(a priori knowledge)............"You're stretching the meaning of those words to match reality. — T Clark

In a sense I am stretching the meaning of the words a priori and knowledge within the phrase "a priori knowledge".

But in the case of the phrase "a priori knowledge", it is the phrase as a whole that has meaning rather than the particular words within it. It is the same as if I said "In my job interview I had to jump through hoops", where the concept "jump through hoops" is not determined by the particular words jump, through and hoop. Or if a said "Mary is a breath of fresh air" or "John flew off the handle". In the same way, expressions such as "a priori knowledge", "synthetic a priori" and "transcendental idealism" are more idiomatic expressions than literal descriptions. The phrase "a priori knowledge" then becomes a key phrase when used in search engines conveniently leading to more extensive explanations, such as in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Wikipedia.

IE, "a priori knowledge" is an idiomatic expression and is only a guide to the concept rather than a literal description of it.

Van Gogh — Pop

(y) If only in real life were there Doctor Henry Black's who were present in art museums explaining to the passing public the importance of the paintings they were looking at.

"art." — T Clark

@T Clark - "There are also definitions that are of very little use" (y)

@T Clark - "Keeping in mind that "aesthetic" actually has an accepted meaning - Concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty"

Not exactly.

Aesthetic as an adjective is the study of beauty.

But beauty as a noun surely has a different meaning to aesthetic as a noun. For example, taking the examples of Picasso's Guernica 1937, a moving and powerful anti-war painting, and Bouguereau's 1873 Nymphs and Satyr, mythological themes emphasising the female human body

Dictionary definitions generally agree that aesthetic as a noun means a set of principles governing the idea of beauty, such as "modernist aesthetics" and beauty as a noun means qualities such as shape, colour, sound in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses.

Both the Picasso and Bouguereau are important paintings and have aesthetic values. Whilst the Bouguereau may be said to give pleasure to the senses, the Picasso certainly doesn't.

IE, it follows that the aesthetic must be more than being concerned with beauty

@T Clark - "I've always hated this idea - that we can't explain sight to a blind person"

I know the subjective experience of colours in the visible light spectrum, red, orange, yellow, green, cyan, blue, violet. It seems that reindeer can also see the colour ultraviolet, which is useful to them in spotting lichens that they can eat.

The trick is, can you explain to me in words the subjective experience of the colour ultraviolet !

@T Clark - three cords and the truth. (y)

Exactly. Matisse's Cut-outs are some of my favourite artworks, minimal yet sophisticated.

@T Clark - value may be as much or more important than pattern. (y)

@T Clark - We are born with inborn instincts for certain ways of processing the world, learning about it...................We are born with the equipment to collect sensory input and the processing ability to interpret and use it" (y)

I agree.

I wrote "Humans have a priori knowledge", and I agree that my use of the word "knowledge" may be problematic, but I stick with it

"Knowledge" is defined as "facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject" which seems fair enough.

1) Our inborn instincts could be said to include "facts, information and skills"
2) Our "experience and education" has been acquired through billions of years of evolution rather than the schoolroom.
3) As regards innate "theoretical or practical understanding" of the colour red say, "understanding" may be defined as the capacity to apprehend general relations of particulars and the power to make experience intelligible by applying concepts. Then it must be the case that the brain has the innate capacity to apprehend general relations of particulars and does have the innate power to make experience intelligible.

IE, I stick with the concept of "a priori knowledge"

The artwork is a mirror of the spirit — Constance

If this were part of the Stanford University undergraduate progam in philosophy, it would be costing me $58,000 a year - so I can't complain at $40 a year.

There is no correct definition of art

The definition "art is a bottle of Guinness" is as correct as any other. Definitions are determined by Institutions and the majority of interested people.

Various definitions of art

@Constance - "Art has this, I say. It is called the aesthetic"
@Constance - "The question of art lies with one question: is there anything that is both the essence of art, what makes art, art, and absolute?"

My personal definition of visual art is aesthetic form of pictographic representation

Definitions of the aesthetic

@Constance - "As to Beauty, I don't think, frankly, Hutcheson has a clue"

I would define the aesthetic as unity in variety, along the lines of Hucheson. Hucheson is giving an objective definition of the aesthetic, not attempting to describe the subjective experience.

I can describe objective facts about the colour red - seen in strawberries, sunsets, etc, has a wavelength of 625 to 700nm. I can also describe objective facts about the aesthetic - unity in variety, observed in a painting by Matisse, a book by Cormac Mccarthy, a song by Sade, etc. But I can never describe the subjective experience of the colour red or the aesthetic to someone who can never experience the colour red or aesthetic. However, I can use language to communicate my subjective experience of the colour red or aesthetic to another person who has also experienced the colour red or aesthetic.

IE, language can communicate general things about subjective experiences but can never communicate the particular subjective experience.

Aesthetics has value of two kinds

@Constance - " in aesthetics and ethics, there is value. Value is non cognitive"

The aesthetic can have two kinds of value, and these two meanings of value are independent of each other.

1) Value as the regard that something is held to deserve, the judgement of good or bad, in that the aesthetic of a Rembrandt is better than the aesthetic of a child's crayon sketch.
2) Value as a numerical measure, magnitude, quantity. Note that aesthetic value is not binary. It is not the case that an object either has an aesthetic or doesn't. As every object has a temperature , objects may have different temperatures. As every object has an aesthetic, different objects may have a different degree of aesthetic value.

Judgement of value as regards good or bad
The good of the aesthetic may exist in either the observer or the world.

@Constance "Wittgenstein thought that Good was divinity, and I think this problematically right"
My belief is that the source of the Good is human pragmatism

1) As regards the observer, the judgement of the Good certainly exists in the observer
2) As regards the world, the question as to whether morality exists in the world independent of any observer is open to debate. Moral realism says that morality does actually exist, and it exists in a knowable, universal way. Moral subjectivism claims that morality is not real or universal, and it does not exist outside the mind.

Judgement of value as regards degree
The degree of aesthetic may exist in either the observer or the world

1) As regards the observer, the judgment of degree certainly exists in the observer.
2) As regards the world, if the aesthetic is unity in variety, meaning a particular relationship of parts to the whole, the question as to whether relations ontologically exist in the world or merely attributions made by conscious entities and expressed in language is open to debate.

Evolution explains why we have the aesthetic

@Constance - "Evolution has always been uninformative, anyway, for it could never explain meaning, aesthetic, ethical"
@Constance "Evolution, at this level, says nothing"

In the world is chaos. Sentient life is able to survive and evolve by its innate and intellectual ability to discover patterns within this seeming chaos, ie, by discovering unity in variety. In other words, humans have an aesthetic sensibility. Evolution does not explain what the aesthetic is, but evolution does explain why the aesthetic originated in sentient life.

The brain has evolved in the world to be able to survive within the world.

