Printable View
Actually I'm pretty sure that is exactly what Cafolini said.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberbob
Originally Posted by cafolini @ 16
Quote:
The problem you have with that is that science is the art and the life of the day. All the rest is merely historical and lingers on with reduced energy.
The filosophy of science has been in the museum for decades. Science and the systems of confusions called philosophies are mutually exclusive. The so-called scientific method and the philosophy of science never, ever worked but for the stability of involution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Climacus
If you could, although I don't think you might have the brain to do it, when you quote me, please quote the entire paragraph.
I didn't respond because I was still thinking it over. I think the problem is exactly what I said, overemphasizing aesthetics subordinates theme, story, basically content to style. It's overly formalistic. It assumes the primary purpose of art is to produce beauty and any truths art might reveal about the nature of the world are only there to function as a kind of tone coloring and guiding principle for the structure of the overall piece and to add to the work's innate beauty. However, another possibility exists; the primary purpose of art is to reveal truths about human condition and experience through the means of aesthetic beauty. Style can just as easily be there to make the content that much more interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Climacus
I'm not convinced necessarily that the origin of the literary arts stems from some abstract desire for aesthetic beauty, but rather I think they have their origins in the joys of story-telling itself and in the need of making sense of the world--regardless of style. You're making a lot of good points, though, and sharing some wonderful food for thought.
If what you're saying is true, then it seems that while there are many things that are 'artistic,' there's is no such thing as art qua art. It seems to me that you're mixing things - at the moment, truth and beauty - that certainly admit of mixture, but which can also be taken in isolation. Now, you can serve both masters - truth and beauty - for a time, but conflicts of interest will eventually emerge. And what then? Well, I would say, at such a juncture, the artist follows beauty, and the truth-seeker follows truth. There may be artistic philosophers and philosophical artists, yet philosophers and artists are two different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Here's another way of looking at things. Like you, no doubt, I read both Plato and Aristotle. But whereas I enjoy reading Plato, reading Aristotle is a chore. If ever I understand Aristotle fully, I will never read him again. Yet if ever I fully understand Plato, I will continue to read him. Why? Not to learn anything. For I will have done that already. No, I will continue to read him because his writing is beautiful and beauty qua beauty gives ever-renewable pleasure. Knowledge qua knowledge does not.
Moreover, what about the non-propositional arts? Surely 'truth' is not pertinent here. Chopin's étude in c-sharp minor, true or false? Klimt's Jurisprudence, true or false? The questions are meaningless. Truth-values cannot be ascribed to non-propositional things. What is beautiful needn't mean anything.
Maybe you're right. I don't have any strong opinions about the origins of art. But I would be very much surprised if its genesis was attributable to anything like what I'm talking about. I'm thinking of the 'fine arts,' which are relative latecomers.Quote:
I'm not convinced necessarily that the origin of the literary arts stems from some abstract desire for aesthetic beauty, but rather I think they have their origins in the joys of story-telling itself and in the need of making sense of the world--regardless of style.