Well then -- there it is.

Perhaps what's most contentious in my claim here is that aesthetics are more than either a whim or a brain-event.

Something that helped me understand what I think Moliere is getting at is thinking about discussing something aesthetic for someone else. Not just saying ‘that’ you like X but giving the reasons. They can be any reasons at all - like the counterpoint harmonies versus more linear Mozart - just something translatable into critique besides just listening to the music. The translation has a sort of disinterest in itself for sake of what it might enlighten in the other person who is hearing the critique.

Another thing that helped is the difference between critiquing genres, and critiquing individual pieces within the genre you like. So if I say I like rock music and I don’t like country music, that isn’t really a critique or useful to anyone else. That doesn’t mean to anyone, no matter how much you know me or have agreed with me, that rock is better than country. But, since I like rock music, I should be able to tell you about a new rock song, and describe some good things and bad things about it that might have some meaning. This critique can be meaningful.

And only after listening and learning to much more country music and hearing other’s critiques and listening to more to understand something of what those critiques meant, then I might be able to take a disinterested look at some country music and offer a meaningful, useful to others, critique (please don’t make me listen to country music - I’m a musician and have come to appreciate many, many styles and instruments, and there are some great country songs…but only some and they aren’t that great - sorry!). So I am too interested in my dislike of country music to be able to offer a critique.

Even ice cream. Unless there is a flavor that makes you gag, you should be able to tell something useful about a good vanilla versus a bad vanilla even though you like chocolate better.

Why doesn't it resonate in everyone else? Lots of people don't want to hear Bach. — Patterner

I don’t like country music.

I am certain I have not been introduced to it properly. There is no way a 100 year old genre of music enjoyed by hundreds of of millions of people with ears and brains like mine are all liking the badness I hear - they are hearing something I don’t hear. I could be shown how to listen, what to listen for, and who does it well and who does not do it well (if I had patience) and I believe one day, just enjoy a country song, and identify things in a new song as good and bad, and predict ones that would be loved by many or hated by many. (Right now I think most of them would be hated.) But that’s because there are some rational-izable aspects to country songs that I just haven’t been taught to recognize.

Like coming to like jazz or fine wine - you need to practice and learn some things before you are even doing what needs to be done to enjoy the nuances and things that make something interesting and engaging and make to be critiqued.

Like rock music - the best stuff has a raw edge to it that is there, but tamed, into something delicate, on the edge of collapse but over-confident in its precariousness. It has to convey a sense of not giving a crap what anyone thinks, because it already knows the right people love it.
So cleaned up pop music about rainbows and vanilla ice cream, unless ironic and subversive, is likely boring and shallow and just bad music. It could show you what makes the guitar sound bad, the arrangement bad, the production bad, etc. lots to talk about as if these were brute facts.

It is a matter of taste, but not only a matter a taste, and taste itself can change and you can actively cultivate a new taste. I mean, if someone told you Bach like all classical music, is boring and weak, I think you could show them how they just haven’t heard, just haven’t listened, and in time would see that “classical music is boring” is simply not meaningful to anyone but the bored person.

You're certainly right that we can give more detail about what we like and don't like. But it seems to me it just moves the question down a level. Why do we like or dislike the details?

It's strange sometimes. I like bread. But I like both a soft, fresh loaf, and a multi-grain like Arnold's or Killer Dave.

I love just a lone guy playing the guitar and singing, like James Taylor. The clarity, the simplicity. Odd that if that guy with a guitar a country singer, and I almost certainly won't be able to listen to the whole song. Also odd that I love Steely Dan, which is very far removed from JT in instrumentation and chord progressions, yet those are the things I love.

Two days ago I literally met the only other person I know who can't stand watermelon! Thought I was the only one. AND she ALSO can't stand cucumbers! Funny that she specifically said the texture of the cucumbers is her objection, while the flavor is mine

ou're certainly right that we can give more detail about what we like and don't like. But it seems to me it just moves the question down a level. Why do we like or dislike the details?

