the campaign may appeal to a teens rebellious nature—defiantly anti-woke or whatever. — praxis

I would have thought the younger, the more values led, with a tendency to be turned off by these sorts of campaigns. Interesting what you say about younger people.

What I do find peculiar about this is the apparent disinterest in any utility: — Pieter R van Wyk

It's obvious you find this peculiar or hard to fathom. The real question is, why?

But you’ve chosen the word 'disinterest', and that’s not the correct word. Disinterest makes an assumption we’re avoiding something that you’ve already decided is obvious and valuable. We (or at least I) don't share this presupposition. I would simply doubt that philosophy holds the power of wrapping up all problems neatly into a single, unified solution that solves all problems. That sounds more like the promise of Marxism or some kind of immature notion of philosophy as a kind of magic spell you cast so the jagged, messy parts of human life (your poverty, hunger, revolution and war) vanish.

Why would you think philosophy has this purpose? Is it because you believe philosophy (as some see religion) uncovers capital-T Truth, and that this will set us free? I don't see how philosophy is a guide to perfect living or a pathway to ultimate truth. Help me see what you see. I think the difference between us is that perhaps you see philosophy as a kind of blueprint for healing the world, while I see more as an attempt to ask better questions.

It’s more like AE is subtly playing along with or reflecting this cultural phenomenon and profiting from it. — praxis

I saw the ad and found it distasteful in a retro way, but many ads annoy me. I was wondering if it was trying to be playfully defiant towards identity politics. Maybe it was trying to generate controversy and talking points which some advertising wanker felt would translate into sales. I was surprised the ad ran, as I would have thought making a childish pun about a white, shall we say, 'Aryan' looking girl and her 'genes' would be unappealing to a wide variety of younger customers who are more mindful about their values than some others. What are the other nuances of this ad?

What point would there be in explaining it to someone who thinks it's meaningless? — Wayfarer

That's an odd quesion. As I've said many times, I am interested in what others believe and why. No need for antipathy. As you have seen, I am generous towards your contributions and think highly of your approach. So my quesion is genuine. I find idealism fascinating, just as I find Sufi mysticism or Kabbalah fascinating. Doesn't mean I'm a follower.

Of course it is a truism that the advent of modernity shattered this sense - this is what Max Weber described as the disenchantment of the world. So we need to understand the tectonic shifts, so to speak, that underlie all of these massive changes. It is no easy task, especially as we ourselves are both its proponents and its casualties. — Wayfarer

Yes, it’s interesting. Historically, I've gotten a lot of satisfaction from the idea that life is meaningless, that there’s no intrinsic purpose and that the world is disenchanted and pointless. It's generally cheered me up and helped me make sense of things. In the end, games of reasoning aside, we tend to select and hold views that appeal to our aesthetic sense, our cultivation of meaning, and our cultural experiences. But either view; that the world is magical or meaningless, can be used in terrible ways. I don’t subscribe to the various nostalgic projects, the kind of “woke MAGA” (or should that be Make Awareness Great Again?) projects of people like Vervaeke or McGilchrist, who seek to recapture lost traditions (or however they choose to market these notions).

These days, I’m more temperate. I don’t really mind either way about interpretations of the world as inherently anything in particular. I'm more interested in what others think and why to try to understand what's informing the choices around me.

As an idealist, what impact does this have on your day to day living?

Thank you for your nuanced response. I tend to hold what some might describe as progressive views on many issues but recognize that there can be extreme positions on all sides. I have a little contact with universities and politics (I sometimes advise political parties) and don't generally see much in the way of 'woke' activities around me. I am generally pro trans rights and feel this can be explored without rancour in person directly with people, but rarely on line. I'm not a theorist, nor do I mine the internet for egregious examples of zealots at work (and I am not saying you do this). I find it interesting that there appear to be energetic culture wars around that seem to reflect Fox News and the Murdoch agenda.

