Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thread for short, quick answerable questions

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Thread for short, quick answerable questions

    Rather than making a new thread for every topic, I figured that, if the question can be answered in one post, it fits here. I would have put it in the Philosophy category, but I think here it has a bigger chance to get used.

    I start: Does Dialetheism have anything to do with theism? Not only is the name curious, but the main proponent, Graham Priest, is seemingly attracted to Buddhism.

  • #2
    No, the 'theism' bit in that phrase comes from 'aletheia' (truth) not 'theos'. Hindu and Buddhists logicians - of which there were many – did develop forms of it but then again so did various ancient and scholastic logicians here. From what a friend told me of Priest he is New Atheist tier.

    Comment


    • Ouros
      Ouros commented
      Editing a comment
      Made me remember a thread on the old forum; what plausibility would you give to dialatheism?

    • Brian
      Brian commented
      Editing a comment
      Priest has some good (popular) talks on Buddhism and some good stuff on logic.

  • #3
    I've always wondered what's the link between morality and aesthetic judgment, and I don't know anything in that subject;

    Is it immoral to like something which would be objectivily bad from an aesthetics point of view?

    Comment


    • #4
      Originally posted by Ouros View Post
      I've always wondered what's the link between morality and aesthetic judgment, and I don't know anything in that subject;

      Is it immoral to like something which would be objectivily bad from an aesthetics point of view?
      You burn in Hell if you like Jackson Pollock.

      Comment


      • #5
        Originally posted by Ouros View Post
        I've always wondered what's the link between morality and aesthetic judgment, and I don't know anything in that subject;

        Is it immoral to like something which would be objectivily bad from an aesthetics point of view?
        Certainly the ancients (I'm thinking of Plato and Aristotle) would say it's suspicious. Plato has a quote in one of his dialogues (that I couldn't find) that "speaking poorly is not only unpleasant to listen to, but bad for the speaker's soul" or something to that affect. I think the same would be true of art. If there is objective criteria for beauty or virtuous art, which may have a different aim than beauty, than a love of the ugly or vicious art certainly says something about the state of your soul or mind. And if speech, poetry, art, and music move and change our conscious thoughts and feelings, then bad art would probably move us away from the good.

        I think it's a really fascinating question. I typically don't like modernism in the arts, but I love a lot of modernist classical music, even though it's often ugly and I never desire to listen to it for long stretches of time. But still, it is weird, and interesting. I have an aesthetic response to it, even though it's a very different aesthetic response than I get when I listen to a Bach fugue, or something that I would call objectively beautiful. I don't think that my attraction to that sort of music is rooted in the discordance in my own soul. But I suppose I could just be wrong about that.

        Comment


        • #6
          Originally posted by Ouros View Post
          I've always wondered what's the link between morality and aesthetic judgment, and I don't know anything in that subject;

          Is it immoral to like something which would be objectivily bad from an aesthetics point of view?
          Could said person give a reason why they like x 'objectively bad' piece? After all there are reasons why we might like a piece of art beyond its intrinisc merit - maybe we assiocate it with a particular place or time in our lives. Even 'bad art' might turn out not to be so when judged on its aim.

          Comment


          • #7
            Originally posted by DanielCC View Post

            Could said person give a reason why they like x 'objectively bad' piece? After all there are reasons why we might like a piece of art beyond its intrinisc merit - maybe we assiocate it with a particular place or time in our lives. Even 'bad art' might turn out not to be so when judged on its aim.
            A lot of bad art tends to be rejectionist. There's a cultural attitude in the modern art world that is obnoxiously elitist--priding themselves off of being in the 'know,' being able to understand the complexity of burnt fabric, or the poetry behind a piles of cement blocks. Another hallmark of bad art is its over-politicization. I submitted a few traditional landscape paintings to an art show and ended up coming behind a torn-up american flag with Trump quotes stapled to it.

            Bad art in general doesn't strive for aesthetic bliss. It's a heterodox practice of undermining aesthetics, of deconstructing traditional notions of what makes good art good. I do think there is some ethical issue with the broader mission of some artists; the rejection of objective truth, a tendency towards nihilistic wonder, a denial of the beautiful, the transcendent.

