as an addendum some words in philosophy that often need further clarification:
theist - which religion, pantheism, polytheism, panentheism...I can't tell you the number of times I have had to clarity that my theism is not the one the other person is arguing against, or had to point out that they are saying belief in God entails and then what follows is only applicable to Christianity or Abrahamism.
empiricism - there is not just one
metaphysics - this means different things to many people, but generally works as a category in a forum
mind - the conscious mind, the entire mind, an entity that is not the brain in substance dualisms
Materialism - Marxist, the synonym for physicalism, and then which kind therein
Buddhism - which one
Hinduism - which one
Holism - what kind
Dualism - which one
Consciousness -

I could make a much much larger list. These are generally dealt with either via adding an adjective (elminative materialism) or by people asking for clarification, etc. And while these can be charged issues, very little is as charged as the atheist/theist debate, so people just tend to linguistically tweak away any ambiguities, just as we do in everyday life where we have to use and the words that have several different meanings.

Okay...but what if I use the word one way and someone else uses it another way. Do we put its "proper" use up to a vote next election? — Frank Apisa

As I said, there are many words that have several meanings and require further clarification in some situations. Atheist works fine in a great deal of contexts, even if we do not know if the person denies the existence of gods or simply lacks a belief. This is language it is a floppy, ambiguous thing and even the grammar stakes paradigmatic claims without proof.

Not being a wise ass here, Coben...just asking a way to resolve such situations. — Frank Apisa

If one needs to know, ask. If one wants to clarify, clarify. I don't see how claiming that the atheists are using the word wrong resolves the conflict. Does that approach seem to be getting converts to your preferred usage?

My opinion is that is absurd...a use of the word in a way that is much less useful than defining it as "a person who denies that any gods exist" or "a person who asserts it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does." — Frank Apisa

First of all, there is a difference between suggesting that we change the meaning with a supporting why we should change it, and telling people they are wrong to use it the way they are, when in fact they are following current usage. I have already said that I think that is fine. This is different from telling people their use is wrong because really dictionaries are wrong and current use, generally, is wrong due to etymology. Language changes and current use is not wrong. So, now moving on to the next issue is it better to use it the way you would like.

I have no idea how to measure the usefulness. I'm a theist. In most instances in my life it does not matter to me the way the other person is using and the general category of does not believe in God satisfies my interests. In philosophical discussions I don't think I have ever found the other person's position ambiguous, since they tend to be asserting something from their position. If we restrict the word atheist to those who assert there is no God or gods, then we need another word. Some people use the phrase strong atheist, or negative vs. positive. I haven't noticed one problem over the years. Honestly I feel like the animosity between atheists and theists gets played out over this word
and it would be much more honest to just deal with the real source of the animosity. Now would it be better if we had one word for the negative atheism and one word for the positive atheism and what would that word be? I don't know. It feels to me like Dad and Mom are arguing over a sock left on the floor when one of them has been having an affair and the other one demeans the other one all the time. So, we can all focus on the sock on the floor or we can focus in different threads on the real issues of difference and we can ask for clarification in those very specific situations where further clarification is needed or wanted. And then

what would happen with this new word being out there? I don't know.

I see language riddled with words that cover a few meanings and humans tend to deal with that with phrases or asking for clarification. I wouldn't fight an attempt to change the language, but I think it is better approached not by immediately telling those with the other use that they are wrong, but ruather by appealing to them with a more effective system. I oppose the telling them they are wrong on the grounds that they are not, but also in practical terms. It sure will not increase the chances of changing anyone's mind. If you really want to start what you consider a better use of language, then I would suggest approaching it as, hey, I think it might be in all our interests to have clear unambigous, single word terms for these things. If you want to have pyrrhic victory, by all means try convincing them they are being wrong and following manipulative poor etymologists from the past. You can view what happens in the thread as you calling them out on what they did wrong, but I truly doubt it will lead to a change in the language. Nor should it, I would say. If you have a better schema, with I would think a new term included, this would, it seems to me, serve everyone. Of course, deciding to fix language is very hard, but it does happen sometimes.

Let's assume your analysis is correct. IOW that the reason it changed was due to certain motivations amongst some people. To me that doesn't matter. The current use of the term includes both meanings and if someone wants to move on and clarify or a listener/reader must have clarification, then so being. There are words like this throughout the language, where in certain contexts the word works well on its own, in other contexts some other words may be necessary to clarify the meaning precisely for that particular context. Your response above does not counter what I said, which is that meaning comes from the way humans use that word. There is no deeper authority.

That said, could you link to some source for the etymology of atheist. I can only find etymologies that have word as coming from a + theist, without theism.

Such as....

In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods".

where the original meaning might not even clarify a belief or lack of one.

OK I found someone arguing your point of view, just now in this edited version.

https://lastedenblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/21/the-etymology-of-atheism/

but even granting this...it seems like the greek conception of the idea was ambiguous, so who gets the authority?

And then motivations are not a good argument, to me, for why, once a word is established, we should change its meaning to meet some earlier period in history.

And further, the whole thing seems like a turf fight over nothing. Let people use it as they want to. Theists who follow your etymology can use it their way and so can those atheists who use it your way, and they exist also. And others can use it in the other way that fits common usage and dictionary definitions.

None of this provides evidence related to the existence of God. There are people who simply do not believe in God and neither believe God does not exist nor are they anti-theist. And they are not agnostics either.

