in thinking about ART and philosophy...
I see that they take their cues from different sources...
ART takes its cue from nature and our response to nature...
Philosophy takes its cue from science and it views nature
as a rational, logical scene...
but how do we ''convert'' ART into philosophy? or Philosophy
into ART? I want ART to remain ART, but philosophy, I want
philosophy to imbibe ART...Philosophy, should as best it can,
look to ART as to its composition and format.... just as Nietzche
wanted, perhaps even intended in his '"Zarathustra"... to turn
philosophy into ART.....and this is a goal devoutly to be wished for....
when as Rorty suggested in his ""Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature''..
that we view Nature from the viewpoint of philosophy..
(now mind you, I still haven't read this book, but I imagine it
from the title and nothing else but the title.. it is my interpretation only)
but the question arises, how do we judge Nature from philosophy?
for philosophy is the rational, logical, reason.... and nature isn't
any of those things...how do we turn the illogical into the logical?
the term ''Squaring the circle'' seems to come to mind....
We human beings attempt, try to, to be more efficient and logical
and effective, productive and valuable and practical.... things that nature isn't
even trying for.... how does the sunset, which can bring tears to our eyes,
try to be efficient or practical or logical? or how is the most beautiful
experience of our lives, falling in love, have anything to do with being
productive or practical? Love itself is anti-logical, anti-practical,
anti-effective... right at the very start of philosophy, Socrates tried
to bring about some logical resolution to the term ''eros''...
and I suggest he failed... he holds that we search for love, as with
knowledge, because we lack both... if we lack, then we must find it...
and where does one find love? and what can philosophy possible say about
something that lies in the heart of all human beings and very hard
to find....
One could wax poetically that love is really just ART... in the way it
creates something that was not there before.... and love creates,
in its own way, beauty... for I love my wife... but it is not the love
of the youth, wild and unpredictable, no, my love is the love
of 27 years of marriage....no real ups or downs, but steady
and lasting...and that type of love, really can't create ART....
But the beginning of youthful love can and often does create ART...
for this type of love comes from the overflowing of the passions brought
on by this love... a passion that is so chaotic that mere words cannot
encompass this passion...... and how does philosophy, with its
reliance on words, and rationality, be able to fully explain this
chaos? this passion? Philosophy can't.. but marrying philosophy
with ART might be able to? maybe..... so much of the human experience
and the human condition lays outside of philosophy because so much
of the human experience is about this chaos and passion and love...
Sartre and Camus both tried to connect ART with philosophy but
in different formats... both tried literature and philosophy to
unite the two strains, of both ART and philosophy....
but notice, that they were unable to unite ART and philosophy
into one format.... either in literature or in philosophy....
they could only paint them in two different styles...
so, what should one the goals of, one of them anyway, of philosophy?
that to unite, to become one with ART... Artistic philosophy.....
is that even possible, or are we trying to square the circle again?
we not only have to think about our subject matter, what is justice,
but we have to think about the format in which we discuss justice....
and hopefully we can come to an ARTISTIC Philosophy...
Kropotkin