Another full day of Democrat sophistry lined up. — NOS4A2

Is Pro-Trump sophistry somehow exempt of hysteria?

You see I am working within a genre local to me in which there is a lot of plein air painting done of landscapes and a tradition of painting hares for example. This work is done quickly with the overall decorative effect being primary. — Punshhh

Other than the ‘California Impressionists’ I don’t know how plein-air painting could be considered a local genre, at least not since the time of the California Impressionists. I imagine painting bunnies could be, although a bunny would be an odd choice of subject matter for plein-air painting.

In regard to plein-air painting, of which I done a good amount, I would say that an impressionistic effect is primary rather than a decorative one.

Bartricks' job is to generate conversation, retain membership, and keep members active. — god must be atheist

The problem here lies in the law of attraction or like attracts like, as the saying goes. Bartricks will attract and encourage a Bartricks-like membership and discourage a membership with, how should I say, different qualities.

For example, remember the guest speaker discussion you started and mocked Massimo Pigliucci‘s work on stoicism? I suspect that may have discouraged him from participating.

If House Democrats failed to follow the correct procedures it’s not indicative of a witch-hunt, as NOS4A2 claims. If a criminal wins a legal case because of a procedural error by the prosecution that doesn’t mean they’re innocent or wrongly accused, for example.

Imagine a racist doing the monkey chant where clearly both the subject, racism, and the method of expression, the monkey chant, are ugly; nobody will every say that the racist was in the act of creating art. — TheMadFool

True. On the other hand, if this scenario were framed as art in some way it could be aesthetically perceived. You might ask what value could this possibly have and the answer would be transcendence.

I couldn’t answer the question because there’s nothing that lifts it above the work of an amateur. It’s actually the background that lets it down. You should be able to see that. — Brett

I have to agree with this. The aspect of painting technique typically referred to as ‘edge’ (skill in controlling the sharpness/softness of a compositions edges) is remarkably clumsy is the bunny painting.

On a positive note, in the foreground the photorealism is impressive. :up:

I think that I remember him saying that he’s not an expert. His tactics are indeed tedious though.

What does that mean: “erotically”? — Brett

Your private parts start to feel funny.

I was looking for a frame the other day and noticed a framed Van Gogh print. I think it was a placeholder to show off the frame. Anyway, it occurred to me to try looking at the picture as though I didn’t know who painted it. It did look much more pedestrian when viewing it this way, I must say. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve always loved his work and think it’s brilliant. It’s just that we should probably acknowledge that the value we place on art is often fictional, like money or rare gems (that aren’t actually so rare).

I thought he was you, mostly because for both of you truth doesn’t appear to be high on you list of values.

Can you explain why you prefer Picasso over Van Gogh?

I’m not saying that it’s not about beauty, I’m saying it’s about experiencing beauty beyond our conventional sense of it. An artist is skilled in inducing an aesthetic experience, simply put, if only their own. The subject matter may not be what we typically regard as beautiful.

What if you believe there is no god? Then would this directive not lose its punch? — god must be atheist

Even if it were possible to test, I don’t anyone would actually want to prove that God exists, basically because the only meaningful God is a human God or some sort of ‘sky father’ figure that is relatable. An incomprehensible God is meaningless and the most essential ingredient of religion is meaning.

Someone with credentials would or would at least know what to do to test whether we've got the real-deal on our hands. — Bartricks

And Jesus said to him, "Again, it is written, 'You shall not test the Lord, your God.'"

Matthew 4:7

You are saying you regard yourself as emptiness.

That's actually right on the dot. — god must be atheist

Well, no, I tend to regard everything as empty.

The object or performance or whatever in question must in some way be changed by the artist in order to move it from the category of "aesthetic object" to "art object." — Artemis

An artist, or anyone, can frame anything as art and essentially invite others to view it aesthetically, and thereby change it from an ordinary object to an "aesthetic object," if they are successful. I believe there is great value in viewing the world aesthetically.

of art, but in an art world in which in theory, anything was art provided an artist said it was Art.
— Punshhh

Well, my only slight alteration would be that the artist can't just point and call something art. S/he has to engage in some act of creation. — Artemis

Just pointing can make an otherwise ordinary object art. That sounds pretty creative to me. Anything can be viewed aesthetically.

You’re still taking about beauty rather than aesthetics. I believe Artemis tried to point out that aesthetics can transcend beauty, or rather, our conventional sense of it.

The "true" self is as used by you, praxis and by me, are not the same concepts. — god must be atheist

True.

You equated "your true self" as "how you really are" — god must be atheist

False. I tend to regard it as emptiness.

I equate "your true self" more in a literary sense (not literally, but figuratively) to "do what your impulses dictate you to do without holding back". — god must be atheist

And this is why you fit the role of the forum clown so well.

He's jerking your chain... — creativesoul

If he does it long enough he may begin to believe his own crap.

You wouldn't know a good critical thinker from a bad one. — Bartricks

I didn’t claim that you were a good or bad critical thinker. I said that something you wrote demonstrated poor critical thinking. Logical fallacies, for that matter, demonstrate poor critical thinking. But it could be that you realize your fallacies and are doing it intentionally for some reason. I can’t imagine a good reason but you may have one nevertheless.

Do you have any expertise in psychology? Or are you once again talking about things you know nothing about? — Bartricks

Expert or know-nothing. This doesn’t demonstrate good critical thinking.

Speculation can be valued but it's not authoritative. How could it be? I'd ask Bartricks but he's become infatuated with coloring books.
— praxis
I think by definition speculation is not authoritative, otherwise it becomes dogma? — Pantagruel

It certainly could become dogmatic, and cease speculation.

but I’m no expert.
— praxis

Exactly. Take a moment to reflect on what that actually means. — Bartricks

I don’t have the background or enough information to accurately determine the level of your insecurity. I speculated, as I said. Your amount of ad homs is remarkably high. There is some explanation for why you rely so heavily on logical fallacies. But I could care less. I’d rather you acknowledge that speculation isn’t authoritative or address the point in some way.

Speculation isn’t authoritative. For example, I speculate that the amount of ad homs coming from you have a direct correlation to your level of insecurity, but I’m no expert.

Safe to say that much of what passes as definitive scientific truth today is wrong. — Pantagruel

And we care when it's wrong because it has real-life consequences. When speculation is wrong it's quickly forgotten because it's just one theory out of many, none of which are known to be true.

Speculation can be valued but it's not authoritative. How could it be? I'd ask @Bartricks but he's become infatuated with coloring books.

For it is a fact that purely metaphysical ideas—and therefore philosophical ideas—have been of the greatest importance for cosmology. From Thales to Einstein, from ancient atomism to Descartes’s speculation about matter, from the speculations of Gilbert and Newton and Leibniz and Boscovic about forces to those of Faraday and Einstein about fields of forces, metaphysical ideas have shown the way.
~ Karl Popper — Pantagruel

I wonder how many metaphysical ideas have been off the mark. I guess that's the beauty of being a metaphysician, no one really cares when a theory is wrong.

I suppose my basic point is that metaphysicians are essentially theorists. Theorists are not authoritative in nature but speculative. No matter how well reasoned a theory might be, it is still just a theory.

No relevant example, how piteous.

An example of what, exactly, Pratis? — Bartricks

Dementia?

A metaphysician making a claim about God's existence that's not metaphysical. Something relevant that might support the claim that metaphysicians are authoritative on the subject, if that's not too much trouble.

if a metaphysician said that "the existence of God makes me feel lovely" then they have said something about God's existence that is not metaphysical. — Bartricks

Are they acting in the capacity of a metaphysical authority when they say such things? No. So why don't you give a relevant example, being the expert that you are?

Well, it doesn't follow from it being true that I should be able to give an example. But meh. As for an example, the claim "God's existence makes me feel lovely" is not metaphysical, yet it is about God's existence. — Bartricks

Remember you're trying to support the claim that metaphysicians are the authorities on the subject. This suggests otherwise. Surely metaphysicians can say things of more substance, yes?

Whether God exists or not is a metaphysical question. But it does not follow from that that everything that one might say about God's existence is metaphysical. — Bartricks

If true, you should be able to give an example. I won’t hold my breath.

do you have any credentials in this area at all? — Bartricks

No, and worse, I probably have below average intelligence.

I'll answer your question if you answer mine. :smile:

If the existence of God is a metaphysical question then how can any claim about it be anything else but a metaphysical claim? If the claim were somehow supported by science.
— praxis

I do not understand what you are saying. — Bartricks

I'll try to make it simpler for you. If a metaphysician made a claim about whether or not God exists, would that not be a metaphysical claim?

A metaphysician can necessarily only make metaphysical claims about the existence of God.
— praxis

Er, no. That's a metaphysical claim, and it is false. — Bartricks

Whether a god exists or not is a metaphysical question. — Bartricks

If the existence of God is a metaphysical question then how can any claim about it be anything else but a metaphysical claim? If the claim were somehow supported by science.

Yet you are confident that the empirical sciences do investigate questions such as whether a god exists. — Bartricks

I'm not aware of any such studies. I wrote that science can support or debunk metaphysical claims. Your reading comprehension could use more attention, my friend.

For example, reading 'The God Delusion' would be a big mistake if you wanted to find out whether a god exists or not. It is written by someone whose expertise is in biology, not metaphysics.
— Bartricks

Only metaphysicians are authoritative on the existence of a God? That doesn’t make sense. — praxis

Yes it does. Who else is an expert on it, then? — Bartricks

A metaphysician can necessarily only make metaphysical claims about the existence of God. A biologist, on the other hand, can offer physical evidence supporting or disproving metaphysical claims. For instance, biological evolution appears to contradict claims made about God. Even fields of study like history and sociology have a lot to say about the existence of God.

For example, reading 'The God Delusion' would be a big mistake if you wanted to find out whether a god exists or not. It is written by someone whose expertise is in biology, not metaphysics. — Bartricks

Only metaphysicians are authoritative on the existence of a God? That doesn’t make sense.

I suppose you’ll have to trust me when I say that no one needs support in a confrontation with the forum clown.

What are you talking about? I wasn’t even addressing you.