Maybe.

I know that might sound unfairly dismissive, but I also believe there's at the very least a big dose of truth in it. — flannel jesus

The current paradigm is the current paradigm. As long as we are not going backwards.

There is a reason I get aggravated when discussing philosophical ideas and people seem wholly unaware of scientific evidence that can help them refine or rethink the question/s they are playing with.

Note: Philosophically physicalism (as a rational position) does not hold all the answers and it is more than reasonable, in many ways, to take other positions seriously even if they are also left wanting. I am not really in favour of a utilitarian approach that clumsily weighs abstract proofs against physical evidence. I think it this issue that causes the biggest misunderstandings across all fields of human knowledge.

supervenience — J

Yes please! Complicated concept but a could be well worth getting deep into here :)

Both are abstract contents that only have meaning in the physically embodied world.

Basic Kantian stuff ;)

I was not aware Russell had said that. Thanks :)

Quote from book or essay?

How do you contend with arguments against physical reductionism and elimitivism?

Basically I am asking what convinces of this?

It is not my intention to cause any disruption to your thread, so I will not take this any further. — T Clark

I reject it too. Not that I claim to be a philosopher, it is just something I have had doubts about via my understanding of physics from an early age; and has since been reinforced by whimsical musings and more profound ineffiable experiences too.

I have yet to find any means of framing this in a rational context though :D

Please extrapolate. That is ONE work of his I have not read through cover to cover yet.

I think you are probably approaching this in a similar manner to me.

I think there is an issue of language use invovled in what we are saying. When I read philosophical arguments involving the issue of causation, they terms are always framed in a specific manner -- often highly abstracted -- so as to be almost non-appliable to daily human life. Such framing makes perfect sense when it comes to the hard sciences that do not involve biological messiness, but less so when we talk of subjective experience and individual acts.

What bothered me was a reading a while back regarding how a mental state causes me to move my arm. The author framed the mental act as effecting the muscles, yet this is obviously an arbitrary point in the chain of events, as we could instead say 'No! That is too far down the line. The mental act to physical act begins at the neuronal level where the muscles received the signal," and then someone else may say "Wait a minute! The mental to phsyical act happens in the Brain".

The phsyical reductionist argument obvious suffers and it seems that a kind of elimitivism makes more sense from a physicalist perspective.

As for Mental to Mental, my position is we cannot say anything about such as it does not realy exist other than by way of using physical sensory data to progress the thought (real or imagined) as in the case of believing it will rain or not.

My view is that when people talk of Mental to Mental causation they are really talking about some mental state (physical or otherwise depending on your philosophical perspective) connected to another mental state by physical states.

To use a loose ananlogy, as Gazzaniga talked about split brain patients showing that the hemisphere effectively communicated in the physical world through sensory perception completely unbeknowst to the subject of the brain. If you are familiar?

Yes. What do we do about this? Ignore it or throw darts into dark and hope to hit something?

That is an interesting approach. Not sure I buy into it though as there is evidence enough that one physical event leads to another (physically) and this is quite easily observed.

If you push your view to the point you are I feel you are effectively end up arguing for solipsism?

What is an example of such an idea? Who holds that there is such a thing? — Wayfarer

Many people.

A general outline could be someone holds a belief (1) and has an intentional response (2) to said belief.

The most common examples of this are A Believes (mental state) it will rain, does not Desire (mental state) to get wet, and so intends (mental state) to take an umbrella when they go outside.

A Mental State being a non-reductive state: As Nagel and Chalmers put forward.

There are differing approaches to this position obviously. Eliminitivism (something liek Dennett) and Dualism (something like Descartes) are two other different perspectives.

