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?

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.