[reply="kazan;907493" Ok, now see I thought you were referring to an analogy I had made. The syntax confused me, not the idea. Yes.

If this analogy to your overall answer to Shawn's question is acceptable... play the ball, not the man... then.... agreed. — kazan

Not sure I follow, can you clarify?

It's an artist's view of art and maybe not even every artist's view. Certainly not a standard dictionary definition. So, it's not something that can or should be forced on anyone. It proposes there is art proper and "art". For example, what most people do in a casual art class is "art" but art proper is not something that can be pinned down to a simple skill or process ("how to" paint, write or whatever). It should have something that contextualizes our symbolic sphere in an important way rather than merely participates in it. But then, you might say, like BC, that's just to distinguish between good art and bad art, and that's not unreasonable either. — Baden

Old school, huh? As an artist myself, I don't believe that there is 'proper art', just good art and bad art and even this is subject to entirely debatable criteria of value.

They both are abstract expressionist, but De Kooning applied paint to canvas--quickly, it appears. Nevelson's assembled objects then painted them black. — BC

I find both works banal but I'm happy with them both being called art. The word 'art' to me doesn't contain within it an assumption about merit.

I suspect that Idol could be seen as a type of art in its own right - in the genre of realty TV (whatever one may think of this). The music/performances are incidental. The show is about telling stories of people struggling against the odds to follow their dream. It's carefully crafted and built to follow certain emotional arcs. Perhaps it is kitsch, which certain purists might argue precludes it from being art. I would argue there is good and bad kitsch. And the line between kitsch and art may be irrelevant.

I don't think any of us are going to come to a firm conclusion of where the exact dividing line between art and non-art is, but I will say there is not much out there that I am absolutely confident in calling art. — Baden

So for you art has to be something 'special'?

Both comedians, but Jim Carrey just makes you laugh. Kaufman does much more. — Baden

I find nothing of merit in either of these performers but I would call them both artists. Whether I enjoy something not - whether it is good or not - I don't think matters all that much when it comes to the label 'art'.

Seems to me a lot of people mistake the word art for the word 'sacred' and need for anything proposed for this category to have mystical, perhaps even transcendent, aesthetic properties. Can you help me make sense of this?

I take that as a quip at the US. Having said that, I think you are right that some Americans are more fearful and paranoid than other nations. Yeah, just another stereotype; but, it rings true to me.

What do you think? — Shawn

No, I meant it as a general, mildly hyperbolic, observation. I think News Limited's approach and the way the news cycle works has helped foster this addiction to catastrophe.

The concept of bona fide, which is sincere intention to be fair, open, and honest in interactions, still exist in society and human interactions? — Shawn

I suspect most human interactions are like this.

What I also suspect, however, is that we have become addicted to catastrophe and stories of doom and zombie apocalypse and many believe that the state of humanity is rotten to the core and that meaning has been lost and the end is nigh.

I think the issue is that people often think art has to be elevated and intricate and for the cognoscenti. But if art is just ideas or emotion conveyed via creative activity, like drawing, music, performance, literature, and dance, then art is much broader than many suspect. Personally I'm not big on definitions.

I have only seen clips on YouTube but my problem with Idol is its sentimentality, its poor taste, its obvious choices, its elevation of certain house styles in performance, the popular over the creative, its endless tweaking of the familiar. To me it seems overly preoccupied with mainstream marketing and rarely takes creative risks. Artists like Tom Waits or Leonard Cohen would never make it because they would be too interesting and unorthodox.

Something doesn’t have to be good to be called art. But I’m not preoccupied by definitions, I would say Idol is also kitsch.

That's a very interesting reply.

If we look closely at what exactly his faith consists of, it depends heavily on what he calls relevance realization, which is his answer to what he believes is a meaning crisis in today’s culture. I happen to think the meaning crisis pertains more to his personal journey than to a culture-wide phenomenon, and that his proselytizing on this topic has certain cult-like tendencies about it, but that’s a bit off-topic. — Joshs

I wondered about that.

