Yes, roughly. Is it appropriate for me to ask into some specifics? (You don't have to pursue this with me if it's a pain in the neck.) — J

Not at all. Hopefully not derailing the thread.

I'll take "current era" to mean the era in which something like Fountain, or the plant-and-email piece, could be considered art. — J

The last century or so. The shift has picked up momentum with the advent of globalisation and technological developments.

To me, this implies that there's a sort of counter-artworld, or shadow artworld, in which works like Fountain are not considered art. Is that what you mean? — J

I am not at all interested in talking about some abstract Art World.

My question was meant to focus on consensus, on why conceptual art, understood in the broadest terms, is now accepted by the artworld as an important type of art. — J

Maybe it is by The Art World, but there are people who do not regard a lot of conceptual art as art. Roger Scruton is one prominent example.

Do you think the concensus in the street would be the same? If you asked the average joe to to say what is or isn't art would they agree that a urinal is?

On your view, this would have been a mistake. So how did this mistaken consensus carry the day? — J

I do not think it has. I think more than anything abstract artwork riled some people, but then they came around to it, and then conceptual work did a similar thing. The difference with conceptual work is that it is often nothing to do with art as it is an intellectual exercise (very fascinating but not art).

Brillo Box is something that does something quite unique and is a better example of a work that straddles both areas. It reveals beauty in the mundane and presents how common day-to-day trappings can bleed into pop-culture giving higher value to something often less appreciated.

Perhaps to understand what I mean you would not call a single sentence a novel, nor a paragraph nor a page. You could write something that resembles a novel on a page perhaps, but in sentence I doubt it (unless the sentence is a page long!). This shows how there is a poitn where something is or is not art, and I frame this in regards to the weight of emotional engagement.

Anyway, baby playign up. Later :)

"People are more likely to believe a big lie than a small one. This aligns with their nature. They know they might lie about trivial things, but a massive lie? They’d hesitate to go that far. A big lie doesn’t even occur to them, so they can’t imagine someone else being capable of such shameless distortion of facts."

(I won’t mention the author to focus on the idea itself.) — Astorre

Reminds me of The Art of War

I'm not sure I like it(EDIT: conceptual art as a whole) -- I'm arguing on the categorical side that it is art, good or bad. — Moliere

What makes it Art for you then?

Which usually means I'm missing something -- what is it about this that so many other people like that I'm not seeing? — Moliere

I would say it is the intellectual exporation rather than its aesthetic appeal - because there is no sensorial beauty or emotional movement.

I think if we just believe what people say (ie. "It is Art!") then there is a problem. A plea to our own ignorance does nothing to reveal what the reasons are for them holoding the stance that all conceptual work is actually artwork.

Someone placing a crucifix in a jar and filling it with their own urine is more or less a poltical statement of sorts that encourages people to engage with theological views, views on Art and aesthetics and could even be an example of the human use of symbols and icons in modern society. All of this is intellectual at its heart; and possibly an interesting exploration of religious life and secular life. If it shocks or provokes negativity then there is emotional movement, but I would look upon such reactions as being inflicted on the person rather than being experienced wholesale. The viewer, if appalled, is not in emotional engagement, they are looking upon the item as a piece of propaganda.

One could argue that this is still emotionally engaging the viewer, so it is Art in some respect. I could agree with the point that it 'moves' the viewer, but I would still not call it Art as many things can move people. It was produced to be viewed, yet the emphasis is strongly upon the intellect rather than taking someone on an emotional journey. I have no real issue with people disagreeing the finer points, but I have issues if people insist upon Art being Art where it lacks reasonably prominent emotional content.

How do you get to that point? Assertion, or do you have an argument? — Moliere

I will have to think about how to answer this more fully. It is a deeply serious question and there is a deeply serious response (I will avoid the word 'answer'). Hopefully I can articulate this more by responding to your other points. Hopefully!

