style of art on the walls, and it is still considered a modern art gallery. Practically inconceivable to me. — praxis
Of course it is, something can be 'wrong' but beautiful (good). We can choose beauty, spontaneity, and meaningfulness, over efficiency, predictability, and fucking profit. — praxis
If you went to an art exhibit in 1817, 1917, and 2017, you would have seen huge changes in artistic production between 1817 and 1917; between 1917 and 2017, it's quite possible (depending on the selections, that you would think things hadn't changed very much at all in the previous century. — Bitter Crank
Besides, is constant change inherent to art? Is there something wrong with art if doesn't change faster than women's wear fashion? What makes art change rapidly? It could be that it is driven, or pulled along, by a very strong demand by art buyers for novelty. Should we hand out awards to cultures that maintain a style for a long time, or only reward cultures that are always changing?
Personally, Praxis, I'd probably find Egyptian stability stultifying, but there is something to say for less hectic change. — Bitter Crank
Yes, as I said, the aesthetic way of looking at the world isn't one in which right or wrong enter into the picture, it's not an alternative way of parsing right and wrong, true and false, etc. — gurugeorge
You are more informed than I am about art, clearly. It just seems to me that the velocity of change in the last third of 19th century was so much higher than in previous centuries, and the velocity has stayed fast. But then, the velocity of change across the board sped up in the 19th century, and has continued. So, what shall we attribute this to? Science, technology, industrialism, capitalism (its ability to mobilize and deploy resources very rapidly), population growth, two world wars (which also led to a fast mobilization and deployment of resources), empires (like the B.E.) which concentrate resources, and so on? All those things are disruptors of equanimity and settled belief. — Bitter Crank
Much of modern philosophy is a grand evasion of the abyssal horror of a godless, mechanistic universe. For ordinary people, the business of everyday living and the juicy qualities of interpersonal relationships (family, friends, work) prevent them from thinking these things through, of course; but intellectuals tend to turn to shiny toys like idealism, relativism, social justice, social constructionism, analytic philosophy, postmodernism, etc., etc. - little fantasy worlds that have the dual purpose of distracting them from nihilism and serving as affordances for purity spiraling in social-status-seeking games. — gurugeorge
On the other hand, nihilism seems to have gotten an early start in Russia which in the 19th century was not on the cutting edge of progress. — Bitter Crank
Yes, beautiful and meaningful have nothing to do with right and wrong or true and false, I'm not sure why you seem to think you're still disagreeing with me. — gurugeorge
What is meaningful has nothing to do with right and wrong? — praxis
Also always wanted to play Satie's pieces. In another life perhaps. — dog
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.