I was referring to Fight Club...

I am not very knowledgeable about visual art, which is why I chose an example from music. Perhaps the reason Mozart does not astonish you is because you have the mirror image limitation wrt music. I am certainly astonished by him. — andrewk

Well, I'm not that knowledgeable about visual art either; I'm a musician. So perhaps I need to revisit Mozart? But I never had a great impression of him. I'm certainly willing to revisit him. I have always loved The Four Seasons, but as I mentioned to Bitter Crank at some point, that's just a nostalgic childhood connection more than anything.

I'd say it's a great mental tool. Just try to make your computer be imaginitive and come up with something it's not programmed to do. With things being logical, especially if they are computable, computers can do it likely better than you. Sooner or later, if not now. — ssu

Sure. To me, the possibility of a computer creating a more sublime piece of art than a human person ever could is exactly an example of the purest form of nihilism. So, if that's our road, then our road is nothing short of meaningless and total tom-foolery. And sure, this could very well be the case.

Naturally that imagination has to be in the end logical and use reason in order to be useful to philosophy and not all that one can imagine is useful to philosophy. — ssu

Right, and I gave an example (p-zombies) of a creative idea that is not useful to philosophy. But what do you mean that "imagination has to be in the end logical and use reason in order to be useful to philosophy"? Imagination is the basis of the action of creativity; creativity as an action is parallel with logic and reason.

For example with science, there is the great example of science fiction and it's role in technological advances and science itself. Now one can be obstinate here and take the approach that science or technological advance has absolutely nothing to do with science fiction, just look at the scientific experiments, published theories etc. and you will have no reference to science fiction or imagination. Or that usually science fiction writers just use the science and tech they are aware of and fill in the blanks with cool sounding machines.

Yet when you look at the historical events from a broader perspective, there is an evident role. — ssu

Yes, this is an interesting topic of which i'm somewhat aware. How much did science fiction influence the decisions of actual scientists? How much did the creative imagination of fiction writers influence the scientific principles that were later discovered?

I should also come full disclosure and mention that my issue here is primarily a fundamental one. I think a lot about the role of art, or the purpose of art, or the purpose of creativity. I don't think man's primary purpose as a creative being is political. I think the political role is just a stand-in for the essential role, the spiritual role. I think the creative urge in man strives to transcend the political, the physical. This is where a lot of my criticism of political art stems from.

(Y) pardon my chronic need to clarify unnecessary details.

Picasso is not selling an anti-war message, he's revealing one in a unique way - the idea is primary but it works in harmony with the form. So, I don’t think that the idea being primary is the issue here; the idea must in a sense always be primary, but it must work within the expression such that it reveals rather than merely commands. And what it reveals must be of value. Picasso does this, Banksy does this, Orwell does this, etc. — Baden

I somehow missed your post here, sorry. The result of checking the forum on my phone, it seems. I almost agree; with the case of Guernica, the idea may have been primary (who knows?), but only in harmony with the form, as you say. So, for any piece of art that would dare to say something specific and plain, it better be in concert with the form itself, otherwise it's just embarrassing. I'm saying this from experience. It is possible, I just think it's rare, and therefore, the examples of it, especially within the political realm in our age, get distorted and set on pedestals. They get fetishized. See the bronze girl from the OP.

As I mentioned above, I agree that if the motivation is to sell an idea - instrumental reason - then you don’t get art - the artistic potential gets crushed under the jackboot of ideology. However, the impetus for art may be anything including the political. It doesn't have to be a case that it just happens. Guernica was painted in response to the bombing of the town of the same name. It wasn't entirely spontaneous. That the pressure that pushes the artist's fingers to the keyboard, or hand to the chisel, or paintbrush across the canvas is a wonder, fear, or disgust of a political nature no more negates the final product than any other impetus as long as the art speaks for itself, has its own voice, and is not merely an echo of some prevailing wind that its creator wishes to amplify. — Baden

Sure, to me these instances are almost accidental; how can it be otherwise without being propaganda, whether political or religious or whatever? I saw Pussy Riot Theatre here in NY recently, and it was amazing. Why? Because it was art that happened to be about politics. The political message of the music was the inmost impulse of the artists. The same could be said for Bach's Hallelujah Chorus. The inmost impulse of the music was deeply religious. I mean that quite literally. So, that's my point. Does that make any sense?

A conscious throwing of everything we know into question, or an experience of it? My experience of doubt (and so, for better or for worse), my interpretation of Tillich is more a sense of existential dread; the fear that nothing is as it seems, and the whole structure is wrong.

Some of my comments are statements – some are questions. — woodart

But I was referring to your list of questions. They all had question marks after them, but they were leading questions, which means you weren't really asking a question ("how are you today?"), but making an implicit statement ("don't you feel good today?"). A real question leaves room for the responder to answer honestly ("I'm feeling down today"). A leading question suggests an answer that the responder should give ("yes, I do feel good today"). Leading questions are manipulative.

Imagination is the brush that paints the picture of our ideas. — woodart

I like that metaphor.

A mask is traditionally part of a costume, but it can also be a disguise of ones persona. We all use imagination to project our persona, which is like a mask. — woodart

Also a good analogy.

