Comments

  • The Christian narrative

    He said:
    I read your post. It just didn't make any sense to me.frank
    So it seems your attempt to reach him was unsuccessful.

    Frank would not be the first name to come to mind hereabouts, as being "intellectually vicious".

    I gather form your other comments that Thomism was more a rhetorical strategy than a statement fo your actual view? Now for Thomism, Jesus is god. I think I see why Frank may have not understood your point.
  • What is a painting?
    An interesting statement.AmadeusD
    Conclusion.

    If "A picture captures a moment in a narrative", and some paintings do not capture moments in a narrative, then not all paintings are pictures.
  • The Christian narrative
    Yep.

    It looks like avoidance.
  • The Christian narrative
    This is ridiculous.Count Timothy von Icarus
    Is it?

    You asked what ChatGPT thought. It said:
    This is not merely irreverent. It's a crystallization of several profound theological problems — or aporia — that critics, skeptics, and even believers have long wrestled with. — ChatGPT

    and proceeds to unpack a series of issues, ending with

    The Catholic Church isn’t unaware of these criticisms. In fact, many modern theologians have tried to move away from juridical, retributive models. The Church emphasizes:

    ● God is not angry and vengeful. “Wrath” describes the alienation caused by sin, not God’s disposition.
    ● Jesus is not punished by God. He shares in human suffering, in solidarity, and opens a path back to God by showing perfect love.
    ● The Cross reveals love, not wrath. It’s not a price paid, but a revelation of God’s nature.
    ● In this view, atonement isn’t God changing His mind — it’s God changing ours.

    The question now is: Does Christianity survive this tension? Or does it deepen the mystery in a way that still speaks to human guilt, suffering, and hope?
    — ChatGPT

    It might be helpful to at least recognise the difficulty had by a non-Catholic, in coming to terms with what is not as simple a doctrine as it might seem for Catholics.

    The full Chat is at:
    https://chatgpt.com/share/687f097f-f0a0-800f-900a-c8f130cc2bb9

    (Here I am attempting to use ChatGPT to fill in the account it seems to me you have been unable to present)
  • What is a painting?
    The Davidsonian point that we all agree about most things is true when it comes to everyday stuff. Not so much when it comes to aesthetics.Janus

    Not so sure. But a discussion worth having.

    What might a Davidsonian aesthetic look like?
  • What is a painting?
    Oh, ok. You were just saying that the meaning of words is not fixed.
  • What is a painting?
    ...now you are making my case for me.Janus
    It might help if you were to explain what your case is...

    Here's mine:
    ...something being art is dependent on how we chose to talk about it.Banno

    How does yours differ?
  • The Christian narrative
    I can articulate it just fineCount Timothy von Icarus
    I'm looking forward to your doing so, then.
  • On Purpose
    Oh, . it's just such a tidy koan.
  • What is a painting?
    Without an interpretation, how could the question have an answer?
  • What is a painting?
    Buggered if I know.

    See, perhaps, Encoding the Dreaming - A theoretical framework for the analysis ofrepresentational processes in Australian Aboriginal art

    The argument there is for ongoing interpretation.

    What might Davidson make of this?
  • What is a painting?
    Platonism not needed; it is just the idea of a black square that is being represented, an idea which can be re-presented in countless ways, just as the form of a tree or a human face can be re-presented in countless ways.Janus

    You say Platonism is not needed, then launch immediately into an explication of platonism.
  • What is a painting?
    I'd still be inclined to call that artMoliere
    Trouble is, the custodians would not call it art.

    Art is an aesthetic judgement, an object detachable from it's surrounds, to be moved, sold or exhibited, whilst this is created as an obligation to the land, inseparable from it's location, the very connection between people and land.
  • On Purpose
    Hot possibility became constrained by gauge symmetry.apokrisis
    Ok.
  • What is a painting?
    I'd say it may be said to be one possible representation of a black square, a picture of a black square, and that it also may be said to be just a black square because squares are abstract objects.Janus

    Well, if you must. The idea that a black square only represents a black square looks a tad too platonic for my taste... it smells of perfect forms and such nonsense.

    It does have to be recognizably art in some senseMoliere
    What could that mean, if not that it must participate in some game in which we call it art?

    There is a community who claim continuity with the Murujuga artists...
  • The Christian narrative
    Oh, perhaps Tim's engine will spin by itself. It's how it makes contact with the world that might make the difference.

    I don't see it gaining much traction for you and I.
  • The Christian narrative
    Tim can't articulate your criticism in his terms, it seems.
  • The Christian narrative
    But wasn't your original argument that Thomism was internally self-undermining?Count Timothy von Icarus
    Not really. It seems you think it consistent, but using a way of talking about consistency that is itself Thomist.

    Someone who thinks there is a difference between justice and mercy will not need an explanation of how they are different in the face of the simplicity of god, if they do not accept the simplicity of god.

    And so, around and around, the various cogs spin without meshing.
  • What is a painting?
    The artist's intention to create "a piece of art" will not suffice - They might be rubbish at their supposed profession.

    Being a piece of art is taking a certain place in a complicated game played with words, deeds and money.

    The Murujuga rock carvings might be up to fifty thousand years old - far older than any art found in Europe.
    quoll-e1576633466983.jpg

    There's no way we can enter into the intent of the artists; too long ago, too far removed from us, now...?

    No frame, no museum.

    It's ok, they are going to build gas export facilities over the top of them, so they won't annoy the anthropologists and art historians.
  • What is a painting?
    We're engaged in forming an "ontology", no? That amounts to sorting out what we are talking about. It seems useful to be able to distinguish a thing from a representation of that thing - to differentiate between picture and thing pictured. It is useful to be able to point out that Black Square does not represent anything, but is a black square, and is a painting.

    1280px-Kazimir_Malevich%2C_1915%2C_Black_Suprematic_Square%2C_oil_on_linen_canvas%2C_79.5_x_79.5_cm%2C_Tretyakov_Gallery%2C_Moscow.jpg

    That appears to be what Kazimir Malevich had in mind... his intent.

    But it seems we agree.
  • The Christian narrative
    The Op is satire.

    Frank asked "How does a person [moderator redacted] make sense of this?"

    You provide an answer in the sophistry of Thomism, which is quite unlikely to appease Frank.

    (I hope the mod redacting was not one of those participating in the discussion.)
  • The Christian narrative
    All of which just takes the Thomistic metaphysic as granted.

    An absurdity can seem internally consistent.

    This:
    ...yes, it doesn't make any sense. Christianity is about loving another person.frank
    may be as helpful as Summa Theologica.
  • What is a painting?
    Ok. In your first post you said a paining was a picture. Now you say that a picture need not be a picture of something, and so avoid the difficulty posed by abstract art. that seems an odd usage, but is perhaps consistent.

    I's just say that a picture is usually a representation of something, that a picture pictures something other than itself. And that art need not represent anything other than itself - as is the case for the red rectangle and so on. And that hence not all paintings are pictures.

    I think this is a better approach than yours, which appears to me to collapse painting and pictures, and so lose some explanatory power.
  • The Christian narrative
    Do you really think that there was a chance of @frank accepting Thomism as an answer to his questions? Wouldn't he simple see it as a more verbose expression of the very same confusions? And indeed, with good reason.


    I am all ears.Bob Ross
    I've suggested silentism as the most reasonable response to such issues - admitting that we don't know the answer.
  • The Christian narrative
    Thomism relies on divine simplicity. It understands god as pure and as simple. So mercy and justice are for god the very same. This is how Thomism responds to the Euthyphro; the good and god's will are the very same.

    But if we cannot make meaningful distinctions between such notions as justice and mercy, then we cannot use them to explain the nature of god.

    Weirdly, Thomism undermines itself, showing that theology is impossible.

    If course, Thomism has responses to these criticisms. But equally, more theology simply serves to undermine theology further.
  • The Christian narrative
    And you're happy to accept the Thomist metaphysics on which this account sits? A mediaeval logic? Nothing since then appeals more?
  • What is a painting?
    the first is intended to be 'art',javi2541997
    Interesting. So is art "intended"? If that were so, then the intent of the chap with the roller is what decides if the wall is art or not... We would need to ask him his intent.


    Rothko's red rectangle is a nounLuckyR
    Plainly, it isn't. A noun is a word. The red rectangle is not a word. You might argue coherently that "Rothko's red rectangle" (quotative) is a noun-phrase.
  • What is a painting?
    Is Rothko’s red rectangle a picture of a red rectangle? Or is it just… a red rectangle?
    1*5POrD_7oNfR-fGVBF9NEQQ.jpeg
  • What is a painting?
    Too far off topic.
  • What is a painting?
    Ontology is definition.
  • Assertion
    Well done. Yes, one of the take aways from all this is the separation of intent from meaning. Seeing how this works takes some effort. The idea that the meaning of an utterance is found in the intent of the speaker is somewhat ingrained. We say "That's not what I meant", after all; And we also say "But it's what you said!"

    We can backtrack this to the discussion of Lewis, and conventions. It's hard to see how conventions might work without invoking intention - we intend to act in accord with the convention. But what we've seen here is how interpretation precedes convention. I think we can maintain a sort of continuity between Davidson, Searle and Lewis, but there is plenty here to work on.

    But we can see that conventions do not determine the meaning of an utterance.
  • The Christian narrative
    Maybe they're right? Social stability is a life-and-death issue. Having a logical story isn'tfrank

    :wink:

    Fair. So it comes down to what you value.
  • Assertion
    Good response. You've been reading his paper Intending? That's the topic there.

    There is no guarantee that our surmised intent is the correct one, no law-like structure that locks intent in with action and belief. Intentions are future-directed and shaped by beliefs and desires but not reducible to them.

    Radical interpretation is a process for assigning truth values to utterances, not a process for determining intent. But this does not rule out that intent might enter into the interpretation. "Pedro intended to climb Everest" is true IFF that was Pedro's intent.

    We might surmise intent, charitably, by presuming holistic coherence and rationality. Of course people do not always act holistically nor coherently. The process is not algorithmic, not law-like, and not infallible. It's human.

    How's that?
  • The Christian narrative
    I literally responded with a philosophical account of why God had to sacrifice Himself, devoid of faithBob Ross


    Accepting that account requires accepting that Jesus is the son of god... it's in the first sentence. That's not philosophy.
  • What is a painting?
    A painting is a picture whose predominant medium is paint.Janus

    I've not been claiming that all paintings are pictures, as though there were some context-independent fact of the matter, but that all paintings can count as picturesJanus

    They are not all pictures but can all count as pictures.

    Ok.
  • The Christian narrative
    I have remained silent on the issue for a number of years.Punshhh
    Can't say as I'd noticed.
  • Assertion
    I don't think it's mutually exclusive.Michael
    I don't disagree. Although asking someone to "dance the flamingo" need not be an intentional malapropism, and yet still be understood as a request to dance.

    The issue is, which is to be master? We have the convention of treating tables differently to seats, but before we can do that, we needs must understand which is a table and which a seat. That's an interpretation.

    If someone asks us to "dance the flamenco" we must first interpret it as a request to dance the flamingo in order to recognise it as a malapropism. Recognising the breach of convention requires first recognising the convention - and hence first interpreting the utterance as an (illegitimate) instance of the convention.

    So it's not that language does not make use of convention, but that the recognition of convention is itself dependent on interpretation.
  • Assertion
    As you will recall, Davidson focuses on a situation where you don't know the language Jenny is speaking. You don't recognize any of the words. All you get is behavior and the assumption that she believes the same things you do.frank
    In the extreme case, yep.

    So how did you gather that Jenny uses "the cat" to talk about Jack? What behavior did you observe that caused you to conclude this?frank
    Extended empirical observation of Jenny's behaviour within the community in which she participates. Watching her pet the cat, buy cat food, chastise someone for not chasing the cat off the mat. A Bayesian analysis of behavioural patterns, perhaps, although we don't usually need to go so far in order to recognise patterns in the behaviour of others.

    The interpreter assumes that Jenny and the others in her community have much the same beliefs as the interpreter - that there are cats, bowls, mats, and so on to talk about.