Philosophy Now Forum

All "spiritual" things are contingent (as oppressed to the truth - what is). The contingencies are salience, perspective, and priority. Salience is beyond our control and is the proper really of psychology, not philosophy. Aesthetics is primarily salience - how much we like something. There are a few, and i dare say a tiny few, meaningful questions in aesthetics, like What are the divisions between definitions of art? and, What is the difference between beauty and hotness, but they're semantic questions, empirical ones, not philosopy per-se; they are What effects us most deeply and why? or How do we use the words?, each of which can be measured, neither of which is derivable by logic.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:11 pm All "spiritual" things are contingent (as oppressed to the truth - what is). The contingencies are salience, perspective, and priority. Salience is beyond our control and is the proper really of psychology, not philosophy. Aesthetics is primarily salience - how much we like something. There are a few, and i dare say a tiny few, meaningful questions in aesthetics, like What are the divisions between definitions of art? and, What is the difference between beauty and hotness, but they're semantic questions, empirical ones, not philosopy per-se; they are What effects us most deeply and why? or How do we use the words?, each of which can be measured.

.

.

Advocate wrote
All "spiritual" things are contingent (as oppressed to the truth - what is). The contingencies are salience, perspective, and priority. Salience is beyond our control and is the proper really of psychology, not philosophy. Aesthetics is primarily salience - how much we like something. There are a few, and i dare say a tiny few, meaningful questions in aesthetics, like What are the divisions between definitions of art? and, What is the difference between beauty and hotness, but they're semantic questions, empirical ones, not philosopy per-se; they are What effects us most deeply and why? or How do we use the words?, each of which can be measured, neither of which is derivable by logic.

Aesthetics deals with value, and there is no more suitable matter for philosophy. It is far more what philosophy should be about than any other of its categories, for value is where philosophy meets its end, that is, the final inquiry after which there are no more. It is :first "philosophy" along with ethics. Both ethics and aesthetics are the principle concerns of philosophy. All else beg the aesthetic question: why bother?

[quote=odysseus post_id=480823 time=1605924154 user_id=15698]
[quote]Advocate wrote
All "spiritual" things are contingent (as oppressed to the truth - what is). The contingencies are salience, perspective, and priority. Salience is beyond our control and is the proper really of psychology, not philosophy. Aesthetics is primarily salience - how much we like something. There are a few, and i dare say a tiny few, meaningful questions in aesthetics, like What are the divisions between definitions of art? and, What is the difference between beauty and hotness, but they're semantic questions, empirical ones, not philosopy per-se; they are What effects us most deeply and why? or How do we use the words?, each of which can be measured, neither of which is derivable by logic.[/quote]
Aesthetics deals with value, and there is no more suitable matter for philosophy. It is far more what philosophy should be about than any other of its categories, for value is where philosophy meets its end, that is, the final inquiry after which there are no more. It is :first "philosophy" along with ethics. Both ethics and aesthetics are the principle concerns of philosophy. All else beg the aesthetic question: why bother?
[/quote]

Aesthetics isn't about value in a reasoned way, it's about value in a felt way. It's animalistic and the furthest thing from philosophy in philosophy. As has been recognised all the way back to Aristotle arguing about poetry. It's a distraction from all the values that actually matter - the ones based on using our outer/human brains, not our lizard brain and monkey brain.

value in a felt way...



-Imp

odysseus wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 3:02 am

Advocate wrote
All "spiritual" things are contingent (as oppressed to the truth - what is). The contingencies are salience, perspective, and priority. Salience is beyond our control and is the proper really of psychology, not philosophy. Aesthetics is primarily salience - how much we like something. There are a few, and i dare say a tiny few, meaningful questions in aesthetics, like What are the divisions between definitions of art? and, What is the difference between beauty and hotness, but they're semantic questions, empirical ones, not philosopy per-se; they are What effects us most deeply and why? or How do we use the words?, each of which can be measured, neither of which is derivable by logic.

Aesthetics deals with value, and there is no more suitable matter for philosophy. It is far more what philosophy should be about than any other of its categories, for value is where philosophy meets its end, that is, the final inquiry after which there are no more. It is :first "philosophy" along with ethics. Both ethics and aesthetics are the principle concerns of philosophy. All else beg the aesthetic question: why bother?

Good answer. It is also pertinent to say that the idea of Aesthetics being the domain of the ineffable is in itself a particular philosophical doctrine, a pernicious and irrational one, peddled by some philosophers, of course.

Philosophy is a counterpart to science. Like science, philosophy can study anything. There can be a "philosophy of x" for all x.

It's just that philosophy differs from science in its methodology, with science obviously being something that initially grew out of philosophy. The different methodological approach is what created the disciplinary split.

Philosophy questions about any x include "just what is x" on a very general/highly abstracted level, what is x's nature as an existent, how do we know x, and so on.

[quote="Terrapin Station" post_id=491784 time=1611330112 user_id=12582]
Philosophy is a counterpart to science. Like science, philosophy can study anything. There can be a "philosophy of x" for all x.