100% NO. If a work is not emotionally moving it is absolutely not art. There is no exception.
— I like sushi

You still standing by that one? — Moliere

Yes. The only caveat being that I fully understand this is not a binary item. It is a gradable item. I am by no means stating that I regard ALL conceptual art as non-art because some of it has aesthetic qualities to it that are parallel to paintings, poetry, etc.,.

In further opposition someone might argue that many other human experiences involve 'being moved' and therefore they are art too. That is not what I am saying either.

To get to the initial question you asked I think it is precisely this kind of Venn diagramic thinking that misses the point. The quantities are not legiable intellectually, yet the message within some artwork can certainly provoke intellectual thought and contemplation.

The philosopher in me will say "Well.. since you done said that it seems we can reason about it. And I'm very certain that what we just watched, which involved us emotionally, did not involve them at all -- so is it art?" — Moliere

The question is the degree to which we can reason about that serves our purpose.

Open question there -- how do you resolve those differences in experience of art, given your strong stance that if a work is not emotionally moving it is not art? — Moliere

Experience; meaning perspective and exposure. Everyone is different and tastes vary. Nothing extraordinary about this.

Something is not Art to someone if it does nothing for them. This is purely about the artistic eye rather than the artwork. When I say the majority of 'conceptual art' is not Art I say so not due to my artistic eye -- and admittedly I could change my mind in the void between the non-existent terms of Art and Non-art in the purest sense -- rather I am looking at the intent and purpose of the work not judging it based on taste.

The real life example I gave of the plant and emails is precisely what I mean by the Work being about the Concept and wholly absent of aesthetic qualities. It does not move the observer, it only makes them think about the rationality of the item/s on display. It is not Good or Bad, it is making a point only not expressing anything on a level of emotional intensitive beyond the mundane.

IF a conceptual Work really reaching into someone and insensifies a previously mundane experience, then it is shifting towards Artwork.

I have even gone into the whole area of the different mediums of Art and my thoughts on how static art and temporal art moves people in different ways in respect to space and time. I can explain that further, not sure if you recall what I said about this before? As examples, paintings and sculptures are static while poetry and dance is temporal. The former is captured in a static moment yet can be perceived spacial in differing ways (a talented artist will lead you through a piece of artwork) expanding beyond its singular definition, whereas the latter is experienced across time from beginning to end (a talented artistic will also capture you in static moments) contracting the temporal space into an emotional singularity. We can look into various mediums such as film, music and various combinations and genres much, much more deeply to gain understanding of this too.

Here it becomes more apparent what conceptual work is doing. It is clearly working to provoke thought above and beyond feeling. We are being asked to understand it either by stretching it out or by reducing it down (depending on the medium).

A static conceptual work (object) sits still for us to observe. We contemplate it and analysis it with a dull sense of aesthetic sensibility at best.

A static Artwork does not sit still, it encapsulates feelings and carries us with them.

I will try to be concise.

So do you have a story, or explanation, for what happened to (so-called, in your view) art in the 20th century? — J

Politics, technology, economics and numerous other items. Pretty sure you can extrapolate from the dynamic changes over the past century and a half that there has been substantial changes in how societies function and interact on a global and local scale. Art is part of the human exchange and experience so will necessarily reflect these changes in some form or another (some even believe art preempts these changes).

Why were the lines not drawn where you clearly see them? — J

I am pretty sure they were drawn by many and over human history have been something of debate and interest. The difference in the current era is likely more about the rate of change due to the numerous factors briefly outlined above.

Are you suggesting that the artworld did not see those lines, though they were clear, or that they saw them but disregarded them? — J

I was not suggesting either. Since you have brought the historic lens into play here I would probably say yes to both. Some did see, some didn't. Some did disregard them, some didn't. Again, my emphasis on this historical perpsective would be on the rate of change.

Just trying to understand how to fit your view into a historical narrative. — J

Hopefully that sketches out roughly what I think about the historical aspect?

