But responsibility isn't the primary subject here. It is morality, and intentionality is a large part of that. That factor is lacking in your example, but present in mine. — Tzeentch

It is also lacking in virtually all cases of childbirth as well, right? Or do you think people intentionally have kids so that they can cause the conditions for that child to be harmed? Also, is being irresponsible not immoral?

Call it whatever you like. — Tzeentch

It’s not “what I like to call it,” it’s what it is. Allowing your child to starve to death by not intervening and providing food for it is neglect, which is also an example of non-intervention, which you claim is neutral, which I assume means amoral. If that’s your position, then you shouldn’t feel like those who neglect their children should be punished, as they’ve done nothing morally wrong. You agree with all that?

I don't get to put someone in harms way because I'm bored nor put them in harms way because I think that they should like it (even if they don't). YOU should not be making those assumptions for others. — schopenhauer1

Have you ever bought a gift for someone, or mailed someone a letter? Did you consider the harm you could have caused if the person were to get a paper cut by opening the letter/gift? Did you assume the person would like the gift?

I find it very difficult to think of any situation where an interaction with another person has absolutely no risk of causing harm and doesn’t require any assumptions about what that person may or may not like/want.

Let's say I plant a timebomb in the ground in a place where I know a town will flourish two-hundred years from now. — Tzeentch

Let’s say I plant a tree in a yard that will be owned by someone else 100 years from now. If that tree falls and causes property damage or some other harm, am I responsible for that?

With inaction I mean non-interference. So the choice would be not to do anything about a given situation. — Tzeentch

You mean like neglect?

I accept the playing field is not level, but leveling it is far more complex than just dumping people into broad categories and going from there. — Hanover

I don’t think it can ever truly be level, or fair. Not completely. As far as I know, no immoral practice has been completely eradicated. Slavery still exists. “Honor” killings still exist. Wars still exist. Xenophobia in all its forms still exist, and there’s no way to effectively prosecute such offenses because it’s almost impossible to prove someone didn’t hire someone because of their race, etc. So it will continue like it always has regardless of what we do.

However, do you believe that the original AA for straight, white male, Protestants since 1619 will be completely given up (as a birthright entitlement) by straight white male Christians ever? willingly? — 180 Proof

Lol, yeah right.

However, if you don't, then explain why some AA on the margins for women & minorities since c1969 is not warranted in the interest of redressing some systemic educational, occupational & social inequities. — 180 Proof

For me the issue is that anytime one group is given an advantage, it necessarily disadvantages anyone not in that group. I don’t know what kind of specific advantages you have in mind, so maybe there’s some way around this issue, but I don’t think I, a white man, should be automatically disqualified for a job or a promotion or educational opportunities because of my skin tone, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, etc. I shouldn’t be punished for something I didn’t do.

I also don’t understand having the expectation of equity, rather than equality. For example, the NFL is like 80% non-white, which is far from being equitable, but I couldn’t care less about the color of the athletes playing. When I watch football I just want to see the most talented players competing against each other. I think everyone should view all areas in such a way, other than areas like politics where representation actually matters.

Well, given that there's been Affirmative Action, in effect, for straight, white male, Protestants (in the main) established in every manifest institution in North America since 1619, I don't see an equitable alternative to addressing persistent (perhaps intractable) structural inequalities. — 180 Proof

I continue to struggle to see the underlying “eye for an eye” philosophy in these sort of conclusions as moral or just. If Affirmative Action, in effect, has led to these unfair and inequitable results, then why would more of the same somehow fix the issue?

There is a lot of unfairness in this country, both past and present, but revenge doesn’t undo any of it. It just perpetuates it, and creates a new class of “victims.”

We've probably taken this as far as we're going to. — T Clark

Um, ok.

@Noble Dust

Intention probably is a better word to use. I would perhaps say skill is the ability to communicate one’s intentions? And perhaps meaning is found when that is done successfully? There is something to “understanding” a work of art. I’m not sure if you could say that you can even properly interpret a work of art without first understanding it…I don’t know.

Without getting too woo, when a person is truly inspired to create art, they will do it regardless of their environment, with or without training. Why this is the case I certainly don't know. — Noble Dust

To start with, if art is truly an act of self-expression, then it really is a need the person feels. Just like how we all feel the need to communicate our thoughts or feelings.

