But you have failed to take into account that many people that are atheists never believed in any god, would that mean that they never had any truths? — Sir2u

I don’t know how they would have come to that conclusion. Would that belief be from birth?

So the preposition that god exists is true, not a belief. — Sir2u

Yes, for believers God is a fact.

Does that mean that one should not believe the truth? — Sir2u

I don’t see why they would do that. Maybe I’ve misunderstood.

But you still don’t think I’m correct in thinking that philosophy is structured on reason and that to go off the rails is irrational and therefore to be discarded as being of no use except to put us back on track?

No I don’t accept their logic because I don’t believe they proved God did not exist. I’m saying it’s an assumption on their part that they’ve proven this.

Edit: which is not to say I would not be irrational in other circumstances.

And while you're at it, what is it you imagine truth to be? — tim wood

Well for those who believe in God then God is the truth. And you help reinforce my point. What is this truth that has replaced the truth of God?

Unanswerable because I do not understand the terms. — tim wood

I shouldn’t have to do this but if it makes it easier then fine.

“ Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

This definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Is there a God?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism.” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

So you mean morals and beliefs, not truths. — Sir2u

No, I mean truths.

If they have stopped believing then whatever convinced them that they were wrong would be filling the space. — Sir2u

Then what is that?

Here you actually demonstrate an instance of going against logic, being illogical or irrational. — Metaphysician Undercover

No it doesn’t have the power to make us believe any logical inference or act in the way we see as reasonable. But if we do against that logical inference then we are, as you say, being illogical or irrational. Which is what you said about proving God does not exist being irrational, therefore breaking the structure of reason.

If you believe that philosophy and science have proven that God does not exist, then you'd be going against logical inferences to still believe in God. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, if someone themselves is convinced that logically God does not exist then your argument is correct.

But I’m saying though they might have proved that God doesn’t exist doesn’t make it so for me, so I would not be part of your thoughts on going against logic.

I hope I’ve explaining this well enough.

Over time more and more people have come to believe and insist that God does not exist. Some people have grown up with idea of God’s existence then repudiated, for whatever reasons, that possibility. With that denial goes all previously accepted ideas of truth about the universe, themselves, morality and life and death, among many other beliefs.

It’s hardly likely, though maybe possible, for those people to then exist in a vacuum. So what instead have they filled that vacuum with?

Well are you or aren’t you?

There have been efforts in art that we could regard as producing something original with the Surrealists and Dadaists.

“ Automatic drawing (distinguished from drawn expression of mediums) was developed by the surrealists, as a means of expressing the subconscious. In automatic drawing, the hand is allowed to move "randomly" across the paper. In applying chance and accident to mark-making, drawing is to a large extent freed of rational control. Hence the drawing produced may be attributed in part to the subconscious and may reveal something of the psyche, which would otherwise be repressed.” Wikipedia

I think their work was more about tapping the unconscious mind rather than looking for originality, though you could say they are the same thing. But the point was that the work which would otherwise be repressed was produced without rational control.

The same might be said about William Burrough’s “Cut-ups”. The problem was that few could relate to what they were looking at or reading because the conscious mind works against that confusion, true and original though it might be.

So can we really cope with truly original work? Do we just reject it as crazy or threatening?

I would say that the decision to drop the bomb was a philosophical choice. It's a decision which required going beyond a direct application of scientific principles, and also beyond the direct application of religious principles. So the decision relies on some further intuition. Notice that the vast majority of any seemingly important decisions which we make on a day to day basis are like this. — Metaphysician Undercover

I would regard that decision as a pragmatic decision. The morality might have caused some doubt but ultimately that took second place. I’m not sure where I’d slot pragmatic thought.

Well I don't really agree, because philosophy addresses issues which fall out of the reach of formal logic.
So what it "falls back on" is an odd sort of reasoning, like abductive, which is better described as intuition rather than structured logic. — Metaphysician Undercover

An odd sort of reasoning it might be but it’s still reasoning and you can’t go against what are logical inferences otherwise it’s unreasonable to claim so.

We commonly make decisions to do things which would have huge import if we went another way, (like not to kill the person I am mad at for example) but we are already so culturally ingrained to recognize what we are doing as correct, through either the principles of religion, or science, that we don't even think about, or consider any alternatives. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is probably true. They are culturally ingrained. But as I hoped I suggested they are all in their own way about addressing the world and our place in it. The fact that philosophy and science might have “proved” God doesn’t exist doesn’t make it so. Each is a way of conceiving the world. Each seems to lose ground to another way of perceiving things. Science is under a degree of challenge these days because it doesn’t seem to be satisfying people and their concerns and in one sense they regard science as the problem. Climate Change is not cause by religion or philosophy.

This is difficult stuff for me. Well the experiments are anyway.

The following quote, is it a standard possibility for Quantum Theorists ?

“Young’s experiment, when done with single photons or even single particles of matter, such as electrons and neutrons, is a conundrum to behold, raising fundamental questions about the very nature of reality. Some have even used it to argue that the quantum world is influenced by human consciousness, giving our minds an agency and a place in the ontology of the universe.” https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-does-quantum-theory-actually-tell-us-about-reality/

For the purposes of any discussion ever we only deal with agreements. Big T doesn't enter the conversation, so I don't care if it exists or not. — khaled

I think there must be millions of people out there who would consider it a luxury to wonder if the Big T exists. For the them the Big T is staring them in the face every day. What does “ validity” matter to them, or “relative”, or “ absolute”.

The whole idea behind the Big T is that things will finally make sense and everything will fall into place and, presumably, the world and our lives will be better for it, because they make sense. Admittedly it’s a very optimistic outlook. But if we’re seeking something we’ve already largely decided on then we maybe looking in the wrong direction, because the Big T is right there, but it’s like ”No, that can’t be it, that’s not what I was looking for.”

For the purposes of any discussion ever we only deal with agreements. — khaled

If I’m reading you right the quest for the Big T is unnecessary or irrelevant.

I am not sure what point you are saying about the discussion I had with Possibility. — Jack Cummins

Sorry, of course you were confused. I had mistakenly thought you were involved in the OP “The purpose of Creativity”.

I’m assuming your’re an atheist. .

It occurs to me that this forum is more about debating than philosophy. Which is fine with me. We can test ideas and see how they fit and realign them with other thoughts if we think they contribute. They don’t always have to be valid. They might just spark some unexpected way of looking at your favourite obsession. But we generally feel that not only is our little obsession more interesting than anyone else’s, but we know more about it than anyone else. Sometimes someone challenges that and the most effective response to that challenge is to demand that they prove it true with a capital “T”. And of course it can’t be done. Why? Because they refuse your thesis, which of course is all it is.

It seems to me to be incredibly egotistical to think anyone comes near to truth with a capital “T”. But that’s our nature to varying degrees. If it’s not then you turn away. Why bother? But if there has to be a holy grail then we have to go looking for it. Some people think there’s some nobility in that. But really it’s just mental calisthenics.

If art and the arts are not the primary source of creativity — Jack Cummins

I don’t think the work is the source of creativity. The work is the result of creativity. And as in the discussion with Possibility, in a spontaneous dance the work itself disappears as you watch it.

The truths and/or morals we create and appreciate ourselves. — Outlander

What would you call these truths? The evolution of morals I appreciate. But am I right that you regard the truths as those things that are inherent, like “good”, pleasurable, bad, even terrible. And is this truth down to what we experience?

Edit: because wouldn’t a truth have to be applicable to everyone and understood?

200 years ago, no one was pontificating on a philosophy forum about the degradation of art over the course of history. 200 years ago, art was as bourgeoisie as it is now, — Noble Dust

I understand your point there. But I’m going way back. I have a sculpture from New Guinea carved out of wood of a bird as large as the man whose shoulders it stands on. All the skill and craft of the person who made it is in the sculpture. But he wasn’t making it to hang on the wall to make his hut a little more homely. This meant something. This was a time when you might have hurried past a mask hanging from a tree that makes you shiver with fear as you pass by.

The same as when someone believed a crucifix protected them from the evil out there that actually existed to them.

In old black and white movies I’ve watched Aborigines dancing. The men seem to be duplicating the movement of particular animals, like an Emu. The movements they make create the emu. Now are they pretending to be the Emu or do they actually become an Emu?

Those are just two aspects of art: sculpture and dance. Which we still have. But what does it means now?

In relation to some things that’s possible. But I don’t think so with art. I was interested in all art movements and periods but there were some that had more meaning to me than others and some artists in particular who were trying to connect the dots as well. It’s also tied in with thoughts and reading on anthropology, religion, early comprehension of the world, myths and the unique qualities we have of comprehending and explaining the world and ourselves. Like what I found of interest in the article on dreaming about Metaphoric thinking.

Wait, to accommodate what? — Noble Dust

The fact that art is largely irrelevant now and the idea of creativity being any form of expression. We are probably all creative creatures in a primitive sense. But most have lost touch with that and don’t even know what it really means. It’s like the vestigial fingers of the dolphin.

So you find that you're working back towards something more primal in art? — Noble Dust

I’ve thought that for a long time but time has helped me join the dots. In fact I’m more interested in thinking about it than doing it these days. My feeling is that what we have now is a relic of what we once were.

Can art be creative? The answer may be, not any more. Unless we reframe the meaning of creative to accomodate that, which I think is happening.

Interesting, because the more I think about art these days the more I find myself tying it back to a primitive nature and therefore it having greater significance than how it’s presented or sold to us.

Thanks. That does explain where my friend is coming from. However the idea of Quantum Theory having crossed over from empirical science into the realm of theoretical philosophy seems to me a bit of a get-out-of-jail card. Not to mention the idea that you suggest of

a Virtual Thing is as close to Nothing as we can get in the Real world — Gnomon

It all looks a bit slight of hand.

I mean you can't make something from nothing and everything made is usually a variation of something else. — Darkneos

I think that’s an interesting point of view and pretty much what I was suggesting until @Noble Dust posted:

Sure but that's utilitarian originality rather than artistic, which is what we've been discussing. — Noble Dust

Meaning that for the sake of the OP we need to focus on originality in art. Which makes sense. But what interests me about your posts is that you can stand back and look at art reasonably objectively because as you said:

It's all been done before just with a different skin. But if that is the case then what is the point of making art then? — Darkneos

So I think you should chip away at these posts because, from my point of view, art is so important to me and yet not to others and we make every effort to bolster that point of view. Because it’s possible it’s importance is zero.

I studied art therapy and I saw that it was a way of tapping into the deep levels of imagery, uncovering layers of meanings and emotions — Jack Cummins

I don’t understand why it’s called “therapy”. It’s not as if those who engage with art on a committed level are seeking some sort of therapy. Though art is obviously something that drives them. Nor do I understand why it has healing potential unless they’re in a state that actually doing anything would be good for them. From your experience how does it help?

Edit: and do you think they’re actually creating or just doing something. I know that drawing can be used in psychology to explain or make available difficult internal problems. Is that what they’re doing?

The bolder parts are my interest, apart from the general theory.


“ ... dreaming can be seen as the "default" position for the activated brain when it is not forced to focus on physical and social reality by (1) external stimuli and (2) the self system that reminds us of who we are, where we are, and what the tasks are that face us.”

From a cognitive perspective, dreams express people's "conceptions," which are also the basis for action in the waking world. Dreams are a dramatic and perceptible embodiment of schemas, scripts, and general knowledge. They are like plays that the mind stages for itself when it doesn't have anything specific to do.

However, there is also a significant minority of dreams, perhaps as many as 30% for some adults, which have no easily discernable connections to the person's waking life.

They are more like sagas or adventure stories; Foulkes (1999, p. 136) calls such dreams "narrative-driven" to contrast them with dreams that seem to be based on personal concerns.

Fourth, in-depth investigations of dream journals from a few excellent recallers might help to explain the aspects of dream content that are not continuous with waking conceptions and concerns. These anomalous aspects of dream content may be the products of metaphoric thinking, although very little progress has been made in testing this cognitively based hypothesis (Domhoff, 2003b). Or it may be that unusual juxtapositions, blended settings, metamorphoses, and sudden scene changes reveal the limits of the mind under the conditions that produce dreaming (Domhoff, 2007; Foulkes, 1999).

The Case for a Cognitive Theory of Dreams. https://dreams.ucsc.edu/Library/domhoff_2010a.html

Yes I agree. I’ve been doing a bit of reading on dreams and what’s going on there.

because, at least in my individual experience, these experiences of artistic originality that elicit these strong emotions often feel familiar. It's not a feeling of "oh this is totally new I don't know what this is". It's a feeling of "this is totally new and yet...I'm feeling almost deja vu". Maybe that's just me. But my sense is that this subjective originality experience (if you will) carries with it some kind of psychological/spiritual detritus (choose whichever adjective fits your worldview). — Noble Dust

Absolutely agree. Which of course opens up another can of worms.

I am saying there is no neutral copying that is not creative. Even what someone might call copying - rendering what I think would naively be called a realist rendition of a thing or person's image - is actually creative. You are making stuff up that that is not 'out there'. — Coben

Yes I would agree with you there. The painting still exists as a thing in itself. It’s not the jug it’s a rendition of the jug in two dimensional form. And that artist could easily have titled the painting “This is not a jug.”

So maybe it’s the experience of being stunned by what you see, or excited and inspired. Which becomes very important in a homogenised world.

Well art was always like that though. — Darkneos

What do you mean?

I’ve been trying to articulate why the movies of David Lynch, speaks more truth to me than many documentaries, — samja

I don’t think that many feel that way, which is why you feel that a Lynch movie expresses more about truth. Nor do I don’t think it’s because he shows reality as illusory or that the illusions are a manifestation of something real.

So much of what we watch or take part in is a commercial venture. And it purports to show us something about ourselves, which it never achieves. In so many films everything is formatted. The dialogue is written to lead us through the film, to string the narrative together. The emotions are revealed at their most basic level: swearing, laughing, crying. There is accompanying music to indicate how we should feel about scenes, and there is always the stereotypical characters. We know life is more complex than that.

Harold Pinter did the same with his plays. The raw emotion, the things said that are rarely said that reveal something about who we are. To me this is what art really is. It’s not there to comfort or instruct, it’s there to cut through our protective egos. Not a lot of people want to do that.

don't think it is correct to class religion and philosophy together, and separate science from these two. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you’re right. I tried to correct myself in my ‘second thoughts’ post.

What separates religion from philosophy, is that religion is always structured, as an institution. — Metaphysician Undercover

In the beginning I don’t think that’s necessarily true. It’s definitely become structured and as a consequence a little irrelevant. But don’t you think that despite philosophy’s openness to questioning it largely falls back on logic and reason, which is about as structured as you can get. And the same with science.

The individual will need to turn to philosophy in order to develop the means for making an informed judgement. — Metaphysician Undercover

I certainly value the need for making informed judgements or choices. But it seems to me that some choices can only be made on the basis of either religion, philosophy or science. Are all philosophical choices correct? Or science? Or religion? What was the decision to drop a bomb on Hiroshima based on?

hence the insistence by the group to subjugate the individual. "The good of the many outweigh the good of the one", "the greater good", etc. With the determination of the self, as an independent entity and unattached to the group, comes the threat that said determination may spread throughout the group, reducing the engagement in the group and weakening the group.
— Book273

Do you think this is the reason people want to fit in so badly or is there something else going on? — Brett

I constantly strive to understand the "why" of trying to fit in. It seems to be based primarily on perceived inadequacy of the individual trying to fit it, as if by not fitting in "they will be found out" and then their created world would implode, or some equally horrific result will come about. — Book273

You seem to be saying that the problem of fitting in is a problem that the individual has with themselves. That once their inadequacy is revealed their world will implode. Are you saying that you think that of the individual or that the community thinks that?

My questioning in this area has yielded a multitude of answers that boil down to "because not fitting in is bad, because it means you don't fit in with the group." — Book273

We may have reached a point where traditional ideas, evolutionary ideas, on community and the individual have reached a point of no real relevance. People really don’t feel they need others to survive. What was once done by the community is now done by the government. Add to that the influence of technology and we have a very atomised community. So how can people relate to ideas of the individual and community?

Originally the individual and the community operated on one hand washing the other. The individual contributed to creating a community, the community offered the individual permanence and security to grow, and so on.

It’s possible the inadequacy one feels in not fitting is a very existential moment. Living completely alone with no contact with others over a long period of time does have an effect. We simply need each other, even if we can’t stand each other.

I had always considered us to be empathic creatures by nature, hence the forming of successful, cohesive communities. But if one form of empathy is cognitive and some are like that and others aren’t, then I have to assume that empathy for those people, going right back in time, could only come about when cognitive faculties had reached a certain point of development. So therefor empathy could not happen until that point was reached. That also suggests that different groups of mankind reached a point of empathising at different stages.

Even with the Picasso Dora Marr you can tell it's her, there isn't anything original about it. — Darkneos

In the sense that you can tell that “The Weeping Woman” is Dora Maar then yes it’s not original. But in the portrait of the pain, suffering and anxiety behind the crying then you might consider that as being original or certainly creative. I don’t think there’s anything derivative in that painting. To say it’s derivative you need reference to something earlier that it resembled.

But it wouldn't be creative though would it because it's nothing new. — Darkneos

As I said, I don’t think you can use creative and original/new as synonyms. You might disagree. I think there are many things that are creative but not original. It’s creative for instance to rewrite “Romeo and Juliet” as “West Side Story”.

It's all been done before just with a different skin. But if that is the case then what is the point of making art then? I mean I wouldn't be making anything new. — Darkneos

I would agree that we may have reached a point of stasis today in the visual arts. And I think you’re also right: what’s the point of making art if it’s just rehashing existing firms? Which is why art seems to have found itself in places like therapy. If that’s it’s purpose then it’s now nothing more than moving paint around on a surface for peace of mind.

Representative might be better, though this usually includes works of art that look like things we encounter (or can't encounter like unicorns) but which the artist did not work with a model to create. — Coben

By this I take it you mean someone may draw a face or figure from memory, not a model.

The creation was all in the thing itself. — Coben

And in this you mean creation is in the jug itself being the subject of the painting.

But the thing itself is generally very different from representative art based on it or representing it. — Coben

Yes, they are both things in themselves.

It is creative to manage to represent and how one represents is generally a style, which is creative. — Coben

To represent the jug in a painting, in what we might call a realistic style, we’re relying on the same laws that manage the way we see things with our own eyes: perspective, depth of field, form, etc. Applied to a painting these are what you might call “tricks” to imitate how we see. Picasso and Braque tore that idea apart. In their cubist paintings they created a way of perceiving that might be considered more truthful because when we look at a jug we know there is a reverse side to it and we have thoughts about jugs and so on. More importantly they did away with the tricks of perspective and depth of field.

So a style can make use of the “tricks” or it can discard them totally. So I don’t think style is a door into understanding creativity or originality. You might refer to Cubism as a style but does it really plain much? I’m not sure about this. Maybe style is a factor in creativity, maybe it isn’t.

Representative art based on studying the real thing is not copying. I — Coben

I think it is copying, because of the “tricks” brought into play.

The originality of representative art is in how the original thing is conveyed/used/represented. — Coben

I don’t think that quite works as a sentence. If it’s representative then it relies on the “tricks”. No matter what you do, if it’s structured on those “tricks”, it remains a copy of the object. Otherwise you would not recognise it.