Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Knight of Faith]

We call the arts (in this sense literature, philosophy, visual arts, acting etc.) the humanities, because it is the concentration of human culture. It expresses both metaphorically and literally human life; all the struggles, the meanings, the beliefs, the fears, through different mediums of expression etc. We are able to express deep emotions and thoughts via the arts to one another in a way that is unique to itself.

Science on the other hand, tends to be cold and corrosive. It has lifeless values, that with continued progression take away the "humanity" aspect of life. Yes, of course it makes life manageable, and probable, but adds nothing to our subjective expression to share with each other.

This dichotomy has been troubling me deeply. I wonder if it would in our best interest (a priori of course) to abolish science to attain the fullest, most respected view of life by looking to the arts to share our subjectivity on what life is, to attain a universal definition that all can relate to, or to keep the two constant to maintain a dichotomy that keeps us at a neutral constant, merely expanding our knowledge of humanity, rather than expressing the deepest beliefs and urges.

[Spiral Out]

As far as the meaning of life, I think we would look to that which we could not do without in our lives as thinking and feeling entities. For me, it's music. There are songs that I owe my life to. They are both mantra and spectra.

[Misty]

We call the arts (in this sense literature, philosophy, visual arts, acting etc.) the humanities, because it is the concentration of human culture. It expresses both metaphorically and literally human life; all the struggles, the meanings, the beliefs, the fears, through different mediums of expression etc. We are able to express deep emotions and thoughts via the arts to one another in a way that is unique to itself.

Science on the other hand, tends to be cold and corrosive. It has lifeless values, that with continued progression take away the "humanity" aspect of life. Yes, of course it makes life manageable, and probable, but adds nothing to our subjective expression to share with each other.

This dichotomy has been troubling me deeply. I wonder if it would in our best interest (a priori of course) to abolish science to attain the fullest, most respected view of life by looking to the arts to share our subjectivity on what life is, to attain a universal definition that all can relate to, or to keep the two constant to maintain a dichotomy that keeps us at a neutral constant, merely expanding our knowledge of humanity, rather than expressing the deepest beliefs and urges.ou

I think keeping all learning sources is the best answer. Good, bad, indifferent, as each human is on his/her own journey and pace of that journey, so having all sources at ones disposal gives a resting place for the soul to learn and another place to move on to. Live and let live.

[Harbal]

I wonder if it would in our best interest (a priori of course) to abolish science

I think most people appreciate their mobile phone more than they appreciate anything that could be described as art. If you tried to take them away you'd be the most hated person on the planet.

[Cosmic Keys]

We call the arts (in this sense literature, philosophy, visual arts, acting etc.) the humanities, because it is the concentration of human culture... Science on the other hand, tends to be cold and corrosive... [and takes] away the "humanity" aspect of life. Yes, of course it makes life manageable, and probable, but adds nothing to our subjective expression to share with each other. This dichotomy has been troubling me deeply.

Hello. I feel that I can personally relate to your struggle, because I'm a scientist and an artist simultaneously. From my perspective, to get rid of either kingdom would be to die because both avenues provide meaning for people's lives. The arts try to get as subjective as possible, while the sciences try to be as objective as possible to obtain the best possible truth. Either - or both - approaches satisfy different people's needs for meaning and perspective.

Plus as previously mentioned getting rid of either one would send the losing team after your guts. And not to mention that what you suggest is impossible anyway.

[Hereandnow]

Science on the other hand, tends to be cold and corrosive. It has lifeless values, that with continued progression take away the "humanity" aspect of life. Yes, of course it makes life manageable, and probable, but adds nothing to our subjective expression to share with each other.

You think of it this way because youre not thinking of the doing of science, just the product. But consider that a theory can be very elegant and cognition itself when well engaged is intrinsically aesthetic and a lot of fun to do. It' just complex fun. If you re good at moving symbols around in your head in a rule-governed way, then how is this any different from moving the elements of a physical medium to create a painting, a musical composition, and the like? Thoughts have form, intent, meaning; there is drive or motivation to produce them and they ar epart of a lived experience in problem solving. COld? Lifeless? No; it just takes a calm mind to enter into the creative act of putting meanings in play.

[boagie]

All of humanities arts and letters are extensions of our biological nature, and are what is truly valuable to both the present and the future. This is what the generations give one to another, the truth, the beauty and invention of the age recorded into the various mediums as what might aid our progeny. To receive this from our ancestors is a great honor and gives us a sense of where we come from, but in fact, the cultural treasures of every country we now realize, are gifts from our common ancestor and as such we are related to every living thing on the planet. This heritage gift giving must include now a spiritual connection to the earth that sustains us, this our ancestors have been of late neglectful of, and/or we as a generation have been slow to learn. The meaning of life, is what sustains life, what enriches life, what makes life less brutal, meaningless and short. The vehicle which supplies and maintains our global culture today, is the full historical spectrum of the richness of our common ancestors around the world, Yes, the arts and letters and everything in between represent the meaning of life, our contribution to the historical culture of the world---------pass it on!!

[Neznac]

We call the arts (in this sense literature, philosophy, visual arts, acting etc.) the humanities, because it is the concentration of human culture. It expresses both metaphorically and literally human life; all the struggles, the meanings, the beliefs, the fears, through different mediums of expression etc. We are able to express deep emotions and thoughts via the arts to one another in a way that is unique to itself.

Science on the other hand, tends to be cold and corrosive. It has lifeless values, that with continued progression take away the "humanity" aspect of life. Yes, of course it makes life manageable, and probable, but adds nothing to our subjective expression to share with each other.

In my view the prime interest of science is to achieve an accurate representation of reality, while the meaning of art is to achieve the most powerful/potent presentation of reality. (This is basically the opposite of what aesthetic theory has claimed when it centered on the arts as being representational.) So science focuses on a quantified re-presentation of reality, while art's importance is to express a quality of presentation. So while both human skills (the arts and the sciences) are examples of both presentation and representation, it's the presentation that is important in art and the representation that is important in science.

While 'presentation' focuses of the impact of the agent/subject, 'representation' focuses of the import of the facts, but when we get down to the meaning, or how each relates to the "meaning of life" then I tend to agree that art is our more primitive expression of meaning, but someone with a great artistic sense, like Carl Sagan, can make science much more imbued with meaning because of the nature of his presentation.

[Hereandnow]

In my view the prime interest of science is to achieve an accurate representation of reality, while the meaning of art is to achieve the most powerful/potent presentation of reality. (This is basically the opposite of what aesthetic theory has claimed when it centered on the arts as being representational.) So science focuses on a quantified re-presentation of reality, while art's importance is to express a quality of presentation. So while both human skills (the arts and the sciences) are examples of both presentation and representation, it's the presentation that is important in art and the representation that is important in science.

While 'presentation' focuses of the impact of the agent/subject, 'representation' focuses of the import of the facts, but when we get down to the meaning, or how each relates to the "meaning of life" then I tend to agree that art is our more primitive expression of meaning, but someone with a great artistic sense, like Carl Sagan, can make science much more imbued with meaning because of the nature of his presentation.

I like this view, not because it is so right (though it is certainly close to right), but that is opens issues and philosophy should do this. "Powerful and potent" are excellent words here, for they do not define too precisely, thereby excluding kinds of experience that typically challenge our intuitive sense of what an aesthetic experience is supposed to be.


I am of the thinking that art is qualitatively boundless. It could be the scent of a rose (and why not odors and scents?), a nausea, a terror (Munch's The Scream), a laugh, a wailing; it could be delicate or vulgar; it could be pleasing or irritating; these are not limited in the expansive definition of art today (considering all that is admitted into the art world. See Dickie and Danto)

This means that art can be anything, and of course, conceptual; necessarily conceptual, I would say). Conceptual art is the most challenging for me since there is so much that is of the mere, as you put it, representational side, that is, the explanitory side or the intellectual side. Concepts themselves, qua concepts, have no aesthetic aspect (though this is an interesting issue in and of itself: all conepts qua concepts are abstractions lifted from the experience. In reality, there never has been a valueless concept since all ideas have their place in the psyche which is never without a motivation, a meaning. All concepts are of a "caring") and conceptual art puts the conceptual end of the object deeply into play (unlike music. say, which has very little of this. It's hard to find conceptual music pieces. The jingle of the bells on a sleigh represented by, say, the striking of the triangle?)


All art issues from experience, and experience is a broad range of diverse possibilities. But it would appear that not all experience, because it is a powerful and potent presentation, is art. And can it be that some art is not a powerful and potent presentation? Perhaps it is still art, but bad art. And because "powerful and potent" is so vague, does it not fail to carry the essence of art? Escaping earth's gravity requires enduring escape velocity, a very powerful experience. It can be art, I believe, but under what condtiions?


Just some thoughts.

[Neznac]

I like this view, not because it is so right (though it is certainly close to right), but that is opens issues and philosophy should do this. "Powerful and potent" are excellent words here, for they do not define too precisely, thereby excluding kinds of experience that typically challenge our intuitive sense of what an aesthetic experience is supposed to be.


I am of the thinking that art is qualitatively boundless. It could be the scent of a rose (and why not odors and scents?), a nausea, a terror (Munch's The Scream), a laugh, a wailing; it could be delicate or vulgar; it could be pleasing or irritating; these are not limited in the expansive definition of art today (considering all that is admitted into the art world. See Dickie and Danto)

. . . .

Just some thoughts.

I'm very pleased to have "opened" up the issue to some very interesting points of view. I'm very much struck by the notion that art is qualitatively boundless because this seems to indicate that unlike science it is not "bounded" or limited by reality, and that's the great beauty of it. So in that same sense art is real for the way it can surpass the use of language, while science is real in how it uses language to represent reality (which is presently not yet fully articulated). However, potentially, there is a limit to science in that it might some day fully articulate reality, while art is really infinite in its scope and potential.

[Thinking critical]

The meaning of life is self explanatory, live a meaningful life, what ever that means to the individual.

[Neznac]

The meaning of life is self explanatory, live a meaningful life, what ever that means to the individual.

Yes. So while science is our attempt to represent reality, art might be our attempts to represent the meaning of life? In that sense that is perhaps why 'presentation' is most important in art because through that we are creating reality (which science can then attempt to represent).

[Hereandnow]

This is what art and ethics have in commom: They have value at their core. That makes them so difficult to understand. Value cannot be observed, yet it is the most salient feature of our world. It is the meaning of meaning; and yet, again, unobservable, transcendent.

[Theophane]

I wonder if it would in our best interest (a priori of course) to abolish science to attain the fullest, most respected view of life by looking to the arts to share our subjectivity on what life is

We can't abolish science. We need it, for obvious reasons. We have the increased luxury of looking to the arts to share our subjectivity of what life is because our quality of life is improving by scientific means. Personally, I think art and science aren't mutually damaging. There's some artistry to science and some science to art.

[Belinda]

Harbal wrote:

I think most people appreciate their mobile phone more than they appreciate anything that could be described as art. If you tried to take them away you'd be the most hated person on the planet.

Harbal's mobile phone is his material object, and what he uses it for is how Harbal expresses himself with it. Art is a posher way of expressing ourselves .Harbal for all I know may be a trained artist, perhaps Harbal is a rhetoritician on his mobile phone, however undoubtedly Harbal expresses himherself .