As for mental causation, what if I were to write something that caused you to become agitated? Would that not constitute an example of mental causation that has physical consequences such as increasing your pulse? — Wayfarer

That sounds like a physical reduction argument. Some argue that all mental states are physically reducible - then we enter into the Hard Problem of consciousness.

which is characterized by heightened perceptual awareness, emotional engagement, a non-utilitarian or nonjudgmental stance, a diminished sense of self, and often a sense of emerging meaning or form. — praxis

This is the kind of definitional approach that interests me. The question then becomes are there instances of some/all of these elements in items not considered 'an experience of art'. If I view a beautiful river I would not call it Art yet the experience has all the hallmarks of what you mention.

The question for me then is if someone literally created a physical representation of a river that could be easily mistaken for a natural river then has that person produced Art? I guess for you you see no disparity other than in the creation (which does not fit into your definition of Art as an object).

So, you literally call the appreciation of natural beauty that moves someone Art but the Art 'is in the eye of the beholder' rather than the beauty?

But perhaps this isn't where you want to focus? — J

Go for it! I am kinda of the mind that they both suffer with the same underlying problem of how causation is framed.

Yes, I guess thats sums the emotional expression I am referring to. Just because I make this clear distinction it does not mean it is objectively discernable. We will have opinions on what degree of 'moving' is necessary and in what circumstances (as stated previously, I would not call a mountain Art but obviously nature 'moves' people).

We can look at a work of propaganda as possessing artistic qualities, be this through use of artistic composition or otherwise appealing to some indivdual beyond mere intellect. Just because the primary purpose of a work may be intellectual (in this case political) it can still be considered by some to possess enough 'movement' to influence the audience beyond the mere means of political/intellectual persuasion. In fact, many arguments are often dressed up in a pleasing aesthetic purposeless (or unconsciously chosen) so as to make the point hit home more cleanly. Metaphor and analogy can be put to good use in political discourse.

I see the use of art in propaganda as playing with artistic discourse/images so as to draw more appeal to an intellectual point. Of course, plenty of artwork does this too -- Banksy being an obvious case -- yet just because an artwork has a political message it does not necessarily detract from it being an artwork.

I think more confusion comes into play when art is performed rather than itemised. Going back to what I was referring to regarding the differences between static forms and temporal forms. Temporal forms of art (music, novels, plays, etc.,.) are more easily able carry political content without loses artistic significance, as they can play between 'scenes' and create interwoven narratives more than a painting or sculpture can. When Banksy shredded his work at the auction the Artwork became a symbol of a performance -- it gained a certain historical weight --- and if we refer the Act alone (the shredding) as Art we are effectively in the realm of what I would call a conceptual work NOT conceptual art.

I am curious what you think about my thoughts in the OP regarding the difference between painting and drawing? Where do you agree and disagree? Do you see much of a difference?

No. It is an element of what makes art Art. An essential one though.

The use of art includes making us feel certain ways -- but that's also the use of propaganda, for instance, which we'd not call art. — Moliere

Vietnamese propaganda posters are considered Art by some -- including myself. I think propaganda often makes use of art to portray a message. This point may make it easier to see where I am coming from in terms of conceptual art not being art. It is not that ALL propaganda and ALL conceptual art is not art, it is about the intensity of the Art elements -- one key aspect I refer to as 'moving' the subject.

Anyone dedicated knows that there are techiniques they use, intentionally or not, that play on human perception. There is always an element of 'deceit' (maybe too strong a word) in this. An instance of this woudl be how horror movies use low frequency sounds that cause all humans to feel like they are being watched. This is obviously useful if you are trying to induce a certain emotional response to the film they are viewing. An artwork has to draw the eye or ear and -- primarily -- the feelings of those exposed to it. If there is an area of sensory experience I am unsure of when it comes to Art it would be cookery. This I find hard to place within the realm of Art in the sense of Artwork. I think it is in areas like this that we have one term 'art' and another 'Art,' where the former is more in lien with the ancient Greek 'arete' rather than referring to something liek a painting. Of course, the problem is we can talk about the arete of the Art, or art of the Art. This is where I think the mongrel language of English causes confusion.

