Aesthetics in the PN forum

[marjoramblues]

What is art - what is beauty
These are the questions indicated in the 'Aesthetics' forum 'description'.

I think it would be most helpful to have an introductory thread to clarify the subjects to be included or excluded. Hopefull, Rick and team are listening to suggestions, and some feedback from them would be welcome.

Continuing from the thread re improvements to the PN forum:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=11852

Felasco wrote:
Ok, as readers can see, we grew tired of all the theory and so we flew in a team of experts to do a live demonstration of what happens to threads and forums when anybody can post anything.
I want to thank our team for doing a wonderful presentation, and helping to make clear what my too many words above may have obscured. Good job!
Now be sure to stay tuned, because after intermission a Groucho Marx impersonator will tell some great fart jokes!

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
So how are you getting on with the Forum I linked to you?

That would be the link on p7, dated Mon 11th Nov. Heady stuff.
Interesting Forum list including:

Philosophical discussions Value theory Aesthetics Philosophy of Art or Music. Including a criticism about misplacment of subjects.
2 excerpts from posters:

http://philpapers.org/bbs/thread.pl?tId=298#p4808

2009-06-29- Category mistake - David McCulllough
Perhaps the reason there are no other threads on this subject is that the subject is misplaced. Inclusion of aesthetics under value theory is a polite nod to Kant but has little to do with today.

2009- 08-19 - Reply - Christy Mag Uidhir - University of Houston
Derek, I suppose you may be correct given a certain demarcation of philosophical aesthetics. I like to make a distinction between Big 'A' aesthetics and Little 'A' aesthetics. Big 'A' Aesthetics I take to be mostly the province of art&art theory alongside a deep historical background (Kant, Hume, Hegel...) and contemporarily has an almost exclusive evaluative bent taking its cue largely from prescriptive language employed in art appreciation chiefly focusing on traditional aesthetic properties/features/concepts such as beauty, elegance, daintiness, etc., though it does have a tendency lump target as aesthetic loosely related non-perceptual properties such as clever, witty, droll, banal etc. (typically in service to some art theoretic agenda). Little 'a' aesthetics has blossomed in the last two decades (alongside cognitive science), and I take to be amenable to empirical approaches and to center around 'lower-level' sorts of properties/features/concepts as they relate work being done in the germane areas of cognitive science (e.g., the impressive work done by Michael Glanzberg on personal taste predicates, Casey O'Callaghan on auditory perception, Dustin Stokes on creativity) and decidedly (and refreshingly) looks free from the rather stymied debates about thick/thin concepts, essential value distinctions, or intersections of aesthetic with ethical or epistemic value (as traditionally and broadly understood). I'm happy to see little 'a' aesthetics take off and be so productive, but this is unsurprising given all of the exciting (and hopefully responsible) work being done down the block in moral psychology (sticking with the analogy, those not wanting to hold their breath for a plausible and productive naturalized account of things like respect and integrity should likewise avoid placing bets on such an account of beauty and daintiness being forthcoming). This, of course, is the reason why myself and others cringe when our work in the philosophy of art gets lumped into the category of 'Aesthetics' or heaven forbid 'Value Theory'. In my quite inflated opinion, the philosophy of art shouldn't be viewed as fundamentally connected to either philosophical aesthetics or value theory, and its practice is best served by purging it of claims entailing just such connections. I know that I have to with respect to my own work simply because I dare not even pretend to know how aesthetic concepts are structured, how aesthetic value ought to be determined, how to cultivate a proper aesthetic attitude, etc. partly because I have a sneaking suspicion that with respect to Big 'A' Aesthetics as traditionally understood, there simply are no coherent and productive distinctly aesthetic concepts, values, attitudes...only philosophical ghosts, the spooky offspring of a bygone era that continue to haunt the philosophy of art.

So, perhaps the PN forum could be clearer in eg what each sub-forum includes or excludes.
For example, should a 'Music' thread, basically a list of youtube links be better placed in the Lounge.
Is Aesthetics only to be discussed in terms of Value Theory, or what

[marjoramblues]

Rather than 'Aesthetics', what about renaming it 'Philosophy of the Arts', where 'the Arts' can be described as here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_arts

[Hobbes' Choice]

What is art - what is beauty

My first reaction is that you get off on the wrong foot immediately.

These are separate questions, often confused and linked. To answer them you need to separate them.

Much art is not beautiful. And thinking a thing beautiful does not make it art.

And there much that is beautiful that is not art in any sense. As some of the artistry of a thing is necessitated by its ugliness, or otherwise not related to beauty in any way.

[The Voice of Time]

I prefer the liberty to define the subjects myself. Anything to do with sensual consumption and sensual qualities is pretty much subject to aesthetics in my opinion.