Imagination and philosophy are like brother and sister – don’t you agree? — woodart

I disagree with this analogy - it depends on the philosopher. Russell doesn't exactly fit this description. Perhaps Nietzsche fits it better? It depends. But if you mean the discipline of philosophy itself, regardless of the varying degrees of use of imagination from philosopher to philosopher...like John said, this is a generalization, and hard to say. I even have trouble making a statement about how much imagination "should" be used in philosophy, because of the wide range of thinking that goes into the discipline. For my part, I'm interested in a way or mode of thinking that places creativity as primary, or secondary at the very most. So can this even be called philosophy? This is something I wrestle with; I'm not even sure if I'm a philosopher.

One of the things I notice about philosophers is that they are insecure. I wonder if you agree? I also see arrogance and obfuscation – do you? I think some philosophers use great imagination to construct a mask that obfuscates. What do you think about this idea? A mask or argument that confuses ones companion is dishonest. It lacks honor – don’t you agree? — woodart

I see this in politics and the arts and science as much as anywhere else. I see this anywhere where power and influence are at play. I don't see it more in philosophy than anywhere else. Hell, I see this just as much in the several workplaces I work in.

I think the questions we ask ourselves in philosophy take great imagination and stamina. We ask the hard questions and they are not easy to understand or formulate. The answers are even more difficult – sometimes impossible. It takes courage to be a philosopher and great imagination. I don’t want to make my task harder by confusing myself or someone else. I want to be clear in what I think and say. What do you think? — woodart

I think you're right about this, and that these are some wise thoughts. I'm reading "Dynamics of Faith" by the theologian Paul Tillich right now. He describes "faith" as "ultimate concern". With this definition, everyone necessarily has an ultimate concern; everyone has faith. Unfortunately, all forms of ultimate concern are idolatrous, except the one ultimate concern: God, or the divine. And what's more, ultimate concern for something requires courage, because ultimate concern necessarily involves doubt, of the most appropriate kind. So, if a philosopher finds himself afraid, it's because of his doubt, and his doubt is what gives him courage.

John, I should also mention that another reason I focus on the importance of creativity over craft (or logic, or whatever), is that I find that, especially with art, the innocent experience of a piece of art is the most pure. I can think back to when I encountered new pieces of music that were utterly foreign to me; I didn't have the chops or the understanding to know what was happening, but the immediate, visceral experience of the piece was profound and life changing. The same goes for when I encounter new pieces of art in disciplines that I'm not a practitioner of, like visual art. When I saw Picasso's sculpture exhibit at MoMA, I felt like a child. I felt like I was encountering a new form of reality. I just looked at the colors and the shapes; I was seduced by the whole spectacle of his work. And I have little to no training in understanding visual art. I'm always trying to get back to this innocent state of experiencing and creating art. This experience of art almost shares something with the religious or mystical experience; it's immediate and immanent; it's childlike.

I can certainly relate to that; but wouldn't you say that kinetic familiarity with a musical instrument is possible only on the foundation of understanding the logic inherent in its structure? — John

Well, in a way; I guess I'm just getting held up by the word "logic". I would say that a kinetic familiarity is based on past kinetic connections, and the resulting ephemeral experience of the music or art which was a positive experience as an artist/listener. So initial kinetic connections that lead to exciting musical possibilities build on themselves, which lead to more and more. So, if you mean that one must rigorously study an art form before becoming a master, then no, I don't agree. I've also known artists of various disciplines that seemed to be "naturals", as cliche as it is. I've also had friends who tried to learn an instrument, because the rest of us were doing it...and they just couldn't keep up. This sort of basic observation is another reason I tend to think of the importance of imagination or creativity. There do seem to be some of us who naturally have it. Why that might be is still a total mystery to me, and not something I try to do philosophy about, at least for now. As for myself, I find myself somewhere in between. I have some formal training, but it seems that that training laid the groundwork for me to be able to not think about it ever again, for the most part. I only use the technical aspects of my training (transcribing notation, identifying complex chord names) when I absolutely have to, which is usually when my band asks me for those things. So as a result, I'm quite slow at completing those tasks.

Yes, I agree there is no permanently fixed logic in music, and it is the part of imagination to create new forms. But usually this proceeds on the basis of a deep understanding of existing conventional forms. — John

This is an important point which I neglected. However, there are still more factors than that. In our modern world, there's the collision of heretofore unconnected musical cultures, where a totally different way of thinking about music cuts through the norm, creating new norms. Steve Reich spent time in Africa, and as a trained drummer, he ingested a wealth of African drumming patterns, which had a profound influence on the "minimalist", modern classical music he wrote and continues to write. Now that hypnotic, rhythmic approach influences even popular music down to the most derivative degree.

I don't rule out the possibility that some modern forms of music, art and poetry, in the absence of such traditional understandings, may be pretty vacuous, either. — John

I agree that those forms are vacuous in a classical sense, which tends to be the sense I agree with generally. But I'm also trying to figure out what the significance of those forms of art is for humanity in general. Even though I don't like the art, there's something so astounding about the emergence of an entire new way of doing art. Tying this strictly back to philosophy, I think there are some very important, prescient truths to be gleaned from this development, even if I don't happen to like the art itself. And I don't think it's so simple as a critique of post-modernism, or nihilism.

I certainly don't confine the ambit of logic to 'dry' processes of reasoning. When I speak of logic or reasoning I am not thinking of predicate calculus or syllogistic logic here! — John

So what is it you're thinking of?? You don't seem to quite define it. But I do feel I'm on the periphery of getting the idea.

