Philosophy Discussion Forums

GaryLouisSmith It's a pity you put words in my mouth, the last time you replied to me. Please try not to do that.

This is actually what I wrote about how skill relates to art:

Conceptual art is not antisocial if the maker is skilled and uses his skill to convey meaning. Whether or not the form is whittled away there must be intended meaning. Any magpie can assemble a jumble of meaningless bits and pieces.

This is what you wrote:

I agree. If you judge a work of art by looking to see if the artist has skill, then it is not anti-social. Society is always built on some ordering principle. In this case it is built on the divide between those who have skill and those who don't. Art is defined as that which is made by those who have skill. It becomes aristocratic. The artist is exalted as special. He/she is the best society has to offer. An artist becomes a creator god. To be in the presence of a real artist is a humbling moment.

Skill is not the only criterion for an artefact's being art. The thing also has to mean something. When skill is combined with meaning , including when all traditional forms have been stripped off, you have art. Meaning is more important than skill, as a small child might on occasion make a meaningful picture or assemblage.
Beauty enters into the artefact when the maker is also honest in her intention, including when the artefact is intended for utility. An example of insidiously harmful absence of beauty is when the maker prostitutes her work for profit, like commercial art which is not sufficient unto itself ars gratia artis. Metro -Goldwyn -Mayer with their lion icon prostituted that very saying!

There could be the valid objection that classical and Renaissance artists and musicians worked for their livings and made stuff by order of aristocrats who lacked merit.I guess this shows that form and meaning oscillate according to the social order of the times. Those artists today who are avant garde are the ones society needs in this age of uncertainty and revolution when we cannot see the way ahead.

I agree with your point that when art is defined that which has been made by those who have skill it it becomes aristocratic. Merit should be the only cause of aristocratic status.Artistic merit pertains to avant garde only when the maker means something and can express her meaning.

Greta wrote: ↑August 19th, 2019, 12:15 am I imagined that some of the entities would persist

In case you might be wondering about what I think of life on earth disappearing because of climate change, here is my philosophy. I believe that all things analyze into timeless ontological elements. Timeless things do not come into existence and then fall out of existence. All things, all people, even my cup of soup, are made out of those eternal elements. Therefore the forms that you see before you now have always been and will always return. Everything repeats. Nothing is ever lost. It all comes again. And again. And again.

Belindi wrote: ↑August 19th, 2019, 5:30 am GaryLouisSmith It's a pity you put words in my mouth, the last time you replied to me. Please try not to do that.

This is actually what I wrote about how skill relates to art:

Conceptual art is not antisocial if the maker is skilled and uses his skill to convey meaning. Whether or not the form is whittled away there must be intended meaning. Any magpie can assemble a jumble of meaningless bits and pieces.

I'm sorry. I will never try to interpret your words again.

I deserved that. Please look again at my last post. Because of my magic ability to edit my posts I added a lot more which I think you will agree with.

Belindi wrote: ↑August 19th, 2019, 5:30 am GaryLouisSmith It's a pity you put words in my mouth, the last time you replied to me. Please try not to do that.

This is actually what I wrote about how skill relates to art:

Conceptual art is not antisocial if the maker is skilled and uses his skill to convey meaning. Whether or not the form is whittled away there must be intended meaning. Any magpie can assemble a jumble of meaningless bits and pieces.

This is what you wrote:

I agree. If you judge a work of art by looking to see if the artist has skill, then it is not anti-social. Society is always built on some ordering principle. In this case it is built on the divide between those who have skill and those who don't. Art is defined as that which is made by those who have skill. It becomes aristocratic. The artist is exalted as special. He/she is the best society has to offer. An artist becomes a creator god. To be in the presence of a real artist is a humbling moment.

Skill is not the only criterion for an artefact's being art. The thing also has to mean something. When skill is combined with meaning , including when all traditional forms have been stripped off, you have art. Meaning is more important than skill, as a small child might on occasion make a meaningful picture or assemblage.
Beauty enters into the artefact when the maker is also honest in her intention, including when the artefact is intended for utility. An example of insidiously harmful absence of beauty is when the maker prostitutes her work for profit, like commercial art which is not sufficient unto itself ars gratia artis. Metro -Goldwyn -Mayer with their lion icon prostituted that very saying!