Trump is an expression of the anti-woke’s frustration with debating the issues wokeness has created. — Fire Ologist

So do you consider Trump to be a force for good in a world ‘taken over’ by Leftist fanatics?

For the woke, there is no debate or winning the argument - just shutting someone down who won’t agree. — Fire Ologist

To an outsider it looks like this would describe the world of MAGA too.

Has wokism ever had a direct impact on you personally? I’d be interested in personal experiences.

That's a very interesting and incisive post.

I don't hold my views because they are logically consistent, empirically provable, or factually credible. I hold them for meaning, purpose, comfort, morality, sense of community, sense of beauty, utilitarian benefit, belonging, etc etc. — Hanover

Nicely put.

The skit was designed to make PC culture look silly in a comical way. — praxis

I vividly remember the panic over political correctness in Australia in the early 1990's. "You can't say anything anymore!" being the usual refrain. Do you think the concern some have regarding woke is simply a continuation/development of this?

More of a Kantian?

Are you an idealist?

But disagreements are disagreements, and there’s no getting around that. — Wayfarer

I have no issue with disagreements. I disagree with myself.

...views I think are wrong are incorrect - rather than some more inflammatory term, which I was often tempted to use in the past. — Wayfarer

Yes, I think that's the preferred approach. I always assume people are doing the best they can, even the rude ones. But we don’t have to engage with everyone.

I don’t have a deep view on this, but I generally avoid engaging with people I assess as hostile or aggressively obtuse. I suspect many who come across as belligerent aren’t necessarily self-aware, they likely see themselves as committed to truth or other ideals that, to them, justify what others experience as harshness or dogmatism. I avoid using abuse and inflammatory language but I've noticed that even measured engagement can be misinterpreted or misdiagnosed as sophistry or insincerity.

Ok.

If someone wrongs you, do not add to the offense by inflicting anger upon yourself. — Dogbert

I'm having trouble interpreting this one because I honestly can't remember the last time someone 'wronged me.' People have made mistakes that made things harder for me in some ways, but I haven’t been a specific target. The second part, about inflicting anger on yourself: what do you mean by that? How does one inflict anger on themselves? Do you mean that by being angry at others, you're actually harming yourself in the process?

If you experience loss, do not seek grief, but acceptance. inflicting misery does you no favors. — Dogbert

Do you mean inflicting misery, here? Do you mean by this that experiencing grief amounts to inflicting it? Or do you mean that you may become resentful and try to share the misery?

Some of what you're advocating has Christian and Buddhist overtones, but ultimately the simplified maxim of Stoicism, so beloved by our self-development gurus these days and foundational to CBT, may address all of this too. 'It’s not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters.' - Epictetus

Flowering occurs when we finally learn to stop inflicting misery upon ourselves, — Dogbert

What would be an example of this in action? I suspect some people should probably be harder on themselves than they are.

One should expect to be a typical individual—say, a hydrogen ion—but the extreme opposite is the case. To resolve this discrepancy, and thereby render sapient life ordinary, unprivileged, or otherwise expected, we must invoke the Everett interpretation and posit that each individual perceives the timeline in which they become conscious of the self. Existence then becomes a blossoming tree of self-realization, with one's life but a single branch — Dogbert

What does this mean?

It's certainly a bit to unpack and then ponder using the given methodologies and justifications OP has provided. — Outlander

It's beyond me. Unfortunately I can't even get through Nietzsche or Heidegger...

If you want the truth... I’m hoping for a better ending. Not just death and that's it. I want to matter... not to just disappear one day and be forgotten. I don't want my efforts, my wishes, everything I am... to be in vain. — Null Noir

That's fair and I'd imagine millions of folk share this view. Thanks for clarifying.

That's my honest answer. The one I have been bottling up out of fear. — Null Noir

Yeah, I'd say fear is a powerful motivator for many beliefs.

If God, or any other deity was real, would you be kind to others out of your own accord, or would you do it out of fear? What even is the point of doing something if it is pointless? — Null Noir

I'm an atheist, and I tend to treat others well and generously because I find it pleasing. Humans are a social species with empathy, and as such, we wouldn't have come very far without cooperation and kindness.

