Art has always been about how things are perceived. No one invented that. — Jackson
Once upon a time art was conceived as mimesis , imitation. There wasn’t really a concept of perception as interpretation as we accept it to be today. if you go back far enough in time, art was thought of as just the direct impressing of the world upon the mind. So yes, the modern concept of perception is an invention. — Joshs
:100:I think the history of philosophy can be understood as a development (although not causally linear or cumulative) in which newer philosophies subsume the essence of earlier ones. And I think that this is true of all creative modalities. The philosophy , arts, literature , politics and sciences of an era are variations of a theme , a series of interconnected worldviews, and that theme evolves. It a not a question of a philosophy or worldview being right or wrong (they are all ‘right’ initially to the extent that they are pragmatically useful, and then found to be ‘wrong’ when they are superseded by the next era of thinking). — Joshs
Once upon a time art was conceived as mimesis , imitation. There wasn’t really a concept of perception as interpretation as we accept it to be today. if you go back far enough in time, art was thought of as just the direct impressing of the world upon the mind. So yes, the modern concept of perception is an invention. — Joshs
When I say "Kantian" I usually mean either 'brain-in-a-vat deontology' (narrowly) or 'epistemology-constrained ontology' (broadly). edit: Also, any deductively proposed 'solution in search of (a) problem(s)'. — 180 Proof
if you go back far enough in time, art was thought of as just the direct impressing of the world upon the mind. So yes, the modern concept of perception is an invention. — Joshs
if you go back far enough in time, art was thought of as just the direct impressing of the world upon the mind. — Joshs
There are of course modern concepts of perception and they continue to develop as we learn more about the world and ourselves.
It's unclear what you mean by "direct impressing of the world upon the mind". It seems to mean that ancient people could only record their perceptions and therefore their art could only be representational. If I'm not mistaken, some of the oldest art known is thought to be depictions of some kind of mother-earth spirit. Sculptures of a subject that they didn't actually perceive with their senses. — praxis
Going back to ancient world. For Aristotle, sense perception (aesthesis) cannot take place without the imagination (phantasia).(De Anima). So we can imagine things without sensing them, but cannot perceive things without the imagination. — Jackson
Sure. Hence my initial question, can it be a slight - a reference to a superseded and rigid epistemologically constrained ontology? — Tom Storm
Art for Aristotle is a representation of ideals, but artists must accurately portray reality to be successful, so overall it is mimetic. — Joshs
In the modern world, with a lot more science at our disposal than Kant ever had in small-town Köningsberg, it's hard to remain Kantian. — Hillary
So art, tragedies, copy an action and is imitative that way. Not ideals, but actions or plots. You're not imitating something that happened, you're constructing purposes for why they happened that way. — Jackson
I’m saying the approach to art up through the 1700’s was based on mimesis, even when constructing purposes and ideals. The concept of mimesis was brought into question as philosophy and art stopped believing that perception is correspondence of the mind with an independently existing world. — Joshs
I’m saying the approach to art up through the 1700’s was based on mimesis, even when constructing purposes and ideals. The concept of mimesis was brought into question as philosophy and art stopped believing that perception is correspondence of the mind with an independently existing world. — Joshs
epistemology-constrained ontology — 180 Proof
N/A – irrelevant to addtessing dukkha pre-death.Does the Buddha know in the sense that post-death these categories are N/A or does the Buddha not know what happens post-mortem? — Agent Smith
IMO, ethical/psychological.In other words is Buddha's stance (Noble Silence) ontological or epistemological?
.......it's hard to remain Kantian. — Hillary
Does the Buddha know in the sense that post-death these categories are N/A or does the Buddha not know what happens post-mortem?
— Agent Smith
N/A – irrelevant to addtessing dukkha pre-death.
In other words is Buddha's stance (Noble Silence) ontological or epistemological?
IMO, ethical/psychological. — 180 Proof
then why couldn’t one remain Kantian in his thinking, no matter the advances in empirical science? — Mww
One can stay Kantian, obviously. Kant had a wrong view on spacetime though. You could incorporate all scientific progress, spacetime being relative and left-right asymmetric (he offered Leibniz the glove left example to refute his relational concept of time), but in his view space is no material, which is the question. — Hillary
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.