Sorry, I Just Don't Get It.

[warren]

Just reading Jefferson or the Federalist Papers, or for that matter, the writings of any of those who wrote and those who ratified the US Constitution can be confusing as to intent and meaning. This is exactly why many laws when, they are enacted have, as footnotes or additions, paragraphs which lay out the intent of the authors or the Congress. Intent is theoretically meant to assist the judiciary when the laws are challenged.
Much as we desire certain things to be immutable, or set in stone very few things actually are. Touchstones often turn to dust when examined closely.
Two what plus two what = four what. 2pints + 2 quarts = 3 quarts. All of the valid, and invalid for that matter, points in this discussion can easily be taken to extremes, even into the realm of inanity.

 

[daimyo]

Whether we disagree or not has nothing to do with whether or not an objective meaning exists.

If people disagree then who gets to decide what is objectively correct? Created by multiple people it likely never had only one meaning. That said if 90% of us agree that it means a certain thing when applied to a certain question then we have a workable model for actual society. There are parts with what most would consider a more or less objective stance.When trying to apply conceptual points to issues they were not initially designed to address, or issues that simply did not exist at the time that objectivity slips away. Hence it was never an absolute, nothing humans do is absolute.
This discussion has been fun but we are going off track. I rarely find myself clearly inline with any political or philosophical leanings and I believe there is good reason our founding fathers warned us about devolving into a two party system.

 

[brian64]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLeD-jTUYIQ

 

[daimyo]

Math is demonstrably deeper than 2+2 and the highest levels of math surpassed that long ago. Do you think they landed a probe on a comet hurdling through space from 310 million miles away because advanced math and physics are existentialist dogma? Or was it perhaps that their math is solid and their applicable understanding of physics correct, despite not making sense to the layperson. Math is still and always will be strongly objective but only a handful of humans are capable of solving the most complex math questions. The rest of us could be shown the answer and explained it infinitely and we could still not duplicate their work. Something being correct by all measurable metrics does not make it easy to explain or demonstrate. Yes, even math eclipses the black and white concept. I can study physics all day long but despite knowing Einsteins theory of selectivity and understanding in some ways its implications do not and never will equate to me knowing or understanding what Einstein did about it. Simply put objective and subjective are somewhat fluid human concepts born only of our own observation. Reality may well and likely does exist outside our perception but it is wholly conceivable we will never be able to define it through our biased perception. Not everything humans concern ourselves with are issues of reality or immovable substance.

 

[daimyo]

relativity*

 

[maxx]

I'm reading David Bodanis' book E=mc^2, and he says in an endnote:

"As the old saying has it, to do mathematics you need paper, a pen, and a wastebasket; to do philosophy, the paper and pen are enough." (p. 239)
It can't be true that nothing is true. It can't be true that everything is true. Logic matters. Emotions are not arbiters of fact.
"A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion." (Proverbs 18:2)

I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php

 

[daimyo]

Such a wonderful book. One can define art in some aspects but I do not believe a human concept such as art can be nailed down so easily. Nothing wrong with personal definitions and truths but don't expect them to be widely accepted. I have to agree with Cosmic's teacher. This art discussion has been happening a very long time, among some great minds and I don't expect the issue to be settled now or ever, honestly.

 

[daimyo]

It can't be true that nothing is true. It can't be true that everything is true. Logic matters. Emotions are not arbiters of fact.

Truth is a human concept, unless you speak of reality. If all life ended tomorrow there would be no one to cite facts, philosophy or logic. Likely there would still be galaxies colliding, stars exploding and countless objects about. I doubt highly they would consider or postulate the concept of truth. That is not to discount logic, philosophy or facts, only a humble footnote to our abilities in the broader scope of things.

 

[frozenchurchwarden]

Daimyo:

But group consensus is both easily manipulated and demonstrably incorrect in literally millions of examples.

Applied existentialism is not the same as a pure philosophical existentialism and that was my earlier point about not overly applying the later in real world circumstances.

So you do separate the practical from the philosophical. Except when, where and how is arbitrary.

But of course, to attempt to live out even a single day under existential principles would invite total disaster. People get thrown in jail and sued for a lot of money when communications break down sufficiently.

It's intersesting how some people feel the need to describe their lives in such a manner when the practical application is totally impossible.
On the other hand for a forum dedicated to the classical contemplative passtime it's not unexpected.

