The Wittgenstein chops on this forum are way beyond my ken.

I'd count Fooloso4 in that group of people who I'd listen to.


....


IDK if you'd listen to more than that. :D — Moliere

Thanks for the personal attack. I mean, no, have some dignity.

What he says, as quoted, is that ethics/aesthetics is transcendental. It is only once this is acknowledged that we can discuss what it means. — Fooloso4

The Tractatus uses "transcendental" twice. What most readers of W. know is that he rejects the concept in the Philosophical Investigations. You might benefit by taking a look at that book.

Ethics is just the idea of how we want people to act around each other. Nothing mystical or transcendental about it.

No. Transcendental means the condition for experience. A Kantian term. Clearly this is not W. meaning.

But by all means, explain what W. means by "transcendental." Then explain his use of that term in the Phil. Investigations. Thank you.

Where can I learn more about the different uses of dialectics and more about non-Kantian dialectics? — musicpianoaccordion

I never heard of kantian dialectics. What is that?

He said that ethics/aesthetics are transcendental. — Fooloso4

That is not Wittgenstein idea at all, false.

I think the example is relevant to Kant's first antinomy:

The first antinomy concerns the finitude or infinitude of the spatio-temporal world. The thesis argument seeks to show that the world in space and time is finite, i.e., has a beginning in time and a limit in space. The antithesis counters that it is infinite with regard to both space and time.
— Stanford — Cuthbert

Then, "infinite" and "finite" need to be defined. Because "infinite" could express the existence of an infinite time, which is what I would reject.

Yes, I don’t think there is any categorical way to distinguish the philosophical, the scientific-empirical , the technological, and the literary or artistic for that matter. They interpenetrate each other in complex
ways. — Joshs

Agre with that.

Perhaps the reason we don't have a term for 'without a beginning, but with an end' is that it is incoherent. If a process had no beginning then it would be already infinite. But if it's going on now then it might come to end at any moment - and it is therefore finite. So it would be both finite and infinite. That's the antinomy. — Cuthbert

No, just that the universe need not have a beginning or end.

I guess you don't understand my post. — 180 Proof

No one does.

And who that someone is, is very important, wouldn't you agree? I mean a colorblind person would not be the best judge of impressionism. — Merkwurdichliebe

Correct.

I had the idea of a shit. I took a dump and it became actual and sensuous. Is it art? — Merkwurdichliebe

Now you're getting it. Someone besides you has to care.

But art requires more than simply making the idea actual — Merkwurdichliebe

No, that is what it is. The production of an artwork.

Love me some Hegel. For me, i consider the "idea made material" to be aesthetic in nature (philosophically speaking), but I wouldn't classify every "idea made material" as art. I personally do not consider trashcan basketball as true basketball, even though they are identical in all the right ways. — Merkwurdichliebe

It's the idea made sensuous. That is what art is. Skill is the means by which something is made material.

Your welcome.

Just look at any art forum on the interwebs, 99% shit. Even artstation, with all its quality control, is 99% shit. — Merkwurdichliebe

"beauty is the Idea made real in the sensuous and actual world" Hegel, Lectures on Art.

How I think of art. An idea made material.

Its the same with art I suppose. Some of it is skilled, most of it garbage. — Merkwurdichliebe

Thanks for being forthright. I do not think most art is garbage.

Example of a specious argument:

1) You need to be an artist to understand art.
2) I disagree.
3) Well, but you're not an artist so you wouldn't understand. — T Clark

That is not what he said.

The problem is that nonartists are ignorant of what artistic skills actually are, and think anything can be art. — Merkwurdichliebe

Ok, well I am a painter, a visual artist--that's what I know about.

Anything can be art. Now try to sell it or get a gallery to show your work. Same with basketball. Are you good enough to play in the NBA? Compete.

Are you an artist? — Merkwurdichliebe

I am. Having a hard time understanding the purpose of the thread. Everything requires skill. What is the point?

If you define a fool as anyone Street flamed, or every member of every group he made bigoted comments about then yes, but that would be foolish. — Baden

I notice you allow some people to write insults and harass others. It is one reason I don't like using this forum as much.

I already made the point that it's pure speculation. Can you read? — emancipate

No.

There could be big bangs happening within big bangs. — DingoJones

Yes, logically.

Is there a point? I see none.

You neither. — emancipate

And?

We don't know. Anything else is speculative. — emancipate

You don't know.

Then our universe isn't so special after all and it can take that smug look off its face. — Cuthbert

Nothing in physics can describe what happened before the Big Bang, nor that it is a unique event.

Or parallel universes to this one, sure. I dont see why not but “what if?”?
Ya suppose if there were other universes before this one we would need to adjust our models? They would be incorrect? What are you getting at? — DingoJones

Big bang only shows how to derive our current universe from that situation. Says nothing about what happened before.

like wow man

The big bang is conceived as being the beginning of space and time, — unenlightened

By you.

Lmao, streetlightx has been the same way ever since I've been on this forum, he broke the rules of this forum on a regular basis, so I'm surprised we're now talking about not making exceptions... Did he finally turn on the wrong people/positions? He should have been banned years ago, he's been a garbage contributor from the start. He derailed threads with his vitriol, and made little effort to explain his positions, he just belittled and insulted whoever disagreed with him. If everyone acted even half as bad as he did, nobody would ever want to post here. Dunno what he did to lose his special treatment but glad to hear he's gone. — Judaka

Agree. He is one of the reasons I lost respect for this forum.

Oh.

But, as you may be aware, he admitted defeat, he could not solve these issues. — Manuel

You are referring to Hume? What did he admit "defeat" about?

If you refuse to take responsibility for what you write, there is no reason to read your posts.

"Aristotle is a metaphysical philosopher"? — 180 Proof

I do not even know what you mean by that sentence.

after Heidegger, certain metaphysical philosophers like Parmenides and Aristotle cannot be agreed anymore as if nothing happened after them. — Angelo Cannata

What makes Aristotle a metaphysical philosopher? I am wondering if you ever read him.

I already edited that. I'm trying to be a kinder, gentler philosopher. — T Clark

Okay. So you never heard of someone ridiculing a modern artist? Good to know.

That says more for an artist than if Mr. Artsy Fartsy likes it. — T Clark

What is "'Artsy Fartsy?"

If you need some sort of special education to appreciate a work of art, it's useless. — T Clark

No, happens all the time. Like dumb people who looked at Picasso and thought a child could do it.

If one wants to refer specifically to philosopher X, he should form the title of his topic as follows: "What did X mean by saying this and this?" This would put the topic and discussion in the right perspective. Isn't that right? And in that case, I wouldn't have anything to say. — Alkis Piskas

Yes, certainly you have nothing to say.

What does an event mean "before" spacetime? — 180 Proof

Easy to understand. I fail to see the dilemma.