What is Philosophy?

[tapaticmadness]

I will come to the defense of A E. By copying other people's ideas he is acting as a conceptual artist. That is called Uncreative Writing. The ready-made. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... ve+writing

You have called it "conceptual artistry" or "Uncreative Writing", but Luciano Floridi has labelled it The Logic of Information: A Theory of Philosophy as Conceptual Design

And so, in as far we are machines, and in as far as our minds can be thought of as software, even the idea of "copying the idea of conceptual artistry" and "conceptual design" are copied from design patterns and even design paradigms

There are many ways to conceptualise things. Even philosophy itself. Even conception itself, but if you tilt your head a little bit you could almost see that when it comes to artistry "design" and "creation" (with or without the "ism") go hand-in-hand.

Whether you are creating knowledge or solution to problems, the activity of creating is still an art not a science

When you don't create things, you become defined by your tastes rather than ability. your tastes only narrow & exclude people. so create. ― Why The Lucky Stiff

Design is aesthetics, not art. When Duchamp took a urinal and put it in a museum, then signed a phony name to it, that was art, not aesthetics.

[Impenitent]

it was a secret cry for a plumber's wrench...

-Imp

[tapaticmadness]

If you are into ontological things [ideas, God, soul] as really real, prove Philosophical Realism is tenable as real.

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme.
In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I think we both know the difference between realism and nominalism/conceptualism and neither of us needs a lesson in philosophy from the other. A more interesting exercise, in my opinion, would be to see where each view leads as one extends the ideas out to their logical conclusion. Do we arrive where we want to be or do we arrive as some dead end? Yes, I think (extreme) realism necessarily reaches theism, though others will disagree. I have no problem with that. If you are repelled by the idea of God, then by all means don't go there. It's a matter of taste. I have no objection to your likes and dislikes. And I have no objection to what you consider to be philosophical proof. As for artistic style, we all differ in what we are turned on by. Here's a piece of conceptual cut-up style that I really like - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq_hztHJCM4&t=92s

[Veritas Aequitas]

I agree that ideas and concepts or universals and concepts are different. Nonetheless, I have to adopt the terminology that is used in the art world. I, and others, don't like the name "conceptual art", but we are all forced to use it because that is the name that has caught on. It's been around for quite a while now and it is still changing. I have spent the last couple of years trying to acquaint myself with art theory and I'm doing the best I can. Actually, there is no settled definition of conceptual art. It is a whole family of styles. I rather like it and I do use it. Do you have any ideas about contemporary abstract art?

I was ignorant of what conceptual art until I researched on it just now.

I see no problem with the definition of "conceptual art" as it is generally defined;

Conceptual art is art for which the idea (or concept) behind the work is more important than the finished art object.

n conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work. When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair.
LeWitt, ‘Paragraphs on Conceptual Art’, Artforum Vol.5, no. 10, Summer 1967, pp. 79-83

Artists associated with the movement attempted to bypass the increasingly commercialised art world by stressing thought processes and methods of production as the value of the work. The art forms they used were often intentionally those that do not produce a finished object such as a sculpture or painting. This meant that their work could not be easily bought and sold and did not need to be viewed in a formal gallery situation.
https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/c/conceptual-art

There is no problem with the above definition as long as the artist use concepts and empirical-related-ideas and do not claim for the existence of an ontological things in their art work.

Your problem is your attempt to link conceptual art to philosophy per se and ontological things.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you are into ontological things [ideas, God, soul] as really real, prove Philosophical Realism is tenable as real.

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme.
In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I think we both know the difference between realism and nominalism/conceptualism and neither of us needs a lesson in philosophy from the other. A more interesting exercise, in my opinion, would be to see where each view leads as one extends the ideas out to their logical conclusion. Do we arrive where we want to be or do we arrive as some dead end? Yes, I think (extreme) realism necessarily reaches theism, though others will disagree. I have no problem with that. If you are repelled by the idea of God, then by all means don't go there. It's a matter of taste. I have no objection to your likes and dislikes. And I have no objection to what you consider to be philosophical proof. As for artistic style, we all differ in what we are turned on by. Here's a piece of conceptual cut-up style that I really like - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq_hztHJCM4&t=92s

There is no intention of 'lesson' from me or vice-versa to you in this case.
What we are engaging is a debate and discussion.