The same is probably true, I would imagine, in theology, though. — John

Like philosophy, I suppose, there seems to be so much unnecessary theology. I think theology should bridge the gap between philosophy and religious experience. It's more of an intermediary.

Even the non-theologically-minded, yet serious religious devotee, or any important mystic, must be very familiar with the body of ideas that make up their religions. — John

I'm not so sure this is the case. Certainly some of the mystics were not well read. "Serious religious devotion" is often based on an immediate or immanent experience, like I mentioned. Earlier in life, my more intense religious experiences were exactly that. Now as I become more well-read, those experiences become more rare. This is also partially because I don't have a regular devotion or practice anymore.

It's not as though they can just imagine whatever they like about their experiences, and communicate that, and expect others to be interested in, or even understand, their imaginings. — John

I'm not so sure this covers the breadth of the mystics. But I need to research more of them.

Think about music for example; there is a logic to, which is to say a reasoning inherent in, melodic and rhythmic movements and harmonic progressions, without a firm grasp of which no amount of brilliant imagination could produce music worth listening to. — John

I'm not sure I fully agree; there is a logic or a reasoning inherent in many forms of music, but part of how music evolves is that the reasoning changes. Compare Mozart with Schoenburg. Each may have used a reasoning faculty to arrive at their music, but they certainly weren't thinking with the same reason per se; the dissonance of Schoenburg would have been completely un-musical to Mozart. Then with Duchamp invading the art world with his "4th dimension" (the idea that an idea can be art), you have artists in general beginning with an idea and letting that be the guiding principle or logic behind the piece. A completely different way of thinking; rather than saying "there's a correct set and an incorrect set of pitches to use here". Chance music, for instance, or Musique Concrete.

in my view much of the best creative work consists in problem solving; that is in imagining a problem or asking a question, and then solving the problem or answering the question. — John

Do you mean that artists consciously try to problem solve, and that that's what making art is? I don't find that to be the case in my own artistic work. For me, conceptual problems come afterwards, mostly. I find the initial process of creation to be kinetic, which I think I mentioned earlier in a different context. This is part of what makes me think of imagination as primary, because for me, I begin with a kinetic connection to an instrument, then through creativity I start constructing a piece, and then towards the end of the process I'll beginning thinking more abstractly about the problems in the piece, and I'll try to "solve" those problems. Sometimes it takes a few hours, sometimes a year or two.

All of philosophy and religion arises from the existential problems we find ourselves faced with. These problems have their own deep and subtle logics and cannot be adequately and subtly understood without solid and extensive reasoning. — John

This helps clarify my position I think. I agree that philosophy, religion, art, even science, at their deepest cores, are interfacing with the same problems, as it were. But I differ, because I think they fundamentally approach the problems with a different set of tools. I guess I use that as a metaphor to say that they use a different mix of the human faculties; not the same mix. I think philosophy is a much more conscious approach, for instance, whereas religion or mysticism are much more "immediate" or immanent approaches; approaches of devotion. Art I consider to be a kinetic approach, at it's best. At the same time, though, I think creativity has a mystical significance. That's why I'm always bringing it up.

Isn't the first rule of philosophy club to not talk about philosophy club?...

So, I have in mind the most all-inclusive definitions of logic and reason here. — John

Maybe it's my autodidactic tendencies, but I'm not even sure what this sort of definition of logic and (or?) reason is. Maybe you could elaborate further on that. So anything I might have to say about your following paragraph would depend on a more detailed definition of what you mean here.

I think what you say here really amounts to saying that projections are harmful only when they are not recognized as such. — John

Yeah I suppose that's the same gist.

Unrecognized projections, which become reified as objectifications, make our lives ever poorer, I beleive. — John

Yeah, but even more than objectifications, they become ways of thinking about the world. I'm still trying to tear the idea of God as Angry Judge out of how I view reality. I didn't just objectify a way of thinking about God, I almost ratified the image in my mind, in a way. It becomes part of the thinking process. I think any unconscious or misplaced projection does this.

What do your questions have to do with imagination? They're also leading questions. I think you could easily re-frame them as statements.

I am sure Banksy didn't get upset with (cannot remember name) when his artwork was completely sprayed over considering the nature of his art. — TimeLine

The difference is Banksy is used to being sprayed over. He made an entire persona out of being a "guerrilla" artist, so to speak. I'm not sure it's the same for what's-his-name who did the bull.

Others astonish us by showing just how expressive one can be without having to stray outside the boundaries. — andrewk

I think I disagree here. I think art that "astonishes us" within the boundaries of what's an artistic norm tends to be dead, meaningless art that just assuages an artistic fetish; it never creates a new artistic possibility. For instance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgvJg7D6Qck

Is the technical ability off the charts? Yes. Does it have any real cultural significance? No. It's fetishistic. The fetish is the shear ability of Bobby to use his voice to perform a piano part. Incredible, right? Significant in any way other than a dick measuring contest? No.

Love it. Fully endorse it.

If only our worshipful fine art overlords would stoop to such a move...