It's strange sometimes. I like bread. But I like both a soft, fresh loaf, and a multi-grain like Arnold's or Killer Dave. — Patterner

Interesting. I avoid bread, rock music, Russian novels, and sport. I've never been able to engage with them, despite valiant experimentation. It's dispositional, no doubt rooted in some kind of affective relationship with culture and value. The truth is, I find rock music and sport ugly, and bread and Russian novels boring. But asking why quickly drags us into an infinite regress, each reason presupposes another, and eventually we’re probably left circling back to temperament and taste.

I tend to think of disinterested interest as untheorised interest, a term I've often used. Untheorised means responding to something without frameworks or training, intuitively for pleasure and, I guess with disinterest - if by this we mean minus theoretical investment. — Tom Storm

I think Kant means responding to X "as an end-in-itself" (analogous to a moral subject), but I prefer your formulation.

Well thanks, wasn’t sure I was going in the right direction.

bread and Russian novels boring. — Tom Storm

Well, of course, you have to do something with the bread. :grin: Make French toast. (Using only pure maple syrup.) Sandwiches of any sort. I just find it interesting that, regardless of what I do with it, I like breads of opposing qualities for those opposing qualities.

But asking why quickly drags us into an infinite regress, each reason presupposes another, and eventually we’re probably left circling back to temperament and taste. — Tom Storm

Yup. I can't even imagine what other kind of scenario there could be.

New idea: Perhaps there's the highly theorized and the un-theorized as a sort of spectrum of aesthetic judgment: They're both judgments that are meant to apply more widely than just what I think, though they sit on a spectrum of some kind. (I had some ideas for that spectrum, but decided to leave it undefined to see if others have thoughts)

?

You're certainly heading in the right direction @Tom Storm -- insofar that I persuade some people that aesthetics is a philosophical endeavor, and perhaps that that endeavor is the judgment of non-moral norms which apply to more than myself I'd be content.

I could be shown how to listen, what to listen for, and who does it well and who does not do it well — Fire Ologist

I thikn this is a really interesting point.

I enjoy all genres of music i've come across. However, there are only a few where I like the genre. Generally, I like certain artists. For Country, I am also a 'non-fan'. However, Dolly Parton, Evan Bartells, Hank Williams, Johnny Cash and a handful of others have blown my arse out. Generally, if I hear that jingle jangle, I'm actively turning it off though.

People like different genres - but people also like different sounds. It's totally possible that someone who entirely rejects, say, metal, would hear like Planet Caravan and change their mind. Or Kingdom by Devin Townsend. Or H. by Tool - or whatever - sometimes its something particular that grabs people rather than the genre. My wife couldn't get on with Choral music until I introduced her to Miserere and Deo Gratias. I think aesthetics are far more nuanced that the sort of crayon/duplo style of lumping things into broad aesthetic categories.

P.S: I highly, highly, HIGHLY recommend Evan Bartell's newest lil Ep called To Make You Cry. Particularly the first two tracks, Death of A Good Man and Lulu. Absolutely devastating. That's what country is about to me. Alternately, 'Country Song' by Bo Burnham is hilarious enough that I'm sure you'll get through it.

Dolly Parton, Evan Bartells, Hank Williams, Johnny Cash — AmadeusD

I always liked Dolly Parton (she wrote hundreds of songs including some hits - a real artist) and Johnny Cash was always more than country - another true artist - his take on nine-inch-nails ‘hurt’ shows how good art transcends any categorization - I mean what genre is that music?

Wouldn’t deny Loretta Lynn made some good music either, and there are some really impressive instrumentalists (fiddle, slide, banjo) that could keep me listening.

I really want to like country more.

Will check out the others you mention. :up:

Nice, i hope you enjoy! I also think Patsy Cline is a bit of a Cash scenario. definitely country, but plenty of non-country in there just with twang. Big fan.

However, Dolly Parton, Evan Bartells, Hank Williams, Johnny Cash and a handful of others have blown my arse out. — AmadeusD

Yes, I think these are artists who transcend the genre. Most music lovers seem to like them, even if they dislike Country. I certainly enjoy some Johnny Cash and Hank Williams on occasion. I think one's commitment to music may change for some of us with age. I listen to far less music now I am older. I used to spend a couple of hours a day listening to classical music. I sometimes think our desire for music is connected to other appetites, emotions and energies which subdue, divert or dissipate over time. One thing I have noticed is that music has a greater emotional impact on me with age.

There's something in that, for sure. When Country music only relates to rural lives, it's too niche (though, obviously, sustainable given how many peopleare actually in that category). When it transcends the typical subject matter, it gets through. Think that's true of all genres really.

Music has always moved me pretty intensely. I have seen much of a change, just an expansion of what can do it.

I think Johnny Cash's best work was on Colombo. :grin:

Do you think that aesthetics in philosophy is a thing? — Moliere

For philosophy to progress, aesthetics must be a thing, as there is a natural limit to reason and logic. Aesthetics is able to transcend both reason and the logic reason depends on.

I guess each person has their favourite philosophers, and their choice is probably more intuitive than logical.

In understanding the world, there is a limit to reason and logic, in that we cannot appreciate the beauty of a rose using either reason or logic.

There are however notable differences between reason and logic. Reason is a broader term than logic, and is about understanding and making judgments using logic in order to arrive at sound conclusions . Logic uses a sequential process, using formal rules and principles in order to ensure the validity and coherence of an argument. As logic is limited as a sequential process, good reasoning, which is based on logic, must also be limited by such a sequential process. (https://thisvsthat.io/logic-vs-reason)

We cannot fully understand the world using reason and logic, as reason and logic only allows us a sequential understanding of the relation between the parts. Reason and logic are sequential, as in the syllogism. Starting with A is leads into B and concludes with C.

In order to appreciate beauty we need to be aware of the whole at one moment in time. In Kant's' terms, we need an instantaneous unity of apperception. In other words, we need intuition and the aesthetic.

The beauty of a rose cannot be proved using the sequential argument of reason or logic, but only shown using a momentary unity of apperception, a momentary intuition or momentary aesthetic.

Therefore if philosophy is to understand the world in a deeper sense, reason and logic, as temporally sequential, are insufficient and need to be transcended by the instantaneous and momentary, such as intuition and the aesthetic.

We cannot fully understand the world using reason and logic, as reason and logic only allows us a sequential understanding of the relation between the parts. Reason and logic are sequential, as in the syllogism. Starting with A is leads into B and concludes with C.

In order to appreciate beauty we need to be aware of the whole at one moment in time. — RussellA

That is great. :fire:

Linear thinkers versus wholistic thinkers.

That’s another aesthetic theory of philosophizing.

Linear thinkers versus wholistic thinkers. — Fire Ologist

According to Copilot (which seems correct), Descartes is a linear thinker, using deductive step-by-step reasoning. Heidegger, however, is a wholistic thinker, using recursion and evocation, employing a language that often resists reduction to simple logic.

Descartes is said to be one of the founders of modern philosophy. He was a Rationalist, using reason to gain knowledge. Heidegger broke with traditional philosophy. He contributed to phenomenology, existentialism and hermeneutics, which led to postmodernism.

Logical objective facts against intuitive subjective feelings.

Absolutism versus relativism.

The truth against my truth.

The problem with relativism is that Derain's "Drying the Sails 1905 has an aesthetic value equal to that of Banksy's "Girl with Balloon", which is clearly nonsense.

Logical objective facts against intuitive subjective feelings.

Absolutism versus relativism.

The truth against my truth. — RussellA

Good stuff. Curious what Moliere will say.

