I would make the distinction between what is experienced, in the sense of what happens to someone, and how it is experienced, in the sense of how one responds or is affected you what happens. Both the what and the how are part of experience. — Fooloso4

As a social being I understand that others see me as a type. I know others may see me as a type. But I do not experience the world as a type. I am not really disagreeing with you, but I think experience is mostly how I see the world, not just how I am treated as a type.

I don't follow. How is being on the receiving end of such discrimination not an experience of discrimination? — Fooloso4

I don't experience myself that way, it is just an event. I know this seems to trivialize discrimination, but there is a distinction to be made between things that happen and my experience of the world.

That is not always the case. You are conflating an ideal with reality. The fact of the matter is that prejudice has not been eliminated. A white man in the US will not experience this discrimination when buying a house or applying for a loan or applying for a job or being stopped for a motor vehicle check. — Fooloso4

Yes, but I don't think that is what "experience" means.

Have you ever taken a basic ethics course? Lol. — chiknsld

A shame you write insults. Not responding.

I actually completely disagree with Kant's deontological ethics and take the completely opposite side with Aristotle's teleological ethics. — chiknsld

Aristotle's ethics are not teleological. Sometimes called virtue ethics, it is just about better ways to act. It is empirical or observable in that we look at other people who seem happy and model their behaviors.
Greedy, petty, people like Trump are not happy and power mad.

I’m saying the approach to art up through the 1700’s was based on mimesis, even when constructing purposes and ideals. The concept of mimesis was brought into question as philosophy and art stopped believing that perception is correspondence of the mind with an independently existing world. — Joshs

Alberti defines painting as a "projection of lines and colours onto a surface", (On Painting, Alberti, 1435).

http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/old-masters/alberti-leon-battista.htm

I’m saying the approach to art up through the 1700’s was based on mimesis, even when constructing purposes and ideals. The concept of mimesis was brought into question as philosophy and art stopped believing that perception is correspondence of the mind with an independently existing world. — Joshs

I don't agree with that about art. Seriously, artists always knew what they were doing was fake. If people wanted to commission portraits they wanted a realistic likeness. As I was saying, perspective used by Renaissance artists was self-consciously fake precisely because it was a mathematical/systematic structuring of space.

The postmodern world is led by philosophy , with the sciences being slowly dragged into it kicking and screaming. — Joshs

Can you say more about that? Led to where?

Art for Aristotle is a representation of ideals, but artists must accurately portray reality to be successful, so overall it is mimetic. — Joshs

So art, tragedies, copy an action and is imitative that way. Not ideals, but actions or plots. You're not imitating something that happened, you're constructing purposes for why they happened that way.

There are of course modern concepts of perception and they continue to develop as we learn more about the world and ourselves.

It's unclear what you mean by "direct impressing of the world upon the mind". It seems to mean that ancient people could only record their perceptions and therefore their art could only be representational. If I'm not mistaken, some of the oldest art known is thought to be depictions of some kind of mother-earth spirit. Sculptures of a subject that they didn't actually perceive with their senses. — praxis

Religious relics used for worship, for example.

if you go back far enough in time, art was thought of as just the direct impressing of the world upon the mind. So yes, the modern concept of perception is an invention. — Joshs

Going back to ancient world. For Aristotle, sense perception (aesthesis) cannot take place without the imagination (phantasia).(De Anima). So we can imagine things without sensing them, but cannot perceive things without the imagination.

Once upon a time art was conceived as mimesis , imitation. There wasn’t really a concept of perception as interpretation as we accept it to be today. if you go back far enough in time, art was thought of as just the direct impressing of the world upon the mind. So yes, the modern concept of perception is an invention. — Joshs

"art in some cases completes what nature cannot bring to a finish, and in others imitates
nature." (Aristotle; Physics, 199a15)

By mimesis Aristotle means both imitating/copying and producing/creating.

Once upon a time art was conceived as mimesis , imitation. There wasn’t really a concept of perception as interpretation as we accept it to be today. if you go back far enough in time, art was thought of as just the direct impressing of the world upon the mind. So yes, the modern concept of perception is an invention. — Joshs

It is in Aristotle. Mimesis means both invention and copying. I have the exact passage if you want it.

So the impressionists were beginning to take seriously the contribution of the perceiver to what is perceived. — Joshs

Art has always been about how things are perceived. No one invented that.

And what movements within the art world expressed this critique of the clockwork universe? — Joshs

I honestly do not know about this. Please tell me.

What philosophical and scientific innovation made it new? — Joshs

For Leonardo, and the Renaissance, it was about the end of seeing the world--quite literally--as an expression of the Divine (God). As I said, perspective was an invention of Italian architects trying to figure out how to build a dome and place it on top of a building--and where someone would stand on the plaza viewing it.

You sound more like an engineer than an artist. — Joshs

I am, and have been, a painter. All about how we see. The sensations and what they make us think about.