            That said, there is some art that people think is "bad" that isn't bad in the rejectionist sense. Monet for instance is judged for having paintings that lack depth--part of this was that he rarely used black paint at all, he only used blue. Sargent criticized him for this reason. I like Monet's work though. He, similar to Van Gogh had a good grasp of color theory and which colors would compliment each other. Monet wasn't looking to capture the painterly realism of Sargent's portraits, he was attempting to see the world in glances. This was the the mission of the impressionist movement, to capture the world in abstract lights and colors as if you glanced at a scene quickly.

            Sometimes art is judged as bad in reference to other genres. Monet definitely wasn't a great portrait artist. Sargent was better. Caravaggio captures form better than Van Gogh. But in each of these cases, the artist seeks to abstract and emphasize a certain element of beauty above others. For the impressionists it was color and light, for the chiaroscuro artists it was the human form, for luminists it was the encompassing nature of light, for the romantics it was the pervasiveness of nature. The aforementioned modern art (more like postmodern I guess) doesn't seek to highlight an element of beauty, it seeks to undermine beauty. It has no aesthetically redeeming aspects, rather its value is found in its sedition of the artistic tradition that came before it.
            Last edited by RomanJoe; 07-03-2019, 06:45 PM.

            Comment


            • #8
              Originally posted by RomanJoe View Post

              A lot of bad art tends to be rejectionist. There's a cultural attitude in the modern art world that is obnoxiously elitist--priding themselves off of being in the 'know,' being able to understand the complexity of burnt fabric, or the poetry behind a piles of cement blocks. Another hallmark of bad art is its over-politicization. I submitted a few traditional landscape paintings to an art show and ended up coming behind a torn-up american flag with Trump quotes stapled to it.

              Bad art in general doesn't strive for aesthetic bliss. It's a heterodox practice of undermining aesthetics, of deconstructing traditional notions of what makes good art good. I do think there is some ethical issue with the broader mission of some artists; the rejection of objective truth, a tendency towards nihilistic wonder, a denial of the beautiful, the transcendent..
              That sounds like bad art theory though rather than bad artwork per sey. I don't think it's necessarily for an artist to have the correct worked out aesthetic theory in mind to produce decent art work (in my experience most don't).

              Comment


              • #9
                Originally posted by DanielCC View Post

                That sounds like bad art theory though rather than bad artwork per sey. I don't think it's necessarily for an artist to have the correct worked out aesthetic theory in mind to produce decent art work (in my experience most don't).
                It is bad art theory, exactly. But I think anyone governed by a rejectionist view of traditional art is going to produce bad art. When good art is produced it's often from people trying to emulate or emphasize some beauty they find in the world. I don't think good artists need to properly articulate a system of aesthetics to produce good art--I think they just need a proper end. That end being to produce what is aesthetically pleasing. And when this end is aimed at but isn't fully achieved I think we find the product either endearing or having potential. Scribbled drawings of dogs and trees are cute when we realize the artist is earnestly trying to aim towards a proper aesthetical end. They're creepy if the artist intentionally tries to create art that doesn't aim towards fulfilling that end.

                Is it wrong to like bad art in this sense? Probably not. But it may be wrong to deliberately like the rejectionist type of art because it is affiliated often with some depraved philosophy.

                Aesthetics is a murky thing and we are probably best guided by a certain intuition of it rather than trying to demarcate what is and isn't aesthetically pleasing through some rigid analysis. But any art theory with an aim to undermine this end will produce
                bad art because it wants to reject this end. In fact art governed by this theory may not even be art in the first place:

                https://pds.joins.com/jmnet/koreajoo...2/20203814.jpg
                Last edited by RomanJoe; 07-04-2019, 12:12 AM.

                Comment


                • #10
                  Originally posted by RomanJoe View Post

                  It is bad art theory, exactly. But I think anyone governed by a rejectionist view of traditional art is going to produce bad art. When good art is produced it's often from people trying to emulate or emphasize some beauty they find in the world. I don't think good artists need to properly articulate a system of aesthetics to produce good art--I think they just need a proper end. That end being to produce what is aesthetically pleasing. And when this end is aimed at but isn't fully achieved I think we find the product either endearing or having potential. Scribbled drawings of dogs and trees are cute when we realize the artist is earnestly trying to aim towards a proper aesthetical end. They're creepy if the artist intentionally tries to create art that doesn't aim towards fulfilling that end.
                  We need to be careful with aesthetically pleasing here. Art may be aesthetically sucessful without being pleasant per say, in fact it can be exceedingly disturbing or even disgusting. Of course this has been known for a long time - Aristotle puzzles over it in the context of tragic drama and gives a rather unsatisfactory answer.