Human a priori knowledge is that knowledge necessary to survive in the particular world we find ourselves in. It would follow that a sentient life evolving in a different world, whether hotter, silicon based or higher gravity, would have different a priori knowledge suitable for that different world. Rorty and the neo-pragmatists accept a mind-independent reality, whilst maintaining that this world can never be knowable. The human develops beliefs and habits which allow them to adapt to their environment with success. If humans had no a priori knowledge we would be back at Hume's problem of inference regarding the observation of a constant conjunction of events. This is the problem Kant attempted to solve with his concept of the synthetic a priori.

IE, the truth is a matter of perspective. Rather than as the neo-pragmatists propose, humans can only make sense of the world by applying reason to what they observer through their senses, it is more the case that sentient life, not separate to the world but as a part of it, have evolved innate a priori knowledge of the world. Such a priori knowledge allows them an understanding of the world even before experiencing it through their senses.

Our conscious mind has transcendent connection with the world bypassing the senses

@Constance - "Art may be an open concept, utterly, but it is grounded in the pragmatic authority of our times"
@Constance - "for to speak of a world of which we are a part is to speak of something not witnessable"
@Constance - "Rorty and others deny that knowledge can in any way align with "reality" at the foundational level"
@Constance - "The real issue lies in meta-aesthetics/ethics: what is the Good?.............The understanding is pragmatic, I claim, which is why the aesthetic cannot be spoken"

Sentient life, including humans, are born with certain innate knowledge - such as the colour red, bitter tastes, acrid smells, what is hot to the touch, the pain of a headache, as well as the aesthetic. In line with Kant's view, a priori intuitions and concepts provide a priori knowledge, which also provides the framework for a posteriori knowledge. This a priori knowledge does not need to be taught, in that the brain is not a blank slate when born. IE, children don't need to go to school to learn how to have the subjective experience of the colour red.

But this is particular knowledge, in that I am not able to imagine an bitter taste independent of experiencing through my senses an object in the world that gives me the subjective experience of a bitter taste. This a priori knowledge is about the possibility of being able to experience a particular subjective experience, not the subjective experience itself. The point is that this a priori knowledge of the possibility of experiencing a particular subjective experience exists in the brain prior to any observation of the world through the senses.

IE we have a priori knowledge of certain subjective experiences prior to ever experiencing them through our senses, in that we can speak of a world which we have not witnessed.

Summary
Art is important because it is aesthetic form of representative content. The aesthetic is important because it is an innate foundational ability of sentient life to discover patterns in a seemingly chaotic world. Art is therefore an outward expression of the innate character of the brain and conscious mind.

for Rorty, this world is "made, not discovered" — Constance

Sentient life is not just an observer of the world but is a part of the world

The human observer does not lead an existence separate to the world. The human is an integral part of the world, and has been part of an evolutionary process stretching back at least 3.7 billion years - a synergy between all parts of the physical world, of matter and force, between nature and life.

IE, the human is not an outside observer of the world, but part of the world.

The pragmatist view is only half the story

The pragmatist holds the position that the purpose of our beliefs as expressed in language is not to understand the true nature of reality existing on the other side of our senses, but to succeed in whatever environment we happen to find ourselves. As with Kant's synthetic a priori, we make sense of the world by imposing our a priori concepts onto the world we observe

However, the human observer does not have a separate existence to the reality of any world external to their senses, but is an intrinsic part of reality. The observer is part of the world and the world is part of the observer, they are one and the same.

As the observer is part of reality, then any beliefs the observer has about the reality of logic, aesthetics, ethics, space, time, etc must also be an inherent part of reality itself.

Rather than we make sense of a reality external to our senses by imposing our a priori concepts onto it, part of reality makes sense of itself through a priori concepts.

IE, the pragmatist holds the position that the human observer only has an indirect contact with reality through the senses, whereas in fact, the human observer's knowledge also comes from being in direct contact with reality, being an intimate part of reality.

The question as to whether the aesthetic exists in the object observed the other side of the sense or within the observer disappears, as the reality on the other side of the senses is the very same reality as within the observer, in that there is only one reality. The aesthetic within the world and the aesthetic within the observer are one and the same, as any aesthetic in the sentient life is exactly the same as the aesthetic in the world from which it evolved over billions of years. IE, The word "aesthetic" only exists within human language, which only exists within humans, which exist within the world, meaning that "aesthetics" must exist in a world within which humans exist.

As I see it, the aesthetic is an abstract expression of the human ability to discover pattern in seemingly chaotic situations, to discover uniformity in variety, an invaluable trait in evolutionary survival. As Francis Hutcheson wrote in 1725: “What we call Beautiful in Objects, to speak in the Mathematical Style, seems to be in a compound Ratio of Uniformity and Variety; so that where the Uniformity of Bodys is equal, the Beauty is as the Variety; and where the Variety is equal, the Beauty is as the Uniformity”.

For me, important visual art requires aesthetic form of pictographic representation. As expressed by Hegel, formal quality is the unity or harmony of different elements in which these elements are not just arranged in a regular, symmetrical pattern but are unified organically together with a content of freedom and richness of spirit (though for me not a content of the divine).

Summary

In summary, the pragmatists are making the mistake of not taking into account the fact that because we are in intrinsic part of the world, this world "is also discovered, as well as made".

When art is undefined it fragments — Pop

An object can only have value if first defined. An object defined as a ship that sinks on first entering the water can rightly be said to be no good as a ship. The same object defined as a submarine that sinks on first entering the water may rightly be said to be good as a submarine.

With postmodernism, where anything can be art, then there cannot be good art or bad art. Then the well-known artwork A mail box in a lake is equal to the most prominent postmodernist works in the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (badly named, however)

But in modernism, where art has been defined (albeit in more than one way), there can be good and bad art. Then a child's crayon sketch of a dog can never be the equal of a Rembrandt or Matisse.

is there anything that is both the essence of art, what makes art, art, and absolute?......But I claim art has this foundation......Art has this, I say. It is called the aesthetic......Propositions are inherently defeatable........ words all carry their own begation... — Constance

The problem is, how can the idea that "the essence of art is as an aesthetic" be expressed but not in propositional form, if as you say that "propositions are inherently defeatable" and "words all carry their own negation" ?

the essence of art — Constance

Language is not part of the essence of a modernist artwork.
I don't want to give the impression that I think that linguistic descriptions are part of the fundamental essence of a modernist artwork. Descriptions and definitions (succinct descriptions) may be helpful in the viewer's understand of the artwork but any such description is external to the artwork.

Though language is important in understanding the artwork
For example, when looking at a Classical Greek sculpture such as Laocoon and his Sons, admired by Hegel for its form and content, a deeper understanding of both the artwork and artist may be gained by knowing that for Hegel formal qualities meant "a unity and harmony of different elements in which these elements are not just arranged in a regular, symmetrical pattern but are unified organically" and content meant "an expression of freedom and richness of spirit".

Language is part of the essence of a postmodernist artwork
Language in postmodernism has a different function to that of language in modernism.
In postmodernism, there has been a blurring of the lines between art and language, where language itself has become a part of the artwork and where through the text the viewer is invited to directly engage with political and social issues within contemporary life. In postmodernism, the artwork is not an end in itself, but is an instrument by which the viewer is directed to political and social concerns held by the artist.