It lets you believe whatever right off the bat, but then says to never stop trying to refine those beliefs to better and better ones. — Pfhorrest

But the moment you actually start criticizing it's infinite, call it regress or progress. You will have to stop (to make dinner, to live) before resolving its own criteria. Only radical skeptic justificationists do not recognize that we find ourselves in the middle of life and already having beliefs. They also pick and choose, just like a critical rationalist has to, how much to criticize (and thus form even more beliefs), how time to put in, how to prioritize which beliefs to go after and so on.

But looking for more and more buoyant things to float on doesn’t have that problem; you’ll still never find a perfectly buoyant thing that will definitely keep you afloat forever, but at least you can make do with whatever you’ve found so far instead of sinking straight to the bottom looking in vain for something solid to stand on. — Pfhorrest

You still missing the point. With that criterion that I've now quoted three times, you cannot do anything but criticize beliefs. Whether you are refining or not. Whether you don't care about the bottom or not. I'll quote it a fourth time....

Instead only try to criticize whatever beliefs you should find yourself have

Everytime you criticize you generate new beliefs, more than one for each belief you criticize. To live up to that you have an infinite process.

Why not say something like this:

If you have seem to have a significant problem, see if a belief is involved that seems like it might be both causal and you have some reasons to think it is not correct, then reevaluate it or evaulate it for the first time.

But you seem to want to hang onto that statement and if you do, its got an infinite task for you and those new tasks arise immediately.


And jusitificationists often have apriori. Science has worked this way. Space and time were absolute, they just assumed this, Newton did. These were untested apriori. Einstein ripped that up. That's OK. I don't think a justificationist has to say that everything has to be justified. Oddly you are saying that every belief must be critiqued. Justificationists may not acknowledge that they have working assumptions - though some certainly do. Natural laws is another one that is showing cracks. I think a good number of quite justificationist people assume there is no demon controlling their consciousness or recognize that they might be brains in a vat and so on, but they consider it these working apriori. Something starts indicating they are a brain in a vat or we are all in a simulation, then they will take a peek at their assumption.

Pretty much anyone can have a wait until you think you need to reevaluate epistemology. In fact you pretty much have to. You can also accept that one is, for the time being, accepting paradigmatic assumptions,w hich one is free to work with or question. We find ourselves in the middle of time and knowledge.

One you say that every belief you have must be critiqued
or
every belief you have must be justified

then both approaches get silly.

I think this is where you're losing the point. Criticizing your beliefs isn't some kind of final permanent thing. You look to see if there are any problems; if you don't see any, you can keep it. — Pfhorrest

Beliefs don't have to be certain - as you've said yourself, one can be open to revision, but they are still beliefs -, nor are they in justification or most other epistemologies. You checked your belief (you believe) and now believe there wasn't a problem. That's two beliefs at least you just accumulated when there wasn't even a (n apparant) problem. Now the process would need to go on. Each time with a branching set of new beliefs.

If you remove

Instead only try to criticize whatever beliefs you should find yourself having.

right off your approach is much stronger. With that in there, I see an infinite regress.

↪Metaphysician Undercover
Right, this was the point I was making. Fundamentally art is something to get inspiration from, not something to get meaning from. However, this does not mean that art is something we cannot get meaning from.
I can't see where there is a disagreement between us. — Punshhh

And none of us are arguing that one cannot or shouldn't get meaning out of it.

Yes, when you can, and if you don't see anything wrong with a particular belief yet, you can leave it for now and run with what you have. You don't have to prove that every belief you hold is completely immune to all possible criticism before you do anything; that would be justificationism again, and you could never get started at all. — Pfhorrest

Right, I got that. But if you decide a belief might be a problem, then you generate beliefs. First, that it might be a problem, then that you evaluation to keep it or get rid of it is sound, then whatever subevalutations in there.

Also, even if it didn't hold up, I would be free on that account to continue holding that belief anyway, because that would be the rejection of all rationalism. — Pfhorrest

So, it's an apriori. IOW since it goes against your philosophy. But one can do this in justification systems, have axioms, and leave them alone.

Fruit of the poisoned tree only applies to justificationist reasoning. A critical rationalist doesn't argue for critical rationalism on the grounds of something else -- critical rationalism is against that sort of thing -- it's just what's left after ruling out other self-defeating possibilities, like justificationism and fideism. — Pfhorrest

Are you sure that's why you do that? The moment you draw any conclusion, in your version of critical rationalism, you have a new belief? Then you must, according to the rule I quoted twice, check to see if there is any problem with it. Then you have new belief that you evaluated well that there is no problem. Then....

The difference between surviving criticism and bring justified from the ground up is that surviving criticism is the default state of any belief, whereas nothing is automatically justified-from-the-ground-up To begin with, all beliefs have survived the (zero) criticism they have been subjected to thus far — including belief in critical rationalism. — Pfhorrest

There is a difference between surviving and what you wrote....Please show me how my reasoning was off given that it was based on your assertion.

Instead only try to criticize whatever beliefs you should find yourself having.

So you start a critique...well you have to beleive you have a belief - you could critique that. When you are critiquing a belief, you have to critique all the facets of the critique, since these will include beliefs and then that you identified the beliefs correctly, then any conclusions you draw are new beliefs....it doesn't matter if it's justification or not, you are still critiquing which will involve identifying beliefs, a process, beliefs aobut a good process conclusions and more. it has to have a regress.