It is something conditioned and developed through practice, in contrast to talent, which is the raw/natural ability to apply particular techniques that don't involve any intentional craftmanship. — Merkwurdichliebe

Im not understanding the difference, or how you could determine the difference, between skill and talent. For example, could you explain the difference between a talented guitarist with little skill, and a skilled guitarist with little talent? It seems circular somehow. You can’t know if you have the talent to perform a particular guitar technique (tremolo picking, for example), until you’ve learned what that technique is and know how to do it.

Intention is directly related to skill level in my opinion. — Merkwurdichliebe

I’m not sure. Can’t one’s intention be to seem unskilled? Something like intentionally playing out of rhythm, or all dissonant notes/chords?

To say the examples I showed, which you call craft, don't have much personal meaning seems clearly wrong to me. — T Clark

Ah, I see what you meant now. I’m not sure how many of the images I’d call craft. It would entirely depend on whoever created them.

Clearly the examples I showed are intended to be both functional and aesthetically pleasing. — T Clark

Sure. That’s probably the vast majority of anything ever created. But the point is that the creator likely focused most on one or the other. For example, would the architect that created the bridge have sacrificed the bridge’s functionality for the sake of its beauty?

For my taste this is getting too instrumental and narrow. Skill generally refers to expertise in an activity undertaken. — Tom Storm

I get it, but my issue is how subjective skill/expertise is. It almost becomes a useless term because it’s impossible to judge across genres of a particular medium like painting. What counts as skill in Cubism is very different than what counts as skill in Realism. To me the common thread connecting all art across mediums or genres is meaning. All art means something above and beyond any functionality the item may possess.

A skilled craftsman for me would be someone who makes beautiful craft items. These are sometimes not as useful as less beautiful objects. I have a fantastic, hand crafted leather carry bag that sucks as a bag, but is an exceptional testament to the maker's craft and shows off every skill going. My father, a practical man, would have said that since it doesn't work as a bag very well, the craftsman failed. This depends upon what you chose to privilege as the criterion of value. Of course the ultimate skills would produce a bag that was usable and beautiful. — Tom Storm

Yeah, it’s the same with me. I happen to like knives, swords, axes, etc. Some I have are strictly for aesthetic purposes and would fall apart in any sort of combat situation, and others would probably hold up ok. I value each type, but for different reasons, and I consider the makers of each type to be skilled, just in different areas. But I also consider the functional ones to be something closer to a tool than art/decorative, and vice versa. The gray area cases where both functionality and beauty are combined pretty equally are too difficult to determine as an observer without knowing how the creator intended them to be viewed.

In any case, I think it's wrong to break it down in the way that Pinprick has done. As you've shown with your examples, and as I mentioned in passing myself, it's often precisely the perfect functionality of an object that makes it aesthetically pleasing. — Jamal

But just because something is aesthetically pleasing doesn’t mean it’s art. Sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, but that doesn’t mean nature is an artist. The intention of the creator matters.

The way something is framed may influence how we see it of course, however, I think it’s possible to see anything aesthetically and we shouldn’t always rely on others, “thought leaders” or whatever, to direct our perception. — praxis

I agree. I think in these gray areas how an item should be judged should be determined by the creator. They more than likely had an idea/vision for what purpose the item should primarily serve; functionality or aesthetics.

This doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but I think it shows your view is too narrow. — T Clark

I’m not sure what these images are supposed to demonstrate. I can see how beauty can be found in them, but that alone doesn’t make it art.

Which brings us back to the original question - how much does skill matter in art? I personal meaning is the standard by which art should be judged, then it doesn't seem like skill would matter much. — T Clark

Well, what is skill? Has anyone defined that term yet? It could be that skill is the ability for the artist/craftsman to match their ideal concept of what the items purpose is. If the item is intended to be functional, then the final product should be functional and can be judged on qualities like durability or comfort or whatever. If the item is intended to be aesthetically pleasing, then it should be judged on qualities like creativity, emotional impact, etc.

So, a skilled craftsman is someone who makes very functional items, and a skilled artist is someone who makes very meaningful items.

And if that’s the case, then skill matters a lot. If I’m trying to make a song sound angry, but it ends up sounding happy then I’m not very skilled at making angry songs. And I think that would come across in the music. I think there’s a sort of inauthenticity that would be felt.

I don't really disagree with what you're getting at, but I think you're oversimplifying. — T Clark

Yeah, I think one thing this theory doesn’t account for is spontaneity/improvisation. Performance arts like freestyle interpretative dance don’t really fit.

I’d say context matters too. For instance, consider Hendrix’s Star Spangled Banner. If you were to hear it without having the background context of Vietnam and the counterculture, then all the, ahem “wrong notes” just seem like mistakes instead of a statement about Vietnam and America. A lot of the meaning gets lost.

@Noble Dust @Tom Storm @T Clark @Jamal

Just responding to everyone and no one in particular.

I think at the heart of the craft/skill/art discussion is meaning. There isn’t, or at least doesn’t seem to be, much personal meaning in craft items like chairs or pencils, whereas artworks typically are designed with personal touches. Artists intentionally choose certain colors, sounds, shapes, etc. beyond strictly what is needed for the item to be functional/useful. These choices metaphorically instill a part of the person into the item. They create meaning beyond the item’s functionality.

So, if you just make a wooden chair because wood is all you have available and size it so that it seats comfortably, and don’t add any decorative details, then it is a craft work. Now, that isn’t to say that others won’t find your chair aesthetically pleasing, but that isn’t what makes something an artwork.

It’s also possible to make a purely aesthetic chair that is not functional at all. This would be considered art, imo.

There’s also the possibility to have a mixture of both; a functional chair that also contains embellishments meant to please the eye. This is more of a gray area, and is probably determined by how it is marketed or used/displayed.

Headhunter

Silence blared through the empty room. Filled with guilt, desperation, torment… You know what they
say, “Fear is the mind-killer.” But it’s never easy, you know, examining and reassembling one’s history in
order to explain the present moment, but coherence is needed if one’s identity is to remain intact.

Coherence…

Heh, my head’s in as many pieces as the gent’s is on the floor. It’s funny, so much of life, of experience, depends on one’s ability to reanimate dead memories. To find vitality through necromancy. In the end we become nothing more than a Frankenstein’s monster. A deluded, wretched creature who’s cursed to chase ghosts until we ourselves become one. Left to ruminate on ruin.

It’s strange how we walk through life half-conscious, half-aware and then find ourselves perplexed as to our current predicament. “How did this happen,” we ask. “How did I end up here, like this, lying dead on the floor? Blood slowly beginning to stain.” The answers remain utterly elusive, at least in any meaningful sense. It’s as if we’re actors that never read the script; improvising our way into the next scene. Always so surprised where our actions have led us. A curtain call to an empty audience.

But even in this spectral form I now occupy, it’s difficult to see this temple of flesh I once worshiped in defiled… desecrated… relegated to nothing more than a lifeless heap of mass, and not ask these trivial questions. “How did this happen?” It seems painfully obvious at this present state that the weapon of my demise never left my own hands. The tension. The stress. The stubborn wrongheadedness. All just self inflicted wounds.

And now this. The final resolution. Or so I once thought, when thoughts were easy and time was cheap. But now things seem different somehow. The freedom from the constraints of flesh have a way to shift one’s perspective. “What is life,” you might ask. “What does it mean to an entity such as I, recently disembodied?”

“Nothing,” is all that I can reply. For life is simply a prolonged dirge. A celebration of death, for the past is never truly alive. And the present? Trivial. Inconsequential. Simply the last exhalation of that which came before it. The future? Undecided. Undetermined. Ultimately unnecessary. And I’m now beginning to question whether or not this funeral song will ever end.

:up:

I’m curious. What counts as inclusive? Suppose the coach invited all the players to show their gratitude in whatever way they prefer?

Here’s a link to a previous thread with some good examples of the “myth” of separation of church and state. Just follow the links provided by me, @NOS4A2 and @Frank Apisa.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7931/question-about-separation-of-church-and-state/p1

I think the idea that we are capable of “choosing” our beliefs is somewhat of a myth. For the most part, beliefs are ideas we’re attracted to, or ideas that contain something we value like truth or utility. I couldn’t just choose to believe in Christianity just because I wanted to. There are also many others who are aware of the same facts, arguments, etc. as I am, but simply cannot stop believing in Christianity. Beliefs are involuntary.

You have a point! We know for certain (?) that pleasure is better than pain. What could be more desirable than pleasure in your opinion? My mind draws a blank. Is it the same for you? — Agent Smith

This makes me think about the relationship between happiness and pleasure. They’re are arguments that posit that a life of unending pleasure may not lead to a happy life. Or, conversely, that a happy life likely requires suffering.

So, it may be that happiness is more desirable than pleasure. Simple longevity may be as well. Wouldn’t it be worth it to live say 1,000 years even if 300 of those are painful? 400 years?

There are different pleasures. Some more sophisticated than others, some with more harmful side-effects or consequences than others.

Understanding this principle, one would be prudent to opt for the less harmful pleasures, or to deliberately look for them in the first place. — baker

Not sure if this is exactly what you’re alluding to, but not all pleasure is created equal. Yes, satiating your hunger is pleasurable, but doing so with carrots is vastly different than doing so with ice cream.

So to me, it’s more about determining what type of lifestyle you prefer. Oftentimes the most pleasurable pleasures also come with the greatest risk/harm, but some may deem the trade off acceptable. Of course others may not.

Pleasure is obtained from that which pleases one. It is, tmk, impossible to do without. If it pleases one to do away with being pleased, there is yet the pleasure that awaits when this goal is reached, as well as the pleasure held in the active pursuit of this goal … if only one could figure out how to obtain it. But I don't see how one can. — javra

Maybe extreme desensitization would work? Conceivably one could list all the things that give them pleasure, and then proceed to consume them as much as possible. Eventually, the amount of pleasure derived from the experience would diminish over time. I’m not sure if it would ever reach a neutral state though. It also assumes that what we find pleasurable is static and unchanging.

Yeah, totally agree. I’ve recently started trying to make/record music and take it a bit more seriously, so I’ve been trying to pay more attention to song structure, production, etc. when I listen to music instead of just listening for enjoyment. I’ll have to sit down with 10,000 Days and relisten to it.

Lateralus might be the best metal track ever recorded. — Noble Dust

Yeah, no kidding. All the Fibonacci stuff itself is impressive, but doing that and making a great sounding song takes it to a level I don’t think anyone has reached.

What is good enough for scientists [regarding the latest and best formulation of reliable knowledge] ought to be good enough for the rest of us. — Marvin Katz

Are you able to objectively justify that “ought?”

The world is a ploy...
The world is a ploy
To train you and shame you
A leash of employ
The rake sweeps and servers, dry leaves are the weak
A breakthrough could break you the day that you see

Hanging by a thread to the miniature things
Our loved ones are leaning on something they can't see

If you want to take, if you want to give
When you find a meaning, you'll find it short-lived
The gifts and opportunities that come or go or stay
The buttons there for you to push are only in the way

Buttons so vivid, your soul could seem gray
The world all around you entices you to play
Come on! Come out!

You have a choice to make
The push button glows in wait...

The more you believe, the less that you think
The less that you think, the more that you speak
The more that you speak, the less that you see
The less that you see, the more you believe

The world is a ploy, the world is a ploy
A break-through will break you, a break-through will break you

The less they are thinking, the more they believe
My loved ones are leaning on something they can't see

Come on! Come out!
Come on! Come out!

I thought this same question quite a while back, so I don’t find it silly or boring. I’m really not knowledgeable enough to comment much on the topic, but I know idealism is often associated with Germany, and there’s a common thread throughout Greek philosophy. But, when I was pondering this question I decided that these themes were likely due to exposure. We take mass communication for granted nowadays. I mean a few hundred years ago, when a philosopher in your country establishes a novel idea that becomes popular, you’re more likely to be influenced by that idea due to your exposure to it. It would have taken some time to spread to other countries I imagine.

@god must be atheist

My thoughts:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/388913

Ironically, those masturbating very often with porn report low sexual satisfaction. — InvoluntaryDecorum

Maybe low sexual satisfaction is why they’re masturbating to porn.

So, instead of earning it, it can be granted immediately. The whole system is skewed, and with more and more desensitization, more stimulus will be required. — InvoluntaryDecorum

That’s true of basically everything in today’s world (obtaining food, shelter, companionship, entertainment, etc.) as compared to our nomadic ancestors. Would you agree that these things also should be illegal on similar grounds; fast food, housing/rental assistance, social media, libraries, iTunes, TV, and internet?

Porn produces a negative effect on society, why shouldn't it be banned? — InvoluntaryDecorum

What negative effect exactly? There’s also plenty of other, legal, things that could be viewed as having a negative impact on society like gasoline driven automobiles, foul language, controversial ideas/art, religion, etc. Should these be banned as well? Oftentimes different societies as a whole conflict with the goals of other societies. How do you decide which society should be respected objectively and fairly?