I would likely have the same reaction, if I saw this work. But are you open to the idea that emotional response is not criteriological? That objects aren't divided into "art" and "non-art" based on whether they are emotionally moving to someone? — J

100% NO. If a work is not emotionally moving it is absolutely not art. There is no exception.

That is not to say every emotional instance has to be artistic or art led.

Again, none of this is about quality. It seems quite possible to me that the plant-and-email artwork is simply poor art. But I'd have to see it. — J

I think this is where you are quite simply wrong. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and this is where I think people get confused. There is a huge difference between looking upon some object with an artistic eye and an actual artwork.

If you want to see it just look at your desk or a wall. If we are callign literally everything 'art' then the term has no practical use. Also, it is a mistake to confuse an elegant idea for a beautiful image, simply because we are used to framing those words without a similar field of context.

It just takes some careful thought across all mediums of art to see what it is and what it is not. White noise is not art, but white noise can be used in a muscial composition to excentuate this or that rhythm by punctuating what is harmonious and musical with what is not. 'Conceptual art' is this kind of White noise. On its own legs it is an artless amalgam of atomised items put to use to express an intellectual thought. A true piece of art 'moves' people not merely stimulates them to 'think' and/or um and ah about something clever.

Which usually means I'm missing something -- what is it about this that so many other people like that I'm not seeing? — Moliere

I like it. It is just not Art. That is my primary point. Anyone can call something 'art' but that does not mean it is. I have seen the same thing in poetry too to some extent where people write a single word and call it a poem. No! It is not a poem. Is it interesting and trying to get a point across? Perhaps, but that does not make it a poem. The same goes for most 'conceptual art'.

Maybe it would be better to refer to such works as spandrels. They do not occupy the space known as Art, but they fill in some structural gaps - in a very loose analogous sense - between how the intellect can inhabit space and how aesthetics can.

He blurred the line between art and philosophy. For him, a work of art can be a piece of philosophy as well, it can teach us something specifically philosophical -- so a philosophical sortie, if you like. — J

I am not saying it cannot. An example like the one I gave I would never call Art though. I found the ideas she was trying to express wholly philosophical. There was nothing about a random plant and several printed emails stuck on a wall that I find emotionally moving in any way shape or form.

You certainly seem to be obfuscated, my foundation is an understanding of systems (something, it would seem, you have no understanding of), defined from first principles - founded on the "... basic, seminal, fundamental, primordial truth of the existence of physical things ... If we cannot agree on this, that physical things exist in fact; our only option would be somewhere between the philosophical areas ... called nihilism and fatalism. And, for sure, solutions to our problems cannot and will not be found in these areas." p9 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence - words in italic (from the quote) is defined unambiguously! — Pieter R van Wyk

Empty words. You have presented next to nothing.

Author: I have all the answers!
Forum Members: Okay. Tell us.
Author: Here is a quote from my book that basically shows I am a physical realist.
Me: So what? You have simply shown a philosophical stance and yet also insinuate that philosophy is not what you are doing.

People have been patient here. You have given nothing but a poor attempt to sell a book - which frankly I would not read even if you paid me at this point given your inability to engage in a genuine and frank manner (ironic given that you ultimately claim to do this in 'plain English').

This thread is dead to me if the next few response actually present something.

Maybe participating in another thread would help you to reveal your ideas? Either way, it is fun to jump into other discussions and see what other people think in general.

GL

If they have nothing to do with aesthetics I do not think we can call this Art at all.

The reason I state this is partially due to what was mentioned previous regarding the Noun and Verb of the term 'paint'. The problem I see is that literally anyone can view anything with an 'artistic' eye, yet that does not make the item under inspection a 'piece of art'.

Let me explain further. A mountain can be beautiful, yet it would be bizarre to call it a 'piece of art'. A building, architecural design, may possess some unintentional beauty beyond its primary function, just like a painted fence. A fence painted a particular shade and tone may in-iteself not be at all artistic, yet along side the composition of the surrounding area may highlight aspect that draw the eye more readily to it.