Consider actions for analogy. Should we do nothing until we can justify from the ground up that that thing is the one absolutely certain best thing to do, or should we instead do whatever we want unless there is some good reason not to do that particular thing, and then instead do whatever else isn’t ruled out yet? Obviously the latter, or else we would never do anything at all. — Pfhorrest

Precisely, there is an infinite regress if one truly follows the protocols of critical rationalism. Note that deciding there is a good reason, or not, would entail a belief. believing that one notices good reasons. And on and on. But note you are not really doing critical rationalism. You are doing your own idiosyncatic version. Which is fine. But it seems to me what you are saying is you simply don't follow through on the implications. One can do this with justification also. Have some axioms.

Critical rationalists hold that scientific theories and any other claims to knowledge can and should be rationally criticized, and (if they have empirical content) can and should be subjected to tests which may falsify them. Thus claims to knowledge may be contrastingly and normatively evaluated.

Does the question of free will matter? — Example24

I am utterly compelled to say that it does matter and that I am free. (but there was something that felt out of my control in my urge to say that, perhaps that was my free will pressuring me to speak the truth)

One: To the people who point to dictionaries on this issue, it should be noted that dictionaries do not truly define words. They tell us how they are most often used…at a particular period of time. — Frank Apisa

That's how words are defined, by how we use them. There is no other authority beyond us to define them. Etymology might lead one to believe X about the meaning of a word, but if we no longer use it that way, then it means something else. And the word atheist has a few meanings. We have to live with that, since language is a flexible tool or set of tools. That flexibility and often ambiguousness being both positive and negative. So, if one wants to be clear about something one may need to add other clarifying terms or words to make sure the meaning is clear. But one cannot say that others are wrong if they are using the word as defined by us and via dictionaries. One can suggest, of course, that we should move the word back to original meanings or have one meaning. And make a case for why this is a good idea.

critical rationalism leads to an infinite regress also. if

Instead only try to criticize whatever beliefs you should find yourself having.

then you have to criticize each belief, then the belief that you should criticize every belief, then the beliefs that led you to think that you should criticize every beleif and so on. And then criticize each belief you form during the critique session about a particular belief - like 'my belief seems problematic because of X', but then I must critique my belief that it seems problematic because of X AND my belief that X is the case and so on. And then critical rationalism needs to be criticized, if you believe in it, but can one use a belief to critique a belief. IOW whatever epistemology you have to determine if a belief is ok, this will be the one you will use to check to see if that epistemology itself is ok. Which is fruit of the poisoned tree. And by the way, I am not saying we cannot have knowledge. I am just looking at your criterion and applying it to your own beliefs and I see infinite regress here too.

He's pointing out that you seem very certain about how we should view beliefs, that is things we think are true. We shouldn't even use the word belief - even if for many of us this does not mean it is closed to revision. It seems like you are presenting not just your view of your own approach to viewing what you believe, but how you think one should in general, view what one thinks is the case, and in quite certain terms. IOW if you tell people

Every guess, supposition, or estimate SHOULD be subject to change

that doesn't sound remotely like a guess, especially given it is universal.

Yes, a lot of people are very certain at a meta-level and then also in assumptions about the nature of reality/minds that mean that one 'should' - we should all note the use of that word in his argument - think of our beliefs as guesses.

You know, I just realized how I even fell into his frame. Note that it is all about insights. Yes, the artists has insights. Is the goal to pass on insights. They don't bother with art school and training with color or form or composition, just hand out the damn insights on paper on the corner.

What's amusing here is we have 3 actual artists trying to demonstrate these aspects of our work, and then we have 1 (apparently) non-artist attempting to explain to us that we're wrong about our experience of our work. This is getting boring, to be honest. — Noble Dust

Yes, I don't know how you've lasted so long. And the problem is things like this...

The artist, as one's own observer has inside information on one's own piece, — Metaphysician Undercover

...do not contradict what we are saying. Yes, an artist has insights into his or her work. On the other hand so do other viewers of that art. A smart artist will not want to narrow down the range of insights or put other viewers in the position of having to overcome the artist's necessarily limited set of insights about that work. Further as we have pointed out repeatedly it's pressing the mental verbal mind to the immediate prioritized fore by having the artist's statment. You want people to have a felt and sensual experience and telling them what to think and feel diminishes this and its range and actually sets the wrong portions of the brain going when first encountering a piece of art. The idea of the art is not just to generate thinking. At least it used to be. Now you can go to museums and see whole shows which are primarily about generating ideas - with sensual and aesthetic facets radically diminished over other kinds of shows. That would be fine if one had to choose between aesthetic and meaning/conceptual factors, but you don't. So we have diminished one facet of great art for no reason. The occasional piece that does this could be and has been an interesting contrast, and those first artists who did this often created a powerful effect. But that this has become more of a rule is a loss. And the artist's statement is a side effect.

This isn't marketing where there is, behind any image, for example, one goal - get them to buy a product. Get them to buy an idea.

I think he actually thinks that art is primarily getting people to think certain things and he is not alone. One it it put blankly like that on a page, I doubt most would agree, but if you listen to them in galleries, that is what the talk sounds like. Idea wanking. That's not why Cezanne spent so much time painting that mountain, as one example amongst hundreds of the artists who will last through time as opposed to those who won't.

Here's what to think when looking at my art is damaging, it reduces the experience. And it affects even experienced artists.

An artists does have insights into his or her own art, but if that artists has paid any attention over time, they will have noticed that they realize things later they did not then, even missing the core part of the artwork. But regardless, even if the artists knew everydamnthing, it is a confused idea about
what
experiencing art
is
about.

It's not

think in words first and get the right thoughts in place.

It's not a test.

Jeez just hand museum goers your great thoughts and don't waste time making a painting.