[marjoramblues]

Other ways of looking at, thinking about, 'aesthetics':
[emphasis added]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aesthetics

The modern study of Japanese aesthetics in the Western sense only started a little over two hundred years ago. The Japanese aesthetic is a set of ancient ideals that include wabi (transient and stark beauty), sabi (the beauty of natural patina and aging), and yūgen (profound grace and subtlety). These ideals, and others, underpin much of Japanese cultural and aesthetic norms on what is considered tasteful or beautiful. Thus, while seen as a philosophy in Western societies, the concept of aesthetics in Japan is seen as an integral part of daily life.[2] Japanese aesthetics now encompass a variety of ideals; some of these are traditional while others are modern and sometimes influenced from other cultures.

[marjoramblues]

What is art - what is beauty

My first reaction is that you get off on the wrong foot immediately.

These are separate questions, often confused and linked. To answer them you need to separate them.

Much art is not beautiful. And thinking a thing beautiful does not make it art.

And there much that is beautiful that is not art in any sense. As some of the artistry of a thing is necessitated by its ugliness, or otherwise not related to beauty in any way.

The wrong foot - or the wonky eye...
These 'pointers' are quite the turn-off for an area of exploration which could range far and wide.

[marjoramblues]

I prefer the liberty to define the subjects myself. Anything to do with sensual consumption and sensual qualities is pretty much subject to aesthetics in my opinion.

Do you think that the 'Philosophy of...' sub-forums would be better scrapped - simply have Philosophy Discussions

[Hobbes' Choice]

What is art - what is beauty

My first reaction is that you get off on the wrong foot immediately.

These are separate questions, often confused and linked. To answer them you need to separate them.

Much art is not beautiful. And thinking a thing beautiful does not make it art.

And there much that is beautiful that is not art in any sense. As some of the artistry of a thing is necessitated by its ugliness, or otherwise not related to beauty in any way.

The wrong foot - or the wonky eye...
These 'pointers' are quite the turn-off for an area of exploration which could range far and wide.

Ranging far and wide leads to establishing nothing.

If you are not prepared to focus, then you can only ramble on endlessly.

[marjoramblues]

What is art - what is beauty

My first reaction is that you get off on the wrong foot immediately.

These are separate questions, often confused and linked. To answer them you need to separate them.

Much art is not beautiful. And thinking a thing beautiful does not make it art.

And there much that is beautiful that is not art in any sense. As some of the artistry of a thing is necessitated by its ugliness, or otherwise not related to beauty in any way.

The wrong foot - or the wonky eye...
These 'pointers' are quite the turn-off for an area of exploration which could range far and wide.

Ranging far and wide leads to establishing nothing.

If you are not prepared to focus, then you can only ramble on endlessly.

My point relates to the tight questions used to introduce not only 'Aesthetics' but actually any of the PN sub-forums.
I think that it would be better for there to be a more helpful introductory description.
As things stand, who would know all that 'Aesthetics' might cover...
Also, exploring how the topic might interact with others. It is not necessarily about establishing anything.
The existence of sub-forums might result in greater focus on specialist subjects; however, can also have a boxing effect. We tend to stick to what we feel comfortable with; ignoring what might be profitable for our growth and understanding of others.

[The Voice of Time]

I prefer the liberty to define the subjects myself. Anything to do with sensual consumption and sensual qualities is pretty much subject to aesthetics in my opinion.

Do you think that the 'Philosophy of...' sub-forums would be better scrapped - simply have Philosophy Discussions

No, because then I couldn't dodge the Religious posts or the Political spam, and there would be way too many posts on the same forum, so I wouldn't get the proper view of what's new, some threads might easily dominate even though they're completely or mostly uninteresting to me.

[marjoramblues]

Some religious and political threads and posters will always dominate, no matter the set-up.
People can engage as they wish.

Are you happy with the way the sub-forums describe their content; does this 'boxing' keep out posters with a political or religious agenda...

Voice, I note that you have a thread 'Two Deceptions about Objects of Needs' in the 'Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics' forum.

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=11939

The narrow questions as descriptors for this forum are:
What is the basis for reason And mathematics

I had a quick look at your opening post; I found it difficult. How does it relate to the forum description...
I know that, even if English is not your native language, you can write clear as a bell when you so desire.
So, do you do dense for fun

What do people see as an aesthetically pleasing philosophical performance or product -
or is it more about function.
How often are the aims of any thread-starter made clear, and when, if ever, are the objectives reached.
How long is a piece of philosophy...

[The Voice of Time]

My thread was about the lack of good reasoning in perceiving needs, that you can easily mistake something for something which it is not. I consider it a point of informal logic, although it might also had been posted in the epistemology forum, I just found it more fitting in the logic forum (but philosophy rarely stays pure in any form, this is not a rare problem).

The descriptions of the forum barely covers anything that the headline thus, I don't think the descriptions are to limit but instead to suggest and have people come up with topics.

[The Voice of Time]

How often are the aims of any thread-starter made clear, and when, if ever, are the objectives reached.
How long is a piece of philosophy...

1) I often write straight from inspiration, and then it can be hard to know what I even intend myself! It's more of a way of expressing oneself and one's thoughts.

