Art for art’s sake is not art then? That can’t be right, can it? — praxis

Not sure what you're saying. Art for art's sake was a motto for decorative art.

How is human existence "all for nothing"? My wife and children's and friends' existence is not all for nothing. Their existence everything to me, and if one's existence is everything to just one, then their existence cannot be all for nothing. — Harry Hindu

"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune," as the Bard said.

Start a thread on art and beauty if you haven't already. This is for another discussion — Tom Storm

bye

I don't think it is wrong. It's just not my definition. I generally prefer not to make totalizing statements when it comes to aesthetics. Someone could come along and explain what beauty means in a much fuller, richer intergrated way that I can have imagined. Just saying... — Tom Storm

We are different. I actually have studied those claims about beauty. They are wrong. Every opinion is not correct because one opines.

Agree. I have seen that anger too. The reason this subject sets people off is that there is often an implicit assumption that art has a higher status than craft. Maybe a remnant of Platonism. I do not have a definition of art but Ive generally held that art's primary job is providing an aesthetic experience. But Clarky would prefer us not to get stuck in this particular bog again. — Tom Storm

As I said, reducing aesthetics to beauty is wrong.

Are they everyday crafted objects which have transcended their status is some way? Or are do they embody a kind of dualism of purpose - equally both art and craft? — Tom Storm

I have been an artist about 35 years. Crafts people get angry when you say it is not art. I don't see the problem. Art is not about beauty, it is about making objects which convey meaning.

You should be thanking me. I made you smarter today. I’ll stop doing it. — Moses

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The core of it is tribalism, a survival strategy, and though religion may be the most potent expression of this it exists in many forms. — praxis

Tribalism always entails the enemy as the outsider.

Your post isn't based upon empirical fact, but it is a speculative etiological myth, written to provide you a better understanding of your world. You just did what you objected to the religious as having done, only the stories of the religious are better thought out, more interesting, and filled with more wisdom. — Hanover

The Big Bang is infinitely more inspiring than God did it. Not because science is more true, but it gives an explanation we can use. God causing the universe explains nothing.

Skepticism says there’s a real world external to our conceptions but we have no way of verifying the fidelity of our conceptions with that reality.
Postmodern authors say that we are always directly in touch with reality in the form of changing contextual webs of relations in which we participate. Within these webs there can be relative stability of intelligibility and ‘truth’. — Joshs

I don't find "postmodern" to be one thing. Too vague.

It does not begin with Plato or Christianity. Read your old books. — Moses

Gosh.

Then you're arguments are missing an important detail. Why? If it's not that the way you see the world is true, then why would I want to see it that way, what's in it for me? — Isaac

That might be the case. If postmodernism is presented as just skepticism, there would be no reason to have standards of truth.

Sure, their power relies on us not understanding, what else are they supposed to tell us? Why does religion still hold humanity in its grasp and why is it so hard for most people to see through obvious truths? — enqramot

There is nothing wrong with myth. But you cannot use myth when good explanations exist.

What is meaningless about human existence? Maybe it's the conception of meaninglessness that is the distraction from just getting on with life and creating your own purposes and meanings. — Harry Hindu

Agree, good point.

If we are a product of the universe, and the universe is not dumb, where does the error of believing in an eternal soul come from? — Angelo Cannata

Plato and Christianity.

There you go, being all grouchy and sarcastic and dismissive and stuff. — T Clark

Sorry, I forgot to agree with everything you say.

So, you don't care. ok.

Sin is just more Christian fascism. A sadistic-masochistic concept.

The idea of an eternal soul says we came into the universe. It suggests we are not a part of nature, but spiritual visitors in a material world. Thus, the only world we know is depreciated. Matter is dumb and “there must be something more.” And the environment suffers abuse. — Art48

Good analysis. This error began with Plato and institutionalized by Christianity.

"Of or concerning the appreciation of beauty." — T Clark

Oh. Why do you think art is only about beauty?

This gets to the heart of it for me. If you believe, as I do, that art is anything made to be judged aesthetically, how do you classify things that are made to be useful, comfortable, and reliable for which aesthetics is secondary at most? — T Clark

What you do you mean by "aesthetics?"

Yes, I'm sure skill is important to you as an artist, but is there art you would call good for which not much skill is needed? I point back to my post on visionary art. — Clarky

Skill is just the means to make the work. But you have to know what to make.

Aristotle and Plato had great respect for the poets. So calling it "craft" or "art" really is not an important distinction.

This brings to mind modern or conceptual art. People say “Anyone could do that.” I have a certain amount of sympathy for that position. — Clarky

Anyone can be a philosopher, right? "I think the world was created by God." Doesn't make you a philosopher. Equally, "I can splash paint on a canvas," does not make you an artist.

I never said that. — punos

I said it. Why the text has my name on it.

I personally have an active concern for the state of human evolution, my vision goes beyond the bubble of the self. I accept that you see it differently.. ultimately it's not your fault. — punos

The purpose of the universe is not to make humans happy. Many people do not like that.

I didn't find them very compelling either. — Tzeentch

Ok.

I wonder what would happen if we apply such a standard for morality more widely: as long as people don't violently extract themselves from a situation by suicide, whatever I did to them must be ok. — Tzeentch

I am afraid, then, I do not know what you are arguing for.

Is that really all you have in favor of your argument? — Tzeentch

Yes.

What is extreme about it? — Tzeentch

Aren't you advocating that people should not procreate? Did I miss your point?

then it begs the question why one feels the need to put more people into existence in the first place. — Tzeentch

No one has to live. You don't like the planet, leave. Seriously.

If your argument is that "if you don't like it, just commit suicide", you'll excuse me if I don't find that very compelling. — Tzeentch

Why? Your position is more extreme.

Secondly, "a flat tire" represents an objective problem with an easy solution, whereas the problems and suffering that people experience, indeed the worst kinds, are often neither objective nor easily solvable. — Tzeentch

Hamlet: To be or not to be. No one has to live. The idea the world is supposed to make you happy is the problem.

Here is an alternative: instead of trying to keep people from procreating because of occasional suffering, or potential harm, would it not be better to try to make the world a better place with less suffering, and less potential for harm? — punos

Yes. It's like trashing your car because of a flat tire.

Some things to think about... — jasonm

Not sure what you're saying.

Agreed. All the universe does is create higher and higher intelligent systems. — punos

Yes, and greater complexity.

intelligence is i think more primary than consciousness, so i probably agree with you there. And yes you don't need biology to have a thinking system. These things are substrate independent or agnostic. — punos

The universe itself is an intelligent system.

It won't be human consciousness it will be something of a higher form. — punos

Key is intelligence, not consciousness. You do not need human biology to have a thinking system.

One can be messed up with or without drugs. As I see it, drugs and intoxicants may enhance the basics of perception, experience and interpretation, for better or worse. — Jack Cummins

Everything in moderation. As true today as when Aristotle said it.

The US conducted a protracted global holocaust in the wake of 9/11. There is no chance that that mindless murder does not work its way back in the form of children shooting other children in the face in school, en masse, among other things. — Streetlight

That is what I think, yes.