Of course, if you are a trained artists, rather than a text polemicist or other kind of writer, why not let your skills in your chosen field speak for themselves.

i could tell the woman I love what I mean with each particular kiss - with this kiss I am trying to tell you what I feel when you are away - but I guarantee the smart wife or girlfriend is going to tell me to shut up and kiss her.

The key to getting rid of all that "belief" nonsense (whether of the shakable or unshakable variety) is simply not to corrupt our guesses, suppositions, estimates and the like...by using the word "belief" as a disguise. — Frank Apisa

I am not sure that such a shift in vocabulary actual influences how much you trust the ideas. I assume a wide range of meanings to my own use of 'belief'. It's something I think is the case, but I am not sure. This can be anything from my best guess, so I choose path b cause I think that's where we came from, but I am not remotely sure, to beliefs that I am very confident in, that have worked for a long time, but I am open to revision around.

This is the falsity which you refuse to acknowledge. No audience is required. The artist can create without an observer. The art exists with or without the observer. Your "philosophical concept" is faulty. — Metaphysician Undercover

The artist would through the entire process be an observer, and one contruction with some but not total freedom the experienced artwork and affected by it. And strong artists are surprised and frustrated by their art, which always will go beyond the conscious mind's ability to control and will always have meanings and implications the artist did not intend, EVEN for him or herself as a viewer. And artists should be wary of saying what their art means, because they are not aware of what in them has affected the art. I've gone back to old work and realized, much later, that it clearly dealt with, for example, family issues I was not thinking of at all when I made it. And I have also denied certain interpretations of my art, only much later to realize the other person was very likely quite correct. The intentions in the conscious mind are only a small part of what is going on. Another reason the artist statement - if it goes into any of these areas - is confused about art and their own minds.

Those who make shallow art or art of ideas only can have more control over 'the meaning', but even then not all and may be quite off when it comes to what the work of art conveys.

And no work of art can be created without the artist also being a viewer.

#1
Our understanding or conceptualizing gravity might be false, or deficient to be true.(ie. not a pulling or pushing force, but a combination of both, or note even a force) — Monist

But the question isn't really if once could potentially shakes someone's belief, the question is really if gravity is shakeable for you. And note that your point one is arguing that our understanding of gravity might not be correct, but that doesn't mean that one doubts there is gravity. And yes, empirical 'things' can be doubted, but do you ever doubt gravity? If not, then so far at least it seems unshakable for you.

Is you belief that the empirical is a problem ever get shaken?

Perhaps that is another that might be unshakable.

Or that beliefs can change. That would seem to be an unshakeable belief of yours.

But I suppose my main point is that one shouldn't approach this as everyone. What might someone change their minds on. If there's something you haven't changed your mind on, then, so far, it's been unshakable. And then it seems some metabeliefs of yours are unshakable.

It's an oligarchy. This does not mean it is tightly organized or that all the oligarches like each other. They have rivalries and disagreements, but in general the protect the oligarchy, influence foreign and domestic policies via non democratic means, have influenced the courts to consider them above the law much more as a rule. The control the media enough - not neatly and perfectly - to educate people out of their own interests and away from reality that their power is currently quite safe. And they are savvier than the old autocrates. If they can distraction and manipulation and education are their means of tearing people away from their own interests. Which is not to say they won't use violence and certainly are working towards a police state correction state surveillance state society or have already arrived there. But their means are apparantly soft. And so them will have AIs, robots, gm humans, nanotech and even better surveillance in the Internet of Things and Smart Cities.

Does knowing it or believing it make it true, — Harry Hindu

You're turning what something means into something it does in this question. If we know it, that means it is true, in most definitions of 'know'.

Though since even knowledge is revisable, if one is, say, a scientist, even then it may turn out not to be.

Remember, I said that you are solely responsible for the creation of your own phenomenological experience of the art, the artist plays no role in this. — Metaphysician Undercover


When did you say this? I seem to remember Coben calling you out on a phenomenological issue, rather than you concocting one. Bullshit. — Noble Dust

He did say this to me, don't know if he did to you. I thought it was odd that he now was explaining a position that was more radical than ours, after we defended a more modest co-creation model. I do understand that he is adding in this idea of phenomenologically (and one could actually argue NEUROGOLICALLY it is the case) and so he didn't think he was conceding anything, since he thought we were arguing, somehow, that the viewer actually made the physical sculture, say. But it seems like having this idea, he could have responded to us in a much less dismissive way. I did respond to his 100 percent idea and disagreed with it, while thinking and saying that argument has merit. Given that what we create in our minds will defnitely carry over relationships between parts in the physical artwork, color patterns and more from the original, even if some of these are qualia - since the artist also experiences quaiia he or she is presenting us they tried and true dyanmics with and between qualia -, we are not just being stimulated and then freely doing whatever with the original. What we, yes, create in our minds, is controlled and led in many ways by the physical artwork. I can certainly concede. and did. that fifty percent is a stab in the dark, but it represents to me the idea that we co-create the experience of the artwork. It is not the same as sitting in a dark room and making up a painting just in our minds. That virtual image in the mind is something based very much on the artwork, though feelings, portions of the painting that we focus on, our own unconscious associations and more come from our, the viewers side. That to me is a kind of cocreation. And one that many artists want to have happening. In fact, I have been working on a play. When writing plays you want to avoid writing on the nose, you want subtext, and the better plays are filled with subtext, with just the occasional, often climactice moments where on the nose statements arise. Why? Because on the nose does not allow for the audience to co-create as much. It tries to eliminate this cocreation. It can't of course, given that our minds must recreate the play inside us. But it limits this cocreation as much as it can. It is similar, in a way, to the artist statement.