To get back to the whole issue of Drawing and Painting (got rather sidetracked there!) I do think the element of space comes into play quite substantially. A drawing is often much smaller due to the size of the tools and the application of material onto the paper. A painting has a much larger reaching scope.

An artist out to produce a work -- in any medium -- will often begin with pencil and paper; be this to write dialogue, capture a poetic moment or literally make a rough sketch. The daily use of a tool is not something we find readily in a paintbrush compared to a pen or pencil.

I think the main difference is likely in these elements. The size and scope, as well as the daily familiarity with both tools and materials used in the process. Paint can be made from many things, so there is more of a variety in terms of texture that does not readily lend itself to paintings. There is the fluidity of painting to and layering, that can be something form of ink drawing can produce but is not exactly prone to function in that way.

I do think with more impressionistic and abstracted styles there could be an argument that painters have adopted drawing techniques such as making use of hatching techniques in their own way. Saying that, more ancient forms of Art used such abstraction early on, so realism is likely the 'unusual' case historically for a number of reasons.

I hope it's clear why the 1st two statements seem to contradict the next two. — J

I see no contradiction. Simply stating that Art is X does not mean it cannot be viewed in a variety of ways within X.

The artistic eye is not Art. The audience is disconnected and connected to the piece of art. The source of the emotion is nowhere other than in the people involved. The piece of art engages this emotional response.

This is one item of what makes an artwork an artwork. Obviously a leaf on a tree can give a sublime emotion of beauty, but it is not an artwork simply because it is beautiful. Many (or rather any) items can initiate such emotional responses, but it is the intensity of them that makes something more or less one thing than another.

A rabbit is not a car. A house it not a fruit. A concept is not art. Art can express concepts though, but that is not a defining principle of an artwork. There is no contradiction I have just let a lot unsaid because there is a helluva lot to say about this subject.

I do not need intent to produce an artwork. I do express myself emotionally when I do. It is an exploration of places and times between and around. The same goes for the audience. The artwork itself is merely a vehicle that appears concrete in and of itself. The solidity of it -- in whatever medium -- is enhanced by its beauty (or juxtapostion to beauty).

A urinal can be an object of art. It was designed and made in that particular form, by someone, and most probably expressed something beyond mere functionality to some degree. There is unwrit appeal imprinted upon every human production. We can look upon every object engaged with as Art in this respect, but then if every thing we touch is Art why use the term Art when Handmade or Machinemade serfves that purpose.

I feel like we might be going off track. I am willing to keep this going elsewhere if need be?

In general, I read you as wanting to set up some criteria to divide art from non-art, based on audience response. This is a different strategy from using criteria based on the object itself (what is it made of, who made it, how difficult was it, etc.) but shares the idea that art can be discovered. — J

No I am not. This is one facet of art. My view is based on the artists intent, the audience, the effect on people who view and produce art, and looking upon items with an artistic eye.

Brillo Box can be seen as something like someone noticing something in nature and framing it is a certain way to show it to people. The primary point of Art is to make an emotional connection.

An institute is a poor example of the essence of something. It is open to nefarious political manipulation, not something in the Public Sphere. If you want to cage an animal you can it behave in very predictable ways. Art is like an animal and to frame it as some institutional item is frankly ridiculous.

I actually deleted a paragraph earlier but now I think it is appropriate to mention this straneg habit people have of using an individual lens to view nebulous ideas. I am not looking at this from ONE position. I have considered many items and my complete answer woudl be an amalgam of many things. A one view only perspective is a terrible approach when it comes to understanding anything with any reasonable depth. I have mentioned ONE primary criteria of many.

Edit: Meaning I think it is not simply about the audience or the artist, it is about both and the relations between. In some sense any institutionalisation of Art is moving the experience away from the human experience. In the Art World critics of across every medium of Art have voiced disapproval only to change their minds due to the majority. The question is then how much of this is pandering to popular opinion and how much is genuine in the critique of Art. The critique of Art is parallel to Art in general. It is a rationalisation of a highly irrational realm. This is where the problems arise in asigning value to a work as Art or Non-art.