I am not into nominalism and conceptualism specifically.
As for 'realism' it has to be Philosophical Realism,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism,
not just 'realism'.
My philosophical stance is thus Philosophical anti-Realism within the Kantian school/genre.

A more interesting exercise, in my opinion, would be to see where each view leads as one extends the ideas out to their logical conclusion.

That is my point.
I claim Philosophical Realism is not realistic empirically and philosophically.

Are you a concerned citizen of humanity or a lackadaisical, indifferent and wouldn't give a damn and be compassionate the sufferings of humans all over the world?

As s concerned citizen one should be concern with all the evil acts in the world.

As an individual, one cannot give attention to ALL types of evil but thus more effectively focus on one or two types of evil acts.

One of the group of evil act are those related to theism, e.g. from Islam. Christianity may not be violent but it has its other negative and evil baggage.
Theism and its related evil is grounded on God.
Since I have the necessary expertise and knowledge I have to focus on God if I were to deal with theistic related evil.
The above are the reason why I am researching into the idea of God so as to get rid [hope for the future] of all theistic related evil.

My objective is to wean off theism and replace theism with effective FOOLPROOF self-development programs to deal with the inherent and unavoidable existential crisis. This cannot happen immediate but we have to start the discussion now and establish effective strategies to reap results in 50, 75 or >100 years in the future.

[tapaticmadness]

Your problem is your attempt to link conceptual art to philosophy per se and ontological things.

Yes, linking conceptual art to philosophy per se and ontological things is exactly what I do. And I doubt any conceptual artist today would do that.

[tapaticmadness]

Are you a concerned citizen of humanity or a lackadaisical, indifferent and wouldn't give a damn and be compassionate the sufferings of humans all over the world?

As s concerned citizen one should be concern with all the evil acts in the world.

I think the main thrust of your answer was a concern with theism as it relates to a lot of bad things going on in the world. First off, just to get it out of the way, I will say that I am a liberal Democrat in American politics. My main concern is with the low-wage worker. I have always worked for the welfare of the manual laborer. I think it is the so-called educated, urban elite who are causing all the trouble. They look down their noses at the rural, uneducated poor. And it is those poor who are the most religious. Among the very poor there are no atheists. It is those high status fuckers who think they are more intelligent, more aware, better able to “take care” of the poor, but the poor don’t want to be “taken care of”.

Here in Nepal, I mainly deal with the village poor. They are extremely religious. They believe in magic and shamans, The high educated want you to know that they are not that. So, is that belief in magic evil? The poor use it to cause problems for the rich. A bit of magic here and there and accidents happen. To tell the truth the rich are terrified of black magic. As an instrument of terror used by the poor against those high status rich fuckers it works very well. So, to answer your concern about religious belief and its connection to evil, I will agree with you that it can be evil and a terror, but hurray for that!! I am all for the poor getting even with the oppressive rich and their so-called Science.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are you a concerned citizen of humanity or a lackadaisical, indifferent and wouldn't give a damn and be compassionate the sufferings of humans all over the world?

As s concerned citizen one should be concern with all the evil acts in the world.

I think the main thrust of your answer was a concern with theism as it relates to a lot of bad things going on in the world. First off, just to get it out of the way, I will say that I am a liberal Democrat in American politics. My main concern is with the low-wage worker. I have always worked for the welfare of the manual laborer. I think it is the so-called educated, urban elite who are causing all the trouble. They look down their noses at the rural, uneducated poor. And it is those poor who are the most religious. Among the very poor there are no atheists. It is those high status fuckers who think they are more intelligent, more aware, better able to “take care” of the poor, but the poor don’t want to be “taken care of”.

It is problematic to differentiate between the rich and the poor.
I agree humanity must close the poverty gap and this necessitate the relevant actions.

However your focus on the antagonism between the rich and poor is different set of issue from poverty which has its own set of complex issues.
Point is, if the rich were to give a large portion of their richness and everyone is sufficiently rich, there will still be antagonism between people.

The critical essence of the problem here is the primal instinct of tribalism which must be managed, resolved and mitigated.
The other critical area is to improve the moral competence of the average person.
This is why the proper definition of 'what is philosophy' is critical to contribute solutions to the above.

