Edify yourself. — 180 Proof

So, you have no idea what Kant said.

Read Kant's Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime — 180 Proof

If you read it, make his argument.

Cool, so it's more about a rigidity and method. — Tom Storm

Kantian aesthetics never asks, how does it make you feel? They reduce sensations, feelings, emotions to judgments.

When I say "Kantian" I usually mean 'brain-in-a-vat deontology' (narrowly) or 'epistemology-constrained ontology' (broadly). — 180 Proof

Yes, Kant reduces ontology to epistemology.

Indeed, but some may not use such overt language, right? — Tom Storm

Actually, they usually do.

Again, emphasis on formal analysis. Treating the art object as not having practical purpose. Appealing to universality of judgment.

"Kant After Duchamp", by Thierry de Duve. He came to one of my art classes. Talked about Kant.

"As Kant said in the Critique of Judgment...." Another sign of Kantian aesthetics. Pretty exact, actually.

Thoughts? — Tom Storm

When a philosopher says, I am using Kant's theory of art to explain this artwork, they are a Kantian.

No he didn't. God's maximally intelligent. — Bartricks

God told me to tell you to grow up and stop being a child throwing tantrums. God out.

YOu can't debate at all mate. — Bartricks

God just became me. He wants to tell you to lay off the insults. God out.

What? Why are you mentioning Jesus? I don't know. God could make himself into a cat if he wanted. My point is a philosophical one. An omnipotent being can be physical, for an omnipotent being has the power to make himself physical if he so chooses. He wouldn't be omnipotent if he couldn't. — Bartricks

Okay. Cannot debate myth.

No. I am referring to omnipotence. An omnipotent person could make themselves into a physical thing if they wished to. Why? Because they can do anything. — Bartricks

No, as in God did not manifest in physical form as Jesus? Then what would be an example?

God is omnipotent, so if God wanted to he could make himself physical. — Bartricks

You are referring to Jesus, yes?

What are the attributes of a Kantian art critic? — Tom Storm

Formalism. They treat the art object as a physical object and try to derive properties from it.
Disinterest. They get art exactly backwards--it is because we are interested in the world that meaning comes about. Not despite it.
Universal judgment. They think 'subjectivity' is wrong and we must strive to universalize our judgments. Why should a work of art appeal to everybody?!
Beauty is fairly meaningless. Any beauty comes from content; there is no formal beauty.

Are you familiar with the work of art critic Clement Greenberg, a promoter of abstract expressionism? I believe he was a Kantian. It’s interesting that certain formalist tendencies of the modernist period of art seem to be amenable to analysis in Kantian terms. — Joshs

Yes, familiar. I have met Kantian art critics. They really have no idea what artists are actually doing.

This may be the section I was thinking about:
"3. the compulsion to imitate:
This is what distinguishes the artist from laymen (those susceptible to art): the latter reach the high. point of their susceptibility when they receive; the former as they give-so that an antagonism between these two gifts is not only natural but desirable. The perspectives of these two states are opposite: to
demand of the artist that he should practice the perspective of the audience (of the critic-) means to demand that he should impoverish himself and his creative power. Our aesthetics hitherto has been a woman's aestheticsto the extent that only the receivers of art have formulated their experience of "what is beautiful?" In all philosophy hitherto the artist is lacking."(Will to Power; #811)

Well, we are 230 years removed from the 1790’s. Our best contemporary philosophy will probably look as idiotic a couple of centuries from now n — Joshs

No, I mean Kant was wrong when he wrote it. He barely mentions art works at all. Analytic aesthetics today still follows Kant.

Schopenhauer made use of the Kantian version of the aesthetic problem, – although he definitely did not view it with Kantian eyes. Kant intended to pay art a tribute when he singled out from the qualities of beauty those which constitute the glory of knowledge: impersonality and universality. Whether or not this was essentially a mistake is not what I am dealing with here; all I want to underline is that Kant, like all philosophers, just considered art and beauty from the position of ‘spectator',instead of viewing the aesthetic problem through the experiences of the artist (the creator), and thus inadvertently introduced the ‘spectator'himself into the concept ‘beautiful'.” (Genealogy of Morality, third essay) — Joshs

Yeah, pretty good. I have been a practicing artist (painter) about 30 years and find Kant completely idiotic when he talks about art.

↪Jackson
https://philpapers.org/s/god — Nickolasgaspar

Thanks.

Just open a Philosophical Journal — Nickolasgaspar

Do you have a particular journal you can reference?

