You first claim "art" is a form of language. Meaning it can be fully, or at least sufficiently experienced by those who are limited to such (say, the blind). Yet, people who can see enjoy art and visual experiences, they consider this a staple of the human experience. Do you disagree? — Outlander

What I mean is that all language is a form of poetry to the extent it is an abstraction of reality highly influenced by perspective and comparitive evaluation (i.e. metaphor). Along with this expansive view of language, I accept art as language, as being a form of communication formed through symbolism to communicative thought.

Your need to isolate visual art as being of some special category of art that needs to be discussed is elusive as is your need to protect the blind from what you envision are attacks on their limitations.

It's just an alien concept exclusive to those who have perfect or otherwise functional vision — Outlander

I don't see how you derived that from what I said. The blind can have feelings of beauty, but obviously not from what they see. The question was what was consistent within the term "beauty" that makes it apply across all uses of the term beauty (which could include written essays, sunsets, music, or whatever).

For some reason in this thread I have this post of yours quoted, so I'll include surely it only ages to show my point. For shame! — Outlander

I really don't follow how I've been incosistent is arguing that all language offers some degree of metaphor and then in my asking for a definition of beauty that allows it to apply across diverse experiences. I might generously read in that you're suggesting if art is omnipresent in communication than beauty must also be (which might be true if all art must contain beauty), but that hardly is contradicted by my asking for a definition of art.

But seriously, don’t you ever read a legal argument or decision that you think is beautiful, wonderful. I do. — T Clark

As if all you have to say is "but seriously" and that will somehow keep me on task?

But seriously, I think you're using the term "beautiful" here in a pretty broad way, so maybe a legal argument could be beautiful, but not like a sunset. This issue isn't a small one because the definition of "beauty" is obviously central to aesthetics and this whole conversation.

So, define "beauty" so that the term makes sense in claiming a legal brief is beautiful in some way as is a sunset beautiful so that the term can be applied to both. I would think the similarity would rest somewhere in the feeling evoked from both, but I'm not really sure.

What saith Collingswood on it?

So here's a fairly comprehensive article on the issue, drawing the distinction between market restrictions on free speech and governmental ones. The latter receive First Amendment protections and it's what made Carr's comments so troubling. https://reason.com/2025/09/18/brendan-carr-flagrantly-abused-his-powers-to-cancel-jimmy-kimmel/

This is from Reason, a libertarian, anti-regulatory organization.

I saw Ben Shapiro arguing the validity of Kimmel's cancelation, trying to argue it was organic, arising over outrage over Kimmel's comments and spiraling ratings, but that argument can't be made with any credibility, considering Carr's mafioso comments ("we can do this the easy way or hard way").

The NYT I believe has now been told it must receive approval from the Pentagon before publishing DOD articles, but it has refused.

While I understand this id just more of an expression of Trump's need for complete control, it's counter to basic conservative principles and wholly unnecessary. Trumpians ignore any outlet critical of him, so silencing Kimmel was nothing but a petty win against someone who had no effect on Trump.

But the president and government agencies threatening to revoke their critics’ licenses is a different matter entirely. — Michael

Yeah, there's a huge difference between the two.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/ted-cruz-fcc-brendan-carr-jimmy-kimmel-goodfellas-trump/

For what it’s worth, I’ve also found beauty in well thought out and well written legal decisions. — T Clark

I just wrote what I consider a most beautiful work of art. It argued that the condominium covenants did not bind the association to protect against water heater leaks from individual units, but that obligation rested entirely with the individual unit owners. It was a work so maginficent, it made the Sistine Chapel look like a steaming pile of cat shit.

I don't live under any illusions. Anti-semitism, racism, bigotry, various brands of phobias exist all too frequently, and we remain suspicious of those unlike us. This isn't to offer an excuse, but it's just the reality that one has to accept to get along in the world. Everyone is Archie Bunker. Lovable and not so lovable given the right day.

But Jews are a diverse group. There are a thousand miles of difference between Hannah Einbinder (look her up), Netanhyahu, and Menachem Schneerson (look him up) and many others. There were in fact many openly communist Jews and many are very liberal, but many like Hanover (look him up), not so much.

