--- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure I follow all this.
Because...? > > My point is simply this: I do not deny that (true) > art > elicits a specific kind of response. What I do deny > is that > our understanding of that response is helped one > whit by > calling it an aesthetic experience. In fact I think > our > understanding is, if anything, hindered and clouded > by doing > that because the term aesthetic has acquired so > many > different meanings, most of them misleading. What do you mean by specific response? Do you mean something that could,with care, be defined or do you mean specific in the sense of something that can't be defined except for the person who had the experience? And does that experience change from moment to moment or does it remain static? If it, like every other experience, changes from moment to moment, a lot or a little, how can it be defined as a contained experience? And then there is the issue of memory, or experience in recollection...with its questions. If our folk history says that aesthetic experience has a meaning, what is that meaning? If many meanings, what are they? I don't know them. I don't think we should give up inquiry because some folks don't bother to go beyond labels. If aesthetic experiencers are in fact indistinguihable from other experiences then that does not mean they don't exist. It may mean they are a part of all other experiences. I would agree that aesthetic experiences can't be defined as they really are but need to be symbolized in some way, even including, but not limited to, ways that can't be shared beyond the self. You can't hide behind folk philosophy and unexamined reasoning to excuse your superficial comments. > > What I think happens all too often is that people > are told > about the notion 'aesthetic experience' and that > that is > what one gets from art (or maybe even nice > sunsets...). Then > every time they enjoy a work of art they say to > themselves > Ah yes, another aesthetic experience. As if that > were > an explanation of something and meant something > clear and > well understood. It isnt and it doesnt. I don't know of any cases in philosophical dialogue where what you just said has any "cash value" (with thanks to the pragmatists). It's just another example of testing ideas against naive realism and finding them lacking when in fact naive realism is the first level of folk philosophy to be discredited in any philosophical study. > > The word aesthetic has so many overlapping and > vague > meanings it is next to useless these days. Almost > invariably when I come across it in a discussion of > art, it > is clear that the writer is just using it as a > crutch - an > excuse to avoid mental effort. Again, you're trying to wiggle out of a discussion by speaking against a view that is recognized as having no merit, has not been offered, and is irrelevant to my earlier comments. Play the game or not but if you come onto the field, you are playing. Otherwise go to the sidelines. > > DA > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [spam?] Re: Taste > Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:47:31 -0700 (PDT) > > > I reply that the real must be defined to the > > satisfacion of those engaged in a discourse. > There > > must be an agreed starting point. Normally, but > not > > exclusively, modern thought regards the real in > > scientific terms, as the real world, something > > material and independent of our knowing it. But > other > > views have insisted that the real is our ideas of > the > > world even to the exclusion of any independent > > material existence or way of knowing it. I > suppose > > there's a sizeable minority that claims the real > to be > > a blend of the material and our ideas of it. But > as I > > tried to point out, no one can make the immaterial > > idea material and thus whatever ideas are or > whatever > > mental consciousness is, it can't be found out by > > scientific means that are restricted to measuring > > physical, causal properties. So we can't say what > > aesthetic experience is if we insist on locating > it as > > we do material things, like atoms or cells. The > only > > way I can imagine identifying aesthetic experience > is > > through a make-believe (metaphorical) process by > which > > we pretend that ideas, experiences, consciousness, > and > > all mental activity (as opposed to physical brain > > activity) are embodied in material form through > > symbols. Thus one might say that one's aesthetic > > experience in a specific case, such as the > experience > > of looking at a Titian painting, was "like" taking > a > > warm bath. Whether or not another person would > embody > > his or her aesthetic experience of the same Titian > > painting the same way, with the same words, is > > probably unlikely, but in discussion, the two > Titian > > observers might come to some reasonably agreeable > > metaphor to symbolize their aesthetic experience, > at > > that time and place, etc. I presume the same > > experience on another occasion would require a > > different or at least altered metaphor. What > remains > > a problem is whether or not some metaphorical > > translation of purely subjective > feeling/experience > > must occur even for the person involved who is not > > attempting to describe it even to himself/herself. > In > > other words, can we know experience without > > translating it from pure subjectivity to some type > of > > objectivity through language or any other symbol > > system. I'm inclined to say yes, but in saying > yes I > > must believe that I can step aside from my own > > consciousness and and yet remain purely > subjective. > > Some say that this is where we reach the limit of > our > > capacity; that is, there may be something to know > > beyond us but we can't know it. > > > > So Derek, choose your weapon. What is Real? > > Material, immaterial, or some blend? If you > choose > > material then you will find yourself in the camp > of > > your beloved (just kidding) but discredited
