+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

  1. #1
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,102

    Default Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    Certain philosophers have written considerable bodies of work on aesthetics. Kant comes to mind. Hegel. Probably no one more than Schopenhauer, although his aesthetic sense was bizarre at best. Other than him, it seems to me that aesthetics have been afterthoughts, even after ethics.

    As everyone knows, classical Western philosophers have tended to dwell interminately on metaphysics in general and ontology in particular. Traditionally, there was much written with a sort of theological context for everything from ethics to politics.

    It wasn't really until the existentialists emerged — most notably Sartre — that philosophical ethics, politics, and certainly metaphysics was developed in a non-theological context. I do understand, and am aware, that there were a couple or three Greek philosophers who, even by today's standards, could be considered atheist or agnostic. But they were minor players. (And please don't hijack the thread with a debate about whether Aristotle was an atheist. Jesus, that just winds round and round.)

    Today, the fixations seem to depend on whether the philosopher is bent more toward existentialism or essentialism. For those following along who happen not to know the difference, the easy way to look at it is this. The existentialist will say, "Existence precedes essence." The essentialist (which is the traditional view, going back from just prior to Satre all the way to Plato) would say, "Essence precedes existence."

    What they're saying is this. In the case of the existentialist, he is saying that something (say, a planet) must first exist before it is essentially a planet (as opposed to, say, a bowl of pudding). The essentialist, meanwhile, is saying that something (the planet, let's say) cannot exit without first being essentially a planet (and not a bowl of pudding). Putting it another way, the existentialist believes that without existing, a thing cannot be the thing it essentially is. The essentialist, then, believes that without having an essential nature, a thing cannot come into existence.

    (The origin of the word "essence" is of enough interest for its own thread. It came about when the Romans encountered Aristotle's enigmatic phrase, 'to ti ên einai". Literally, "that which it was to be'. The Romans invented the word "essentia" to convey its meaning.)

    Anyway, these days, it seems we have the existentialists, like Daniel Dennett — as fine a representative for atheism as one could hope for — rather fixated on epistemology. And the essentialists, like Alvin Plantinga, seem rather fixated on ontology — particularly serious attempts to resurrect the ontological argument for the existence of God by way of S5 modal logic. (In my opinion, Hawthorne makes the best argument for it, while Suber makes the best argument against it.)

    But that's neither here nor there. What I want to discuss is aesthetics — in the philosophical sense. Not in the sense of what's purty, but in the sense of what's valuable. As I see it, every philosophical principle, from metaphysics to epistemology to ethics (especially ethics) can be best explained in the context of aesthetics. And if there is some decent current writing on the topic, I haven't seen it.

    My question is whether this would be something anyone might be interested in pursuing. If I attain permission to register a reasonably named sock, I would be interested in arguing both sides. What do y'all think? I do understand that the assertion is broad — waaaaay broad — but it strikes me as true. And though I am mindful of the pitfalls of inductive reasoning, it does seem that in this case, the particulars suggest the general to such a degree of regularity and certainty that, with reasonable premises, one could develop a deductive treatment of the notion that all things philosophical are essentially a matter of aesthetics.

    Speaking of Daniel Dennett, by the way, he is the source of one of my favorite quotes: "There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear."

  2. #2
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    354

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    Does anyone argue that essence is existence? It seems to me this is not a chicken/egg question. Once something exists, it automatically has an essence. If something has an essence, then it must be said to exist. To me, these two qualities are interdependent.
    The panther is like the leopard, except it hasn't been peppered.
    If you see a panther crouch, prepare to say "ouch!".
    Better yet, if called by a panther, don't anther.
    - Ogden Nash

  3. #3
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,102

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    Quote Originally posted by phouka
    Once something exists, it automatically has an essence.
    That is an existentialist claim.

    If something has an essence, then it must be said to exist.
    That is not an essentialist claim. (Why later.)

    To me, these two qualities are interdependent.
    But they aren't. Consider, for example, your second claim. Now, let someone conceive a creature in his mind. "It looks just like a horse," he says, "except that it has a horn. I call it a 'unicorn'." Despite the creature having an essence, it does not exist. in order to make your second claim an essentialist claim, we would have to reword it something like this:

    "If something has an essence, then it must have the potential to exist."

    Or, to put it more negatively, "Something cannot exist without first having an essence."