There could be the valid objection that classical and Renaissance artists and musicians worked for their livings and made stuff by order of aristocrats who lacked merit.I guess this shows that form and meaning oscillate according to the social order of the times. Those artists today who are avant garde are the ones society needs in this age of uncertainty and revolution when we cannot see the way ahead.

I agree with your point that when art is defined that which has been made by those who have skill it it becomes aristocratic. Merit should be the only cause of aristocratic status.Artistic merit pertains to avant garde only when the maker means something and can express her meaning.

Andy Warhol is my favorite artist of the late twentieth century. What do you think of him? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkQvoi6i8TA

Belindi wrote: ↑August 19th, 2019, 5:30 am
This is actually what I wrote about how skill relates to art:

"Conceptual art is not antisocial if the maker is skilled and uses his skill to convey meaning. Whether or not the form is whittled away there must be intended meaning. Any magpie can assemble a jumble of meaningless bits and pieces."

Whether or not art is antisocial cannot in any sense be related to the skill used by the artist.
Art being antisocial has to hinge fully on the content and meaning, both of which are only very obliquely related to the skill needed to convey meaning, not to the actual meaning.
If we were to take what you are saying at face value is that a good skillful artist is not capable of making a piece of antisocial art; or that a skill-less artist could only make antisocial art.

Jklint wrote: ↑August 18th, 2019, 8:23 pmWas it really necessary to fill the universe with so many black holes? Was this a way of erasing his own failures? All very legitimate philosophical questions. :mrgreen

Greta wrote: ↑August 19th, 2019, 12:15 am A good reason, because supermassive black holes are God and there are a lot of smaller wannabes around. SM black holes are huge beyond imagining, they are inconceivable, they are all powerful, they are creative (creating all galaxies). They are a realm which none may enter and leave and, at their cores, they are beyond time.

No arguments from me! I was just being my usual arrogant, sarcastic self. I was thinking analogically that Black Holes in reference to god is merely ITS ways of blotting out confidential or incriminating data in much the same manner politicians do when forced to make their reports public. In a rather weird way the analogy seems pertinent in that the mysteries inside a Black Hole may never be completely declassified.

It's extremely unlikely a universe could exist without them or more speculatively, that the universe itself may be contained in one. Gravitationally, it seems to me there would be no difference in thinking of the universe itself as a super-giant Black Hole; if you multiplex that into a multiverse design it could possibly explain Dark Energy as that proceeding from neighboring Black Holes causing the acceleration rate whose cause we still don't know. But these are just amateurish speculations!

Sagittarius A * - as far as this galaxy is concerned - can truly be considered its local temple god among a near infinity of such localities creating ONE universe...and who knows how many more of them there are. Within a multiverse, the space requirements of a single universe may be no larger than that of a lonely quark relative to our universe.

If the universe is digital then black holes may be its compression protocols.

Better stop here before I lose it!

Jklint wrote: ↑August 19th, 2019, 6:36 pm

Jklint wrote: ↑August 18th, 2019, 8:23 pmWas it really necessary to fill the universe with so many black holes? Was this a way of erasing his own failures? All very legitimate philosophical questions. :mrgreen

No arguments from me! I was just being my usual arrogant, sarcastic self. I was thinking analogically that Black Holes in reference to god is merely ITS ways of blotting out confidential or incriminating data in much the same manner politicians do when forced to make their reports public. In a rather weird way the analogy seems pertinent in that the mysteries inside a Black Hole may never be completely declassified.

It's extremely unlikely a universe could exist without them or more speculatively, that the universe itself may be contained in one. Gravitationally, it seems to me there would be no difference in thinking of the universe itself as a super-giant Black Hole; if you multiplex that into a multiverse design it could possibly explain Dark Energy as that proceeding from neighboring Black Holes causing the acceleration rate whose cause we still don't know. But these are just amateurish speculations!