As you can see there are nuances here, but neverthless I state that Art must contain aesthetic quality or it is not art. Even a mathematician can refer to the 'beauty' of a formula, but this is quite abstracted from a more pure sensory experience. With conceptual art the aesthetic is stripped clean away and what we are left with is something more akin to a rational metaphor. Again, here I can see how it can be argued that there is 'aesthetics' within this, in terms of the cleverness and juxtapositional placing of the work in question to express an idea, but the primary focus is on a rational idea, a philosophical stance, and the aesthetic of the work is deemed utterly irrelevant.

Example: Someone stole a plant from France, brought it back to the UK and emailed the gardens telling them what she had done. She then displayed the plant and the email exchange in a gallery.

My interpretation of this: It is a political action that gets people to think about ownership but there is absolute nothing aesthetic about this. It is certainly an interesting way of drawing attention to something, but what is being focused on is intellectual ideas not aesthetics qualities. That said, I am not at all suggesting that Artwork cannot possess intellectual content (far from it!), my point is that Artwork is not primarilt focused on the intellect, so I would describe what people call 'conceptual art' as more in line with a philosophical endeavor - which is why people here may disagree.

There is a differenece between an artistic eye and an artistic work. Both deal with aesthestics and emotion above raw intelect and rationality.

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde for the millioneth time, Art is useless.

@Banno @Moliere @Janus How do you feel about 'conceptual art'? Personally i do nto see it as Art at all, but more of a philosophical sortie into the world of Art.

It could just be that farmers vote for policies that suit them.

I imagine more conservative values suit rural life and tradition in the face of an increasingly difficult area of production?

Are farmers 'working class'? It is a pretty specialised job that requires numerous skills as far as I know. It is not exactly just manual labour, you have people having to manage complex system that can fail if the weather turns.

I would be surprised to find any farmers leaning hard to the left. They are living a long held tradition that has shaped the British countryside. It woudl be more peculiar to find them looking to change things up.

Obviously ... or maybe not to some?

I guess conscription is different if we think it is okay to conscript children, but I don't think that. It seems as though conscription also entails adulthood. — Leontiskos

Would be nice to see minimum age for army as 90 yrs old ;)

I'll be affected by this, as I turn 16 in two months. I would just recommend that young men carefully consider their politics and only vote if they are well informed. — Jotaro

Nice to have someone so young here. Do you believe everyone should be able to vote when they are 16? What is your individual perspective on the matter considering you are perhaps closer to understanding the general view of the 16 yr olds you know.

Bible literalism is bonkers. — unenlightened

It is. Hence why there is a vast swathe of scholar in theology who study non-literal interpretations.

Why are you here? Are you looking for people who believe the world was created a few thousand years ago? You will probably not find anyone like that here.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra is not a good place to start for Neitzsche. I would go for 'Beyond Good and Evil' and then work your way backwards before tackling Thus Spake.

For ideas about existentialism and secularism I would maybe go for reading Marcuse's 'One-Dimensional Man' alongside Mircea Eliade's 'The Sacred and The Profane'.

Other than that, good old Plato and The Republic is a good introductionary text covering many different areas.

Have fun :)

I think abstract paintings and drawings are representational in a difference sense in that they represent abstract objects or images. — Janus

Agreed.

@Banno Can you give an example of a painting that isn't a picture? Also, are you using 'picture' differently from 'image'?

Maybe my tone came across wrong. Was just driving home the point that there is conclusive evidence. That said, there is the problem of determining a reasonable age. From 18 to 16 is perhaps a bigger leap than people realise.

Would be better return to 1969 where the minimum age was 21 imo.

More broadly I look at this as being about experience combined with knowledge. As referred to by previous replies here, we often think we are more capable than we really are, and only with accumulated wisdom do we realise that when we thought we had a good grasp of life it turns out we were quite deeply in error - often in more than a singular aspect of human living.

And what if this discussion itself, this entire dispute imitating a "civil society" (an open society according to Popper) is only part of the performance, where democracy verifies itself through our own questions? — Astorre

I would like to add something to this. Broadly speaking Popper was doing part anthropology and part philosophy when talking about Open and Closed society. I have often found it useful to look at an individual human life and view it as a blueprint of human evolution both biologically, and in the abstract, poltically.

So, when we are born we experience Closed Society. Infants do not question or ask, they simply live according to their biological requirements and remain largely passive. As we develop into adulthood there is a transitionary period where Open Society comes into play. In loose terms we could use Piaget's developmental markers to show how this works. If I recall correctly (probably not) children have gone through the required stages of cognitive development by age 7 or so (?), so you may ask why not set voting age to 7 yrs old.

Just because someone is equipped wioth certain tools it does not mean they know how to use them. Plus, adolescence is when broader socio-political capability are just beginning to flourish. A teenager (13-19) has one foot in Closed Society and one foot in Open Society. They are open to any new ideas, understand the rational use of them, but have yet to hone the skill to compare and contrast.

Contrary to everything I have said there are some interesting perpsective against my position. Neoteny may look liek something that backs up my claim but it has been suggested that modern life requires retention of behavioural traits in juveniles, as it allows for better adaptation in an increasingly complex social environment.

I am by no means saying outright that either view is all bad or all good. I just see some moves made in politics as being about gaining immediate votes rather than creating a better system. This was very much the case with the collaboration between Lib Dems and Conservatives all those years ago where the amount of propaganda flooding the media ruined the referendum for reform that the Lib Dems had in mind. It was one time where Labour and The Conservatives joined forces as it was mutually benefical for them to keep the current system.

Beyond the cyncism of politicking though, there are some interesting questions regarding who qualifies to vote and - more importantly - finding a happy medium that balances out the best selective processes in a practical sense. Here again we find the issue tha both Popper and Berlin talked about, with Berlin's Pluralism showing the aarduous journey all civil society faces between the balancing of common and disperate interests that will alamost always conflict in some unexpected manner - hence Negative Liberty being the favoured choice for Berlin, rather than radical revolutionary movements.

Metaphors exist.

When I was 18 and able to vote I knew I did not know enough so I voted for the Lib Dems in order to provide myself with choices in the future. I have not voted since and no longer live in the UK.

After graduation, I was more than sure that until the age of 21 people should not be given any right to vote, since they simply do not understand anything about life. Today I am 37 and I sincerely believe that until the age of 30-35, people generally understand little, but I have to agree that their immaturity affects my life. I wonder what I'll say at 45? — Astorre

I can fully relate to this. I think 40 is when you get to point of reasonable balance (as they say, life begins at 40), but 30 is probably a reasonable number too.

One thing I am certain about. Teenagers are not at all clued into anything in any real sense. Maybe a handful are specialised and have had experience in certain areas, but this is more likely to bite them back in the future due to having tunnel vision for one particular facet of life.

We all know we are all stupid. and stupider still when younger. Why fan the flames of political ignorance?

Sure. But the question is whether that difference makes a difference. Given that the system is very rough and ready, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to think that it does not. Intellectually, we're on a slippery slope and political views are, of course, in play. — Ludwig V

It is unreasonable to assume something when there is plenty of hard scientific evidence showing how adolescent brains are far less risk averse, immature in term of planning, managing emotions and delay gratification.

It is not exactly 'They gave me candy, so I will vote for them!' but it is not that far off this either when we are talking about the difference between 16 and 18 yr olds, let alone older.

A photograph is a copy of what exists in the world, and therefore depicts what is necessarily true. — RussellA

My point was that prior to photographic technology paintings served a similar purpose (often political).

Paintings at one point in history a kind of primitive 'Photograph,' but now I think the photograph is more 'primitive' in what it can achieve.