With technologies such as photography Art seeps into other mediums. We should not confuse the variety of mediums as expressing anything other Art.

My first response to the OP was to consider the tools we use. The drawing is more closely related to writing apparatus, whilst a paintbrush is historically associated with replicating images, both realistically and abstractly.

Yes, roughly. Is it appropriate for me to ask into some specifics? (You don't have to pursue this with me if it's a pain in the neck.) — J

Not at all. Hopefully not derailing the thread.

I'll take "current era" to mean the era in which something like Fountain, or the plant-and-email piece, could be considered art. — J

The last century or so. The shift has picked up momentum with the advent of globalisation and technological developments.

To me, this implies that there's a sort of counter-artworld, or shadow artworld, in which works like Fountain are not considered art. Is that what you mean? — J

I am not at all interested in talking about some abstract Art World.

My question was meant to focus on consensus, on why conceptual art, understood in the broadest terms, is now accepted by the artworld as an important type of art. — J

Maybe it is by The Art World, but there are people who do not regard a lot of conceptual art as art. Roger Scruton is one prominent example.

Do you think the concensus in the street would be the same? If you asked the average joe to to say what is or isn't art would they agree that a urinal is?

On your view, this would have been a mistake. So how did this mistaken consensus carry the day? — J

I do not think it has. I think more than anything abstract artwork riled some people, but then they came around to it, and then conceptual work did a similar thing. The difference with conceptual work is that it is often nothing to do with art as it is an intellectual exercise (very fascinating but not art).

Brillo Box is something that does something quite unique and is a better example of a work that straddles both areas. It reveals beauty in the mundane and presents how common day-to-day trappings can bleed into pop-culture giving higher value to something often less appreciated.

Perhaps to understand what I mean you would not call a single sentence a novel, nor a paragraph nor a page. You could write something that resembles a novel on a page perhaps, but in sentence I doubt it (unless the sentence is a page long!). This shows how there is a poitn where something is or is not art, and I frame this in regards to the weight of emotional engagement.

Anyway, baby playign up. Later :)

"People are more likely to believe a big lie than a small one. This aligns with their nature. They know they might lie about trivial things, but a massive lie? They’d hesitate to go that far. A big lie doesn’t even occur to them, so they can’t imagine someone else being capable of such shameless distortion of facts."

(I won’t mention the author to focus on the idea itself.) — Astorre

Reminds me of The Art of War

I'm not sure I like it(EDIT: conceptual art as a whole) -- I'm arguing on the categorical side that it is art, good or bad. — Moliere

What makes it Art for you then?

Which usually means I'm missing something -- what is it about this that so many other people like that I'm not seeing? — Moliere

I would say it is the intellectual exporation rather than its aesthetic appeal - because there is no sensorial beauty or emotional movement.

I think if we just believe what people say (ie. "It is Art!") then there is a problem. A plea to our own ignorance does nothing to reveal what the reasons are for them holoding the stance that all conceptual work is actually artwork.

Someone placing a crucifix in a jar and filling it with their own urine is more or less a poltical statement of sorts that encourages people to engage with theological views, views on Art and aesthetics and could even be an example of the human use of symbols and icons in modern society. All of this is intellectual at its heart; and possibly an interesting exploration of religious life and secular life. If it shocks or provokes negativity then there is emotional movement, but I would look upon such reactions as being inflicted on the person rather than being experienced wholesale. The viewer, if appalled, is not in emotional engagement, they are looking upon the item as a piece of propaganda.

One could argue that this is still emotionally engaging the viewer, so it is Art in some respect. I could agree with the point that it 'moves' the viewer, but I would still not call it Art as many things can move people. It was produced to be viewed, yet the emphasis is strongly upon the intellect rather than taking someone on an emotional journey. I have no real issue with people disagreeing the finer points, but I have issues if people insist upon Art being Art where it lacks reasonably prominent emotional content.

