Now you're just contradicting yourself!

One or more of these claims can't go together:
1) Art critics who interpret chimp art to be meaningful are frauds and are just pretending to read depth into what they see (like in the Emperor story).

2) Art criticism is like wine tasting where all educated/refined taste can objectively be proven to be imagined/made up/a lie.

3) Art is purely subjective and it's possible for someone to even derive deep philosophy from a shampoo bottle.

It doesn't add up. If art is subjective and everyone can interpret what they want onto anything, then art critics are fully able to interpret whatever they like on any art (chimp, human, or cloud formations even). You can't consistently accuse them of being frauds. You can only claim that they aren't the sole judges of artistic value.

Again your religious faith in the art critics blinds you. — Isaac

Now, let's not start getting snarky with another.

was the response of one art critic to the random daubings of a chimpanzee which the journalist Åke Axelsson pretended were done by an upcoming modern artist. — Isaac

Yes, it's entirely possible for critics to be wrong sometimes.

Compared with the random daubings of a chimpanzee, — Isaac

Don't be so quick to underestimate our cousins!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mysterious-chimpanzee-behavior-may-be-evidence-of-sacred-rituals/

Oh, and this article was nice too! Just for your reading and maybe listening pleasure: http://blog.apaonline.org/2019/04/03/sacred-and-profane-love-podcast-philosophy-outside-academia/

Somewhat relevant to our discussion, Justin Weinberg asked people to contribute links to philosophical visual art. The pieces and the comments on them are pretty interesting.

http://dailynous.com/2019/04/05/philosophical-artworks/

Yeah, it's important to learn not to feed 'em!

I often focus on things like gender and age to add to my understanding about people, I suppose I mightn't fare well as an ethical or I suppose law-abiding employer — Judaka

To be fair, I think most (actually, probably all if you exclude children and people with Williams syndrome, etc.) exhibit a host of implicit and explicit biases.

I think as far as that example goes, we should analyze why and how we make these assessments, but not endorse them.

Are there any other examples you can give of what you mean by interpretive relevance?

People can, and do, imagine something like the plot of Hamlet from triggers that are far more removed than even the text on the back of a shampoo bottle. — Isaac

Hm... There I have to disagree with you. There's more philosophy in one Hamlet monologue/soliloquy than on any shampoo bottle (unless it's printed with Shakespeare quotes I guess?) And I don't think most, even educated people, are able to come up with that stuff on their own.

I have NEVER been inspired by art. — ZhouBoTong

That's too bad! It's a uniquely amazing experience.

But there are plenty of other reasons to enjoy art. — ZhouBoTong

I agree. I think inspiration can also mean being inspired to be a good person, or pursue a certain virtue, or just understand humanity better, etc.

Obviously, Hamlet is FAR more likely to inspire than shampoo. But compared to Transformers, Hamlet is BARELY more likely (depending on the student, it will often be LESS likely). — ZhouBoTong

Well.... What I will admit is that (in this day and age) Hamlet is a more acquired (educated?) taste. More people right now watch Bay's movies than read Shakespeare. I have a suspicion, however, that in fifty years, people will still be reading Hamlet and will be like "Michael who?" I also still think that there's more to be learned philosophically in Hamlet than Transformers.

But yeah, Transformers is more accessible to your average Joe.

The applicant might be a woman, there are many statistical truths about women, many biases both good and bad that we might have, things about women we know to be true but all of these things are only probabilistically true at best about our applicant. — Judaka

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/

"An employer may not base hiring decisions on stereotypes and assumptions about a person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information."

That's hilarious. :rofl:
Somehow I don't think it'll be catching on in the long run.

I mean, John Cage's 4:33 is (in)famous, but I somehow doubt many people have "listened" to it more than once.

I would say we don't need art, we like art. To be fair, I am sure there has been the occasional person who accomplished great things after being inspired by art, — ZhouBoTong

Okay, I see what you think I meant. I didn't mean "need" in the sense of generally do humans need art at all (though I think they do and thay it's part of our dna, but that's off-topic). I meant, why would humans need art in order to think of a story or be inspired? If it's all subjective, they should be able to draw the same inspiration from the instructions on a shampoo bottle as they do Hamlet.

