An observer of a Postmodern artwork may pay attention to its conceptual and cultural context, but this does not require the object to be aesthetic. — RussellA

We've already covered this. An object curated and put on display by an artist is an invitation to view it aesthetically. Whether you or I appreciate or enjoy this or not is a separate matter.

In what way is the pleasure of drinking a cup of coffee aesthetic?

In what way is the discomfort of sitting on a hard chair aesthetic?

In what way is being curious about where foxes have their den aesthetic?

In what way is reflecting on what happened yesterday aesthetic? — RussellA

Not sure why these questions have been inserted here, and we were doing so well. Jeff Koons is a postmodern artist. How is his work not an invitation to have an aesthetic experience? I dislike his work, by the way

But since you raised it - an experience is aesthetic when we pay attention to how it feels, looks, or affects us, not just what it does. Drinking coffee becomes aesthetic when we enjoy its taste, smell, and warmth. Sitting on a hard chair can be aesthetic if we notice how it feels and how it makes us sit. It’s about noticing and appreciating the experience, not just using it for a purpose.

I find it impossible to believe that most people don't accept that there is a hierarchy in art. Is there anyone who would try to argue that the quality of a Bob Ross painting is equal to the quality of a Leonardo da Vinci painting — RussellA

There is definitely a hierarchy of taste and academic opinion. Art criticism and art history is part of an intersubjective community. It's pretty easy to say that a cel from a Bugs Bunny cartoon is less 'important' as art than a Rembrandt. (Although Bugs may well have provided more pleasure.) But what about Rembrandt versus Van Gogh? Or da Vinci versus Michelangelo? Is a play by John Osborne better or worse than a play by Arthur Miller? For the most part, I think attempts to impose hierarchies and criteria of value on art are largely moot, though it does keep academics, critics, and the art market in business. Humans love to rate things.

In summary, an aesthetic is not part of a Postmodern artwork, athough may be discovered in an accompanying descriptive text.

Postmodern art is diverse and self-aware, tends to use irony and blurring of categories to challenge traditional ideas of originality, meaning, and distinctions between high and low culture. It often appeals to people who like puzzles, gimmicks, statements and ambiguities.
— Tom Storm

I don't disagree with your description of Postmodernism, but none of the terms used requires an aesthetic. For example, something may be diverse without being aesthetic. — RussellA

All postmodern art has some kind of aesthetic. It doesn’t have to be about beauty; rather, like any work, it’s an invitation to experience something aesthetically.

To experience something aesthetically means to engage with it through your senses and perception, paying attention to its qualities: form, texture, colour, tone, or atmosphere. And the work's conceptual and cultural context. It’s about how the artwork affects you emotionally, intellectually, or even physically, whether through pleasure, discomfort, curiosity, or reflection.

The Postmodernist artist, as a reaction against Modernism, deliberately creates an object minimising any aesthetic. — RussellA

Minimizing? Is that because it can’t be eliminated? Or is it more accurate to say that all art is aesthetic, regardless of the school or style? The difference lies in how much a viewer cares for or engages with it.

Sounds like you have a hierarchy of what counts as art, or maybe just what counts as good art? Thoughts?

I agree. That is why I wrote on page 6

Modernism
It only becomes an artwork if the human responds to the aesthetics of the object. Note that an aesthetic response can be of beauty, such as Monet's "Water lilies", or can be of ugliness, such as Picasso/s "Guernica".

Postmodernism
It only becomes an artwork if the human responds to the object as a metaphor for social concerns.

In what sense is conceptual art intended to be aesthetic? — RussellA

Cool, sorry I didn’t see this earlier. I rate conceptual art as aesthetic, like any other art, because it engages our senses, and invites emotional and/or intellectual responses.

I'm not sure I would subscribe to the above definition of postmodern art - seems too proscriptive and limiting. Postmodern art is diverse and self-aware, tends to use irony and blurring of categories to challenge traditional ideas of originality, meaning, and distinctions between high and low culture. It often appeals to people who like puzzles, gimmicks, statements and ambiguities.

There’s a Buddhist anecdote that an elderly questioner once asked the Buddha, what is the core of his teaching? He replied, ‘Cease from evil, learn to do good, and purify the mind.’ — Wayfarer

What do you take "purify the mind" to mean? A reference to the Noble Eightfold Path?
To me, it could suggest that we don't need to concern ourselves with metaphysics, philosophy, or even whether life has any inherent meaning: we just need to do what's outlined above. It's minimalist, but challenging in its own way.

:up: I appreciate these replies. Thank you.