Sagittarius A * - as far as this galaxy is concerned - can truly be considered its local temple god among a near infinity of such localities creating ONE universe...and who knows how many more of them there are. Within a multiverse, the space requirements of a single universe may be no larger than that of a lonely quark relative to our universe.

If the universe is digital then black holes may be its compression protocols.

Better stop here before I lose it!

In order to help you climb your intellectual Parnasus, I have run your essay through various translators and academic sentence generators.

No arguments from me! I was just being my customary arrogant, mordant self. I was cerebrating analogically that Ebony Apertures in reference to god is merely ITS ways of blotting out confidential or incriminating data in much the same manner politicians do when coerced to make their reports public. In a rather weird way the analogy seems pertinent in that the mysteries inside a Ebony Aperture may never be consummately declassified.

It's profoundly unlikely a macrocosm could subsist without them or more speculatively, that the macrocosm itself may be contained in one. Gravitationally, it seems to me there would be no difference in cerebrating of the macrocosm itself as a super-giant Ebony Aperture; if you multiplex that into a multiverse design it could possibly expound Dark Energy as that proceeding from neighboring Ebony Apertures causing the expedition rate whose cause we still don't ken. But these are just tyronic notional theorizations!

Sagittarius A * - as far as this galaxy is concerned - can authentically be considered its local temple god among a near illimitability of such localities engendering ONE macrocosm...and who kens how many more of them there are. Within a multiverse, the space requisites of a single macrocosm may be no more immensely colossal than that of a solitary quark relative to our macrocosm.

If the macrocosm is digital then ebony apertures may be its compression protocols.

Better stop here afore I lose it!

Latin is nice
Nec argumentis a me! EGO eram iustus mihi solet esse superbus, mordax sui. Titanium in lumine foraminula sum ad Deum solum analogice de moribus aut criminis indicia multa specialis delens quod non similiter publica fama publica facere cogitur. In a fatum potius esse videtur analogia ad viam pertinet, quod interius in arcanis, ut nunquam Titanium aperturæ non declassified consummatur.

Est penitus abhorret a maiori mundo vel intellectualiter, absque illis legibus caderent, id ipsum ad maiorem eorum aliqui contineatur in unum. Gravitationally videtur mihi ex maiori lumine nulla differentia est sicut gigas magnis Titanium aperturæ; multiplex esse non posset, si in consilio exponere multiverse Tenebris segnius propinquos procedentem Titanium aperturarum expeditionem faciendam certe scis quare non habemus. Sed isti sunt huiusmodi tyronic sicut theorizations!

Sagittarius A * - quatenus haec quidem galaxia - vere non posse considerari locus templo dei sui et inter haec loca iuxta illimitability in Macrocosmo Motuum praecedentium ... generans et unus ex illis non amplius sint, quot Kens. Multiverse intra spatium unius maiori apparatu infinitæ magnitudinis ultra quam ad nostrum solitariam Quark maiori.

Si ergo hebeninos commutaverunt in maiore mundo digital foraminum sit compressio protocols.

Melius amitto hic consistendum ante eam



No arguments from me! I was just habituated to being proud, exacting their own. By analogy, to the search for God alone in the light of the diminutive apertures of the titanium am the having blotted out that it is not in like manner public morals, or the report of a special public evidence of a malefaction compelled to do many things. That the analogy to the way of the fate of it belongs in a more preponderant than they are, what they cerebrate interiorly in the secret, not declassified so as never to titanium of the aperture is brought to completion.

There is a more preponderant thing in the world or be thoroughly at variance with, or perception, without these laws would perish, that withal is the greatest of them may be contained in one of them. It seemeth to me there is not a difference of the light, like a giant gravitationally with great titanium from the major premiss of the aperture; may be of many would not be able, of his relatives, if, proceeding more gradually than in the counsel of titanium The dark aperture of the campaign, to expound the multiverse, why can not we have to be made at least knowest. But these are the kind tyronic as Theorization!

Sagittarius A * - to the extent that the galaxy - it authentically can not be considered a place near the temple of their god during these places illimitability in the macrocosm ... engenderer and one of them no longer have many Kens. Equipment within the space of one of the more immensely colossal to the multiverse immensely great, more than our solitary Quark a major one.

