Not sure I understand. Are you putting Newton up as a philosopher? Sure. But what he did would not be considered philosophy now. Today's philosophy is an intellectual backwater. I guess I would make a possible exception for political philosophy. — T Clark

Newton was an artist in creating calculus

What? Sure the artist changes. Look at Radiohead - Pablo Honey vs. Amnesiac. — Noble Dust

I am talking about a single artist in relation to a single work.

But the circumstance of artist/audience/middle man doesn't change. I'm making this point because too often one of those three gets a distorted view of their role in the process. — Noble Dust

The artist doesn't change - but the audience does.

↪Thinker

You might know that to be true of yourself and perhaps those you are acquainted with, but how could you know it to be true of all of us? — John

What are you talking about?

Poetry doesn't have a goal. — Noble Dust

I think you are way off base here. Please reconsider this statement.

I say 50% because there's just two participants, fundamentally: artist and audience. Or, as mcdoogle pointed out, there's also the middle men of sorts; the record label, the art dealer, the money guy. So maybe 33% is better. — Noble Dust

I don't think it is a fixed number - circumstances change - people change - art takes new meaning today from yesterday.

You have a pretty high falutin vision of the importance of philosophers and artists, especially philosophers. None of us are "the voice behind the curtain." There isn't one. — T Clark

Very perceptive of you. Ok, I guess we just got here by accident. Was calculus an accident? Was Newton an artist?

This is when the audience really puts in their 50% share of the work, and many different interpretations of a piece get made; people experience within many different contexts; a piece that transcends generations gets experienced in even wider (historical) contexts. — Noble Dust

I have seen many a poem interpreted well beyond the author’s intent. So, 50% is a guesstimate. It may be 80% or 20% - depends on the work and also depends on the audience.

I think both theists and atheists have gone beyond the strength of the available evidence.
— TheMadFool

Ironic. — Sapientia

I find this ironic too. I am not so sure the madfool has a position - he may just like to hear himself talk.

I'm asking how art receives content or meaning, and as I've stated, I think the audience is 50% of the work, so all of these attempts by artists to define what they've done beforehand are not only unhelpful, but futile. — Noble Dust

I agree with you and stated that in my post - and much more - perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Or maybe something else is going on - you seem frustrated.

Artists are the leaders of civilization.
— Thinker

Artists don't lead civilization, they ride on it. Excess wealth generated by centralized economic systems allows expenditures on things that are not directly related to food, shelter, and security. That doesn't say anything bad about art, but there's no doubt it, as an organized institution, is a luxury.

The paintings in the Lascaux cave are some of the most beautiful and moving things I've ever seen. It seems unlikely that whoever painted them had any concept of art or artists. Seems to me that art became a thing when cities came into existence. I have no evidence for that. — T Clark

Spoken like a true engineer. You see the surface mechanics of things real well. However the voice behind the curtain is that of the artist. Do you realize philosophers are artists? Who thought of the institutions of society first? Who helps steer the ship of state today? When we debate stem cell research in the US – who is talking to the politicians?

Is Meaning Prior To Language? Yes, meaning comes from sensation first. What we feel, see, taste, smell and hear is what we experience first. What the first man heard was a buzzing sound – then the bite of a mosquito. As time when on this man pieced together associations of his sensations. He understood the buzzing and bite go together. This is the beginning of cognition. Further on in time he heard the mosquito and saw his neighbor slap it dead. So, the associations got more and more complex in his cognition. Perhaps over time he made a buzzing sound to indicate the presence of the mosquito. This is the beginning of language.

My question really is whether you think someone's motivation determines the truth of what they say. Mathematicians enjoy mathematics, and of course that's why they do it. Finding an especially good result may make you especially happy, but the converse obviously does not hold.