I’ve had academic friends lose positions for failing to agree with the department they work in. It was never about woke ideology or sleeze. The examples sound like a mixed bag. I would think Rose and Franken may well have had this coming. But aren’t universities always full of odd radicalism and party lines? I guess you’re saying what’s new is the extent of it. I’d be curious to learn how significant it really is.

Yes. I note career’s have often been ended if people failed to support a particular line. It’s standard in organisations like universities and schools.

Yes that makes sense. I'm trying to understand how "wokeism" when seen as problematic has any significant impact beyond rhetorical ‘grandstanding’ by various people making different kinds of claims. So far, this just sounds like the usual complaints people have about forms of identity politics.

I'm not saying there aren't issues, but what I’m looking for are concrete, institutionalised examples, something with real substance, that's meaningfully different from, say, right-wing identity politics where people view all of life through the lens of gun ownership, MAGA, or Christian nationalism, where ridicule and debate are also used to silence dissent. We know this group censors libraries, for instance. Everyone wants to control the narrative, if not the world.

If I address you with the wrong pronoun and you respond with pained moral outrage, it is because your feelings are expressing your assessment that I am culpable for my slight, even if I insist that it was inadvertent. There are no accidents or innocent mistakes when concepts like while privileged and implicit bias judge us guilty in advance. It is this assumed culpability by association, birth and ingrained use of language that is at the bottom of the hyper-moralism attributed to wokism, not a blind reliance on the authority of affect. — Joshs

I've wondered about this process myself. Simple question: do you think wokism is a significant and growing issue in society?

Critics argue that emotional discomfort has become a trigger for restricting speech, displacing debate with moral claims based solely on feeling hurt or offended. — Number2018

Some young people and profs at universities have used this mechanism. What's the evidence that this is a broader social problem of significant concern? Universities have always been subject to value-based stunts. That's kind of their thing.

instead, I attempt to diagnose a shift in discursive practices, particularly in the domains of identity politics and online activism, where affective expressions of marginalization have begun to function as sufficient sources of epistemic and moral authority. — Number2018

Fancy wording but I think this is certainly a widely held belief - perhaps that some people weaponise their lived experience. Can you provide a specific example you are thinking of here - one with broad repercussions?

Thus, emotional experience and perceived marginality are not retained within rigorous ontological framing. Instead, they assert themselves as affective self-reference of truth and moral authority, becoming resistant to questioning, nuance, or deliberate reflection. — Number2018

This builds on the above—I'm keen to understand specific instances.

I would say in the UK the woke term has been extremely and enthusiastically taken up by right wingers. — unimportant

We know that Murdoch and his flunkies like to label progressives as out of touch and deluded, so the term "woke" works well for them to describe a supercharged from of progressive thinking that they consider close to madness. But that doesn’t actually say anything about what "woke" is or isn’t. Generally, if Murdoch's crew is eager to sell a particular frame, it's probably safe to ignore it.

It seems to me that "woke" is just an umbrella term for a diverse range of ideas in our public discourse that some people fear and choose to describe pejoratively. And no doubt there are some zealous left-wing activists who go too far, just as there are young, zealous right-wing ones who do the same.

Nice work and useful. I wish this had been around a few years ago. :wink:

In what sense is conceptual art intended to be either beautiful or utilitarian? — RussellA

Well, I don’t think art is about beauty. I think it’s about evoking an aesthetic experience in a particular context; one shaped by culture, intention, and the viewer’s own perspective. Beauty might be part of it, but it’s not the point.

I don't deny the point. But I'm trying to work out whether a big lie actually matters, or if it's just reflecting what the public already believes. The lie comes afterwards, more like a garnish, than a key motivator for action.

fixed my wording

Yes, but I guess this group was ready to accept any tale that was anti-Biden or anti-Democrat, right? Any story. It didn’t need to be particularly big or require any skill in its dissemination. But did they really believe it or just agree that Biden and the status quo was shit so almost any smear was useful.

Fixed my wording.

Not quite. A soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his comrades is heroic. A soldier with a ring of immortality jumping on grenades and in front of enemy bullets isn't doing anything heroic. — RogueAI

Yes - what was Jesus' sacrifice exactly - a weekend ruined, perhaps? Then back to the all-powerful, omniscient, immortal ruler of all things.

From an American perspective, regarding American politics, CNN is very liberal. — RogueAI

Interesting. I have only seen it intermittanly and I qalwasy found it conser ative Btu then I cosnider your Democrats to be failty conservative too.

What’s a current example of a big lie?
— Tom Storm

The 2020 election was stolen. — RogueAI

I was going to ask that myself, but how many people actually believed it? Is it still a big lie if only a small percentage of the country believes everything one con artist says?

But the "big lie" today is the illusion of pluralism: Narratives seem diverse but distort facts, polarizing people. — Astorre

So I wonder if one of the big lies is the popular notion that 'politics doesn’t matter because they’re all corrupt.' It seems to me that this idea disempowers voters by lowering their expectations and participation and ends up empowering the baser opportunists to gain more control.

Fox News is using a patriotic and optimistic narrative to give readers pride and confidence in Trump as a leader who acts in America's best interests. CNN focuses on risks and uncertainty, causing alarm and skepticism. The facts are the same, but the emotional "superstructure" is radically different: Fox News creates the image of a strong leader, CNN - a potential culprit of economic problems. — Astorre

But we already know Fox is aligned with the Right and Trump while CNN is softer centrist/conservative. We would have expected both examples of coverage to look like this.

This is how people have generally chosen their preferred news since the days of papers. Reactionary and progressive are discrete markets.

What’s a current example of a big lie?

I'm not in the religion or God business, but by what measure does one determine whether a religion has failed? By its gifts or its brutalities? How do you weigh the benefits against the harms? And which religions are we talking about?

It seems to me you can only make a blanket judgement like that if you already hold the view that religion is superstition that gets good people to do bad things, which is certainly a perspective, but not the only one.

I'm not sure what your point is.

If the idea is simply that our external situation (whatever it might be) isn't inherently bad, but rather it's how we choose to view it that determines this, that's a fairly common perspective, often derived from Stoicism.

Another way to think of it is a cost benefit analysis, to a rich person getting even a couple thousand dollars for their time is ludicrous, but for others they work for even less. I am trying to look past the personal for a different meaning. — Red Sky

But human meaning is entirely context-dependent and situational. To try and turn meaning into an abstraction which transcends lived experience would seem fraught.

Presumably there is a theology that explains all this... — Banno

Theology can explain anything...

A quick google search will provide plenty of articles justifying capital punishment, from Christians. — Banno

Yes, often the same ones who consider abortion to be anathema.

Categorically: if it's in a museum of art as an artobject then it's art. LIke it or hate it, it's in the museum. — Moliere

I tend to agree. The debate about what counts as art seems largely pointless. It's more interesting to talk about what is influential or vital art, versus what is forgettable, while recognising that all of this is contingent on values and tastes. If it's presented for aesthetic appreciation, it's probably art.

The debate about what deserves to be called art is a kind of gatekeeping, based on the idea that for something to be art, it must be exceptional. But art can be dull or shit and still be art.

It is difficult to resist, but possible if you deliberately slow down and separate emotions from facts, as I suggested in a thought experiment. This does not solve the problem completely, but it helps to realize how our opinion is formed not so much by information as by the feelings that it evokes. — Astorre

Doesn’t everyone who takes in any news try to filter out the spin? Watching the news is always an act of interpretation: where are they trying to lead us; where's the bias? The same goes for philosophy or storytelling. It’s generally attempting to lead us somewhere. Most narratives are trying to persuade. :wink:

But I would argue that the "big lie" doesn't have to be one grand fiction. It can be a sustained narrative that is formed through the repetition of emotionally charged interpretations of facts, gradually creating a belief in people that they accept without deep analysis. — Astorre

I’d still need to see this in action to understand your point properly. Is an example of this perhaps something like the idea that people on welfare are lazy? That’s a trope peddled by media for years and is now so common that many accept it as given.

. Unlike the traditional yellow press, where influence was limited to circulation or audience, social networks create echo chambers where emotional narratives circulate endlessly, forming perceptions without the need for one "big" lie - many small, emotionally charged distortions are enough. — Astorre

The issue of social media bubbles is pretty well established. The Fleming story sounds more like a classic urban myth which is a separate phenomenon.

Interesting formulation of this issue, Josh.

In Australia, the only people who use the term 'woke' are Murdoch journalists and oddly discordant right-wingers, from what I’ve seen. It doesn't seem to have captured people’s imagination as widely.

There is a bit of a culture war here too, but it’s essentially a diluted one, riffing off American Republican talking points about political correctness, minority rights, and the usual anti-trans bigotry. But I suspect you’re right. Most of these ideas that are hated or feared by some now will probably be standard worldview in a few years.

The fundamental philosophical insights guiding it are here to stay, and will become accepted by the mainstream within the next 50 years — Joshs

Can you throw us a few dot points about the philosophical insights?

