PHILOSOPHY! 50 PAGES! 50 PAGES!

[Epimetheus]

I am currently in the process of writing up a bunch of procrastinated Philosophy of Art homework. In a response to Richard Wollheim's "Criticism as Retrieval,"* I ended up writing the following bit, and I was pleasantly surprised to find it rather succinctly phrases some of my own ideas about beauty. I'd like some response from the lot of you, if you'll indulge me.

Knowledge is beautiful, but the knowledge does not itself generate the beauty. A painting is beautiful not due to any particular information, but due to what it is like to experience that painting as a participant in its glory. All particular information about the painting is also beautiful, not due to any particular information but due to what it is like to experience that information as a participant in its glory.
Replace the word "painting" in the preceding two sentences with "universe" and you will understand why I am majoring in the sciences.


*_{The gist of Wollheim's argument is that to truly experience a work, it is necessary to reconstruct the creative process that brought the work into existence, that is, the conditions of its creation.}

[Murmur]

I like toast. I'm sorry I'm not smarter. 

[Bu🤠ns]

Interesting, Epimethus. 

Something that, in my mind, seems to bridge the gap between universe and art (painting) would be the work of Andy Goldsworthy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9TyHzP-8b8 (just check out the related links for more).

It's like, with his art, the experience and the art are one and the same.

[The Johnny]

I am currently in the process of writing up a bunch of procrastinated Philosophy of Art homework. In a response to Richard Wollheim's "Criticism as Retrieval,"* I ended up writing the following bit, and I was pleasantly surprised to find it rather succinctly phrases some of my own ideas about beauty. I'd like some response from the lot of you, if you'll indulge me.

Knowledge is beautiful, but the knowledge does not itself generate the beauty. A painting is beautiful not due to any particular information, but due to what it is like to experience that painting as a participant in its glory. All particular information about the painting is also beautiful, not due to any particular information but due to what it is like to experience that information as a participant in its glory.
Replace the word "painting" in the preceding two sentences with "universe" and you will understand why I am majoring in the sciences.


*_{The gist of Wollheim's argument is that to truly experience a work, it is necessary to reconstruct the creative process that brought the work into existence, that is, the conditions of its creation.}

If you really want to make a serious argument around any of this, you need to define:

1. Beauty
2. Art
3. Knowledge

Otherwise you just become a hippie spouting out "deep reflections".

And the "conditions of the creation of a work" cant be limited clearly, if only it is done in a convenient manner for the analyst, but thats not reality; how can one trace or define the limits of these conditions? Wouldnt you have to know and examine how all his biography/thoughts/experiences have influenced?

And ill tell you something, not all knowledge is beautiful... some days ago i learned about a mother ripping out her son's eyeballs with a spoon for a ritual to supposedly stop the end of the world from happening... this is something i didnt know before, isnt it knowledge? isnt it beautiful?

[Epimetheus]

1. Beauty

Beauty: the qualities that give disinterested delight to the mind via the senses or imagination.
Disinterested: Not influenced by considerations of personal advantage
Personal: Affecting a particular person

2. Art

I didn't use that word.

3. Knowledge

Knowledge: Information and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

And the "conditions of the creation of a work" cant be limited clearly, if only it is done in a convenient manner for the analyst, but thats not reality; how can one trace or define the limits of these conditions? Wouldnt you have to know and examine how all his biography/thoughts/experiences have influenced?

That's one of the objections to Wollheim's philosophy. I disagree with Wollheim, so we can forget that debate for now.

And ill tell you something, not all knowledge is beautiful... some days ago i learned about a mother ripping out her son's eyeballs with a spoon for a ritual to supposedly stop the end of the world from happening... this is something i didnt know before, isnt it knowledge? isnt it beautiful?

I meant it more conditionally - allow me to rephrase.
When knowledge is beautiful, the knowledge does not itself generate the beauty.

[Epimetheus]

I like toast. I'm sorry I'm not smarter. 

It's not a smartness thing. I was just calling for those philosophically-minded PDers.
Toast is awesome. I made an omelette-on-toast concoction the past couple days. It was good, but did not itself generate the goodness. 

[Epimetheus]

Interesting, Epimethus. 

Something that, in my mind, seems to bridge the gap between universe and art (painting) would be the work of Andy Goldsworthy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9TyHzP-8b8 (just check out the related links for more).

Yeah! I love that stuff.

[EK WAFFLR]

Reminded me of Richard Feynman.


The pleasure of finding things out:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7136440703094429927

[The Johnny]

I think i can get on board more with what you are saying now with the further explanations...

So if im correct in my interpretation of your argument, "beauty lies in the eye of the beholder", that is, beauty is a subjective quality attributed and experienced based on owns perception, and thus there's no objective criterion from which to say something is beautiful or not?

Also, its not something in particular of an object that makes it beautiful, but the whole interaction of its parts? On this point i would argue it, from a hypothetical foot fetishist perspective... said person could appreciate the beauty of another person's foot, while acknowledging the uglyness of the rest of the body of a given person (no, im not a foot fetishist, this is a hypothetical case, for if we are arguing universals, it would need to apply in this case too).

And regarding style of writing, the last sentence which speaks of your personal relationship with the sciences seem to be off topic (this might lower your grade if you are gonna turn this in as material for grading)

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Philosophy:  That which is studied in order to gain a college degree without taking any math courses.

Philosopher:  See Barrista.

[Epimetheus]

Philosophy:  That which is studied in order to gain a college degree without taking any math courses.

Philosopher:  See Barrista.

For me, it is just studied for fun. Like I said, science major here.

Also, you of course know that all of your ideas about the world compose a philosophy. If you examine those ideas at all, then you are a philosopher. My definition.

That said, I'm not sure I will ever take a philosophy class again. Unless it's Philosophy of Bugs Bunny.

[E.O.T.]

Philosophy:  That which is studied in order to gain a college degree without taking any math courses.

Philosopher:  See Barrista.

For me, it is just studied for fun. Like I said, science major here.

Also, you of course know that all of your ideas about the world compose a philosophy. If you examine those ideas at all, then you are a philosopher. My definition.

That said, I'm not sure I will ever take a philosophy class again. Unless it's Philosophy of Bugs Bunny.

PRETTY

            certain that's been a standard class at ben gurion for quite a while. unfortunately, logic class only gets you out of a bit of math. it's probably a stupid bit, though.

[Epimetheus]

I think i can get on board more with what you are saying now with the further explanations...

So if im correct in my interpretation of your argument, "beauty lies in the eye of the beholder", that is, beauty is a subjective quality attributed and experienced based on owns perception, and thus there's no objective criterion from which to say something is beautiful or not?

Yes, it is a quality defined by the subjective experience of that quality. The term "beauty" is meaningless without an observer to experience the beauty.

Also, its not something in particular of an object that makes it beautiful, but the whole interaction of its parts?

Neither. "The whole interaction of its parts" is still a thing (information) about the object.
It is specifically in the experience that beauty reveals itself, and not inherent in the object or information about the object.

And regarding style of writing, the last sentence which speaks of your personal relationship with the sciences seem to be off topic (this might lower your grade if you are gonna turn this in as material for grading)

Nah, it was a more freely written assignment than you may be thinking. But I appreciate the concern. (Already been graded, anyway.)

[minuspace]

I would start by expanding the understanding of knowledge as information in order to also include other possible forms thereof.  Some painters come to mind that were also quite interested in science and how the "universe" works.  I think that the distinction between experience and information may require more thought?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

CAN I

           just say that real philosophers don't discuss things.  real philosiphers TELL people things they need to know. that is all