The trick with aesthetics is to get it off the ground you have to, in some sense, be talking about more than what you individually like. — Moliere

I think that's a useful observation. I guess if we set standards of 'good' and 'bad' aesthetics, we probably need something like Platonic forms, right? Or else aesthetics is untied to anything but cultural and personal values, which are transitory. As a reluctant anti-foundationalist, I gravitate to the latter.

Some years ago I participated in a discussion of the Tractatus. — Fooloso4

Oh great, I'll read with interest. Cheers.

:up:

The distinction that’s usually made is between conservatives and reactionaries, where the latter want to turn the clock back, or at least say they do, appealing to past glory. The interesting thing, and I think you were saying something similar, is that reactionaries can be radical. — Jamal

Absolutely right from where I sit. :up:

It certainly seemed that way to me when I first read him. It took me a lot of time and work to see that there is a clarity to his style. — Fooloso4

Good answer and thank you for being patient.

What one who understands him gets from the book is a way of seeing in distinction from something said to be known. — Fooloso4

Important distinction, transition even.

There's so much homework to do in this philosophy caper... I probable need to focus on a few sections of the Tractatus and see how it sits with me.

Right, but people don't fight egregiously over whether Rembrandt was a greater artist than Leonardo or Jackson Pollock is better than Andy Warhol, or T S Eliot better than Wallace Stevens. — Janus

Actually they do. Well they did in my world - Melbourne arts scene. There were fights and feuds so bitter over issues like abstract versus figurative, Warhol versus Goya (often framed via Robert Hughes criticism) you wouldn't believe the vehemence. Including fist fights in the pub. And consider the Nazi's and their 1937 exhibition of degenerate art and what this meant for the artist's welfare. And speaking of artist's welfare - ask Shostakovich about what it was like to displease Stalin and the politburo with few dud bars in a symphony. Not producing the right kind of art has been ever bit as problematic around the world as not holding the right belief systems.

But I do take your point.

On the other hand the suffering that can be involved with chemo and radiotherapy may not be worth the trade-off in terms of the little extra life they are capable of offering — Janus

No. They are saying you don't need pain killers or treatment if you have faith. They are cunts.

Of course the sovereignty of the individual must be balanced against the social responsibility that comes with that sovereignty, which is of course the respect for the sovereignty of other individuals. — Janus

Indeed.

A single act of charity or sacrifice can bring tears to the eyes, much like a piece of music. So I think there is something to the idea that morality, even basic manners, has a certain beauty to it. — NOS4A2

Nice. There's a great deal in this idea.

The world would be a far better place if people learned to speak only for themselves, and fully realize that they speak only for themselves. — Janus

I think this is true but so hard when identity is often based on a community of shared values which often feels or is marginalized.

That's interesting. Thank you.

Nietzsche and Kierkegaard are a good pair to compare and contrast in this context. — Janus

The salt and pepper brothers!

I think the debate over God being understood in aesthetic terms is like debating the aesthetic worth of art works, poetry or music. — Janus

It is, but 'taste' is also where the passion is. I'm fascinated by passion and commitment and why some ideas and not others.

I don't think science should be privileged over the supernatural or vice versa per se — Janus

I think lots would agree. I have a sister in-law with terminal cancer. There are some friends of hers who have said - don't get treatment, all you need is prayer. This for me is when the supernatural becomes problematic. When it exceeds its speculative limitations and becomes a course of potentially harmful action.

Again I think that is an absurd argument. It might seem to someone that veneration of the divine is deeper, richer and more beautiful than nihilism, but that is merely a personal preference. Others may see it the other way around. — Janus

Good point.

Thanks.

It reads like Dan Brown on methaqualone.

The upside of Machiavellian dictators & Tyrant gods is that they mandate order --- making the trains run on time --- making it rain for the pious. But the downside is that they surround themselves with yes-men, and kill-off independent thinkers (philosophers), who ask too many questions. — Gnomon

And too often they commit genocide. Who was it that said a society that burns books will eventually burn people? Is gassing to death men, women and children an appropriate price to pay for the trains running on time, I wonder? And as we saw in Stalin's time, even the pious aren't safe from a capricious and jealous god. :razz: Independent thinking isn't the threat. Other people are the threat, as authoritarianism debases itself though paranoia and listlessness. Look at God and Job. An exquisitely Stalinist stunt by a cunt.