 

[daimyo]

It is easy to apply the principle of subjectivity and objectivity but it is hard to define them outside the human experience or definitely for others. The theory easily exceeds the applicable reality. It is easy to give a handful of definitions of art and easy to say what we think it is. It is not easy to take this human concept and produce an objective and agreed upon definition. I think Tontino's Party Pizzas are objectively crap, they are made with crap ingredients and have so much cellulose in the crust it actually tastes like wood. But subjectively I love them, likely because they remind me of school pizza from my youth. Unlike most people, I do not propose the product is good because I like it. Instead it is crap and I like it. But as already pointed out, others do not agree with my supposedly objective qualifying of the pizza. A few people attempt to live existentialism and absolutism in more philosophically pure forms but not often to good effect. I think all of us here fall somewhere in between the two while possibly leaning to one side. Me, I don't mind playing the devil's advocate but I can both accept that there are definitions of art and that they are not absolutes. Generally speaking, human concepts are rarely absolute including that word in and of itself. I have no issue living my life while pondering these things but I don't confuse human concepts with something relevant to the rest of the universe or something imposed upon all in our absence. Planets, stars and matter represent an infinitely vaster portion of this universe and again, I doubt they care what we consider right or wrong, properly or improperly defined. The world could end tomorrow ceasing our questions and I think things would still keep going as they have. Reality might and likely does still exist without us but who knows how similar it is to our perception of reality. I apply the philosophical argument in a philosophical discussion as it serves little other purpose outside my own enjoyment and at the end of the day that is what it is. My practical application is an amalgam of many philosophies, thoughts and personal understandings as I would venture to say is true for all of us... but what would I know outside my own mind?

 

[phil67]

And to think that all of the endless rhetorical drivel started with a simple picture of a pipe!

 

[daimyo]

I am objectively offended by that statement. This is high quality drivel we have going here. These questions do need answers, I just don't expect them to be definitive,objective absolutes. :puffpipe:

 

[maxx]

REALITY is a human concept. We are limited to the human apprehension of whatever it is we're apprehending. I'm inclined towards a form of Kantianism. The Ding an Sich is beyond us.

 

[Perique]

Reality.
I find philosophy a worthwhile endeavor.
Though it would be greatly enhanced by any aspiring philosopher first having to provide for his own needs for 6 months.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I'm arguing that we can reach an objective definition of anything, and we should.

This is where you lose me. No one should control the minds of people in this way. You want to tell me what besuty is, what love is? Why sir? You can try all you want, but my fervent reaction will be an all American flip of the middle finger in thy general dirrection. Art is no different. You pose to tell me that my concept of value should be controlled, or taylored to meet everyone else's values. That is absurd. I can think of no better way to kill creativity and inventiveness than to force a value on humanity.
Besides, after all of these pages you have posed no definition for art, while arguing us blue with why there should be one. And, once you tell me what art should be, please tell me what I should think beauty is, and love, and good, and bad.
You've hit the board all around the nail, never hitting the nail once, by bringing up style, meaning, and concepts, without even suggesting what art is.
Your counter to my suggestions have been misrepresnting what I've said. Never did I say that you can just "decide" what art is for youself, as if I can just wake up and say that anthills are art, or one day saying that I think that poney poots are art. I can no more just "decide" what art is for myself than I can wake up and decide that lawnmowers are going to herewith be what will give me an erection. I can not decide that love is going to be the same feeling as dehydration. Nope, that's ridiculous.
All I am suggesting is that you may be attracted to different features of women. Maybe blondes move you more than redheads, and me vica versa. Maybe I am attracted to intelligence in women. Maybe, I value hand built ceramics as an art, and you see no value in them. Maybe, I appreciate a whimsical absurdity in pipe designs enought to pay $600 for them, and maybe you only like styles that are catalogued by Dunhill. Maybe, I don't like paintibgs that attempt representations of reality, and only see abstraction as true art. I did not decide to see the world this way. Maybe I just do. Maybe, the world has molded me this way.
It amazes me how people can think the whole world has to agree with their world view. Impose some value on me. Force me or anyone to agree with their aesthetic, while they have no recollection of how their own world view came to be.
Nope, give me freedom, liberty, and American values, subjective values. Anything else is un-American, anti-freedom, ANTI-liberty.
I will define art by what moves me according to my aesthetic waving the stars and bars wide and high. O say can you see? I will not be surpressed by academic liberal hogsquat definitions being firced down my throat. My forefathers faught, family members died for freedom, and for us to be who we are as a people.
Commies define art. Look up Communist socialist art. Dictators define art. The old school salons full of academics gravelling at the feet of kings and despots have been who define art in the conservative days of art history. Sure, tell me what art is, and lets see how French you are.
This all really has been interesting and surreal. A very through the looking glass agrument. Ha ha, and I was the one giving merit to your not thinking that pipe was art, while you hated the pipe while arguing some absurd objective art babble. Anyways, life is like a box of chocolates, sometimes you get a fish.

