If all the artists disappeared you could still buy something and call it art, by your criteria. — Punshhh

What are you talking about?

I have not listed a single criterion for determining what I consider to be art.

All I have done is to reserve to myself the absolute right to make such a determination.

And I have no obligation to share any criteria that I find useful in making that determination.

Why do people find this perplexing?

you are obviously more concerned with the logic than with your premise. But I do disagree with the latter.

I have loved unconditionally and have done so without me or anyone else requiring me to do so.

It just turned out that way.

The word “process” is a noun, but it is series of actions. These actions are reified into a noun. For instance the word “jog” can be used as a noun. “I went for a jog”. But is a jog a thing? I think the grammar leads to confusions and unnecessary reifications. — NOS4A2

please provide some sort of authority for these unstated rules you have regarding the proper attachment of "thing" to entities.

you seem to make arguments for having such rules without providing any information as to what the rules are or where they can be found.

I will wait here.

It makes more logical sense to only assume that we have a model of the world. — A Seagull

Yes, let us create a model of the world, declare it to be the real, and treat the world as less real than the model of the world. That is not a winning argument.

Accepting that the world in which you find yourself may far more complex than it appears to be does not require you to presume it is a model. It just requires you to accept that the world in which you find yourself may be far more complex than it appears to be.

You seem to be making the assumption of 'naïve reality' whereby the world is pretty much or even exactly as we perceive it. For me this is a naïve assumption, albeit a popular one.

It makes more logical sense to only assume that we have a model of the world.


A Seagull

15 hours ago — A Seagull

You are mistaken. If anything, I am a robust realist.

I am discussing the already existing process by which we attach "true/not true" to an assertion directed towards entities within the world or within a model of the world and at those times when such judgments are needed.

The only value in knowing the world or model of the world may be different than it appears at the time the judgment is needed lay in its usefulness for consoling yourself when you have made the wrong judgment.

Oh well.

present in every variation of the "what is art" type thread is the unstated and mistaken premise that others will bound by an agreed upon definition of art.

They will not.

How others define either matters not to me. — Arne
Why is that? — Brett

The better question is why would it matter to me how others define either a car or art?

Just like every other morning of my life, I woke up this morning in no need of a definition of car or art. How about you?

You can’t define what a car is. If you defined a car as anything but a car, then it wouldn’t be a car. The definition of a car was defined before you came along. All you do is recognise it. — Brett

Why would you presume I am bound by an already existing definition of a car?

I am not.

Why is it the question "what is art" always treated as if the questioner is seeking a definition?

Has there ever been any useful definition of art?

Have artists or art patrons ever considered themselves bound by a definition of art?

Can there even be any such thing as a useful definition of art?

I have never been in need of a definition art and I would not know what to do with one if I had one.

Take the artist out of the equation, i.e. pretend all the artists and their work suddenly disappears. What are you going to purchase? — Punshhh

If all art suddenly disappeared, why would I have to purchase anything?

And I would probably purchase a paint brush and some paint.

And as for your point as to who defines art, the answer is nobody and everybody.

It is not as if the world needs an agreed upon definition of art before in order for the "world of art" to function. If that were the case, it would have ceased functioning long ago.

And even if there were consensus definition, are you suggesting that an "artist" (for which we are also lacking and do not need a definition) would be required to stay within the definition? Would people be able to purchase only those works meeting the definition?

Art thrives upon the very controversy resulting from it's indefinability.

It is not the lack of definition nor the need to determine who gets to define art that is the issue. Instead the deeper issue is the notion that it can even be contained within a definition. it cannot.

you are making my point for me. I feel no more obligation to put forward my definition of art that does the world of art. and why would any of us need to define it anyway? all walks have extra information - it is deemed to be a walk. it is an arbitrary extra bit of information.

I don’t think that really works. — Brett

It is your comparison that does not work.

You may rest assured I will never buy a car that fails to meet my definition of a car nor will I ever buy a work of art that fails to meet my definition of art.

How others define either matters not to me.

I am my highest authority, judge and guide. Who is yours?

As a Gnostic Christian, I follow the esoteric teachings of Jesus. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

So who is your highest authority, you or Jesus?

Indeed. That's the point I was making. If we're only using 'true' like 'blue', limiting ourselves to that which we all agree on, we're not going to have a great many of the most interesting concepts labelled 'true'. Maybe that's as it should be though. — Isaac

Indeed. But that is not necessarily "as it should be." For Example A Seagull is essentially pushing a correspondence theory of truth that could be fruitful if tweaked.

Propositions (or statements) can be labelled as 'true' when they are considered to be an accurate representation of an idea that the brain/mind has labelled as 'true'. — A Seagull

I would tweak it as "an assertion is true if the entity toward which it is directed shows itself to be as asserted." As a result, we move beyond a correspondence between a proposition and what the mind has labeled as true to a correspondence between a proposition and how entities within the world show themselves to be. We have now shed the pesky and unnecessary "representation of an idea".

So though there are things that are true, there are no truths that are things. — NOS4A2

Whether "thingness" can/cannot be attached to the term "truth" fails to enlighten. Though certainly many would consider truth to be a concept and a concept to be a thing and therefore the concept of truth would be a thing. But that really matters not as thingness is the ultimate Cartesian red herring upon which I will waste no more time.

The deeper issue is not which distinction (adjective/noun or meaning/definition) is more fraught with potential error. Instead, the deeper issue is which distinction is more useful to illuminating a meaningful understanding of the world in which you find yourself.

And if you think the grammar distinction is the way to go, then good luck to you.