How does the sensual appear in DaVinci’s Last Supper and why is the perspective such a spectacularly powerful element of the drama? — Joshs

Because the geometry of a picture plane was new. Using the abstract math of architecture was a new thing.

remember reading a description by an art critic of a work
of abstract art that consisted of a series of geometric shapes. The critic argued that these shapes captured some sort of deep essence , some transcendental
truth , underlying sensory appearances. Why would the artist assume there would be such an underlying order? — Joshs

If you can't remember the critic or artist it is hard to discuss this. The artist Frank Stella used to say, "What you see is what you see."

remember reading a description by an art critic of a work
of abstract art that consisted of a series of geometric shapes. The critic argued that these shapes captured some sort of deep essence , some transcendental
truth , underlying sensory appearances. Why would the artist assume there would be such an underlying order?
Because Kant showed that whatever contingent causal
concatenation of sensations we experience in visual perception, we cannot assume that visual experience presents us with a direct truth. The renaissance artists seem to have had absolute faith in such a truth. This is why it was so important for them to render precisely and faithfully the perspectival facts of a painting. One could get close to the mind of God by disclosing the rational
logic of the visually appearing world.
But Kant told us that the only direct truths in a visual scene are the inborn categories of perception that puts the world together for us in terms of causality, space and time. So one could imagine the abstract painter
‘abstracting’ from the contingent details of a scene these underlying categories in the guise of geometrical
forms. The real truth of a scene is in its deep categorical structure. — Joshs

Maybe. But, really, I don't agree with any of that. Art is about the sensual. Kant never understood that.

There is no need for an example, censorship is well known method with a well known outcome. — SpaceDweller

Weird.

threat to free speech is not so much extremism as it is censorship and propaganda.
It's difficult to define the scope of extremism when censorship and propaganda play major role. — SpaceDweller

Can you give an example of censorship?

Great art isn’t just application of extant theory, it is the creation of new theory, a new vision. — Joshs

Not sure what that means.

Significant movements in art are not about merely reshuffling old technical concepts but offering a new vision. — Joshs

Vision is a function of the technical. Nothing to do with "reshuffling." For example, Space in paintings was fairly flat. Not because they did not know how to paint a 'realistic' human form, but that the intention was more symbolic.

Are you saying that all of the philosophy that came after Hume, as a critical reaction to his thinking and the era he belonged to, was wrong about him? — Joshs

What, specifically?

I haven’t read much on Hume in relation to modern art , but so far I’m having no luck finding any writings connecting him to cubism
or any other trend toward abstraction in art. We could analyze why that might be. — Joshs

Hume believed continuity of physical objects is an illusion and our perceptions are really of discrete objects or events. He had a digital idea of perception much like today. Hume anticipated film, which is discrete images in motion.

There certainly must have been a dawning realization that something intervenes between our experience of the world and the world itself, such that it became increasing important to capture this something rather than a photographic copy of reality. — Joshs

Cubism came about in response to impressionism and the flattening out of the picture plane. Perspective was a deliberate construction of visual/optical perception of space--it originated in architecture around 1500.

Cubist paintings took the idea of frontal, optical perception and created a geometry of the picture plane. A cube is a spatial object--a die--that when looked at does not show its back. The idea was to paint an object from all perspectives.

So, cubism is about how the picture plane is presented.

No offense, but I never read stuff just because someone posts it quoting someone. Make an argument.

Recognizing that thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. This is a realization you will not find in Descartes through Hume. — Joshs

All thought is perception for Hume. And thus content.

In fact, I would argue that in for for an artist to express a more developed worldview in their art, they must pass through a ‘Kantian’ stage. — Joshs

What is that exactly?

Also, relationship is important. I am something different to my brother than I am to myself, something else again to my wife, something else again to my pet, to my boss, to my food animals, and so on. You might argue that we are largely relational, not really being anything in ourselves. — petrichor

Your whole comment was very good, thank you.

Hume's critique of identity is that everything is relational. A hand is five fingers but we call it one thing, a hand. We are many different things to different people and even to ourselves.

Nothing could go wrong when the State has the right to determine historical truth and to punish dissent from it. — NOS4A2

Whole world, every historian, says the Armenian Genocide is fact. There is no controversy. Just Turkey lying about their responsibility.

I'd guess that his point was to "modernize" the philosophy. To make it compatible with the modern scientific world view. — waarala

Yes, and he was wrong. Science does not explain anything but purely physical movements.

I could imagine that Kant's philosophy could make stupid people at least a little bit smarter. — waarala

Kant is like an engineer explaining all the parts in great detail. But you're left with: Yes, but what is the point?

I think there is good ideas in his thinking. His basic natural scientific standpoint is not mine though. — waarala

I find Kant's influence to be mostly negative. It makes smart people stupid.

My point isn't that speech must be censored, but that there's no "right" to say whatever one wants, no matter how stupid, offensive, malicious, bigoted it may be. — Ciceronianus

France has laws making it illegal to lie about the Armenian Genocide happening.. This is because Turkey spreads lies and propaganda and denies they committed genocide.

If you don't mind me asking, how does that play out in ordinary life? — Tom Storm

Good. My question as well.

In theoretical philosophy, a Kantian maintains a view that there is necessary apriori structures of thought or understanding which order or form our experience of the sensuous world. And that these apriori structures or conceptual schemes are real only when they function in this way i.e. are conditioning the empirical or spatial-temporal experience. This means that a Kantian is a transcendental idealist who is also an empirical realist :) — waarala

Pretty good summary of Kant. And I don't agree with Kant at all.

No argument needed. — 180 Proof

Exactly. You gave no argument.

I corrected your misstatement about Kant. — 180 Proof

I missed that. Post your refutation. Telling someone to go read something is not an argument.