If your objective it to make me remove Kirk from the Saint list, I never put him there, but if it's to have some understanding for those who felt a fleeting sense of joy at his having been shot in the neck, you'll be wasting your time. Sympathy for the devil is one of the highest sins.

I have made the argument that there is beauty in a set of construction specifications. — T Clark

I find beauty in the diversity of personalities, including those so boring they find beauty in blueprints.

My view is that the way to deal with people like Kirk is to engage them reasonably. — Baden

But of course, and while I appreciate you have other things you'd like to do, you might want to listen to Kirk a bit (if you haven't) to really see where he stood. He was not a firebrand and he really didn't spew hatred in the sense that I think some on the left think he did. He represented, to be sure, a distateful element for the left, but he was pretty much a rank and file devout Christian who spoke the tenants of his faith. He did not suggest anyone should kill or hate. That was not his message. And this isn't me defending his Christian views because I don't hold them.

The secular "religious" view holds the protection of homosexual and transsexual rights in very high regard and it also places a very high priority on things like climate change. I can respect these views, as I can of any other highly prioritized view among a group, but those holding these secular views have to reflect upon the fact that a war for their cause is no different than any other holy war one might want to declare. What also has to be remembered is that the views I've itemized are not the views of your grandparents and maybe not your parents, meaning they are extremely new in terms of what we typically accept as societal norms. Villifying someone who hasn't adopted the morality du jour, even if it should one day prove itself worthy of eternal acceptance, is not a realistic response to someone not being as receptive to change as you might be.

My point here is just that I see nothing but unmitigated tragedy in Kirk's death, unreduced an iota that he might have held views conflicting with my own. The world is a worse place for his death. Period. This view is a largely held one, and it's why those who hold otherwise are being cast aside daily as unfit for civil discourse. Whether that is the proper response or not might be a question, but condemning them is not.

Language itself or how language is used? Do you have a favourite aesthetic experience out of poetry, painting, architecture or nature? — Tom Storm

That's right, there was some ambiguity there. My position was that language is any form of communication and that all forms of communication are representative, metaphoric, non-specific, and infused with personal perspective. That is, the line between what we designate as poetic and literal is arbitrary and that all is poetic at some level.

That's what I meant.

Maybe that's what @t clark meant as well, although he could just be saying that certain linguistic forms (but not all) are artistic, like poetry, music or the like.

But to your question asking whether one might have a favorite aesthetic experience, I think that's a valid question, but I would go as far as to say that everything provides an aesthtetic experience. Of course, this theory of mine isn't entirely developed and it could make no sense at some level, but that's my instinctive response.

I did find these quotes from Wittgenstein, where he apparently disagrees with my analysis:

"Do not forget that a poem, although it is composed in the language of information, is not used in the language-game of giving information."

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Zettel

"Philosophy ought really to be written only as a form of poetry. (Philosophie dürfte man eigentlich nur dichten.)"

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value

This suggests a poem, in being for a different purpose, is a different sort of language game. I can accept that different sentences might be for different purposes, but I can't see where the poetic game must be different than the literal game in all instances. That is, a poem can be used to give information, and I don't know how to work through what counts as "information" and what doesn't.

That is, there can be more beauty in an analytical essay than a limerick.

Perhaps your point is more about the misuse of an expression rather than an argument that it not be used at all. — Banno

Possibly, but the bigger point being advanced here seems to be that the term "hate speech" is a lab created neologism designed for the purpose of denigrating one's opponent's political positions as being evil or shameful.

That is, under this description, if someone condemns transsexualsim, referring to that as "hate speech" is just a politically expedient way of shutting down the coversation as off limits in civil society.

The argument would therefore be that "hate speech" is not an otherwise useful term being misused, but that it's a term designed for misuse, a special tool to shut down one's opponents, especially as applied to values advanced by liberal progressives but disputed by conservatives.

While the UN might have a definition that limits the term in a way that should reduce its misuse, that doesn't impact how the term is typically used in the vernacular which is, of course, how it is commonly used, which is therefore what it commonly means.

Being told therefore that I might be engaging in hate speech might mean something serious or it might just mean my opinion is being vetoed as non-compliant with certain community standards.