(Y)

So to be a little more clear here, the problem I have is with the distinction of what is primary in art. The idea, or the expression? We live in the post-Duchamp age, so for us, the idea is primary, whether we realize it or not. But I don't like this. When the idea (political or religious, or nihilistic or whatever) takes precedence, what happens is the artist forces the concept down the throat of the unassuming audience. Example, the bronze girl here. We live in an age where this is how art is done. Is it art? It is absolutely art. But is is creative, in the sense that human creativity is generative? No, it's abstract in the worst possible way. It's an idea, subjected to a weakened form of the human imagination. Imagination has to be primary in art; this is how unexpected new forms of art appear. Indeed, this is even how Duchamp came to the point that he came to. The creative act, for instance, in it's pure form is not primarily a process of reason; it's kinetic. I pick up an instrument and begin playing, I feel the pressure of the brush on the canvass, and suddenly, the ideas come. IF the result happens to be political, I have no problem. But an artist who begins from a political perspective is just making propaganda, not art.

It's a great work of art. I happen to love Picasso. I saw the collection of his sculptures that was shown at MoMA, and it changed my life, I would say. But as political art, it seems that that piece is just historically associated with the Spanish Civil War, more than anything. But sure, it must have had some impact on people's awareness of the problem. You're also using probably the best example of a piece of political art. I can't think of another piece that actually had that sort of impact, but I could certainly be wrong. So sure, I grant that the piece made real, cultural waves, at least historically speaking. That's not a problem, especially because Picasso was such a great artist who made all sorts of pieces. Think about it: what makes it a great piece? Picasso. I agree with Steve Reich when he said something to the effect of "Shut up Picasso, no one cares! Just make good art." (this was clearly in an interview, sorry I don't have a link, I did a brief search). What I have a problem with is when art is just subjected to being political propaganda (and I don't see Guernica as propaganda per se). Living in NYC and working at a contempo-classical music venue that considers themselves "the future of music", I see so much ridiculous pomp and circumstance, and so much squelching of artistic voices because of the need to curate pieces that are cutting-edge political statements. And not to mention the questionable money that goes into art, and with that money, the power to influence which voices are heard. It's becoming this fundamentalist-progressive-left-religious phenomenon of creating high-art propaganda voodoo that has no real cultural hold. I always say...political music is as bad as Christian rock music. It's that Simpsons quote, "you're not making Christianity better, you're just making rock music worse". It applies to political propaganda in the form of art as well; it's the same principle.

No doubt Barfield was a bit too keen on Steiner; Anthroposophy has a cult-like feel, although I don't think it can really be classified as one. There does seem to be room for independent critical thinking within it, at least. It seems like Steiner was a very charismatic person, and the sorts of ideas he was espousing were definitely en vogue at the time in Europe. I've only read Steiner's The Philosophy of Freedom, and I remember there being some pretty solid philosophy of mind in the first half, but then he just jumps off the deep end into his theosophical ideas.

I am wary of evolutionary models of human spiritual growth. Such models tend to imagine objectified and pre-determined processes of development. — John

That's fair; I personally don't hold a view of spiritual evolution that has a pre-determined process. And I'm still toying with the idea at all. But I also believe in the primacy of freedom. I think humans, invited by God to participate in creation itself have the floor to enact spiritual evolution in an un-determined way. But any pre-determined content would be, for instance, morality. I'm still working through the concepts, which is why I occasionally post threads like this one.

I tend to see any ideas of God as desiring, planning, waiting, and so on as examples of human projections, but on the other hand I don't deny the profundity of some mystical experiences that find him that way, either. — John

I'm not sure if those are projections; I suppose they might be, but if so, I don't see them as particularly harmful. The harmful type of projection I think is more specific concepts applied to God that create a much more concrete image in our minds which then leads us astray. The Angry Judge, for instance. But the assigning of the simply passive action of waiting to God I don't think distorts our ideas of God too badly. If that's the game, then we can't really say anything about God. Which is also a perfectly valid argument to carry out, you'd just have to do so.

I think Berdyaev has said that God needs humanity as much as humanity needs God (or perhaps I am thinking of Meister Eckhardt or Boehme). — John

That's Berdyaev, yeah. I tend to agree with him there.

In any case it is on account of the importance I attribute to the internal logics of creative activities and human activities in general, that I think logos is first and foremost, and that without it, imaginatio will only produce trivialities. It is only in the critical fire of logos that imaginatio becomes significantly creative, and that the Word may become Flesh. — John

Can you elaborate on why? I think you might have somewhere else, sorry. To me, even just the idea of Christ being the Word (logos) suggests something more than simply logic or reason being the primary faculty. And if we're dealing with that intro to John passage...it's a wirey one. It reads as poetry to me. I'm not completely sure how to interpret it. There's an aspect of it that's almost a re-writing or rephrasing of Genesis 1, which I think was intentional.

See Cavacava's post above.

I think he's right. — Cavacava

I agree.

in this case, it looks as if a political art work has been answered with another. The first artist seems to have conceded the point by resorting to lawyers — unenlightened

That's true. But it's unclear to me what, if anything, the bull was originally supposed to suggest. And it's still unclear to me whether any actual changes will take place in wall street thanks to either piece.

That's pretty funny, but I'm not sure how the humor makes it better political art. I'm still not sure it's impacting anyone's opinion. It reminds me of political cartoons; clever, prescient, but ultimately just an artful form of complaining.