I dont think either Varela and Thompson buy into Vervaeke’s realism, and Thompson’s subtle distancing from Vervaeke in the interview reflects this. Thompson derives from his empirical work a reverence for the mystical, a sense of wonder an awe towards the world. This wonder doesn’t require a belief in a real grounding for what exists, if the real is understood in Vervaeke’s sense of that which is beyond deception. Thompson’s focus is on what creatively emerges rather than on what is connected to a pre-existing foundation. — Joshs

Would you say Thompson's view is compatible with a post-modern understanding of 'reality'. Do you think Thompson's views are in any way limited or 'skewed' by his Lindisfarne Association upbringing?

Wittgenstein quotes Augustine:
“quid est ergo tempus? si nemo ex me quaerat scio; si quaerenti explicare velim, nescio”. (PI 89)

"What, then, is time? I know well enough what it is, provided that nobody asksme; but if I am asked what it is and try to explain, I am baffled.” — Fooloso4

That's a wonderful quote. And adaptable to a range of matters.

Musk seems to be unique in that he overtly states what troubles him in many of his interviews and decides to quickly act on those disliking's in providing solutions to avoid or adapt in a better manner towards, what he calls, "existential threats." — Shawn

Do we accept what Musk says as the actual explanation for his actions? I'm never sure how we assess such interviews. He is certainly adept at building a personal mythos, like many marketing types.

Many of them turn out to be fantastic CEO's and executives. — Shawn

And many, many bad ones. I have worked closely with several CEO's over the years and known many others. The most common things I see are narcissism and the desire to be surrounded by acolytes. I'm not sure if this is inherent to a CEO role as much as it's the product of the culture in which CEO's often work.

I'm not sure. Again, just psychologizing here and there, I can say that he disclosed on a SNL episode that he suffers from Asperger's, and from what I can gather, might also have ADHD. It would be hard to say whether he is lucky, as he seems to be one of those self-made men in the American folklore. — Shawn

How does the sublimation frame help you make sense of people?

How do you think it works in Musk’s case?

Also, if you pay attention to what he says on YouTube, with Joe Rogan, and others, there seems to be something about what he's doing that tyrannizes over other people (allegedly) and especially himself, with his 60 hours worked per week on average. I recommend watching some of his interviews to see what I mean by this. — Shawn

I've seen him interviewed - seems like a douchebag. But that's not a diagnosis, that's personal taste.

Are you saying that someone who is hyperactive and successful (and probably lucky) has harnessed their anxiety and channeled (sublimated) this into useful enterprises?

I think there are various spins to sublimation - depending upon the era of the psychologist. Isn't the idea that it's a defence mechanism involving socially unacceptable impulses or behaviors which are transformed (sublimated) into socially acceptable actions or behaviors? Which probably means you'd need to know the person well to determine whether it's a good case or not.

The example often used is that of a sociopath who becomes a surgeon - channelling their antisocial urges (cutting people up) and taking risks with life without emotion.

…the word self is a convenient way of referring to a series of mental and bodily events and formations, that have a degree of causal coherence and integrity through time. And the capitalized Self does exemplify our sense that hidden in these transitory formations is a real, unchanging essence that is the source of our identity and that we must protect. But this latter conviction may be unfounded and can actually be harmful. If there were a solid, really existing self hidden in or behind the aggregates, its unchangeableness would prevent any experience from occurring; its static nature would make the constant arising and subsiding of experience come to a screeching halt.

Sounds almost Dennett-like here.

One person comes to my mind who may have mastered the art of sublimation. Elon Musk seems to have sublimated most of his anxiety and worries better than anyone else. — Shawn

How well do you know Musk in order to arrive at this?

For me that's a different matter. That's the age old question of people lacking skills and/or an awareness of how they come across. There are many people who are unable to be clear even if they reflect on what they say. They are too inward looking and inarticulate to build clear syntax. They frequently get angry with others for their incomprehension because to them it's all so obvious what they are saying.

Some people might seem to play games but I suspect this is often our inability to understand their approach, or their inability to be clear. Humans are great at ascribing malevolent intent towards others when we encounter the strange or incomprehensible from them.

But how's this - I doubt most people deliberately aim for their points to be misunderstood.

Im not saying everybody should always agree with my points I just want everybody to get my points. — HardWorker

I doubt anyone deliberately aims for their points to be misunderstood. But this doesn’t really approach philosophy until you explore how it is we can develop a shared understanding of each other’s views .

Nice try.