Well I totally wasn't fishing for compliments, but I expect you are, so - the feeling is entirely mutual. Nothing wrong with our mirrors, eh? Like a little echo chamber of love and admiration, we are. — unenlightened

No, really I wasn't. I was just maintaining my view of the infinite worth of all people, even those who might deny it. Just because the assessment might be of yourself doesn't mean you can question the inherent value of any human.

God's little children have value even if they think they don't and even if driven to such beliefs by humility.

Thanks to the association of particular images and recollections, a dog reacts in a similar manner to the similar particular impressions his eyes or his nose receive from this thing we call a piece of sugar or this thing we call an intruder; he does not know what is 'sugar' or what is 'intruder'. — The Cultural Impact of Empiricism

What scientific study does he cite for this empirical claim? If my dog goes and gets a ball when I say "go get your ball," even new balls not previously seen, have I disproved his claim by showing the dog's understanding of categories? If not, what evidence disproves his claim?

It wouldn't affect me in the slightest if I didn't exist; but look at all the pearls of wisdom the forum would be lacking! A tragedy to contemplate and thank providence we have avoided. — unenlightened

Well, it wouldn't affect you because there'd be no you to affect, so there's that.

While I know you're being sarcastic, I will say that your not being here would profoundly matter.

I once remarked to a female friend about the lack of females on a philosophy forum. — Jack Cummins

It's because men and women are different beyond simple anatomical differences.

Who sees it differently? Please correct me. — Roke

Hate I suppose is in the eye of the beholder, to a point. I mean "I hate you" is pretty clear, and you could substitute "you" for all sorts of ethnicities, religions and whatever else and that'd be hate speech.

The question isn't so much what we call certain speech, but what we do about it. The line you cross in illegalizing certain types of speech is in suppressing free speech, so I would tend to defer to allowing more sorts of speech than others. That doesn't mean I can't otherwise be socially punished by my speech because speech has consequences.

So, whether you think anti-trans talk is hate speech or you think anti-Kirk talk is hate speech is up to you, and I don't think in either instance should someone be criminally punished for either of them. But, I do expect you might lose your job or social standing if you engage in certain types of speech (call it hate speech or not), but we can all choose which people we want to hate us by what we choose to say.

Maybe if you're really wondering what might be hate speech, instead of asking yourself whether you are hateful in saying it, ask yourself whether you expect others to hate you for saying it and then you can decide whether you want to be hated. Some people do, especially if they can get the people they already hate to hate them back even more. That's a fairly common game.

They stress that language is not primarily a system of communication, but a system of thought. Communication is a secondary use of an internal capacity for structuring and manipulating concepts. Animal communication systems (e.g., vervet alarm calls) are qualitatively different, not primitive stages of language. — Wayfarer

So if I seperate out propositions from sentences, where a proposition is knowledge of an event (e.g. the cat is on the mat) and a sentence is the linguistic representation of that knowledege "The cat is on the mat," it seems reasonable a dog would know the cat is on the mat (i.e. possess the propositional knowlege), but not be able to linguistically form it into a sentence (or utterance). My question then is if the dog had propositional knowledge, then he is engaging in thought, and the dog might also know that if he tries to sit on the mat next to the cat he will be swatted. Is this then the distinction you're drawing between humans and animals just that humans are unusual in that they use sentences to express their thoughts where animals do not?

Or, does my problem rest in the assumption made by cognitive scientists that a proposition can exist without a sentence? If that is my error, how is it best argued do you think? It does seem propositional knowledge can exist without a sentence.

People do not think in English or Chinese or Apache; they think in a language of thought.

Pinker's (and Fodor's) theory of mentalese, which is that there is a primordial language pre-existing the creation of utterances or symbols is controversial and not well accepted. It's generally accepted though that an experience can exist without language and that experience might precede reduction to language, but that doesn't suggest the pre-existing experience was some sort of primordial language, but only suggests there are experiences that pre-exist language.

My point is that your quote is of a position that is generally challenged and not widely held.

Collingwood says the purpose of art is to express the artist’s experience. Our goal in looking at art is to try to share that same experience with them. — T Clark

My view of art is that it is a form of language, and the expression through painting is just another way of speaking, writing, or grunting.

