And what is meant by 'an idea that is considered true'? Sounds tautological to me. — A Seagull

You are arguing with yourself.

1.
What I mean by an idea that is considered true is

an idea that the brain/mind has labelled as 'true' — A Seagull

Both versions are equally tautological. My restatement is concise and adds clarity.



2.
Similarly, there is no functional difference between

A.

Propositions are labelled as 'true' when they are an accurate representation of an idea that a person believes. — A Seagull

and

B.
"Propositions are labelled as 'true' when they" [CORRESPOND to] "an idea that a person believes."

Again, my restatement is more concise and adds clarity.



3.
It matters not to me if you prefer wordiness and lack of clarity. I am just trying to help.

Either way, the theory you are pushing is of the type contemporary philosophy refers to as "correspondence." And that is simply correct whether you agree or not.

You ask 'when is now?'. The question answers itself. For now is now and not another time. — Bartricks

somewhere between before and later.

and then there is the we are all interdependent and/or in the same boat aspect of things. Don't give up; we need you.

There is no correspondence. — A Seagull

Yes there is.

Propositions (or statements) can be labelled as 'true' when they are considered to be an accurate representation of an idea that the brain/mind has labelled as 'true'. — A Seagull

In terms of correspondence theories of truth, your above statement would be restated as below:

Propositions are true when they CORRESPOND to an idea that is considered true.

It is not my intent to put words in your mouth. Instead, my intent is to simply clarify the "type" of theory of truth you are pushing. And the theory of truth you are pushing clearly is of the type referred to as correspondence. And that is okay. Correspondence theories of truth have been widely accepted since Descartes and continuing to the present.

That I disagree with them does not mean that they are incorrect (though they are).

Edit: by the way we’re not looking for a definition, you introduced that idea. — Brett

This question came up in Quora, and there were as many different answers as there were respondents. 'what is art' should be defined in all discussions of art, but never really is. — Pop

From the original post. I added the emphasis.

what are you doing here? — Brett

to discuss art, not to define it.

how about you?

John, who exists, went to the store, that exists, to buy some milk, that exists, for his kids, that exist." As if to clarify what things do and do not have that attribute. — Michael Lee

Why would existence have to be added to everything in order for it to be a proper predicate? we are not required to say:

"John, a man, went to the store, a building, to buy some milk, that is white, for his kids, who are not of school age."

For something to be a proper predicate of an entity does not require that it be used every time the entity is referred to.

And I agree with Kant insofar as the manner in which he was using the term "existence". But I suspect he was not using it in the manner you suggest. Instead, he meant it in terms of it not being a necessary quality of an entity. For example, if everyone agreed to a list of qualities essential for something to be considered a triangle, the existence of a triangle would not be on the list. For Kant, existence simply referred to a location of an entity and a triangle is a triangle and where it exists (if it exists) neither adds nor detracts from the triangle as a triangle.

Look at the title of the OP. That’s the subject. — Brett

not even close. This is the Philosophy Forum. No philosopher worth their salt would consider "what is art" to be the functional equivalent of "how do you define art." And it is your OP so the burden of clarity is on you.

If you want a discussion, take it to the forum. If you want a definition, take it to Google.

Perhaps the point to realise is that your model of the world differs from everybody else's and that their is no perfect or 'real' model with which to compare it. — A Seagull

I already know that.

But adding the word "model" does not overcome the problem unless everyone knows that "model" is a synonym for "my" (as opposed to yours) and if "model" is a synonym for "my" then we can just use the world "my".

So not only is "model" not going to clarify any confusion regarding differences among or between worlds, it is actually likely to create such confusion in that it connotes replica, copy, facsimile, etc. as if my [model] world were some how less than real. And you may rest assured there are no worlds that are more "real" than mine.

I actually said that several posts ago.

But at no time was a rejecting any definition of art.

Instead, I was rejecting to the notion that we need to define art before we can discuss it.

I have had many a meaningful discussion about art with many people and with many of them having a far deeper understanding of art than I.

But not a single discussion ever began or ended with an any agreement or disagreement regarding a definition of art.

Either way, this is a discussion and not an interview.

What is art?

art is a reflection of the world in which the artist finds herself/himself to be.

I will start with that.

Why are you here? — Brett

to discuss art.

what about you?

One does not need to declare that a model of the world is 'real', all one needs to do is to realise that the model is all one knows about the world. — A Seagull

That is just a word game.

I am my world. And within my world is the realization that my world is all I know about the world.

Nothing is to be gained by saying:

I am my model world. And within my model world is my realization that my model world is all I know about the model world.

The best model of the world is the world.

If it helps, you may add the word "model" to the word "world" every time I use the word "world." It would probably be more efficient if you just did it in your head.

And you are welcome.

:-)

I mean it would take a sheer act of will to exclude the word “truth” from the mental lexicon — NOS4A2

I think it is constitutive of who we are. We could not survive without an understanding of truth. Nor could most (if any) other mammals.

