Yes, I don't think we disagree about much really. And don't worry about the late reply; actually, you've reminded me I need to respond too to an earlier post by @Cavacava, which I will as soon as I get a chance.

I think I have it worked out now :

The first rule is that the first rule is a paradox so ignore it.
The second rule is no Hanovers.
The third rule is "Thou shalt not kill" (except in the case that that conflicts with the second rule).

You're welcome.

Not really. I just found your comment amusing. Carry on...

Lol. You killed several birds with one stone there. You may have missed the pigeon though.

The second rule is no Hanovers. Or maybe that should be the first rule?

The first rule is that the rule that can be spoken is not the first rule.

For Kim, with love. (L)

The Don.

In other words, it was PR. Either way, it's all bull then.

Sure, in this case, if the deal was, "Let's make a cute little girl to stand in front of the bull to make the libs happy" that's not at all art but craft. And crafty.

It seems to me your objection is more to a type of activity that presents itself as art, that is recognized as art, but because of the intent behind it is more of a political product than actual political art. You mentioned the term propaganda, which I agree no more deserves to be called art than advertising. And the analogy is pretty clear - you sell an idea rather than a product but your aim is never more than instrumental. So, I agree art can’t be purely instrumental in its aims; it can’t merely be the case of selling an idea external to itself. That doesn’t mean, however, that the idea internal to the art, that which it expresses, as in the horror of war in Guernica, can’t be primary. Picasso is not selling an anti-war message, he's revealing one in a unique way - the idea is primary but it works in harmony with the form. So, I don’t think that the idea being primary is the issue here; the idea must in a sense always be primary, but it must work within the expression such that it reveals rather than merely commands. And what it reveals must be of value. Picasso does this, Banksy does this, Orwell does this, etc.

The creative act, for instance, in it's pure form is not primarily a process of reason; it's kinetic. I pick up an instrument and begin playing, I feel the pressure of the brush on the canvass, and suddenly, the ideas come. IF the result happens to be political, I have no problem. But an artist who begins from a political perspective is just making propaganda, not art. — Noble Dust

As I mentioned above, I agree that if the motivation is to sell an idea - instrumental reason - then you don’t get art - the artistic potential gets crushed under the jackboot of ideology. However, the impetus for art may be anything including the political. It doesn't have to be a case that it just happens. Guernica was painted in response to the bombing of the town of the same name. It wasn't entirely spontaneous. That the pressure that pushes the artist's fingers to the keyboard, or hand to the chisel, or paintbrush across the canvas is a wonder, fear, or disgust of a political nature no more negates the final product than any other impetus as long as the art speaks for itself, has its own voice, and is not merely an echo of some prevailing wind that its creator wishes to amplify.

Ok, but walls of text that are simply stanceless summaries of the thinking of the greats as well as subsequent referrals to these texts are likely to be deleted from discussions in future simply because they serve no useful purpose in a forum like this.

Precisely, he has not a hoof to stand on.

I was speaking more in general. Whether those particular opinions are on topic enough to present here is up to you to decide. But all sorts of things are debated on the site in appropriate places.

Well, I agree with most of the opinions you have given above. I'm sure others would too, and some would disagree. The idea is to get stuck in and support them until and unless someone can show you you are wrong. Please do that.

Actually we are interested in your opinion (to the extent it's based on facts and reasoning, of course). That's pretty much the point of this place: not to be a static repository of the thoughts of the recognized greats but a dynamic stage on which the rest of us can strut our stuff.

Ok, let's subtract the humor. Guernica. Good political art?

You also win. This isn't good political art. It's more of a sop to liberalism. So, yes, it won't change anyone's mind. The pigeon triumphs. That doesn't mean you can't have good political art though...

OK, you win. I'm still going to hate on Wall Street every chance I get though.

Fuck the bull. I'm with the little girl.

The original artist apparently placed the bull there as a monument to his own ego and the collective ego of Wall Street. I'd hardly even consider it art. In fact, the little girl brings it much closer to being art by involving it in a real juxtaposition, a meaningful conflict.