The above comment therefore is a work of art, hopefully acheiving the goal of your sharing the experience I had of thinking it.

Each person has some significant role in history and the development of ideas. — Jack Cummins

But there are those who live and die in anonymity and some live even less than a day, and I'd still be as committed to their significance. This just means we needn't search for what they've done to make themselves worthy, but that their worth is inherent, part of their being. That each person is infinitely valuable requires that you offer them room to live out their lives, not placing yourself in front of them and so it demands respect of others.

You can either accept what I'm saying just as part of your worldview or faith, or you can ask yourself the pragmatic question as to what would be gained to evaluate each of us as but an interesting conclusion to billions of years of evolution, no more or less significant than any other random assortment of stuff.

EDIT: I am not saying America is Nazi Germany etc etc, only that it being a murder is not the end of the argument but the beginning. — Baden

This is, candidly, absurd. Nazis systematically herded 6 million Jews to death camps, gassed them, and set their remains on fire with the aim of bringing about thei extinction of their race. Kirk talked on campuses and held views inconsistent with yours.

The question of self defense, with its well developed jurisprudence related to reasonable force, protection from imminent harm, etc offers an easy enough way to distinguish taking a sniper shot at Kirk versus Hitler, ,assuming you were otherwise blind to the other glaring differences.

As an aside, since it matters so little to me exactly where he fell on the political spectrum in terms of his simple expression of his views as not grounds to murder him, I do not agree with the casual villification of Kirk. I saw him as a kind hearted sort with a sincere Christian faith, with views obviously inconsistent with my own on a variety of topics, but not the evil incarnate he's being painted as.

I respect the unhappiness it brings to have questioned the ethical propriety of one's sexual or gender preference, which is hardly distinct from those telling me Jews like me are destined to hell for my beliefs, but that doesn't justify my declaration of victimhood and my right to lash out. The world is full of disagreement and the anti-social way a murderer handles that isn't cause to reassess whether the anti-social psychopaths might have it right.

What this strikes me then is not a legitimate philosophical question as to whether Kirk's murder constituted self-defense, but instead in his opponents searching for some possible mitigation in the evil iof his murder. As in, a hateful bastard who is killed for his hate can't be just like this murder of Mother Thersa. Well it is. The rule is not to do unto others as you think they would have done unto you.

Are you suggesting that conscious beings actually turn the pages of time? or would it be just one conscious being who does this, God? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't know. The book is a confusing way to look at it, differing from the movie analogy, but it seems just as valid. The movie moves by itself, but not the book, which makes the movie comparison reflective of a mind independent reality that reveals seen or not. The book though requires a page turner. I guess if you pick the book comparison you impose a greater role of consciousness dictating reality than the movie.

For myself, at least, when I reflect from a position that wants pacifism I end up here: So the world hates this idea because it's (EDIT: "violence is") justified sometimes. — Moliere

The OP would not be at all provocative if it were presented this abstractly, simply asking the question of when violence is permitted and when it is not. The OP, however, presented the question of whether the assassination of Charlie Kirk was justified under the logic employed during the Civil Rights Movement, suggesting that the plight of today’s left is much like the plight of African Americans in the 1960s, and so now is the time to take up arms.

One must wonder if anyone so repulsed by Charlie Kirk actually watched his videos. He was a Christian conservative to be sure, but not a firebrand. His shtick was to debate college students who would approach the mic.

One must also wonder if anyone who finds consistency between Kirk’s assassin and Malcolm X has actually read Malcolm X.

The comment, for example, by Malcolm X: “If they don’t want you and me to get violent, then stop the racists from being violent. Don’t teach us nonviolence while those crackers are violent. Those days are over” is an appeal to self-defense, alluding to instances where MLK’s strategy of nonviolence is suicidal. It is, of course, philosophically reasonable to want to parse out those moments when the violence against someone is great enough to justify lashing out with additional violence, but not by citing an instance that is nowhere near a close call.

