Sure. But I was interested in how the OP was using these terms.

Terms like conservative and libertarian and right wing seem almost meaningless these days. And we can be sure that almost any Western government's chief allegiance is not to the people but to corporations and banks. What was Gore Vidal's salient quote? "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings."

I wonder who'd get to pick up the soap.

Para. 1: Cultures shaped by forces. In some cultures clearly evident, in 21st century USA, not so clearly evident and even covert and contradictory.

Para. 2: Examples. In the US, a malevolent and subversive spirit working against Democratic ideals.

Para. 3: Historical roots of spirit, Pagan and hedonistic. Emphasis on wealth and display, and withdrawal and disengagement.

Para. 4: Democracies subverted by exaggerated and indulgent individual self-interest, fed by a few seeking profit and power.

Para. 5: Influence from - by - private persons, individuals, groups, corporate interests. Often with a public voice, but with covert resources and agendas, often anti-democratic.

Para. 6: Methods: hyper-sexualization and tribalism substituted for political engagement. Democracy rendered irrelevant.

Para. 7: Pop-culture a tool for subversion. Its appeal vitiating both the common sense and political power of the common man. Purveyors of pop-culture becoming more government-like, and their representatives politically empowered.

Para. 8: Corporate interests working against the common good.

Para. 9: Taxes increasingly for maintenance rather than for improvement and development.

Para. 10: Focus of civic energy on short-term irrelevancies of individual well-being. Broad-scale apathy and surrender of influence. — tim wood

Excellent. I think that covers it for me.

But aside from that I don't think I agree with an age having a 'deliberate' character in the sense that there is some cabal consciously and consistently channeling culture in certain ways to benefit from it... I think these things happen far more opportunistically and by accident than as the result of conscious deliberation. — ChatteringMonkey

Indeed. But we do seem to live in an era which is consistently selling the idea that this is the amongst worst eras imaginable and that deep state or secularism, liberalism, the Left or the lizard people are to blame. It seems we need to return to a golden era - for Trumpists it's the MAGA fantasy, for some philosophers it seems to be Platonism or God.

I believe in North American High Toryism instead of American conservatism. — BillMcEnaney

I don't follow politics. What is American high toryism and what is American conservatism and how do they differ?

Now, I don't mean to say that all people of these cultures act and value the exact same, and these are simply observations I myself and those around me have noticed, one must admit that there are different "objective" moralities around the world. — Frog

You've just raised the most common argument for relativism - the fact that morality varies from place to place and across time. Your examples appear less to do with morality and more about etiquette. Don't forget that treating women as chattel, having sex with children and owning slaves are accepted in some cultures too. Now and in the past.

But the usual response to this common argument is the fact that just because morals differ between cultures and over time does not imply the absence of objective morality. From this perspective the point is to determine which actions and moral positions are correct and which ones are not.

I would instead argue for a sort of cultural morality, wherein the morals of a person are shaped by their culture mainly, rather than being completely innate. — Frog

I tend to agree with this. But one can still evoke the naturalistic fallacy and maintain that just because people are shaped by culture does not mean this leads to correct moral thinking. So this still leaves us with the question which behaviours are morally justifiable and which aren't.

Is there a lot more passivity and ignorance than I once thought? Or is it just a self serving bias of specialness mixed with big-fish-in-small-pond syndrome? — Mikie

I would have thought that in the West at least, too many folk think of themselves as exceptional, with special skills and prodigious energy and positivity.

I’ve certainly noticed in industries I work in every second callow youth fancies themselves an innovative leader and ‘disrupter’. No one seems to want to do the grunt work; they want to be in charge. But the passion isn’t for the work, it’s for themselves.

This means, that a man feels good only when he lives better than others. — Linkey

I don't think this is right. It might be for some, but it doesn't resonate with me. I'm not sure what 'living better' looks like - what is better?

When we see that other people live better then we, the fact of their comfort makes us unhappy. — Linkey

I don't experience this. Most people seem unhappy to me, especially wealthy folks. To me the often vulgar displays of wealth ususally seem like unimaginative attempts to appear interesting or be liked. It's not really living better - it's chasing one's tail.