If I've got it right, the prefrontal cortex doesn't stop developing until around 25. So that ship sailed long, long ago. — Ludwig V

There is a big difference between 16 and 18 yrs of age. Anyone with basic life experience knows this. The development of the prefrontal cortex effects numerous areas of cognitive behaviour. It is not only about long and short term planning. That was one item of concern.

Note: I might be more in favour of increasing the age from 18 to 25 than lowering it from 18 to 16 tbh. The difference in developmental progress is seriously stacked in earlier years of neurogenesis.

As for senile dementia, I see no reason they should still be able to vote.

Specifically, teenagers are not mentally equipped to plan long-term. Adults are more prone to diliberate and attend to long-term consequences.

The prefrontal cortex needs to develop. This is not something we can simply dismiss.

Not everyone is equal. If the means of a political voting system is to create a stable society in which people can flourish this means dependance comes at the cost of responsibility.

Democracy is an idea only. The practical application of any governmental system has to compete with the reality that faces it. If we create a poltical body that is increasingly dependent upon the short-term whim of inexperienced minds - who are biologically driven by a myopic perspective - then I fear for the long-term future. Of course, mayeb a fresh and naive perspective is just what is needed? Who knows?

Either way, our intuitions will lead us on more than our knowledge. When they meet each other then we have a period of relative harmony and peace (like now). Current societal changes do seem to have us at a very imnportant juncture in human civilization. Will be interesting to see how things pan out.

Because simply offering more candy to a baby is offering candy to a baby. Young adults have similar inbuilt biases regarding immediate pay-off versus long-term consequences. That said, it could be argued that the vast majority of the population is made up of more senior citizens so perhaps some form of temporary balance would be ideal?

Speaking broadly I view education as a means of reading people for their real education. Education for me is about people learning how to educate themselves rather than fill a gap in the job market.

Exposure is of importance in early development.

All said and done mayeb we will see teenagers start to take a more serious interest in world affairs? Somehow, even if they do, I do not think they are capable of really grasping more far reaching topics simply because they are more focused on short term goals rather than long term.

Is there a category which painting and drawing share? — Moliere

This seems like a weird question. I feel that there is a mix up here in one term being used to mean different things.

Clearly painting a fence is a mundane and necessary action, just as painting a wall is. Art is about producing something that has no mundane function to it,although the two can cross over if one wishes to paint their fence with a certain scheme or theme in mind. Just because painting is a gerund it does not make it different from drawing, other than by way of the tools and materials used.

At a strecth one could argue that, depending on cultural traditions, the effect of drawing use often associated with writing, whereas painting is usually something more broad - as in painting a larger object. Scale and rationality may sneak in when it comes to using a tool more familiar as a writing impliment than as a means of producing art ... but then again, poetry is art too! How much this effects the user is likley quite a subjective element.

I have come to the conclusion that forms of art are all about offering up a means of viewing the human experience through different spacio-temporal lenses. The static picture extends thorugh time, the moving picture or piece of music spreads a single item of human experience out.

Through each different medium we effectively extend or contract in opposition to how the art form is presented.

:grin: Sceptical of scepticism!

Historically, the original Empiricists were skeptics. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I would hope that all philosophical positions are held with a healthy degree of scepticism rather than dogma. The whole point of philosophy, in particular, is to play with the questions rather than adhere to some universal maxim as far as I can see. That said, we all undoubtedly fall into one pit of obsession at one point or another and the ability to scramable out of such positions may require more scepticism than some people are happy to play with?

I see it all as lens and perspectives. The better an individual understanding across as many fields of interest as possible the less idealised they become, and the more open to looking at avenues others dismiss out of hand.

There is the old story of a Man coming home due to a mechanic not fixing his car properly and finding his wife cheating on him, then proceeding to commit murder. The reason for the murder can be viewed as being due to the mechanic, the cheating wife, the heart stopping, etc., with the overall point being NONE are incorrect yet NONE alone are the whole story.

Your suggestions are more problematic because they impose potential voting tests, enfranchising only those that meet certain criteria beyond just age and citizenship. — Hanover

I do not believe in voting tests. I marked it as something people often express.