A Modernist artwork may be defined as any object real or imagined that has no utilitarian purpose that has been observed or thought about by a human as an aesthetic, which is about a sense of order within complexity. — RussellA

Is this right? Can't utilitarian objects also be understood as art? Think of works by William Morris, for example, or Greek Attic vases. And then there’s conceptual art.

The transition from traditional media to social media is not a way out of a vicious circle, but simply a change of players. — Astorre

I wasn't saying it was a way out, only that it was a new dimension. I don't know what vicious circle you're referring to.

I propose a thought experiment that allows you to see this mechanism in action:
1. Take any news.
2. "Clean" all emotions from it, leaving only a naked fact.
3. Compare how the same fact is presented in different sources: in the official media, among independent bloggers, in the opposition media. — Astorre

I'm not sure what this establishes. It's well known that different people and outlets cover things differently, even journalists from the same publication might take different angles. Audiences tend to select the outlets that match their values. Which is why old, scared people tend to watch Murdoch's stuff.

I will not refer to specific facts in specific sources, because I can very easily hurt someone's feelings. I propose a focus on the idea itself, leaving the experienced approach to its own discretion — Astorre

I can't really see what you mean unless you provide an example. What is a big lie? I can see lots of little lies - a web of intersecting nonsense and propaganda, but that's kind of how yellow journalism has often functioned throughout its history from Lord Beaverbrook to Hearst to Pulitzer to Murdoch.

I would think many of the inconsistencies in long term religions often arise from trying to square beliefs from different eras cohesively. — MrLiminal

Good point.

I have seen some interpretations of hell as being bad not as a punishment so much as the natural state of being separated from God and his love/will, and because God is perfect, he cannot interact with imperfect beings directly, hence the necessity of Jesus as a sacrificial intermediary. In that reading, I think it's possible to see similarities, but perhaps I'm reaching. — MrLiminal

As society becomes more concerned with parity and social justice, ideas about God also tend to become less severe and more inclusive. That’s why some Western churches now fly the rainbow flag of diversity, while in less diverse and more rigid societies (generally Muslim), people are still executed for being gay based on religion.

It strikes me as odd that some have built significant narratives about God's intentions and actions, along with the functions of hell and punishment even though we’ve yet to establish whether any god exists, and if so, which one.

What do you think—does this mechanism still hold today? Have you noticed how emotions from news shape your opinions? And is it even possible to resist this influence in an era of information overload? — Astorre

I don’t follow the news closely. In my circle, news stopped being taken seriously in the 1990s. These days, most of us just read up on issues that interest us and occasionally check news sites like the BBC or Al Jazeera. Do you think it's more likely that social media is the bigger issue?

People are more likely to believe a big lie than a small one. This aligns with their nature. They know they might lie about trivial things, but a massive lie? They’d hesitate to go that far. A big lie doesn’t even occur to them, so they can’t imagine someone else being capable of such shameless distortion of facts — Astorre

Hitler obviously said something like this, but is it accurate? What is an example of a “big lie” today that people widely believe? There are certainly narratives manufactured for certain stakeholders. Is society too atomized these days for a 'big lie' to be feasible?

The Catholic Church teaches that God Almighty came down from heaven to save us... from His own wrath... by allowing Himself to be tortured to death. And apparently this strategy worked in spite of the fact that he didn't actually die (people saw him walking around three days later), and most people didn't get saved. — frank

It’s a pretty absurd story and hard to make sense of unless you buy into it emotionally and overlook its incoherance. I guess this is why many freethinkers often describe the New Testament as: “God sacrificed Himself to Himself to save us from Himself, to protect us from the rules He Himself made.”

Of course, ritual sacrifice is a big element in most religions because it’s so dramatic and attention grabbing. It lends itself to great slogans like this from John - “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son."

the inconsistencies you have noted do not matter to those who believe.

Part of the reason is that they have been taught that belief is of greater import that consistency.

It follows that any argument you might offer is irrelevant, becasue what is at stake is not rational. — Banno

Indeed, they often find extraordinarily complex and implausible ways to justify doctrine. It’s hard work trying to make human sense out of myth.

So far, so good.

Hey, I may need some pointers on the difference between relativism and anti-realism.

I'm assuming the anti-realist says something like: "Murder isn’t wrong in any objective sense; saying it’s wrong is just an expression of personal preference or emotion."

Whereas the relativist says: "Murder is wrong according to contingent community standards, such as local values, cultural norms: views about harm and wellbeing, but those standards aren’t universally binding."