God, for me, has never been a coherent idea or a necessary one. For me the arguments aren't convincing, and I tend to consider theism or atheism to be beyond reasoning and more like a sexual preference, you can't help what you're attracted to. The reasoning being mostly post hoc.

I am taking a short break — Null Noir

Rest well.

You believe it does not matter either way, which is a valid point and I cannot argue against that. — Null Noir

Not quite, I said there are many questions that don’t matter, but the question about the soul feels like it’s of a different order, right? I’m mainly here to learn what others believe and why, so if I feel something might be missing, I’ll ask questions to try to get something more substantial. No big deal.

Tom Storm, I will answer your question. The only reason the soul even matters to me is because I want knowledge and understanding of said knowledge. For example, if you were to find a subject you knew nothing about wouldn't you find it interesting to study? wouldn't you want to find people to talk about and share opinions with? That is how I work. I find out a concept exists, then I just... want to learn. Does that make sense? — Null Noir

The world is full of subjects I know nothing about, and that makes no difference to me. But the idea of a soul is hardly just another subject, it's so closely tied to questions of transcendence and meaning that you must be looking for something in particular.

To be clear: I’m not arguing that the universe didn’t exist before percipients. I’m arguing that the very concept of the universe — including any claims about its being — is bound to the framework of cognition. That’s not speculative metaphysics. It’s critical philosophy — and it was precisely this confusion that Kant sought to untangle. — Wayfarer

Well yes, and it's part of postmodernism too. Our frameworks, and reality are a contingent product.

I don't have an agenda - I have an interest in recovering what I think is the meaning of philosophy proper, which is not at all obvious, and very difficult to discern. I say that philosophical and scientific materialism is parasitic upon philosophy proper. — Wayfarer

How woudl you say this isn't an agenda, or at the very least a project?

My intention was not to have a go at whose contributions I value. I apologise if that's how it was heard. There are several members who are rather ardently flogging a worldview, which I don't mind as long as it is made clear and conducted with good grace, particularly when it is disagreed with. This site is a lovely, gentle way to engage with ideas and approaches one might not initially be drawn to. Having a personality bring it to life via conversation is wonderful, despite all the inherent deficiencies this may also bring.

These are good points Tom. I think people often forget that what they are presenting is merely one perspective. If they react defensively it seems to indicate that they have so much invested in their particular hobbyhorse that critique feels threatening. Hence the accusations of misunderstanding and lack of education. — Janus

Yes, it often happens amongst members here. Sometimes watching is like a slow motion car crash.

Not all the exchanges in this thread have been acrimonious, in fact they're the minority. — Wayfarer

Never said they were. I'm pointing to something I've noticed about the ones that are.

As far as being dogmatic is concerned, please be so kind as to indicate where you think this shows up in the OP. — Wayfarer

I'm not going to spend valuable time seeking out examples. And I said "a little", besides, I'm not saying it's your modus operandi. It's just my take on the way you sometimes talk, for instance, about Dennett, physicalism, and people who don't buy into idealism. You seem to put them down, almost Bentley Hart style. It's clear you believe idealism is true and that materialism is demonstrably false. Having said that, I greatly value your contributions and read almost everything you post as I consider you the most clear and scrupulous proponent of idealism and higher consciousness studies here.

That's an interesting take. Instead of oneself being a small part of the Universe, the Universe must instead be seen as being a small part of oneself. — Janus

This reminds me there's an ongoing discussion on woke that’s been a curious read, but it’s easy to forget how much the concept operates across all fields and orientations; as orthodoxy, as sets of axiomatic principles, often justified by universalising principles like equality, solidarity or reason, and sometimes by something closer to faith.

I'm not including you in this, although sometimes you do seem a little dogmatic for my taste. But then I'm reminded that you have a strong countercultural leaning, which I dig.