Modernism is more profound than postmodernism
Modernism (whose essence is aesthetic form of pictographic representation) enables a profundity not present in postmodernism because the viewer's interpretation is not restricted by having to comply with any language imposed on the artwork by the artist, as would be the case within a postmodernist artwork (where the aesthetic has been deliberately excluded and whose essence is symbolic representation).

IE, modernism is democratic in allowing the viewer a free interpretation, whereas postmodernism is authoritarian in directing the viewer's interpretation by means of the language imposed by the artist.

art — praxis

If I could suggest a description for your next Venice Biennale exhibit : "Located somewhere between a fantastical reality and the political chaos of modern life, praxis' sculptures weave together multiple narrative threads. As a keen observer of complex social dynamics, he subverts conventional codes of representation through the language of narrative sculpture. Magnifying issues of inequality and political uncertainty, the picturesque beauty of his vivid landscape belies a sinister reality in which the collision of sumptuous detail and subtle colour provides an insight into the social mores and political ideologies of the working postman.

In my opinion, equal if not better than Teresa Margolles 2019 Venice Biennale exhibit.

art theory — Constance

There are different approaches to a definition of art

1) Definitions as universal - @Pop wrote: "Art is an expression of human consciousness" - "consciousness unifies and integrates information, and I postulate - in a creative process. It seems consciousness is creativity" (y)

2) Definitions as abstract - @Constance wrote: "And: in the end, all concepts are open. Art is just among the most intractable. The only way to pin it down is to move into metaphysics. This is not impossible, I claim." (y)

3) Definitions as particular - @RussellA wrote: "the two main approaches to art are modernism and postmodernism. In modernism, the artwork is more important than the artist, the aesthetic is of equal importance to the representation and the representation is pictographic. In postmodernism the idea of the artwork is more important than the physical artwork, any aesthetic has been deliberately removed and any representation is symbolic rather than pictographic. (y)

4) Definitions as unhelpful - @Banno wrote: "definitions are not all that helpful, but further, any definition of art will immediately encourage any sensible artist to produce something that does not meet that definition" (n)

5) Definitions as futile - @TheMadFool wrote: "Art has been allowed to explore the world on its own for too long - it's a wild animal now and taming it, which a definition is, is futile." (n)

Definitions are important in understanding modernism

In postmodernism the meaning of art has become meaningless as anything can be art, such as Warhol's Brillo Boxes, so any attempt at an underlying definition becomes pointless.

However, in modernism, it is the case that some objects have artistic value, such as Matisse's Dance 1910, and some don't, such as Warhol's Brillo Boxes. If some objects within modernism have artistic value and some don't, there must be objective and subjective reasons. As modernist artworks have great social, cultural and intellectual value, intellectual curiosity requires an attempt to discover reasons why they hold such important meaning.

IE, definitions, as succinct summaries of complex ideas, are an important aspect in the understanding of modernism.

Definitions can communicate subjective experience

As with Mary in Mary's Room, Mary may know all the objective facts about the colour red, and yet never had the subjective experience of the colour red.

The value of a modernist artwork, its essence, is in its particular subjective experience. The idea that definitions are unhelpful in communicating the nature of art assumes that definitions can only describe objective facts and not subjective experiences. But definitions do more than this. Definitions communicate between people by describing the whole - "aesthetic form is unity of parts within a varied whole" - and naming the parts - "unity", etc. Linguistic communication depends on agreed public names having private subjective meanings.

IE, as definitions are able to communicate the subjective essence of an artwork by naming rather than describing, definitions are invaluable in any discussion about art.

Definitions are not futile

If definitions were futile, then we would be deep in a postmodernist Alice in Wonderland world where any word can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean. This would result in the breakdown of communication, such that when I talk about my car I mean a small vessel for travelling over water, propelled by oars, sails, or an engine, and when I talk about my boat I mean a four-wheeled road vehicle that is powered by an engine

Definitions are not unhelpful
If definitions about art were unhelpful, the Tate would not write that "Performance Art is artworks that are created through actions performed by the artist or other participants, which may be live or recorded, spontaneous or scripted".

Or why the SEP have a 10,000 word long article on "The Definition of Art" - including Kant's definition as “a kind of representation that is purposive in itself and, though without an end, nevertheless promotes the cultivation of the mental powers for sociable communication”

Or the Minnesota State University's web site linking to Tolstoy's definition of art as "a means of union among men, joining them together in the same feelings, and indispensable for the life and progress toward well‐being of individuals and of humanity."

IE, Even if there is no agreement as to a single definition of art, definitions are helpful in attempting to understand the meaning of art.

Summary

Any underlying definition of art is pointless in postmodernism, as anything can be art, but in modernism, definitions are an important aspect in understanding the great social, cultural and intellectual importance of modernist artworks.

I find the idea of a mailbox standing in the middle of a lake rather aesthetically appealing. — praxis

I can see your artwork Mailbox in Lake taking pride of place at the 2022 Venice Biennale. (y)

Again, we can easily imagine a red letterbox out of context. In experience we cannot separate one from its context, — praxis

I agree that I would have difficulty understanding what was going on if I saw an object such as a red letter box out of its normal context in the middle of lake

But I would have no trouble with my subjective experience of the colour red (or aesthetic form) regardless of the object's context - whether at the end of a street or the middle of a lake.

Unless you have perfect pitch you couldn’t hear a musical note and identify it. You could learn how to do this with practice however.
What does it even mean to say that an object can be removed from its external context? — praxis

If I see a letter box at the end of the street, I may have the subjective experience of the colour red.

I don't need to identify what shade of red it is in order to have the subjective experience of the colour red.

The aesthetic form of the object can be removed from its external context
My subjective experience of the colour red is independent of any function the letter box may have. Similarly, my subjective experience of the aesthetic form of the letter box is independent of any function that the letter box has.

post modernism has made a mockery of art — Pop

I agree - the postmodernist "Artworld" with its "institutional definition of art" is destroying any value in the definition of art by pushing the agenda that art is defined in whatever way they deem it to be defined.

Suppose that no human ever bothered to distinguish the color of red from other colors. — praxis

When looking at the world, humans don't decide to distinguish between colours, but instinctively distinguish between colours, without thought or conscious effort.

Remarkably, in that long post you didn't use the word 'context' even once. — praxis

In a previous post I wrote "The aesthetic form of an object is independent of the object's context, as an object's aesthetic is the formal arrangement of the parts within the object, not any external context. The violence of a war can have an aesthetic and be ugly. The serenity of a garden can have an aesthetic and be beautiful".

In this particular post I summarised with the phrase "aesthetic as a formal arrangement of the parts within an object". Although not specifically referring to the context of the object, the phrase infers that the object's context is not part of the object's aesthetic.

The color is not in the object but on the object. — Khalif

Supposing that humans didn't exist, would the colour red still be on the object ?

you seem to have made up your own meaning of aesthetic. I’ll wager that you can’t explain what this is supposed to mean. — praxis

Thinking about the meaning of aesthetics rather than the definition of aesthetics:

The belief that the aesthetic is Uniformity within Variety goes back to at least Aristotle

Aristotle's Poetics is the first surviving philosophical treatise about the theory of drama in literary works. He wrote "Tragedy is a representation of a serious, complete action which has magnitude, in embellished speech, with each of its elements [used] separately in the [various] parts [of the play] and [represented] by people acting and not by narration, accomplishing by means of pity and terror the catharsis of such emotions."