I read the biblical creation myth this way: "Adam and Eve" were slaves punished with mortality by The Master for learning that they do not have to be slaves by learning to disobey (i.e. how to free themselves). :fire: — 180 Proof

Exactly. The serpent actually tells the truth in the story. As stories go, it's pretty flimsy one and from it I see no reason why humans should follow anything god says, just because god said it. God in the Old Testament is clearly a superlative asshole. That is, if one were a literalist. If the story is allegorical, then who knows what it is attempting to teach us other than 'obey the powerful'.

Anyway, I'm logging out for a while, posting here has become too much of a habit, and it profiteth nothing. I need to develop some other interests. — Wayfarer

Only do what you can manage, but I for one really value your contributions. You do a stellar job as an advocate for, and synthesizer of, the more interesting accounts of idealism and higher awareness.

We might look to differences as well as similarities. One difference is that Wittgenstein's writing leads less to aporia than to a change in gestalt, a reconsidering of the way in which something is to be understood.

Presumably, there are folk who cannot see the duck, only the rabbit. It's not a surprise that they feel excluded. — Banno

Nice. I like the 'change in gestalt' frame here.

and he's a legitimate academic, he's not fringe or crank. — Wayfarer

Never said he wasn't. My point is that times have changed, along with the stories we tell each other, and this causes many anxiety. I do not subscribe to this all being a product of rationalism, a disenchanted world and a post-enlightenment fugue state wherein we have lost touch with a purer philosophy.

You seem to like V because you are already a fan of countercultural metaphysics, from your early days of Alan Watts. That's fine. My aesthetic and emotional biases don't necessarily click with this stuff.

the reason he's developed a following is because he's saying something that needs to be said, and that a lot of people needed to hear, shame folks here don't appreciate that, but nothing I can say is likely to change it. — Wayfarer

Isn't it ok not to be on board with him? Developing a following means little; Trump has a following. Not comparing the output of the two. Actually Trump is probably a symptom of the same thing Veraeke is. The old stories have lost their power, pluralism and diversity is confusing people and many long to go back to making something great again, whether it be philosophy or the nation itself.

I've watched a number vids by Vervaeke and been aware of his work for a long time. I find him dull as dishwater. Whether he is adding anything useful to philosophy is up to others to determine.

Personally, I don't think we can demonstrate that meaning eludes us now more than in the past. This nostalgia movement or 'paradise lost' frame seems somewhat wonky to me. I think what confuses people is that we have moved away from dominant homogeneous cultural expressions into a world of energetic pluralism and multiculturalism and this is read as a lack of certainty and meaning. Diversity has certainly undermined the old metanarratives and I am not convinced that this is a bad thing.

I suspect Vervaeke sits with all those theorists and self-help folk who seek to offer a remedy for common anxiety. He's certainly no snake oil salesman, he seems likable and sincere, but I doubt he has all that much I can use.

I think there's a lot of misconceptions about matierliasm - it's not the boogyman many of you seem to think it is, as Janus points out. — flannel jesus

Some here seem to think of materialism, (better known now as physicalism or naturalism) as superficial and untenable nonsense. I don't hold a particular view of this since I am not a theoretical physicist, or a philosopher. I just live in the world I experience and get on with things. :wink:

Your reading would certainly fit with the notion of apophatic silence. I wonder how @joshs would see this point in relation to a postmodern or phenomenological reading of W. I guess I'm asking if there's a third option, perhaps somewhere between mysticism and scientism?

I don't have much patience for people who pretend to know what they don't know. What I mean is this, if you haven't seriously studied a subject, then you shouldn't be dogmatic about your views on the subject. — Sam26

I tend to agree. Of course there is some interpretation involved in what counts as 'serious study' of a subject. It seems to me that most members here are autodidacts and hobbyist philosophers.

I do not think that Plato, for example, is responsible for the varied and contradictory ways is which he has been read over the centuries. — Fooloso4

Yes, interesting you raise this. I have sat at tables where there was furious, indeed acrimonious disagreement about Plato's meaning in exactly the kinds of terms has been deriding. There has often been an elitist dimension to academic philosophy, a reverence for one's own interpretive credentials, often as part of a cognoscenti, who are closer to truth than the rest of the academic riffraff. I imagine this a common in many fields.