I think there’s room on this site for a different kind of discussion, where perhaps a third person helps facilitate a conversation between two members who don’t agree and seem to be talking past each other. I often wonder, with you and @Janus (and I probably align a bit more with him), whether a productive shift could happen with the right kind of facilitation.

What I think I see is that conversations on the forum often get stuck around 1) the justification of axioms, 2) accusations of misunderstanding or bad faith, 3) acrimony. It’s as if we’re hard-wired for conflict over difference. The worst offenders seem to call others liars and sophists when they are challenged by difference.

My interest on this site is probably trying to understand positions I don’t necessarily agree with, it's hard to do because one often ends up trying to defend one's own views on something along the way. The price we often pay for conversation.

Ha! I used to use that Wolfe title too, to describe rampant examples of managerialism at various workplaces I've been.

a) to not drink alcohol
b) to not go to the bar.
c) to not drink liquor at the bar (yeah, yeah, I know; what would be the point?)
d) to not drink more than two oz of alcohol over 2 hours time. Then leave, or switch to soda.
e) bring a designated driver with you, so that IF you were drunk, your driver could get you home safely.
f) receive treatment for alcoholism if you can't control your use of alcohol. The fact is, in so many ways life sucks. — BC

Fair enough - perhaps you left out C2) "to not be a cunt"

My take on it is that 'soul' simply refers to 'the totality of your being'. It includes your past, your future, your talents, skills, proclivities and inclinations - much more than just the ego, which is the mind's idea of itself. Interpreted that way, it is a meaningful concept. — Wayfarer

I think this is an interesting frame for the 'soul' idea. There's something wonderfully poetic about the term, which transcends words, yet somehow speaks to our sense of wholeness or being.

I don’t believe in a soul and haven’t encountered any arguments that convince me otherwise. I can understand how our dread of death has led humans to create pantheons and afterlife narratives.

But why care? What difference does it make if we have a soul or not? If we do, what’s the next step? Does it make life more worth living? Does it connect you to the religion of your family of origin? Does it allow you to convert to Hinduism? Does it chase away meaninglessness and uncertainty? Does the idea of a soul stand between you and some goal?

As I said earlier, we're too far apart on this, I’m not keen on formalism. Thanks for the chat.

I would have thought that our subjective feeling of pain was independent of language. In other words, does knowing the name of our pain change the subjective feeling? — RussellA

But pain is not art, nor is it an interpretation of an object's aesthetic elements. So there's a problem with that comparison. This isn't a question about simple reactions to simple stimuli, it's a much more complex question concerning the aesthetics of an artwork.

By your reckoning, all we're doing is looking at shapes and colours, without context, composition, and experience. That strikes me as a very limited conception of aesthetics. If one did this to a work by Caravaggio where would we get?

Going back to pain for a moment, in a hospital, one of the first questions asked is, "On a scale of one to ten, how much does it hurt?" This reveals that pain alone isn’t self-interpreting; we need language and description to give it meaning, to locate it within a framework that allows for understanding, assessment, and response. Not to mention the subsidiary questions: is it a stabbing pain, an acute pain, a burning pain, a dull ache, and so on...

I don't think so. Sure, you can see cadmium blue without knowing the name, but you only recognise it as cadmium blue (or find it meaningful) because you’ve learned to see it in certain ways and have been given a name and context. Otherwise, it’s just part of a blur of unfiltered input. Similarly, experiencing a work of art isn’t about perceiving colours or images innocently, without context. It’s context that shapes the perception and gives the aesthetic experience its meaning.

But perhaps we are too far apart on this matter.

For example, when I look at grass, I don't think to myself, what colour should I see this grass as, should I see it as yellow, red, green or purple. I don't approach seeing colours with any preconceptions. In seeing the colour of an object my approach is no different to that of an innocent baby. I see the colour I see.

Similarly, with seeing an aesthetic in an object. — RussellA

I'd say this is inaccurate.