There has been some controversy within philosophy in recent years about whether alternative points of view are suppressed by charging them with committing the genetic (and related) fallacies. I was wondering if you were taking a side here. — Srap Tasmaner

Truth is a slippery little lizard. Emotions are like the carrot and the stick. Our preferences come from a variety of sources. Sometimes it is the stomach that is charge – sometimes the brain – sometimes the heart – sometimes a combination. Who is to say what is right? In the end – truth is in the eye of the beholder. With enough pressure my truth may change. What I view as truth today can change tomorrow. Sometimes my vision of truth need glasses – sometimes a microscope – sometimes I cannot make out what I am looking at. How about you?

“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”.
— Thinker

Did you? — John

We all do.

I think you are really asking what is art and what is it worth? Art is in the eyes of the creator and the observer. What I mean to say is that art is anything the creator intents – be it music, literature, science, mathematics, philosophy or theatre. It can be anything. Is there such a thing a null-art? Many argue that Rothko was a nihilist. I am not a big fan of Rothko, so I will not comment. I saw Rothko’s work in Houston and it was powerful – in a way. I am not sure what his message was.

Artists are the leaders of civilization. They have a vision of what tomorrow will be. Without artist, we don’t know where the hell we are going. Einstein had many theories that he was not sure of. He had the courage to propose things that were uncertain. I think we are all glad he did. A good artists or perhaps the best artists are out on a limb. It takes courage to get – far out on that limb - to push the horizon past where it stands.

The audience has a somewhat easier job. You know the old saying – “everybody is a critic”? How much great art and/or ideas have been crushed by critics? I don’t know – a lot. However the audience is important in its interpretation and implementation of the art. The ball is in the court of the artist to ensure the dance between the two is successful or not. I like found art – junk art – some people look at my stuff and say – what the fuck is that? It is all grist for the mill.

Art is what steers our ship of state. In the very beginning philosophers proposed methods of living and thinking which we used to advance. Zeus was a very successful vision of the world in its day. I wonder how Zeus feels about things now? Oh well, we have new sculptures in our houses today. Perhaps you have one of Jesus on your walls? Tomorrow I hope people will put my works in their house. Art bridges us from today to tomorrow and on into the future.

Your dilemma as I see it – is that no God exists – because it cannot be proven. This is a valid supposition. However, the supposition/antithesis that there is no God – also cannot be proven. So, we have two unprovable suppositions. In essence we are at a stalemate. However, my further supposition is that each argument is connected to our emotions; because we cannot escape emotion. In addition my argument is that our emotional disposition is what motivates us to choose one argument over the other. Not force of reason – not veracity of logic – not strength of one argument over the other. Each argument comes to an end – beyond which there is no reason – logic – primacy. They are equal in veracity – although different in character.

Why do I like vanilla as opposed to chocolate ice cream – I do not know. I do not care. Perhaps I can consult a geneticist or psychologist or both. Perhaps a palm reader can tell – I am certain in your sarcastic wisdom you will suggest this is what I have done. That is a straw man and you are very good at proposing them. If you will pay attention to my reference to a still mind – you will see the feather that tips the scale for me. I understand you have a different feather or cinder block – tell me what it is? If you have more logic which we have not considered – please share it. If you think there was something unclear in the logic you presented – please clarify. I have already stated that the scale of God – no-God is perfectly balanced. If, you don’t agree – tell me how the scale is not balanced? For me – it is the feather of a still mind that makes the difference.

In essence a still mind is devoid of emotion – logic – reason. It is empty but aware. A very curious circumstance. Afterward, I am given pause – I am reflective – pensive. This pure awareness – not pure logic – not pure reason – not pure emotion – gets me thinking. What is it? I do not know – but I like it. Perhaps you have experienced this – please tell me if you have? Many a Buddhist experiences the still mind and is atheistic – many are theists – many are both. It is a choice based upon emotions and motivation. Emotions never leave us – except in a still mind. I await your reply.

Emotions have a gravitational pull. That's where our motivation comes from.

