User Tag List

Results 1 to 8 of 8

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    336

    Default Why are aesthetics such a muddle?

    Why are aesthetics such a muddle?

    Aesthetics are such a muddle because this domain of knowledge, which we call aesthetics, contains a vast kinship of human meanings, attractions, appreciations, needs, qualities, ethics, beauty, art, etc. that can never be resolved into one set of consistent principles; it involves all of the values that humans entertain today and those that we might entertain tomorrow.

    Our (American) educational system has indoctrinated us into the belief that all problems are puzzles, i.e. those problems all have a “true” answer if we search diligently enough for it and often the “true” answer is in the ‘back of the book’ or at least on the ‘answer sheet’. Aesthetics is not about puzzle solving but it is about dialogical problem solving.

    Another aspect of our aesthetics dilemma is that this domain of knowledge is so intimately intertwined with our mind/body dichotomy, and our mind/body dichotomy is such an integrated aspect of our philosophical and religious heritage.

    Our Western philosophical and religious heritage is constructed on a foundation established by our mind/body dichotomy. Our effort to place our self closer to angles and further from animals has led us into a game of “hide the body”. We have contempt for our body because it is too animal like while our spirit sours to heaven. This ‘ugly body complex’ has led us into a “linguistic turn” in philosophy.

    Quickie from Wiki:
    “The linguistic turn was a major development in Western philosophy during the 20th century, the most important characteristic of which is the focusing of philosophy, and consequently also the other humanities, primarily on the relationship between philosophy and language.”

    Is meaning more than words?

    The Conceptual-Propositional Theory of Meaning

    “Sentences or utterances (and the words we use in making them) alone are what have meaning…Sentences get there meaning by expressing propositions, which are the basic units of meaning and thought…These symbolic representations (usually thought of as concepts) are organized into meaningful propositional structures via formal rules of syntax, and then the propositions are organized into thoughts and arguments via formal rules of logic. According to this objectivist semantics, neither the syntactic rules, nor the logical relations, nor even the propositions themselves have any intrinsic relations to human bodies.”

    Why do we slice, dice, and containerize?

    We perceive a situation in a gestalt, i.e. our primal perception of our world is as a whole situation containing qualities of various things and people all weaved together like a Persian rug. We begin with an undivided whole, from which our meanings grow. Only after this original act of perception do we slice, dice, and containerize with conscious atomization.

    From the original perceptive gestalt we have learned to consciously sort out that which is emotional, practical, and then intellectual. Why did we learn to do this dissection of our experiences? Our eighteenth century Age of Enlightenment developed a culture that made us do it. We had passed through a millennium wherein our Western world was dominated by our Catholic heritage in which all thoughts focused upon the hereafter.

    We have created this sterile domain of meaning, which is dependent upon the mind/body dichotomy, without even a nod to Darwin’s theory of natural selection. John Dewey points out in his “Principle of Continuity” the error inherent in this bit of mischief.

    Dewey’s Principle of Continuity

    “The primary postulate of a naturalistic theory of logic is continuity of the lower (less complex) and the higher (more complex) activities and forms… it precludes reduction of the “higher” to the “lower” just as it precludes complete breaks and gaps…What is excluded by the postulate of continuity is the appearance on the scene of a totally new outside force as a cause of changes that occur.”

    SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has introduced a new theory of cognitive science that sets about providing empirical evidence supporting hypothesis that will help us to resolve this Gordian knot we call aesthetics. SGCS focuses on our misguided comprehension of human meaning as the foundation for our better comprehension of aesthetic problems.

    Quotes from The Meaning of the Body by Mark Johnson

  2. #2
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    I agree that aesthetics is a sticky subject that never reaches any satisfying conclusions, but what does that have to with the mind/body dichotomy?
    Are you saying that the use of logic in pursuit of meaning or explanation of beauty is futile? That the complexity of the subject precludes simple binary (yes-no logical) analysis?
    Is it that language as a medium of understanding is not up to the task?

