And that leads to one of many questions concerning physical chemistry. While non-physical chemistry exists as mentioned (an intellectual connection), why should one discount the power behind aesthetical beauty. In other words, both men and women are attracted to each other physically, and appreciate each other's physical attributes, yet can we objectively explain why that is? For example, we use terms such as ; passion, chemistry, the love for the object itself, etc.. which implies a inseparable connection between mind and matter. — 3017amen
Feelings of attraction are not always chemistry, and chemistry is not always love. — Possibility
I’m still not sure we’re on the same page with regards to Eros. I’m not even sure that you are on the same page - I don’t see material agency as equated with psychic relatedness. A Platonic understanding of Eros describes a development from physical attraction into a spiritual attraction to the eternal idea of Beauty — Possibility
I’m not denying that we commonly think of the world as objects moving and changing through time and space, and that the value and meaning we attribute accordingly is seen as something else entirely - a tangled mess of ‘power’ that we struggle to understand, possess and wield amongst ourselves. This ‘power’ (agency, potential, value) is seen as either inherent in the object/event, or attributed by the mind, but is rarely understood as an aspect of our existence - because for the most part it seems to BE our existence: our subjective experience of the world, our perspective. — Possibility
Note that it’s rarely a conscious or calculating decision - more often one is aware of this as a feeling, thought or action after it has been determined or initiated. — Possibility
We are not simply passive observers of value — Possibility
Well, that depends on which particular values you decide to measure - ie. how you structure an evaluative concept of ‘aesthetical beauty’ as a potential. It’s not that I’m discounting it — Possibility
Feelings of attraction are not always chemistry, and chemistry is not always love.
— Possibility
Possibility!
Have we then, ruled out 'chemistry' as a 'virtuous phenomena' between the sexes? Chemistry may not be love (do we know what love is?), but the love for objects seems to exist. Accordingly, thanks for the anecdote form LFB, but I'm wondering what her point was...was she trying to link the phenomena of the aesthetic reaction viz emotion? If so, why was that a bad thing? — 3017amen
When you say 'power' do you really mean 'energy' or 'material agency'? The reason I ask is that it seems more appropriate or synonymous with a phenomenal based approach to one's theory of aesthetical judgements.
With respect to our subjectivity, sure. We cannot escape the subject-object sensory perception(s). In part, that's what I'm getting at. In other words, we are not brains in a jar. — 3017amen
The questions have been how are we to best navigate this energy (sexual energy), material agency, etc.. — 3017amen
This ‘power’ (agency, potential, value) is seen as either inherent in the object/event, or attributed by the mind, but is rarely understood as an aspect of our existence - because for the most part it seems to BE our existence: our subjective experience of the world, our perspective. — Possibility
And that leads to one of many questions concerning physical chemistry. While non-physical chemistry exists as mentioned (an intellectual connection), why should one discount the power behind aesthetical beauty. In other words, both men and women are attracted to each other physically, and appreciate each other's physical attributes, yet can we objectively explain why that is? For example, we use terms such as ; passion, chemistry, the love for the object itself, etc.. which implies a inseparable connection between mind and matter. — 3017amen
This, as far as I can see, was the first use of the term ‘power’ in our discussion (emphasis mine). — Possibility
they’re neither inherent nor universal, but instead refer to patterns of experience — Possibility
In my view, distinguishing a ‘metaphysical component’ is a misunderstanding of metaphysics. Cartesian dualism is a difficult hurdle. Subject-object fails to recognise either the experiential relation of the ‘object’, or the material relation of the ‘subject’ — Possibility
I'm not referring to Cartesian dualism. I referring to Kant's theory of aesthetics, which is metaphysical. Hopefully you will stay on-board with that. This takes Eros to yet another level. — 3017amen
Kant’s argument is against Cartesian dualism - I get that, which is why I referred to it as a hurdle. Both theories are forms of metaphysical dualism, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to defend. My point was that ‘metaphysical’ is often mistaken to mean ‘other than physical’, but I would argue that it’s inclusive of ‘physical’. — Possibility
does a subject whose faculties of imagination and understanding are in ‘free play’ - with a state of mind that is non-conceptual - relate perceptually to another subject presumed to be in a similar state of mind? How does Kant’s three forms of ‘judgement’ operate here? And what does it mean to relate to such a subject with ‘pure aesthetic judgement’? — Possibility
Agreed. If you agree to your own interpretation of the ' inclusive ' nature from the aesthetic experience, then the question becomes how do you subordinate the aesthetic object itself? Your philosophy thus far has not emphasized this phenomenon. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, your theories de-emphasized that. — 3017amen
And so as Kant realized, the metaphysical phenomena (he calls judgment) as a result of the physical appearance(s).translate to human sentience. In other words, once the subject observes the object (or another subject/person), there is a feeling apprehended and/or apperceived through cognition and the senses. Have you accounted for that in your theory? This is fundamental to aesthetics, and in our discussion, phenomena associated with romantic love and physical appearances of each gender. — 3017amen
think it only seems subordinate or de-emphasised in relation to the importance you appear to attribute to it. The ‘aesthetic object’ is an arbitrary division, so why would I need to emphasise it? — Possibility
It may be inspired by attending to physical beauty, but relation to an ‘object’ isn’t necessary for this faculty to operate. So I would argue that the aesthetic ‘object’ is being used as a crutch. — Possibility
Kant’s third metaphysical faculty begins with awareness that our experience transcends our conceptual reality. Kant’s ‘first moment’ refers to an interoception of affect that suggests an ‘indeterminate concept’ - a qualitative aspect of experience — Possibility
It’s only if we fail to perceive someone as more than an object, that aesthetics seems to be important. — Possibility
Because we are subjects looking at subjects (or 'subjective objects'), which in turn are making judgements about each other's aesthetic existence. And the arbitrariness is that which we cannot escape from (AKA: Kierkegaardian subjectivity), nor as we've said, would we necessarily want to. We enjoy the freedom to make such arbitrary judgements about aesthetical existence, otherwise in our context here, we are back to pre-arranged marriages, and that sort of thing... — 3017amen
And that is the arbitrary subjectiveness of the aesthetical judgement that transcends logic. The metaphysical component is that which cannot be explained, yet has universal communicability. Much like part of the physical phenomenon (Eros) of Love ("I don't know why I love him/her I just feel connected"). — 3017amen
What do you mean by crutch? Are you suggesting we are brains in a jar? — 3017amen
Kant’s metaphysics attempts to describe the relational structure of mental processes through which we are able to understand noumena through phenomena. That’s not a denial or justification of the ‘aesthetical phenomena’, it’s a recognition that it’s not so much the appearance itself, but what we learn about the metaphysical aspects of the noumena through our limited perception, that matters. Aesthetics does not equal appearance, but rather perceives and then conceives of reality as more than it appears. — Possibility
In my view, Kant is not advocating judgement of the ‘object’, but rather reflection on our own capacity to delight in an aspect of experience from which neither purpose nor value, neither reason nor logic, can be determined. It is a reflective judgement of our capacity to love. Attending to aesthetical phenomena challenges our perception of the world, and proceeding through all four ‘moments’ without resorting to judgement of what is an indeterminate ‘object’ frees us to imagine an experience of reality unconstrained by our limited understanding of it, let alone our perception of it, and to delight in the possibilities of this indeterminacy in full awareness of our capacity (without necessity) to reason, to know and to judge. — Possibility
By using the ‘aesthetical object’ as a crutch - keeping it in focus as the goal to which we ultimately direct our feelings or actions - we corrupt any judgement of taste from the outset. If the object is predetermined and cannot be perceived as more than its aesthetical phenomenon, then there is no ‘free-play’: imagination remains constrained by understanding. The old adage ‘If you love something, set it free’ couldn’t be more apt. — Possibility
It’s a simple enough process to love and delight in a particular appearance of an object without reservation; more complex to continue to love and delight in your partner when they no longer appear to be the slender twenty-two year old anyone in their right mind would agree was beautiful, and more complex still to love and delight in the world as it is. It’s not that we are brains in a jar - it’s that there is more to the ‘object’ of our experience - and our delight - than the particular aesthetical phenomenon, and that we have the intellectual capacity to develop our understanding and imagination through these four moments, and ultimately through life, towards the capacity for ‘pure aesthetical judgement’ of reality - such is the indeterminacy of phenomena. Alternatively, we may simply find ourselves realising, “they’re not the same person I fell in love with”, having judged them narrowly as the ‘person’ they were and felt blindsided by the impermanence. — Possibility
That's not what we're talking about here, sorry. Your interpretation is way off the mark. Noumena is posited by Kant as an object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception. The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to any object of the senses.
We are talking about subjective objects of the senses, and the experience of aesthetics. Not sure where the disconnect or denial or problem seems to be, but the metaphysical component is that which is beyond logic when experiencing an aesthetic object. That object being you. — 3017amen
Exception taken as noted: While you are certainly getting closer to the appropriate interpretation, and there is certainly agreement relative to emotive phenomena of 'delight', Kant makes the distinction between the object viewed and the feelings (metaphysical judgements) that are experienced being something that transcends logic. — 3017amen
I agree it's a simple enough process, yet complex in its response to visual stimuli. You seem stuck on the existential angst of aging. It's as if you keep projecting some sort of fear about aesthetical beauty. What if someone finds an older woman beautiful? From personal experience, I find many things beautiful in life; nature, life, truth, people, places, things, etc.. And in our context, I find women beautiful whether they are young or old. — 3017amen
Of course, most people get that there is a mind, body, spirit connection, but you keep denying the body aspect of that phenomenon. If I were to you use your interpretation or theory in this scenario, then when a couple is young or old, and one partner develops a brain disorder or pathology, the other person would cease and desist. You would not love your partner because their brain is not working the way you expect it to. You would effectively say to yourself, 'gee, I married that person because I really loved their mind, but not their body or spirit.' — 3017amen
But what is the relative position of the thinking, feeling subject in aesthetic judgement? — Possibility
A metaphysical connection comes from recognising that we are interacting with more than a body, which is not to say that this person is also a mind and a spirit, but that they are a complex metaphysical structure of relations, from which we arbitrarily conceive of body, mind, spirit or person for some presupposed purpose. So a brain disorder changes the nature of relations within that continually changing metaphysical structure, but it’s only when we isolate the concept of ‘mind’ and how we expect it to function that it becomes a challenge to relate in some way to this altered mind as an unexpected new aspect of that complex, indeterminate goal to whom we direct our actions and feelings of love. — Possibility
The idea that Kant’s noumena transcends the unity of categories, then, does not position phenomena in contrast or oppositional relation to it. — Possibility
Of course the concept of Love is all encompassing, but once again, you are denying the impact of Eros and the phenomenology of the aesthetic experience. Romantic Love seems like a long lost cousin (to you). The metaphysical connection is from both the aesthetical experience itself, along with the intellectual and spiritual experience. — 3017amen
We will have to agree to disagree. The aesthetic experience is the phenomenon that relates to Eros. A Kantian aesthetic judgment is a judgment which is based on feeling, and in particular on the feeling of pleasure or displeasure. Noumena is not germane in our context of phenomenology and sense experience. Noumena is independent of same. — 3017amen
The aesthetical experience itself is inclusive of ‘intellectual’ and ‘spiritual’ connection, not distinct from it. — Possibility
Rather it enables us to come to terms with our experiences of humility, adjustment and lack in relation to the possibility of Love or Beauty, for instance, that does not revolve around our own pleasure. — Possibility
but for me metaphysics seeks an objective understanding of reality, — Possibility
Of course, but you can't deny that without the object itself, there would be no such thing as an aesthetic experience. It's logically necessary for the experience itself. For the Kantian aesthetic judgement to take place. To be apperceived. — 3017amen
Consider love making (romantic love). Does it involve pleasure for both? Of course it does. As self-directed individuals (the virtues of selfishness), we seek pleasure, happiness and joy. And as a higher altruistic type of love might include; a temporary denial of oneself for the pleasure of another. That still "revolves around our own pleasures."
