VisorCentral.com - Inane ramblings

Pages (73): « First ... « 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Inane ramblings (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=16736)

Posted by Yorick on 02-20-2002 02:19 AM:

I know you are, but what am I?

*snicker*

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by septimus on 02-20-2002 02:52 AM:

I didn't laugh.

Is Beauty inherent in the object being observed or is in the subject doing the observation?

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by Yorick on 02-20-2002 03:45 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
Is Beauty inherent in the object being observed or is in the subject doing the observation?

maybe you're just too highbrow.

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by dick-richardson on 02-20-2002 05:15 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
I didn't laugh.

Is Beauty inherent in the object being observed or is in the subject doing the observation?

Beauty is inherent and universal.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by septimus on 02-20-2002 05:36 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson

Beauty is inherent and universal.

Inherent in the object? how so? I just read a goodly portion of Kant's critique of judgement and I'm pretty happy with some of his explanation--placing it within the individual and making it singular--I don't think he escapes the trap of relativism, but he comes darn close...

Unless you're going to start bringing in divine purpose, I don't see a convincing argument for beauty being inherent in the object.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by BobbyMike on 02-20-2002 01:16 PM:

Appreciation of the beauty in an object/person/idea/music is experiential.

examples:

You might think that Bob Dylan's "Blowing in the Wind" was a beautiful song and I might think it's crap. We would both be right.

You might think that Mullets and feathered hair were beautiful and I might think that they were not. We would both still be right.

You can apply this to anything. There is no universal beauty (that I know of, at least).

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by dick-richardson on 02-20-2002 01:57 PM:

Everything is beautiful, in its own way.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by septimus on 02-20-2002 02:16 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike
You might think that Mullets and feathered hair were beautiful and I might think that they were not. We would both still be right.

Would we? Is there anything that differentiates Beauty from "what you like." Is Beauty nothing more than "Gee, that tastes incredibly good."?

...Kant thought there was, but had such a hard time talking about it he realized that it was an entirely separate entity, undefineable and amoral. He didn't think it was in objects, like yourself, yet he thought that it was somehow built into the human psyche, so that we actually could discuss the beauty of things.

He said, in essense, that Beauty is a sensation (that tastes good) that you believe others ought to find pleasurable as well.

---

...I just discovered Kant's "master plan" yesterday. I knew it before, but I hadn't actually comprehended what he was working at. It's every bit as ambitious as it sounds, and goes a good way towards achieving that ambition. Perhaps that's why I'm enamored of this question just now.

Kant wrote 3 "critiques," which he meant to define the boundaries of the human mind. The first was a critique of Pure Reason-which got at what we could know of truth (you have him to thank for a priori qua qua qua and all that crap). The second of Practical reason, which is what we could know of the good (i.e. the universal imperative and suchlike). The third is of Judgement, which is what we could know of Beauty.

The Innovation here is that the 3 things are mutually exclusive and not subsumable into each other. Truth, Goodness, and Beauty were completely separate entities to Kant. it was almost like a 2nd Reniessance. In ancient times, they were all part of Plato's "world of ideas." In the Reniessance, them crazy scientists separated Truth from the Good, making them separate. Now Kant comes along and says that neither Truth nor Goodness has thing one to do with Beauty. It is separate from goodness and truth.

That, my friend, is very cool.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by Toby on 02-20-2002 02:29 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick

maybe you're just too highbrow.

Or unibrow.

Posted by Yorick on 02-20-2002 04:02 PM:

darnit, Toby, stop being funnier than me! it's giving me a complex!

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by dick-richardson on 02-21-2002 05:25 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
The Innovation here is that the 3 things are mutually exclusive...

So am I to understand that I cannot perceive something or someone as good and beautiful?

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by septimus on 02-21-2002 12:35 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
So am I to understand that I cannot perceive something or someone as good and beautiful?

No, simply that your perception of goodness (not actually a perception) and beauty have absolutely nothing to do with each other. "Mutually exclusive" overstates it a bit, but I used the term because most people tend to miss the point that though an object may inspire beauty or goodness (well, an object can't be good or beautiful per se, but you think them such), the two feelings are entirely separate.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by dick-richardson on 02-21-2002 02:45 PM:

So if they have nothing to do with each other, I would be unable to find something beautiful because it is good?

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by septimus on 02-21-2002 03:08 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
So if they have nothing to do with each other, I would be unable to find something beautiful because it is good?

Kee-Rect. The connection between them is a false one and frankly damages your conception of them both.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by dick-richardson on 02-21-2002 04:15 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
Kee-Rect. The connection between them is a false one and frankly damages your conception of them both.