How many times can one philosopher have the glory of being saved by Appeal to Misunderstanding? — schopenhauer1

In theory a philosopher could be reinterpreted almost endlessly. Whether this be considered 'saved' by an appeal to misunderstanding may depend on one's point of view

It's clear that Wittgenstein is a writer of complex ideas, expressed in an obscure style, with many potential meanings and uses. But I think the same holds for others, Nietzsche, Derrida, etc. People are often talking about someone having an inadequate reading of those thinkers too. I always imagined that the point of philosophy for many was to dismiss or pillory another's reading and then go on to demonstrate why one's own reading is superior. Is't that inherent in the activity?

Yes, I made pretty much the same point.

It inherently assumes that the philosopher is right if you only knew him better... — schopenhauer1

And for soft-core pessimist like me, it inherently assumes we'll never know if the philosopher is right or wrong because we can't demonstrate that we've arrived at a correct reading. :wink:

This tactic deflects from holding the philosopher accountable for the clarity and coherence of their arguments, which should stand up to critique regardless of the critic's breadth of reading. — schopenhauer1

That's a fair perspective. I suspect however that postmodern thinking would consider this an anachronism. Clarity is so early 20th century.

Personally, one of the reasons I have never privileged philosophy (apart from the inherent dullness of the work) is the unlikelihood of gaining a robust reading of a given text unless one studies it with discipline and probably, with professional instruction. I have other things to be getting on with.

It can create an environment where philosophical works are revered rather than critically examined, which is contrary to the spirit of philosophical inquiry. — schopenhauer1

There may well be those who think philosophy is an enquiry dedicated to reasonableness and ongoing discourse. I suspect that much philosophy is faddish tribalism, dedicated to onanism, amongst other things. :grin:

understanding”. Do you believe that Wittgenstein can only be refuted by better readings of Wittgenstein or could Wittgenstein just be wrong and refuted thus? — schopenhauer1

This point is interesting. Might it not be argued that until one has a robust reading of any writer it is not really possible to refute or acclaim them? This endlessly fecund, perhaps even Rabbinical reinterpretation of W does suggest that critique almost seems superfluous.

:up:

No. Except where a philosopher proposes, in the e.g. Hellenic sense, 'philosophy as a way of life' (P. Hadot) — 180 Proof

That's a good point.

But, philosophy isn't mathematics, in that it isn't self-evident. How do you counter that? — Shawn

I have no idea what this comment means in relation to what I wrote.

I am not a fan of psychologizing the work of anyone, whether it is a philosopher or a movie actor.

What do you mean about the "psychologizing fancy" part? — Shawn

Just the tendency of some people (even biographers) to think they can explain a thinker's work based on their imagining of a writer's psychological state. Conjecture. Or even the claim that they know what a writer intended based on the writer's (putative) psychological state. Whatever that means.

Heidegger just lost the game if you're right. — Shawn

Whether Heidegger was a Nazi or not (for me) may well taint our experience of his work, but it says little or nothing about whether the work is any good.

Barbara Eden (I Dream of Jeannie) is 92. I remember watching her reruns 50 years ago. They seemed old then.

Eek.. I don't even want to know, honestly.. That in itself will devolve into who can show off how much Wittgenstein is beyond really "knowing"... — schopenhauer1

I confess to not knowing or caring much about Wittgenstein's work. It's too arcane for me. I read the Monk biography when it came out and assumed W was an exceptionally gifted and interesting individual with autism.

I would never assume we are in a position to know who the philosopher is as a person. All we have is a text and the text is a fecund vehicle for alternative interpretations. But I recognize that old school criticism would have it that the artist and their life is the context of a work when fully understood. I think this has limited application and is subject to many flights of psychologizing fancy.

Do you agree that the philosopher must uphold, almost, a fiduciary duty towards the public, in terms of living a certain life? — Shawn

I assume most people (philosophers or not) are flawed and limited beings - so no.

I think your view is amusing and it is hard to imagine that you are offering it as a serious solution.

Sharing is not exactly popular. It is antithetical to most forms of capitalism. You'd need to deliver such a policy with a gun.

I would not give up my land, nor would anyone I know. In fact, many would likely blow the heads off any motherfucker who comes for their property.

So how do you intend to govern such a process? How would you deal with those who would not surrender their land? How would you manage the wars and terrorism that would arise as a consequence?

How would you manage the world government of millions of displaced people who have to move around with their families so that they can get their plot of land? How would you manage the gaps in manufacturing industries all over the world, created by mass migrations of people?