If, consequently, there is a compression of the apertures of the special markets; they exchanged for the macrocosm is the digital protocols.

Better stop here afore I lose it

Morse code is sometimes helpful
-.. -.-. --- -.. . / -- --- .-. ... . -. --- / .- .-. --. ..- -- . -. - ... / ..-. .-. --- -- / -- . -.-.-- / .. / .-- .- ... / .--- ..- ... - / -... . .. -. --. / -- -.-- / -.-. --- -. ...- . -. - .. --- -. .- .-.. / .- .-. .-. --- --. .- -. - --..-- / -- --- .-. -.. .- -.-. .. --- ..- ... / ... . .-.. ..-. .-.-.- / .. / .-- .- ... / -.-. . .-. . -... .-. .- - .. -. --. / .- -. .- .-.. --- --. .. -.-. .- .-.. .-.. -.-- / - .... .- - / . -... --- -. -.-- / .- .--. . .-. - ..- .-. . ... / .. -. / .-. . ..-. . .-. . -. -.-. . / - --- / --. --- -.. / .. ... / -- . .-. . .-.. -.-- / .. - ... / .-- .- -.-- ... / --- ..-. / -... .-.. --- - - .. -. --. / --- ..- - / -.-. --- -. ..-. .. -.. . -. - .. .- .-.. / --- .-. / .. -. -.-. .-. .. -- .. -. .- - .. -. --. / -.. .- - .- / .. -. / -- ..- -.-. .... / - .... . / ... .- -- . / -- .- -. -. . .-. / .--. --- .-.. .. - .. -.-. .. .- -. ... / -.. --- / .-- .... . -. / -.-. --- . .-. -.-. . -.. / - --- / -- .- -.- . / - .... . .. .-. / .-. . .--. --- .-. - ... / .--. ..- -... .-.. .. -.-. .-.-.- / .. -. / .- / .-. .- - .... . .-. / .-- . .. .-. -.. / .-- .- -.-- / - .... . / .- -. .- .-.. --- --. -.-- / ... . . -- ... / .--. . .-. - .. -. . -. - / .. -. / - .... .- - / - .... . / -- -.-- ... - . .-. .. . ... / .. -. ... .. -.. . / .- / . -... --- -. -.-- / .- .--. . .-. - ..- .-. . / -- .- -.-- / -. . ...- . .-. / -... . / - .... --- .-. --- ..- --. .... .-.. -.-- / -.. . -.-. .-.. .- ... ... .. ..-. .. . -.. .-.-.- / .. - .----. ... / .--. .-. --- -.. .. --. .. --- ..- ... .-.. -.-- / ..- -. .-.. .. -.- . .-.. -.-- / .- / -- .- -.-. .-. --- -.-. --- ... -- / -.-. --- ..- .-.. -.. / ... ..- -... ... .. ... - / .-- .. - .... --- ..- - / - .... . -- / --- .-. / -- --- .-. . / ... .--. . -.-. ..- .-.. .- - .. ...- . .-.. -.-- --..-- / - .... .- - / - .... . / -- .- -.-. .-. --- -.-. --- ... -- / .. - ... . .-.. ..-. / -- .- -.-- / -... . / -.-. --- -. - .- .. -. . -.. / .. -. / --- -. . .-.-.- / --. .-. .- ...- .. - .- - .. --- -. .- .-.. .-.. -.-- --..-- / .. - / ... . . -- ... / - --- / -- . / - .... . .-. . / .-- --- ..- .-.. -.. / -... . / -. --- / -.. .. ..-. ..-. . .-. . -. -.-. . / .. -. / -.-. . .-. . -... .-. .- - .. -. --. / --- ..-. / - .... . / -- .- -.-. .-. --- -.-. --- ... -- / .. - ... . .-.. ..-. / .- ... / .- / ... ..- .--. . .-. -....- --. .. .- -. - / . -... --- -. -.-- / .- .--. . .-. - ..- .-. . -.-.-. / .. ..-. / -.-- --- ..- / -- ..- .-.. - .. .--. .-.. . -..- / - .... .- - / .. -. - --- / .- / -- ..- .-.. - .. ...- . .-. ... . / -.. . ... .. --. -. / .. - / -.-. --- ..- .-.. -.. / .--. --- ... ... .. -... .-.. -.-- / . -..- .--. .-.. .. -.-. .- - . / -.. .- .-. -.- / . -. . .-. --. -.-- / .- ... / - .... .- - / .--. .-. --- -.-. . . -.. .. -. --. / ..-. .-. --- -- / -. . .. --. .... -... --- .-. .. -. --. / . -... --- -. -.-- / .- .--. . .-. - ..- .-. . ... / -.-. .- ..- ... .. -. --. / - .... . / . -..- .--. . -.. .. - .. --- -. / .-. .- - . / .-- .... --- ... . / -.-. .- ..- ... . / .-- . / ... - .. .-.. .-.. / -.. --- -. .----. - / -.- . -. .-.-.- / -... ..- - / - .... . ... . / .- .-. . / .--- ..- ... - / - -.-- .-. --- -. .. -.-. / -. --- - .. --- -. .- .-.. / - .... . --- .-. .. --.. .- - .. --- -. ... -.-.-- / ... .- --. .. - - .- .-. .. ..- ... / .- / -....- / .- ... / ..-. .- .-. / .- ... / - .... .. ... / --. .- .-.. .- -..- -.-- / .. ... / -.-. --- -. -.-. . .-. -. . -.. / -....- / -.-. .- -. / --. . -. ..- .. -. . .-.. -.-- / -... . / -.-. --- -. ... .. -.. . .-. . -.. / .. - ... / .-.. --- -.-. .- .-.. / - . -- .--. .-.. . / --. --- -.. / .- -- --- -. --. / .- / -. . .- .-. / .. .-.. .-.. .. -- .. - .- -... .. .-.. .. - -.-- / --- ..-. / ... ..- -.-. .... / .-.. --- -.-. .- .-.. .. - .. . ... / . -. --. . -. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / --- -. . / -- .- -.-. .-. --- -.-. --- ... -- .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.- .- -. -.. / .-- .... --- / -.- . -. ... / .... --- .-- / -- .- -. -.-- / -- --- .-. . / --- ..-. / - .... . -- / - .... . .-. . / .- .-. . .-.-.- / .-- .. - .... .. -. / .- / -- ..- .-.. - .. ...- . .-. ... . --..-- / - .... . / ... .--. .- -.-. . / .-. . --.- ..- .. ... .. - . ... / --- ..-. / .- / ... .. -. --. .-.. . / -- .- -.-. .-. --- -.-. --- ... -- / -- .- -.-- / -... . / -. --- / -- --- .-. . / .. -- -- . -. ... . .-.. -.-- / -.-. --- .-.. --- ... ... .- .-.. / - .... .- -. / - .... .- - / --- ..-. / .- / ... --- .-.. .. - .- .-. -.-- / --.- ..- .- .-. -.- / .-. . .-.. .- - .. ...- . / - --- / --- ..- .-. / -- .- -.-. .-. --- -.-. --- ... -- .-.-.- / .. ..-. / - .... . / -- .- -.-. .-. --- -.-. --- ... -- / .. ... / -.. .. --. .. - .- .-.. / - .... . -. / . -... --- -. -.-- / .- .--. . .-. - ..- .-. . ... / -- .- -.-- / -... . / .. - ... / -.-. --- -- .--. .-. . ... ... .. --- -. / .--. .-. --- - --- -.-. --- .-.. ... .-.-.- / -... . - - . .-. / ... - --- .--. / .... . .-. . / .- ..-. --- .-. . / .. / .-.. --- ... . / .. -

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 19th, 2019, 9:38 pm In order to help you climb your intellectual Parnasus, I have run your essay through various translators and academic sentence generators.

I was getting ready to prepare a somewhat extended post to your...

Oh screw it, I'm just going to tell you what I think.

First you have to learn how to read historical texts with a critical eye. And not just get your information about religion from cable news. I think you have probably been indoctrinated by the popular media, though of course I could be wrong.

I am going to assume that every religion had a starting point and it didn’t just appear full blown out of nowhere. I am also going to assume that there are certain foundational texts and they are in the mix with all the other non-religious writings of the period...

Some of what you wrote required more thought to digest because the way you think is less conventional than much of what is encountered in philosophy forums. I was ready to prepare a response that was a bit longer than my usual length but seeing how your latest one turned out, I think I'll cancel.

Jklint wrote: ↑August 20th, 2019, 12:22 am

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 19th, 2019, 9:38 pm In order to help you climb your intellectual Parnasus, I have run your essay through various translators and academic sentence generators.

I was getting ready to prepare a somewhat extended post to your...

Oh screw it, I'm just going to tell you what I think.

First you have to learn how to read historical texts with a critical eye. And not just get your information about religion from cable news. I think you have probably been indoctrinated by the popular media, though of course I could be wrong.

I am going to assume that every religion had a starting point and it didn’t just appear full blown out of nowhere. I am also going to assume that there are certain foundational texts and they are in the mix with all the other non-religious writings of the period...

Some of what you wrote required more thought to digest because the way you think is less conventional than much of what is encountered in philosophy forums. I was ready to prepare a response that was a bit longer than my usual length but seeing how your latest one turned out, I think I'll cancel.

Don't cancel. I want to know what you think.

Jklint wrote: ↑August 19th, 2019, 6:36 pm…the mysteries inside a Black Hole may never be completely declassified.

We really strain our imaginations when it comes down to Black Holes, don't we?
Yet no matter how mysterious it's still just natural phenomena.

Jklint wrote: ↑August 20th, 2019, 3:23 am We really strain our imaginations when it comes down to Black Holes, don't we?
Yet no matter how mysterious it's still just natural phenomena.

The opposite a a natural phenomenon is one that would require outside fine-tuning for it to exist. It is still an open question about whether or not a black hole is a natural phenomenon or not. We don't have the theoretical physics that can explain it. We are working on it, but we aren't there yet. We still need an outside piece of fine-tuning. This is the Cosmological Constant problem that I mentioned before. I think nobody knows if physics can come up with something to make it all natural. Of course physicists have to keep trying, but we may be at the end of physics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWPFJgLAzu4&t=721s

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑August 19th, 2019, 12:33 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑August 19th, 2019, 5:30 am
This is actually what I wrote about how skill relates to art:

"Conceptual art is not antisocial if the maker is skilled and uses his skill to convey meaning. Whether or not the form is whittled away there must be intended meaning. Any magpie can assemble a jumble of meaningless bits and pieces."

Whether or not art is antisocial cannot in any sense be related to the skill used by the artist.
Art being antisocial has to hinge fully on the content and meaning, both of which are only very obliquely related to the skill needed to convey meaning, not to the actual meaning.
If we were to take what you are saying at face value is that a good skillful artist is not capable of making a piece of antisocial art; or that a skill-less artist could only make antisocial art.

I meant and would better have written 'conceptual art relates to society if the maker is skilled and uses his skill to convey meaning.'
If this were not so conceptual art or any art style would be meaningless because meanings are cultural, not private.

God in the form of a black hole has attributes we need to resist for our own good.
1. Authority.

2. Mystery

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑August 20th, 2019, 4:18 am

Jklint wrote: ↑August 20th, 2019, 3:23 am We really strain our imaginations when it comes down to Black Holes, don't we?
Yet no matter how mysterious it's still just natural phenomena.

The opposite a a natural phenomenon is one that would require outside fine-tuning for it to exist. It is still an open question about whether or not a black hole is a natural phenomenon or not. We don't have the theoretical physics that can explain it. We are working on it, but we aren't there yet. We still need an outside piece of fine-tuning. This is the Cosmological Constant problem that I mentioned before. I think nobody knows if physics can come up with something to make it all natural. Of course physicists have to keep trying, but we may be at the end of physics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWPFJgLAzu4&t=721s

A modernist presumes nature is ordered and 'out there' possibly to be discovered. Then the modernist physicist gets on with doing the sums to explain the pre-established order.

How could one be a Platonist who believes in eternal forms, and notbelieve in pre-establshed order?