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

[Sculptor1]

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.

Do you mean de re or de facto? I have to object again. Much of the most skill-less art can relate to society, tragically.
Second sentence is a non sequitur.

You are still trying to link skill and meaning. If all you mean by skill is the ability to create cultural meaning, then you are just conveying a tautology. However I do not think skill can be relegated to such a thin definition.

Some of the most skilful art can be utterly meaningless to society. That does not mean it is meaningless to the person of the artist. By contrast accidental art can attract lots of meaning:

1) I can show you the very most skilful sculpture of a portrait of an unknown person - the societal meaning of which is nil, since the person is unknown. But there is no doubt that the skill of catching a likeness of the person is utmost.

2) By contrast, a skilless graffito can have bags of social meaning. Meaning that can be achieved completely unintentionally.

[GaryLouisSmith]

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?

“While science may explain reason; magic could explain “unreason”.”

The idea of pre-established harmony comes out of the Medieval Occult Arts, Hermeticism. It is from magic and alchemy. One affects the macrocosm by manipulating a symbol, a microcosm. Anyway, one doesn’t come to know the Platonic Forms through rational, clear-headed observation and calculation. One learns the Forms in dreams. In audio and visual hallucinations, i.e. religious visions. Or as Jung said, the gods are diseases of the mind. Plato always spoke of Divine Madness as the way to the Forms. Unreason. The Great God Eros.

[Belindi]

I said 'order', actually.

Regarding the microcosm affecting the macrocosm , manipulating symbols is ineffectual compared with applying science.

Are you sure Jung's archetypes are the same as Plato's forms? Did Plato learn the forms in his dreams or when he was consciously aware?
What is unreasoning about Eros, the greatest reasoners have a lot of energy.

[Sy Borg]

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.

So it seems. All populations, living or not, have their gregarious members, the isolated, dominants and subjugates, conduits and destroyers.

[GaryLouisSmith]

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.

So it seems. All populations, living or not, have their gregarious members, the isolated, dominants and subjugates, conduits and destroyers.

Go on. Can you develop your idea more? I can't quite get it. Maybe I just need coffee.

[GaryLouisSmith]

I said 'order', actually.

Regarding the microcosm affecting the macrocosm , manipulating symbols is ineffectual compared with applying science.

Are you sure Jung's archetypes are the same as Plato's forms? Did Plato learn the forms in his dreams or when he was consciously aware?
What is unreasoning about Eros, the greatest reasoners have a lot of energy.

Order is one of the most difficult, maybe the most difficult, idea to define in philosophy. If one tries to manipulate the rational world with symbols, one will always fail.

As for whether or not Jung's archetypes are the same as Plato" forms, that seems to me to be a question a graduate student might pose as in a dissertation. One could go either way. Plato said that the god Eros in our guide to the Forms. Take that as you will. You are asking historical questions that are unanswerable. Philosophy is neither history nor psychology. In the East it is the female principle (Shakti) that is where energy lies, not the male, which is quiet contemplation. In the Phaedrus we read that Eros is madness.

[Belindi]

GaryLouisSmith wrote:1.

One learns the Forms in dreams. In audio and visual hallucinations, i.e. religious visions. Or as Jung said, the gods are diseases of the mind. Plato always spoke of Divine Madness as the way to the Forms. Unreason. The Great God Eros.

GaryLouisSmith wrote:2.

As for whether or not Jung's archetypes are the same as Plato" forms, that seems to me to be a question a graduate student might pose as in a dissertation. One could go either way. Plato said that the god Eros in our guide to the Forms. Take that as you will. You are asking historical questions that are unanswerable. Philosophy is neither history nor psychology. In the East it i

You it was in 1. who either intentionally or laconically conflated Platonic forms and Jungian archetypes, so in 1. you did not seem to view these questions as unanswerable. Here is a Wiki account of the matter especially the last section on psychology and philosophy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eros_%28concept%29

Sex is a big part of life some would say the main experience in life. Sexual desire is like a furnace that inflames other energetic, outgoing, and possessive feelings. Sexual desire is refined in the thinking brain so it can become Platonic love. Could your idea of Eros as compared with Plato's be a little too narrow?