How do you get to that point? Assertion, or do you have an argument? — Moliere

I will have to think about how to answer this more fully. It is a deeply serious question and there is a deeply serious response (I will avoid the word 'answer'). Hopefully I can articulate this more by responding to your other points. Hopefully!

100% NO. If a work is not emotionally moving it is absolutely not art. There is no exception.
— I like sushi

You still standing by that one? — Moliere

Yes. The only caveat being that I fully understand this is not a binary item. It is a gradable item. I am by no means stating that I regard ALL conceptual art as non-art because some of it has aesthetic qualities to it that are parallel to paintings, poetry, etc.,.

In further opposition someone might argue that many other human experiences involve 'being moved' and therefore they are art too. That is not what I am saying either.

To get to the initial question you asked I think it is precisely this kind of Venn diagramic thinking that misses the point. The quantities are not legiable intellectually, yet the message within some artwork can certainly provoke intellectual thought and contemplation.

The philosopher in me will say "Well.. since you done said that it seems we can reason about it. And I'm very certain that what we just watched, which involved us emotionally, did not involve them at all -- so is it art?" — Moliere

The question is the degree to which we can reason about that serves our purpose.

Open question there -- how do you resolve those differences in experience of art, given your strong stance that if a work is not emotionally moving it is not art? — Moliere

Experience; meaning perspective and exposure. Everyone is different and tastes vary. Nothing extraordinary about this.

Something is not Art to someone if it does nothing for them. This is purely about the artistic eye rather than the artwork. When I say the majority of 'conceptual art' is not Art I say so not due to my artistic eye -- and admittedly I could change my mind in the void between the non-existent terms of Art and Non-art in the purest sense -- rather I am looking at the intent and purpose of the work not judging it based on taste.

The real life example I gave of the plant and emails is precisely what I mean by the Work being about the Concept and wholly absent of aesthetic qualities. It does not move the observer, it only makes them think about the rationality of the item/s on display. It is not Good or Bad, it is making a point only not expressing anything on a level of emotional intensitive beyond the mundane.

IF a conceptual Work really reaching into someone and insensifies a previously mundane experience, then it is shifting towards Artwork.

I have even gone into the whole area of the different mediums of Art and my thoughts on how static art and temporal art moves people in different ways in respect to space and time. I can explain that further, not sure if you recall what I said about this before? As examples, paintings and sculptures are static while poetry and dance is temporal. The former is captured in a static moment yet can be perceived spacial in differing ways (a talented artist will lead you through a piece of artwork) expanding beyond its singular definition, whereas the latter is experienced across time from beginning to end (a talented artistic will also capture you in static moments) contracting the temporal space into an emotional singularity. We can look into various mediums such as film, music and various combinations and genres much, much more deeply to gain understanding of this too.

Here it becomes more apparent what conceptual work is doing. It is clearly working to provoke thought above and beyond feeling. We are being asked to understand it either by stretching it out or by reducing it down (depending on the medium).

A static conceptual work (object) sits still for us to observe. We contemplate it and analysis it with a dull sense of aesthetic sensibility at best.

A static Artwork does not sit still, it encapsulates feelings and carries us with them.

I will try to be concise.

So do you have a story, or explanation, for what happened to (so-called, in your view) art in the 20th century? — J

Politics, technology, economics and numerous other items. Pretty sure you can extrapolate from the dynamic changes over the past century and a half that there has been substantial changes in how societies function and interact on a global and local scale. Art is part of the human exchange and experience so will necessarily reflect these changes in some form or another (some even believe art preempts these changes).

Why were the lines not drawn where you clearly see them? — J

I am pretty sure they were drawn by many and over human history have been something of debate and interest. The difference in the current era is likely more about the rate of change due to the numerous factors briefly outlined above.