To begin with, an innocent baby doesn’t know what colours are or what they’re called. They need to be socialised and taught colour, just as they are taught shapes, and patterns and even their meanings and uses (e.g., 'blue for boys, pink for girls'). In the same way, our aesthetic isn’t in the object as much as it is our way of seeing, which is the product of contingent factors like our era, education, culture, perception, and senses. I'm colour-blind, so what I see is different from some others. I wouldn’t think there’s any such thing as an 'innocent' view.

I agree that postmodern art is an opportunity for expression. I think less through the physical object but more through accompanying statements.

These unknown, underexposed postmodern artists, what exactly are they struggling against?

It seems that they are struggling to break into the Artworld, which is, as I see it, an exclusive club rather than a democratic institution. — RussellA

I think the average person also sees the art world as elitist and hard to traverse. I'd say hardship is the primary struggle for most artists unless they gain a following, but that’s just as true for acting, music, and writing as it is for painting.

Art's definitely not democratic, however. It's more of a meritocracy. Exclusive club? It's a whole set of clubs, not just one, and some of them are not exclusive. But like any club, the level of its elitism depends upon the audience.

To succeed in art, it's not an art world you need to satisfy, it's the punters who wish to buy and hang your work. But the machinations of dealers and critics are a separate matter entirely.

I'd better -- it was pretty ugly, sorry! — J

I've written my fair share of ugly sentences. :smile:

Yes, that's what I was asking. And as a corollary: Does the aesthetic value change relative to what we know about a work? — J

From a personal perspective, I would say that the more you know about something, the deeper your understanding and concomitant appreciation might be.

And aesthetic value changes with age and time. If you saw Psycho in 1960, it would have likely been shocking work of art. Some kids I know saw it and they found it dull and comic, and not in the right places.

I used to work for an antiquities dealer, selling Greek, Roman and Egyptian pieces and venerable, overpriced furniture. If you were a connoisseur of such things you might go into paroxysms of aesthetic delight over a Roman torso, which for someone else might just be some broken rubble. We never just relate to things as things; they are also objects of projected meaning. Or something like that.

Do we want to argue that aesthetic value is neutral as regards the amount of information a viewer may have access to? — J

Can you rephrase this? I'm assuming you're asking whether the aesthetic value of a work is independent from the information we have about it. You could easily write an essay on this. Personally, I tend to think that whatever value a work has is tied to who we are and what we know/experince. I don’t believe a work holds aesthetic value in itself, it’s always in relation to some criterion of value, whether basic or sophisticated.

What about for a philosopher? — J

Sure - there are many others too, I just picked a couple.

I know, but I was pointing out that there's much less difference than at first appears, and suggesting we think about an "accompanying statement" more broadly. — J

I understood that but I think this is stretching this idea too far, but we don’t have to agree.

And then there's the name of the painting . . . part of the work? — J

Only if it suits the critic's/owner's/seller's narrative...

At what point does information become necessary in order to see a Renaissance work as art? Leonardo may not have offered us a written statement, but his tradition did, or something very like it. — J

How we see and rate art is contingent on culture, education and values. We don’t just see a work as 'art', we have the potential to read into any work at many levels. If you’re just seeing Leonardo as a decorative thing, who cares? I’m personally not attracted to Leonardo’s work in general and I have superficial knowledge about his time or why he matters. So I haven't accessed any written information to help me form a view that he is 'special'. But I know he is rated... he's a brand, a popstar.

No doubt. So, is that the sort of "innocent eye" we'd find desirable? Probably not. — J

Depends on the purpose. Obviously no good for an art historian or dealer. I think the era of the dilettante expert and appreciator of culture and art may have ended. There used to be a pretence that the educated man (and later woman) would aim at a kind of Renaissance expertise and connoisseurship. I think cultural awareness of this kind used to be a form of virtue signalling, which is probably now left to pronouns and anti-colonisation lectures. :wink:

But this is not only true of post-modernism. There is no such thing as an art work without an "accompanying statement. — J

We're talking about an actual, literal written statement. Most works are without such a thing.

suppose otherwise is to subscribe to the idea of an "innocent eye" which is somehow able to encounter an art work without knowing anything about it, or about art, disregarding the time and place of the encounter, and without bringing any cultural or individual experience to bear. — J

This is a different matter from a physical, prescriptive note from the artist. Also, I think there are plenty of people who are unfamiliar with artworks and have no idea how to engage with them or what they even are.

