I think the word aesthetics is a great word.Because if it's the study of beauty it has to include ugly and in between. If it does that,it has to include meaning in all it;s variations, and that makes it impossible for any art, and." is" becomes fuzzier & fuzzier.
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 11:37 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)