I think an inclusivity lens might tigger resentment for many - when we see that someone who is a pig and making the world a worse place is able to educate and feed their kids with ease, while someone who does the right thing, does menial work and can barely make ends meet. It seems outrageous that this happens. But I don't consider this envy. I consider this social justice.

In fact, the happiest people in the world live quite modestly, with few possessions. — Vera Mont

I don't doubt it. I met a lot of our local super rich in the 1980's when I worked for a fine art and antiquities dealer. Mostly they seemed frantic, lonely and glum.

You can imagine that Kant would have no truck with Aquinas' 'five proofs' or any of the other argumentarium of Scholastic philosophy. They would all be subject to the kinds of critiques he had of other rationalist philosophers. He was famously dismissive of the ontological argument ('existence is not a predicate'). I think intellectually he was very much a product of the Reformation, even if he then went even further than the Reformers in questioning the very existence of the Church. — Wayfarer

Nice.

:up:

It's very confusing. — Ludwig V

Ok thanks.

When I say I don't believe in god, I also hold that I don't have a robust idea what the idea of god/s even means. It's pretty hard to believe in something which seems incoherent or unintelligible. But not understanding - and therefore not believing - can not be held as knowledge (I would have thought).

There are many potential versions of god - from the magic space wizard (so beloved by Trump supporters), to the highest value in the hierarchy of values, as per Jordan Peterson.

Wouldn't it be the case that to be an atheist or a theist varies radically according to the kinds of god you are or are not believing in, which must surely also impact upon the belief knowledge/question?

There are four words we can use to adequately, discreetly and clearly delineate the four positions of relevance:

A. Theism=I know there's a God;
B. Atheism = I do not know whether there's a God;
C. Agnosticism = I cannot know whether there is a God; and
D. Anti-Theism = I know there is not a God. — AmadeusD

I've mostly ignored this thread recently but I do have questions.

B. Atheism = I do not know whether there's a God; — AmadeusD

Isn't the salient part of atheism's position, I don't believe in a god? It is for me. The 'not knowing' comes later and is somewhat tempered by something else, which I generally put down as; 'I have heard no good reason to accept the proposition that gods exist.' Other atheists would claim they do know there is no god - at least, no Yahweh or Ganesh or Allah.

And by the same token isn't a theist someone who believes there is a god? I have a number of theist friends, including priests and rabbis, who would actually count as agnostic theists. They would never say that they know god exists. They would say they believe and have faith. A few of them are even open to the idea that they might be mistaken in their faith. I think many more sophisticated thinkers might self-identify as theists but might be considered atheists by people with different world views - generally because their belief isn't literalist.

Art is any Fictional representation presented to human senses, the sole function of which is to trigger a notable feeling without having recourse to any other explanation/trigger. — ENOAH

Why the word 'fictional'?

But presented as it was by Duchamp, it was a Fictional representation, its function to make us feel, and we did/do feel. — ENOAH

Fictional?

Not sure what you are getting at with this word. Do you mean a creative representation?

Duchamp was making a provocative statement about the nature of art and the artist. In 1917 this was a radical move. It was a stunt. A comment on art and perhaps not art of itself, depending upon one's reading.

the sole function of which is to trigger a notable feeling without having recourse to any other explanation/trigger. — ENOAH

I don't think this is right. To say art has a sole function is too limiting. So is the idea of it's 'triggering a notable feeling without having recourse to any other explanation.'

Art often relies upon other art or myth or religion, or stories or history for its effect or context.

At its simplest, art is something presented for aesthetic appreciation.

Actually the original is lost. Duchamp made seventeen copies in the 1960's, each of which is worth a few bob. — mcdoodle

Indeed. Just imagine the value of the original if found.

Thank you. No doubt others will think my take is wrong headed. :wink:

Somehow, creative people produce objects and performances that move or inspire or enrage or enthrall other people. And those creations, however much or badly they're reproduced and imitated, become part of the culture that ennobles and enriches us, in which we feel we have a stake, of which we are proud. — Vera Mont

But I doubt whether art is just this. I also imagine that art may bore us, make us complacent, erode cultural value and make us feel ashamed. At least that's my experience of a Tarantino film or a book by Brett Easton Ellis. :wink:

Really, why do we ask or care about what is art? — ENOAH

Probably because humans are emotional creatures and many of our best moments are when we experience some form of aesthetic satisfaction or joy. The arts are important to most people, so it stands to reason we want to be able to define art. We probably hope to explain the magic trick.