But for us (and perhaps other species) it goes beyond that. I see truth/untruth almost as an atmosphere in which we live our lives. So much of our engagement in the world revolves around revealing/concealing truth. And for some, just as much is to be gained by concealing as revealing. We are in the truth business.

(To save time)
If you have purchased art, then you have done this, " I will decide what art is". — Punshhh

You may rest assured that whatever it is I may have done is consistent with my assertion that I will determine for myself what I consider to be art, and that includes anything hanging on my living room wall (though my living room wall contains mostly interesting pieces of driftwood I find when I go to the beach).

If you happen to find anything else on my wall that others may consider to be art, it is only there because we happen to agree. I certainly didn't seek anyone else's opinion, let alone rely upon it.

That’s why I do not believe there is something called “truth” because to do so would be untrue. — NOS4A2

Everybody is different.

I am incapable of rejecting the possibility that there are deeper understandings to be had than the ones I have.

I have always been that way. It is a blessing and a curse.

1.7k

nor will I ever buy a work of art that fails to meet my definition of art.
— Arne

Which is what? — Brett
↪Arne

You never answered this. — Brett

Mine and mine alone. Again, I have no obligation to share the criteria I find useful in determining what I consider to be art.

And what is it that you want in the way of definition anyways?

And I can tell you my thoughts on what art is without providing any sort of definition that would provide a template as to whether any particular purported work of art is art.

I do not really care as to how others define art and I am a bit puzzled as to why they would care as to how I define it. Because mostly I don't.

Art is a reflection of the world of the artist. How could it be anything else?

You just don’t like talking about it. — Brett

I love talking about it.

Is there anyone talking with you about it more than I?

Truth is not a thing because it doesn’t have a boundary — NOS4A2

So you have no criterion other than your own preference for determining thingness/non-thingness.

I respect that and I am going to adopt that.

And truth is bounded by non-truth.

doesn’t have any objectivity or reality outside of the mind. — NOS4A2

What does that even mean? You could not possibly come to understand anything meaningful about the world in which you find yourself in the absence of truth. If you drive to work, you can only do so because you know the truth regarding how cars work (I presume you would consider cars to be outside your mind, whatever that means), where to get gas (I presume you consider the gas station to be outside your mind, whatever that means), and the route to work (also outside your mind?). You could not make your way around in the world in the absence of truth. So even if you really do buy into this internal/external inside/outside subject/object nonsense, you could have no meaningful understanding of anything "outside your mind" in the absence of truth.

What you indicate is a total lack of interest in art. Fine, but why bother posting here? — Brett

I love art.

What rules? — NOS4A2

What is the basis upon which you make your claim to the non-thingness of truth, processes, and jogs.

What is the basis upon which you determine thingness/non-thingness.

So far, all you have offered is some ill-defined fear of the potential for grammatical errors and that strikes as insufficient.

If all the artists disappeared you could still buy something and call it art, by your criteria. — Punshhh

What are you talking about?

I have not listed a single criterion for determining what I consider to be art.

All I have done is to reserve to myself the absolute right to make such a determination.

And I have no obligation to share any criteria that I find useful in making that determination.

Why do people find this perplexing?

you are obviously more concerned with the logic than with your premise. But I do disagree with the latter.

I have loved unconditionally and have done so without me or anyone else requiring me to do so.

It just turned out that way.

The word “process” is a noun, but it is series of actions. These actions are reified into a noun. For instance the word “jog” can be used as a noun. “I went for a jog”. But is a jog a thing? I think the grammar leads to confusions and unnecessary reifications. — NOS4A2

please provide some sort of authority for these unstated rules you have regarding the proper attachment of "thing" to entities.

you seem to make arguments for having such rules without providing any information as to what the rules are or where they can be found.

I will wait here.

It makes more logical sense to only assume that we have a model of the world. — A Seagull

Yes, let us create a model of the world, declare it to be the real, and treat the world as less real than the model of the world. That is not a winning argument.

Accepting that the world in which you find yourself may far more complex than it appears to be does not require you to presume it is a model. It just requires you to accept that the world in which you find yourself may be far more complex than it appears to be.

You seem to be making the assumption of 'naïve reality' whereby the world is pretty much or even exactly as we perceive it. For me this is a naïve assumption, albeit a popular one.

It makes more logical sense to only assume that we have a model of the world.


A Seagull

15 hours ago — A Seagull

You are mistaken. If anything, I am a robust realist.

I am discussing the already existing process by which we attach "true/not true" to an assertion directed towards entities within the world or within a model of the world and at those times when such judgments are needed.

The only value in knowing the world or model of the world may be different than it appears at the time the judgment is needed lay in its usefulness for consoling yourself when you have made the wrong judgment.

Oh well.

present in every variation of the "what is art" type thread is the unstated and mistaken premise that others will bound by an agreed upon definition of art.

They will not.

How others define either matters not to me. — Arne
Why is that? — Brett

The better question is why would it matter to me how others define either a car or art?

Just like every other morning of my life, I woke up this morning in no need of a definition of car or art. How about you?