As regards Variety, complex plots have reversals and recognitions, threats are resolved, and many types of art are blended, including language and music.
As regards Uniformity, actions should follow logically from the situation created by what has happened before, poetic narratives are unified by a plot whose logic binds up the constituent elements by necessity and probability.

As Francis Hutcheson wrote in 1725: “What we call Beautiful in Objects, to speak in the Mathematical Style, seems to be in a compound Ratio of Uniformity and Variety; so that where the Uniformity of Bodys is equal, the Beauty is as the Variety; and where the Variety is equal, the Beauty is as the Uniformity”.

IE, The belief that the aesthetic is Uniformity within Variety goes back to at least Aristotle.

The aesthetic is in the observer's experience of the object's form, not in the object's form

There are certain objective facts that may be described regarding the meaning of aesthetic, but the subjective experience itself is beyond description as that needs direct acquaintance.

Subjective experiences can include the perceived sensation of the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, the redness of an evening sky, as well as aesthetic form. A subjective experience stands in contrast to a propositional attitude, a conscious visceral experience rather than an intellectual belief about the experience.

Starting with colour as an analogy, an observer observes a wavelength of 700nm. The observer can describe objective facts about the wavelength of 700nm, but cannot describe their subjective experience of the colour red. I can be described objective facts about a wavelength of 700nm, but I must have subjective acquaintance with the colour red.

Although the colour red is not in the object, the object is the cause of the subjective experience of the colour red, in that a change in the object may cause a cause in the subjective experience, ie, from red to blue. Although the object is the cause of the effect of subjective experience of red, the object does not determine that the subjective experience is red rather than blue say. The particular object is the cause of the subjective experience of red, which is external to the object, and not contained within the object.

Similarly, an observer observes a physical object, where the whole object is made up of parts, and the observer observes the parts and the relationships between the parts. The particular object is the cause of an aesthetic experience, which is external to the object, and not contained within the object. The particular form of the object is the cause of an aesthetic experience, and a subjective aesthetic experience is the effect. As effects are not contained in their causes, it is not the form of the object that is aesthetic but rather the observer's subjective experience of the form of the object.

IE, the aesthetic is in the observer's experience of the object's form, not in the object's form.

The aesthetic and Uniformity within Variety are both Kantian a priori knowledge

Kant in Critique of Reason wrote: i) "Space is a necessary a priori representation that underlies all other intuitions", ii) “any knowledge that is thus independent of experience and even of all impressions of the senses. Such knowledge is entitled a priori”, iii) “in whatever manner and by whatever means a mode of knowledge may relate to objects, intuition is that through which it is in immediate relation to them”, iv) "nothing in a priori knowledge can be ascribed to objects save what the thinking subject derives from itself".

Innate human a priori knowledge has been part of the evolution of sentient life since the Cambrian period 541 to 485 mya. Humans are born with significant innate a priori knowledge, such as the instinctive knowledge of the difference in touch between a hot and cold object, knowledge of spatial relationships in knowing whether object A is to the left or right of object B, knowledge of the difference between a red object and blue object, knowledge of the difference between horizontal and vertical lines as well as a rudimentary knowledge of the difference between good and bad, etc. If this were not the case then there would be classes in school teaching the subjective experience of hot and cold, red and blue, etc. However, whilst subjective experiences cannot be taught, the words describing these experience must be taught, whether hot and cold, chaud froid, caldo freddo, etc.

Included within such a priori knowledge is the aesthetic. 10 million people didn't visit the Louvre annually without a desire for an aesthetic experience, nor admire Derain's Collioure, never mind the classic lines of the Mercedes 560SL, the magnificence of the Empire States Building, the complex themes of Cervantes Don Quixote or the timelessness of Sade's Smooth Operator.

What these aesthetic experiences have in common is the observer's consciousness of an inexplicable, undeniable mysterious unity within what at first sight appears chaotic, unintelligible and complex. The conscious mind, in observing a world of seemingly chaotic complexity, is able to self-organise all this maelstrom of information using a priori knowledge of balance, colour, movement, scale, shape, good and bad and mixed with a fundamental morality into comprehensible and intelligible patterns of understanding - an aesthetic Uniformity within Variety.

IE, the aesthetic and Uniformity within Variety are both innate parts of the structure of the brain as Kantian a priori knowledge.

Summary

As the aesthetic as a formal arrangement of the parts within an object has been discussed since at least Aristotle, I would have thought the more difficult problem would be to give an example of an aesthetic that didn't depend on the formal arrangement of the parts within the object.

Part of the problem when discussing "art" are problems with terminology. As I see it:

There are two meanings of aesthetics
Aesthetic as a verb means the study of beauty.
Aesthetic as a noun means a particular formal unity of parts within a complex and varied whole

There are two main definitions of art
Art as modernism, where aesthetic form and pictographic representative content have equal roles. An art going back the Lascaux cave paintings and beyond.
Art as postmodernism, where aesthetic form is deliberately excluded and the representation is symbolic. An art that originated in the 1960's.

Art as modernism can be further subdivided into Modernism, Expressionism, Baroque, etc.
Art as postmodernism can be further subdivided into Conceptual, Contemporary, Performance, etc.

There are two meanings of modernism
There is the modernism as an approach going back to the Lascaux cave paintings and beyond.
There is the Modernism of Monet and the Impressionists where the representation was of contemporary society rather than historical subject.

There are two meaning of contemporary
A contemporary artist can mean any artist currently living and who can be working in a variety of styles.
A Contemporary art is a subdivision of postmodernism, where artists from the 1960's onwards wanted to reconnect art with contemporary life.

There are two meanings of "an artwork has value"
It can mean that there is an object that can have aesthetic value independently of any observer.
It can mean that objects cannot have aesthetic value independently of any observer, but only in the mind of an observer.

The meaning of words can change with time
When today we use the word aesthetic, Kant in the 18th C would have used the term "free beauty"
When today we use the word beauty, Kant would have used the term "adherent beauty".

Things are complicated when contemporary commentators on Kant replace the term "free beauty" by "beauty"

The aesthetic and beauty have different meanings
The aesthetic form of an object is independent of the object's context, as an object's aesthetic is the formal arrangement of the parts within the object, not any external context.
The violence of a war can have an aesthetic and be ugly.
The serenity of a garden can have an aesthetic and be beautiful.

The "Artworld" is not "The Art World"
The "Artworld" has been hijacked by the postmodernists. This can be dated back to Arthur Danto's The Artworld, which gave the "institutional definition of art", defining art as whatever art schools, museums, wealthy collectors and the media say it is.
"The Art World" is the world of most everyday practising professional and non-professional artists, predominantly working in the modernist style .


IE, in discussions about art, as with philosophy in general, communication can break down when different contributors attach different meanings to the same words.

aesthetic value — praxis

You are right. Similarly, when I am in the presence of any object, even though all objects have a temperature, I am not always appreciating that object's temperature.