Everything depends on context, so a thought experiment that just asks if one would kill a billion people to save the rest of the human race from extinction is just silly. — andrewk

I think the value in it, and other thought experiments like the trolley problem, is that it tries to simplify some moral dilemmas, and through that simplification figure out what we would do, should do, and why.

For example, when you ask "how much funding should we give to cancer research versus drug rehabilitation" you get all sorts of political messiness in there ranging from the socialist to the conservative to the libertarian to the anarchist point of view. The question then is derailed from one of the basic considerations of who should live.

I will PM you.

The Germans however are unfriendly, whereas the Swedish and the Dutch are very friendly. — Ilya B Shambat

This is a cultural misunderstanding. Germans don't try to be unfriendly. In fact, they are really concerned with being civil. But they do have a greater sense of personal boundaries and tend to view, for example, the American immediate friendliness as fake and empty.

If any forum member has seen a human take their last breath especially someone they love they would know how it feels to watch someone die. — Anaxagoras

I think it's pretty dangerous to assume you know what a room full of strangers has been through.

And, for the record, we do make these kinds of choices all the time. For example when we invest money in cancer research over drug rehabilitation. I personally think it's important to think about whom we save and why and if our reasons for doing so are faulty.

What's scary are people who are able to answer this... — Anaxagoras

It's just a hypothetical.

Hypothetically I know whom in my family I would choose over whom as well. My mom over my dad, my husband over either of them, and my kid over any person in the universe. Just cause it's simple in the abstract doesn't mean it would be easy in real life or that it wouldn't psychologically crush me to live with the guilt.

I think murderers would be a fair choice. And other violent criminals perhaps too. They may be losing the chance to be rehabilitated, but any innocent/decent person killed in their stead is losing the chance to continue living the life they earned by actually being good and decent people. Not all non-criminals are decent people, but say you're killing Mr. Rogers cause you hope Charles Manson will "come around" or something is not fair.

The biggest flaw I see in that plan is how to KNOW who's a criminal. (Btw, this has also always been my biggest issue with the death penalty.) The statistics of how many people are proven innocent is kinda scary. The Innocence Project has it at 4.1% , which is kinda high when you're talking about being put to death.

If 4.1% of your 1 billion criminals were innocent, you'd have killed 41 million people unfairly. That's more than the population of California!

That's true!

That officially makes you something like an internet miracle :grin: :joke:

The OP didn't explain the scenario in which the lives are being saved/taken, so I think the vaccination example does fit here. Actually it's a timely example, because of the current debate about what the laws should say regarding mandatory vaccines for children.

Most reasonable people would say that even though we know a certain number of people will die as a result of adverse reactions to vaccines, we have to vaccinate to protect the majority.

We make decisions like that all the time.

Vaccinations and medications and surgeries for example save billions of people, but some people will die as a result. We know that some people will die, but we use these medical interventions anyway cause the good outweighs the bad.

Not "can't", but "haven't" and "don't" (exceptions notwithstanding). What about your opinion on men raising children, then? — Tzeentch

I think men and women can both build buildings and raise children and that both activities are "useful" and important.

Men typically "haven't" and "don't" do most of the work raising children.

In both cases, the scales are equalling out between the sexes.

No, you're not jumping in. Terrapin is. He's all out of sorts cause I won't agree with him and also cause I won't be insulted. :roll:

Back to the actual topic:

I think any definition of art must also be an interpretation of art. It has to be saying something that all art has in common. In order to know what that is, you have to have to interpretive basis. In such a case, you've found -at least one- objective part of the interpretation of art.

Back to a more substantive aspect of art interpretation, why do you think we even need art if it's purely subjective?

Men build homes. Other than that, are you insinuating that men cannot raise children — Tzeentch

You're insinuating that women can't build homes or buildings.

If you look out of a window in any big city, the vast, vast majority of what you see was invented, designed and built by men — Tzeentch

Yeah, I'd like to see how that would have been possible without women to feed them and make homes and raise children...

trying to paint me as acting in an emotional manner — CaZaNOx

It certainly seems to me that you are reacting in an exaggerated manner to my comment. And you are attributing to me all sorts of intentions and actions that I do not believe I exhibited.

As to the philosophical questions: I did actually respond already. I pointed out that philosophy covers matters from the political to religious to park benches.

Do I think there is anything that does not exist as a sub-discipline of philosophy? Not really. Or, at least, I don't think there is a topic that can't be made into a philosophical one if you try hard enough. And I also think people are often engaging in philosophy without even being aware of it.

Now, I will agree that there are some subjects not interesting enough for me personally to pay much attention to. And it sounds like you feel the same way. But in such a case, just ignore the thread and pay attention to those that do spike your interest.

I hope that adresses all of your concerns, and I too hope you have a nice time :kiss:

(Btw, is English your first language?)

I think you need to define what you mean by "things" better. I wouldn't define the quality of odor as a thing, personally. Maybe the odor-producing particles are things, but not my brain's interpretation of those particles.

Indeed! :rofl:

rather mark it as intellectual garbage so you can present your "obviously" better point. — CaZaNOx

This seems to be a fair amount of projection on your part.

I think the author's defense of common sense was the weakest part of the article, honestly. While the gut instinct is our best starting point for most ideas, it shouldn't be our final destination.

Time is one of the few philosophical concepts I have no real opinion about. I'm not sure if the past exists or the future, but I guess I do think NOW exists.

If you're interested in more reading, this young man has an interesting approach as well:
https://www.academia.edu/25441363/TIME_TARRIETH_NO_MAN_Presentism_and_the_Argument_from_Relativity

After reading that I wonder if it's possible that time can stretch and therefore make presentism compatible with relativity theory.

Nice strawmen. Are you trolling or what's the matter with you, — CaZaNOx

Oh, wow, my pretty benign comment certainly touched a nerve with you.

My point was merely that politics and theology are sub-disciplines of philosophy and thus entirely relevant to the forum.

Whether we should paint the benches blue or red IS a philosophical question IMHO.
It's got it all: ontology (what IS red or blue or a bench?), epistemology (how do we know what blue and red and benches are?), and axiology (is blue or red better? what is the value of the bench?).

politics or religion/theology. — CaZaNOx

Are you saying that John Rawls, Thomas Hobbes, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Soren Kierkegaard are all not philosophers?

I stay here because I love you all! :heart: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Well, shucks :blush:

You might find this an interesting read: http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/zimmerman/privilegedpresent.pdf

The do-gooders have a reputation for being arrogant — Ilya B Shambat

Yes, well, a lot of people get defensive around those who make them feel inferior.

That does not seem to be an interpretation of art. At most, it is an interpretation of the definition of art. — ZhouBoTong

In order to define art, you must interpret it.

Also, any interpretation is bound to the text/words. Otherwise you'd have no need for any art at all and (as in my example before with Terrapin) you could just stare at a loaf of bread and imagine all stories ever just by virtue of your imagination. You'd need neither Bay nor Shakespeare.

I think people leaving have often posted their frustrations with other members prior to leaving. People who perhaps don't like being challenged, or perhaps don't like the ocassional troll who does stick around and makes the conversations unpleasant.

I find there are enough decent people here to outweigh the unpleasant ones, personally.

That sounds like it's probably true. I'd still like to see an official statement though. Any idea if that's forthcoming?

And I'd rather talk to someone who can understand what I'm claiming, yet here we are. — Terrapin Station

I understand that you're wrong. I also understand that your defense mechanism when you can't win the argument is to get nasty. I want no part in that. We can have a discussion again someday when you've learned to be nicer.

Until then, have a nice life.

It would be nice to have a discussion with someone intelligent enough to understand what I'm saying but who can forward a cogent objection to it without it constantly just being straw men, as if I'm addressing a bunch of Gumbies or something. " — Terrapin Station

I'd rather not talk to you if you're going to say things like that to me.