No, Mr Allen, I am not one of Mr Ostrow's students. But I find it interesting that you keep telling me I haven't read much (art-history, history, and now aesthetics). Is there an argument form in this kind of comment, with which I am unaware? unlesende sein? Ad hominem? argumentum ad verecundiam? But on what grounds do you keep attributing this to me? Because I fail to see the relevance of a particular academic argument? It certainly can't be because you know what I've read, or what my academic background is. Nor do I see how you could accurately deduce it from my comments here.
My problem, as I mentioned, quite clearly I thought, was that I don't see the problem, let alone the force of it, which your paper is addressing. And since I can't fathom the problem you are addressing in your paper, there's nothing "to stick to" in it. The problem has nothing to do with your argument as such; the paper is clear and the summaries fine, the diagnoses of the arguments right. I simply don't understand the importance of the issue being discussed. Why did you write such a paper? (I suppose for professional reasons; academics must be 'academic') Moreover, the errors you spend so much time trying to uncover are elementary ones, which anyone who has taken a critical thinking class could have identified. If they are central problems of 'analytic' aesthetics, so much the worse for this approach. Simply tell me what the problem is, and we can begin from there. I also read your other paper, on time, metamorphoses etc... This one was better. But it strikes me that your focus is so narrowly set on analytic philosophy, and against historically informed approaches from the continent (you dismiss Hegel, Hegelian philosophy, Marx and Marxism with a mere comment, which didn't appear to be accurate, but there was so little said about them that it is impossible to tell one way or another), that it seems to have already been dealt with by writers like Hegel, Gadamer, Adorno, Heidegger, even lesser thinkers like Jauss, Iser, the whole Geneva school of literary phenomenology, even Bakhtin. Maybe the problem is only specific to a particular, literature? Maybe those who are more generally well read have already solved it, and have already moved on. So, before we start disparaging each others intellectual backgrounds and formations, perhaps we can start by having you clearly formulate the problem, which you take yourself to be adressing -- no euphemisms, no everyday speech; a proper formulation of the problem space. I would greatly appreciate that. In any case, I will not participate in an argument whose essence is the length of one's 'reading list.' So, if you see an error in what I've written, address it. If what I write is incomprehensible, ask for clarification (English is not my mother tongue). But please stop with the "You haven't read enough" diatribe. No one has read enough. Not even you. On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think you have read much aesthetics, Imago. If you had, you > would know that the arguments I am taking issue with are key > assumptions in analytic aesthetics. Indeed I think I make this clear > in the article. > > As for your comemnts they seem quite bizarre to me...They demonstrate > your amazing talent, which I have mentioned before, to turn clearly > expressed propositions into convoluted confusion. > > I would be much more impressed if you stuck to the text and showed > precisely what you think the problems are - in simple, clear language > - if you argued philosophically in short, rather than flounder around > in half-understood philosophical jargon.. > > You're not one of Saul's students by any chance? > > DA > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 6:37 PM, imago Asthetik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just read Derek Allan's Paper, "Art and History: taking the past > seriously." > > > > I must be rather dense, but I'm still completely unsure what problem Mr > > Allan is trying to articulate. Most of the arguments he critiques are > > easily dismissed (as Mr allan himself does) by showing that they fall to > > either a genetic fallacy (i.e. an origin must possess at least one > property > > found at the end of historical/temporal development), or as involving an > > overly robust metaphysical commitment to the reality of the category, > 'art' > > (notice that most philological arguments, i.e. the genealogy of concepts, > > fall prey to this fallacy). > > > > Indeed, as far as I can see, Mr Allans concern ultimately amounts to a > > perspectival claim concerning what he terms "The modern world of art," > > rather than "the world of modern art." But wouldn't that perspectival > > problem -- ie that the horizons of what we currently call art are larger > > than what our predecessors called art -- be precisely a modern problem, > > which is independent of art as such (i.e. it manifests itself in science > > too, and math, and cooking, and architecture, etc). Phrased as simply as > > possible, we are able to "take something as" something in more ways than > > previously possible. And such an Apophansis merely bespeaks a more > > complicated, nuanced and refined lifeworld/system. So what's the problem > > exactly? Surely it can't be an Hamletian call for an anti-philosophy, > > "there are more things on heaven and earth than philosophy can imagine." > > > > > > > > -- > Derek Allan > http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