Every observed object has aesthetic value - but not all aesthetic values are equal
If the aesthetic is understood as Hutcheson's "compound ratio of Uniformity and Variety", then every observed object has an aesthetic, and every observed object is an artwork. An observed object could be Derain's Bridge over the Riou or the Golden Gate Bridge. (y) @Constance

From the fact that every object has a temperature, it does not follow that all objects have the same temperature. The Mercedes AMG F1 W12 E Performance and the Skoda 1100 R are both cars, but it does not follow that they are the same. Warhol's Brillo Box and Rembrandt's Self Portrait are both artworks and both have an aesthetic, but it does not necessarily follow that they have the same artistic and aesthetic quality.

As the aesthetic experience originates in the observer and not the observed object, the aesthetic experience is subjective rather than objective, and it follows that there cannot be an absolute measure of aesthetic value. But even so, there may be general agreement between different observer's as to the aesthetic value of a particular object.

IE, even though every observed object has an aesthetic value, some observed objects have a greater aesthetic value than others.

Of what use is the aesthetic
One could ask of what practical use is Kirchner's Alpleben. It just sits on the wall doing nothing. At least with a car I can get from A to B, and at least with an oven I can cook evening dinner. The Kirchner gives me nothing practical, and yet for me the aesthetic value of the kirchner outweighs anything that is mundanely practical.

As the aesthetic experience is a qualia (apologies to Banno - although it is a useful word), in the same way as the pain of a headache, the taste of wine or the redness of an evening sky, it is a Kantian a priori intuition, and therefore beyond being able to be described.

As the value of tasting red wine is in the experience itself, the value of the aesthetic is in the experience itself.

Aesthetic intuition doesn't give specific knowledge, but it does point to the possibility of discovering greater knowledge. An aesthetic of "Uniformity and Variety" gives the promise of being able to to discover and understand patterns within a seemingly chaotic mass of unconnected information. The experience of the aesthetic points to the conscious organisation of seemingly chaotic information into comprehensible patterns. (y) @Pop

The engineer who designs a bridge and the child that makes a car of lego are both using their imagination and understanding in creative acts, though only the child's parents or the postmodernist would say that their creations have the same value. A Rembrandt Self-Portrait and a Warhol Brillo Box both have artistic and aesthetic value, but their artistic and aesthetic values are not comparable. It is better to strive for the sophistication of a Rembrandt than a simpleness of a Warhol.

IE, the aesthetic experience points to the possibility of discovering the "Uniformity" of patterns within a "Variety" of information.

Summary
Every observed object is an artwork and has an aesthetic, but the aesthetic value of some artworks is higher than others.

Does a work not provide the observer's mind with something to consider? — Tom Storm

Yes. Derain in 1905 created the object Estaque which provides the observer's mind with something to consider, thereby allowing the concepts meaning and quality to be applied.

But could an object have either meaning or quality if no-one ever had knowledge of its existence ?

"Does the quality of an artwork reside in the art work itself, or in the mind of the observer, or artist?" — Pop

I agree with Pop "the quality of the art work resides in the mind of the artist, or observer" and Constance "I would put the entire enterprise of art creation in the mind. An object in the world is nothing at all until it is invested with meaning by an interpretative agency." (y)

As I see it, today in the West, there are two main approaches to the practice of art, what I may as well call the postmodernist and the modernist.

A background to postmodernism
The postmodernist approach began in about the 1960's and includes artworks such as Warhol's brillo boxes, Carl Andre's bricks and Tracy Emin's unmade bed. Major aspects include i) the idea of the artwork is more important than the physical artwork ii) any aesthetic has been deliberately removed iii) any representation is symbolic rather than pictographic.

A background to modernism
The modernist approach goes back to the first art created in the stone age between 300,000 and 700,000 years ago, and includes artworks such as Monet's Impressionism, Casper David Friedrich's Romanticism, Classical Greek sculpture and the wall paintings in the Lascaux caves. Major aspects include i) the artwork is more important than the artist ii) the aesthetic is of equal importance to the representation iii) the representation is pictographic.

The definition of "art" has been hijacked by the postmodernists
Even though postmodernism in art has existed for only the last 60 of the 700,000 years that humans have practised art, and probably 80% of contemporary artists work in the modernist rather than postmodernist style, the definition of "art" has unfortunately been hijacked by the postmodernists who now run the "Artworld". This is the same nihilistic doctrine of Derrida's postmodernism that dominates the humanities and media and rejects the established structure of Western civilization and culture.

Where does meaning reside in artworks
As modernist artworks are fundamentally aesthetic form of pictographic representation, and as postmodernist works are fundamentally symbolic representations, the question whether meaning resides in the artwork or the observer may be reduced to asking where meaning resides in i) aesthetic form ii) pictographic representation and iii) symbolic representation.

Where does meaning reside in aesthetic form
An aesthetic is a particular variety in balance. As Frances Hutchinson wrote “What we call Beautiful in Objects, to speak in the Mathematical Style, seems to be in a compound Ratio of Uniformity and Variety; so that where the Uniformity of Bodys is equal, the Beauty is as the Variety; and where the Variety is equal, the Beauty is as the Uniformity”

The aesthetic is in the relationship between the parts. This raises the question of the ontology of relationships in the world - do relationships exist in the world or do they only exist in the mind of the observer. FH Bradley argued against any reality of relations between things in his regress argument. He presented the dilemma to show that external relations are unintelligible. Either a relation R is nothing to the things a and b it relates, in which case it cannot relate them. Or, it is something to them, in which case R must be related to them.

Either relations do or do not exist in the world.
a) If relations don't exist between things in the world, then the aesthetic, which is a particular relationship between things cannot exist in the world within the artwork, and therefore can only exist in the observer's mind.
b) If relations do exist between things in the world, then there would exist relationships between every single part of the object presented as an artwork, and beyond countable, meaning that an aesthetic - understood as a particular relationship between particular parts - would become indistinguishable from every other set of possible relationships.

IE, an aesthetic cannot exist within the object presented as an artwork, but only in the mind of the observer.

Where does meaning reside in pictographic representation
Pictographic representation can vary from the photorealism of Ralph Goings 1970 McDonalds Pickup representing American culture, to the abstracted water-lilies of Monet and to the drum in Ghanain art representing goodwill and diplomacy.

Taking the abstracted water-lily of Monet as an example, a patch of pale blue contained within a circle of dark blue, the question is, can the shapes on the canvas have a meaning independently of any observer. Pictograms are a language, where the individual shapes within a pictogram are like the letters within a word. Taking the analogy of language, does the word "house" have a meaning independent of any observer. Clearly no, as a German, for example, could never discover any meaning in the letters by themselves, as words have to be learnt.

Similarly, do the symbols of a patch of pale blue within a circle of dark blue have any meaning independently of any observer, or does the meaning have to have learnt. If the shapes have meaning independently of any observer, then the fact that a mass of pale blue represents a water-lily must be internal within the mass of pale blue. But, a patch of pale blue can represent anything the observer wants it to: water, a sky, the feathers of a bird, the concept of peace, etc. Therefore, the fact that the patch of pale blue represents a water-lily cannot be within the shape itself but only in the mind of an observer.

