So what happens to a religious in-humanist when they visit a gallery?
— praxis

Their head explodes. — gurugeorge

Rather, in accordance with your claim that art provides an "religious jag," whatever art is congruent with their religious views would have the greatest potential to "induce an arrest in normal everyday consciousness" (what you claim is the goal or function of art) and whatever art was incongruent with their system of beliefs and meaning would likely fail to induce such an arrest in normal consciousness. Right?

You're tangling this idea you have about the goal of art being an arrest in normal consciousness with a system of meaning (religion) and it doesn't make sense. Can you explain?

Well, to be fair, it is an intimidating challenge to defend the belief that Trump is good for our country or democracy in general. Not for the faint of heart.

Seems like a good place to examine our beliefs to me. The only thing that could be injured is ego.

Tiff doesn't feel insecure — frank

It's creepy to talk about someone who doesn't speak up for themselves, but since you bring it up, she wrote, "I am not sure what I feel comfortable in talking about here", and this expresses a degree of insecurity surrounding her beliefs about the Lier-in-Chief.

Attempting to grasp the concept of truth is philosophical. — frank

People philosophize in order to merely be philosophical?

Pursuit of truth is paramount in a court of law. — frank

Law is the pursuit of order and justice or the enforcement of social norms, I would say. Like politics and religion, this often has little to do with truth.

Were you expecting to try somebody or did you want to understand somebody else's point of view?

If it was the latter, try coming across a little less like a jackass. — frank

I suppose this means you don't care to understand my point of view. :sad:

I feel comfortable in saying that, I am not sure what I feel comfortable in talking about here, when it comes to our President and my beliefs. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

If you were comfortable with your insecurity then you'd be open to discussing your beliefs. That's what being comfortable means in this context. But I suppose you mean that you're comfortable taking a self-protective position. You should not be, particularly on a philosophy forum where the pursuit of truth is paramount. That includes the truth of your beliefs and the truth of your relationships.

I kept returning because I believe in our country and this thread becomes an echo chamber without a single voice about what might be the other side of the perspective you are seeing. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

So you actually believe that Trump is good for our country, or democracy in general?

Art galleries are the humanist temples secular people go to in order to get a religious jag without religion. — gurugeorge

So what happens to a religious in-humanist when they visit a gallery?

It’s hard to take someone who holds such a shallow and idealistic view of love seriously, not to mention the melodrama.
— praxis

Sounds more like cynicism than wisdom to me. — Rank Amateur

I'm not devaluing love and I didn't claim the difficulty of taking you seriously was wise. It's more of an intuitive estimation, I suppose. But maybe my estimation is wrong. Can you make an argument that 'love is the pinnacle'?

No one is asking you to give up on love, incidentally.

It takes much much more strength to love in the face of hatred than to hate. — All sight

Love may or may not be the best response to hatred, depending on the situation and the the desired outcome.

Hate is easy, love is hard. — All sight

You find it hard to love people but easy to hate them?

Reminds me of Dostoyevsky's The Idiot. — Sapientia

And that ended well. [said the cynic]

Love is the pinnacle, I really believe. I'd rather not be taken seriously, than give up on love! It takes much much more strength to love in the face of hatred than to hate. The proof is in the difficulty of it. Hate is easy, love is hard. — All sight

It’s hard to take someone who holds such a shallow and idealistic view of love seriously, not to mention the melodrama.

Love is not the pinnacle. Any idiot can love. Truth, reason, equanimity, wisdom, and so on, are no less valuable.

People who wear their heart on their sleeve are subject to all comers, and therefore have all sorts of problems.

Well, I google searched the term 'metaphysical experience' and people appear to generally use it to refer to spiritual, mystical, or intuitive experiences. Assuming that's how you're using the term, then yes, emersion in an installation piece could certainly induce such an experience. But then pretty much any experience, novel or mundane, has this potential. Being immersed in nature is believed to be conducive to this effect, and I would guess generally more effective than any installation art. Of course it matters what you might consider a mystical experience. We might consider a metaphysical intuition about the nature of reality a mystical experience, or a sense of transcendence or nonduality. Some might consider it merely a sense of awe or a shift in awareness.

The very nature of art is to make us see things a bit differently. That doesn't necessarily extend to the mystic.

What exactly do you mean by a metaphysical experience?

You might have something to say on the subject, though, as something to look forward to with terror at the ending of the known, which is the self, or with resignation, or hope - feel free; its your funeral. — unenlightened

My only real aspiration is to experience ego death before I die.

Nothing is the absence of anything, even a definition. — unic0rnio

Nothing is a concept. Concepts require definition.

