Art for art’s sake, if that’s your meaning, predates FN. — praxis

Absolutely not. Just the opposite.

What you mean or the history? Please elaborate either way.

What you mean or the history? Please elaborate either way. — praxis

The aesthetics of production has nothing to do with art for art sake. Like I said, it is about meaning and the production of meaning.

Art for art’s sake, if that’s your meaning, predates FN. — praxis

Here’s one source. Sounds like it relies on formalistic notions of art as aesthetic object. For Nietzsche the art would be in the creative act, not the formal properties of the object.

“Taken from the French, the term "l'art pour l'art," (Art for Art's Sake) expresses the idea that art has an inherent value independent of its subject-matter, or of any social, political, or ethical significance. By contrast, art should be judged purely on its own terms: according to whether or not it is beautiful, capable of inducing ecstasy or revery in the viewer through its formal qualities (its use of line, color, pattern, and so on). The concept became a rallying cry across nineteenth-century Britain and France, partly as a reaction against the stifling moralism of much academic art and wider society, with the writer Oscar Wilde perhaps its most famous champion. Although the phrase has been little used since the early twentieth century, its legacy lived on in many twentieth-century ideas concerning the autonomy of art, notably in various strains of formalism.”

“The creating of possibilities for the will on the basis of which the will to power first frees itself to itself is for Nietzsche the essence of art. In keeping with this metaphysical concept, Nietzsche does not think under the heading "art" solely or even primarily of the aesthetic realm of the artist. Art is the essence
of all willing that opens up perspectives and takes possession of them.”(Heidegger, The Word of Nietzsche).

it is about meaning and the production of meaning. — Jackson

I just don’t see how this is in any way a radical idea.

[

I just don’t see how this is in any way a radical idea. — praxis

Well, look at most aesthetics today and it is mostly Kantian--the oppposite of Nietzsche.

And I don't think any philosopher in history is "radical" in so far as they build on previous work.

And I don't think any philosopher is history is "radical" in so far as they build on previous work. — Jackson

I dont know about that. Of course there is always a history to be referred back to , but philosophy is transformative rather than cumulative.

I dont know about that. Of course there is always a history to be referred back to , but philosophy is transformative rather than cumulative. — Joshs

I would never use the word "radical" to describe any philosopher.

I would never use the word "radical" to describe any philosopher. — Jackson

Who would you use it for? A scientist? Technologist? Political theorist? Are radical politics not really radical? Are Kuhn’s scientific revolutions revolutionary without being radical?

Who would you use it for? A scientist? Technologist? Political theorist? Are radical politics not radical? — Joshs

In all seriousness, the only people talking about "radical" are conservatives. Not that you are conservative, but the term seems to be pejorative. Or, that a thinker's ideas are so original that they are named radical. But this seems to be more from the popular mind.

In all seriousness, the only people talking about "radical" are conservatives — Jackson

But the term ‘revolutionary’ is still quite
commonly used in science and philosophy. Is this different from ‘radical’?

But the term ‘revolutionary’ is still quite
commonly used in science and philosophy. Is this different from ‘radical’? — Joshs

What philosophers do you call revolutionary?

What philosophers do you call revolutionary? — Jackson

Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger, for starters.

Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger, for starters. — Joshs

Sure, no problem.
But I'll take Hume over Kant. Kant is more influential in analytic philosophy, but I think Hume is correct and refutes Kant. Kant just normalizes the conventions of science.

I know that Spinoza says that will and the intellect are the same thing, but I am not sure that it is as simple in practice. Philosophy and psychology may emphasise the rational, but I still wonder whether in daily life rationality is as powerful as many would like to believe, or how much of human life is often driven by irrational aspects of human motivation. Cognitive behavioral therapy and reflection may help, but they may not be the norm. Perhaps, human beings have a long way to go in reaching the idea of 'superman' yet.

Kant is more influential in analytic philosophy, but I think Hume is correct and refutes Kant. Kant just normalizes the conventions of science.
3m — Jackson

All major figures in Continental philosophy since 1800 are Kantian in a certain sense, and generally acknowledge that fact

All major figures in Continental philosophy since 1800 are Kantian in a certain sense, and generally acknowledge that fact — Joshs

Maybe. But Hegel is at least as influential.