Here in Nepal, I mainly deal with the village poor. They are extremely religious. They believe in magic and shamans, The high educated want you to know that they are not that. So, is that belief in magic evil? The poor use it to cause problems for the rich. A bit of magic here and there and accidents happen. To tell the truth the rich are terrified of black magic. As an instrument of terror used by the poor against those high status rich fuckers works very well. So, to answer your concern about religious belief and its connection to evil, I will agree with you that it can be evil and a terror, but hurray for that!! I am all for the poor getting even with the oppressive rich and their so-called Science.

It is a good thing you have the inclination in helping the poor. But you are not helping yourself by being caught in tribalism, i.e. the primal dangerous 'us versus them'.

In your above, both the rich and the poor has their own respective fears, thus the solution is to manage and resolve those fears.
Obviously that cannot be resolved on demand at present, thus a Framework and System [grounded on philosophy-proper] need to be established if possible now with expected results in the future.

[tapaticmadness]

God is an Impossibility

Here are a few more thoughts on whether or not religion is evil. The spirit world is a violent place. The Bible says, “The Kingdom of heaven suffereth violence and the violent shall take it by force.” If all that is true – and I think it is – then it is incredibly stupid to not seek protection against the forces that are there. And that is the whole point of religion. We must seek protection, not only against the spirits that are there, but also against God Himself, who is the most violent. And religion asserts that it is God Himself who offers protection against God.

Here’s an analogy – and it’s only an analogy. In physics, right now, there is this thing called the Cosmological Constant, which is probably the energy generated by the vacuum of empty space. According to our present understanding of Quantum Physics, the amount of energy generated should be gargantuan. It should instantly blow the universe apart or immediately cause it to sink into a great black hole. Still, here we sit, so very calm and everything is sweet. Why? It’s the same sitting here while the great violence of heaven is all around us. Why aren’t we instantly destroyed? What is holding back all that force? It has to be God Himself. At least for now.

Is God Himself Violence than which there can be no greater? If God is Violence itself, the Form of Violence that all violent things participate in, then, yes, there can be no violence greater that the Form of Violence itself. That is the logic of the Universals. There is nothing more round than Roundness itself, or more blue that Blueness itself, or sweet than Sweetness itself. The Forms are a perfection than which there can be no greater. It is important that one distinguish between a Universal Form and a particular that participates in that Form. No particular can be that Perfection itself. So do Universal Forms exist? That is the great question of philosophy. I am a realist, therefore I say that they do. And I am a theist.

[tapaticmadness]

you are not helping yourself by being caught in tribalism, i.e. the primal dangerous 'us versus them'.

You are taking a scientific, management style approach to solving these problems. And, as you always do, you think philosophy is nothing more than good, rational science. We do need scientists and the scientific approach. It certainly has its place. But that place is not every place. And I think that we are here at one of those places where science has no place.

The issue concerns village people and their religion of magic and shamans on the one hand and the urban, educated with their science and reason on the other. The issue is religion vs. science. Village people are heavily into religion and they are looked down on by the educated, urban elite. Must religion be eradicated? What about the village mentality? Is that a problem of tribalism? Will the progressive scientific tribe finally defeat the backward religious tribe?

Both of us believe that violence is associated with religion. You believe that religion is a human invention and we could get rid of it. I believe that religion is about the gods and the gods really do exist, therefore we cannot get rid of it. Most professional philosophers today would agree with you – obviously. That is because almost all professional philosophers, indeed almost everyone, are nominalists. My job is to defend realism, extreme direct realism, which asserts that Universal Forms exist, not only independent of and separate from the mind, but also from the individual things in the world that participate in or exemplify them, and we know them directly.

I believe in the Supernatural. And this is where conceptual art comes in, conceptual writing. The eyeball kick. The barrier between reality and fiction has begun to leak. Soon the deluge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MzKL1p ... RC&index=1

Conceptual art deals in the very indefinite. One cannot make out just what is going on. Only strangeness remains, and is soon gone. Such is the unlife of a concept. Or idea. I prefer to see it outside the mind. That is to say that the solid world of material substance has begun to melt. The determinate deliquesces. The gods are blurry and questionable. Such is the fiction-reality that is now the world. The real is vague. A Vagus. The Wanderer.

The Supernatural is nothing definite. That is the form of the Forms, the Really Real.

[Veritas Aequitas]

God is an Impossibility

Here are a few more thoughts on whether or not religion is evil. The spirit world is a violent place. The Bible says, “The Kingdom of heaven suffereth violence and the violent shall take it by force.” If all that is true – and I think it is – then it is incredibly stupid to not seek protection against the forces that are there. And that is the whole point of religion. We must seek protection, not only against the spirits that are there, but also against God Himself, who is the most violent. And religion asserts that it is God Himself who offers protection against God.

Here’s an analogy – and it’s only an analogy. In physics, right now, there is this thing called the Cosmological Constant, which is probably the energy generated by the vacuum of empty space. According to our present understanding of Quantum Physics, the amount of energy generated should be gargantuan. It should instantly blow the universe apart or immediately cause it to sink into a great black hole. Still, here we sit, so very calm and everything is sweet. Why? It’s the same sitting here while the great violence of heaven is all around us. Why aren’t we instantly destroyed? What is holding back all that force? It has to be God Himself. At least for now.

Is God Himself Violence than which there can be no greater? If God is Violence itself, the Form of Violence that all violent things participate in, then, yes, there can be no violence greater that the Form of Violence itself. That is the logic of the Universals. There is nothing more round than Roundness itself, or more blue that Blueness itself, or sweet than Sweetness itself. The Forms are a perfection than which there can be no greater. It is important that one distinguish between a Universal Form and a particular that participates in that Form. No particular can be that Perfection itself. So do Universal Forms exist? That is the great question of philosophy. I am a realist, therefore I say that they do. And I am a theist.

Note there are various types of realist, i.e. Philosophical Realist, Transcendental Realist, Empirical Realist.
If you claim God is real, then show empirical evidence supported by philosophical reasoning of God as a reality?
As I had stated, you are a Philosophical Realist, Transcendental Realist clinging to an 'illusory reality.'

What you are doing is merely making the assumption God exists without evidence. This is why a belief in God is essentially based on faith - very strong faith - i.e. without proof, evidence and justified reasons.

Your Physics analogy cannot be analogous to the idea of God which is illusory to start with.

What is missing is you are not realistic about your own self, i.e. in understanding why you are hasty in arriving at the conclusion God exists as real without justifications. Do you have an idea what is going on inside your brain when you claim God exists as real?

[Veritas Aequitas]

you are not helping yourself by being caught in tribalism, i.e. the primal dangerous 'us versus them'.

You are taking a scientific, management style approach to solving these problems. And, as you always do, you think philosophy is nothing more than good, rational science. We do need scientists and the scientific approach. It certainly has its place. But that place is not every place. And I think that we are here at one of those places where science has no place.

There is no scientific approach other than that which is conditioned upon the Scientific Method and peer review.

My definition of Philosophy encompasses the Scientific Method, thus cannot be Science per se but something wider than Science. Philosophy also encompasses the Arts and whatever faculty of knowledge and others that are relevant to optimize the well being of the individual therefrom humanity.

The issue concerns village people and their religion of magic and shamans on the one hand and the urban, educated with their science and reason on the other. The issue is religion vs. science. Village people are heavily into religion and they are looked down on by the educated, urban elite. Must religion be eradicated? What about the village mentality? Is that a problem of tribalism? Will the progressive scientific tribe finally defeat the backward religious tribe?

Your scientific tribe versus religion tribe is tripe - irrelevant.

Religions comprised of theistic religions and non-theistic religions.

The problem with religion is the evil elements that come with organized religions, i.e. the abuses we read of so often.
In addition some religions, like Islam [strongly], Christianity [not so bad] and others are inherently laden with evil elements in their constitution - the holy texts.
Thus humanity must wean off all religions in time with the Abrahamic religions the priority in the future [not now].

The main purpose of religions is to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis embedded in the DNA/RNA.

Therefore the effective solution to get rid of religion can only be done when humanity has come up with FOOLPROOF alternative methods to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
The task for humanity now is to search for those foolproof alternatives.

[tapaticmadness]

.
If you claim God is real, then show empirical evidence supported by philosophical reasoning of God as a reality?

I just added this to one of the above answers, but I will repeat it here -

Both of us believe that violence is associated with religion. You believe that religion is a human invention and we could get rid of it. I believe that religion is about the gods and the gods really do exist, therefore we cannot get rid of it. Most professional philosophers today would agree with you – obviously. That is because almost all professional philosophers, indeed almost everyone, are nominalists. My job is to defend realism, extreme direct realism, which asserts that Universal Forms exist, not only independent of and separate from the mind, but also from the individual things in the world that participate in or exemplify them, and we know them directly.

I believe in the Supernatural. And this is where conceptual art comes in, conceptual writing. The eyeball kick. The barrier between reality and fiction has begun to leak. Soon the deluge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MzKL1p ... RC&index=1

Conceptual art deals in the very indefinite. One cannot make out just what is going on. Only strangeness remains, and is soon gone. Such is the unlife of a concept. Or idea. I prefer to see it outside the mind. That is to say that the solid world of material substance has begun to melt. The determinate deliquesces. The gods are blurry and questionable. Such is the fiction reality that is now the world. The real is vague. A Vagus. The Wanderer.

The Supernatural is nothing definite. That is the Form of the Forms, the Really Real.

The difference between the scientific attitude and religion/art is that the former deals in the definite and the exact, while religion and much of art deals in the indefinite and the inexact. The main philosophical questions of the twentieth century have also asked about the existence of the indefinite. Russell said that his whole project was the write the logic of the work "any". Without that he could not analyze Infinity. I think you are objecting to my views because they are not well-formed. You think they come out of feelings I don't understand. You are right in all that, but that is what I want.

[Veritas Aequitas]

.
If you claim God is real, then show empirical evidence supported by philosophical reasoning of God as a reality?

I just added this to one of the above answers, but I will repeat it here -

Both of us believe that violence is associated with religion. You believe that religion is a human invention and we could get rid of it. I believe that religion is about the gods and the gods really do exist, therefore we cannot get rid of it. Most professional philosophers today would agree with you – obviously. That is because almost all professional philosophers, indeed almost everyone, are nominalists. My job is to defend realism, extreme direct realism, which asserts that Universal Forms exist, not only independent of and separate from the mind, but also from the individual things in the world that participate in or exemplify them, and we know them directly.

I believe in the Supernatural. And this is where conceptual art comes in, conceptual writing. The eyeball kick. The barrier between reality and fiction has begun to leak. Soon the deluge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MzKL1p ... RC&index=1

Conceptual art deals in the very indefinite. One cannot make out just what is going on. Only strangeness remains, and is soon gone. Such is the unlife of a concept. Or idea. I prefer to see it outside the mind. That is to say that the solid world of material substance has begun to melt. The determinate deliquesces. The gods are blurry and questionable. Such is the fiction reality that is now the world. The real is vague. A Vagus. The Wanderer.

The Supernatural is nothing definite. That is the Form of the Forms, the Really Real.

The difference between the scientific attitude and religion/art is that the former deals in the definite and the exact, while religion and much of art deals in the indefinite and the inexact. The main philosophical questions of the twentieth century have also asked about the existence of the indefinite. Russell said that his whole project was the write the logic of the work "any". Without that he could not analyze Infinity. I think you are objecting to my views because they are not well-formed. You think they come out of feelings I don't understand. You are right in all that, but that is what I want.

My point is,
anyone including the mad, the schizophrenic and others can make similar claims without providing empirically and philosophical justifications.

I have done extensive issues on this;

There are many with mental issue who claimed to have seen God,
youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

There are those who took drugs and hallucinogens and claim they really experienced God.

There are many other reasons which enable certain humans to experience God and other beings but their claims are traced to some thing mental, i.e. in their brain.

Those who had mental issues are cured of their God experiences when are treated and got cured.

Re your 'conceptual art' until you provide solid evidences [empirically and philosophically] God exists as real, the more likely reason why people belief in God is psychological as evident above.

There are theists who become non-theists and vice versa. Such events are mental activities. I was once a theist [pantheist].
Thus reversing from theist to non-theist is psychological.

Therefore the focus on the issue 'Why there is a God?' for theists should be on the psychological perspective.
This is critical because theism had contributed to terrible evils committed by theists in the name of God. Islam alone is said to have killed more than 200 million non-believers as commanded and inspired by Allah - the God of Islam.

[tapaticmadness]

Those who had mental issues are cured of their God experiences when are treated and got cured.

I read what you write and I wonder what is wrong with you. Why are you so worked up about this? To blame all the world's troubles on religion is ridiculous. What is eating at you?