Philosophy Now Forum

I'll try to be short and plain.

What if aesthetics could be reduced to an analysis of the link, the physical trace, of the object of satisfiability and the object receiving satisfaction?

Wouldn't this be a much better, much more useful use of the word aesthetics? And a use whose products would be a broad knowledge of the way objects interacts with each other to satisfy the prolonging of the one party which, for instance, could be a human being, but also any personified item, that is, an item for which we can imagine to "feel" a satisfaction, or logically is just prolonged and therefore satisfied.

aes·thet·ics   [es-thet-iks or, especially Brit., ees-] Show IPA
noun ( used with a singular verb )
1.
the branch of philosophy dealing with such notions as the beautiful, the ugly, the sublime, the comic, etc., as applicable to the fine arts, with a view to establishing the meaning and validity of critical judgments concerning works of art, and the principles underlying or justifying such judgments.
2.
the study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty.
Also, esthetics.

if something isn't beautiful (in the broad usage of the word) it doesn't satisfy, does it? Beauty, besides an unclear emotion, could also be a clear idea of the perfection inherent in an object that satisfies you.

The official description shouldn't stop anyone from narrowing it down if narrowing it down is useful for a specific purpose. Wittgenstein's claim of philosophy's duty doesn't describe philosophy as a whole, since philosophy is philosophy, but it does state a certain useful procedure or method of it, and if people wouldn't take use of something, what value does it have? Or what dust is trying to gather?