    We slice and dice because we can, and we want to understand.

  3. #3
    it's a nuclear device antireconciler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    Intj
    Enneagram
    5w4 so
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    867

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coberst View Post
    This ‘ugly body complex’ has led us into a “linguistic turn” in philosophy.
    Very interesting! Can you articulate this further? It's not at all clear to me. 20th century philosophy has always been enigmatic to me. Do you understand it? I very much want to understand and feel the motivations behind philosophy beginning with Frege and Russell. From this point forward, generally all Anglo-American philosophy I read I cannot comprehend the motivation for. I'm only left asking, "why is this important at all?"
    ~ a n t i r e c o n c i l e r
    What is death, dies.
    What is life, lives.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    I agree that aesthetics is a sticky subject that never reaches any satisfying conclusions, but what does that have to with the mind/body dichotomy?
    Are you saying that the use of logic in pursuit of meaning or explanation of beauty is futile? That the complexity of the subject precludes simple binary (yes-no logical) analysis?
    Is it that language as a medium of understanding is not up to the task?

    We slice and dice because we can, and we want to understand.


    I am preparing several posts that will take this matter much further.

    The concentration on the mind/body dichotomy has diverted our attention from the fact that the mind and the body are a gestalt, an integrated whole. We cannot have thoughts that are without bodily content.

    You are correct, we slice and dice in order to understand but what we have been taught about the mind/body dichotomy has caused us to slice and dice incorrectly. We have essentially sliced off our body and thrown it aside in our effort to comprehend how the body can die and the spirit can go to heaven. As soon as we recognize our error and recognize that the mind and body are two parts of one gestalt we will discover many of our basic problems in our effort to comprehend human nature.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antireconciler View Post
    Very interesting! Can you articulate this further? It's not at all clear to me. 20th century philosophy has always been enigmatic to me. Do you understand it? I very much want to understand and feel the motivations behind philosophy beginning with Frege and Russell. From this point forward, generally all Anglo-American philosophy I read I cannot comprehend the motivation for. I'm only left asking, "why is this important at all?"
    I am in the process of trying to understand how 20th century philosophy has taken us further down the road toward separating the body from the mind.


    SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has developed a body of new theories based upon new research data that has been facilitated by new brain scan technology that challenges our whole Western philosophical tradition.

  6. #6
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coberst View Post
    Why are aesthetics such a muddle?

    Aesthetics are such a muddle because this domain of knowledge, which we call aesthetics, contains a vast kinship of human meanings, attractions, appreciations, needs, qualities, ethics, beauty, art, etc. that can never be resolved into one set of consistent principles; it involves all of the values that humans entertain today and those that we might entertain tomorrow.

    Our (American) educational system has indoctrinated us into the belief that all problems are puzzles, i.e. those problems all have a “true” answer if we search diligently enough for it and often the “true” answer is in the ‘back of the book’ or at least on the ‘answer sheet’. Aesthetics is not about puzzle solving but it is about dialogical problem solving.

    Another aspect of our aesthetics dilemma is that this domain of knowledge is so intimately intertwined with our mind/body dichotomy, and our mind/body dichotomy is such an integrated aspect of our philosophical and religious heritage.

    Our Western philosophical and religious heritage is constructed on a foundation established by our mind/body dichotomy. Our effort to place our self closer to angles and further from animals has led us into a game of “hide the body”. We have contempt for our body because it is too animal like while our spirit sours to heaven. This ‘ugly body complex’ has led us into a “linguistic turn” in philosophy.

    Quickie from Wiki:
    “The linguistic turn was a major development in Western philosophy during the 20th century, the most important characteristic of which is the focusing of philosophy, and consequently also the other humanities, primarily on the relationship between philosophy and language.”

    Is meaning more than words?