IE, the meaning of a pictographic representation is not within the representation but within the mind of the observer.

Where does meaning reside in symbolic representation
Taking the example of Joseph Kosuth's One and Three Chairs 1965, consisting of a chair, a photograph of a chair and a dictionary definition of a chair, where the observer is invited to philosophically question in the spirit of Plato the nature of reality and the observer's place in society.

Any observer entering the gallery and seeing a chair could never discover from any inspection of the chair the artist's intended meaning, but only by reading about the artist's intentions.

IE, in such an artwork, the meaning of a symbolic representation cannot be discovered in the object itself, but only in the mind of the artist, and through a textual description then into the mind of the observer.

Summary
For both postmodernism and modernism, as the meaning of any artwork resides in the mind of the artist or observer and not the artwork, and as quality is a mental concept, then the quality of the artwork resides not in the artwork but in the mind of the artist, or observer

Art is an expression of human consciousness — Pop

"Art" is expressed in human consciousness
My belief is that "art" is a combination of an aesthetic and representation. As "aesthetic" and "representation" are human concepts, then "art" is also a human concept. As humans are conscious of their concepts, then humans are conscious of "art" as a concept. IE, I agree that "art" is expressed in human consciousness.

But - every observed object is an "artwork"
As everything observed has some degree of aesthetic and representation, then everything observed is an artwork - a Rembrandt, a leaf on the ground, a sunset, a Renault Kangoo, a Derain, a computer keyboard, a Falcon Heavy, a sunset, a tin of baked beans, an unmade bed, a Picasso.

Though - artworks don't even need to be physical objects
Artworks can exist as an idea or a concept. My description of a sunset over a Norwegian forest is also an artwork. In 1960, the artist Stanley Brouwn declared that all the shoe shops in Amsterdam constitute an exhibition of his artwork. In conceptual art, the idea or concept behind the work is more important than the finished art object.

However - all artworks have a quality as all objects have a temperature
I am following previous comments to make my point.
TheMadFool - "Yet, someone can present anything under the sun as art"
Praxis - "If art is anything an artist presents as art then anything can be art, and by extension, anyone can be an artist"
Tom Storm - "it interests me how often the question 'what is good art?' is often mistaken for the question, 'what is art?"
T Clark - "There can be low quality art".

As every observed object has an aesthetic and representation, the terms aesthetic and representative are not binary, but rather have a subjective "quality". IE, as every object has a temperature, and this temperature can range from extreme heat to extreme cold, a Derain has a greater aesthetic than two sticks on the ground artistically placed, and a Thomas Cole has a greater representative content than two sticks on the ground in the shape of a mountain.

However - an artwork's quality is subjective
I agree that as aesthetic and representative content is subjective, there can never be an absolute standard by which artworks are judged, and there will always be argument as to the quality of an artwork. However, this being said, the degree of aesthetic and representative content does vary between artworks, even if there can never be any absolute agreement as to which of two artworks is the better.

In summary - the definition of art should include a reference to "quality"
As with Wittgensteins' "game", I agree with Wheatly that "I don't think Art (with a capital 'A') can be boiled down to a definition." As every observed object is an artwork, the definition "Art is the expression of human consciousness" is far too broad to be useful. The next step in improving the definition would be to include reference to a major distinguishing feature of art, ie, its quality. This is easier said than done, as, for a Modernist quality in art means one thing, and for a Postmodernist quality in art means something totally different.

IE, improving any definition of art by including reference to quality is perhaps where the task of defining art gets a bit tricky

“Art is an expression of human consciousness. Art work is information about the artist’s consciousness.” — Pop

There are many different definitions of "Art", of which the above is more relevant to the Post-Modernism that arose in the 1960's.

This definition doesn't relate to Modernism and Pre-Modernism

For example, "Art is an expression of human consciousness" is not referring to Kirchner's Expressionism, where the artist expressed their inner feelings, not their consciousness.

"I am however, saying that being beautiful or ugly are optional elements of art" is clearly not referring to the Modernism of Monet's Impressionism, which is about the aesthetic arrangement of representative forms.

"Art work is information about the artist’s consciousness” surely does not apply when looking at the Mona Lisa , which seems more about Lisa Gheradini's self-conscious reflections within the Lombardy countryside than any reference to the artist.

"Art is information about the artist's evolving process of self organization" certainly does not apply to a landscape by Thomas Cole, where no information is given about the process of the artist. It the landscape itself rather than the artist that is the subject of self-organization.

This definition relates more to Post-Modernism

If Art is about consciousness, then any conscious act can be art, such as the Post-Modernist Andy Warhol's Oxidation Series 1977, where he invited friends to urinate onto a canvas of metallic copper pigments, so that the uric acid would oxidize into abstract patterns.

If Art is about consciousness regardless of quality, then this would fulfil the Conceptual Art of Tracey Emin, where the concept or idea involved in the work take precedence over traditional aesthetic, technical, and material concerns.

If Art was about expressing the consciousness of the artist, this would include Cut Piece 1964 by Yoko One, a performance in which people were invited to cut away portions of her clothing.

If Art was about expressing the consciousness of the artist through the ideas and concepts of language, this would include the Language-based art of Joseph Kosuth, such as his 1997 work Titled Quotation (for L.C.) consisting solely of the text "SORRY, NO IMAGE AVAILABLE"


IE, the above definition relates more to that of the Post-Modernism that arose in the 1960's, where the artist has become more important than the artwork, rather than any definition of art that preceded it.

Art is an expression of human consciousness — Pop

Does creativity originate in the brain, mind or consciousness.

There is some kind of relationship between the brain, mind and consciousness. There is the question of where creativity originates: the brain, mind or consciousness.

Consciousness cannot exist independently of a brain/mind, whereas a brain/mind can function independently of consciousness. IE, the brain/mind can be creative independently of consciousness. Art is one example of brain/mind creativity.

I agree that there is the question of whether my brain/mind would be creative, such as in creating art, without the driving force of consciousness. But even so, even if consciousness is the driving force, creativity still originates in the brain/mind.

After randomly imagining several marks of varying colours, sizes and shapes, I choose to paint that mark which is, for me, the most aesthetically pleasing. I am only conscious of whether a mark is aesthetically pleasing after having imagined it. IE, I am conscious of my brain/mind's creativity, not that my consciousness is creative.

The expression "art is the expression of human consciousness" seems to infer that art is a creation of consciousness, rather than, as I see it, consciousness being a "passenger" on the brain/mind's creativity.

IE, rather than say "art is an expression of human consciousness", one could perhaps say that "art is the conscious expression of the creativity of the brain/mind"

learn philosophy — DesperateBeing

1) Use the Philosophy Forum as a means of learning philosophy.

