See Cheerskep's remark below mine: I'm looking at my sentence very closely and don't find that I used the word aesthetics in it. Or does Cheerskep imagine that by saying philosophy I also say aesthetic? On the contrary, I want aesthetics to be removed from philosophy and joined with science -- meaning scientific inquiry, quantifiable evidence, measurement, observable function and the like. Philosophy is losing its ancient domain; or, it is being more carefully understood as diverse sciences of mind. Its very valuable role is ethics and morality which are the humanizing features of science. If the aesthetic experience is ever to be identified it will be a measurement of neural and social habits and responses. Philosophy can say if these are moral or ethical habits and responses. Yet even with respect to morality, etc., I suspect a genetic, neural, social construct guiding action.
Art is a handy, and broadly recognized word to identify a vague type of social activity that looks like (the kinship argument) other types of activity that employ a more or less established range of materials and practices. After that it begs any justification because it has no intrinsic features or uses. WC --- On Tue, 8/5/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: To teach is to wield sights... > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 6:16 PM > In a message dated 8/5/08 6:53:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > writes: > > > > In fact, it's not heretical but more respectful to > reclass art with the > > soft sciences than it is to leave it out in the cold, > withered moonlit landscape > > of sentimental philosophy. > > > William here seems to identify "art" and > "aesthetics". > )
