it's a wild animal now and taming it, which a definition is, is futile. — TheMadFool
Morality is only half the concept, right? The other half is amorality. — frank
You could say when we jump into the car, this is amoral Eros. There's no good nor evil yet because the story arc is at its beginning. There's no action to judge. Only once we're hanging upside down (which would be an odd place to end the story), do we lay out our condemnations. Morality is a post-event perspective. We weigh the actuality against the ideal. — frank
Cognitive dissonance appears when we recognize that the very thing the artist needs: some sort of wreckage, is deadly to that innocent who climbed behind the wheel.
But then there's the world's pain. It's a burden for some. Nietzsche says that if you long to save the world, you're rejecting it at the same time. We can say yes to life. Accept the car wreck in all it's glory. Isn't that what the Knight of Faith does? — frank
Yes!! Now we are on the same page. That is all I am trying to say with the definition. Art is always some manifestation of this - an expression of human consciousness, for the consumption of another human consciousness. This is what it provides - constantly, and everything else is variable. This defines art. — Pop
Or: you are saying artworks are essentially an index to states of mind, that they "carry" information about this inner experience, — Constance
the interior experience is the locus of the REAL artwork. — Constance
According to American philosopher John Searle: “Consciousness is that thing that presents itself as we wake up in the morning and lasts all day until we go back to sleep again at night.” It isn’t simply awareness or knowledge – I believe Carl Jung would agree that to every bit of consciousness is attached 100 bits of the subconscious, interwoven into a mental lattice presenting as a united front. It is fundamental to us. Consciousness is personality in action, yet we are hardly aware of it. Modern science has not been able to pin consciousness down, however panpsychism and eastern philosophy agree that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe - from this perspective consciousness takes on a much deeper meaning — Pop
Again (technical issue screwed with the first) — Constance
Don't know why you want to talk about hot coals or billowy clouds. It isn't to the point. — Constance
moves away from explanatory accounts that are merely factual — Constance
facts are, as such, ethically arbitrary — Constance
you owning the gun I borrowed and wanting it back under, say, dangerous and suspicious circumstances. — Constance
The gun ownership, the circumstances and so on, these are facts that have no ethical dimension to them as facts. — Constance
As Wittgenstein put it in his Lecture on Ethics: in all facts of the world, were they laid out in a great book, there would not be a mention of value at all. — Constance
Then what is it that makes the case ethical (or here, aesthetic; same applies here) at all? it is the value: the injury and pain that is at stake, also my breaking the implicit promise to return the gun that could undermine confidence that thereby undermines friendship and comfort, and so on. — Constance
So. you see the point being made here is to try to analyze an ethical case, any one at all, to find how its parts work, and what they are. This should be clear. — Constance
Not clear why you talk about panic. — Constance
I don't want to muddle things with what is not at issue. — Constance
If all things are in space, then nothing is in space? Are you kidding? — Constance
I'm trying to impress on you, but without much success, that consciousness is the root of creativity.
Consciousness unifies and integrates information.
Creativity unifies and integrates information
This bears thinking about. — Pop
I think I see what you are getting at. Let me see if I can clarify a bit. Phenomenalogically speaking, art is creation. Man creates himself and his world through art, and it is through the prism of art that man and the world appears as it does to man. — Merkwurdichliebe
Remarkably, in that long post you didn't use the word 'context' even once. — praxis
You said it, not me. If all things are in space, then all things are in space. If all things are space, then things are space, right? If all things are space then there’s nothing to compare space with, right? There is only space, so space has no meaning. — praxis
Consciousness, as an evolving process of self organization, encompasses all things mental and experiential.
According to American philosopher John Searle: “Consciousness is that thing that presents itself as we wake up in the morning and lasts all day until we go back to sleep again at night.” It isn’t simply awareness or knowledge – I believe Carl Jung would agree that to every bit of consciousness is attached 100 bits of the subconscious, interwoven into a mental lattice presenting as a united front. It is fundamental to us. Consciousness is personality in action, yet we are hardly aware of it. Modern science has not been able to pin consciousness down, however panpsychism and eastern philosophy agree that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe - from this perspective consciousness takes on a much deeper meaning — Pop
I agree - the postmodernist "Artworld" with its "institutional definition of art" is destroying any value in the definition of art by pushing the agenda that art is defined in whatever way they deem it to be defined. — RussellA
Suppose that no human ever bothered to distinguish the color of red from other colors.
— praxis
When looking at the world, humans don't decide to distinguish between colours, but instinctively distinguish between colours, without thought or conscious effort. — RussellA
Remarkably, in that long post you didn't use the word 'context' even once.
— praxis
In a previous post I wrote "The aesthetic form of an object is independent of the object's context, as an object's aesthetic is the formal arrangement of the parts within the object, not any external context. The violence of a war can have an aesthetic and be ugly. The serenity of a garden can have an aesthetic and be beautiful".
In this particular post I summarised with the phrase "aesthetic as a formal arrangement of the parts within an object". Although not specifically referring to the context of the object, the phrase infers that the object's context is not part of the object's aesthetic. — RussellA
Unless you have perfect pitch you couldn’t hear a musical note and identify it. You could learn how to do this with practice however.
What does it even mean to say that an object can be removed from its external context? — praxis
The aesthetic form of the object can be removed from its external context
My subjective experience of the colour red is independent of any function the letter box may have. Similarly, my subjective experience of the aesthetic form of the letter box is independent of any function that the letter box has. — RussellA
I would deny that amorality is a fit description of the world at the basic level. — Constance
But the ontology of pain and bliss looks to neither the beginning nor the end. It simply takes what is there as it is, a phenomenon of certain properties. I am not concerned about how other matters work out, only one: I ask, what IS this pain. — Constance
The Knight of Faith is one who singularly lives in God's grace. See the first chapter of Fear and Trembling. S/he has posited spirit and unqualifiedly affirms God, the soul and their primacy over all things, securing eternal happiness. Abraham was this. — Constance
So, the exteriority of the object is not detachable from the interior conscious event. — Constance
So it is a communication of consciousness to consciousness and what is exchanged is information, but just like the information communicated in this forum, so little of it gels. :lol: — Pop
Alas, arrogance unmatched by intellectual content. Your ideas have been deservedly rejected by most members of the forum. Most people would take that as a sign to rethink their position. Anyone unwilling to face the fact that their positions might not be correct or not the only way of seeing things cannot truly considered a philosopher, or even an intelligent thinker. — T Clark
So it is a communication of consciousness to consciousness and what is exchanged is information, but just like the information communicated in this forum, so little of it gels. — Pop
Neither do you represent the opinion of the forum, nor have you provided an argument — Pop
Still no argument. Still no substance. — Pop
I would too. Amorality appears to you against a background of morality, and vice versa. — frank
Could be a result of hot sauce about to be drowned in some awesome beer as you celebrate with close friends. Could be the same pain in the back you've struggled to deal with for months and despair is setting in.
What the pain is and how you deal with it is definitely a matter of how you cast it. Why would you analyze pain without a context? That doesn't happen very often. — frank
Particularly as he was about to kill his beloved son. What does that tell you? — frank
Exactly - that is why the art work is information about what is occurring in the artist's mind, or in other words consciousness. Likewise this art object representing the artist's consciousness, then interacts with the consciousness of the viewer, to become something in their mind. So it is a communication of consciousness to consciousness and what is exchanged is information, but just like the information communicated in this forum, so little of it gels — Pop
Again you reveal your consciousness. — Pop
Your opinions are just noise without substance…
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.