I cannot think of anything in mathematics or logic that is not a concept. — Michael Lee

First, your own logic results in the fair conclusion that infinity is a concept. If infinity is a number and all things mathematical are concepts, then infinity is a concept.

Second, even if all things within the realms of mathematics or logic are a concept, that does not mean that all concepts are within the realm of mathematics or logic.

Consequently, it you are correct and infinity is a number, then it is okay to call infinity a concept. On the other hand, if you are incorrect and infinity is not a number, then it is still okay to call infinity a concept.

Perhaps you should have settled for infinity as a mathematical concept and argued for a mathematical representation of the that mathematical concept.

Just saying.

think there is substantial agreement about what is 'true' in the world — Isaac

low hanging fruit.

"shorthand" must be the new tautology.

I maintain the proper distinction here is not between adjective and noun but between meaning and definition.

The former requires thought while the latter requires a dictionary which might define truth as "all things that are true."

In that sense, truth is very much the product of our encountering, engaging with, and coming to understand the entities within the world that we are in. When our assertions reveal those entities as they show themselves to be, then our assertions are true. When our assertions conceal how entities would otherwise show themselves to be, then our assertions are false. Either way, our regular and ongoing concernful engagement in the world is permeated through and through with truth. We are either trying to reveal or to conceal the world as it shows itself to be. Either way, we are in the truth/false business.

quote="Gnostic Christian Bishop;378082"]So you might not give final authority to the best authority. Ok. Not the brightest choice, but Ok.[/quote]

You cited a higher authority to support your claim that you are your own highest authority.

You can address the obvious contradiction or you can continue to pretend it is not there.

It matters not to me.

I am skeptical as to whether the idea of complete/incomplete has any discernable meaning applied to either the world or the universe.

what is your basis for claiming the infinite is more complete than the finite? it strikes me as counter intuitive.

partially, yes. And for the most part, the degree to which thought is partially mathematical is going to be mostly the same as the degree to which thought is logical. and for the most part, when it comes to logic, mathematics is more precise than thought.

It is when I think 2 + 2 equals 4.

there is no loss of clarity in going from the adjective triangular to the noun triangle. I suspect there are examples where going from adjective to noun may increase clarity. just saying.

could you tell me what you mean by "experience."

What constitutes an "experience?"

And do not most people consider an "experience" as something they can reconstitute in some form and reflect upon?

Absent some sort of acknowledgement of experience as constituted by some communicable post hoc assessment capable of carrying or conveying meaning, are you not risking the rendering of the idea of "experience" as something "meaningless?"

That fits with what Warhol was. When technology gives people more time, they don't use it to relax, they use it to go faster, get more stuff done, run the economy hotter.

They resist being arrested by simple stuff as if they're hungry for action. This may be getting more social-criticism than Warhol really is, but it's there. — frank

I agree.

The mass emulation of the leisure class is a mass emulation of the superficial trappings of leisure rather than of leisure.

triangle (the noun).

except you already conceded you know the name Jessica. and even if you did not know the name Jessica, you would not ask what a Jessica was if you had not already heard "Jessica" as a reference to some person, place, thing, or group.

What is a spickledeerfork?

Could you say more about that? — frank

Yes.

In addition, I strongly recommend people read Thorstein Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class. The technology age has a similar democratizing effect upon culture as did the mass production age as described by Veblen. Technology provides information and entertainment to the masses in the same way that mass production brought material goods to the masses. Technology fills in the leisure spaces with entertainment in the same way emulation of the habits of the leisure class filled the leisure spaces created by the automation of mass production.

Is it necessary to know x, to formulate a question regarding x ? — Monist

yes. you must have some understanding of X in order to formulate a question regarding X. all your question can do is give a deeper understanding than the one you must have to even ask the question.

“No one is in control. That is the major source of contemporary fear...” — xraymike79

and no one ever has been. control is an illusion and the need for it is an addiction.

except physics as we know has not had 500 years to provide adequate answers to reasonable questions.

I was, of course, joking.

How could they possibly cover it?

They cannot even agree that it is happening.

For some, the world is a wonderful place.

politics are a large scale appeals to emotion, not reason.

interesting take. The technology angle reminds me of Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class on steroids.

It also made me think of Andy Warhol and how he turned a mundane tomato soup can into a work of art while rendering the Mona Lisa mundane.

In some sense, a purported piece of art that makes you question art is a work of art.

then you must be watching the wrong station.

I am not sure what I mean is the question. I would suggest that based upon the comment, what Schopenhaur would mean is that science is the way we come to know the Devine. Though I personally have thought in terms of consciousness as the universe coming to know itself.

I suspect that knowing and understanding are not synonymous and I would rephrase your question as "how can one formulate a question about truth without an understanding of what truth is?"

But that is just me being picky as your question is an excellent question.

In some sense, I think we "live" in the truth (which does not make us truthful). Instead, we have an understanding of truth and we use that understanding to either uncover or conceal the truth.

Good point. Naturalism ends up being dependent on dualism to express what it rejects. The Naturalist binds herself to conclusions with no theory leading up to them and then demands that we limit the scope of the question. The fact that this is exactly the modus operandi of the medieval Catholic Church should signal us that this isn't science. — frank

I was listening to a discussion on Schopenhaur and someone suggested that he would consider the scientific approach as the communicative structure of the Devine. And that struck and I am not even a religious person. But the possibility should be humbling to the naturalist.

Good point. Naturalism ends up being dependent on dualism to express what it rejects. The Naturalist binds herself to conclusions with no theory leading up to them and then demands that we limit the scope of the question. The fact that this is exactly the modus operandi of the medieval Catholic Church should signal us that this isn't science. — frank

well said. and a bit frightening.