And so a romantic relationship that includes a mind, body, spirit connection not only has potential for the higher love for reasons beyond just the physical (aesthetic judgement/experience), it still nevertheless "revolves around our own pleasure".
Otherwise, consider when two-become-one. Part of the phenomenon is that each person wants to procreate in order to create a mini-me. It's partly based upon an aesthetic judgement to desire creating another person (the physical object). And when the baby is first born, the object is considered (Kantian aesthetic judgement) beautiful. If it wasn't, people would not feel compelled to look at other babies and say 'what a beautiful baby (or ugly baby )'.
The aesthetic judgement always begins with the object itself. We can't escape it. Sure, there are other reasons that involve the intellect, but when it comes down to it, the feelings of physical passion (Eros) is a virtue that relationship's want to maintain in all forms of Being. — 3017amen
Memory, feeling, or thought can all re-invoke an experience, long after the perceived object ceases to exist. In fact, I would argue that an illusion or simulation would be sufficient for an aesthetic experience. — Possibility
Artistic production even suggests the aesthetic experience is contingent upon the existence of an aesthetic idea in relation to one’s capacity for apperception, rather than the existence or perception of any object itself. — Possibility
Yes, it does involve pleasure for both, but I dispute that romantic love-making necessarily revolves around selfish pleasure - rather, it involves a deconstruction or decentering of ‘self’ such that the pleasure sought is not a property of one or the other, but of the relation. The way I see it, romantic love is not a subject-object relation. — Possibility
but the aesthetic experience existed well before anyone had an opportunity to look at the baby. — Possibility
My argument is that the process of aesthetic judgement and its ‘disinterested pleasure’ begins with apperception - of an aesthetic object, potentiality or idea - but is not contingent upon the physical existence of, observation or interaction with, the concrete object itself. — Possibility
Sure the intellectual component that comprises feelings of perception from memory is alive and well. Nevertheless, you can't separate the object from your feelings. As another example from inanimate objects, when someone cries over their car that they've loved and become attached to but have to sell because it keeps breaking down, (in part) why do they cry? — 3017amen
I can appreciate where you are going with that. An artist first has to intellectually express themselves through a medium, and that medium is usually an object. So if you want to argue subordination between the two you can. But that would only support my argument that we cannot escape (the need for) the object itself. — 3017amen
Sure, ideally romantic love should encompass both appreciation of the subject and object. But a passionate relationship must involve appreciation of aesthetics. For example, regardless whether a subject is obese or not, the other subject would love that subject's object (body) when displaying any act of physical touching, caressing, loving the object itself, etc..
And so the subject-object dynamic is merely common sense. — 3017amen
In the context of Eros (romantic love and passion) I just don't think that it's reasonable to project an intellectual connection onto a physical object that is considered undesirable to the subject. — 3017amen
Well, we CAN separate the object from our feelings - but we are so accustomed to Cartesian dualism that we don’t know how, and often don’t want to. A — Possibility
really - An artist need not be successful at expressing themselves through an object/medium for the aesthetic experience to exist for the artist. — Possibility
What you’re referring to here is not aesthetics - it’s desire. T — Possibility
is a relation at the level of potentiality: the potential beauty — Possibility
How else is it that an aesthetic experience exists despite failing to either distinguish our pleasure from judgements of the agreeable or establish a claim to universal vali — Possibility
My argument is that the personhood of any human being is recognised as an indeterminate concept, rather than an object. — Possibility
Romantic love is considered ‘successful’ in a modern context only when it is reciprocal, resulting in a mutual instance of desire — Possibility
Not according to Kant's theory of feelings associated with aesthetic value. Consider the same inanimate object (car) being sold by the owner because it was breaking down. What if the car was rusty and unappealing to the owner who only used it as a commuter vehicle and who didn't care about its aesthetical value? Would he or she cry upon selling it? Or would they say good riddance, I never really liked it anyway? Either way, the object itself would have sentimental value. — 3017amen
Or imagine an artist or otherwise a creative person designing a soap box car. He or she enters a contest which includes aesthetic's and creativity. And as such, it is judged and scored accordingly. What do you think the criteria of the object would consist of? Aesthetics? — 3017amen
An artist need not be successful at expressing themselves through an object/medium for the aesthetic experience to exist for the artist.
