The difference it makes to your own personal aesthetic emotions depends on many many things including how receptive you are to certain styles. But in practice, a good rule of thumb is that the reproduction of a work of art will give you less than the original.

Yes there is, obviously. The canvas is in 3d most of times, and all the colors and nuances cannot be reproduced on screen or paper.

beauty has never been the quest. A given work has to give me thrill, I need to feel a sense of vitality or serenity coming from it. — Tom Storm

And that -- I suggest -- is precisely what people call beauty.

Derrida talks about this stuff. Writing tends to be cast as a dead thing, as opposed to speech which is living. But, as you mention, speech is not so pure in relation to writing. — hanaH

My point is rather that writing is an attempt to draw language. Literally, our letters are little drawings. But in a modern alphabetic writing system these drawings do NOT code directly for concepts; instead they code for the sound of the spoken word. Imperfectly of course but that's the general idea of using an alphabet.

They do so because historically, attempts to picture concepts directly through ideograms failed for certain words, those words that refer to invisible things. Such as a law. You can apply a law, or break it, but you cannot SEE it. And therefore you cannot depict it.

It also failed because of reasons linked to economy of means: there are too many concepts to allocate one specific sign to each of them. Phonetic writing systems are more powerful, and more economical memory-wise. Learning hieroglyphics is very hard as compared to learning an alphabet: there are thousands of signs to memorize because classic (eg middle empire) hieroglyphics still rely heavily on ideograms, mixed up with phonograms as explained earlier.

This ties in to your mention of Saussure's critique of simplistic views of language as pictures. That it is materially impossible to write down a language only with ideograms proves Saussure right.

Rodin I prefer — Tom Storm

You cannot judge a sculpture based on a photo. Best to touch it. This said, I never really liked Rodin, too artificial, too forceful for my taste.

That's beholding. — Caldwell

The work is entitled Méditérannée. She's at the beach. Her body slightly sunken in the sand, she's protecting her eyes from the sun... And yet she looks eternal, almost prehistoric.

There is a certain freedom in beauty, freedom from logic and obligations and costs. Freedom from anything else really. It comes as a gift, often as a surprise if not an incongruity.

André Gide noted that in contrast with Rodin, whose work “quivers, is restless and expressive; cries out with moving pathos, ... Maillol’s Seated Woman [below in bronze] is simply beautiful. She has no meaning. It is a silent work. Maillol does not proceed from an idea that he then tries to explain in marble. I believe we must go back in history -- we must go way back in history -- to find such complete neglect of everything that is foreign to this simple celebration of beauty.”

I hope I wasn't out of line. — Tom Storm

No, it is a style not-too-loosely connected to French 20th century intellectuals. But he's among the best of them I think. He uses his style to convey or fix his ideas really, it's never gratuitous. Sometimes he struggles with his ideas on the page.

Also certain greetings famously have no reference, like "Helo".

Coming back to picturing words... That's how writing was invented originally. Ideograms were the first symbols invented, eg by the Egyptian. The hieroglyph for "duck" is

Note the little bar next to it. It means "1 duck." It also imply the writer is talking of a real, countable duck, and not some other use if the same hieroglyph.

Because ideograms are inherently limited. You can't really have one sign per concept, there are too many concepts. And some of them cannot be pictured at all, for instance higher philosophical concepts, i.e. the concept of" idea", or that of "law". This posed a problem to the ancient Egyptians who were trying to write these things down.

The solution them scribes found was to use all these 2 or 3 thousand ideograms they had invented ALSO as phonograms, as coding NOT for the thing represented, but for the sound of the word, i.e. one, two or three syllables, rebus style. So the duck sign now also codes for something else: the sound "sa". It appears most frequently to mean "the son", the human male offspring, likely because in ancient Egyptian, the word for "son" sounded like the word for "duck".

E.g. Son of Ra is written (pretty much everywhere) as: duck of the sun.



And note there is no little bar next to that little duck above under the circle (ideogram for Ra, the Sun), so we're not talking of a literal duck here, and ambiguity is minimized.

Now the scribes could code for the sound of those words for which they couldn't find a good picture, such as the words "law", they could write them down at last... And with this alteration of the original ideographic system, with this injection of a bit of phonetics, classic hieroglyphics were born. They would ultimately lead to our alphabets.

And this inovation probably happened because certain words cannot be pictured.

Them scribes still needed in their system an ideogram (more precisely, a determinative) for all these high concepts which could not be pictured. They chose the sealed papyrus scroll. Y1 in Gardiner's list



Note the papyrus scroll, placed vertically on the left of the pic. It denotes a "bookish" concept.

So, explain your answer then please. — TheMadFool

I'll try to see where the examples I provided lead me.