Given his training as a philologist it seems likely than Nietzsche make the connection with the etymological meaning of aesthetic, to perceive, although no passage comes to mind in support of this. Perception is an act of will. That is, not simply what is passively given or received, but what is made, a creative act. — Fooloso4

I cannot remember the section, I thought it was Will to Power. But he explicitly makes a distinction between the aesthetics of making art and reception of art.

2. In 2017 a study was published showing that we are not living in a simulation. — Nickolasgaspar

While I don't find this topic all that interesting, the point is that if we were in a simulation we would not be able to determine it one way or another.

3. The problem is that philosophers still believe that god is a philosophical subject... — Nickolasgaspar

What philosophers? Certainly there are a few, but they write more for a religious audience.

Jackson, being about as useful as Anne Frank's drum-kit, f — praxis

Will you people writing constant insults please get some manners!

Clear aa mud. "Free"? — 180 Proof

Back at you!

Depends on what you mean by "free". — 180 Proof

First, I reject scientific determinism. It has never been proven true. So, by free I mean according to that theory there is no freedom of any kind.

Why do philosophers talk about life when we have already answered that question. Why philosophers talk about the universe being a simulation when we have disproved that claim since 2017?
Why philosophers still talk about god or the supernatural when we have proven unnecessary and insufficient for more than 400 years? — Nickolasgaspar

What is the answer to the question of life?
What was that proof in 2017?
What philosophers are talking about God?

Can someone’s words make you commit violence? — NOS4A2

Yes. Trials for these insurrectionists are arguing exactly that.

“Imagine”…this is all the censor can do, imagine a future in which speech inflicts harm, corrupts the youth, but in all likelihood merely conflicts with his own views. — NOS4A2

Trump using violence is hardly a trivial matter. His speech incites the violence and it is deliberate. By the way, new here. Are most people in England?

There’s plenty of reasons why Socrates ought not have been censored, and his views tolerated. — NOS4A2

Socrates was challenging the authority of the state, Athens. It was intentional. They gave him the opportunity to stop and he refused. Was Athens right? Maybe, maybe not. But imagine the harm done by Mr Trump saying our election system cannot be trusted.

I think the old, Newtonian model of determinism has been replaced by the quantum mechanical model.
Absolute determinism is replaced with randomness or probability.

I was curious how (or if) metaphysical naturalists reconcile a universe governed by only natural laws with free will.
— Paulm12
Usually most of us "reconcile" them via compatibilism. — 180 Proof

Doesn't that make the idea of physical law and determinism incoherent? The universe is deterministic and free?

I thought that’s what I did say. No help? — praxis

Sorry, my mistake. I posted that passage to show that Aristotle's idea of art is treat it as producing things. Not just entertainment.

I was never good with Greek riddles. — praxis

Riddle? Just say you did not understand it.

Art for art’s sake, if that’s your meaning, predates FN. — praxis

The idea that art is about production goes back to Aristotle:

"Now action is for the sake of an end; therefore the nature of
things also is so. Thus if a house, e.g., had been a thing made by nature, it would
have been made in the same way as it is now by art; and if things made by nature
were made not only by nature but also by art, they would come to be in the same
way as by nature. The one, then, is for the sake of the other; and generally art in
some cases completes what nature cannot bring to a finish, and in others imitates
nature." (Aristotle, Physics; 199a9-19)

Notice, "art...completes what nature cannot bring to a finish."

All major figures in Continental philosophy since 1800 are Kantian in a certain sense, and generally acknowledge that fact — Joshs

Maybe. But Hegel is at least as influential.

Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger, for starters. — Joshs

Sure, no problem.
But I'll take Hume over Kant. Kant is more influential in analytic philosophy, but I think Hume is correct and refutes Kant. Kant just normalizes the conventions of science.

But the term ‘revolutionary’ is still quite
commonly used in science and philosophy. Is this different from ‘radical’? — Joshs

What philosophers do you call revolutionary?

Who would you use it for? A scientist? Technologist? Political theorist? Are radical politics not radical? — Joshs

In all seriousness, the only people talking about "radical" are conservatives. Not that you are conservative, but the term seems to be pejorative. Or, that a thinker's ideas are so original that they are named radical. But this seems to be more from the popular mind.

I dont know about that. Of course there is always a history to be referred back to , but philosophy is transformative rather than cumulative. — Joshs

I would never use the word "radical" to describe any philosopher.