Philosophy Now Forum

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 11:48 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 8:51 pm Depends on the definition of "art". The following is a definition that I've found useful:

"Art" is a demonstration of an extremely deep level of understanding of a subject. The deeper the subject and the deeper the demonstration of understanding of the subject, the more superior the work of art. The deeper the understanding that you have, the greater the appreciation you can have for the work of art.

How does that work to define anything? I'm having difficulty finding this useful definition useful for defining. Surely science demonstrates an understanding of a subject, yet science is not art.

Please answer the question without resorting to childish insults.

"'Art" is a demonstration of an extremely deep level of understanding of a subject.

Here's why Einstein's theories are sometimes considered artistic:
• Elegance and Beauty:
Einstein himself often spoke of the beauty and elegance of his theories, particularly general relativity. He felt that the mathematical structure and logical consistency of the theory pointed to an underlying truth about the universe.
• Unification and Harmony:
Einstein's theories unified previously separate areas of physics, like space and time (in relativity) and matter and energy (in E=mc²), revealing underlying connections and a sense of harmony in the cosmos.
• Challenging Conventional Thinking:
Einstein's theories forced a reevaluation of fundamental concepts like space, time, gravity, and the nature of reality, much like how art can challenge viewers to reconsider their perceptions.

From <https://www.google.com/search?q=were+ei ... e&ie=UTF-8>

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Sat Jul 12, 2025 12:09 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 11:48 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 8:51 pm Depends on the definition of "art". The following is a definition that I've found useful:

How does that work to define anything? I'm having difficulty finding this useful definition useful for defining. Surely science demonstrates an understanding of a subject, yet science is not art.

Please answer the question without resorting to childish insults.

Surely science demonstrates an understanding of a subject, yet science is not art.

"'Art" is a demonstration of an extremely deep level of understanding of a subject.

Not merely "an understanding of a subject" as you have framed it. Can you understand the differences between the two?

Here's why Einstein's theories are sometimes considered artistic:
• Elegance and Beauty:
Einstein himself often spoke of the beauty and elegance of his theories, particularly general relativity. He felt that the mathematical structure and logical consistency of the theory pointed to an underlying truth about the universe.
• Unification and Harmony:
Einstein's theories unified previously separate areas of physics, like space and time (in relativity) and matter and energy (in E=mc²), revealing underlying connections and a sense of harmony in the cosmos.
• Challenging Conventional Thinking:
Einstein's theories forced a reevaluation of fundamental concepts like space, time, gravity, and the nature of reality, much like how art can challenge viewers to reconsider their perceptions.

From <https://www.google.com/search?q=were+ei ... e&ie=UTF-8>

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 12, 2025 12:18 am

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Sat Jul 12, 2025 12:09 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Jul 11, 2025 11:48 pm
How does that work to define anything? I'm having difficulty finding this useful definition useful for defining. Surely science demonstrates an understanding of a subject, yet science is not art.

Please answer the question without resorting to childish insults.

Surely science demonstrates an understanding of a subject, yet science is not art.

"'Art" is a demonstration of an extremely deep level of understanding of a subject.

Not merely "an understanding of a subject" as you have framed it. Can you understand the differences between the two?

Here's why Einstein's theories are sometimes considered artistic:
• Elegance and Beauty:
Einstein himself often spoke of the beauty and elegance of his theories, particularly general relativity. He felt that the mathematical structure and logical consistency of the theory pointed to an underlying truth about the universe.
• Unification and Harmony:
Einstein's theories unified previously separate areas of physics, like space and time (in relativity) and matter and energy (in E=mc²), revealing underlying connections and a sense of harmony in the cosmos.
• Challenging Conventional Thinking:
Einstein's theories forced a reevaluation of fundamental concepts like space, time, gravity, and the nature of reality, much like how art can challenge viewers to reconsider their perceptions.

From <https://www.google.com/search?q=were+ei ... e&ie=UTF-8>

How does any of that help us to use your "useful definition" to actually do any of that defining you said needs to be done?

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Sat Jul 12, 2025 4:03 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 12, 2025 12:18 am

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Sat Jul 12, 2025 12:09 am

Surely science demonstrates an understanding of a subject, yet science is not art.



Not merely "an understanding of a subject" as you have framed it. Can you understand the differences between the two?

How does any of that help us to use your "useful definition" to actually do any of that defining you said needs to be done?

First, you'll need to have the wherewithal to be able to understand the differences between "an understanding of a subject" and "a demonstration of an extremely deep level of understanding of a subject". They aren't the same thing.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 2:03 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Sat Jul 12, 2025 4:03 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 12, 2025 12:18 am
How does any of that help us to use your "useful definition" to actually do any of that defining you said needs to be done?

First, you'll need to have the wherewithal to be able to understand the differences between "an understanding of a subject" and "a demonstration of an extremely deep level of understanding of a subject". They aren't the same thing.

If you want to get hung up on a difference of degree when you needed a difference of type, that's not really a challenge at all. A car mechanic can fix my transmission because he has "an extremely deep level of understanding of" the subject of car engines, or whatever bit of a car a trasmission might belong to. That is not art.

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 5:35 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 2:03 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Sat Jul 12, 2025 4:03 pm

First, you'll need to have the wherewithal to be able to understand the differences between "an understanding of a subject" and "a demonstration of an extremely deep level of understanding of a subject". They aren't the same thing.

If you want to get hung up on a difference of degree when you needed a difference of type, that's not really a challenge at all. A car mechanic can fix my transmission because he has "an extremely deep level of understanding of" the subject of car engines, or whatever bit of a car a trasmission might belong to. That is not art.

