↪Joshs
Kripke is a branch off Wittgenstein. I don't think that kind of philosophical reticence existed in the early 19th Century.

Philosophy dives into and back out of mysticism. Wittgenstein was the latter — frank

Kripke failed miserably to grasp the later Wittgenstein, whose central ideas appear anything but mystical to me, being grounded in pragmatic interactions. I’m not sure what you mean by philosophical reticence. , but if we run Kripke through mid 19th century thinkers like Dilthey, Brentano and Kierkegaard, I think we can come up with solid critiques of his work.

Maybe a bit of an echo chamber effect too. Like I said, the "obligatory" paragraph about how the art critiques or combats racism/patriarchy/capitalism is very common. If these aren't included, then the description will be apolitical, but if it's philosophical it will be some form of extreme nominalism. I can't think of a single time I have encountered a description from a different political or philosophical direction though. That would actually be the shocking thing in context, something like an appeal to platonic solids as properly "platonic" would be more outrageous than the excrement.

Kripke failed miserably to grasp the later Wittgenstein. — Joshs

Why do you think that? Have you read Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language? It's stunning.

but if we run Kripke through mid 19th century thinkers like Dilthey, Brentano and Kierkegaard, I think we can come up with solid critiques of his work. — Joshs

Kierkegaard critiques Kripke. Off the top of my head, I'd say the two didn't have the same interests. I don't see why they wouldn't give the thumbs-up to one another in the spirit of "whatever floats your boat." I don't know about Dilthey and Brentano.

Why do you think that? Have you read Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language? It's stunning — frank

I’ve read it. It may be stunning but it is widely rejected by scholars of the later Wittgenstein as a rigorous reading of his work.

I’ve read it. It may be stunning but it is widely rejected by scholars of the later Wittgenstein as a rigorous reading of his work. — Joshs

Like who?

I’ve read it. It may be stunning but it is widely rejected by scholars of the later Wittgenstein as a rigorous reading of his work.
— Joshs

Like who? — frank

Peter Hacker, Gordon Baker, David Stern, John McDowell, Crispin Wright, Norman Malcolm, James Conant, Cora Diamond, David Pears, Stanley Cavell, Peter Winch.

I knew about Hacker. He's basically saying Kripke strayed from Wittgenstein's intentions. Since you've read it, I'm sure you realize that Kripke was extrapolating from what's revealed by the private language argument. It's ok that he's not doing an exegesis. We don't complain that Sartre didn't do a good job of explaining Heidegger. He was a branch off the Heidegger tree. Same with Kripke.

If one defines regressiveness as the regurgitating of older systems of thought, then Kripke’a work is no more than a variation — Joshs

And Picasso was regressive; he was no more than a variation on Cézanne.

:up:

And Picasso was regressive; he was no more than a variation on Cézanne. — Banno

And African art. "Good artists copy, great artists steal".

And Picasso was regressive; he was no more than a variation on Cézanne. — Banno

A more interesting comparison would be Cezanne and Warhol. Is Pop art a variation of impressionism or does it involve a more radical rethinking of the meaning and role of art?

A more interesting comparison would be Cezanne and Warhol. Is Pop art a variation of impressionism or does it involve a more radical rethinking of the meaning and role of art? — Joshs

Or can it be both?

Is Pop art a variation of impressionism — Joshs

no

can't think of a single time I have encountered a description from a different political or philosophical direction though. That would actually be the shocking thing in context, something like an appeal to platonic solids as properly "platonic" would be more outrageous than the excrement.

Yes, I know. (although anyone who hasn’t read any philosophy would have no idea what that is). It’s always something cool, or hip, like the way images of Che Guevara were everywhere back in the day.

Although political content in art goes back a long way. What we have here is a loss of direction, where is the equivalent of the radical art movements of the 20th Century, like cubism, modernism, abstract expressionism, now? There’s nothing, it’s as though it’s all been said already, there’s nothing else to say. Or maybe it’s gone underground, I haven’t kept up with what’s happening in virtual, or AI art. Most of the major art exhibitions these days are retrospectives. All the publicly available works by a famous artist gathered together, which then go on tour of the worlds prestigious galleries to draw in the crowds.

Then there is the issue of money in art, it’s sold its soul. Damian Hurst’s diamond skull, For The Love Of God illustrates this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_Love_of_God

Damian Hurst’s response to the grotesque capture of the art world by big money.

An interesting topic. I've found myself drawn away from these forums for just this reason. Creativity is rare and the proposal of it is rarely explored beyond basic thought. I've had a few truly wonderful discussions here with some members, but most people just aren't willing to engage at a curious level and really dig in.

Another thing to consider is that most truly intelligent people don't go into philosophy anymore. If you're brimming with intellect, creativity, wonder, and trying to solve problems, there are so many better ways to do so while also profiting more. Philosophy is mostly the realm of caretakers and hobbyists now. Not real thinkers or people looking for wonder. They have made their own mind up on their own outlook in life, and desire the comfort of knowing what they know and their ability to defend it.

This has a consequence of philosophical academia being ironically, a conservative ancient dinosaur. Creativity is stifled in place of simple takes wrapped in complex word play on well worn topics that you can complete quickly to keep publishing. I got my masters in it, and could barely stomach the fact that every professor seemed desperately trying to keep their job and were constantly telling everyone to hold back and focus on 'what was popular' at the time.

Finally, many people come into philosophy thinking it has a pedigree to it. Where real intellects lack, false intellects gather that pretend to be smart and prey on those coming in. Use of esoteric vocabulary and a focus on minutia and inconsequential points can make one appear smarter than they are, with words and concepts to retreat behind if one is found out. Its not exactly friendly to genuinely curious people who lack such an ego, and those are the people who are most likely to be creative and contribute to a field.

Finally, creative ideas are hard to communicate, read, and grasp. Search some of my work on knowledge and morality. I can safely say I'm actually a creative philosopher. Check it out and maybe you'll see why more like me aren't here.

All in all, philosophy is best pursued not as a focus, but alongside what people are working on in today's world. That's where I'm focusing now, and its definitely been far more satisfying and impactful then these boards of late.