You can’t define what a car is. If you defined a car as anything but a car, then it wouldn’t be a car. The definition of a car was defined before you came along. All you do is recognise it. — Brett

Why would you presume I am bound by an already existing definition of a car?

I am not.

Why is it the question "what is art" always treated as if the questioner is seeking a definition?

Has there ever been any useful definition of art?

Have artists or art patrons ever considered themselves bound by a definition of art?

Can there even be any such thing as a useful definition of art?

I have never been in need of a definition art and I would not know what to do with one if I had one.

Take the artist out of the equation, i.e. pretend all the artists and their work suddenly disappears. What are you going to purchase? — Punshhh

If all art suddenly disappeared, why would I have to purchase anything?

And I would probably purchase a paint brush and some paint.

And as for your point as to who defines art, the answer is nobody and everybody.

It is not as if the world needs an agreed upon definition of art before in order for the "world of art" to function. If that were the case, it would have ceased functioning long ago.

And even if there were consensus definition, are you suggesting that an "artist" (for which we are also lacking and do not need a definition) would be required to stay within the definition? Would people be able to purchase only those works meeting the definition?

Art thrives upon the very controversy resulting from it's indefinability.

It is not the lack of definition nor the need to determine who gets to define art that is the issue. Instead the deeper issue is the notion that it can even be contained within a definition. it cannot.

you are making my point for me. I feel no more obligation to put forward my definition of art that does the world of art. and why would any of us need to define it anyway? all walks have extra information - it is deemed to be a walk. it is an arbitrary extra bit of information.

I don’t think that really works. — Brett

It is your comparison that does not work.

You may rest assured I will never buy a car that fails to meet my definition of a car nor will I ever buy a work of art that fails to meet my definition of art.

How others define either matters not to me.

I am my highest authority, judge and guide. Who is yours?

As a Gnostic Christian, I follow the esoteric teachings of Jesus. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

So who is your highest authority, you or Jesus?

Indeed. That's the point I was making. If we're only using 'true' like 'blue', limiting ourselves to that which we all agree on, we're not going to have a great many of the most interesting concepts labelled 'true'. Maybe that's as it should be though. — Isaac

Indeed. But that is not necessarily "as it should be." For Example A Seagull is essentially pushing a correspondence theory of truth that could be fruitful if tweaked.

Propositions (or statements) can be labelled as 'true' when they are considered to be an accurate representation of an idea that the brain/mind has labelled as 'true'. — A Seagull

I would tweak it as "an assertion is true if the entity toward which it is directed shows itself to be as asserted." As a result, we move beyond a correspondence between a proposition and what the mind has labeled as true to a correspondence between a proposition and how entities within the world show themselves to be. We have now shed the pesky and unnecessary "representation of an idea".

So though there are things that are true, there are no truths that are things. — NOS4A2

Whether "thingness" can/cannot be attached to the term "truth" fails to enlighten. Though certainly many would consider truth to be a concept and a concept to be a thing and therefore the concept of truth would be a thing. But that really matters not as thingness is the ultimate Cartesian red herring upon which I will waste no more time.

The deeper issue is not which distinction (adjective/noun or meaning/definition) is more fraught with potential error. Instead, the deeper issue is which distinction is more useful to illuminating a meaningful understanding of the world in which you find yourself.

And if you think the grammar distinction is the way to go, then good luck to you.

I cannot think of anything in mathematics or logic that is not a concept. — Michael Lee

First, your own logic results in the fair conclusion that infinity is a concept. If infinity is a number and all things mathematical are concepts, then infinity is a concept.

Second, even if all things within the realms of mathematics or logic are a concept, that does not mean that all concepts are within the realm of mathematics or logic.

Consequently, it you are correct and infinity is a number, then it is okay to call infinity a concept. On the other hand, if you are incorrect and infinity is not a number, then it is still okay to call infinity a concept.

Perhaps you should have settled for infinity as a mathematical concept and argued for a mathematical representation of the that mathematical concept.

Just saying.

think there is substantial agreement about what is 'true' in the world — Isaac

low hanging fruit.

"shorthand" must be the new tautology.

I maintain the proper distinction here is not between adjective and noun but between meaning and definition.

The former requires thought while the latter requires a dictionary which might define truth as "all things that are true."

In that sense, truth is very much the product of our encountering, engaging with, and coming to understand the entities within the world that we are in. When our assertions reveal those entities as they show themselves to be, then our assertions are true. When our assertions conceal how entities would otherwise show themselves to be, then our assertions are false. Either way, our regular and ongoing concernful engagement in the world is permeated through and through with truth. We are either trying to reveal or to conceal the world as it shows itself to be. Either way, we are in the truth/false business.

quote="Gnostic Christian Bishop;378082"]So you might not give final authority to the best authority. Ok. Not the brightest choice, but Ok.[/quote]

You cited a higher authority to support your claim that you are your own highest authority.

You can address the obvious contradiction or you can continue to pretend it is not there.

It matters not to me.