Both views agree that morality is something humans create through their agreements or social practices, right

Great, thanks for the clarification. Food for thought.

I would suggest keeping relativism and anti-realism separate. They are two distinct things. Almost every thinker is a relativist and contextualist to some degrees (as respects both truth and values). If you're a child's parent, it's good to scoop them up if they have fallen and start to cry. If you're a stranger, not so much. The appropriateness of the action depends on the context. Likewise, it might be extremely rude, and thus judged to be bad, not to bow to one's elders in some cultural setting, but not in another culture. Platonism, or Christian and Islamic "Neoplatonism," had no real issues with this sort of relativism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Nicely put.

I'd question if this even still "anti-realism?" You seem to be assuming that realism = some sort of naive two worlds Platonism, else it is anti-realism. But that's not how I'm using the term, nor how it is usually used. Normally, it means there is no truth as to values (sometimes caveated to "moral values.") To call values emergent, isn't to say they aren't real. Although, if one wants to claim that they emerge from culture and language, this would seem to imply that nothing good or bad can ever happen to non-human animals, which seems false. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, I was assuming, from your posts, that you argue from God or Platonism.

My view is that relativist can argue that values are real - but they are contingent. For the theist, this is generally not good enough.

a bias for reason, mathematics, and freedom from constraint - are human values just as much as "Goodness, Beauty (and sometimes Truth)" are. — T Clark

Nice. :up:

The issue for some is that goodness, truth and beauty emanate from God; are a reflection of God's nature. Take them away and quesions emerge.

-Nothing is good or bad. It's not bad for a man to get hit by a bus, nor is it bad for a rat to eat rat poison. Serial killers and child molesters are ultimately no worse (nor any better) than saints. The cosmos is meaningless and valueless, and values a sort of illusion. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This fairly common response seems to me to be a misread of relativism. Or perhaps it's a read of naive relativism.

There may well be no objective values written into the structure of the cosmos. Our universe doesn't protest when a baby dies, nor does it celebrate when a theist shows mercy towards an enemy. But this doesn't mean that "nothing is good or bad" in any meaningful sense. It means that good and bad are creations, let's call them emergent, intersubjective, historical, biological, cultural, and personal. They are not illusions, but human projections of experience, language, a social conversation, and biological response. Do we need more than this?

Your example is a man being hit by a bus. From the perspective of the cosmos, it is likely irrelevant. But from the standpoint of community, family, a loved one, it's a tragedy and a source of legitimate sorrow. We are social animals and we experince pain and loss. This doesn’t become nothing simply because it lacks metaphysical grounding of some kind. The fact that it's relative doesn't make it meaningless.

Likewise, the difference between a serial killer and a saint isn't a metaphysical one, but that doesn't make it trivial. The values by which we differentiate them are based on shared human concerns: suffering, trauma, fear or flourishing, trust, and love. These values vary across cultures and time, sure, but they're not arbitrary. They arise from how we are embedded in the world and with one another.

A relativist doesn’t have to deny that moral language is of use in our world: they just deny that it reflects some absolute, God’s-eye-view or Platonic realm of moral truth.

Very interesting observations. Thanks.

When asked why she was such a recluse, she said for her, just being here is enough. — Astrophel

Nice. I wish more people felt similarly - we wouldn't have a world ruined by tourism. A crass interpretation of her words but there it is...

Not that I am going to go out and read all of his works, but I suspect the ground of his thinking goes much deeper this classical theism — Astrophel

I'm sure of that. Hart is an insatiable reader (which seems to match his seemingly insatiable intake of food). What is he missing, I wonder?

OTOH, Heidegger's Being and Time must be read. Just saying. It is frankly profound and opens the door to all later Heidegger, and post Heideggerian/neo Husserlian responses. Not just arguments. — Astrophel

Yes, you're not the only person to suggest this. I doubt I'd be able to get a useful reading of Heidegger, even if I could endure the dense and technical language. I simply don't have the passion or ability to pursue such literature.

Phenomenology begins with description of the phenomenological "world" that is presupposed by ordinary existence, and the former is not the familiar world, and so one has to make the move to phenomenological discovery, but what this IS depends on the individual. Some find this the philosophical medium of religious affirmation, while others like Heidegger, see it as an analysis of the finitude of our being (though Heidegger said he never really left the church). — Astrophel

The finitude of human life occurred to me when I was a child, and a sense of its evanescence has never really left me.

Not wanting to start anything crass, but on the subject of moral clarity, what do you make of Heidegger's interest in Nazism - did his philosophy not assist him is seeing this clearly?

Thanks again.