If you actually think it’s a hard one to noodle through whether someone who holds political views on abortion, homosexuality, transsexualism, guns, and the climate should be executed by a rifle in a public arena at the will of any random citizen, then this is not a conversation about pacifism versus violence generally. It is a conversation with someone who doesn’t know basic right from wrong.

Spare us the lecture, Hanover. — RogueAI

It's not a lecture. All I've said is screamingly obvious.

Yes, let's be very careful not to denigrate our murderous sniper too hastily at the risk of disrespecting his true nature.

I take great comfort in knowing the naval gazing opinions on our odd board carry no sway

I don't see how you could disagree to the possibility of my alternate suggestion. — Outlander

Sure, we'll have to wait and see if a schizophrenic climbed a roof to take down someone who just happened to be politically divisive and who now hides himself away, or we'll have to see if maybe the shooter was just mistaken, thinking he was engaging in some sort of innocuous behavior that turned to look suspiciously like 1st degree murder, or whatever else we might concoct.

Your approach is to ignore the OP"s concerns (might the shooting be the "by and means necessary" of Malcolm X), but just to say "guys, let's not rush to judgment:." But I'll go out on a limb here and judge the video I saw of a guy shot in the neck while sitting in chair talking on a college campus answering questions and doing whatever social media people do.

But if you're right, and alien abduction or whatnot brought us here, I'll eat crow.

I'll go on record with what ought be an obvious sentiment, which is that the capital murderer who assassinated a young father of two from a rooftop with likely a hunting rifle was not an anti-hero who meted out any sort of just dessert, but a useless coward who is in desperate need of .justice from those hunting him down as he hides among innocent students.

His was an act of pure evil, worthy of nothing but unequivocal condemnation, unnuanced, with no hidden irony, intelligence or purpose that could possibly give us reason to think it had an ounce of good within it.

As noted, the problems of the world are complex and varied, but the most glaring problem is that every post in this thread doesn't read like mine.

It stops everything happening at once.

Imagine a movie, but every frame projected simultaneously ... the divine white light of god-consciousness. Even the darkest soul, from the view of eternity, is nothing but a flash of white light. — unenlightened

But use a book instead of a film for your example. The entirety of the book is happening at once. All the pages are there at all times, as opposed to the film that requires movement across the light. This would suggest that "happening" references conscious perception of the thing as opposed to anything to do with the thing.

But I also realize that's not always the case because the sun comes and down regardless of who's watching.

Can you control not being hungry? No. Can you control not thinking about being hungry when you are starving? It's possible. Arguably, up to a point. — Outlander

There are obvioulsy some thoughts not within your control, like hunger, disgust, fear, etc., which is consistent with there being some physical actions that are not within your control, like your heartbeat, your breathing, and flinching if an object is thrown at you, etc.

But, consider Descartes' comment here:

“But when I perceive something very clearly and distinctly, I cannot but assent to it. Even if I will to the contrary, I am nevertheless drawn into assent by the great light in the intellect; and in this consists the greatest and most evident mark of human error.”

This goes beyond as you were saying, arguing that choice is not part of the deliberative process, but conclusions as to all sorts of matter are determined by clear and distinct perceptions.

Compare that to William James:

“Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds.”

This allows for choice of the will (under particular circumstances, particularly when the intellect is indeterminate).

As with Descartes, he'd argue that a belief in God (for example) is clear and distinct and not subject to doubt, which means he must believe in God. Choice isn't part of his equation. As to James, he'd argue that a belief in God is a matter of choice.

having a surprisingly hard time locating any discussions in the literature of mental-to-mental causation -- that is, the idea that one thought or image could cause another thought or image. I've looked through the usual suspects on causation but haven't nailed it yet. Can anyone on TPF help?

Much appreciated! — J

Not sure if this touches on your question: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doxastic-voluntarism/

This is a discussion of whether you have control over any of your thoughts, which addresses the issue of what causes thoughts.

Who gets the wife — noAxioms

I suspect, in any event, the wife chooses.

I feel like this conversation bounces all over the place. You can be individualistic and egalitarian simultaneously. You can also be hyper competitive and consumerist by adopting a collectivist position, as you see, for example, in immigrant communities in the US where pooling of recorces is common. You can also be individualistic and not be competitive, but instead just prefer self sufficiency.