Trump is starting to stuff some of the evil nerds into lockers, to the delight of those who had been intimidated by the illusions. — wellwisher

That must be really hard to do with their pockets so full of cash.

I'm almost at a native level of speaking English. It took me a while to realise you actually need a smaller vocabulary. Ugh... I meant "less words". — Benkei

Good English would be “fewer words.”

it is about as “documentary” as fako Michael Wolff’ “tell all” book.

Movie will go the same way, particular after th Mueller thing dries up. It’s merely designed for the midterms and then it will be a zero. — raza

Speaking of "documentaries," you like this one, Raza?

I was reading today that China is strategically targeting red states with their retaliatory tariffs, and as a consequence Trump will bailout the farming industry in those states with $12 billion of USA tax dollars. Only the biggest corporations will see any of the relief, it's said. In any case, it's only a band-aid, but will arrive just in time for midterm elections.

Four months of solar panel tariffs has hurt the US industry with billions in lost contracts and reduced R & D. No bailouts for them.

Aren't conservatives supposed to believe in a free market economy???

The “Russia” thing amounts to Facebook ads. That’s it! — raza

Doesn’t sound that bad until you consider the Cambridge Analytica data and the people involved with it.

I can’t tell if you’re being serious. To be clear, if someone says that a candidate for presidential office ought to win it appears to mean that they believe it’s morally right for them to win, or that the candidate will perform virtuously in that position.

I came increasingly to admire him and after watching him for the third time, I realized that he ought to win... — gurugeorge

You realized it was morally right for him to win. Perhaps you should watch more of his rallies.

Having just skimmed through the other choices, it doesn't seem out of place.

You put a lounge topic about Trump derangement syndrome on the Facebook page? :chin:

In an overly 'rational' world, or rather culture, I think we tend to loose touch with aesthetics and perhaps ethics along with it.

Not sure what the mechanism is behind this. Maybe aesthetic awareness takes us outside of ourselves and our selfish interests.

The hate mongering is there to blind the left to their own dirt. — wellwisher

This might be one way to make sense of Scott Adams cognitive dissonance theory as applied to TDS. All the dirty deeds that all the Lefties have done doesn't align with their self-image and this causes an internal conflict. Good people (Lefties) don't do dirty deeds, so the only other way to explain it is that Trump did the dirty deeds.

Sound right, wellwisher?

Very much agree.

you’re reluctant to clarify them [odd and misleading remarks] when asked to for some unknown reason.
— praxis

Its only unknown to you because you haven't been listening to me. — frank

Well, at least you admit to reluctance. I heared that, though I still don’t understand the reason for it.

Adiós muchachos. :smile:

I'd rather see more analytic criticism of Trump than the emotional/hyperbolic. But it's totally off base to claim this is some new phenomenon. — Relativist

Not sure what you mean by this. I’m most interested in what others think of Adams application of cognitive dissonance theory to Trump derangement syndrome.

Relax, Frank, we get what you’re saying. It’s just that your descriptions are odd and misleading, and you’re reluctant to clarify them when asked to for some unknown reason.

The previous formula for success had been the proper two-face — wellwisher

I suppose you believe that Trump actually holds conservative values.

devotion to tradition, precedent, tried and true approaches and remedies; these are conservative values. — frank

And this somehow relates to a reverence for “natural” evolution?

Liberals believe in progress so naturally they’ll experiment and try to improve social systems. There’s abundant evidence that intentional progress is possible, and of course not just by the hands of liberals. To say that “one should have respect for what evolves naturally” implies a value system that reveres unintentional development. Not a characterization of conservatism that I think anyone would agree with.

If you were an ally of mine you would have made a better attempt at substantiating the claim that you made.

Nothing, apparently.

Anyway, where are the truths in this that liberals are blind to?
— praxis
One should have respect for what evolves naturally. — frank

If you could be less abstract and general I might be able to appreciate your claim.

It’s said that Rubins’ gets a lot of $$ from a Koch bros think tank fund, and he’s all about the $$, incidentally.

Sure, that aligns with liberal progressive values.

Is privatize the "natural" evolution of the prison system?

Anyway, where are the truths in this that liberals are blind to?

The problem with Trump is that he is a crude bully. A fake strong man. A cartoon version of power. It seems crazy that voters would put him in charge and be sticking with him still. — apokrisis

I think the last few days have shown what a fake strong man he is.

I doubt Adams himself would claim that Trump was elected "just by having policies people like."
— praxis

Actually IIRC he's been fairly consistent about that. — gurugeorge

Populists don't rely on mere policy positions to get elected.