In crossword puzzles, we must discover words based on the number of letters and non-canonical definitions invented by the crossword composer. These definitions can be ambiguous and there lies one of the tricks played by composers to solvers: the definition may not mean what it seems to mean, prima facie; IOW there's an obvious meaning to the definition, but it often hides another one, occult in a way, which offers the key to the solution.

An example that comes to mind, not a great one: "a third person" in 3 letters --> she. Third person is to be understood grammatically, not literally.

This is thus a language game about the borders, the limits of meaning, its infinite echoes, and the solver progressively explores a sort of no-man's-land of meaning. The fact that crosswords are solvable at all is a testament to the power of meaning. So it's not really a counter-example for your thesis I guess

The case of poetry is different, of course, and more noble and all that. I can't even try to deal with it here, except for stressing that a great deal of its beauty lies in euphonia, i.e. words used as music, as sounds. There we do have a use of words that is not (only) referential but also aesthetic.

Magic is again about the power of the verb, a power that is thought of as physical: if I say "abracadabra" a flower will bloom or a rabbit will vanish or or a person will get sick. It is therefore a use of words beyond reference as well, and in fact those magic words like "abracadabra" often have no meaning at all other than as a spell. You can't buy an abracadabra on the market.

How did you come to disagree with me without having understood me? — TheMadFool

Sorry but I did not disagree with anything, was just answering your question about alternative use of words. But I can try again, with more disagreement. :-)

How are the various uses you mention above divorced from the sign-referent sense of meaning? — TheMadFool

Define: "the sign-referent sense of meaning".

You are rude and bizarre, not regal.

My claim was that people use words in a variety of activities including solving crossword puzzles, writing poetry, and casting magic spells. What part do you want evidence of?

You keep giving orders to folks... Did someone die and name you king of TPF? If not, I suggest you learn to ask politely, when you have a request to make.

I imagine the intricate and oracular prose would frustrate some readers. — Tom Storm

I'm French, and yet I find his prose too convoluted. This said, MP is usually quite reliable and enlightening a writer. I'm a big fan.

A request actually. — TheMadFool

The magic word was missing. Also I don't understand your request, nor why it was made.

Is that an order?

[1*] What could be other uses for words? — TheMadFool

Crossword puzzles, poetry, magic...

Postulated images don't give life to the system. Why should they? — hanaH

I agree there's no particular reason to assume that the meaning of words would hide in images. Just because one can illustrate a concept via a picture or a painting doesn't imply that the nature of concepts is to be found in images. Vice versa, just because the meaning of words is elusive and cannot be fully captured by a definition doesn't imply that it's inexistant. In the silence of the mind, we know what words mean to us. We can play with concepts in the manner Husserl does, i.e. analyse their use and possible misuse, so as to elicit their meaning.

In effect Husserl did apply the aphorism "meaning is use" to explore his essences.

It's a metaphor, — hanaH

Ok then.

as Saussure also noted, the nomenclature theory of meaning is basically pre-scientific. — hanaH

Yes.

. To me Wittgenstein is more of a destructive than constructive thinker — hanaH

I can agree with that. His virtue is in pointing out that certain issues are more complicated than they seem, or ambiguous.

. If Wittgenstein wasn't trying to get people to think of meaning differently, why bother to write? — hanaH

But then, if meaning is indeed literally use, how come "meaning" is not being used as "use" in English? Isn't it self contradictory?

Full disclosure: I'm not a fan of Wittgenstein. I interpret "meaning is use" as methodological, and metaphorical: meaning that a good way to understand the meaning of a word is to track its use(s) in multiple contexts. I hope this is correct, because if one interprets it literally, then we have a problem which is that people don't use the word "meaning" as they use the word "using".

I love you too, Isaac.

Tell you what: keep it coming. We're doomed by climate change anyway, so what do I care? Covid is actually helping on that front, slowing down emissions. Who knows? Maybe spreading disinformation that could help the virus and slow down the economy some more is the right thing to do, long term... It's cruel alright; it would kill a maximum number of people but there is a silver lining: that too would be good for the climate, and some pundits out there think about it as a way to reintroduce Darwinian incentives into our modern cushioned lives. Let the smartest survive, they say... This being all a matter of opinion, maybe they are right.

It's fair to share news, like about the discovery of a vaccine. It's also fair to share cartoons, even political cartoons. What is unfair I think, would be to share a political cartoon as if it was the informed opinion of a specialist of the field being discussed. This is what you are doing with Prasad's cartoonish views.

I'm talking about his articles on the covid response. — Isaac

The guy knows shit about it, he is an oncologist.

you were gagging them earlier, — Isaac

I never gagged anyone. Stop the BS. Stop propping up what I say into some atrocious straw man or another. You do it almost systematically now; it betrays someone who feels cornered.

I'll bare in mind next time you cite anyone how strict a threshold you have for conflict of interest. We'll see how long that holds out. — Isaac

It will hold out for eternity. I don't peddle the personal political opinions of some random folks here, nor any version of immunology, because I am not qualified, you are even less qualified, and this is a philosophy forum. It's written on top of the page.

If you want to add your voice to the cacophony of all those saying "I'm not a doctor but I think that X, and that guy Y agrees with me", be my guest, but don't count me in. I will continue to take my medical advice from qualified medical doctors as shared through official channels, thank you so very much.

An example? — Isaac

The policies that were pushed by the left were policies that shielded principally the zoom class of worker—the upper middle class, highly educated laborer. Among these: school closures. What will soon be seen as the greatest policy blunder of the pandemic; One that will scar the lives of hundreds of thousands of kids. This policy was pushed by left of center cities, and cities with strong teachers’ unions. Progressives forgot about the poorest amongst us, while red states remembered. ...

That was the original sin. Closing schools for so long in Democratic stronghold cities, strong union cities, precisely after the President that many disliked pushed for it. But no matter how wrong he was about other matters, he was right on that issue. We should have reopened schools. And the net result has been devastation so catastrophic it will shape this country for the next 100 years, if we survive it. The damage is done; time will reveal it.

https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/progressivism-is-dead

Oh I'm sure his academic articles on oncology are useful, vetted and peer reviewed. Likewise many climate change doubters have published in peer reviewed journals. Just not on climatology, most of times...

Rhetorically lamenting that there are "few scientists left" was meant as a wake up call to defend science before it got lost in petty posturing. — Isaac

Which is a ridiculous, totally fake idea about modern science.

Try disqualifiying any public commentator who doesn't do that, we'll see how much public discussion of science is left. — Isaac

He doesn't fit the "no conflict of interest" criteria, period.

if that's your standard for 'politicised' then you're basically saying scientists can't comment on government or economic issues without being subsequently banned from being quoted. — Isaac

Why yes, politicized means "politicized". Words have a meaning. Scientists can comment all they want on politics but these are de facto political comments they are making, and in his case his statements show a strong political bias towards the right. So he does not satisfy the criteria of "no political bias" either.

You standards are very low.

No wonder you can't think straight.

For expressing your ideas (?) accurately.

We've been through this. It was rhetorical. — Isaac

That is what I am saying too: it was anti-science rhetoric.

no one benefits financially from what he's saying, he's not pushing a product and he's not employed by someone who benefits from what he's saying. So he meets the lack of conflicts of interest criteria. — Isaac

He is mentioning his books in a lot of his posts... :-)

He's made no previous overt political statements. — Isaac

Saying that Covid is the end of progressivism is not an overt political statement?

Try and make an effort. Your mistake looks like a freudian lapse.

So where am I distorting your position? — GraveItty

Above you wrote that "both pro- and anti- science rhetorics are helpful." I suppose you meant "NOT helpful"???

You are not even able to present your own position accurately. Make an effort.

So you're saying I should only post things according to whether you think they're anti-science and whether you think the person has a political bias. — Isaac

I am saying rather that you are spreading the anti-science rhetoric of a heavily politicized pundit about Covid. That he is heavily politicized is something you could have checked by reading his blog, as I did. But you didn't do so, probably because you trusted him enough.

So why did you trust him? Why didn't you check this guy's background before spreading his stuff? Especially since there was this red flag at the end of your quote: "there are few [real] scientists left". You didn't pick that clue up. Maybe you are a bit politically naïve...

In short, what are your standards?

I merely said that both pro- and anti- science rethorics are helpfull. — GraveItty

Sic

I was responding to @GraveItty who was distorting my position, like you are doing all the time yourself.

Prasad concludes that "sadly, there are few scientists left". Words have a meaning, Isaac. I for one think there are many scientists left. Do you think otherwise?

You think pro-science rethoric is usefull? — GraveItty

No. I am saying that ANTI-SCIENCE RHETORIC IS NOT HELPFUL. What is it with anti-vaxxers and reading comprehension? You cannot argue without distorting other people's position all the sodding time?

So you're saying I should only post things according to whether you think they're anti-science and whether you think the person has a political bias. — Isaac

Stop lying all the time, it's tiring.

It's mainly about discourse outside of scientific outlets, to be precise, and it's about what to do against covid... And you HAVE spread the unhelpful anti-science rhetoric of a person with an easily discernable political bias.

This is not about this or that case here or there.

( And just to be clear, none of the cases above have anything to do with vaccines. Rather they were about the possible negative effects of lockdowns, for the most part. )

It is rather about Mr Prasad spreading anti-science rhetoric, and you helping him. All I am saying is: don't spread the unhelpful anti-science rhetoric of folks with an easily discernable political bias and no qualification in immunology. Thank you very much.