                  There is something in the sucess of works which are intentionally innane, vulgar or transgressive which reflects the ultimate glory of God, often in spite of their creators wishes to the contrary.

                  Originally posted by RomanJoe View Post
                  Is it wrong to like bad art in this sense? Probably not. But it may be wrong to deliberately like the rejectionist type of art because it is affiliated often with some depraved philosophy.
                  Indeed but that's bad art theory again.

                  Originally posted by RomanJoe View Post
                  Aesthetics is a murky thing and we are probably best guided by a certain intuition of it rather than trying to demarcate what is and isn't aesthetically pleasing through some rigid analysis. But any art theory with an aim to undermine this end will produce bad art because it wants to reject this end. In fact art governed by this theory may not even be art in the first place:

                  https://pds.joins.com/jmnet/koreajoo...2/20203814.jpg
                  I disagree in as far as most physical objects have some degree of beauty to them which can be highlighted when looked at from an aesthetic stance (for instance observing the glint and the grain in the metal of some tool one never normally examines in that way). The problem develops though that the artist's own contribution becomes less and less some manipulation of materials and more and more about conceptual framing. The rise of relational aesthetics is an extreme example of this tendency and something which does have a very negative effect on modern artistic practice.

                  By the bye Duchamp's Fountain is an example of conceptual art and one that does require a context - the whole point is that it is not something one expects to see presented in a gallery space, in other words it's really just a performative joke played on viewers. Of course now the conceptual part does not work as gallery spaces are filled with this kind of thing, hence the incongruity and element of suprise is lost. Nowaday's we should view it as a piece of art history rather than an important physical artwork

                  (Caveat: there is a school of thought which says Fountain was actually a paraody of an American artist who started polished up factory machines in gallery spaces proclaiming them the true masterpieces of America. If this is the case then the true context was lost on most people even at the time)
                  Last edited by DanielCC; 07-04-2019, 04:15 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    What exactly is final causality? I thought I knew but I am somewhat confused. I am under the impression that final causality if the potentialities a thing has, and the effects which it can produce. I am more concerned about the first part of my definition. I read elsewhere that final causality is the "natural tendencies" of a thing, but that seems like a loose definition. Am I right or deluded?

                    Comment


                    • #12
                      Originally posted by ClassicalLiberal.Theist View Post
                      What exactly is final causality? I thought I knew but I am somewhat confused. I am under the impression that final causality if the potentialities a thing has, and the effects which it can produce. I am more concerned about the first part of my definition. I read elsewhere that final causality is the "natural tendencies" of a thing, but that seems like a loose definition. Am I right or deluded?
                      Yes, final causality refers to the dispositional properties an object has (or more specifically what they are directed towards - their 'physical intentionality'). The "natural tendencies" definition is either a theological qualification (to distinguish from the 'supernatural' powers that might be granted to an object by divine action) or comes from a less helpful weaker definition of dispositionality as tending towards.

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        Is the statement "potential for none existence" coherent? As far as I am aware, potentialities only apply to accidental changes not substantial. For example, water does not have the potential to be milk, but it has the potential to be ice.

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          Originally posted by ClassicalLiberal.Theist View Post
                          Is the statement "potential for none existence" coherent? As far as I am aware, potentialities only apply to accidental changes not substantial. For example, water does not have the potential to be milk, but it has the potential to be ice.
                          Take for example sugar: it has the potential to disolve. If that potentiel become actual, the sugar ceases to exist. In that case, it seems to count as a pontential to cease to exist, which could be what you mean by "potential for none existence."

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            Originally posted by Ouros View Post

                            Take for example sugar: it has the potential to disolve. If that potentiel become actual, the sugar ceases to exist. In that case, it seems to count as a pontential to cease to exist, which could be what you mean by "potential for none existence."
                            I think this is incorrect. In this example the sugar is not ceasing to be, but entering into a mixture or compound or some similar relationship with the substance it is being dissolved into.
                            I'm not sure if a thing can have the potential to not be, for the reason ClassicalLiberal.Theist stated. I'm not certain of that though.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X