A car mechanic? A car mechanic need only have a reasonably good functional understanding of transmissions in order to fix one. Based on your responses thus far, you truly have absolutely no understanding of the differences "an understanding of a subject" (as you framed it) vs "a demonstration of an extremely deep level of understanding of a subject" (as I've defined it). Try comparing and contrasting your example with the examples I've given thus far.

As a matter of curiosity, what do you do for a living?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 5:45 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 5:35 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 2:03 pm
If you want to get hung up on a difference of degree when you needed a difference of type, that's not really a challenge at all. A car mechanic can fix my transmission because he has "an extremely deep level of understanding of" the subject of car engines, or whatever bit of a car a trasmission might belong to. That is not art.

A car mechanic? A car mechanic need only have a reasonably good functional understanding of transmissions in order to fix one. Based on your responses thus far, you truly have absolutely no understanding of the differences "an understanding of a subject" (as you framed it) vs "a demonstration of an extremely deep level of understanding of a subject" (as I've defined it). Try comparing and contrasting your example with the examples I've given thus far.

As a matter of curiosity, what do you do for a living?

So if the car mechanic does have an extremely deep undserstanding, then that is art, but the same work done by a mere understander of the lesser order is not art... How do you think this is working for you? Why are you too vain to just admit you might need to rethink something when it so obviously not a goer?

Why are you curious about my work? I have a very good understanding of some IT stuff, but sadly my yaml files are rarely compared to the Mona Lisa.

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 9:10 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 5:45 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 5:35 pm

A car mechanic? A car mechanic need only have a reasonably good functional understanding of transmissions in order to fix one. Based on your responses thus far, you truly have absolutely no understanding of the differences "an understanding of a subject" (as you framed it) vs "a demonstration of an extremely deep level of understanding of a subject" (as I've defined it). Try comparing and contrasting your example with the examples I've given thus far.

As a matter of curiosity, what do you do for a living?

So if the car mechanic does have an extremely deep undserstanding, then that is art, but the same work done by a mere understander of the lesser order is not art... How do you think this is working for you? Why are you too vain to just admit you might need to rethink something when it so obviously not a goer?

Why are you curious about my work? I have a very good understanding of some IT stuff, but sadly my yaml files are rarely compared to the Mona Lisa.

Based on your responses thus far, it's evident that your conceptual thinking skills aren't very good.

I worked in software development more than 25 years. Mostly project work, so I was in and out of a lot of different development groups within many companies across several industries. In general, within a given development group, perhaps 10% really understood what they were doing. The bottom 40% or so would be marginally competent at best. For the most part, people had a pretty good idea of their limitations. But it wouldn't be uncommon for one or two from the bottom 40% that would way overestimate their abilities. In essence, they didn't even understand enough to be able to understand how little they understood. It was nigh impossible to reason with them. Similarly, it's nigh impossible to reason' with you.

Of course, maybe you're just trolling.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 9:51 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 9:10 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 5:45 pm
So if the car mechanic does have an extremely deep undserstanding, then that is art, but the same work done by a mere understander of the lesser order is not art... How do you think this is working for you? Why are you too vain to just admit you might need to rethink something when it so obviously not a goer?

Why are you curious about my work? I have a very good understanding of some IT stuff, but sadly my yaml files are rarely compared to the Mona Lisa.

Based on your responses thus far, it's evident that your conceptual thinking skills aren't very good.

I worked in software development more than 25 years. Mostly project work, so I was in and out of a lot of different development groups within many companies across several industries. In general, within a given development group, perhaps 10% really understood what they were doing. The bottom 40% or so would be marginally competent at best. For the most part, people had a pretty good idea of their limitations. But it wouldn't be uncommon for one or two from the bottom 40% that would way overestimate their abilities. In essence, they didn't even understand enough to be able to understand how little they understood. It was nigh impossible to reason with them. Similarly, it's nigh impossible to reason' with you.

Of course, maybe you're just trolling.

I have no interest in your grandiose feelings of superiority, and just want an explanation for how your definition of art is to be used to define art.

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 8:51 pm Depends on the definition of "art". The following is a definition that I've found useful:

"Art" is a demonstration of an extremely deep level of understanding of a subject. The deeper the subject and the deeper the demonstration of understanding of the subject, the more superior the work of art. The deeper the understanding that you have, the greater the appreciation you can have for the work of art.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 12:02 am

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 8:51 pm Depends on the definition of "art". The following is a definition that I've found useful:

"Art" is a demonstration of an extremely deep level of understanding of a subject. The deeper the subject and the deeper the demonstration of understanding of the subject, the more superior the work of art. The deeper the understanding that you have, the greater the appreciation you can have for the work of art.

How does that work to define anything? I'm having difficulty finding this useful definition useful for defining. If a catfish tickler demonstrates either and extremely deep level of understanding of fish, or an extrememly deep understanding of tickling, that does not make the catching of the fish a workf of art.

Please answer the question without resorting to childish insults.

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Tue Jul 08, 2025 8:51 pm Depends on the definition of "art". The following is a definition that I've found useful:

"Art" is a demonstration of an extremely deep level of understanding of a subject. The deeper the subject and the deeper the demonstration of understanding of the subject, the more superior the work of art. The deeper the understanding that you have, the greater the appreciation you can have for the work of art.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 10:35 pm To the OP. No, they generate just art, in the eyes of this beholder. Just as they generate poetry, philosophy, metaphysics in particular, music, which are all synthetic, and all pass the Turing test.