However, for us mortals we are bound to our motivation – even in our quest for pure mathematics. We are caged, like rats, with our motivations and emotions. We cannot escape the gravity of our emotions.
— Thinker

Do you actually believe this, or were you just having a go at Sapientia? — Srap Tasmaner

What are you talking about? We are bound to emotions - do you think otherwise? Please show me any reason to think differently?

Your point about emotions and motivation. My views, and everyone else's, are most likely affected to at least some extent by emotions and motivations. That isn't specific to my views on this topic. We aren't all Spock. None of us are, in fact. — Sapientia

Not to some extent - to an inextricable great extent.

Do you actually know what a straw man is? I don't think you do. — Sapientia

Straw man = an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

You are claiming a pure logic – like artificial intelligence may possess – but there is no purity in human logic. It is always bound to emotion and our motivations.

That is the topic - your antithesis is bound to your emotions and motivation. To dismiss this fact is a straw man.
— Thinker

That's not specific to this topic. — Sapientia

What is not specific to what topic? You are playing word games to avoid your own bindings.

Okey dokey. Now, back to the topic... — Sapientia

That is the topic - your antithesis is bound to your emotions and motivation. To dismiss this fact is a straw man.

Mathematic is the purist form of logic that man has invented. Logic as a science seems to be a subset of mathematics. Can pure mathematics, as opposed to applied mathematics, live beyond the motivation of its inventors? Does it have a reach that goes beyond human connection? Perhaps in artificial intelligence it will reach its purity. At least that is the theory. We shall see – and – I think we have to help it happen.

However, for us mortals we are bound to our motivation – even in our quest for pure mathematics. We are caged, like rats, with our motivations and emotions. We cannot escape the gravity of our emotions. Emotion is where our motivation becomes genesis. How did it get here? We cannot say. Why do I have eyes? I do not know. I cannot wish my eyes away or my emotions. Everything I do has motivation.

I think your logic is sound. I agree with what you say. I cannot prove the antithesis or the thesis. I agree with both. A contradiction to be sure. In the end I must try to be true to myself. I am in a box, a small box, which I cannot escape – and – I ask myself – what do I have? I have emotion – always – sometimes I have reason – I have other faculties like intuition, sensation and alike. I almost never perceive anything without emotion. The exception is a still mind – pure awareness. Emotion is a chain which binds me in my box. I say to myself – everyone else is bound too. You are bound to your emotions and you cannot be Mr. Spock – ever – except with a still mind. However, we don’t do anything with a still mind. If we do – we are no longer still.

Does the artist dictate what the audience should experience? Does the audience assign meaning to the work? — Noble Dust

The artist set the stage for the show. The audience hears and sees a facsimile of what was intended. The interpretation of what was presented is usually limited by the blinders put on in the artist’s presentation. We don’t rewrite a poem, but we may misinterpret or we may give new meaning – added meaning. I always liked Simon & Garfunkel – “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”.

Yes we can. I don't need to be Spock to be able to separate my feelings from my thoughts to the extent that I am able to avoid the fallacy of appealing to emotion. — Sapientia

So, your argument rests upon the “supposition” that we must only use logic to substantiate our philosophical positions. In other words we must not let emotion into our critical thinking. No emotion – exactly how do we do that? More importantly – why would we want to try? Please show me how your arguments are devoid of emotion? Your logic is just a supposition in the final analysis. How do you determine this supposition is correct? My supposition is that it is impossible to separate emotion and logic. I think I have the stronger supposition. One always needs motivation to do anything – motivation always has an emotional component.

Good for you, but this isn't the time or the place for that. This is a philosophy forum. If you want to share your feelings, but you're averse to critical thinking, then this probably isn't the right place for you. Try Facebook. — Sapientia

One can have critical thinking about emotions. If we did not - I don't think we would have much to talk about. In addition, we cannot separate our feelings from our thoughts - critical thinking. Or perhaps you can Mr. Spock - I mean Mr. Sapientia.

