But it's not as simple as that Chris. I gave two of the common associations. There are others. Eg to do with 'the senses' - and various refinements of that. Not to mention Kant's lucubrations on the topic. And these days the word is being used by continental theorists in new and bizarre ways. I see titles like 'the politics of aesthetics' - or is it 'the aesthetics of politics'? I forget which. The word has become like a magnet for any hare-brained idea looking for a label.
DA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Taste Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:42:55 GMT > Derek -- we already know why you don't like to use the > word 'aesthetic' (the "conceptual baggage" etc) -- but > when you raised the question of whether we "know what the > word 'aesthetic' means." -- and then you answered : "Alas > , no one seems to." -- Cheerskep wondered whether you just > feigning ignorance. > > And indeed -- you seem to know quite well what 'aesthetic' > means to most of us (at least as well as you know what any > word means): > > *"'aesthetic experience' carries with it the idea > that a response to art is essentially a form of pleasure" > > *"'Aesthetic' is also strongly associated with the idea > that art is somehow essentially beauty." > > > So .... maybe you should set the question of your > dis-ingenuity aside - and address another of Cheerkep's > concerns. > > > > ********************************************************** > ** > > > > > Re: ' When he continues to insist he has no idea what > > we're thinking when we say "aesthetic experience" I > > frankly don't believe him. He's being disingenuous.' > > > > > But I'm quite happy to agree that someone who loves > Mozart's 22 piano concerto for example may have the same > kind of 'experience' I do when they listen to it. etc I > just don't want to call that an 'aesthetic experience'. > Why? Because it's a phrase that carries all kinds of > conceptual baggage - baggage which would want to attach > itself to me but which I absolutely disown. > > For example, 'aesthetic experience' carries with it the > idea that a response to art is essentially a form of > pleasure (unhelpfully called 'aesthetic pleasure'). I > think that idea trivialises art and I want nothing to do > with it. 'Aesthetic' is also strongly associated with the > idea that art is somehow essentially beauty. I think that > idea is false to art and want nothing to do with that > either. > > Also the phrase numbs the brain. People are told that > their response to art is an aesthetic experiecne. It > sounds rather grand ('aesthetic' after all sounds > specialised and sort of deep). So they think 'Oh gee, > isn't that great. An aesthetic experiecne, hey! What about > that? L'il ol' me.' And that's the end of the matter. No > more thought. No more analysis. Nothing. Case closed. > > (I know you made further points Cheerskep, but I think I > will stop there for now.) > > DA > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Taste > Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 22:05:46 EDT > > > Derek writes: > > > > "Before one could say whether aesthetic experience is > > real one would need to know what it is. (Otherwise one > > be describing something else and calling it aesthetic > > experience). To do that, one would need to know what the > > word 'aesthetic' means. Alas, no one seems to. Or rather > > everyone seems to have a different idea of what it > > means. (A case of Cheerskep's 'fuzziness' run riot.)" > > > > Derek continues to be a combination of disingenuous and > > ineducable. I was just browsing through the archives, > > where I find him repeatedly claiming he has no idea > > what other listers can have in mind when they say > > "aesthetic experience", while at the same time > > repeatedly mentioning his "response to art". I see I've > > worked to explain how most of use an ostensive > > definition: We point at something and say the likes of, > > "That's what I mean by XXXX." It's quite a serviceable > > way of conveying much of one's notions. I watched my > > children acquire a serviceable use of language that > way. > > > I've told Derek numerous times, "There -- that feeling > > you call your response to art, the feeling you get from > > Mozart and 'Crime and Punishment" -- that "response to > > art" is the kind of feeling the rest of us have in mind > > when we say "aesthetic experience". > > > > When he continues to insist he has no idea what we're > > thinking when we say "aesthetic experience" I frankly > > don't believe him. He's being disingenuous. > > > > Derek says, "a word has meaning only in its relevant > > speech community," and he says some public signs "have > > meanings which sometimes stretch beyond a given speech > > community," and he says we " need to know what the word > > 'aesthetic' means." Since my view is that words are > > inert, they don't DO things, I obviously feel they > > can't carry out some action Derek has in mind when he > > says that words "mean", or they "have meaning". > > > > So I described in detail why we tend to think words are > > "doing" something, why we assume they are carrying on > > the action we call "meaning": It's because repeated > > juxtaposition of the uttered word with an idea, image, > > or feeling has produced in the mind an ASSOCIATION > > between the uttered word and those ideas, images, > > feelings. "Milk!" "Hot!" "No!" "Angry!" So when we see > the word and > > the image comes to mind, we feel it's the word "doing" > > it , but it's only our associating mind that's doing > > something. > > > > When I ask him "to describe as precisely as he can what > > he has in mind when he says, "a word has meaning" -- in > > particular what he has in mind with the word 'meaning' > > and the word 'has'," his response is a quintessential > > duck and run: " If I could do that I would be able to > > describe human consciousness, which I can't." > > > > Derek would hide behind what he would insinuate is an > > impossibility -- "describe human consciousness". But > > I've asked Derek to describe only a PART of human > > consciousness -- i.e. what he has in mind when he utters > > a certain word -- and I asked that he do it not > > perfectly but only as precisely as he can. > > > > He must have a notion in mind when he uses a word to > > convey it. Since I'm quite sure my description has > > conveyed a serviceable replica of my notion of the > > associating mind and inert words and "meaning", I'm > > convinced that we can serviceably describe the notion > > behind lots of words. So I don't believe Derek when he > > says he can't do it. I DO believe that upon trying to > > describe his particular notion of "meaning" he found it > > so chaotic and fuzzy he couldn't describe it. But > > that's the fault of his particular notion, not because > > he's being asked to do the generically impossible. > > > > The suggestion that we can never describe -- as > > precisely as we are able -- what we have in mind when > > we use a word seems to me false, and inexcusable in an > > aesthetician. Granted, the notion behind some words is
