I've found that the best discussions, either my own or someone else's, have the terms of the discussion well laid out, including definitions of terms if those are likely to be confused — T Clark

Exactly. "Are we talking about the same thing?"

As Reagan said, government is the enemy.

Perhaps that's why he/she reads posts on TPF. — universeness

Perhaps.

Thank you for that rather arrogant permission that I don't require. — universeness

Yes, my sentiment about that person as well.

What effective advertisement does not incorporate some form of art? One doesn't need sensitivity to be affected by advertisement. — javra

Yes. I find it humorous the way some folk post videos as if looking at pictures tells a self evident story.

What comes to my mind: soft, delicate, translucent ... not what one typically attributes to the state of being handsome but, instead, being (at least modern day) archetypal aspects of femininity. — javra

In the US there is a belief that art and appreciating beauty is a feminine quality. Like being sensitive.

Added: Which may explain why aesthetics is the least popular specialty in philosophy. All about the 'hard' sciences and not sissy stuff like art.

Yes, but perception is its own minefield, to my mind. Still, if you have opinions you want to share ... — javra

A painting is a perception; an image. Any work of art is a perception. Not perception of something, but a physical form of perception. So the artist puts things together to form a single perception.

The etymology of "aesthetic" is Greek for sense perception. Thus, aesthetics is about perception.
Why do art works get called "aesthetic?" Because they're made to be perceived.

The beautiful, as I previously addressed, to me typically indicates in today's world a subcategory of the aesthetic that addresses its more feminine attributes. — javra

I think I understand this, but have trouble with "feminine attributes." For example, a beautiful sunset. How are its properties feminine?

The aesthetic I did my best to define in this post. — javra

This, right?: "that which draws one in, this conceptually and emotively, into a realm of truths/realities that intrigue but are not yet fully understood."

Not bad; I see what you mean. I would talk more about perception, but not disagreeing.

Though, again, I don't consider it a depiction of beauty, I find it aesthetic. — javra

Will you explain each term, beauty and aesthetic?

I previously mentioned some of Goya's later works. Here's an example (if I can get the image to show):



(Two Old Men Eating Soup) — javra

Thanks, have not seen that before. The more I look at it the more I like it.

Alright, but it's in the eye of the beholder. To me it's not grotesque - or else viscerally revolting - but simply ugly, in both technique and depiction of subject mater. To each their own, though. — javra

I look at a painting in terms of what it tells me. First, I love the colors and the shapes.

How so? — Noble Dust

I thought I was responding to your comment that meaning and beauty are the same.

I previously mentioned some of Goya's later works. Here's an example (if I can get the image to show):
(Two Old Men Eating Soup) — javra

Good. I would classify that as a bit grotesque, but not ugly. I mean, the painting is not ugly.

Then again, what of the ugly in art which is nevertheless attractive, captivating, and pleasing? Isn't it a contradiction in semantics to affirm that a painting is both beautiful and ugly? — javra

I have never seen an ugly painting. I barely even understand the concept.

A feedback loop is a physical-material memory structure of the brain. At the first order level of feedback looping, you get the behaviorism that Chalmers uses as evidence that neuro-science hasn't created a material model for the self.

I'm theorizing that the self, by definition self-referential (please bear with the circularity here, as circularity lies at the heart of memory functions), doesn't appear in a materialist-objectivist model until the second order of feedback looping that, in a vertical structure, rides atop first order feedback looping. In short, the self is the reflection of the first order behaviorist automaton, and thus this automaton individualizes over time as it examines ever more thoroughly the reflections of its automaton self.

This tells us that philosophy, which promotes self-examination, culminates in the individual, the apotheosis of human identity, according to western-hemispheric culture.

Nietzsche, in my opinion, has taken the worship of individuality to a madman's extreme. — ucarr

Thanks, that helps. I did not get the second part about the feedback loop and connection to individualism and Nietzsche.

If cognitive science has ascended to the level of analyzing the second-order feedback looping that substrates a self regarding first-order baseline feedback looping, then self-referentiality is now in the crosshairs of scientific objectivism. — ucarr

Afraid I did not understand that. Could you expand a little?

It's not opposed to materialism. It's a call for an expansion of what counts as material. — Tate

What is that expansion?

Yes, then I guess we are talking about the same thing. — T Clark

I think so, yes.

When I think of "catharsis" I think of purging unpleasant emotions. — T Clark

Yes. I meant that Aristotle is talking about unpleasant emotions and how they still are part of art.

The experience is beautiful, but unpleasant. It's not something I enjoy. I try to avoid that kind of art. — T Clark

Similar to Aristotle's idea of catharsis.

A well-written book can be beautiful — T Clark

So it is the quality of the writing and its form which gives the property beauty.

I that means we have to expand the definition of "beauty" beyond just what is pleasant to experience. — T Clark

How would you define beauty?

Plenty of folks find Stein unreadably ugly. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I do not.

I imagine the ancient Greeks - whose tragedies I adore - especially Lattimore's marvelous translations, which retain the old Greek cadence - would be wholly bewildered by automatic writing, by Lautreamont's Maldoror, or by anything from the pen of Gertrude Stein, among others. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Poking your eyes out seems grotesque. I don't think most people consider Stein's writing to be ugly.

Thinking about philosophy in terms of questions with many possible answers, and those answers as ways of thinking and ways of living, may prove more fruitful than focusing on arguments and definitions. — unenlightened

It is both, no?

bizarre Modernist ugliness — ZzzoneiroCosm

Example?

If you're skeptical or interested I can find you a source. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Ugliness is not new--Greek tragedies can get pretty ugly.

A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful — ZzzoneiroCosm

Years ago I read Burke. Not the whole book, no.

Have you read the book? — ZzzoneiroCosm

What book?

"According to Burke, the Beautiful is that which is well-formed and aesthetically pleasing, whereas the Sublime is that which has the power to compel and destroy us. The preference for the Sublime over the Beautiful was to mark the transition from the Neoclassical to the Romantic era." — ZzzoneiroCosm

I guess. I never got much from Burke.

It's not for everybody — Agent Smith

What is not for everybody?

I am a rather busy person. Can briefly say why Hana Arendt's essay is about? — Athena

Basically, evil does not have power but is petty.

I see you're a troll. — Tate

Then we are done.

It's in the SEP article. Since you weren't aware of Aristotle's stance on knowledge and regress, I thought you might appreciate the accompanying explanation. — Tate

I see you have no idea how to make an argument.

What a philosophical argument is not:

Posting someone's text without explaining how it is evidence for your argument..
Posting a link to something and saying, read this.

Read this. — Tate

Citation means, post the text of Aristotle with its source. "Read this," is not an argument.

The way I would explain a philosophical argument is:

1. X is true. (Here is what I think.)
2. Here is why X is true. (Reasons.)
3. Some say X is false, here is why they are wrong.

Aristotle: Knowledge does not require an infinite regress of questions. — Tate

Aristotle never said that. Cite something if you have it.

n both examples the second interpretation is not about comparison. That's the sense that Nagel means. — bert1

Every experience is unique therefore there is nothing to be said about it.