That answer is not analytical. There are always some people who advocate any view at all. So philosophically I think it's pointless to justify a position on the grounds that some people will choose it. The issue finally becomes a moral one. Is the aesthtic limited to what is morally good and if so, does it have a social/political dimension? I think the aesthetic is primarily a social affirmation, not a personal one, at least with respect to approaching a workable definition of it. If we approach it through the moral and the ethical then will that help to avoid ending with purely solipsistic stalemates? WC
--- On Sat, 10/11/08, armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Expertise and aesthetic experience > To: [email protected] > Cc: "armando baeza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Saturday, October 11, 2008, 3:50 PM > To some people ,I think it certainly does. > mando > On Oct 11, 2008, at 1:41 PM, William Conger wrote: > > > So does porn qualify re aesthetic experience? > > WC > > > > > > --- On Sat, 10/11/08, GEOFF CREALOCK > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> From: GEOFF CREALOCK > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Subject: Re: Expertise and aesthetic experience > >> To: [email protected] > >> Date: Saturday, October 11, 2008, 3:18 PM > >> Here is my "vague summary" definition of > >> "aesthetic experience" > >> (idiosyncratic though it may be): a satisfying or > >> significantly pleasurable > >> response, sustantially but not necessarily solely > >> affective, to a stimulus > >> (painting, poem, play, photograph or natural event > - add > >> your own > >> favourite). > >> I agree that definition is difficult, but that is > not, for > >> me, a reason to > >> make no effort. (Look at the fine work of > President Bush to > >> manage national > >> debt.) > >> Geoff C > >> > >> > >>> From: William Conger > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> Reply-To: [email protected] > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Subject: Re: Expertise and aesthetic > experience > >>> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:27:27 -0700 (PDT) > >>> > >>> Most philosophers say that whatever the > aesthetic > >> "experience" is, it > >>> cannot be fully explicated because to do that > is to > >> describe it in terms > >>> separate from the experience. Experience is a > flow, a > >> continuum, always > >>> mixed with a variety of feelings and memories > in > >> addition to the moment at > >>> hand. How is it possible to isolate "an > >> experience" except in vague > >>> summary? Thus I think the aesthetic > experience, a > >> faulty term, is > >>> ineffable. In fact, I suspect we could say > the same > >> about any sort of > >>> experience whatsoever. We need to use a > language to > >> reconstruct the > >>> presumed experience and that has its own > experiental or > >> even aesthetic > >>> evocative and therefore constructive aspects. > In > >> short, the word we use to > >>> describe our experience is also an experience > and thus > >> has its own defining > >>> impact. > >>> > >>> Because no experience can be replicated by a > language I > >> frankly have no > >>> idea what an aesthetic experience is. Some > episodes of > >> my ongoing > >>> experiental life seem to be more surprising > and > >> fascinating, and remind me > >>> of the "oceanic" metaphor, like out > of body > >> fantasies, but, really, nothing > >>> is adequately both necessary and sufficient to > describe > >> any experience > >>> without making it anew, and false. > >>> > >>> I am one who answered in the affirmative > regarding the > >> "aesthetic" benefit > >>> of learning from critics. I use the word > critic > >> expansively here, and > >>> apply it a range of writers from writers like > >> Baudelaire to art scholars > >>> like TJ Clark, among hundreds of others. Why? > These > >> people have given me > >>> deeper access to art, enabling me to > experience it far > >> more fully than I > >>> might have otherwise. Sometimes, their prose > alone is > >> so enlightening that > >>> it becomes fused, as it were, with the > artworks they > >> discuss. And isn't > >>> art something that should attract and reflect > the > >> distilled experiences > >>> expressed by its audiences? When it begins > life, an > >> artwork is empty, or > >>> meaningless, as all things are, and attains > vitality > >> through the content > >>> its audiences create and vicariously extend to > it. > >>> > >>> WC > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> --- On Sat, 10/11/08, Chris Miller > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> From: Chris Miller > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> Subject: Re: Expertise and aesthetic > experience > >>>> To: [email protected] > >>>> Date: Saturday, October 11, 2008, 9:05 AM > >>>> As Derek once asked, "What *is* an > >> "aesthetic > >>>> experience"?" --- and perhaps > >>>> not everyone here would say that they had > such > >> things - or > >>>> even if we all > >>>> would -- it's quite likely that we use > the > >> phrase > >>>> differently. > >>>> > >>>> As Mando would say -- it's a > "Wow!" > >> kind of > >>>> experience -- and perhaps we would > >>>> all agree -- but beyond that ? > >>>> > >>>> For example both Cheerskep and I like to > watch > >> sports -- > >>>> but I would never > >>>> call any of those experiences