Now I'm positive it's load of sh!t. Damages my conception? Who says his are any better? His deceased publisher?

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by septimus on 02-21-2002 04:28 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Now I'm positive it's load of sh!t. Damages my conception? Who says his are any better? His deceased publisher?

Whoa, whoa, elevate them guns a little lower. Sheesh.

I played fast and loose, i guess. it damages your perception more than your conception, I guess (since beauty is almost the antithesis of a concept or definable idea). it follows, logically. If you believe that Beauty and Truth and Goodness are absolutely separate and our abilities to find these things are also separate, then it follows that folk who are constantly trying to tie them together are damaging their ability to just perceive/achieve them.

...I suppose in a very abstract sense, it is possible to find the good in something beautiful, but not because of the goodness. You may find a cross beautiful. You may find the goodness of a cross beautiful. But you don't find either beautiful because of the goodness. you find them beautiful, frankly, because they give you pleasure and you think that others ought to find pleasure in them also.

It makes sense and it isn't a case of Kant getting all uppity (any more than any philosopher who makes statements about the world is uppity).

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by dick-richardson on 02-21-2002 05:08 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
Whoa, whoa, elevate them guns a little lower...

I'm not pissed, I just think it's a load of garbage. I think pure logic has a grim beauty to it, as does pure goodness. Likewise, I think pure logic may be good, and acting upon goodness may be logical. I've been trying to identify a physical example but have been unable. I can only describe what I don't think it relates to. Taste has basic components (four is the general consensus last I checked) from which everything we taste is compared. My beliefs are similar to that, with the exception being that something that is purely sweet may be sour, bitter, or salty as well. Damnit, this isn't coming out correctly. Oh well. Off to Submitted Land we go.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by septimus on 02-21-2002 05:33 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
I'm not pissed, I just think it's a load of garbage. I think pure logic has a grim beauty to it, as does pure goodness.

Right. So do I. But you find them beautiful not because of logic or because of goodness, but because of, well, beauty.

quote:
Likewise, I think pure logic may be good

"May" or is.? If you stick to "may," you've already conceded Kant's point. heck, even if you go with "is," you can concede the point. The point isn't whether or not you can attribute T, G, and B to each other, but whether they're reducable to each other. Kant argues (pretty well, I think) they ain't.

quote:
and acting upon goodness may be logical.

Again, right, but you're confusing attributes with causes. Acting upon goodness may be logical, but not necessarily so, and the logic is based on logic, not on goodness (or vice versa). Truth, Logic, and Beauty can all travel together in harmony, but you can never subsume one into the other, they are irreducible to each other.

quote:
Taste has basic components (four is the general consensus last I checked) from which everything we taste is compared. My beliefs are similar to that, with the exception being that something that is purely sweet may be sour, bitter, or salty as well. Damnit, this isn't coming out correctly. Oh well. Off to Submitted Land we go.

I think I follow. You seem to be try to accept the basic differences between T, G, and B, yet allow that they can "mix" in some sort of way. Yes?

I guess I don't have much of a problem with that metaphor. The "sourness" of a sweet object is there simply because of the "sourness." it is not a knock on the "sweetness" of the object that it is also "sour," merely saying another thing about it.

An example: a deptiction of a rape scene in a movie. Is it amoral, yes. does that affect its status as art in any way, shape, or form? No. Art is judged on the basis of art. Not of truth. Not of goodness. that's the point.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by Toby on 02-21-2002 06:05 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
[...] (any more than any philosopher who makes statements about the world is uppity).

Therein lies the rub.

quote:
Dole Office Clerk: Occupation?
Comicus: Stand up philosopher.
Dole Office Clerk: What?
Comicus: Stand up philosopher. I coalesce the vapors of human existence into a viable and meaningful comprehension.
Dole Office Clerk: Oh, a BULLSH*T artist!

Posted by BobbyMike on 02-21-2002 09:44 PM:

"You might think that Mullets and feathered hair were beautiful and I might think that they were not. We would both still be right. "

"Would we? Is there anything that differentiates Beauty from "what you like." Is Beauty nothing more than "Gee, that tastes incredibly good."? "

No, nothing that simple. Beauty comes from our (individual) past experiences. That's why two different men can look at a woman and one can say, "Beautiful!", and the other can say, "Not quite....". We can agree that something is beautiful, but we don't have to. I can't know Kant's cant on this 'cause I haven't read his writings, but it sounds like a long winded way to say something similar.

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:52 AM.

Pages (73): « First ... « 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page