But then his last post to me I read, he 'summed up' my position in way that meant he either was not reading my posts or for some other reason did not want to actually respond to my position, but rather strawman positions, so that ended that, coupled with the suddenly now having a more radical position than ours while at the same time talking down to us for supposedly having an idiotic position, just led to my saying bye, bye to him. It feels like he just wants to win and concessions, if they come at all, are going to be framed as 'here's something you didn't think of moron.' I'd prefer someone who can manage to be collaborative even in disagreement.

It seems like you're saying that one can be certain without any reasons or evidence for what they are certain about. — Harry Hindu

'Reasons' they obviously have. They need it to be true, they heard from their best friend, it makes sense to them, they read it in a scientific journal, they saw it happen, they think being uncertain is weak...and so on. They are saying they have no doubt. They may have doubt. They may know deep down that they are not really certain. They may have good grounds. They may not. They make be the kind of person who trusts their intuition (and shouldn't). Some people are just certain in general. Some are certain when they have good evidence. It varies subject to subject. When someone is certain this does not indicate anything about epistemology, theirs or in general. It's a mental state or a measure of one. It measure a lack of doubt or the presentation of that. Of course each person will likely think that their certainty is based on good reasons, but that is not what they are saying when they use the term.

That isn't how I or anyone else uses the term, "certainty" — Harry Hindu

Oh, yes it is. They just don't use it that way when describing themselves. But they do when describing others. And I am saying what the term is referring to. It is referring to an emotional state.

To be certain means that you put forth some mental effort to parse some bit of information for logical and empirical consistency before you say that you are certain of something. — Harry Hindu

No, that's not what it means. It's a synonym for being sure. For many people to say they are certain they need to meet the criteria you put forward, and presumably you do this. But the humans I meet are certain for a wide range of reasons and often not for the reasons they put forward.

I more or less agree with your definintion of know. But it's good you brought up your objections. It does depend who is speaking and about whom. People say 'I know' for all sorts of reasons. People tend to categorize knowledge as opposed to opinion as some more rigorously arrived at subset of beliefs and opinions. JTB more or less. IOW they have a knowledge/opinion(belief) distinction. And they can see this, in a certain sense, clearly in relation to others. And all of us have encountered people who are certain of things that have not gone through any rigorous process, even whatever rigorous process that other person would say it should.

Certainty is a quale - which may or not be affected by rigorous epistemology
Knowledge is a sub-category of beliefs/opinions and we all mean that it is better arrived at than the rest of the beliefs/opinions. How it is arrived at and if we really followed some rigorous process in this case or any case is another story. But when people use 'I know' the reasons can be just like the partial list I have above for 'I am certain.'

Knowledge and certainty however are very distinct and have very distinct referents.

Truth: property of a proposition.
Fact: what exists in the world. — David Mo

A fact would be a description of what exists in the world (or actually what has ever existed, since we can have facts about the past.) IOW a chair isn't a fact (nor is it a truth, for that matter).

I am pretty sure we all know people who are certain on almost no grounds at all. But the main point is that certainty is a term referring to a feeling, a quale. Knowledge is a term refering to a belief that one decides is likely to be true due to certain criteria. Sometimes, for example, we just can't face the idea that something is not true. Sometimes we can even admit this. I am certain she is cheating on me but I have no evidence. I trust my gut.

Of course the two idea overlap. They deal with different things. And presumably we tend to be more certain about what we consider knowledge. But they do not have to be connected. Further they are focused on two different things: one on a kind of emotional sense, the other on protocols.

I'm with the neurologist suggestion. It could be all sorts of neurological problem: a migraine - these can take a wide variety of forms - a very mild epilepsy, an actual physical object issue like a cyst or tumor or a bunch of other things from the trivial to the serious. It could be affecting your emotions, but it might have nothing to do with them. I'd suggest not going acid also. NOt so much because of emotional stability, but because it is robbing peter to pay paul. It's a kind of short cut. You're going to need to bridge that gap yourself. The problem with drugs for people who are not addicts, generally, is that they imply heavily to the person that this is the only way to get to X - a particular state of mind or attitude. And this is not true, but the use does interfere with getting their without the drug. Take amphetamines before you sprint, and after a while your base sprinting is going to be worse. Only with acid, say, or X, what gets worse is a base emotional or spiritual state.

Certainty is a measure of your conviction that you are right. You might be an idiot. Knowledge is presumably a rigorously arrived at belief. There were some criteria involved. Different people have different criteria, but pretty much everyone uses I know when they are more certain based on certain criteria that have been met, criteria that have not been when they say 'I think...' or 'My guess is...'

What is considered knowledge may turn out not to be true. Hopefully one's criteria for what gets called knowledge, by you, make it a stronger set of beliefs than what you simply think is or might be the case.

When people argue about epistemology they are arguing about the criteria.

Certainty is a kind of quale, it may have nothing to do with any useful criteria, even your own. It might be based, for example, on denied feelings of terror that you might be wrong about the issue. That can actually increase one's certainty. But it's not a criterion for being classed as knowledge. That would be something like and scientists in Berlin had the same results with an even larger sample. Or I saw the puma, not just the footprints, and it was not a guy in a puma outfit. I am not one of the people who heard the story, I was there. (note, that would be a strong criterion for the speaker, but not necessarily at all for others listening to his story)

The knowledge database of religious advisories keeps growing every day. Look for example just at this one site: https://islamqa.info/en . Every time there is a question, an attempt is made to discover a suitable jurisprudential advisory that syntactically entails from scripture.