It's a silly question, so it deserves a silly answer. Yes, logic is my God. I worship it five times a day and pray to it whenever things don't go my way. Satisfied? — Sapientia

I think you are trivializing because it is a point of contention. The only thing that holds your position together is your logic. You disparage your own emotion – to say nothing of mine. I can take it – can you? I say suppositions are valid.

I don't need to prove the antithesis. — Sapientia

I don't need to prove the thesis - what I feel is enough. Can you say the same? I can accept that position, if, it is so for you.

Try to play the ball, not the man. — Sapientia

I would say the same to you. Answer the question - is logic your God?

There are many atheists who accept that there are conceptions of God which are logically possible. Atheism is defined primarily in terms of belief, rather than possibility. I am an atheist. I do not believe that God exists (unless you define "God" as something that I do believe exists, but that'd just be wordplay and sophistry). I also believe that God, according to some conceptions, does not exist, and according to some conceptions, can not exist. — Sapientia

I think what I am seeing is that you base your belief upon logic. You hold an atheist position because it is most logical to you. However, it annoys you that others bring emotion into the mix. Is your annoyance an emotion? Indeed, logic must be your God. I shall have no other logic before my logic. Did I get it right?

I have not followed this thread for a while. However, you have stayed here from almost the beginning. So now, I am curious why you are so adamant about your brand of atheism? Can you prove there is no God? Or is this just a supposition? Perhaps you are just trying to improve your logic – is that it?

I will tell you two stories or ideas that were told to me:

1- There is a man – depressed – who walks to the edge of a cliff in order to jump and end his misery. When he gets to the edge he sees a ledge below with another person. This person has no feet. There is always someone worse off than you.

2- I had a psychology professor who said: you know, people study psychology thinking they are going to fix themselves. What you find out is that it does not quite do the job. Want to fix yourself – help someone else.

So, what is my purpose in this thread? Am I here to convince those ardent oppositional thinkers of the righteousness of my viewpoint? That would be a fool’s errand and I have no such illusion. Rather, my intention is to explore my perspective and to understand it myself; and to reach an audience that perhaps will consider some of my finer points. Ideas have power. Ideas truly do move and shape the world. We as philosophers have a responsibility to help society find its way. First we have to find out what road we are on. Then, by the grace of this beautiful forum, we share our thoughts and hope someone is listening. There are many people listening to this thread. Some few participate – others just watch. That is all good.

Like Lincoln said, I want to appeal to your better angels. I want a better world. Is our continuation on this planet a sure thing? No, it is not for sure. Can we do a better job? I certainly hope so. What do you propose - The status quo - Revolution in the streets? Do you have a thought or two that you think will help? Please share your perspective.

I want to repost comments from earlier in this thread that I posted in another thread. I think this is important to understand how we got here and what the basis for civilization is:

“So, you bemoan the decay of the west. Ok – I bemoan the decay of the world, because we do not understand how civilization got here. Where do you think civilization comes from? How did it get its start? Think back – way back – in the cave – or even before the cave – what happened? Or, maybe I should first ask – what is civilization? Civilization is a social contract. People band together for mutual benefit – right? So, what is the first “banding” together for mutual benefit? It is a mother and a child. A mother and child is the first social contract and the foundation of all civilization. What holds a mother and child together – love. A mother loves her child because she loves herself. A mother loves herself because she learned love from her mother. A very practical dynamic – that - sets in motion a force - which humans use to propel themselves through life’s journey. What is the basis of civilization – it is the love bond between a mother and child. Love is a kind of contract between two beings. I call mother/child love the first human contract. It is an agreement to protect, nurture, cherish and persist. This contract is what gives civilization its start. More importantly – it is what holds civilization together – today and on into the future.

Want to save the world – honor and cherish women – now. It is not a guarantee – but it is a good start. You want a better world – support your local love machine – mother and child.”

How do we get away from what is important? It is actually pretty easy to understand. We think with our stomach instead of our head. What degrades civilization? It is thinking just about yourself or a segment of society – not all of the entire family of society. To be an individual and have accomplishments is fine. Do not forget where your society and values comes from and why we all need to protect them. Many a man and some women have lost their way – don’t be one of them.

The feminine intellect is well suited to lead “by quiet suggestion, long leashes, and technical and professional quality”. I wish we, as a society, could see the values inherent in the feminine intellect. — Thinker

The feminine intellect understands the give and take – the flow of the human dynamic. They have learned this over the millenniums by having been beaten into submission. There is not all down side to submission. The up side is empathy, compassion – a willingness to see the other perspective. This is not a weakness! It is an incredible strength. The female perspective knows the other, not just because it has been forced on her. She knows it because she has the mothering instinct – whether she is a mother or not – it is built in. We need nurturing mothers/leaders now more than ever.

Here, let me try to clarify my point. If one male had experiences with women who are mostly gentle, then in his mind a stereotype may have formed that all women must be gentle. It is not true, hence my statement that it is incorrect to assume such a thing. If I may offer yet another example, many assume that because of my smaller being that I am incapable of doing activities such as combat fighting and flying an aircraft. I do those things, so I know as fact that there are other women who also do these things and are not mostly gentle. — Lone Wolf

My hat is off to you!

Great leaders can both tolerate innovation and manage the long run.

<1% for great leaders; maybe 2% or 3% for very good leaders; 50% for adequate leaders and 25% for tolerably, but poor leaders, and 21% for leaders who end up destroying organizational resources. — Bitter Crank

I think this is a very fine assessment – probably true to a large degree. It has great import for us all to contemplate. Imagine if we could increase the great leadership by a healthy percentage. If we studied and applied great leadership styles in MBA programs – would it have a significant effect? I think it would. The feminine intellect is well suited to lead “by quiet suggestion, long leashes, and technical and professional quality”. I wish we, as a society, could see the values inherent in the feminine intellect.

As one saying goes, men are stupid and women are crazy. But women are mostly crazy because men are stupid — Lone Wolf

I love this statement.

There are some unfortunate facts about submissiveness. One is that women are literally and figuratively beaten into submission. This has not changed over the millenniums and is still with us today. The use and threat of force/coercion looms very large in the female intellect. Sometimes it is physical – sometimes it is psychological – and many times both. Women are cautious – for good reason – throughout all societies. Most women are very aware of the dangers that surround them. Women don’t go -anywhere - without thinking about their security. This fact escapes most men. A white man will think twice about strolling down the streets of Harlem. So, most white men never entertain the idea of going to Harlem. They pursue their lives within the confines of environments that they know to be ok. Most women do not have that luxury. A woman can find herself compromised physically, psychologically or both – just about anywhere.

Do you think young pretty girls like being called “sexy” in the mall? I think that many probably do. However, have you ever considered the message that these girls receive and inculcate? Is it all just harmless? No, it is not. Girls – women are aware they are objects of sexual attention. Many maybe most like the attention – but all are aware that the attention can cross the line of propriety. All women know that things can go south in a hurry. As a man – when was the last time you thought about being raped on the street? Probably – never. All women think about it – and - a large percentage – everyday.

The statistics and stories are all over the internet. Here is one article which has a global perspective:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-10-20/violence-against-women-in-5-charts

So, what is my point? Women are sexual objects – is that going to change? Never. Does anybody want it to change? No. When you see an absolutely beautiful woman walking down the street – what do you think? I might think to myself something like – “I would love to taste that”. Is this wrong? I don’t think so. I might even try to start up a polite conversation and I might be bold enough to say something like – “you have the most beautiful red hair”. I am sure at this point the woman would politely disengage the conversation and be on her way. Each of us would retain a memory of this exchange. I would be further fantasying about the red head. The red head would be putting a picture in her mind of caution. Do you see the difference of how women and men think?