    The Conceptual-Propositional Theory of Meaning

    “Sentences or utterances (and the words we use in making them) alone are what have meaning…Sentences get there meaning by expressing propositions, which are the basic units of meaning and thought…These symbolic representations (usually thought of as concepts) are organized into meaningful propositional structures via formal rules of syntax, and then the propositions are organized into thoughts and arguments via formal rules of logic. According to this objectivist semantics, neither the syntactic rules, nor the logical relations, nor even the propositions themselves have any intrinsic relations to human bodies.”

    Why do we slice, dice, and containerize?

    We perceive a situation in a gestalt, i.e. our primal perception of our world is as a whole situation containing qualities of various things and people all weaved together like a Persian rug. We begin with an undivided whole, from which our meanings grow. Only after this original act of perception do we slice, dice, and containerize with conscious atomization.

    From the original perceptive gestalt we have learned to consciously sort out that which is emotional, practical, and then intellectual. Why did we learn to do this dissection of our experiences? Our eighteenth century Age of Enlightenment developed a culture that made us do it. We had passed through a millennium wherein our Western world was dominated by our Catholic heritage in which all thoughts focused upon the hereafter.

    We have created this sterile domain of meaning, which is dependent upon the mind/body dichotomy, without even a nod to Darwin’s theory of natural selection. John Dewey points out in his “Principle of Continuity” the error inherent in this bit of mischief.

    Dewey’s Principle of Continuity

    “The primary postulate of a naturalistic theory of logic is continuity of the lower (less complex) and the higher (more complex) activities and forms… it precludes reduction of the “higher” to the “lower” just as it precludes complete breaks and gaps…What is excluded by the postulate of continuity is the appearance on the scene of a totally new outside force as a cause of changes that occur.”

    SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has introduced a new theory of cognitive science that sets about providing empirical evidence supporting hypothesis that will help us to resolve this Gordian knot we call aesthetics. SGCS focuses on our misguided comprehension of human meaning as the foundation for our better comprehension of aesthetic problems.

    Quotes from The Meaning of the Body by Mark Johnson
    Formal rules of logic?

    If they are logic, they are not formal.
    If they are formal, they are not logic.

    Logic does not figure.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    336

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Formal rules of logic?

    If they are logic, they are not formal.
    If they are formal, they are not logic.

    Logic does not figure.
    Quickie from wiki:
    "Logic is the study of the principles of valid demonstration and inference . Logic is a branch of philosophy, a part of the classical trivium, as well as a branch of mathematics. The word derives from Greek ?????? (logike), fem. of ??????? (logikos), "possessed of reason, intellectual, dialectical, argumentative", from ????? logos, "word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason, or principle".[1][2]

    Logic concerns the structure of statements and arguments, in formal systems of inference and natural language. Topics include validity, fallacies and paradoxes, reasoning using probability and arguments involving causality. Logic is also commonly used today in argumentation theory"

  8. #8
    Phoenix Incarnate Sentura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENXP
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coberst View Post
    Quickie from wiki:
    "Logic is the study of the principles of valid demonstration and inference . Logic is a branch of philosophy, a part of the classical trivium, as well as a branch of mathematics. The word derives from Greek ?????? (logike), fem. of ??????? (logikos), "possessed of reason, intellectual, dialectical, argumentative", from ????? logos, "word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason, or principle".[1][2]

    Logic concerns the structure of statements and arguments, in formal systems of inference and natural language. Topics include validity, fallacies and paradoxes, reasoning using probability and arguments involving causality. Logic is also commonly used today in argumentation theory"
    you're missing the point: logic will never be formal. logic is absolute, whereas formality is relative. the two do not mix. it's that simple.
    i hunt INXPs for bounty
    FUNCTION ORDER FOR THOSE THAT CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT ENXP MEANS: Ne > Ni > Fi=Ti > *

    ...people tell me i have wildfires in my eyes

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-16-2017, 10:02 AM
  2. Why are Canadians such bad tippers?
    By pure_mercury in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 10-01-2016, 03:13 PM
  3. Why are you here?
    By rhinosaur in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-19-2011, 06:08 AM
  4. Why are French people such snobs?
    By Haphazard in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 213
    Last Post: 06-08-2010, 08:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO