aesthetics isn't really philosophy

What is art? What is beauty?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

tillingborn
Posts: 1073
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: aesthetics isn't really philosophy

Post by tillingborn »

Advocate wrote: Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:50 pm"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.
Aesthetics is the most important factor in philosophy. At the business end, philosophy is essentially the construction of valid arguments. There is a choice of logics and the range of premises is limited only by your imagination. If you believe anything, it is for aesthetic reasons.
popeye1945
Posts: 464
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: aesthetics isn't really philosophy

Post by popeye1945 »

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.
I disagree, philosophy in art involves both subject and object, and unveils the human condition, what humans feel about being in and of the world.
I think in a sense art is a celebration of being, all beings/objects. Without human complexity there is no art, meaning is bestowed upon a medium and when translated by an admirer. In essence art it experience, and there is a great deal said about experience in philosophy. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, indeed, all meaning is in the eye of the beholder, see what I mean, there is a jumping-off point for interesting philosophical inquiry. Does beauty really belong to the art object, or is it a meaning that a subject bestows upon a it? What is the function of art, does it teach, does it enlighten, does it open new intellectual vistas. I rest my case.
popeye1945
Posts: 464
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: aesthetics isn't really philosophy

Post by popeye1945 »

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.
Aesthetics is about experience and thus, about all aspects of being and being in the world. Aesthetics is about being both subject and object and through introspection, encompasses all.
Post Reply