You can also be religious and be capitalistic or very much not (not just Eastern religions, but also priests monks, and the like).

The point being that these laments about the value of humanity and our ethical reatment of one another doesn't track so nicely to general societal attitudes, religious orientations, or competitive spirits as it does just to old fashion adherence to morality.

The culture of individualism gave rise to an inflated sense of the worth of the self, even grandiosity. — Jack Cummins

A high sense of self worth does not equate to feelings of grandiosity. It's a Wonderful Life did not portray George Bailey as someone who thought highly of himself or someone who felt entitled to more than others. Mr. Potter portrayed the Grinch like character, concerned only with money and power. You might decipher anti-capitalistic or anti-consumerist themes in the movie (as well as in A Christmas Carol), but that doesn't equate to an acceptance that human life is of less than infinite value. I'd argue that it shows just the opposite - that the quantification of life's value to dollar and cents is what is truly dehumanizing precisely because it reduces the worth of the self to numbers..

It's a wonderful life..

It's common for folk with idealist tendencies to confuse what they believe, understand, think etc. with what is true. — Banno

What you're saying perchance isn't just that pseudo idealists (those with idealist tendencies) confuse the mental as the only real, but it's that's true idealists are confused because they think the mental is the only real.

In other words, true idealists are being true to their worldview. It's not as if they're realists but have illogically assessed the consequences of representationalism to mean there is no ontological truth (as a pseudo idealist might).

As in, Berkeley is logically consistent and Kant allows a distinction between the unknowable noumena (the ontologically real) and the phenomena (the mentally known). Those folks aren't muddling epistemology with ontology.

Again, in the Nature survey, the data is as follows:

Does a measurement require an observer?
Yes, and they must be conscious: 9%
Yes, but consciousness is not relevant (and an 'observer' can include
interaction with a macroscopic environment): 56%
No: 28%
Not sure: 8%

The supposition that there is a consensus amongst physicists that consciousness is an inherent feature of the physical universe is a fabrication. 84% of physicists reject the idea that consciousness is necessary for measurement. — Banno

Consciousness isn't an inherent feature of the physical universe, but a description of the physical universe without reference to consciousness is incoherent. The measurement (meaning the measuring devices' reaction to the physical event) occurs without consciousness, but what are we even talking about when we talk about events that exist in a universe that have never been provided attributes described by the senses?

So: "If a tree falls in the woods...", basically — Outlander

No. That suggests Jung was some sort of Berkelian idealist. He was not making any metaphysical claim at all. He was only indicating our psyche is mediated by our perceptions and so our consciousness of reality defines who we are.

The world existed before this hypothetical observer was even born, and would have existed if that never happened, and continues still to exist long after we're gone. I can have an idea about anything that exists, — Outlander

He's not suggesting otherwise. To the extent the external world is mediated and not directly knowable, that would evoke Kantian references of the noumenal, but not suggestions of reality blipping in and out of existence as we blink.

C.G. Jung once said that the world only exists when you consciously perceive it. In that theory, only what I see truly exists. What I do not see, or what I am not aware of, therefore does not exist. — Jan

Substitute "the world" with "your world."

Actual quote from Jung is:

“Without consciousness there would, practically speaking, be no world, for the world exists for us only in so far as it is consciously reflected by a psyche. Consciousness is a precondition of being.”

Schrödinger had ideas along similar lines. — Jan

I can't agree with this assessment.

Jung was a psychologist, not a physicist. He meant only that our world, what we know, live, and breathe, what it is to be, is rooted in our consciousness.

This is not a statement about reality generally. It is a statement about what constitutes our personal reality. The "practically speaking" qualification makes it all the more difficult to suggest he was making any claim about the world generally.

Just finished The Magician of Lublin. The metaphor of self-imprisonment as an obstacle for atonement was truly brilliant.

Is it metaphysics or is it sociology? — T Clark

Metaphysica of sociology. As in, what is a society (or subpart) composed of. The "ant trap" (name of his book) is the error (his thesis) of falling into the trap (as he says many social theorists do) of thinking of society as an aggregate of its individuals (i.e. a bunch of ants making a colony).

The SEP was written by this same author.