Philosophy Now Forum

I am writing this thread because it does seem to me that art and the creative arts play are often considered as having low importance for philosophy. The relationship between science and philosophy, as well as that between science and religion is focused on in relation to the nature of 'truth'. In thinking of truth, I am speaking of the way in which human beings construct meaning.

Art involves both aesthetics and meaning making, or myth. The nature of myth was important in the origins of religion and may have been seen as less important with the rise of science. It was still a focus within romanticism and in the twentieth century it was at the centre of postmodernist critiques.

I am asking how significant is the nature of 'art' in the considering 'truth' in the twentieth first century? Please note, that my use of the term art does not refer simply to visual art, but the whole panorama of creative arts, including literature in particular, as it is central to thinking about language. My basic interest is based on the assumption that the arts are of central importance in thinking about the philosophical nature of 'truth'.

One genre of poetry is specifically philosophical. Keats' famous Ode on a Grecian Urn is on example. Or this Tennyson masterpiece:

Flower in the crannied wall,
I pluck you out of the crannies,
I hold you here, root and all, in my hand,
Little flower—but if I could understand
What you are, root and all, and all in all,
I should know what God and man is.

Many novels are also specifically philosophical. War and Peace, often feted as the greatest of all novels, has chapters of straight philosophy, comparing the movement of history to that of a locomotive.

In the visual arts, different "movements" (minimalism, etc.) have philosophical underpinning.

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 2:19 pm 'Art' and 'Truth': How Important Are the Creative Arts for Philosophical Understanding?

Is not philosophy itself a part of the "creative arts"?
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 6:28 pm

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 2:19 pm 'Art' and 'Truth': How Important Are the Creative Arts for Philosophical Understanding?

Is not philosophy itself a part of the "creative arts"?
_______

No.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 6:32 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 6:28 pm

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 2:19 pm 'Art' and 'Truth': How Important Are the Creative Arts for Philosophical Understanding?

Is not philosophy itself a part of the "creative arts"?
_______

No.

Well, I guess that settles that, then.

Care to elaborate on why it's a solid "no" for you?
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 6:28 pm

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 2:19 pm 'Art' and 'Truth': How Important Are the Creative Arts for Philosophical Understanding?

Is not philosophy itself a part of the "creative arts"?
_______

It may have been regarded as part of the arts for many, including the ancient Greeks, the Stoics and Existentialists amongst others. Sartre and Camus wrote novels to illustrate their ideas. However, philosophy and the arts seem to have drifted so far apart, which may be be the aftermath of analytic philosophy, postmodernism and the split and dialogue between psychology and philosophy.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 6:32 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 6:28 pm

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 2:19 pm 'Art' and 'Truth': How Important Are the Creative Arts for Philosophical Understanding?

Is not philosophy itself a part of the "creative arts"?
_______

No.

Do you think that the thinking and imagination of the creative arts has anything important to offer in thinking about the nature of 'truth'?

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 6:49 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 6:32 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 6:28 pm
Is not philosophy itself a part of the "creative arts"?
_______

No.

Well, I guess that settles that, then.

Care to elaborate on why it's a solid "no" for you?
_______

I don't think philosophy is a part of the "creative arts" any more than math or science are part of the "creative arts", unless it's your contention that all things are part of all things. Otherwise, it seems to me that philosophy ought to be considered a separate discipline.

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 7:08 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 6:32 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 6:28 pm
Is not philosophy itself a part of the "creative arts"?
_______

No.

Do you think that the thinking and imagination of the creative arts has anything important to offer in thinking about the nature of 'truth'?

Sure. In some instances.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 6:05 pm One genre of poetry is specifically philosophical. Keats' famous Ode on a Grecian Urn is on example. Or this Tennyson masterpiece:

Flower in the crannied wall,
I pluck you out of the crannies,
I hold you here, root and all, in my hand,
Little flower—but if I could understand
What you are, root and all, and all in all,
I should know what God and man is.

Many novels are also specifically philosophical. War and Peace, often feted as the greatest of all novels, has chapters of straight philosophy, comparing the movement of history to that of a locomotive.

In the visual arts, different "movements" (minimalism, etc.) have philosophical underpinning.

I appreciate your interest in the relationship between philosophy and literature. I did not know that 'War and Peace' had a chapter on philosophy specifically. I will have to check it out..

Poetry is also important because it may have almost prefigured many other forms of speech and writing in the form of song. Significant developments include the writings of Homer.

So many philosophy movements had a significant relationship with the arts. I guess that my thread question emerges with the way in which science is often seen as so significant. This may be on the basis of the movements of naturalism and realism being so dominant in the twentieth first century.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 7:09 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 6:49 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 6:32 pm

No.

Well, I guess that settles that, then.

Care to elaborate on why it's a solid "no" for you?
_______

I don't think philosophy is a part of the "creative arts" any more than math or science are part of the "creative arts", unless it's your contention that all things are part of all things. Otherwise, it seems to me that philosophy ought to be considered a separate discipline.

I don't see the issue as being just about categorizing art and philosophy as separate. The relationship between all disciplines is useful for thinking about the nature of 'truth'. Philosophy may draw upon the various aspects and angles to bring a synthetic understanding. Of course, there are competing concepts of truth, including literal, symbolic and psychological ones.