Order is one of the most difficult, maybe the most difficult, idea to define in philosophy. If one tries to manipulate the rational world with symbols, one will always fail.

Order and disorder are relative values and are described by meaning.(NB not 'meaning' as in 'intending').To interpret a dream is to make order out of chaos. Dali's soft watch portrayed ordered chaos. The very act of painting the idea ordered chaos. Einstein of course described time as relative and E did it through the medium of physics.These two did not fail to make order from chaos.

As for whether or not Jung's archetypes are the same as Plato" forms, that seems to me to be a question a graduate student might pose as in a dissertation.

That implies the question is too difficult for you. Nonetheless you attempted it in quote 1.

Interpretation of dreams is like interpretation of any mental product, subjective. I've done practical work on dream interpretation. There's a lot good about subjective interpretations of dreams however I'd advise not to regard dream interpretations as predictive although they can be useful for divination, as can some found objects and conceptual art.

One could go either way. Plato said that the god Eros in our guide to the Forms. Take that as you will. You are asking historical questions that are unanswerable. Philosophy is neither history nor psychology. In the East it is the female principle (Shakti) that is where energy lies, not the male, which is quiet contemplation. In the Phaedrus we read that Eros is madness.

If Plato said Eros is our guide to the Forms then Plato establishes Eros as love which includes and surpasses the gonads.

[GaryLouisSmith]

GaryLouisSmith wrote:1.

One learns the Forms in dreams. In audio and visual hallucinations, i.e. religious visions. Or as Jung said, the gods are diseases of the mind. Plato always spoke of Divine Madness as the way to the Forms. Unreason. The Great God Eros.

GaryLouisSmith wrote:2.

As for whether or not Jung's archetypes are the same as Plato" forms, that seems to me to be a question a graduate student might pose as in a dissertation. One could go either way. Plato said that the god Eros in our guide to the Forms. Take that as you will. You are asking historical questions that are unanswerable. Philosophy is neither history nor psychology. In the East it i

You it was in 1. who either intentionally or laconically conflated Platonic forms and Jungian archetypes, so in 1. you did not seem to view these questions as unanswerable. Here is a Wiki account of the matter especially the last section on psychology and philosophy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eros_%28concept%29

Sex is a big part of life some would say the main experience in life. Sexual desire is like a furnace that inflames other energetic, outgoing, and possessive feelings. Sexual desire is refined in the thinking brain so it can become Platonic love. Could your idea of Eros as compared with Plato's be a little too narrow?

Order is one of the most difficult, maybe the most difficult, idea to define in philosophy. If one tries to manipulate the rational world with symbols, one will always fail.

Order and disorder are relative values and are described by meaning.(NB not 'meaning' as in 'intending').To interpret a dream is to make order out of chaos. Dali's soft watch portrayed ordered chaos. The very act of painting the idea ordered chaos. Einstein of course described time as relative and E did it through the medium of physics.These two did not fail to make order from chaos.

As for whether or not Jung's archetypes are the same as Plato" forms, that seems to me to be a question a graduate student might pose as in a dissertation.

That implies the question is too difficult for you. Nonetheless you attempted it in quote 1.

Interpretation of dreams is like interpretation of any mental product, subjective. I've done practical work on dream interpretation. There's a lot good about subjective interpretations of dreams however I'd advise not to regard dream interpretations as predictive although they can be useful for divination, as can some found objects and conceptual art.

One could go either way. Plato said that the god Eros in our guide to the Forms. Take that as you will. You are asking historical questions that are unanswerable. Philosophy is neither history nor psychology. In the East it is the female principle (Shakti) that is where energy lies, not the male, which is quiet contemplation. In the Phaedrus we read that Eros is madness.

If Plato said Eros is our guide to the Forms then Plato establishes Eros as love which includes and surpasses the gonads.

Here’s how I view your quarrel with me. I have been around university people all my life. That means I have witnessed and been involved in a lot of intellectual fights. The fight you are having with me is typical. It is more that typical; it is archetypal. I have never never never gotten along with women. They and the Boy are at odds. Woman and the Boy have been having a vicious B*tch fight since the beginning of time. It will never stop. I don’t mind, and I don’t expect to win. It just goes on and on. Ah, Feminists. They don’t like me. Just ask Greta.

