Philosophy Now Forum

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 9:25 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 9:53 am The need to create is at the tip of Manslow's hierarchy - self-actualisation.

It's Maslow, and like every other psychologist, he was a total crackpot.

I don't think the page you linked is as credible as the Wiki entry for this person.
Clearly, though, you seem to think that psychology itself is valueless.
That would be better in another thread.
Psychology as an art is a useful means of reflection. I'd not recommend it as a hard science and and would refer to K Popper's notes on Freud, where he condemns his theories.
Nonetheless psychology as much to recommend it.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 10:46 pm ...
Aside from making sculptures of philosophers, and sculptures leaning towards history of philosophy , I think generally it is difficult to express philosophy artistically.
What would a sculpture look like that was based on the discussion between free will and determinism; or the challenge to the rationalists that the empiricists made?

a question for Duchamp...

-Imp

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 10:46 pm

NEW wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:21 pm Hi all,

I was just wandering around something:

Are there by any chance artists here, that due to their work, sparked also their interest in philosophy?

Or perhaps the other way around, are there people here, mostly interested in philosophy, that also turned into artists, perhaps in an attempt to explain or visualize their work?

If so, and willing to tell stories around this, feel free to share them.

I'm a philosopher that is now an artist - if that is any help?
Aside from making sculptures of philosophers, and sculptures leaning towards history of philosophy , I think generally it is difficult to express philosophy artistically.
What would a sculpture look like that was based on the discussion between free will and determinism; or the challenge to the rationalists that the empiricists made?

hi there sculpture, and many thanks for this, and other contributions.

You propose some very interesting questions there, as mentioned above.

Perhaps I can offer you some possibilities towards at least one of your questions: that on how to express philosophy artistically.

I have been pounding my head on the wall on this question often, so much really that I now have a chronic migraine,
but nevertheless some options popped out

I have been dealing with aspects like diversity (of thinking in man and other creatures) and life in general.
These are questions, very much related to philosophy let's say.

So you are proposed with a general frame, with diversity in it somehow, and preferred, every time an uniqueness within them.

Ever since I found myself able to express this synthesis, I'm always on the lookout towards variants towards this, with results.
(abit like generating a fractal within a fractal thingy)

More info later if you want, and if you are open for it of course.

ps: around those other questions: very intriguing indeed

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 12:51 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 10:46 pm ...
Aside from making sculptures of philosophers, and sculptures leaning towards history of philosophy , I think generally it is difficult to express philosophy artistically.
What would a sculpture look like that was based on the discussion between free will and determinism; or the challenge to the rationalists that the empiricists made?

a question for Duchamp...

-Imp

hihi, indeed it is

Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 12:51 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 10:46 pm ...
Aside from making sculptures of philosophers, and sculptures leaning towards history of philosophy , I think generally it is difficult to express philosophy artistically.
What would a sculpture look like that was based on the discussion between free will and determinism; or the challenge to the rationalists that the empiricists made?

a question for Duchamp...

-Imp

I think not. Duchamp can boil his head for all I care.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 9:25 pm It's Maslow, and like every other psychologist, he was a total crackpot.

You don't have to take him on his word.

All you have to do to convince me he is irrelevant is to admit you seek no self-actualization.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:16 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 9:25 pm It's Maslow, and like every other psychologist, he was a total crackpot.

You don't have to take him on his word.

All you have to do to convince me he is irrelevant is to admit you seek no self-actualization.

If I thought for moment you were sincerely interested in learning whether Maslow's teachings had any value or were possibly dangerously mistaken, I would take the time to address your questions. Otherwise, I have no interest in convincing you or anyone else of anything.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:41 pm If I thought for moment you were sincerely interested in learning whether Maslow's teachings had any value or were possibly dangerously mistaken, I would take the time to address your questions. Otherwise, I have no interest in convincing you or anyone else of anything.

I will rephrase it again, because the first time your brain failed to register the essence of question.

You don't have to take Maslow on his word. In fact - you are welcome to ignore anything and everything he says, so long as you answer this question.

Did you at any point in your life (past or present) want to actualise yourself to your full potential? If you actively pursued underachievement and mediocrity say so.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 11:11 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 9:25 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2020 9:53 am The need to create is at the tip of Manslow's hierarchy - self-actualisation.

It's Maslow, and like every other psychologist, he was a total crackpot.

I don't think the page you linked is as credible as the Wiki entry for this person.
Clearly, though, you seem to think that psychology itself is valueless.
That would be better in another thread.
Psychology as an art is a useful means of reflection. I'd not recommend it as a hard science and and would refer to K Popper's notes on Freud, where he condemns his theories.
Nonetheless psychology as much to recommend it.

Before Hume suggested that psychology ought to be a science, like physics, and before Comte promoted the idea and Wundt and company hijacked neurology and claimed they were studying the mind, psychology was a branch of philosophy and was concerned with the nature of human consciousness and the nature of knowledge made possible by the human mind. From there, it was all downhill.

I personally do not believe a single positive idea has come out of psychology and that it's influence on everything it touches from the lives of individuals to its influence of society is malevolent. One of the worst things that has come out of it is the confusion between neurology, a legitimate physical science, with the pseudo-science of psychology.

Most people would agree with you and I am quite aware that my views on psychology are not very welcome to most, and I do not hold them lightly. So this is not an argument, Sculptor, just an expression of an opinion. I can point you to resources for my opinions if you are interested, but will not mind if you're not.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:44 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:41 pm If I thought for moment you were sincerely interested in learning whether Maslow's teachings had any value or were possibly dangerously mistaken, I would take the time to address your questions. Otherwise, I have no interest in convincing you or anyone else of anything.

I will rephrase it again, because the first time your brain failed to register the essence of question.

You don't have to take Maslow on his word. In fact - you are welcome to ignore anything and everything he says, so long as you answer this question.

Did you at any point in your life (past or present) want to actualise yourself to your full potential? If you actively pursued underachievement and mediocrity say so.

You are definitely taking the wrong approach. No one gives me orders.

If you understood what Maslow and others meant by, "self actualization," you would know it amounts to some kind of emotional peak experience (not any actual achievement). The Indians of the South West achieve it with peyote, Timothy Leary achieved it with LSD, nineteenth century preachers achieved it with preaching (it was called religious ecstasy), Eastern mystics achieve it with meditation, some criminals achieve it in the midst their most heinous crimes. It's nothing new or profound, just the same old emphasis on feelings rather than any real rationally directed achievement.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:27 pm You are definitely taking the wrong approach. No one gives me orders.

If you understood what Maslow and others meant by, "self actualization," you would know it amounts to some kind of emotional peak experience (not any actual achievement). The Indians of the South West achieve it with peyote, Timothy Leary achieved it with LSD, nineteenth century preachers achieved it with preaching (it was called religious ecstasy), Eastern mystics achieve it with meditation, some criminals achieve it in the midst their most heinous crimes. It's nothing new or profound, just the same old emphasis on feelings rather than any real rationally directed achievement.

Why do you keep going back to Maslow when I asked you (twice now) to put him and his work aside?

Don't take orders then. You keep talking about Maslow and I'll keep not giving a shit about what you think about him.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 4:29 pm Why do you keep going back to Maslow ...

Because you asked me about, "self actualization," which is Maslow's theory. He didn't coin the term,(Kurt Goldstein did) but Maslow explicated it and made it known. Since it is his meaning that is the one I know of, that's the one I addressed.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 5:47 pm Because you asked me about, "self actualization," which is Maslow's theory.
He didn't coin the term,(Kurt Goldstein did) but Maslow explicated it and made it known. Since it is his meaning that is the one I know of, that's the one I addressed.

I didn't ask you about Maslow's theory. Or Goldstein's theory.

I asked YOU (personally and anecdotally, unrelated to any t heory) this: "Did you at any point in your life (past or present) want to actualise yourself to your full potential?"

Is just a question. Either you wanted to actualise yourself to your full potential or you didn't.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:57 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 11:11 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 9:25 pm
It's Maslow, and like every other psychologist, he was a total crackpot.

I don't think the page you linked is as credible as the Wiki entry for this person.
Clearly, though, you seem to think that psychology itself is valueless.
That would be better in another thread.
Psychology as an art is a useful means of reflection. I'd not recommend it as a hard science and and would refer to K Popper's notes on Freud, where he condemns his theories.
Nonetheless psychology as much to recommend it.

Before Hume suggested that psychology ought to be a science, like physics, and before Comte promoted the idea and Wundt and company hijacked neurology and claimed they were studying the mind, psychology was a branch of philosophy and was concerned with the nature of human consciousness and the nature of knowledge made possible by the human mind. From there, it was all downhill.

I personally do not believe a single positive idea has come out of psychology and that it's influence on everything it touches from the lives of individuals to its influence of society is malevolent. One of the worst things that has come out of it is the confusion between neurology, a legitimate physical science, with the pseudo-science of psychology.

What about studies on witness reliability?
What about Milgram's work?

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 9:42 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:59 am

A work of art has an author and yet, when it is perfect, it has something which is anonymous about it. (Simone Weil)

Some philosophy of a certain quality as well as some art enables a person to experience the anonymous within it which transcends opinions. This experience can come first from either as long as the anonymous is deep within it and lets another share it..

What Simone said is true though the anonymity felt is, I think, more pertinent to art than to philosophy which even at its most outstanding is still a matter of opinion.

We do have a quality of our being which is similar to our source. Philosophy allows us to experience it through the Socratic dialogue which leads us to contradictrions and invites us resolve them by transcending opinions into a higher form of intellect we call noesis.

Art can allow us to experience transcending opinions through the awe and wonder of nature. The artist can make us aware of what we are normally unaware of. What is in a wave? Look at Aivazovsky's "Wave" The awe and wonder of it allows us to experience what it is behind it rather than opinions of it.

https://arthive.com/ivanaivazovsky/works/403608~Wave