Even with science and art there may not always be a clear split in thinking. That is because science relies on imagination and metaphorical ideas as a source for investigation. Similarly, the arts rely on technique and research for the fullest expression of the creative process. Both are important in the search for truth and understanding.

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 7:17 pm
I appreciate your interest in the relationship between philosophy and literature. I did not know that 'War and Peace' had a chapter on philosophy specifically. I will have to check it out..

Poetry is also important because it may have almost prefigured many other forms of speech and writing in the form of song. Significant developments include the writings of Homer.

So many philosophy movements had a significant relationship with the arts. I guess that my thread question emerges with the way in which science is often seen as so significant. This may be on the basis of the movements of naturalism and realism being so dominant in the twentieth first century.

War and Peace has several chapters of straight philosophy as well as a 70 page epilogue. Tolstoy argues against the "great man' theory of history, claiming each of the half million soldiers who invaded Russia had his own motivations, which were as important as Napoleon's. The action of the novel (elucidating motives for the characters) supports Tolstoy's philosophy of history, especially in the battle scenes.

Tolstoy also wrote a philosophy of art (What is Art), notable in part for his antpathy to Shakespeare, Beethoven, and Wagner. His critiques of King Lear and Ring of the Nibelungs are masterpieces of invective.

Of course he was a better novelist than philosopher or critic, but the action of War and Peace supports the philosophy so well that it is very persuasive, until one looks at it more objectively once one's emotional involvement with the novel dissipates.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 7:47 pm

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 7:17 pm
I appreciate your interest in the relationship between philosophy and literature. I did not know that 'War and Peace' had a chapter on philosophy specifically. I will have to check it out..

Poetry is also important because it may have almost prefigured many other forms of speech and writing in the form of song. Significant developments include the writings of Homer.

So many philosophy movements had a significant relationship with the arts. I guess that my thread question emerges with the way in which science is often seen as so significant. This may be on the basis of the movements of naturalism and realism being so dominant in the twentieth first century.

War and Peace has several chapters of straight philosophy as well as a 70 page epilogue. Tolstoy argues against the "great man' theory of history, claiming each of the half million soldiers who invaded Russia had his own motivations, which were as important as Napoleon's. The action of the novel (elucidating motives for the characters) supports Tolstoy's philosophy of history, especially in the battle scenes.

Tolstoy also wrote a philosophy of art (What is Art), notable in part for his antpathy to Shakespeare, Beethoven, and Wagner. His critiques of King Lear and Ring of the Nibelungs are masterpieces of invective.

Of course he was a better novelist than philosopher or critic, but the action of War and Peace supports the philosophy so well that it is very persuasive, until one looks at it more objectively once one's emotional involvement with the novel dissipates.

I did plough my way through 'War and Peace' at a time when I was more interested in fiction than philosophy and it may be worth reading again for this aspect.

His 'What is art? sounds interesting as it is a major philosophical question. Art may get caught up in style to the point where it becomes more about superficial aspects of glamour and entertainment. This may be why art is seen as less essential to truth than the rigour of science, but there may be so many aspects of life which can be explored in depth through the arts.

It is likely that many have turned away from philosophy as being too caught up in minor scruples of logic and language. So much of the questions of life and its dilemmas can be pursued in literature and the arts. For example, the movement of surrealism presents a critical approach to thinking, incorporating the perspective of psychoanalysis.

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 2:19 pmI am writing this thread because it does seem to me that art and the creative arts play are often considered as having low importance for philosophy.

Philosophy is a creative art. Put simply, stuff happens. We see it happen and there are two basic responses. One is to measure and find patterns that will help us predict what will happen in the future. That is science. The other is to think of a reason for why something happens. So long as any created reason is compatible with what demonstrably and measurably happens, it could be true. The thing is, for any demonstrable and measurable happening, there are many potential reasons. None of them make any difference to what is seen or measured; those reasons are philosophy. As it happens, I wrote an article on this theme for the Magazine: https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 8:29 pm

Jack Daydream wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2024 2:19 pmI am writing this thread because it does seem to me that art and the creative arts play are often considered as having low importance for philosophy.

Philosophy is a creative art. Put simply, stuff happens. We see it happen and there are two basic responses. One is to measure and find patterns that will help us predict what will happen in the future. That is science. The other is to think of a reason for why something happens. So long as any created reason is compatible with what demonstrably and measurably happens, it could be true. The thing is, for any demonstrable and measurable happening, there are many potential reasons. None of them make any difference to what is seen or measured; those reasons are philosophy. As it happens, I wrote an article on this theme for the Magazine: https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia

Thanks for your reply and link to the article which you wrote for 'Philosophy Now' magazine. The article was an interesting perspective on the philosophy of science. Definitely, Einstein and Galileo were great artists, not just scientists. The division between art and science is anything far from clear cut. I have been interested in the dialogue between art and science ever since looking at where the social sciences lie in this.

Paradigm shifts are extremely important in thinking of how models are constructed and I am interested in the sociology of knowledge and the social construction of ideas. The way in which ideas of 'truth' are constructed involves so much on a personal and cultural basis. As well as the methods of art and science, it involves logos and mythos as aspects of human understanding.