Philosophy Now Forum

.




In the raw, art could be described as something that has no apparent end.


As with science or math, there is an accepted answer to any logical question.


Art however is different.


In art there is no accepted end. All is open for judgement. Open for pleasure. Open for excitement or awe.




If we believe we live eternally or if we believe we repeat our lives over and over again.



Are we not, by our nature, truly artists?










.................................................










.

Yes life is art. And it is beyond beauty, considering how unimaginable the universe is. Kant was the last philosopher to draw together the two mindsets that were developed, one in the Anglo-Saxon-American sphere and the other on what was called "the (European) continent" (Sanders et al, 1975). The one was, and is, the empirical, chaotic, right brain if you wish, of the "synthetic aposteriori" and the other the rational, ordered, left brain if you wish, of the "analytic apriori". Hardly anybody argued with that. Now, the great fame Kant acquired, was by combining these, into the "synthetic apriori". Art is located there, together with math and ethics. Bergson agreed with him and developed it further into what he called the "intuition of duration" and later it inspired "autopoesis", I read somewhere, which is also considered (close to) art. How Bergson writes is an example of it, almost automatically invoking meaning in what he writes (Nobel prize 1927 for literature), famous for his use of metaphors, which have helped me enormously in understanding him.

This is a misunderstanding and does not understand logic nor 'science', and from what little I understand, nor maths.

No really, we're religious and/or metaphysical. Now if you painted, sculpted, etc, something to represent this belief then you'd be an artist.

More like, life is an art, life could be an art, living is an art, living could be an art, etc. as, in my opinion, art is life is false as is its contrary.
What do you mean by "unimaginable" here Ron? As I have trouble thinking about how it could be considered in the first place?
So which 'brain' will all this live in?
Don't know anything about this Bergson, will try to get up-to steam, but agree metaphors can be very effective at installing thoughts in others.

.



Could it be a matter of perspective?


Could I be open for judgement. Open for pleasure. Open for excitement or awe and you be something...well different?


Could I believe we live eternally or believe we repeat our lives over and over again and you believe...well, something different?



Could I by by my nature, be truly an artist and you...well, you could be, something different?



I noticed you stated a definitive No.





.

Which means what? That there are opinons? Of course but what do you mean by "science", "maths" and logic in your analogy? And what do you mean by an "accepted" answer, as nothing is "accepted" in the things I think you mean, just discovered then made provably true by method. We could say this of art I think but harder to prove as it'd have to be shown that what the artist discovered in their thought recreates the same thought in an other via the method chosen to represent it.
Judgement for what? Pleasure for what? Excitement or awe of or at what? Then maybe we could understand our differences.
If you believe this then we may be different but you may well like Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence in The Gay Science. Made me belly laugh once I'd read a chunk of him.
We could, have you painted, sculpted, written a stage-play to act out your beliefs, etc? Unless of course you mean you are doing it here? If so then so far I think you mainly a plagiarist of others thoughts, given that you use others images with abandon.
Not really but thanks for pointing it out as it is a typo, so it should have been, "Not really, ...".

.



I noticed you stated, "Not really, ...".




.

Blimey! Then you added a "t", still glad you got the gist that I think what you described was being metaphysical and/or religious and not being an artist.
p.s.
Read Nietzsche's The Gay Science, I think you'll love it.

.



um...yeah, I'm going to pass on that one. Thank you.




May I add that you do not consider your life a work of art?


You, are something else?



.

Not surprised.
Why would you tell me something I just told you? I consider art an aspect of my life not my life an aspect of some Platonic Ideal, as I tend to not have these as beliefs if I can help it.
Hopefully, a budding philosopher.

.













........................................................................












.