RE: 'At base the problem Derek or anyone has with 'beauty' and 'aesthetic' is very similar to that with 'reality': a reader can never be serviceably sure what the writer who uses those words has in mind.'
Well, beauty and aesthetic are words that tend to corrupt discourse specifically in the philosophy of art. Reality affects aesthetics and philosophical discourse more broadly. RE: "For example, when I indicted 'reality', I knew some people use it to indicate what they might call the "material" world "out there", like the "real" iron structure in Paris we call "the Eiffel Tower", and explicitly to exclude things that have only "mental existence" like fantasies of Santa Claus, paranoid delusions, and even sane worries, anxieties, fears, hopes. Derek, however, on the argument that fantasies and fears can be a dominating factor in some people's lives, opted to call such things "more real" to those who have them than is some remote material object they'll never see or even hear about." More real under certain circumstances. Not for the plane about to fly into the Eiffel Tower. RE: ' Or they might convey that they know art when they see it because it gives them a "response to art", and then on another day convey they believe in the existence of "bad art" -- which, I think we may assume, does NOT give them a "response to art". I don't quite say 'I know art when I see it.' I say: I know what *I think* is art when I have had a chance to get to know it.' Significant differences there. As for 'bad art' I think the phrase is misleading. Something either is art or it is not (though as I have said the borderline is very imprecise.) What exactly would 'bad art' be? I don't really have much use for the phrase. (If I have said the contrary before, I hereby renounce said statements!) -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 4:37 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Derek writes: > > "Cheerskep is assuming, I think, that I want to propose working substitutes > or replacements for these words ['aesthetic' and 'beauty']. I don't. I just > want them ignored for say about 10 years. I want people to forget they ever > existed." > > No. I said if Derek wants the words banned he could aid his case by > suggesting other phrases in their place. And I expressly said the job > couldn't be done > with single "equivalent" words. I had earlier argued for banning the word > 'reality' because it stirred different and often incompatible notions. At > base the > problem Derek or anyone has with 'beauty' and 'aesthetic' is very similar to > that with 'reality': a reader can never be serviceably sure what the writer > who uses those words has in mind. > > However, I wasn't trying to ban all the various notions a writer might harbor > when he uses the word 'reality'. Some of those notions may be worthy and > defensible. So I figured I should try to demonstrate how replacement phrases > could > be used depending on the various notions the writer wanted to convey. I said > I believe we can in large part preserve and convey the particular core notion > in the mind, while reducing the confusion caused by the many potential notions > behind the word 'reality'. > > For example, when I indicted 'reality', I knew some people use it to indicate > what they might call the "material" world "out there", like the "real" iron > structure in Paris we call "the Eiffel Tower", and explicitly to exclude > things > that have only "mental existence" like fantasies of Santa Claus, paranoid > delusions, and even sane worries, anxieties, fears, hopes. Derek, however, on > the > argument that fantasies and fears can be a dominating factor in some people's > lives, opted to call such things "more real" to those who have them than is > some remote material object they'll never see or even hear about. > > Neither notion behind the word 'reality' is "wrong", but they are mutually > contradictory, so two people can be using the same word while entertaining > incompatible notions. Brady, because Derek wants to call fantasies 'real', > suggested using the terms 'fiction" and 'non-fiction' to render unnecessary > the use of > 'real' or 'unreal' when someone might want to classify factual accounts and > fantasies. And I suggested 'notional' and 'non-notional' to distinguish purely > "mental" entities from all entities that exist outside anyone's mind. Those > locutions, I figured, accommodated Derek's notion when he declared anxieties > to > be "very real" to the person who has them, and the notion in the layman's mind > when he insists the Eiffel Tower is "real" and Santa's factory is not. Thus > the use of 'real' could be obviated, but core notions in both men's minds > could > be conveyed. > > If nothing else, pushing everyone to articulate more explicitly the notion > they have in mind when they are inclined to use the words 'aesthetic' and > 'beauty' would, in Derek's phrase, cut down on the "short-circuiting of > thought > processes" that the use of easily available but ambiguous terms always > fosters. > > It's intriguing to see that even the same person can harbor contradictory > notions and never notice it because he doesn't entertain both of them at the > same > time. He or she might, for example, on Monday claim the phrase 'the > non-fiction, everyday world' is "just another term for 'reality'", and then > on > Wednesday claim the Santa Claus fantasy has "reality" for a child. People can > do > this without noticing they have just implied that 'non-fiction' is just > another > word for fantasy. > > Or they might convey that they know art when they see it because it gives > them a "response to art", and then on another day convey they believe in the > existence of "bad art" -- which, I think we may assume, does NOT give them a > "response to art". > > These are not insuperable confusions, but they require the speakers to spell > out what they have in mind with the key terms. > > I don't trust anyone who insists that a given word is "the only one" that can > serviceably convey what he has in mind. > > > > ************** > Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family > favorites at AOL Food. > > (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