However, saying that all issues have been clarified by the scriptures would be equivalent to saying that all theorems and their justification are discovered already when publishing the axioms of a theory.

It took 350 years to discover the justification from number theory for Fermat's Last Theorem. So, knowledge discovery is not necessarily an easy thing in a formal system. It could be a lot of hard work. — alcontali

Seems like a terribly confused system, if actually created by a deity. A set of texts is given like a set of axioms so that good people (muslims) can assign and or become experts who render all theorums based on axioms or generate them in response to questions....I mean, why give humans a soul and a heart and urges. You could make machines to play moral chess. It seems like not honoring your own creation, us, by making all behavior the result of mathematical type deduction. What a waste.

For example, don't ask it to predict the weather. — alcontali

which is nto really a philosophical issue.

And the Koran and other works cannot really demonstrate what philosophy of language one should have in relation to the texts, since if one uses part of the text to justify one's philosophy, then you have already applied a philosophy of language without it yet being justified when reading the text. You cannot justify the rules of justification either (deduction say) from scripture. And you cannot justify epistemological questions since if you accept scripture as perfect and right from the get go you already applied some kind of epistemology without it yet being justified. There are a lot of other things that scripture cannot resolve. And, at base, we as humans must take responsibility for some of our axioms, even if one of those axioms is 'I will do as that book seems to indicate or what experts of that book say it indicates'. Because one is still trusting oneself to choose the right book - so right there we have a radical intuitionist epistemology - or to find the right experts, or to be interpreting, whatever we argue confirms the scripture as correct, correctly.,

There is no escape from our own intuition, even if the one main, but enormous, act we use is saying we give up our intuition to book X because we know it is the right one.

And then, often as political. Further, in films, when you have two people being wankers or at least one while another character suffers,the 'talking about art' by overintellectualized fools is a cliche. Well, that cliche is, to me, fed by the trend towards art as ideas and not as beautiful objects, when in fact they can be both. Language is a vastly better tool for conveying ideas if the ideas of language based ones and you want only those ideas.

If artist's statements are more a rule than an exception then it might be a very big hint that the task of making the art speak for itself is either very difficult or maybe even impossible. — TheMadFool

I really don't think this is the case. I live with a painter. I go to galleries reguarly in the two countries I nearly straddle. And I can look at new and old works at have them speak to me, give me both aesthetic pleasure AND make me think, though the latter usually is slower, unless it is more modern conceptual art.

why can't artists have the corresponding artist's statement? — TheMadFool

They can, and I would fight to allow them. I see it as a bad trend, and as an increasing trend. Part of a trend towards a diminishment of investment into the sensual aspects of art and a seeing art as getting messages and ideas across as the main idea. Since a beautiful work can do this just as well, as one put together with one with less skill, this means a general trend to a net loss.

And it also assumes that getting that main idea across is the best thing to do, rather than allowing a range of cognitive, emotional and aesthetic experiences in one's audience. If you tell people what it means, it will limit them. It is distrusting everyone. It's like making a rock song and then telling people how you want them to dance to it. (yes, a few songs actuall did this)

If you want people to have these thoughts and not those thoughts, these associations and not those, you'd be much better off in another art from, one that uses language. Write an essay, give a lecture. Visual art inspires rich individual experiences and I think are diminished when treated as non-fiction or propaganda or specific confession: here's what this means it relates to when this happened to me. If I want to tell people that sexism is bad because of X and I think the causes of this are Y and Z, I am much better off writting an essay rather than diminishing something I have put years of training into creating and limiting it. In general. Of course some works of art this may work. It is the trend that I think is a sign of decay.

But I've gone through this in much better detail in earlier posts.

With that out of the way, an artist's statement, if but an explanation, in some ways reflects a deficiency, a deficiency in the artwork itself which compels the artist to furnish the so-called artist's statement to, in effect, correct the image his/her work evokes in the minds of his audience to match his/her own. It may be wrong to call this a deficiency though. — TheMadFool

INdividual cases may vary. But the tendency to want to control rather than stimulate/inspire thoughts shown in a trend towards greater use of artist statements, coupled with the tendency to have artwork that relies less on the sensual experience and is conceived of as something, yes, to convey information, to set certain mental verbal thoughts going, is to me a loss. I would never tell an artist not to do it. It might be perfect for a certain work of art. But to me it feels like a trend towards losing out on the sensual in deference to the verbal WHEN ONE NEED NOT choose if one has talent. You can convey incredible amounts information AND make something beautiful a broad sense of that term. But to get the skills to make something that is beautiful, you need to train your ass off, not just train your thinky little brainpan.I think in general it shows a trend away from the beautiful, for no good reason, and a desire to have specific thoughts in brains. To me that's what non-fiction books are for or opinion pieces in newpapers.

Imagine listening to a mozart piece and hearing a voice-over saying - this is where you are to picture me running from my father scared.

Oh, someone says, but some songs have lyrics.

Well, right. But those lyrics are works of art. They enter a dynamic with the music, they are not about the music. They are not suggesting how to think about the music, they are part of the piece and worked on for their aesthetic qualities, not just as information. They are part of the flow of the piece.

No one should be limited from using an artists' statement, but I think it is a part of a trend towards not building aesthetic skills and seeing art as a kind of propaganda alone, a message in a bottle, where the bottle matters less and less. I go to watch a film and the director writes that the theme of the film is based on his holding back his true feelings for his father when he was a kid and how toxic not telling the truth is in family relationships. Hell, I might as well get up and leave. Doesn't this guy trust his artwork. Can't I come to that meaning myself. Maybe there is a whole lot of other stuff, even the director is not aware of, and now I will keep finding 'the' theme.