    Let me make it clear that essence does not compel existence, in the way that existence compels essence. (After all, something is there; its essence may or may not be known to us. Kind of like dark energy exists, but we have no idea what it really is.) What essence does, though, is compel a potential. Or you might say a claim of possibility. That would be an epistemic possibility, by the way. (Unicorns may exist for all we know.) Not necessarily a metaphysical possibility. But as we've shown, in the case of a conception, it is.

  4. #4
    Elephant TheFlame's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    London, UK (Male)
    Posts
    916

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    I'm not familiar with the philosophical term 'essence'. Could you explain it to me?
    I didn't make the world this way, it was like this when I got here

  5. #5
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,102

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    Quote Originally posted by TheFlame
    I'm not familiar with the philosophical term 'essence'. Could you explain it to me?
    Aristotle wrote of things having a quality that he described as "to ti ên einai", or "the what it was to be". One way to loook at it is that It is a matter of identity. The philosophical essence of a thing is the set of attributes that make something what it is. Accidental attributes are contingent (as opposed to necessary) and may change the identity of the thing; that is, they may change its essence. For example, Jim is essentially a nice guy. He has a car wreck and suffers brain damage. He is now snarky and irritable. The essence of his personality has changed, contingent on his accident.

    Followers of Aristotle seemed to have taken a rather primitive interpretation of "to ti ên einai", and eventually reduced it (or replaced it) with "horismos", meaning "definition". But later philosophers, like Leibniz and even Kripke (!), basically established philosophical essence as a context for individuation. Others, like Quine, argued against this, but that's neither here nor there. It is interesting to note, however, that Barry Miller — a modern philosopher — has introduced an amazingly beautiful refutation of Kant's claim that existence is not a predicate. Miller uses an essentialist worldview in a remarkable way, saying basically that a thing is individuated by its "bounds".

    But again, that is a whole topic unto itself, and I was hoping to discuss aesthetics. Not that I mind at all clarifying or explaining things I've said and terms I've used. Nothing is more important to communication than mutual understanding. Thanks for the question, Flame. It was a good one.

  6. #6
    Member
    Registered
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    9

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    Let's look at your premise:

    "[E]very philosophical principle, from metaphysics to epistemology to ethics (especially ethics) can be best explained in the context of aesthetics.'

    Setting aside the sheer sloppiness of your language (metaphysics is a philosphical principle?), the point you're attempting to make is idiotic in its conception. Who will decide what the best explanation is? You? I might think it is a terrible explanation. So might a thousand other people.

    That has to be the dumbest premise I've ever seen. Say something that makes sense, and then we can discuss it.

  7. #7
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,102

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    It isn't a premise. It seems to me that before calling something dumb, one should know what it is. As the OP clearly stated, my interest is in developing a deductive analysis of aesthetics. But one cannot develop any sort of meaningful deductive system without first stating something on which all reasonable people will agree. The asssertion I made was, as I said plainly, overly broad. There needs to be an examination of the particulars in order to establish a premise that is both precise and undeniable. All premises, of necessity, must be induced.

  8. #8
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    354

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    See, this is why I don't get too deeply into philosophy. For me, very early on, it becomes a matter of semantics and hair splitting, and all I want to know is, what do I preheat the oven to for chewy, but not crispy, pizza.
    The panther is like the leopard, except it hasn't been peppered.
    If you see a panther crouch, prepare to say "ouch!".
    Better yet, if called by a panther, don't anther.
    - Ogden Nash

  9. #9
    aka ivan the not-quite-as-terrible ivan astikov's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    moston, UK.
    Posts
    4,779

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    The problem is, 'chewy, but not crispy, pizza' is a totally subjective quality, and what might suit one person at Mark 4 for 25 minutes, might need readjusting in a myriad ways for the next.
    To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.

  10. #10
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,102

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    I can see why philosophy, on the whole, might be boring or seem pointless. But aesthetics is much more interesting, I think. it concerns how much we value things. Your pizza is a perfect example. You value "chewy, but not crispy, pizza". It is subjective, yes. But that doesn't invalidate it because you still value it.

  11. #11
    Member
    Registered
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    90

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    Quote Originally posted by Sockdolager
    Let's look at your premise:

    "[E]very philosophical principle, from metaphysics to epistemology to ethics (especially ethics) can be best explained in the context of aesthetics.'

    Setting aside the sheer sloppiness of your language (metaphysics is a philosphical principle?), the point you're attempting to make is idiotic in its conception. Who will decide what the best explanation is? You? I might think it is a terrible explanation. So might a thousand other people.

    That has to be the dumbest premise I've ever seen. Say something that makes sense, and then we can discuss it.
    Your picture is really gross!!!

  12. #12
    Elephant TheFlame's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    London, UK (Male)
    Posts
    916

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    Is there any way in which aesthetics are objective?
    I didn't make the world this way, it was like this when I got here

  13. #13
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,102

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    Quote Originally posted by TheFlame
    Is there any way in which aesthetics are objective?
    God, you ask great questions.

    Ostensibly, the objetive aesthetic is perfection. But of course, that raises the question of what perfection is. It is my opinion that perfection and reality are synonyms, where reality is defined as that which is essential, necessary, and eternal. Kant spoke of a moral imperative which, if followed perfectly, would result in a perfectly moral culture. But Jesus approached the question aesthetically. His moral imperative was "Be perfect."

    And so, as I see it, an aesthetic that is essential — meaning that it is what it was to be even before it existed; an aesthetic that is necessary — meaning that it cannot not exist; and an aesthetic that is eternal — meaning an aesthetic that is timeless, or existing metaphysically outside the confines of spacetime: an aesthetic that is all those things is objectively perfect.

  14. #14
    Elephant TheFlame's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    London, UK (Male)
    Posts
    916

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    I'm even more confused now that I was before. How did "perfection" get into it?

    The bit that I really don't get is "where reality is defined as that which is essential, necessary and eternal".

    So, is a piece of paper real?

    It's not essential by the definition given in the above post (it didn't exist until it was manufactured - it was part of a tree before that, and before that the tree was a seed. And, the piece of paper might never have existed - the tree might have been used to make furniture instead, or burned in a forest fire).

    It's not necessary - there's no reason why a given piece of paper has to exist.

    and it's not eternal - I can burn the piece of paper, and then it doesn't exist any more in any meaningful sense.
    I didn't make the world this way, it was like this when I got here

  15. #15
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,102

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    No, that's right. A piece of paper is not real.

    In fact, the universe is not real. It is made of spacetime, and therefore is disqualified on the spot. I have heard the universe described as a probability distribution. Or as one of the leading founders of quantum mechanics put it: "The atoms or the elementary particles are not real; they form a world of potentialities and possibilities rather than one of things or facts." Werner Heisenberg

    Perfection was mentioned because you asked whether there could be an objective aesthetic. The answer is yes: perfection is an objective aesthetic. Nothing is of greater value than perfection.

  16. #16
    Elephant TheFlame's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    London, UK (Male)
    Posts
    916

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    Are we going down a religious track here (I'm starting to think I might have heard this somewhere before!)?
    I didn't make the world this way, it was like this when I got here

  17. #17
    Member
    Registered
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    90

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    Whoa, it's just like when people ask "if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?" I think it does.

  18. #18
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,102

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    Quote Originally posted by TheFlame
    Are we going down a religious track here (I'm starting to think I might have heard this somewhere before!)?
    You mean because I mentioned Jesus? i also mentioned Kant, but you didn't ask if we're going down a predication track. I mentioned Hegel, but you didn't ask if we're going down an obfuscation track. I mentioned Aristotle, but you didn't ask if we're going down an ancient history track.

    Logic leads us where it will. We begin with premises we both can accept. From there, we apply very simple rules to draw one inference after another. Our final inference is our conclusion. Whatever track it leads us down is a track we can reject only by rejecting reason.

  19. #19
    Member
    Registered
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    9

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    Quote Originally posted by Liberal
    We begin with premises we both can accept. From there, we apply very simple rules to draw one inference after another. Our final inference is our conclusion. Whatever track it leads us down is a track we can reject only by rejecting reason.
    But you have yet to state a premise we can both accept. This time, at least, you worded it comprehensably. While I accept the notion that reality is essential, necessary, and eternal, I agree with TheFlame that you're taking us down a religious track. Not because you off-handedly mentioned Jesus, but because you stated that an eternal entity is outside spacetime.

    That is pure Jabberwocky. There is nothing outsise spacetime, and no evidence otherwise. in fact, one could easily say that the universe itself fits your criteria for reality simply by defining eternity in a more sensible and familiar way. Rather than calling it "timeless", we can call it "all of time".

    And so, the universe is real: qualified thusly by your own demands. It is essential as having been what it was to be in the singularity. It is necessary since, given its obvious existence, it cannot be said not to exist. And by defining eternity properly, we can say the universe is eternal. It had no beginning. Before it, there was no time. And it will never end, no matter whether it expands forever until its entropy is 100% or recoils into a new singularity only to create a new universe.

    You can't hide what you're getting at. You want to invoke God as the perfect aesthetic. The metaphysical and eternal being. Isn't that so? Be honest, and admit it. No one here is fooled by your rhetorical trickery.

  20. #20
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    909

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    Who's ahead in the debate? Liberal, or Liberal?

  21. #21
    Elephant TheFlame's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    London, UK (Male)
    Posts
    916

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    Quote Originally posted by Sockdolager
    You can't hide what you're getting at. You want to invoke God as the perfect aesthetic. The metaphysical and eternal being. Isn't that so? Be honest, and admit it. No one here is fooled by your rhetorical trickery.
    Yes, that was the 'punchline' that I was anticipating .
    I didn't make the world this way, it was like this when I got here

  22. #22
    Member
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    54

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    Quote Originally posted by Sockdolager
    Quote Originally posted by Liberal
    No one here is fooled by your rhetorical trickery.
    Dammit. Gotdammit. I was fooled. I didn't see it coming, and was instead trying like hell to keep up with the discussion.

  23. #23
    Member
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    61

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    Surely, if perfection has value objectively, then so does anti-perfection, or the opposite of perfection, or however it should be put, because they're two sides of the same coin. But I don't consider perfection to necessarily be of the greatest value anyway - I don't see why it must have any value at all.
    Opportunity is missed by most people, because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Thomas Edison

  24. #24
    Elephant TheFlame's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    London, UK (Male)
    Posts
    916

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    For me, this topic in general comes under the heading of 'debates I just don't get'. (I played along for a while, but...)

    The discussion (the word "essence" in this context, particularly) reminds me of an excerpt from Richard Feynman's 'Surely You're Joking Mr Feynman':
    Quote Originally posted by Richard Feynman
    I'll try to answer the professor's question if you will first answer a question from me, so I can have a better idea of
    what 'essential object' means. "Is a brick an essential object?"
    What I had intended to do was to find out whether they thought theoretical constructs were essential objects. The electron is a theory that we use; it is so useful in understanding the way nature works that we can almost call it real. I wanted to make the idea of a theory clear by analogy. In the case of the brick, my next question was going to be, "What about the inside of the brick?" -- and I would then point out that no one has ever seen the inside of a brick. Every time you break the brick, you only see the surface. That the brick has an inside is a simple theory which helps us understand things better. The theory of electrons is analogous.
    There are many questions that can be asked around the debate that has taken place in this thread, but are any of them more than semantic games?
    I didn't make the world this way, it was like this when I got here

  25. #25
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    Quote Originally posted by TheFlame
    There are many questions that can be asked around the debate that has taken place in this thread, but are any of them more than semantic games?
    The meaning of this debate is in the emotional context. Specifically, it is about one person's desire to try to fleece a bunch of people into thinking he's a deep, intelligent thinker.

    The funny thing is if you actually read it (and I don't blame people for not doing so) it's exactly the same tedious twaddle about God that he has attempted to impress people with for years. What's startling is that, despite all the interest in philosophy that he's professed, he's learned so little about it that his world is still this narrow. It's still the same single tiny stupid thing after all this time.

  26. #26
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Princeton, NJ/ Oxford, UK
    Posts
    103

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    Aesthetics is about judgement, and in particular, sensory judgement. I understand you are looking at the aesthetics of value rather than of 'beauty' per se but devaluing the sensible is taking it out of the realm of aesthetics alltogether.

    Instead of leaping immediately to the cosmic, why don't you start with the mundane?

  27. #27
    Registered user
    Registered
    May 2009
    Posts
    2

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    Every few months, I claw my way to the surface for air, and look around to see if there are any interesting debates floating about. If I’m lucky, Liberal has started a thread, or is eyebrow-deep in one.