— Possibility
How is that possible? — 3017amen
What you’re referring to here is not aesthetics - it’s desire. T
— Possibility
The desire of what, the subject's-object, or some other desire? — 3017amen
Because we live in a physical world, you think? — 3017amen
Let's consider your indeterminate concept in this scenario. Let's assume a male sees a female who to him is highly physically desirable. He pursues a relationship with her initially, for that reason. His choice to make a decision of sustainably would rest in the compatibility needs from the intellectual component. At that point it becomes determined that there is either compatibility or non-compatibility. The subject's-object is part of the criteria either way. In other words, one outcome from your potentiality calculation could be that she was really cute but unfortunately a 'bitch'. — 3017amen
Romantic love is considered ‘successful’ in a modern context only when it is reciprocal, resulting in a mutual instance of desire
— Possibility
Absolutely agree, but it doesn't support your theory. — 3017amen
The object’s sentimental value is still a property of the relation, not of the actual object itself. — Possibility
Is the prize awarded to the artist or to the soap box car? The criteria would not consist of properties of the object itself, but of a demonstrated relation between artist and object: the aesthetics and creativity of the car’s design. It’s a subtle difference, but an important one. Beauty pageants and models are another story - the aesthetics is a form of objectification: the perceived isolation or separation of an object from the subject of which it is a property, by another subject. — Possibility
There is a step between the aesthetic idea and the produced work of art, which Kant puts down to a genius’ ‘natural capacity’ only because - not being an artist himself - he has no means to understand it. It is the capacity to perceive an aesthetic experience in one’s own potential relation to an object, prior to its actual expression/exhibition. In my view, — Possibility
The desire of the appearance. Your reference to the ‘subject’s object’ suggests a dualism that renders the object a property of the subject, but I’m struggling to understand the nature of the relation as you see it. Given that an ‘object’ is a goal or thing external to the thinking mind or subject to which a specific action or feeling can be directed, there seems to be some confusion as to which ‘object’ we’re referring to - object of which subject’s mind? In my view, reference to the subject’s object suggests either self-perception, or objectification. — Possibility
To then confine that aesthetic idea to the determined object of our desire is to ignore the transcendent extent of empirical intuition that inspired this aesthetic experience in the first place. The determined object of our desire is only one instance of perceived potentiality in the aesthetic experience, which is itself only one possible expression of an aesthetic idea, which is one representation of the imagination. — Possibility
Is that what you consider an aesthetic judgement? — Possibility
Kant’s aesthetics is a process of suspending judgement in attributing the property ‘pleasurable’ - first to a determined object, and then to a concept - before engaging the full capacity of the intellect. This is compatible with the Platonic notion of Eros, the purpose of which was to inspire transcendence from physical passion towards Beauty as an ideal. It is recognising that there is much more to appearances than objects/concepts and their properties. — Possibility
When you isolate the intellectually compatible and physically desirable components from each other (as you appear to have done in the scenario you described above, then you’re not adhering to Kant’s process of aesthetic judgement. Perceiving an aesthetic experience recognises an irreducibility of appearances to phenomena (or object/concept/properties), NOT a separation of physical and metaphysical/intellectual components. This seems to me a misunderstanding of Kant’s aesthetics. Idk — Possibility
Agreed. But it requires the object itself to be apperceived, otherwise, nothing happens — 3017amen
But you keep getting stuck on old-school paradigm's of objectification when the truth is that aesthetics (itself) is an objective truth.