And what Question said. (Y)

The claim that "truth is agreement" would be meaningless under the redundancy view anyhow.

Welcome! Fáilte! Get stuck in.

Nice question. To me they're different. To take your example, I would say that anything non-orange negates an orange to the extent that it's not an orange; empty space, for example, does that pretty well; Or, consider the universe removed of all oranges as the absolute negation of oranges. But in order to find the opposite of an orange you would have to identify particular characteristics and figure out their antitheses. That pulls you more towards essences. Say you decide that part of what characterizes oranges are that they are round, you're left with the problem of identifying the opposite of round, which sounds like it should be something rather than nothing i.e. a shape. But which one??

EDIT: (Sorry, I read that as "an orange" not "orange". I blame Wayfarer and scribbling while at work).

(Y)

Well that reply and five bucks will buy you a coffee and a worthless article on the internet written by some pompous twit with zero social skills.

Thanks ernestm. Would you mind just sending me a list of all the links you have to everywhere so I know that everything I say is wrong before I say it? Alternatively, you could just quote my post and address my actual point. Either or.

I'm not suggesting that God is necessary to be moral, but removal of some higher authority from the equation does make it difficult to explain why your moral beliefs are more correct than another's. — Hanover

That's what ethical theory is for (and the higher authority is shared human values like life and liberty not some ineffable superbeing with a carrot and a stick) "God" doesn't help at all. In fact, "God" is as often used as an excuse for bad law as good. Sometimes, insanely bad. And "God" can be shown to be on pretty much anyone's side with enough cherry picking. If you want to know how to make fair laws, read Rawls not the Bible, Quran, Torah etc. Unless you want to live in a theocracy.

(Y)

Pass the herbicide.

Meh, she can't complain, she's dead.

Disclaimer: off-topic comment to follow.

Not intending to be presumptuous but maybe the climax is too early in the story i.e. his big discovery. As in, protagonist makes big discovery! But..no one believes, then...still no one believes, then, dammit, no one believes! Then... protagonist dies. Sort of deescalating rather than escalating tension. Just a thought anyway...

Yes, name an abstract concept that is not a bodily feeling or sense that can even be postulated without making use of the imagination. The term "reason" itself is a case in point. Philosophically, the imagination is primary not derivative.

Well, at least we're not prescribing Schopenhauer to children. Then again, a spoonful of pessimism may help the Ritalin go down.

I presume parents give it to their kids because they appreciate the value of big pharma to the economy and want to make sure it continues to make shitloads of money so we can all live happily ever after in the consumer utopia that we deserve.

People often forget that Freud was heavily influenced by Schopenhauer — Question

And by cocaine. I suppose those two cancel each other out.

Griftopia - Matt Taibbi

“To sum it all up, the [Ayn] Rand belief system looks like this:
1. Facts are facts: things can be absolutely right or absolutely wrong, as determined by reason.
2. According to my reasoning, I am absolutely right.
3. Charity is immoral.
4. Pay for your own fucking schools.”

“The new America...is fast becoming a vast ghetto in which all of us, conservatives and progressives, are being bled dry by a relatively tiny oligarchy of extremely clever financial criminals and their castrato henchmen in government, whose job is to be good actors on TV and put on a good show.”

Informative. Depressing.

Yes, it's just that the default view is all discussions, which can make it a little confusing.

If you click on categories in the side-bar, you'll see the sub-forums.

Yes, there's no difference except the type of material and level of complexity. Cells are complex biological machines made of organic matter. Cars are simple non-biological machines made of inorganic matter.

A process isn't an ingredient; the function of a material existent is not an added essence, it's a mode of being. Whatever material change in organic material effects a change in function drastic enough to permanently preclude a recovery of that whole of which it's a part is the material difference that makes the difference in terms of life and death. And there need be nothing special about it.

Consciousness, meh. Sense of self (Y). You can be conscious and lack identity or be a walking self-contradiction, and all the love and money in the world won't help you. The base level of value, meaning etc. is a sense of self in a context in which to apply it, and the will to do so self-constructively.