 

[seacaptain]

This is where you lose me. No one should control the minds of people in this way. You want to tell me what besuty is, what love is? Why sir? You can try all you want, but my fervent reaction will be an all American flip of the middle finger in thy general dirrection.

And this is where you're not listening to what I'm saying. I didn't say I would "tell" you what something is. What I said is I believe we can reach an objective definition.

All I am suggesting is that you may be attracted to different features of women. Maybe blondes move you more than redheads, and me vica versa. Maybe I am attracted to intelligence in women. Maybe, I value hand built ceramics as an art, and you see no value in them. Maybe, I appreciate a whimsical absurdity in pipe designs enought to pay $600 for them, and maybe you only like styles that are catalogued by Dunhill. Maybe, I don't like paintibgs that attempt representations of reality, and only see abstraction as true art. I did not decide to see the world this way. Maybe I just do. Maybe, the world has molded me this way.

That's great. You're confusing preferences with objective definitions. Some people like broccoli, some people don't. But we don't get to decide for ourselves what broccoli means. It has an objective definition apart from someone's "taste".

Never did I say that you can just "decide" what art is for youself,

Wait for it.

I will define art by what moves me according to my aesthetic

And there it is.
/thread.

 

[daimyo]

Reality is a human concept, a concept for what exists independent of perception. The more we learn about physics though, it becomes obvious how flawed the basic understanding of what the universe and therefore reality is. Nothing can be observed without affecting what is being observed. Ding and Sich is beyond us but and that plays to my point but it is likely that it exists none the less. At a certain point physical realities eclipse our philosophical musings. All philosophy is negated with the end of our existence although perhaps not the underlying subject matter. As much as Perennialism and transcendental Idealism have their intellectual appeal I believe they tend to exaggerate our significance. Although not as serious from a human and intellectual angle, I tend to be a bit of a Discordian at heart. Truly on the largest scale it is events of colossal violence and chaos that facilitate the patterns of creation and I see little room in them for the egocentric philosophies at that level. It's easy for us to place our being and perception at the center of things but little evidence to suggest it's true.

 

[daimyo]

But we don't get to decide for ourselves what broccoli means.

Broccoli is a object and art is a concept. Concepts are not rigidly defined and almost always change over time. We can argue over the validity of out perception of physical matter or force but art is an idea. Anyone who follows science knows that facts change a lot more than the average person realizes and every couple decades scientists are dealing with completely different sets of data which Arbesman laid out well even though it has long been known. Even the facts taught when most of us were in school have altered significantly with further discovery and refinement of data. Definitions change to, ask anyone who works in keeping dictionaries up to date, it's not just adding new words.
In the art world this conversation is infinitely larger both in scope and what aspects it encompasses, much more support is brought and it is still a never ending discussion without any definitive agreement resulting except that one cannot rigidly define art. Ideals and reality are rarely the same. The two most learned in any field rarely agree completely when dealing with concepts and not simple hard data, hell even simple hard data gets various interpretations. Those making the claim shoulder the burden of proof. You claim some ideal objective universal definition yet none exists that you can articulate or point to that would be accepted as such. There is plenty of evidence in this thread that the definition of art is personal, I have yet to see any evidence there exists a rigid objective decision.

 

[daimyo]

That should read "Ding and Sich is beyond us but that plays to my point and it is likely that it exists none the less. I think objective reality outside our perception is unknowable to us but that does not negate its existence.

 

[daimyo]

Also I do not mean to imply that philosophy has not addressed insignificance. Only that our philosophy is a very human product of our human perception yet we tend to ascribe it a more universal significance. While I in no way lend belief or credence to Discordianism, I have to give some personal credence to the view that we are dealing with a limited scope and on it's true scale the universe is mostly influenced by massive chaotic events. Happening withing the construct of physics and certainly there is structure withing the destruction but chaotic none the less. I honestly lean more towards George Carlanism these days if I'm being honest.