2) Find any thread you are interested in - eg "Complete vs. Incomplete Reality"

3) Find any topic you are interested in - eg "I toy with the idea that there are many important phenomena in the world, which play a crucial causal influence in the way we view the world, but which we utterly fail to detect because we are human beings and not God (or angles, or intelligent aliens)"

4) Make an argument supporting or opposing the topic - whether 50 or 500 words.

5) Structure your reply along the lines of a "How to write a Philosophy Paper" - eg https://philosophy.fas.harvard.edu/files/phildept/files/brief_guide_to_writing_philosophy_paper.pdf

6) Support your argument with strong evidence - ie, incontrovertible logic or any established philosopher.

7) Find a source relevant to the topic - whether Plato, Wittgenstein or whoever - print-off a few relevant pages - highlight in yellow relevant ideas - try to include a few of these ideas.

8) Use a spell-checker

9) Post your reply - get feedback.

10) If no-one accepts your argument, then try again.

space with nothing in it — Amalac

Is Kant referring to the whole of space or only a part of space

Kant wrote "One can never forge a representation of the absence of space, though one can quite well think that no things are to be met within it."

I agree with Mww, who wrote "By empty space, Kant refers to only that space which would bound the extension of a possible object."

However, whether Kant is referring to the whole of space or only a part of space is irrelevant to the point that he is making.

Kant's position is important because it is at odds with Leibniz and the relationist claim that the idea of space existing independently of objects is incoherent.

IE, Kant is making the point that space can exist independently of there being any object within it, regardless of whether this is the whole of space or just a part of space.

Can one imagine a space with nothing in it

(Defining space as a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied rather than everything beyond the Karman Line.)

Russell wrote: "I should emphatically deny that we can imagine space with nothing in it"

If Russell is correct in saying that we cannot imagine a space with nothing in it, as space has by definition nothing in it, then it follows that Russell was saying that we cannot imagine space.

Because, if Russell is correct in that we cannot imagine space, then it would follow that when we observe the world we would observe all objects touching each other.

However, this is clearly not the case

IE, when we observe that in the world that there is space between objects, then it follows that we must be able to imagine a space that has nothing in it.

So if you imagine there being nothing in the table, then space would still not be empty — Amalac

Continuing Russells' " The second metaphysical argument maintains that it is possible to imagine nothing in space, but impossible to imagine no space".

Possible to imagine nothing in space
It is true that the space above the table is bounded by the table, but being able to imagine the space above the table having nothing in it means that I can imagine "a space" with nothing in it.
So, if I can imagine "a space" of 1m size with nothing in it, there is no reason why I cannot imagine "a space" of 1km size with nothing in it, or "a space" of 1 light year size with nothing inside it. In fact, there is no reason why I cannot imagine "a space" of any size with nothing in it.

In this sense - "it is possible to imagine nothing in space"

Impossible to imagine no space
"Red" exists in two ways. There is the "red" that exists as 650nm independently and externally of the mind and there is our subjective concept of "red".
In the same way "space" exists in two ways. There is the "space" that exists independently and externally of the mind and there is our subjective concept of "space"
As we know that our subjective experience of "red" is different in kind to the physical nature of "red" outside our mind, we should expect that our subjective experience of "space" to be different in kind to the physical nature of "space" outside our mind.

As we are born with an innate concept of "red", we are born with an innate concept of "space", ie, we don't need to learn either of them.
As Kant wrote: "Space is a necessary a priori representation that underlies all other intuitions"

Being born with an innate concept of "space", our concept of "space" is subjective.
As Kant wrote: "Space is not something objective and real, nor a substance, nor an accident, nor a relation; instead, it is subjective and ideal, and originates from the mind’s nature in accord with a stable law as a scheme, as it were, for coordinating everything sensed externally". Inaugural Dissertation Ak 2: 403

Kant is not saying that we don't observe the world (as he uses the words "sensed externally" and "intuition"), but he is saying that what we think we observe is determined by the innate nature of our brain.
Kant wrote: "Space and time are merely the forms of our sensible intuition of objects. They are not beings that exist independently of our intuition (things in themselves), nor are they properties of, nor relations among, such beings.

Regardless of the degree of correspondence with any "space" existing independently of us, as we are born with an innate concept of "space", it would be impossible for the brain to ignore something that was a part of it's own structure.

In this sense, it is "impossible to imagine no space"

I should emphatically deny that we can imagine space with nothing in it.

Russell wrote "I should emphatically deny that we can imagine space with nothing in it"

However, in the space above the table in front of me there is no apple.

In order for me to know that there is no apple in this space, I must also know that there is a space in which there is no apple.

If Russell was correct in saying that we cannot imagine space with nothing in it, then it would necessarily follow that it would not be possible to imagine that there is no apple within this space.

And yet, I know that there is no apple in the space above the table in front of me.

If I can imagine that there is no apple in the space above the table, then it necessarily follows that I must also be able to imagine the space in which there is nothing.

IE, Russell was wrong in saying that we cannot imagine space with nothing inside it.

origin of meaning — Voidrunner

I would suggest that rather than meaning being an inherent part of the world, it is rather an inherent part of sentient life, believed to have begun during the Cambrian period.

Taking the specific example of the mollusc, which evolved about 541 to 485 million years ago. The mollusc's behaviour is extremely diverse, and light plays a critical part in its life cycle.

In our terms, bright light to the mollusc means heat and dryness and shade means desirable damp and shelter

One could discuss whether such behaviour is innate or intelligent, and whether conscious or not, but regardless, as light is part of the mollusc's phenomenological perception of reality, light must have significant meaning to the creature.

IE, meaning existed pre-language.

Non-existence can't exist — Derrick Huesits

The proposition "non-existence can't exist" is a linguistic curiosity and not a path to an ontological truth

Because words happen to be in the form of a proposition, it does not necessarily follow that they have any meaning, at least no more than Carroll's - 'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves. Did gyre and gimble in the wabe".

A further consideration is the philosophical problem regarding the proposition "non-existence can't exist". As our knowledge of the world is about "existence" (ie, avoiding the problem of referring to non-existent entities), how can a proposition - a set of words - enable us to transcend to knowledge about "non-existence" ?

Non-existence can't exist -so, there must be infinite existence in all directions for all time — Derrick Huesits

Space-time is being conflated with existence

Itemising the argument in the first part of the OP :
i) there cannot be non-existence - therefore existence is infinite.
ii) space-time = existence
iii) therefore space-time is infinite.

Regarding item ii), space-time is being conflated with existence, rather than existence being a property of space-time.

If existence is a property of space-time, then there can still be existence in the absence of space-time.

In which case, item iii) does not follow. IE, space-time need not be infinite, and if not infinite, then not omnipresent.

I would argue there is a sense where "That which expresses itself in language, we cannot express by language." does not exclude us from discussing the form, or sense, or the picture, or what is concealed — Antony Nickles

Wittgenstein and what cannot be said

Wittgenstein wrote in TLP 6.421 "It is clear that ethics cannot be put into words. Ethics is transcendental". Russell wrote in the introduction to the Tractatus "Mr. Wittgenstein manages to say a good deal about what cannot be said, thus suggesting to the sceptical reader that possibly there may be some loophole through a hierarchy of languages, or by some other exit".

The apparent paradox of talking about subjective truths

The question is how is it possible to connect private subjective truths to a public word.

Using colour as an example of a private subjective truth. I observe an object in the world. I experience various private subjective truths about this object - (green, circular, opaque). I observe that public words are attached to this same object - "opaque, green, circular"

Several instances may be required, but using inductive reasoning about constantly conjoined events, ie, that of my private subjective truth (green) and the public word "green", I may infer that the public word "green" is linked to my private subjective truth (green).

Note that the link is between my private sensation and the public word, not between my private sensation and someone else's private sensation. IE, my private sensation of "green" may or may not be the same as someone else's private sensation of "green", even though we share the same word.

Note that there is no information within the public word "green" that describes any person's private subjective truth. However, that being said, the public word "green" can describe my private subjective truth of (green) to me.

My inference that the public word "green" is linked to my private subjective truth (green) may eventually turn out to be wrong, in that I am using inductive reasoning, but pragmatically, for the time being, it is probably good enough.

Conclusion

I can use the public word "green" to describe my private subjective truth (green) because of my inductive reasoning about constantly conjoined events.

Wittgenstein's TLP 1 "The world is all that is the case" needs to be translated before it can be interpreted

As I see it, normally when reading a sentence in another language, such as "der Apfel liegt auf dem Tisch" we use a two step process. First we translate it into English "the apple is on the table" and then we interpret it (the apple is on the table).

However, with writers such as Wittgenstein, it is often the case that a three step process is needed. For example:
1) First, TLP 1 "Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist" is translated into Standard English "The world is all that is the case"
2) Then we translate the Standard English "The world is all that is the case" into common usage "the world that exists independently of any human consists of a combination of simple and unalterable objects in space and time"
3) Finally, we interpret it - (within the world that exists independently of any human observer there are objects existing in combination within space and time, where such objects are unalterable and simple, ie, having no proper parts).

Once interpreted, one can then make a comment. Such as - Wittgenstein's "objects" are logical objects rather than physical objects.

IE, even when reading the Tractatus in English, it is as much a case of translation as interpretation.

language easily misleads us — dimosthenis9

TLP 1. The world is everything that is the case

It certainly is the case with Wittgenstein. As the SEP article on Wittgenstein wrote: "The Tractatus is notorious for its interpretative difficulties", of which the correct interpretation of the word " world" is one example.

For example, when Wittgenstein first uses the word "world", I am sure that only he knows what he means by it, certainly not the reader. It is not so much that he is using a private language of the kind as described in PI 243 "The individual words of this language are to refer to what can only be known to the person speaking; to his immediate private sensations. So another person cannot understand the language", but rather he is envisaging that the meaning that he intends the word to have will later become clear to the reader within the full context of the article.

It seems that Wittgensteins' approach is that the complete meaning of any particular word comes from its context rather than any pre-determined definition.
PI 21 - Now what is the difference between the report or statement "Five slabs" and the order "Five slabs!"?—Well, it is the part which uttering these words plays in the language game.
PI - 22 - Here the term "language-game" is meant to bring into prominence the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity, or of a form of life.

However, there remains the problem with such a language game of the danger of circularity of meaning, in that, if the meaning of the word comes from the game and there are minimal links from the language game to an external reality, then there is the problem of how to choose between different games.

It seems that Wittgenstein does not always follow his own advice, when he writes:
TLP 4.112 - "Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts"

1. The world is everything that is the case — Banno

1. The world is everything that is the case

As 1. "The world is everything that is the case" begins the Tracataus, it is probably especially important to understand its meaning, and I am trying to ensure that I've got hold of the right end of the stick.

The statement 1. "The world is everything that is the case" is initially confusing because Wittgenstein is using words in a way different to everyday usage and which can only be properly understood in context with the rest of the Tractatus, as others have already mentioned.

As a note, the Tractatus may be interpreted as espousing realism - the independent existence of objects, states of affairs and facts.

It seems to me that:
1) Wittgenstein's "world" is that which exists independently of any human observer, ie, the Earth and Universe in general. It therefore excludes human experiences of ethics, aesthetics, the experience of colour, the pain of a hot stove, etc. However, in common usage, the "world" would include both the human observer and the world they live in.
2) Wittgenstein's "case" has a meaning specific to the Tractatus- a fact - an existence of a state of affairs. However, in common usage we would say "it is the case that aesthetics is important"

"Tell me about something which cannot be put into words."

This raises the point as to how Wittgenstein is able to write about things that cannot be put into words.
6.421 It is clear that ethics cannot be put into words. Ethics is transcendental. (Ethics and aesthetics are one and the same.)

Bertrand Russell in his introduction to the Tractatus wrote - "Mr. Wittgenstein manages to say a good deal about what cannot be said, thus suggesting to the sceptical reader that possibly there may be some loophole through a hierarchy of languages, or by some other exit"

As regards the exit, when Banno asks ""Tell me about something which cannot be put into words.", what appears to be a paradox is solved by the nature of language, in that the answer is simply "I cannot put into words my private experience of the colour red".

Summary

When Wittgenstein writes "the world is everything that is the case", what he means is very different from what would be meant in common usage.

The nature of language is such that it allows Wittgenstein to talk about things that, in a sense, transcend language.

"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world"

The meaning of "my world"

I would suggest that as Wittgenstein is using the term "my world" in a way that is not commonly accepted this contributes to any confusion in interpreting his intended meaning.

The original German was "meiner Welt, so it does not seem to be a problem of translating German to English.

In the Tractatus, Wittgenstein discusses what language can and cannot do.
He argues that there are some aspects of life, such as ethics, that are beyond the limits of language, in that they transcend language.
5.6 - "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" ?
6.421 - It is clear that ethics cannot be put into words. Ethics is transcendental. (Ethics and aesthetics are one and the same.)
7 - "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"

Wittgenstein links language to "my world" not by representing the world but by displaying its logical form.
4.001 - "The totality of propositions is language"
4.121 - "Propositions cannot represent logical form: it is mirrored in them. What finds its reflection in language, language cannot represent. What expresses itself in language, we cannot express by means of language. Propositions show the logical form of reality. They display it."
1.1 - "The world is the totality of facts, not of things"
1 - "The world is everything that is the case"

As with Mary in Mary's Room, Mary may know everything about the science of colour but may never have experienced the sensation of colour. Mary's world (in the sense of the world that Mary lives in) includes both those things within the limits of language - the science of colour - and that which transcends language - the experience of colour. The same is also true that for each of us, in that our worlds include both that which can be described and that which is beyond description.

However, Wittgenstein is limiting the term "my world" to only that part which can be described in language.

IE, when Wittgenstein writes "my world", he is using the term "my world" in a more restricted sense than is commonly accepted, contributing to any confusion in interpretations of his intended meaning.

(1) is invalid.

With good reason, the pollees believe that a Republican will win the election, not that a Republican might win the election, meaning that (1) is invalid.

IE, it is (1) that is not part of a valid modus ponens, rather than the case that the modus ponens is not valid.

Trying to work out how to upload an image.
When dragging from computer, get message "You do not have permission to upload files"