That whole concept appears to have become obsolete.... hijacked by shills who replace patriotism with jingoist xenophobia; christian forbearance with militant religiosity; family and community cohesion with the vilification of minorities - tawdry imitations of conservative values.
Or so it seems to me. — Vera Mont

I think that's also what Roger Scruton thought. He bemoaned the fact that the conservative tradition had been coopted by corporate statists and cultural philistines, vandals and assorted self-aggrandizing parasites. But we all know that words are changeable things and they are often purloined by the wrong crowd. How often has term democracy been falsely employed by authoritarians and dictators?

I saw a documentary on atheism once. The documentarian said a world without religion seemed "thin" to him. He was an atheist, but he appreciated the full bodied mythology, art, and community associated with religion.

It wasn't a reason to believe. Maybe more of a reason for tolerance. — frank

Nice. Thank you.

My world is solipsistic. It is mine alone. It is the world as I see it. As I experience it. — Fooloso4

My world is a private language? Is not my world then a beetle in a box?

The facts of the world do not change, but how I experience it does. To be happy is to be in accord with the world, to not set one's will against the world. — Fooloso4

Why can't the man simply write clearly? Why the fucking riddles and bloody obtuse prose style? :razz:

I'm a bit of an 'atheist Christian' or some such nonsense in the sense that incarnation myth speaks to me (as myth). — plaque flag

I get you. I'm partial to the Good Samaritan story. It opened up a broader notion of morality to me when I was a kid. We can't help but be shaped by tradition - Nietzsche's shadows on the cave wall...

I'm afraid Hegel is like a too rich chocolate cake. I can only have a nibble before feeling done...



.

I think you've nailed down a great issue. Of course the professor just couldn't appreciate the kind of beauty available to the atheist, — plaque flag

I think this is right. Is it Norman Rockwell versus Salvador Dali...? too obvious and pat, maybe. I've come to think that rival aesthetical perspectives may be as significant a source of misunderstanding and conflict as anything generated by politics.

Appreciated.

t is clear that ethics cannot be put into words.
Ethics is transcendental.
(Ethics and aesthetics are one and the same.) — Fooloso4

I now remember encountering this some time ago. Given the role an ethical system might have on the suffering of conscious creatures can we say they are precisely the same thing? The consequences of ethics versus the consequences of aesthetics seem to operate in different worlds to me.

If the good or bad exercise of the will does alter the world, it can alter only the limits of the world, not the facts—not what can be expressed by means of language.
In short the effect must be that it becomes an altogether different world. It must, so to
speak, wax and wane as a whole.
The world of the happy man is a different one from that of the unhappy man. — Fooloso4

This one is like trying to make sense of the Tao Te Ching.

Our moral choices can change the world - but not the facts; that which can be expressed. OK.

This I don't get -

In short the effect must be that it becomes an altogether different world. It must, so to
speak, wax and wane as a whole.
The world of the happy man is a different one from that of the unhappy man

Translation please, Sir. Is it the nature of subjective experience?

Is there annotated Wittgenstein available on line? I can stare at a couple of sentences of his for hours and get precisely nowhere.

To my advantage, they are the bad boy trouble makers of the Catholic Church. I think I probably argued along the lines of seeing his attack on Christianity as something for Christian critical self-examination. — Fooloso4

Nicely done. Yes, Nietzsche is like the loyal opposition, a human adversary against which to sharpen their beliefs. But a lot of Christians seem to like Nietzsche too, given some of the consequences he predicts for the culture following the death of God.

I think "aesthetic reasoning" can be used, at best, to rationalize "morality and meaning". It's actually akin to fideism, no? — 180 Proof

Could be. Rationalisation sounds like a more precise account of it.

Even “ghastly nihilism” can be seen aesthetically. — praxis

Indeed. I think that's what I'm saying - the aesthetics of atheism and nihilism is a turn off aesthetically to some. So it must be a 'turn on' for others. But you've got me thinking. Is there anything which can't be regarded aesthetically?

Ironically Nietzsche rejected Christianity and God precisely on aesthetic grounds. And he thought most philosophy through the ages essentially boiled down to a rationalisation for morality, aesthetics : — ChatteringMonkey

Nice. Thank you.

t is, unconsciously... but usually no philosopher will admit as much consciously, that is the philosophers conceit, their pride in their reason getting in the way. — ChatteringMonkey

I suspect this is right.

In the Tractatus Wittgenstein treated morality as an aesthetic rather than intellectual matter. A matter of what one sees and experiences, of how one stands in relation to the world. — Fooloso4

I need to follow this up.

Personally I think the 'aesthetic' is too easily relegated to the sidelines of philosophical chat. — mcdoodle

Interesting.

That is the area of opinion that you are ascribing to 'religion': that there is some wholeness, in this supposedly religious view, that integrates talk about 'meaning' and talk about 'aesthetics'. (Morality is another step on) — mcdoodle

Yes. I referred to some people who use it to 'rationalise' religious belief, but it may well be used in a range of ways.

Hannah Ginsborg has written about this (including a Stanford entry on the topic) but it is under-explored. — mcdoodle

I'll check this out.

Hitchens saw value in the word numinous as well, whereas I have always associated that word with other rather woo woo words like transcendent. — universeness

I just see it as a variation of wonder and awe which are quotidian experiences. But I do have a penchant for some religious language. They haver fun words.

It is an aesthetic standard, but I still find it compelling, or at least appealing. I'm not sure how that fits into your discussion, but it's what came to mind. — T Clark

I think it is related. Thanks.

Fuck yeah ! (Is this just an Americanism? Or you got it over there too?) — plaque flag

Fuck yeah! We've got all your words down here.

Feel free to use any Australianism you want, Mate. Enjoy.

What do the aesthetics of the universe do for you? — universeness

Occasionally, when I am in the outback, I am struck by the extraordinary star scape. The Australian bush is primeval and powerful and it often scares me. But nothing I've seen appears to have influenced my view of life.

I remain unsure of your personal position as regards being an overall life celebrant — universeness

I think life and humans are pretty dreadful, but what can you do? I don't whine. I don't celebrate. I have a tendency towards optimism which, try as I might, I can't suppress. Absurdism works for me too.

You're a guy who loves life and has a sense of the numinous, whilst recognising the tragedies and pitfalls all around us, and you don't even believe in the Big Sky Motherfucker! Good for you, Cobber!

I’m refuting their justification for its rightness and have explained thus. — schopenhauer1

The point is they don't like sudden, far reaching changes. It's a preference, it's not as simple as right or wrong.

I work in an organisation which has been very stable for a few years. 10 years ago it was in tumult. I disliked that period of chaos greatly. I now value the stability and the people who are in key roles. It's not perfect but it is the best it can be from my perspective. I do not want to see any big changes to this organisation because I don't want stability and predictability to be threatened. I am a conservative in relation to any big change being suggested. Am I aware that this stability can't last forever and that change is inevitable and has been the case in the past? You bet. That has no bearing on my preference for conservative change only.

The 'aesthetic faithful' was referring to the group of people we were talking about in the OP. This was a separate point to where we ended up - talking about people who love life. As I said of this second group most I've known do not have any religious beliefs.

I have no idea why you would raise idea of beauty in suffering or lessons to be learned by suffering. So far you are the only one to have raised this.

Why did you capitalise because? Anyway... it's a very simple belief. They don't like sudden and big changes that are imposed by others through war, governments, businesses. The fact that society does change is beside the point and unconnected to their perspective. You can still resist and dislike significant change in a world where changes have been made.

I don't think the point I am making about the aesthetic faithful is connected to the loving life people. Many of those confounding folk who love life do not hold any religious beliefs. They are not motivated by aesthetics.

Huh? I have not given my view on this subject, just an account of how some people think. I learned many years ago that some people adore life and celebrate it, even those who have been exposed to torture, trauma and tragedy. I have also learned that some other people hold the opposite view and will never understand that first group and will spend their days puzzling over the first group's ebullience with something approaching resentment and incredulity.

I think my quote sufficiently refuted their purported aims as cherry picking. — schopenhauer1

I wouldn't think that example works, but you might find a better one that does. Radical change from the past is accommodated and becomes the tradition of the future. A conservative doesn't look back throughout history and try to turn back the clock after thousands of years, right? That's not conservatism, that's a belated counterrevolutionary. A conservative isn't going to wear 17th century breaches. He's going to wear the more conservative choice of his time. Probably a traditional suit.

Over and out. — Nickolasgaspar

Literally, it seems.

You got to stop posting pictures of Jordan Peterson, Prax. People will talk.

I find the thing in life is to remember that people don't share my experiences, my views or my accounts of reality and why should they? I suspect that just as some people have a ginormous sex drive, other people have phenomenal zest for living, which cancels out the negatives. Maybe it's chemical... :wink:

Ha! That would be taking things too literally, even if it did make me laugh. I think conservatives are gradualists and understand that life has been upturned historically by great tumults - as you say - the one god taking over from the many, but also wars, social changes like unions, etc - read Burke on the French Revolution - a formative document on the implications of revolution for conservative thinking. Conservatives obviously choose their projects - feminism may be an old and venerable tradition by now but I suspect conservatives still find some of its notions problematic. But conservatism isn't static, it accepts change but it doesn't like revolutionary change or government implemented social change like affirmative action, etc.

Well, they either don't see it or they choose aesthetic relief as per terror management theory. Most people I've met over the years think life is a privilege and mostly enjoyable. We can either say they are deluded, lying or living a different life...

Thanks. I guess my question is pondering the extent to which people find theism and, for want of a better term, the 'supernatural' attractive because it appeals to them aesthetically. While the loose ends and incomplete circle of atheism is a turn off.

I hope you don't mind if I jump in here, — Jamal

Not at all.

One thing I can't do well is games, like chess and poker. — Jamal

Now that's interesting, I don't do games at all. But I have no interest in them. I played a few boardgames as a kid and that's it. No cards, video games, nothing for 40 years.

telling oneself and others that one is borderline innumerate might just reinforce a psychological block that stands in the way of your mathematical genius. — Jamal

Ha! It would be nice to contemplate the possibilities, but alas I'll never find out.

Like music, it demands constant practice to stay on the horse, and without that it becomes very difficult to get back on. — Jamal

That's interesting. A form of math fitness, maybe. I hadn't considered that.

Guilty. Just my math background showing. — jgill

I hadn't noticed. Digression. Do you think there is a math brain or a type of person to whom math speaks? I ask simply because I can't do any math at all. I am borderline innumerate.

That amuses and frustrates me, yet I was guilty of that harmless insanity myself once. — plaque flag

It's a phase for some and a psychological affliction for others. I had a stage when I was around 10-11 of thinking everything was a simulation - although I lacked the wording for this back in the 1970's. I thought of it as a movie being run in my brain by parties unknown.

A lot of things can go wrong in the introspection phase it seem to me...

I'd even claim that the concept of raw experience is itself a philosophical construction — plaque flag

:up: I can see that.

You could put it in your manner and he might agree, though he would put less emphasis on Plato per se. I think he'd simply say that, we are biological creatures like any other - albeit with unique properties (like language). For us to be able to have any nature, we have to be constrained to give shape to our experience — Manuel

Interesting. Thanks for the clarification.

Difference among these two being, Cudworth give a much richer account of innate ideas, Kant seems to deny them, arguing that we have certain "filters" that are innate, but not ideas per se. — Manuel

A useful distinction.

Wasn't thinking of you to be honest. But why not?

But based on what I do have, it seems more reasonable to me to say that a planet is made of non-conscious matter, than to say it is made of ideas, which requires a subject. When things become this abstract, one is poking in the dark. — Manuel

I hear you. It's a wicked problem. Even the notion of consciousness is something I'm pretty sure we couldn't conceive of without language.

I just want to avoid the po-mo orientation in which everything is language and nothing is ever complete. — Manuel

But I can't help but find this account compelling. I'm a reluctant post-modernist by osmosis and age. For me nothing is ever complete and I can't imagine myself or my world without language.

It struck me listening to Chomsky recently, in his lambasting of postmodern relativism, that he seems to invoke a structural version of Platonism as a foundational grounding to avoid relativism. In other words, humans seem to have innate limitations or capacities inherent in our cognitive apparatus (is this neo-Kantian?). Not everything is possible or endlessly open if we have such limitations. I wonder also if this is an analogue for some kind of notion of human nature. Thoughts?