An interesting counterpoint to Spinoza cancelling the notion of will as ether a prerogative of the divine or what individuals do is that he places much value in being less stupid as an agent of change in the world.

Art for art’s sake, if that’s your meaning, predates FN. — praxis

The idea that art is about production goes back to Aristotle:

"Now action is for the sake of an end; therefore the nature of
things also is so. Thus if a house, e.g., had been a thing made by nature, it would
have been made in the same way as it is now by art; and if things made by nature
were made not only by nature but also by art, they would come to be in the same
way as by nature. The one, then, is for the sake of the other; and generally art in
some cases completes what nature cannot bring to a finish, and in others imitates
nature." (Aristotle, Physics; 199a9-19)

Notice, "art...completes what nature cannot bring to a finish."

Well, I only bring up Spinoza to ground some of the philosophy of mind on this topic. The point is, as far as contemporary cognitive neuroscience (see the link provided in my last post) is concerned, there isn't much of a "debate" on "the relation of will and intellect": compatibilism (i.e. conditional-constrained volition) is the least problematic position.

I have just looked at the link because I didn't notice it before. It is an interesting. I suppose this may be where psychiatry comes into the picture of posthumanist possibilities, because there are ways to fix the human emotions. I would like to read Damasco's ideas further because the philosophy of mind does raise the issue of volition and how much is physical and how much is the brain, because emotions are at the interface between mind and body.

The will may be hard to pin down here because it is connected to the physical brain and deeper aspects of concepts arising in human thought or culture. Taking this back to the cultural elements, even the concept of the 'superman' or 'overman' is bound up with the construction of what the highest evolutionary possibilities are, and what is practically or morally desirable from specific viewpoints.

Taking this back to the cultural elements, even the concept of the 'superman' or 'overman' is bound up with the construction of what the highest evolutionary possibilities are, and what is practically or morally desirable from specific viewpoints. — Jack Cummins

:up:

The idea that art is about production goes back to Aristotle:

"Now action is for the sake of an end; therefore the nature of
things also is so. Thus if a house, e.g., had been a thing made by nature, it would
have been made in the same way as it is now by art; and if things made by nature
were made not only by nature but also by art, they would come to be in the same
way as by nature. The one, then, is for the sake of the other; and generally art in
some cases completes what nature cannot bring to a finish, and in others imitates
nature." (Aristotle, Physics; 199a9-19)

Notice, "art...completes what nature cannot bring to a finish." — Jackson

I was never good with Greek riddles.

Maybe the meaning is that art is the creative act? If so, I’ll point out that creativity isn’t exclusive to art production, and also that art can be reproduced without creativity.

I was never good with Greek riddles. — praxis

Riddle? Just say you did not understand it.

Riddle? Just say you did not understand it. — Jackson

:grin: I thought that’s what I did say. No help?

I thought that’s what I did say. No help? — praxis

Sorry, my mistake. I posted that passage to show that Aristotle's idea of art is treat it as producing things. Not just entertainment.

Jackson, being about as useful as Anne Frank's drum-kit, forced me to seek the answer for myself so I let my fingers do some googling and discovered after a few minutes of reading that the Nietch thought something to the effect that aesthetic experience might just fill the God-shaped hole left in the wake of modernity or, to put it another way, serve as the key to unlock the iron cage of reason.

Nietzsche famously proclaimed that “only as an aesthetic phenomenon is existence and the world eternally justified.”

I suppose this was revolutionary thinking back in the old-timey days of the nineteenth century.

Jackson, being about as useful as Anne Frank's drum-kit, f — praxis

Will you people writing constant insults please get some manners!

Nietzsche famously proclaimed that “only as an aesthetic phenomenon is existence and the world eternally justified.”

I suppose this was revolutionary thinking back in the old-timey days of the nineteenth century. — praxis

Still is, at least the way Nietzsche meant it.