My view is a limiting factor that scales with age. Maybe something like a 16 yr olds vote counts as 1 vote whilst someone 30+ counts as 2 votes. In a more complex system I would have people's age reflect more heavily on different policies, but that would require a somewhat clunky system.

All in all, I think education can help people of all ages to acquire a better perspective from which to vote according to their beliefs, desires and needs.

It's certainly a leftwards slant. Could it be that all of our values come from our heart, and our heart hardens with age? — Down The Rabbit Hole

It is well known that as we age we tilt more towards conservatism, which makes perfect sense when you think about it really.

My concern is more or less that I do not regard myself as anywhere near being clued up on living life until I was 40 yrs old let alone 18 or 21. I absolutely believed I had a reasonable grasp on what the world was about in my 20's but there is simply no substitute for lived experience.

A more viable system for me would be a gradual increase in influence with age and experience. I am not completely against a 16 yr old voting, but I do not think their vote should weigh in the same as someone my age.

Whatever system is in place will inevitably fall short ... but I guess that is precisely what democracy is about. We fall short, over shoot, and keep trying to correct.

I would have to disagree with this sentiment as the young are easily influenced and so are more likely to fall prey to populist ideologies.

Fully agree regarding a basic education in how democracies function.

Additionally, another problem with ethical naturalism is its non-deterministic nature. In any natural science, the laws or theories established are deterministic. — Showmee

Well, not really. I was not arguing for naturalism anyway. Nothing is completely deterministic. The logical premises you use are abstractions-of and do not exist (hence what I say above). Logic only works within very specific bounds, and life easily overflows these bounds at every point of the rim of reality we know of.

The effects of gravity, for example, will always be measured regardless of the number of trials. — Showmee

I think you are misunderstanding my point here. I am saying that Gravity is a placeholder for a phenomenon observed. As you noted there are two distinct ways of expressing how Gravity appears to us through two entirely different perspectives (Newton and Einstein).

What I am doing is equating this to the phenomenon of Ethics. There are differing view points that align in some way with what is observed (be this in language for ethics or phsyically for gravity).

Error Theory can then be taken to state that Gravity does not exist. All we know of are some perspectives that provide an illusion of Gravity being a thing, but really it is nothing.

Non-cognitivism does not have to necessarily dismiss the existence of Ethics it can simply reframe it, take an alternative perspective. If such a perspective functions better than the previous iterations of how we look at the phenomenon of ethics (as objective, subjective, mislabelled, etc.,.) then we are exploring and discovering more about the phenomenon at hand.

The basis upon which Error Theory rests comes under its own scrutiny. To look upon the logical basis of Error Theory as not-being-a-thing, meaning framed in idealised abstractions, show just as much the item under consideration to be in error as it does error theory itself. A metaphysical rug has been pulled out from beneath us and then its existence has been denied.

@Astorre You might find this quote from Kierkegaard interesting:

Infinite resignation is the last stage before faith, so that anyone who has not made this movement does not have faith: for only in infinite resignation does my eternal validity become transparent to me, and only then can there be talk of grasping existence on the strength of faith.

- Fear and Trembling, p. 75, Penguin Classics

I believe it is very basic. Nothing more than experience. I think many things usually thought of as consciousness are actually what is being experienced. — Patterner

So panpsychism with the belief that every mirco and macro item is experiencing on some level.

No, that is not my view. A clockwork machine would not have made skyscrapers, computers, nuclear bombs, or the Hoover Dam. It would not have written Shakespeare's works, The Malazan Book of the Fallen, The Bible, or Gilgamesh. It would not contain the works of Bach, The Beatles, or Steely Dan. I'm saying the universe is not a clockwork machine because consciousness is a part of it. — Patterner

I think you mean yes. Without consciousness the universe is a clockwork machine.

Could you please provide a few short quotes from him? — MoK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus

Albert Camus wrote a piece on Sisyphus that is very famous.