And by the way, an artist's statement may not be helpful. The artist might be mistaken about their work or might be deliberately trying to disrupt an interpretive framework, perhaps even being playful. A written statement may not support the work at all, but instead function as a provocative declaration that only adds to its ambiguity.

I once saw a broken wooden kitchen chair painted silver and black and arranged on display at an exhibition. There was a note from the artist. It read: 'The song is sung, but singing doesn’t help.' Such a message doesn’t add much to the work; it simply invites a lot of innocent speculation. The artist was later overheard saying, "I don’t know what it means. It just seemed to work." I'm not sure they were right about this.

One problem with Postmodernism is that depends on its existence through the promotion of elitism within society, an incestuous Artworld that deliberately excludes the "common person" in its goal of academic exclusivity. — RussellA

A common view but I think it misses the mark. There’s plenty of postmodern art created by graduate artists and unknown, underexposed, even struggling artists who see in postmodernism a vitality and opportunity for expression that you or others may not.

Is the "artwork" just the pebble or is the "artwork" the pebble plus the accompanying statement by the artist? — RussellA

I guess that's why we have critics... But I'd imagine the statement is part of the artwork.

Every object can be thought of as art and having an aesthetic, though some objects are more artistic or more aesthetic than other objects. — RussellA

I'm reasonably comfortable with this for pragmatic purposes.

it seems clear that there is also a hierarchy in the aesthetic of an object. — RussellA

As long as we recognise that the hierarchy is man-made, rather than discovering a hierarchy in the aesthetic, we are projecting one onto it, based on shared contingent cultural norms, language, and histories and not intrinsic qualities of the object. This may present problems for those who believe objects themselves possess aesthetic qualities. But since I'm sympathetic to postmodernism and you're not, maybe we won't get passed this.

Similarly, when one looks at "The Last Supper" and a straight line and have a greater artistic and aesthetic experience with "The Last Supper" than the straight line, any deep explanation is beyond current scientific or philosophical understanding. — RussellA

It's not very surprising that a painting based on a well-known story, with narrative power and complexity, would draw a stronger emotional reaction than a line with no clear meaning in itself. More or less the same thing would happen if you compared a straight line to a Pez dispenser. We don’t require Da Vinci...

Additionally, what we take to be a "greater" aesthetic experience with The Last Supper over a straight line isn’t about uncovering some objective depth in the work. It’s the result of shared practices, education, and cultural narratives that shape how we respond. The difference isn’t in the objects themselves, but in the interpretive habits we've inherited. What feels profound is what we’ve learned to see as profound.

You seem to be saying that all our feelings are aesthetic experiences. — RussellA

I’m saying that when an artist presents something as art, it’s an invitation to explore it aesthetically.

But yes, more broadly, our experience of the world may also be largely aesthetic. The aesthetic goes beyond art: our sensory and perceptual engagement with the world is aesthetic in nature.

If that is the case, Jeff Koons, as a Postmodern artist, may be inviting the observer to have a feeling towards his artwork, but it does not follow that this feeling must be aesthetic. — RussellA

It does not follow that the feeling can’t be aesthetic, that’s what you’ve been saying about postmodern art. Bear in mind that whether you enjoy or appreciate something is a separate question.

I'm not even sure that non-aesthetic art is possible. Even if an artist adopts an anti-aesthetic position, the work may end up with a contrived negative aesthetic, a deliberate choice that still shapes how we perceive and respond to it, and that perception is itself aesthetic.

What power do you think lies behind an aesthetic experience? Why do you withhold it from certain categories? How do you define an aesthetic experience?