Oh, I totally agree with you – bad philosophical ideas should be outlawed — woodart

I didn't say that, I made an argument for why I think a certain type of philosophical way of thinking is bad. You haven't addressed that argument.

We should have a committee to approve and discard ideas. Let’s see – who will be on the committee? We will make it democratic; so it will be run by the government. I vote for me to be editor-in-chief. And now that I am chief – I am taking away your “fire” because you scare me. ;) — woodart

The rest of this doesn't follow since it's based on the erroneous assumption that I want to outlaw bad philosophical ideas.

lol.

Political art tends to leave me cold; it's usually just a preaching to the choir. Sure, this piece is in the Financial District, so it doesn't preach to the choir in that respect. From a purely artistic standpoint, it's interesting. From a practical standpoint, I don't think it's going to change the minds of any Wall Street employees, or anyone sympathetic with Wall Street. These sorts of moves are generally just opportunities for the progressive left to get riled up for their cause. But political art like this doesn't tend to lead to actual change, which is what I would assume would be the purpose. Part of this is because the conservative right doesn't tend to place the same significance on art anyway. The major metropolitan areas where the forefront of art is cultivated are generally filled with politically liberal people who place a high value on art (obviously with the exception of Wall Street, but NYC is still largely a democratic city). This is why it tends to be a preaching to the choir, because using art as a language to express a political message tends to be a one-sided conversation.

Hence something like imagination plays an extremely important role: it can give us totally new approaches to the question, totally new ideas. You can imagine something first, then start to reason it. — ssu

I don't really agree with this, although I do see that sort of imaginative thinking as theoretically having some limited use. But I think it also leads to a lot of bad philosophical ideas. P-zombies, for instance, are a misuse of imagination (using it to "give us totally new approaches to [a] question"). It's a bad argument against physicalism, but I'm not so much worried about that as I am worried that it's a misuse of imagination. Imagination is not a mental tool in the same way that logic is. But with possible world arguments, for instance, it seems that philosophers are assuming they can use imagination in the same way. It's an attempt to harness creativity and subdue it within the constrains of a logical argument. But creativity (the act that imagination performs) is generative; when we use imagination in philosophy we generate new ideas. So in a sense, when I come up with a new possible world scenario, I actually create that world within this one; the world now exists in the form of an idea. But the problem is it's a bad idea. It leads to incorrect thinking. And thinking itself determines our perception of reality, which determines how we live within the world. So our thinking literally alters reality. So when we use creativity to form ideas about the world, we are using our creativity to shape reality. And so creativity is generative. We don't fully seem to realize the power of imagination; the world of ideas with all of it's complexities and disagreements, especially within academia, is so often a product of unwieldy attempts to harness imagination to generate theoretical ideas that will take care of existing philosophical problems. But if creativity is generative, then those problems were originally creatively generated themselves, and now we're attempting to correct them by just generating more philosophical problems. We're like toddlers playing with fire. What makes it worse is that this misuse of creativity is often not even something philosophers are conscious of. All of this points to the immense potency of creativity, and the pervasive misuse of it within the world of ideas.

We can imagine things both true and untrue, or good and evil. Imagination is simply the production of images or patterns. It has no value in itself, so I don't think it can be right to say that it is prior to reason or truth — John

Hmm, I think more what I mean to say is that creativity gives birth to truth. So the distinction being that creativity is the act of creating, whereas imagination is a passive faculty, as you said. The idea is that God began the process of creation, and that truth is born out of that divine process. Not something handed from on high, and not something beholden to strict logical rules, but something generative. Everything is generative. Now as human persons with consciousness, we're developing the divine faculty of creation. I was inboxing Augustino on this; he brought up that Nietzsche saw two "movements" in philosophy (not as in schools, but as in literal movements, as an analogy). The first is purgation, ascetics, morals, seeking truth. Most philosophy stays here, but the second movement is participation in creation. Berdyaev, similarly, describes three epochs, that each correspond with a member of the Trinity. The first is the Law (The Father; Old Testament). The Second is the Redemption (Jesus; New Testament). The third is Creativity (The Spirit; our world now). According to Christian tradition, this also coincides with which person of the Trinity was present here on earth. But the point Berdyaev makes is that these Epochs overlap; Christianity is still living very much in the first Epoch of the Law, and somewhat in the Epoch of the Redemption. Berdyaev says, similarly to Nietzsche, that God awaits a revelation from Man. The creative act is Man's revelation to God. So I interpret the Death of God as only the Silence of God. God awaits Man's revelation.

happiness and love is a feeling created in our brain by certain chemicals and is a part of our anatomy. — joachim

Looking at the chemical makeup of the brain that leads to certain feelings like love isn't a way of understanding why, it's just the how. Understanding the inner workings of a computer doesn't tell us the purpose of the computer. When asked "why use a computer to post on a philosophy forum?" I don't answer "Because when I type the keys, the processor and the RAM and all of the components put words on the screen."

So, what's a different sort of thing to examine about love, for instance, that might more appropriately answer the why? Since why is the question you're asking, after all.

I think what Noble Dust is getting at, is that there may be a conception of life, within which virtue is of a higher importance than whether one lives or dies. — Wayfarer

Yes. This is a concept that seems to have no traction in an analytic world. And there seems to be no adequate way for that concept to be sufficiently communicated to that world. An example being Metaphysician's future response to this post.