I offered an aesthetic theory of philosophizing that referenced the different questions or angles of approach different philosophers took. I think this jibes with your theory. And I’ll explain why below. First, you mentioned how your theory raises the specter of relativism. But I think there is a solution to that, and that is, we need to think linearly AND holistically; we all takes wholes and reason linearly about them. (Just like we all ask all the questions - what, how, whether is, why…)

So in my theory this would translate to we all ask “what?” as we behold the whole. And we all ask “how?” as we seek the lines of reasoning surrounding that whole.

Maybe?

I think I’m seeing the same sort of aesthetic differences between what-first or whole-first thinkers, and how-first or rational-linear-working-of-parts-first thinkers.

The problem with relativism is that Derain's "Drying the Sails 1905 has an aesthetic value equal to that of Banksy's "Girl with Balloon", which is clearly nonsense. — RussellA

I don't get that. Are you saying that a relativist is committed to claiming that all aesthetic judgments are equally valid? I don't think that's how the argument usually goes. Rather, the idea would be that, within a tradition or a practice, we can unrelativistically distinguish better and worse examples, while remaining skeptical about any overarching, tradition-independent standards about "beauty," for instance.

So the interesting question would be, are Derain and Banksy creating within the same tradition? If not, does "clearly nonsense" mean that you do see a tradition-independent criterion for aesthetic value?

But I think there is a solution to that, and that is, we need to think linearly AND holistically; we all takes wholes and reason linearly about them. — Fire Ologist

I agree.

I know intuitively and aesthetically that Derain's "Drying the Sails" is an important piece of art and I also know intuitively and aesthetically that Banksy's "Girl with Balloon" is an unimportant piece of art.

But this is philosophically insufficient, in that I must also argue my case using reason and logic why this is the case.

I must apply reason and logic to intuitive and aesthetic beliefs.

I must apply reason and logic to intuitive and aesthetic beliefs. — RussellA

If you would keep the linear constructions of reason and logic, along with the wholistic constructions of intuitive and aesthetic beliefs, all under the purview of philosophy, I think we are both walking a straight line onto the same whole page. :grin:

So the interesting question would be, are Derain and Banksy creating within the same tradition? If not, does "clearly nonsense" mean that you do see a tradition-independent criterion for aesthetic value? — J

Within the tradition that agrees paintings such as Banksy's "Girl with Balloon" has aesthetic value as works of art, then Banksy's "Girl with Balloon" has aesthetic value as a work of art.

Within the tradition that agrees paintings such as Derain's "Drying the sales" have aesthetic value as works of art, then Derain's "Drying the Sails" has aesthetic value as a work of art.

This is Relativism. The Derain and Banksy have an aesthetic value as a work of art within their own traditions.

The question is, is there such a thing as aesthetic value over and above each tradition.

The more fundamental question is does "aesthetic value" have the same meaning in all language games.

Does "aesthetic value" in the Bansky language game mean the same thing as "aesthetic value" in the Derain language game?

Or is it the case that "aesthetic value" in the Banksy language game is defined as "something like Banksy's "Girl with Balloon" and "aesthetic value" in the Derain language game is defined as "something like Derain's "Drying the Sails".

Another question is, does aesthetic value exist outside the words "aesthetic value"?

I think we are both walking a straight line onto the same whole page — Fire Ologist

:up:

Does "aesthetic value" in the Bansky language game mean the same thing as "aesthetic value" in the Derain language game? — RussellA

I would say there's no Bansky or Derain language game. An artist is more like a farmer than an interlocutor. Her art is like seeds that sprout in the souls of the observers. Each sprout is unique because each person in the audience is. So if you aren't fond of Bansky, it's not as if there's a language game you're not participating in properly. It's that you're rocky terrain for that particular seed.

The way a piece of art gains value in our world is a reflection of the capitalism that pervades it. If I were to put jargon to it, it's that value is associated with the rumor that a work is an investment opportunity.