But also great things emerge out of these seemingly pointless pursuits. — ENOAH

Agree.

Fair points. I tend to think there is art in most things. Even things I dislike greatly. I agree that art is difficult, perhaps impossible to define. And for me, irrelevant to my aesthetic experiences (of art). The great religious commentator Karen Armstrong has argued that religion can't be adequately defined. I suspect there are many such subjects. I tend to avoid the types of people who are definition obsessed. Useful in some places, pointless in others.

Now I generally avoid participating in those types of discussions unless I have something constructive to contribute. When I don't I usually regret it and often behave badly. Who needs it. — T Clark

I think providing push back is useful in philosophical discussions. But it depends upon whether the pushback provokes useful questions or not. For me, the most important quesion in most subjects is why does it matter? That's not an attempt to shrug something off, it's an attempt to capture the essence or nub of the matter. I hope.

Why do we care?
We take steps to preserve art; urinals, we send to the dump;
We pay more for art;
We fund art; we don't fund game shows;
We study art and consciously allow it to influence history;
Etc. — ENOAH

I consider Duchamp's R Mutt urinal aka "Fountain" to be a great moment in art. But you can't really repeat this and have the same impact despite what Tracey Emin might think. So much modern art being footnotes to "Fountain".

Many of your questions are resolved by the market.

We take steps to preserve art; urinals, we send to the dump; — ENOAH

Not 'Fountain' - that thing is worth millions. But much art is thrown away and burnt too. Often art is only kept because it has a significant monetary value.

We pay more for art; — ENOAH

More compared to what? Not sure this is true. And if it is, it will depend on the art in quesion and that is a often matter of how the market functions. Which has nothing to do with art per say. That's commodification and capitalism.

We fund art; we don't fund game shows; — ENOAH

We don't fund all art and the choices made are those of the market, ditto game shows. Game shows are funded. They are funded by corporations who provide the products and advertising opportunities. Not dissimilar to when Van Gough or Rembrandt go on a world tour of galleries.

We study art and consciously allow it to influence history; — ENOAH

We consciously allow non-art to influence hsitory. A hamburger joint can influence history. And as for study - we study all manner of things. I know a guy with a PHD in Julie Andrews.

We pay attention to art... — ENOAH

We pay attention to porn and horse racing.

art is any creation — ENOAH

which, — ENOAH

when presented to one or more of the senses, triggers profound — ENOAH

inner feeling or drive to act — ENOAH

Your definition is no worse than many others. But I can sit in front of many paintings and have no feelings or reaction to it. Does this mean they aren't art? There's a lot of music which I find irrelevant and don't have a reaction to. Etc.

I don't think how we react has a clear relationship to whether something is art. You can have a profound emotional reaction to an empty bird's nest in a tree. Does this make it art?

I find this kind of discussion interesting and helpful because it lets me sort out how different kinds of creations affect me in different ways, how I experience them. It's about self-awareness. — T Clark

Self-awareness for you, and perhaps mental masturbation for others. Just because I am questioning isn't an indication that I am not taking the discussion seriously. Don't mistake skepticism for a lack of interest. My journey towards self-awareness is trying to determine which debates are useful. :wink:

Some clarifications are useful and help us to manage our lives.

Imagine we did agree on what "art" means - what meaningful conversation could you build out of that agreement? You show me that, and I'll show you how to build that conversation WITHOUT agreeing on what "art" means. Deal? — flannel jesus

Interesting. I'm not sure the endless debate about what art, is or what it is not, matters. Except to people who fetishise definitions or aesthetics. Could there be a less useful subject? I'd be interested to understand from you why the term art matters so much to some people. Seems to me that some seem to want to reserve the word as a magic charm which can only be waved over certain approved phenomena.

[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.