Life after death is contradictory, unless we remove the individuality of living. — Metaphysician Undercover

Paradoxes are an important purveyor of truth. Experience here is key; I haven't experienced death and whatever may or may not come after it, so I'd rather retain the simplicity of a child; I'll trust to the possibility of something coming after. But simply just the possibility, not any certainty. I'll strive to seek the purity of heart that wills one thing, along with Kierkegaard.

If we remove the individual, to say that life continues, then we don't have any real grounding for the concept of "life", because we get a nonsense notion of life, without an individual being which is living. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, it's not a nonsense notion of life, it's a notion that acknowledges Not-Knowledge, that acknowledges Un-knowing. It's a notion that acknowledges faith (ultimate concern, via Tillich), as one of the primary functions of how we interface with life. It's a letting go of the need to know.

This is the category error which I was trying to point out. A species is not a living being. It doesn't make sense to say that the species exists as a thing, because it is not a living being, it is an abstraction. — Metaphysician Undercover

Surely the survival of a species as a whole is not hard to conceptualize. Seriously...

I haven't yet seen good support for your separation between "survival" and "highest good". To me, I see no reason yet why survival should not be the highest good. — Metaphysician Undercover

I can't even parse through the confusing misapplication of terms here. And I've already made my point earlier about this distinction. If survival is the highest good, than an almost comically ironic solipsism is the only way forward. Because, as you say, you only equate survival to the individual. So if survival (the highest good) is only about me, then my "good" is, in truth, the only good that exists. So it's you versus me. Given the last slice of bread left on the planet, it's fair game for me to grotesquely murder you for the sake of my own survival, since survival is the highest good (but only my personal survival, since the survival of the species is not a real thing). And you never addressed my points about suicide. Feel free to vehemently disagree, or whatever. But at least address my points about suicide in relation to this debate instead of attempting to only hit me at whatever weaker points you might perceive to exist in my argument.

There is no such particular, individual, existing thing as the norms of a culture, nor is there any such particular individual existing thing as a species. These are concepts, abstractions. — Metaphysician Undercover

So all abstractions are not real then, logically? Surely you agree.

You don't seem to appreciate the true meaning of "survive". You put survival into the past, to say "I have survived, therefore I have fulfilled my desire to survive". — Metaphysician Undercover

You misunderstand my analogy (and analogies are imperfect, as this one surely is). When I say that survival gets me from point A to B, I mean that survival moves me along the path of my life. It's only one of the things that does so. It's surely an important driving factor. But, the analogy could be said instead like this: survival is a mechanism of life. It doesn't describe why life exists. the mechanics of the car engine don't tell me why someone might find it beneficial to use a car. Surely this is easy to understand??

The most recent music I've put out:

https://sparrow.bandcamp.com/releases

After recent personal explorations of Aristotle I'd say this can come in (a) a practical form, phronesis or practical reason being about right action, and (b) a thoughtful form, sophia or contemplative wisdom being about right thinking. This 'rightness' is not an ethic I would press upon othe — mcdoodle

I disagree with Aristotle here; why should contemplative wisdom only be "about" right thinking? What's the point of contemplative wisdom if it doesn't apply to action? We are what we do, as you say. So, in that case, what we "are" only applies to our practical reason, using Aristotle's concepts. Wisdom necessarily plays no role in action in this scenario. This is totally unnecessary and foolish.

This 'rightness' is not an ethic I would press upon others, it's right for me, though I might recommend the process of arriving at it to others. — mcdoodle

What does this even mean?

This gives us two 'images' to 'imagine', to start with. Then - having been a struggling artist most of my life - I would certainly like to add artistic imagination. I am struck by how poorly critical analytic language relates to the practice of art. — mcdoodle

Now here I'm with you, as a fellow struggling artist. This is a topic I was addressing somewhat in earlier posts. And I don't think you need to feel like you would "certainly like to add artistic imagination" to the scenario. I would encourage you to embrace your experience as an artist as primary in understanding imagination itself. Trust yourself. As an artist, your imagination is the primary mode of your thinking. Embrace that, instead of sabotaging yourself into thinking you need to come up with some other way of thinking in order to understand that very part of yourself that is so primary.

I guess I'm causing a slight distortion in my discussion of this topic. I've seen in the past the attempt to subjugate imagination to various philosophical schools, as happens to be convenient. So I do agree with you, then, that it's the genesis of all thought. But even here (and this is where I've neglected until now to make the distinction), I'm cautious, because it still seems to me that you're labeling imagination as the genesis, but only the genesis. Perhaps I'm wrong? I still get the sense that imagination is primary, but only a seed, if you will, that gives birth, necessarily, to something else ("reason", for instance). And this is where I disagree. I see imagination as not only the genesis of all thought, or as "primary", but as continually that genesis, through all other forms of thought, up until the realization of "Truth". Imagination, actually, is tied to Eternity. It's not a part of evolution, or a part of how we perceive time, but rather a constant throughout any process.

What would happen if we actually caught the truth? — VagabondSpectre

Your question seems to suggest that no one has. I disagree with that assumption.

Would philosophers bat it around back and forth like a proud cat who captured and killed a mouse? — VagabondSpectre

No, they wouldn't know it if it batted them in the eye.