Here's where you get stuck with when you literally conflate the two:
Objectification: 1.the action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object.
"the objectification of women in popular entertainment" 2.the expression of something abstract in a concrete form. The objectification of images may be astonishingly vivid in dreams
Aesthetics: a set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty, especially in art.
•the branch of philosophy that deals with the principles of beauty and artistic taste.
You see where item 2 of objectification and aesthetics line-up? That's kind of what we're talking about, no? — 3017amen
I agree. I think the term you often use is indeed appropriate. That term being possibility. But I think it's more Freudian in nature in that it's more than likely a subconscious phenomena. Meaning, the desire (in Eros) is based upon the aesthetics (judgement of physical objective beauty) of the subject's-object first, then there may be a subconscious perception of possibility that equally involves the intellect in hopes of subsequent and ensuing true compatibility, along with other relational and rational criteria. — 3017amen
No. It's what I consider in your macro theory of compatibility, for which I take no exception. But again, we're parsing the distinctions here. — 3017amen
But I'm not talking about Platonic love. I'm talking about the traditional definition of Eros; romance and passion, and how existential those needs are to the human condition. If I had the understanding necessary to write a romance novel, perhaps that would be meaningful to you. Nevertheless, I appreciate all that there is associated with same. — 3017amen
My point of summary is that from Kant's initial (phenomenal) experience of beauty : First, they are disinterested, meaning that we take pleasure in something because we judge it beautiful, rather than judging it beautiful because we find it pleasurable.
And so judging is a secondary process. The object itself is apperceived initially. We can't escape it. It's existential in its implication. — 3017amen
Not necessarily the object itself, only an appearance in which this property of the relation - the sentimental value - is perceived as a potential loss/lack. That would be sufficient for the feeling. The mind then makes sense of that feeling by attributing it to what is apparently missing - so it’s only at this point that the conceptual object is apperceived (this sequence is evidenced in recent neuroscience - see Lisa Feldman Barrett’s book ‘How Emotions Are Made’).
So without the object being apperceived, it’s not that nothing happens, rather it’s that nothing is understood to happen - except perhaps an unexplained feeling or emotion. — Possibility
So without the object being apperceived, it’s not that nothing happens, rather it’s that nothing is understood to happen - except perhaps an unexplained feeling or emotion. — Possibility
and the imagination of a possible aesthetic idea is not contingent upon understanding of any determinable concept. — Possibility
You’re applying Kant’s theory of aesthetics to a human subject reduced first to appearance, to the status of mere object, which then becomes the concrete form in which this ‘something abstract’ is expressed. — Possibility
When you recognise that this initial judgement of ‘beauty’ has nothing at all to do with realising a human potentiality for Love, then get back to me. — Possibility
While she's correct that feelings can effect our physiology, and that past experience helps identify that which we see, we still have to appreciate the object first for what it is (its physiology). — 3017amen
The question for her or you would be, if the perception of the object/concept known as woman is apperceived upon seeing the/her physical appearance (physiology/aesthetics), what from experience determines whether one should engage in a romance with the object known as woman? — 3017amen
Further, your foregoing comment only substantiates my argument, in that your 'unexplained feeling' is that very phenomenon that is mysteriously known as Love. While you can love the person's intellect, you can also love their subjective-object, their subjective beauty. For some reason, you deny such wonderful experiences. Romance (the desire for men/women who want to see and be with each other) for you, seems like an irrelevant, indifferent and even stoic, consequential relationship between man and woman, seemingly tantamount to a need that is ancillary at best. In fact, I don't think 'need' is on your radar there. — 3017amen
(I'll be brutally honest and excruciatingly graphic; during passionate, romantic love-making, why does my partner like to look down at my junk going into her junk--my object in her object--do you think she's turned on by the object/objects? And a boner or excuse me, bonus question: while my partner is watching the object(s) during love-making, is she wondering about " Lisa Barrett's concepts" ?) — 3017amen
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.