It's on the nose. As in on the nose dialogue. Dialogue with Subtext is vastly superior dialogue.

...because if there is an all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful being, then the answer to every philosophical question becomes "Because God Says". — Banno

If you are that particular kind of theist and you think all philosophical issues have been clarified by that kind of deity in a particular text. And, everyone else is. If you do not have that version of a deity or do not think that the deity has answered al philosophical questions, then there is a lot to discuss. And only more so, if others are not that kind of theist or theists at all. Given that so many issues are not resolved by scripture or revelation, there is tremendous room for discussion. A philosophy of language issues for example - of course it might impinge on scripture and hermeneutics, but then even that's a potential discussion.

Sure, it's a pretty dead end to philosophical discussion, if someone states their position and then supports it with 'God said so' but I rarely see theists, even of the omni-everything type, try to end every discussion with Because God Says, at least not in philosophical forums.

This seems like a kind of cherry picking, and one that could be applied to almost any philosophical position.

As I told Noble Dust, this is all nonsense to me. The artist's act of creating the piece of art is an obvious attempt to affect your "work of art experience". If you reject the artist's statement on this basis, that the artist is attempting to have an affect on your experience of the artwork, then you might as well reject all artwork as well, because that's what artwork is, an attempt to affect your work of art experience — Metaphysician Undercover

I made a much more complicated argument than that and the whole point is that the person is doing it in verbal manner when, most cases, the art form itself is not verbal. I am pretty sure I said this a number of times and then pointed out my specific issues with this. But here you sum me up in a position that is not remotely a charitable interpretation of mine, for example as expressed here...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/383721

And as to this whole rights issue, one which you brought up
it
has
nothing
to
do
with
my
posts.

I never said anything about banning artist's statement. In fact I made it clear that they may be in some instances useful or good. I talked about the problem with the trend and what I see as related trends in contemporary art.

Save all this rights talk for those who are urging for legislation, rather than talking about other issues, including those you ignore when summing up my position in a way that, it seems, you can easily dismiss.

As far as the argument you are giving me, about the 100%, I think that has merit. Though why you didn't chime in immediately with this one, I can't understand. I think I prefer to think of the situation as coagency where the work of art is presented to the view by the artist, in its specificity, and the viewer moves toward the work of art also. And while the viewer does, in a sense, create 100% of the experience of the work of art, since their brains will create this internal model based on stimuli in the work of art, at the same time those stimuli were carefully chosen and arranged in relationships that the brain will automatically parallel, in the relationships in its constructed version. Those 'tools' as you put them, are not utterly malleable and will lead to parallel patterns when they stimulate the processes in the brain that reconstruct the piece of art in the mind. 50% is a bit of a dart toss in the dark and the percentages cover different categories. But for me it is better to think of a cocreation of the experience of a work of art.

Thanks for your unecessarily consdescendingly presented, yet useful, suggestion, but I don't want to go over to the 100 percent camp. I think it is a collaborative creation, at the level of experiencing the work of art.

And I hope you realize that announcing that you have demonstrated something as you did in this last post is sillly. I assume already that you believe in your conclusions and arguments. You argued it, sure.

I think the artist growing dependence on presenting the meaning of their works and what people should think about the contents is part of a trend away from skills and works including sensual AND conceptual aspects, and rather is part of a trend to see art as stimulating verbal thoughts and for people to not spend the time training in and creating sensual experiences. So they overrely on verbal thoughts, and so try to get at even more of the collaboration. I think this has worked fine, especially when new forms of modern and postmodern art, particular types, first arise. Valuable because of contrast to are with more investment in sesual aspects, valuable because they staked new ground. Ground that is being repeated, now with no new memes, generally, and absent beauty (in its broadest sense). And then there were other points Ihave raised in the thread regarding the problems which I see the greater use of artists' statements as a kind of symptom of, but also as something that undermines, when read, a part of many works of arts best possible collaborative experiences. And that knowing one is going to write one these things or is likely to...I think this also creates a kind disincentive to create something that stands on its own.

I'll save my focus in this topic for people who read and refer to my actual positions. And who can actually concede points rather than self-congratulatorily declaring themselves the winner over positions not really put forward. Should there ever be a movement to take away the right for artists to have artist statements near their work, let me know, I will join you in the fight to stop that legislation. Otherwise, bye.

But you can't tell me what I know. — Coben


Of course not. Sorry if anything I wrote sounded like I did. — TheMadFool

No worries...it was this part...

You know very well that an afterlife is essentially thrusting the begging bowl of desire in eternity's face. — TheMadFool

[my emphasis]

Sure, each of us does "an incredible amount of work". But that work is not part of the work of the artist — Metaphysician Undercover

Obviously, but it's a part of the work of art as experienced. I don't think I used the pharse the work of theartist. And in the context of artists statements that inform us about what we are experiencing, this is an obvious attempt to affect our half of creating that work of art experience.

It's analogous to two of us looking at the landscape in front of us. The landscape is beautiful. If I point out a bird, and say "look at that bird at the top of that tree", this does not negate the overall beauty of the landscape — Metaphysician Undercover

That's not a good analogy at all. The analogy would be you telling me, as the creator of the landscape, so a kind of deity, that the bird is the most important thing and it symbolizes my soul or your sexual abuse.

That would completely change my experience of the landscape.

And then, since a landscape, unless it is a landscape painting is not a piece of artwork, it is different in other ways.

Pointing to a portion of what is seen and merely indicating it is nothing like the 'artists describe their work' descriptions I have seen. I think even that would be silly 'look at the bird in my paintings' but that would leave me, still, very much open in my interpretatioins and reactions to the work.