Aside from the peculiarities of our world, aesthetic value is related to a number of things, both physical and psychological. Grace and force are at the crossroads of physicality and psychology, and they've been around since people started enhancing themselves and their environment with decoration.

art is like seeds that sprout in the souls of the observers.
if you aren't fond … It's that you're rocky terrain for that particular seed. — frank

‘Seed planting and seed sprouting or not sprouting’ is an analysis of all art. You set up a language game.

The way a piece of art gains value in our world is a reflection of the capitalism that pervades it — frank

That’s another game - a lousy one (to the true art lover) that would be ill-advised to play if you didn’t know how to play the seed sprouting game (because new seeds can sprout for hundreds of years where art is really art, but investment values change for the worse all of the time).

‘Seed planting and seed sprouting or not sprouting’ is an analysis of all art. You set up a language game. — Fire Ologist

It's a metaphor. Explaining art is philosophy, which I think is an activity that stands apart from language games. With the idea of language games in mind, all philosophy is on the verge of being useless, but we do it anyway.

Does the aesthetic transcend reason? Well, perhaps, though I am trying to keep within the bounds of reason. So there may be this transcendent beauty, but here I am strictly concerned with rational judgments.

Which isn't to say that our beginnings have to make sense -- they often don't. We generally don't reason about our actions in a deductive manner, and doing philosophy is an activity.

But there is still this area of reason which does not deal with logic or the relations between things. I'd say that this way of thinking is rightly classed as epistemology. Or, as @Fire Ologist put it, those who ask how it is we know. Closely related is metaphysics, of course. Those who like to first ask "What is it?".

I think the notion of ways of thinking works particularly well there because there are a lot of philosophers that try to start on one side to answer the other due to the relationship between metaphysics and epistemology.

But then I wouldn't think that these ways are exactly ways of aesthetic judgment -- rather they are dealing with the usual problems of knowledge: What do we know, and how do we know it, and is there something we cannot know, and if so how do we know that?

For Kant the beautiful is closely linked to nature's purposiveness. He gives what he thinks the criterion for judgments of the beautiful are through this concept of purposiveness (as he does for sublimity through the mathematical and dynamical sublime). What's fascinating to me here is Kant is the sort of philosopher you'd think wouldn't put much stock into aesthetics. My understanding is that the CoJ wasn't pre-planned, whereas the CPR and the CPrR were -- Kant wanted, up front, to separate theoretical from practical reason so that we could pursue science without worrying about it undermining our faith.

Then comes along the CoJ that serves either as a contradiction to the original project, or the unifier of the original project such that there's a sort of foundation between three powers of reason: The theoretical, the practical, and the aesthetic.

I've pretty much lifted what I understand of his theory of the aesthetic to point out the category, but rephrased it without the jargon. This third "power", I think we'd prefer to say "capacity" today, is the universal appeal of things due to the structure of our mind.

Though today I'd prefer to not use "structure of our mind" and say something like "due to the tradition we were brought up within" -- thereby opening the door to more aesthetic categories than the traditional Beautiful or Sublime, insofar that we can proffer a sort of theory as to why something which is "subjective" holds for all subjectivities in the same manner (in a tradition this will the various reasons given for why such and such is being pursued or is attractive or interesting).

Such as the elegant, the rational, the clear, and other such adjectives often applied to philosophical arguments and thoughts.

I would say there's no Bansky or Derain language game. An artist is more like a farmer than an interlocutor. Her art is like seeds that sprout in the souls of the observers. — frank

As you say, the physical works of Banksy and Derain stand independently of how they are either priced in the art market or described by art critics. For example, an original Braque valued by the art market at £100,000 would probably not sell for £20 on Bayswater Road.

You describe Banksy as an artist, and it may be that his style does happen to appeal to me

But then again, it may be the case that Banksy is a cartoonist whose jokes don't happen to appeal to me.

It is difficult to escape the language game when describing Banksy as an artist.

It is difficult to escape the language game when describing Banksy as an artist. — RussellA

I agree with that.