It's just that philosophy differs from science in its methodology, with science obviously being something that initially grew out of philosophy. The different methodological approach is what created the disciplinary split.

Philosophy questions about any x include "just what is x" on a very general/highly abstracted level, what is x's nature as an existent, how do we know x, and so on.
[/quote]

Science is materially rigorous, which is something philosophy cannot do. Philosophy deals with the questions that matter in ways that can't (currently) be measured. Science = replicable measurement, philosophy = logic; roughly speaking. All "what is the nature of" questions are semantic.

How do we know x? Knowledge is justified belief:

universal taxonomy - evidence by certainty
0 ignorance (certainty that you don't know)
1 found anecdote (assumed motive)
2 adversarial anecdote (presumes inaccurate communication motive)
3 collaborative anecdote (presumes accurate communication motive)
4 experience of (possible illusion or delusion)
5 ground truth (consensus Reality)
6 occupational reality (verified pragmatism)
7 professional consensus (context specific expertise, "best practice")
8 science (rigorous replication)
<- empirical probability / logical necessity ->
9 math, logic, Spiritual Math (semantic, absolute)
10 experience qua experience (you are definitely sensing this)

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 4:41 pm Philosophy is a counterpart to science. Like science, philosophy can study anything. There can be a "philosophy of x" for all x.

It's just that philosophy differs from science in its methodology, with science obviously being something that initially grew out of philosophy. The different methodological approach is what created the disciplinary split.

Philosophy questions about any x include "just what is x" on a very general/highly abstracted level, what is x's nature as an existent, how do we know x, and so on.

I asked you, and you ignored me... On a general/highly abstract level .... What is a question?

What is Philosophy? What is Philosophy's nature as an existent?

A field that can't account for itself is a useless field.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:11 pm All "spiritual" things are contingent (as oppressed to the truth - what is). The contingencies are salience, perspective, and priority. Salience is beyond our control and is the proper really of psychology, not philosophy. Aesthetics is primarily salience - how much we like something. There are a few, and i dare say a tiny few, meaningful questions in aesthetics, like What are the divisions between definitions of art? and, What is the difference between beauty and hotness, but they're semantic questions, empirical ones, not philosopy per-se; they are What effects us most deeply and why? or How do we use the words?, each of which can be measured, neither of which is derivable by logic.

Love, hate, etc. are expressed in a beautiful way in music. Like this.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 6:34 pm I asked you, and you ignored me... On a general/highly abstract level .... What is a question?

What is Philosophy? What is Philosophy's nature as an existent?

A field that can't account for itself is a useless field.

Either I didn't see it or it was further down in a long post.

"What is a question" is part of philosophy of language.

"What is philosophy" is certainly something that philosophy tackles.

Are you not familiar with any philosophy that tackles the latter? it's a common topic in 101 courses, overview textbooks, etc.

We could tackle one or the other, in a different thread so we don't keep throwing this stuff off topic, and if you're sincerely interested in it, you don't just want to argue and be a trollish pest, etc.--which there's been no evidence of as of yet, so it's not likely to go too far until I'm not bothering very much because you're not that interested.

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 4:53 pm Science is materially rigorous, which is something philosophy cannot do. Philosophy deals with the questions that matter in ways that can't (currently) be measured.

Which is a methodological difference. There's no drive to correct this, because it simply wouldn't be philosophy any longer, but would be science instead if we were to change the methodology.

All "what is the nature of" questions are semantic.

No, they're ultimately ontological. They can be semantic at some point because there's a need to clarify just what we're talking about, but ultimately the aim there is ontology, not philosophy of meaning.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:11 pm All "spiritual" things are contingent (as oppressed to the truth - what is). The contingencies are salience, perspective, and priority. Salience is beyond our control and is the proper really of psychology, not philosophy. Aesthetics is primarily salience - how much we like something. There are a few, and i dare say a tiny few, meaningful questions in aesthetics, like What are the divisions between definitions of art? and, What is the difference between beauty and hotness, but they're semantic questions, empirical ones, not philosopy per-se; they are What effects us most deeply and why? or How do we use the words?, each of which can be measured, neither of which is derivable by logic.

Nothing here supports your headline.

[quote=Sculptor post_id=491828 time=1611343276 user_id=17400]
[quote=Advocate post_id=469902 time=1599581507 user_id=15238]
All "spiritual" things are contingent (as oppressed to the truth - what is). The contingencies are salience, perspective, and priority. Salience is beyond our control and is the proper really of psychology, not philosophy. Aesthetics is primarily salience - how much we like something. There are a few, and i dare say a tiny few, meaningful questions in aesthetics, like What are the divisions between definitions of art? and, What is the difference between beauty and hotness, but they're semantic questions, empirical ones, not philosopy per-se; they are What effects us most deeply and why? or How do we use the words?, each of which can be measured, neither of which is derivable by logic.
[/quote]

Nothing here supports your headline.
[/quote]

"Aesthetics is primarily salience - how much we like something." If aesthetics is something other than salience, then i could be wrong, but it isn't. How we feel about stuff isn't philosophy in any sense.