2) Are you talking about the initial post or the discussion that follows or both? In my own experience it is seldom that the thread becomes sufficiently committed to the initial question or challenge, but occasionally they do, at least to some extent.

3) Philosophy has no length and because of its free nature it can't be given any, that would be counter-productive. But occasionally a point is more rewarded and therefore nourished if it is short and concise and something people themselves have already been exposed to and therefore have some understanding how to handle.

[marjoramblues]

After 21 pages: Are we any the wiser
An example of an extended thread with some gems; a piece of philosohical artistry in parts.

Christian apology by a non-Christian

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=11191&start=105

p1 ( July 19th)

Skip in response to Gustav's OP:
I honestly cannot tell whether you`re defending Christianity or condemning it.

p8
Godfree: (Sept 7th)
The title had deceived me , I thought there was a chance to get real ,
clearly Gustav is not interested in a debate or learning what other people think ,
he is here to preach and dictate to us , if the title of this thread had been a little closer to the reality ,ie ,
A religious thread , By a Religious person ,
I would have known not to waste my time ,,!!!

Gustav:
Gustav desires for other people to take the time to write out their ideas, if it should so please them. Gustav is not interested in 'debate' which really means argumentation. It is true in a sense that my writing is 'preaching'. But I suggest that so is all persuasive discourse.

Skip: (Sept 8th)
As for preachment as communication, it works - but only as long as it holds the audience...

Gustav: ...
my positions are also irreconcilable with many classic religious positions. That is to say 'the conventional, believing Christian'. Sort of a shame that the 'conversation' could not have expanded further with more interest from that camp. More response would have done it. Oh well.

Skip: (Oct 7th)
A big yellow ball of burning gas - around which the cooling mudball, to the surface of which my trillions of fellow creeping crawling swimming hopping flapping loping flopping groping fleeing soaring chasing stalking slithering burrowing sorrowing sighing bleeding dying fellow creatures and I so precariously cling, hurtles in the unimaginably vast darkness of space - sends radiation through an oxygen-rich refracting atmosphere to the photovoltaic array in my back yard, feeding the storage batteries, as it also ripens the last of my tomato seeds, bundled in delicious juicy pulp, and coaxes open the few remaining petunia corollas. The tiny feathered helicopters that dart about them all summer have gone, along with the purple Cessnas and red-winged Lears, but those Canada jet liners are still drilling their young in formation flight.
Two more sunny days, and I’ll have stocked the woodshed with cut-up pieces of a highly efficient energy-storing device that grew from the ground, ready for inter-stove combustion to keep us warm all winter. In an adjoining compartment of the hive, my hoary, creaky, yet amazingly durable mind-mate is clitecky-clacking at a keyboard – poem? flame war? ordering a game for us to play on dark November afternoons? Chlorophyll fades from deciduous leaves, leaving them to reflect light waves of the 700-600 nm range to my retinas; the low-altitude air currents swirl condensation over the fields, swaying tall white plumes of daisy aster. Soon, all will be covered in layers of microscopic white crystal doilies.
Caustic acid is busy dismantling the complex molecules of aged curdled milk and baked paste of grass seed in my digestive tract; an infusion of Camellia sinensis steams near my multi-jointed phalanges with opposable fifth digit. I’ve just swatted an exquisite miniature flying machine, with barely a flicker of regret before my attention was claimed by a fat furry purring machine that keeps overflowing onto my mouse pad.
As dark, mechanistic universes go, it could be worse.

On the other hand, when I give myself permission to despair, it's for the grandchildren who will undoubtedly grow up under the tyranny of ignorant bible- and bankbook- thumpers.

Gustav: (Nov 18th) p 21 - 305 posts later
...It is part of a man's work to operate and function within the mental world, which is also the world of defining values, and constructing within this world on that basis. A woman's work is to be, to gestate, to care for, etc. Not that women cannot be engaged in other, more 'masculine' pursuits. They have, but rtather late in the game and only in a masculine environment that allows and encourages it. But I do not think that men should imitate women. And I also think that it is a destructive activity when they do.

*Let the games begin!*

'Let the games begin'

[marjoramblues]

Found this rather bemusing - a post on the philpapers site proposing a new subtopic: 'Pride'

Basically, Pride would sit happily along with Anger, Envy, Guilt, Shame, Hope, Jealousy and Love, under:
Value Theory Normative Ethics Moral Psychology
Moral States and Processes Pride

I had thought that Value Theory (VT) might be a useful title for a PN subforum, but didn't really know what twas all about. So, found it in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP). Only 3 pages worth...

Main subsections of VT:
Aesthetics - Bioethics - Ethics - Philosophy of Law - Political Philosophy - Value, Misc.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/category/value/

Compared to the philpapers VT list:
Aesthetics - Applied Ethics - Meta-ethics - Normative ethics - Philosophy of gender, race, sexuality - Misc.

Conclusion: Rick and team, you are doing a grand job, keep it up
Love you guys, don't Envy you - but real Proud and Hope for the Best...
OK, I know...too much already