Imagination is absolutely necessary in philosophy. It's necessary for thought too I reckon... Otherwise we would just exhibit basic reactions to basic stimulus, like so many uninteresting animals... — VagabondSpectre

Again, the philosophical perspective seems to subjugate imagination to reason. And I've already said, as have others in this thread, but I guess this is where I need to make it clear: I think imagination is primary. Imagination is not a tool for philosophers to use when convenient. Imagination is the genesis of philosophical thought.

It seems at least apparently on one level that you are looking at kinds of imagination, not imagination itself. — Cavacava

Wait, but that's exactly what I was making an argument against. I'm making an argument against kinds of imagination. When I talk about functions of imagination, I'm talking about, for instance, things I can do with my hand. I can pick up, I can throw, I can hold, I can drop. But all with my hand. My hand is imagination; the various actions I perform with my hand are the kinds, as you're calling them. But they're all things that the hand does. All things that the imagination does. So, the imagination of the artist or the child, these are all functions or actions, not kinds. The reason I have a problem with kinds is that it suggests an actual difference; a real difference.

Imagination brings sense and intellect together, it is the 'medium' of our interaction with the senses. — Cavacava

I can see this in my mind and entertain the possibility, but I never think of imagination as a "medium", and this is something I see on philosophy forums in general, and I can't reconcile it. A medium is something in which something else is passed. But imagination is the something that needs being passed. Or rather, the idea that imagination brings into being is the something. So in that sense, maybe it is a medium. But not the same medium you're describing.

There is no reason why the paint walks on water the way it does, similarly a work of art does not have a reason beyond itself, a purpose beyond what it is. — Cavacava

I disagree. See my problems with the discussion here on truth. If a work of art truly does not have a meaning beyond itself, then it is, necessarily, meaningless.

Imagination does not have a reason, it is a functional part of what it means to reason, it expresses the movement from sensing to understanding, it is movement of thought regardless of its truth or falsity, its utility or gratuity, its seriousness or its "ability to be ridiculous". — Cavacava

Now here I tentatively agree; I make the distinction between art and imagination. I tie imagination back to Berdyaev's concept of freedom, which is utterly boundless, similar to Bohme's ungrund. Imagination is almost...a function of freedom. Don't quote me on that. But there is a connection there. Thanks for your thoughts, Cavacava, they're very stimulating.

Philosophically, the imagination is primary not derivative. — Baden

Yes.

I think in classical culture, there was relationship between art, literature, and philosophy, but that since Nietszche (not simply because of Nietszche, he was in some ways simply a bellwether), the idea sounds hopelessly nostalgic and out of date. — Wayfarer

Right, this ties in to the problem of specialization. The way thought is moving right now is towards more and more precise splinterization of specific disinclines. This leads to deeper and deeper isolation between not only professional disciplines, but ways of thinking about the world. And ways of thinking about the simplest concepts, like "truth".

Oh. Well what I am thinking is that there are now very exact formal definitions of logical truth, and that in modern philosophy, that is the preferred definition. — ernestm

I do appreciate you listing your definitions, and I'm sorry if it came off otherwise. Any contribution is welcome. But, first of all, this thread is primarily about imagination. Second of all, when it comes to the concept of truth, I take a less philosophical and more a religious perspective. I can't think of a plainer way to describe it, and I'm having trouble thinking of adequate ways of describing my thoughts on truth to you in general (partially because it's 4am). I think truth is intuitive, and tied up with imagination in that way; in other words, in the way that imagination is primary in our thinking, so too truth is tied up with that primacy. Imagination, the human ability to see within the mind, and then bring the thing seen into reality...this, in a sense, is real truth. What is truth if not a form of reality solely dependent on the human mind itself? And what is the primary function of the human mind? The imagination.

So no, I don't want to find your expression of truth to be wrong, I just intuit it as insufficient.

I'm definitely seeking after wisdom, of which 'the truth' may or may not form an important part. — mcdoodle

Can you explain further? How could wisdom and truth be so far apart that one might not necessarily be connected to the other? What makes wisdom wise if not truth? What makes truth true if not wisdom?

On the Uni course I'm currently on I attended a lecture course on 'Imagination' for pleasure. In the analytic world this rather surprisingly means examining the artistic/creative imagination and puzzling over fictionality and aesthetics. — mcdoodle

Yup...

I'm interested in the notion (which I think would be Continental but there you go) that there are different *kinds* of imaginative world, overlapping, but broadly understandable in their divisions. Then the sort of thing that Wayfarer is arguing against would be the result of philosophers becoming preoccupied with 'the scientific imagination', and mistaking the ideas in that imaginative sphere for the totality of ideas, or at least for an unthought-through predominance. — mcdoodle

Yes, I'm very interested in this too. This gets very close to the heart of what I'm trying to understand. But, I don't think of it in terms of overlapping divisions. That to me is just an abstraction that makes the confusing aspects of imagination convenient. Imagination is primary. So, a "scientific imagination", as you say, is a derivation of imagination generally.