    Lately, much to my irritation, I’ve been noticing aesthetics, or thin euphemisms thereof, cropping up in not only in philosophy, but in cognitive science, information theory and physics. I would love to explore this phenomenon further.
    Revenant Threshold

    “Surely, if perfection has value objectively, then so does anti-perfection, or the opposite of perfection, or however it should be put, because they're two sides of the same coin. But I don't consider perfection to necessarily be of the greatest value anyway - I don't see why it must have any value at all.”
    If perfection is highest/all possible value, anti-perfection would be lowest/no possible value, i.e. it has no value, objective or otherwise. You said that you “...don't see why it must have any value at all.”. If it were the case that perfection had no value at all, then “perfection” would be identical to “anti-perfection”.

    That being said, I’d prefer to keep perfection out of it until and unless it becomes necessary to discuss perfection as the thread evolves. Everyone seems convinced this is whole thread is a sneaky ploy on Liberal’s part to soapbox his spiritual beliefs. My experience with Liberal has been:

    A) He is vocal about his spiritual beliefs.
    B) He doesn’t soapbox.

    Sure, aesthetics play a (if not the) key role in his spiritual beliefs and his philosophy, so they will inevitably come up in this thread. But (again, in my experience) if I stick to the OP:

    Liberal:“...the particulars suggest the general to such a degree of regularity and certainty that, with reasonable premises, one could develop a deductive treatment of the notion that all things philosophical are essentially a matter of aesthetics.”
    ... Liberal won’t interject his spiritual beliefs unless they directly pertain to the OP, and even then I will be free to reject his axioms and opinions. If I put words in his mouth, get snarky, or make unsubstantiated claims, he will likely get snarky right back or go for a quick, rigorous decapitation, and the whole damn thread will slide into derailment like it was on greased ice.

    No matter how bumpy it’s gotten, I’ve never left a Liberal debate un-edified. And that, to me, is aesthetically valuable. :smile:

  28. #28
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    Quote Originally posted by other-wise
    . . .
    Uh-huh.

  29. #29
    Member
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    61

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    Quote Originally posted by other-wise
    If perfection is highest/all possible value, anti-perfection would be lowest/no possible value, i.e. it has no value, objective or otherwise. You said that you “...don't see why it must have any value at all.”. If it were the case that perfection had no value at all, then “perfection” would be identical to “anti-perfection”.
    For something to be perfect, it must by necessity be perfectly not everything else in that category. A perfect circle must be perfectly not a square or triangle. Without that not-perfection - were that circle slightly squarish - it would no longer be perfect (and vice-versa), so not-perfection is an inherent and necessary part of whatever value perfection has. Since perfection and not-perfection are prescisely tied, and decrease in direct proportion, then it only makes sense to say that they are of equal value.

    That said, a thing that's perfectly one thing has many more things that it is perfectly not. A perfect circle is perfect to one degree, but not-perfect to many. Since perfection and not-perfection are equal in value, then a perfect circle's value comes more from it's not-perfections than it's single point of perfection. In practical terms then it makes far more sense to talk about value in terms of not-perfectness, since that's usually what's providing more value to a perfect object.
    Opportunity is missed by most people, because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Thomas Edison

  30. #30
    Registered user
    Registered
    May 2009
    Posts
    2

    Default Re: Philosophy's bastard child: aesthetics

    Quote Originally posted by Revenant Threshold
    For something to be perfect, it must by necessity be perfectly not everything else in that category. A perfect circle must be perfectly not a square or triangle. Without that not-perfection - were that circle slightly squarish - it would no longer be perfect (and vice-versa), so not-perfection is an inherent and necessary part of whatever value perfection has. Since perfection and not-perfection are prescisely tied, and decrease in direct proportion, then it only makes sense to say that they are of equal value.

    That said, a thing that's perfectly one thing has many more things that it is perfectly not. A perfect circle is perfect to one degree, but not-perfect to many. Since perfection and not-perfection are equal in value, then a perfect circle's value comes more from it's not-perfections than it's single point of perfection. In practical terms then it makes far more sense to talk about value in terms of not-perfectness, since that's usually what's providing more value to a perfect object.
    We may be winging past each other here; since you didn’t offer your own definition of “perfection”, I responded to your post thinking you were referring to Liberal’s description of perfection. What you’re describing here is something very different (I mean, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t define a “perfect circle” as essential, necessary, and eternal reality).

    In any case, I’d still rather put aesthetics back onto center stage, try to noodle out some premises, and see where it takes us.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts