Our beliefs may all be determined, but, surely, we also play a causal role in that determination — Agustino

I take this to be the crux of your reply to me, which I appreciate, by the way. What is the direction of the causality in this case? It cannot be that I self-cause the beliefs that I have, for this would mean they sprang from nothing and have no reason for their existence. In fact, this would constitute a restatement of doxastic voluntarism. But I have the beliefs I do for many reasons, as you have pointed out; therefore, they cannot be self-caused. If you say that these various reasons cause me to have the beliefs I do, then I fail to see where the freedom to choose them can be sneaked in. Hence doxastic determinism remains true. On the other hand, you apparently cede its truth and now want to distinguish it from doxastic fatalism. Could you expand on what you mean by that? And what, precisely, is our role in the determination of our beliefs?

As always, Agustino, you have provided me an insightful post that cuts right to the heart of the matter. However, as I was writing my reply, I thought it might be better suited as a separate thread topic, so perhaps you could join me there when I make it.

You seem to be lumping together abstract paintings with Duchamp's urinal, all under the category of "modern art". — jamalrob

I probably am. I like Western art up until about the year 1920 or so. Most of the art created after this date irritates me. So I freely admit my knowledge of art history is largely determined by the art I like.

Duchamp's urinal is one of the first examples of what we now call conceptual art. This is art that mocks artistry, skill, training and mastery, and renounces what was always fundamental in art: the artist as maker, applying his or her hand to a material. Many conceptual works, like those of Damien Hirst, are not actually made by the artist; they are assembled by assistants or gallery staff according to the artist's instructions. When challenged on this practice Hirst speaks with contempt about those who apply their own artistry: "A man who is great with his hands might as well make macramé." Apparently it is the job of artists to create concepts. The true artist then, for Hirst, is now a kind of stunt philosopher. — jamalrob

They ought to have written books, then. What they're doing is not art. But if they freely admit to being unskilled smartasses, then nothing more needs to be said.

They were making objects for people to look at, with their own hands, struggling to capture or explore aspects of nature and perceptual experience. These objects didn't usually have a message. They didn't usually try to tell stories. Rather, they invited people just to use their eyes, for the hell of it. What can be more straightforward than that? — jamalrob

Yeah, I don't have a problem with this at all.

What do you think of these landscapes by Turner, Cézanne, and Strindberg? — jamalrob

I don't mind them. I especially like the third painting, actually, despite my comment earlier about paint splotches. By contrast, though, the two paintings BC linked in the OP I think are horrid, along with Duchamp's Fountain. But notice how all three artists (Rothko, Pollock, and Duchamp) were primarily active well after my 1920 cut off date. If "modern art" includes the paintings you linked, the impressionists, and the symbolists, then I can say I do like modern art. Whatever one uses to call the predominant forms of "art" after about 1920 is what I am almost universally repelled by. Is there a term for that or is it just "conceptual art" as you mentioned above?

Slightly off topic question: what is the number directly under my username (to the right of the avatar)?

I'm roughly in the same position as when I wrote that dialogue. I still identify as a Christian atheist, which is not in fact the self-contradiction it may seem to be.

The road to Damascus experience is primarily a criterion for joining an organized religion for me. Absent it, I will not in good conscience join one. I'm unsure about it as a criterion for experiencing God.

I understand your meaning. But knowledge is only of perception. Concepts in and of themselves do not yield knowledge. They have to be grounded in perception.

I could make up a word, let's say, florga, and then say it's a particular type of tree bark. Unless I have perceived, or inductively conclude based on reading a book on dendrology, the existence of a florga, then I cannot claim on any grounds, in the case of my personal experience, or good grounds, in the case of what dendrologists say, to have knowledge of it.

To drive the point home, if we grant your reasoning about Santa Claus, literally anything thinkable would have to be said to be known, which is obviously impossible given the infinite number of contradictions that would arise in doing so. Hence, you couldn't actually establish as true anything at all, including the claim that you have knowledge that Santa Claus exists. So your claim of knowledge concerning Santa Claus is self-defeating in the end. You have knowledge of red hats and are merely applying that to an imaginary figure.

You know, I hurled unsubstantiated abuse at modern art in a thread on PF a while back and that didn't go over well, so I think I've made progress in the intervening time. "Appreciation" may be a bridge too far, though.

Unfortunately, the logic of your witticism is lost on me. I will accept reading a sentence from Hegel as punishment.

Don't forget the confused nihilists!

Reality is limited by what we can know and experience. That which we cannot know or experience cannot be something real, for it is not a "thing" to begin with. Things, i.e. objects, are real by virtue of the fact that we know them. From a transcendental perspective, however, they are ideal, since we supply the categories with which to know them. Hence, all objects are both empirically real and transcendentally ideal. To speak of the transcendentally real is a category mistake. Or if we do speak of that which is beyond all experience as being real, we do this by analogy to what is actually real.

I was operating under the theory proposed earlier that these are all socks of the same guy. Could be true. Either way, maybe Borat can be the name for the collective, like the Borg from Star Trek.

Well, it's also true that the bad attracts the bad, and in much greater numbers, alas.

Apparently, Borat didn't know the site was hacked before when I asked him about user info security.

Kant would say there's nothing wrong with judging other people's tastes in art. In fact, this is to be expected given the nature of the case. So embrace your cynicism, I say. ;)

I think the question assumes we have a choice in being moral or not. Morality as a term just cordons off a certain sphere of human activity for study, which is real enough, but concerning which we might not and probably do not have any control over. I tend to side with Plato, that the good attracts the good. We cannot help but be moral once in contact with it, so there is no "choice" to be so or not.

I think in some ways the question is inapplicable to these creations. I tend to think the point, perhaps, is that there isn't anything to necessarily think about.

A painting of, say, the crucifixion from some Renaissance master is pretty straight forward in terms of what it's conveying and what we are to think and feel about it. But a lot of modern art is deliberately un-straight forward in terms of what it's trying to convey and how we are to react to it. Take Duchamp's Fountain, as you show us above. What the hell am I supposed to think when seeing some New York urinal? Who knows. Maybe even Duchamp doesn't know.

This is actually the reason why I don't like this kind of "art." It strikes me as a pointless waste of time, since art for me is transportative - it takes me out of myself for a short while - whereas staring at a urinal or some paint splotches on a canvas do not have such an effect. They mostly make me irritated. There are exceptions, of course, but modern art has always rubbed me the wrong way.

Hilarious post, but sadly true probably.

What about threads like Currently Reading? I always liked that one. Could it go in The Lounge maybe?

The Eagle of the Star has landed!

Still unsure about the situation at PF and about whether I will quit there entirely. I will visit here too, though, for the time being.