[Sculptor1]

Here’s how I view your quarrel with me. I have been around university people all my life. That means I have witnessed and been involved in a lot of intellectual fights. The fight you are having with me is typical. It is more that typical; it is archetypal. I have never never never gotten along with women. They and the Boy are at odds. Woman and the Boy have been having a vicious B*tch fight since the beginning of time. It will never stop. I don’t mind, and I don’t expect to win. It just goes on and on. Ah, Feminists. They don’t like me. Just ask Greta.

Bloody hell

[Belindi]

GaryLopuisSmith wrote the following ad hominem piece:

Here’s how I view your quarrel with me. I have been around university people all my life. That means I have witnessed and been involved in a lot of intellectual fights. The fight you are having with me is typical. It is more that typical; it is archetypal. I have never never never gotten along with women. They and the Boy are at odds. Woman and the Boy have been having a vicious B*tch fight since the beginning of time. It will never stop. I don’t mind, and I don’t expect to win. It just goes on and on. Ah, Feminists. They don’t like me. Just ask Greta.

[Jklint]

Ah, Feminists. They don’t like me.

Don't be so one-sided! Please to consider the other side of the chromosone bucket.

[Sy Borg]

GaryLopuisSmith wrote the following ad hominem piece:

Here’s how I view your quarrel with me. I have been around university people all my life. That means I have witnessed and been involved in a lot of intellectual fights. The fight you are having with me is typical. It is more that typical; it is archetypal. I have never never never gotten along with women. They and the Boy are at odds. Woman and the Boy have been having a vicious B*tch fight since the beginning of time. It will never stop. I don’t mind, and I don’t expect to win. It just goes on and on. Ah, Feminists. They don’t like me. Just ask Greta.

Belinda, I think the nature of the ad hom deserves one in return.

Gary, you are being a dingleberry - for the following reasons:

1. I am not a feminist. I'm not even a humanist. I'm not even a life-ist, having loved rocks and gems all my life (and used to cut them into bad jewellery) and have been nuts about planets and stars since kindergarten.

No, I am an ist-ist - both in favour of, and resentful towards, everything and everyone. All of us, living or otherwise, are threads in the fabric of existence, both valuable and necessary and utterly disposable. In that is revealed the nature of your God.

2. Why would I dislike you? I sent you some of my music because you took an interest and you especially enjoyed the most wicked, crazy and unconventional piece of dada music I've ever done. I like unconvention because I am so poor at the alternative, so that was a plus for you.

3. Gay men and heterosexual women are very often natural allies, each being afflicted with the same problem ;) What you forget is that, while some women and gay men b1tch against each other, those personalities tend to bellyache about anyone who crosses their path, not just the competition. For them, life is intrinsically unfair.

4. Just in case I missed something.

[GaryLouisSmith]

3. Gay men and heterosexual women are very often natural allies, each being afflicted with the same problem What you forget is that, while some women and gay men b1tch against each other, those personalities tend to bellyache about anyone who crosses their path, not just the competition. For them, life is intrinsically unfair.

4. Just in case I missed something.

Number 3 has nothing to do with me. Nor with what I wrote. It is also where you are being a feminist. You seem to have a one-track mind. As for your being a rockist, I certainly have nothing against that because I was also that when I was a boy. What do you mean "your God"? You've got things all screwed up. Do you have any more "experimental" music I can listen to? I liked it.

[GaryLouisSmith]

Ah, Feminists. They don’t like me.

Don't be so one-sided! Please to consider the other side of the chromosone bucket.

I can't imagine any fate worse than being chain to that bucket. Ah, materialism. it's a absurd non-philosophy.

[GaryLouisSmith]

Don't be so one-sided! Please to consider the other side of the chromosone bucket.

I can't imagine any fate worse than being chain to that bucket. Ah, materialism. it's a absurd non-philosophy.

Please, Belindi, beg the higher powers to let us correct the typos in our posts. Then again, maybe it's an evil Mandala Effect.