Are you suggesting that the artworld did not see those lines, though they were clear, or that they saw them but disregarded them? — J

I was not suggesting either. Since you have brought the historic lens into play here I would probably say yes to both. Some did see, some didn't. Some did disregard them, some didn't. Again, my emphasis on this historical perpsective would be on the rate of change.

Just trying to understand how to fit your view into a historical narrative. — J

Hopefully that sketches out roughly what I think about the historical aspect?

I would likely have the same reaction, if I saw this work. But are you open to the idea that emotional response is not criteriological? That objects aren't divided into "art" and "non-art" based on whether they are emotionally moving to someone? — J

100% NO. If a work is not emotionally moving it is absolutely not art. There is no exception.

That is not to say every emotional instance has to be artistic or art led.

Again, none of this is about quality. It seems quite possible to me that the plant-and-email artwork is simply poor art. But I'd have to see it. — J

I think this is where you are quite simply wrong. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and this is where I think people get confused. There is a huge difference between looking upon some object with an artistic eye and an actual artwork.

If you want to see it just look at your desk or a wall. If we are callign literally everything 'art' then the term has no practical use. Also, it is a mistake to confuse an elegant idea for a beautiful image, simply because we are used to framing those words without a similar field of context.

It just takes some careful thought across all mediums of art to see what it is and what it is not. White noise is not art, but white noise can be used in a muscial composition to excentuate this or that rhythm by punctuating what is harmonious and musical with what is not. 'Conceptual art' is this kind of White noise. On its own legs it is an artless amalgam of atomised items put to use to express an intellectual thought. A true piece of art 'moves' people not merely stimulates them to 'think' and/or um and ah about something clever.

Which usually means I'm missing something -- what is it about this that so many other people like that I'm not seeing? — Moliere

I like it. It is just not Art. That is my primary point. Anyone can call something 'art' but that does not mean it is. I have seen the same thing in poetry too to some extent where people write a single word and call it a poem. No! It is not a poem. Is it interesting and trying to get a point across? Perhaps, but that does not make it a poem. The same goes for most 'conceptual art'.

Maybe it would be better to refer to such works as spandrels. They do not occupy the space known as Art, but they fill in some structural gaps - in a very loose analogous sense - between how the intellect can inhabit space and how aesthetics can.

He blurred the line between art and philosophy. For him, a work of art can be a piece of philosophy as well, it can teach us something specifically philosophical -- so a philosophical sortie, if you like. — J

I am not saying it cannot. An example like the one I gave I would never call Art though. I found the ideas she was trying to express wholly philosophical. There was nothing about a random plant and several printed emails stuck on a wall that I find emotionally moving in any way shape or form.

You certainly seem to be obfuscated, my foundation is an understanding of systems (something, it would seem, you have no understanding of), defined from first principles - founded on the "... basic, seminal, fundamental, primordial truth of the existence of physical things ... If we cannot agree on this, that physical things exist in fact; our only option would be somewhere between the philosophical areas ... called nihilism and fatalism. And, for sure, solutions to our problems cannot and will not be found in these areas." p9 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence - words in italic (from the quote) is defined unambiguously! — Pieter R van Wyk

Empty words. You have presented next to nothing.

Author: I have all the answers!
Forum Members: Okay. Tell us.
Author: Here is a quote from my book that basically shows I am a physical realist.
Me: So what? You have simply shown a philosophical stance and yet also insinuate that philosophy is not what you are doing.

People have been patient here. You have given nothing but a poor attempt to sell a book - which frankly I would not read even if you paid me at this point given your inability to engage in a genuine and frank manner (ironic given that you ultimately claim to do this in 'plain English').

This thread is dead to me if the next few response actually present something.

Maybe participating in another thread would help you to reveal your ideas? Either way, it is fun to jump into other discussions and see what other people think in general.

GL

If they have nothing to do with aesthetics I do not think we can call this Art at all.

The reason I state this is partially due to what was mentioned previous regarding the Noun and Verb of the term 'paint'. The problem I see is that literally anyone can view anything with an 'artistic' eye, yet that does not make the item under inspection a 'piece of art'.

Let me explain further. A mountain can be beautiful, yet it would be bizarre to call it a 'piece of art'. A building, architecural design, may possess some unintentional beauty beyond its primary function, just like a painted fence. A fence painted a particular shade and tone may in-iteself not be at all artistic, yet along side the composition of the surrounding area may highlight aspect that draw the eye more readily to it.

As you can see there are nuances here, but neverthless I state that Art must contain aesthetic quality or it is not art. Even a mathematician can refer to the 'beauty' of a formula, but this is quite abstracted from a more pure sensory experience. With conceptual art the aesthetic is stripped clean away and what we are left with is something more akin to a rational metaphor. Again, here I can see how it can be argued that there is 'aesthetics' within this, in terms of the cleverness and juxtapositional placing of the work in question to express an idea, but the primary focus is on a rational idea, a philosophical stance, and the aesthetic of the work is deemed utterly irrelevant.

Example: Someone stole a plant from France, brought it back to the UK and emailed the gardens telling them what she had done. She then displayed the plant and the email exchange in a gallery.

My interpretation of this: It is a political action that gets people to think about ownership but there is absolute nothing aesthetic about this. It is certainly an interesting way of drawing attention to something, but what is being focused on is intellectual ideas not aesthetics qualities. That said, I am not at all suggesting that Artwork cannot possess intellectual content (far from it!), my point is that Artwork is not primarilt focused on the intellect, so I would describe what people call 'conceptual art' as more in line with a philosophical endeavor - which is why people here may disagree.

There is a differenece between an artistic eye and an artistic work. Both deal with aesthestics and emotion above raw intelect and rationality.

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde for the millioneth time, Art is useless.

@Banno @Moliere @Janus How do you feel about 'conceptual art'? Personally i do nto see it as Art at all, but more of a philosophical sortie into the world of Art.

It could just be that farmers vote for policies that suit them.

I imagine more conservative values suit rural life and tradition in the face of an increasingly difficult area of production?

Are farmers 'working class'? It is a pretty specialised job that requires numerous skills as far as I know. It is not exactly just manual labour, you have people having to manage complex system that can fail if the weather turns.

I would be surprised to find any farmers leaning hard to the left. They are living a long held tradition that has shaped the British countryside. It woudl be more peculiar to find them looking to change things up.

Obviously ... or maybe not to some?

I guess conscription is different if we think it is okay to conscript children, but I don't think that. It seems as though conscription also entails adulthood. — Leontiskos

Would be nice to see minimum age for army as 90 yrs old ;)

I'll be affected by this, as I turn 16 in two months. I would just recommend that young men carefully consider their politics and only vote if they are well informed. — Jotaro

Nice to have someone so young here. Do you believe everyone should be able to vote when they are 16? What is your individual perspective on the matter considering you are perhaps closer to understanding the general view of the 16 yr olds you know.

Bible literalism is bonkers. — unenlightened

It is. Hence why there is a vast swathe of scholar in theology who study non-literal interpretations.

Why are you here? Are you looking for people who believe the world was created a few thousand years ago? You will probably not find anyone like that here.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra is not a good place to start for Neitzsche. I would go for 'Beyond Good and Evil' and then work your way backwards before tackling Thus Spake.

For ideas about existentialism and secularism I would maybe go for reading Marcuse's 'One-Dimensional Man' alongside Mircea Eliade's 'The Sacred and The Profane'.

Other than that, good old Plato and The Republic is a good introductionary text covering many different areas.

Have fun :)

I think abstract paintings and drawings are representational in a difference sense in that they represent abstract objects or images. — Janus

Agreed.

@Banno Can you give an example of a painting that isn't a picture? Also, are you using 'picture' differently from 'image'?

Maybe my tone came across wrong. Was just driving home the point that there is conclusive evidence. That said, there is the problem of determining a reasonable age. From 18 to 16 is perhaps a bigger leap than people realise.

Would be better return to 1969 where the minimum age was 21 imo.

More broadly I look at this as being about experience combined with knowledge. As referred to by previous replies here, we often think we are more capable than we really are, and only with accumulated wisdom do we realise that when we thought we had a good grasp of life it turns out we were quite deeply in error - often in more than a singular aspect of human living.

And what if this discussion itself, this entire dispute imitating a "civil society" (an open society according to Popper) is only part of the performance, where democracy verifies itself through our own questions? — Astorre

I would like to add something to this. Broadly speaking Popper was doing part anthropology and part philosophy when talking about Open and Closed society. I have often found it useful to look at an individual human life and view it as a blueprint of human evolution both biologically, and in the abstract, poltically.

So, when we are born we experience Closed Society. Infants do not question or ask, they simply live according to their biological requirements and remain largely passive. As we develop into adulthood there is a transitionary period where Open Society comes into play. In loose terms we could use Piaget's developmental markers to show how this works. If I recall correctly (probably not) children have gone through the required stages of cognitive development by age 7 or so (?), so you may ask why not set voting age to 7 yrs old.

Just because someone is equipped wioth certain tools it does not mean they know how to use them. Plus, adolescence is when broader socio-political capability are just beginning to flourish. A teenager (13-19) has one foot in Closed Society and one foot in Open Society. They are open to any new ideas, understand the rational use of them, but have yet to hone the skill to compare and contrast.

Contrary to everything I have said there are some interesting perpsective against my position. Neoteny may look liek something that backs up my claim but it has been suggested that modern life requires retention of behavioural traits in juveniles, as it allows for better adaptation in an increasingly complex social environment.

I am by no means saying outright that either view is all bad or all good. I just see some moves made in politics as being about gaining immediate votes rather than creating a better system. This was very much the case with the collaboration between Lib Dems and Conservatives all those years ago where the amount of propaganda flooding the media ruined the referendum for reform that the Lib Dems had in mind. It was one time where Labour and The Conservatives joined forces as it was mutually benefical for them to keep the current system.

Beyond the cyncism of politicking though, there are some interesting questions regarding who qualifies to vote and - more importantly - finding a happy medium that balances out the best selective processes in a practical sense. Here again we find the issue tha both Popper and Berlin talked about, with Berlin's Pluralism showing the aarduous journey all civil society faces between the balancing of common and disperate interests that will alamost always conflict in some unexpected manner - hence Negative Liberty being the favoured choice for Berlin, rather than radical revolutionary movements.

Metaphors exist.

When I was 18 and able to vote I knew I did not know enough so I voted for the Lib Dems in order to provide myself with choices in the future. I have not voted since and no longer live in the UK.

After graduation, I was more than sure that until the age of 21 people should not be given any right to vote, since they simply do not understand anything about life. Today I am 37 and I sincerely believe that until the age of 30-35, people generally understand little, but I have to agree that their immaturity affects my life. I wonder what I'll say at 45? — Astorre

I can fully relate to this. I think 40 is when you get to point of reasonable balance (as they say, life begins at 40), but 30 is probably a reasonable number too.

One thing I am certain about. Teenagers are not at all clued into anything in any real sense. Maybe a handful are specialised and have had experience in certain areas, but this is more likely to bite them back in the future due to having tunnel vision for one particular facet of life.

We all know we are all stupid. and stupider still when younger. Why fan the flames of political ignorance?

Sure. But the question is whether that difference makes a difference. Given that the system is very rough and ready, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to think that it does not. Intellectually, we're on a slippery slope and political views are, of course, in play. — Ludwig V

It is unreasonable to assume something when there is plenty of hard scientific evidence showing how adolescent brains are far less risk averse, immature in term of planning, managing emotions and delay gratification.

It is not exactly 'They gave me candy, so I will vote for them!' but it is not that far off this either when we are talking about the difference between 16 and 18 yr olds, let alone older.