I think then one could postulate 'the religious imagination', 'the artistic imagination', 'the historical imagination' and 'the political imagination' (in the way that Landru in our old forum would describe various 'discourses'), together with whatever others one desires to discourse about, without insisting that a scientific view predominates. — mcdoodle

I appreciate your last sentence here about not insisting that a scientific view needs dominate; but in relation to what I just said, I don't see these different "forms" of imagination as being necessary. They sound to me like theoretical postulations that don't have any grounding in the real imagination as experienced. The imagination as experienced is absolutely fluid. It's not categorical at all. Assigning categories to imagination is just a function of human reason trying to give meaning to the imaginative experience. So it's an interpretation, not an actual accurate expression of the experience. The real experience of imagination is an experience of generation, of creation; so by definition, it doesn't avail itself to any invented categories.

And this goes back to my critique of . So, within the context of truth, imagination is not a subsidiary of truth, rather, imagination gives birth to truth, because imagination is primary. And so these categories of truth that have been concocted by humans are not a primary form of truth, but just an abstraction based on an inability to grasp imagination as a primary function that gives birth to primal truth.

Thanks for the link.

My reticence about 'day dreaming' is probably more a reflection on the unending series of CGI-based 'superhero' movies from Hollywood which are generally devoid of meaning - science fantasy. — Wayfarer

i would view that type of fantasy as a watered down form of the likes of Tolkien, et al. Not to keep tooting the Tolkien horn, but my understanding is that he was more or less one of the first to bring a fantastical fantasy world into the mainstream, and especially with such precision. After him, I'm not really aware of anyone who's topped his vision. Not that it's a competition. But so far, other works have been fairly derivative, it seems. It's also slightly ironic, because Tolkien is not a great writer. He has flashes of brilliance in his writing craft, but it's clear when reading LotR what his academic focus was (all his intense research into myth and linguistics). But he also seems to have had the natural poetic genius about him; it was just less exercised.

There are some great sci-fi movies, but also a lot of empty ones. — Wayfarer

Right, when it comes to fantasy and sci-fi, these are very new genres of fiction and cinema that pretty much are a product of the last 100 years or so. But childlike imagination is different from these artistic genres, I think. There may be analogues, but the seemingly limitless imagination of a child is more in line with the best of adult artists, regardless of genre, I think. There's an element in artistic creation that involves the ridiculous, the unheard-of, and the seemingly impossible. And to tie it back to my discussion topic, how might these aspects of artistic creation apply to a philosophical perspective? Or do they even need to?

Not as merely a kind of day-dreaming or imagining scenes or stories, but of dwelling within a realm of ideas. — Wayfarer

But I think the fancy of daydreaming or imagining stories is the very basis for all artistic work, or at least all pure artistic work. Artistic creation involves that gratuitousness that I mentioned earlier via Fujimura. The distinction though, and maybe the distinction you're making, is that that fanciful element isn't the end but merely a means. The childlike quality of imagination becomes a problem when we stay there and refuse to apply it further (in short: refuse to continue to use our imaginations). A childlike imagination should never be an excuse to tune out the harsh realities of the real world. But the untested courage of the child, the assumed trust of the good and of right action of the child, is something that we often lose when we reach adulthood, and therefore something that we should strive to regain or reimagine within the context of adulthood.

I read the collective biography of The Inklings last year, the group which included Tolkien and C S Lewis. — Wayfarer

I haven't read it (which book?), but I'm very familiar with the lives and works of Tolkien, Lewis, Barfield, Williams, and to a lesser extent Sayers. I can't remember who else was occasionally a member, off the top of my head.

Tolkien was a lectured in old Icelandic, Middle English, and many other subjects - his workload was tremendous. But more than that, he was able to intuitively create an entire kingdom replete with its own languages, creatures, and histories. — Wayfarer

Indeed, Tolkien more than anyone else in the group took this approach. It's an interesting topic at hand, as I'm just finishing up a re-reading of The Lord of the Rings. I'm currently slogging through the over-long ending.

I read the other day that the all-seeing eye of Sauron is a metaphor for today's scientific materialism. — Wayfarer

Do you have a link? My impression of Tolkien is that he eschewed all attempts at allegory or direct metaphor in his work. I guess, if my impression is in fact accurate, you can take it with a grain of salt, as you should with the words of any artist.

So to craft his story Tolkien had to create imaginary worlds, but, like the great myths, these imaginary realms convey ideas which can't be communicated in quotidian and analytical terms; 'myths truer than history', I have heard it said. — Wayfarer

Right. On a more technical level, though, my understanding is that Tolkien was responding to the lack of a fleshed out "myth" of the English people, as opposed to the especially Greek, and somewhat the Roman myths with all of their detail and narrative. So, apparently the entire world he created was a pet project of sorts to imagine what a mythical English prehistory would be. Which comes full circle to my admonishment that fantastical, childlike forms of creativity can be valuable. I can't think of a more anti-utilitarian form of creativity than making up an entire world of English mythology simply because it doesn't actually exist in reality.

I think that is why so much of what is called philosophy nowadays is a specialist lexicon which is comprehensible only to those who are admitted into its professional ranks. Because the conception of truth has shrunken to the merely utilitarian or technical, then there is no requirement for any kind of imaginative leap, only the kinds of technical linguistic skills employed by professionals such as scientists and accountants, albeit with no external reference beyond what the peer group validates as appropriate to the discipline.

Whereas I think the last of the idealist philosophers, Hegel and Schopenhauer were tremendously imaginative in their respective ways, as their philosophy demanded re-imagining the nature of what we think we know about life - which after all was the real purpose of philosophy at the outset. — Wayfarer

I agree completely.