But that's simply wrong, the "work" is the physical piece, not the psychological affect — Metaphysician Undercover

Which we don't experience, the physical piece. We experience what is inspired and triggered in our minds. Taking some sense stimuli, not others, with our attendant emotions and conscious and unconscious associations saturating the experience. If it is representational, then we have associations on a number of levels affecting what we experience and how we experience it. Our eyes scan the painting, say, and do not take in the whole thing at once. We interact and react to the the specific style with a wealth of conscious and mainly unconscious reactions. These experiences are going to be radically different person to person, and much of hard to put into words or even notice.

That is what I am talking about. The experience of the art, not the ding an sich. And that is something each of use does an incredible amount of work, mainly automatically and then alsoc consciously as we investigate portions of the painting and mull and come back to it. Because much of this is automatic and silent, we often think we are passive receivers.

Not at all.

Of course this is true of things in general not just art. Given the complexity of much art, our work is also more complex. And in fact can continue on repeated viewings through an entire lifetime. It will nto look the same in ten years.

You know very well that an afterlife is.... — TheMadFool

Well, actually I don't. But this point is tangential to what I was saying. I was pointing out that this 'meaninglessness' is not present.

As far as the afterlife, I get it. You think this is not possible or exceedingly unlikely. I think that viewpoint is a side effect of a lot of assumptions in what I suppose I could clump as physicalism. But since I have little interest in suddenly getting the onus to demonstrate to you there is an afterlife or might be, I'll leave it that. But you can't tell me what I know.

I'm happy to admit that finding the proper language to express this concept is difficult, and this is leading to confusion, although I get the feeling that you won't be charitable to that fact (I hope I'm wrong); but never the less. When I say "the viewer is 50% of the work", I'm saying that metaphorically, not mathematically. If I was saying it mathematically, clearly I'd be wrong and you would be correct in your critique. — Noble Dust


The point is that when you make claims such as "the viewer is half the work", you need to support these principles. If you support them with faulty math then there is no support. — Metaphysician Undercover

When someone says the viewer is half the work, they don't mean the thing on the wall. They mean the phenomenological work. Which is going to be different for every viewer. Or better put there will be different works of art arising in the interaction between a unique individual and that piece of art. So, this means there is an endless amount of percentage available, each new patron resetting the measure.

The habit of tell people what a work of art means may be just peachy in a specific case, but in general, I think it correlates with a loss of aesthetics, a loss of trust in the artwork itself, an problematic increase in verbal mental experience of art over sensual experience of art. Now, note. With that last contrast, I think these are not mutually exclusive, not at all, and the best art will also stimulate verbal mental thinky stuff. But nowadays we face a tremendous amount of art where the sensual aesthetic qualities are minimal or absent.

I can appreciate many of the modern and postmodern pieces of art, especially when made by great artists who got there first in their niches. Some of this art is low on the sensual scale, but it creates a delightful contrast, when if first arose. But now people copy and stay in these niches and we have whole museums and galleries displaying art that is really just the stimulation of ideas. And it is made by people who have not done the kinds of aesthetic training needed to make something beautiful in the broadest sense - I mean, Francis Bacon or Bosch, etc.

It create thinking, it doesn't really stand on its own.

Descriptions of artworks are part of a trend. Each individual one may be fine, but the trend is towards getting you to think, often politically nowadays, with much less put into the sensual. Precisely because these are not mutually exclusive, this is a great loss.

And hell, we have books, etc, if we want people to primarily think.

So, when you put that 'hey this is what to think' next to your work, you are indeed creating conditions where the viewer may well contribute less to that experiencing of the artwork.

And there was nothing wrong with his math.

Now is a temporal concept. What does it mean to say that the now is, as you say, filled with meaning? I thought we were discussing people and the desire for meaning to life and not a subdivison of time, the now? — TheMadFool

Well, I was responding the framing the issue in terms of time. Note the references to 'when you're dead' 'temporary' and so on in the post I was responding to. So, I responded in terms of time.

To me at a very minimum to say that now is filled with meaning, is that I will experience things as meaningful, at the very least to me and others. it is part of my experience of life.

Also, what you say seems to go against the grain for death seems to be peoples' primary reason for the perceived meaninglessness of life. — TheMadFool

Yes, people have that reaction. I was shifting focus, in that post, to the meaning that is present. One need not follow that line of logic, or 'logic', that even if death is the end of life then there really is no meaning. Because that is letting something imagined, that is not experienced and is not real yet, determine if there is meaning now. And, don't take this as if I think this is necessarily easy to do or I have not sympathy for that line of thought. But it is a line of thought and not necessarily a line one must argue or think.

it's actually eternity that people are clamoring for. — TheMadFool

Sure, but in the name of clamouring for eternity, another thing I certainly empathize deeply with, they are saying that now has no meaning.

Even if life has meaning, this meaning simply floats away into nothingness with the cessation of life which as we all know is a certainty — TheMadFool

Then, regardless, you'll never experience meaninglessness. Because in all moments of experiences things will have meaning to you. Pain, loss of love, love, a new ______ [fill in the blank], unpleasant work, small victories, small set backs, getting a better quaility ice cream cone, really being listened to, being ignored.....

even 'making a good point about meaninglessness in a philosophy forum'

All experience filled for each of us with meaning.

So, what you are talking about, in a future that does not exist, because we are in the present, this meaninglessness, you will not experience, nor will anyone who reads your post, and it does not exist now. Now is filled with meaning.