Who says political analogies are any better than sports analogies in art philosophy? Syntax is important. For example why do you ask "might we not go" when you could've said "why not" or even declare "we ought? I presume you put a high value on using a polite, non-accusatory phrase instead of one that declares your position. Is your goal to disarm your antagonist or to appear willing to be persuaded or does it veil a sneer? Whatever, it's far too obfuscatingly weak for something said as a philosophical point of view. Do we agree that philosophy is about making distinctions and not might we not avoid them? WC
--- On Thu, 11/6/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Reification and "ART" > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 4:27 PM > William: OK. I'll do my best to avoid sports analogies. > (I may still wonder > why politics might be acceptable and sports not.) > It is certainly true that this is an aesthetics/philosophy > list. When in > Rome ... It seems that we must debate the shape of the > table before we can > discuss the conditions for establishiing a truce. A bit of > a shame. For > greater clarity, if someone wants to make a point about > logic, or > aesthetics, and spells a word incorrectly or uses it in an > ungrammatical > way, might we not go with the sense/notion we may discern > in the post, as > opposed to steering the discussion away from the point at > issue to spelling > or grammar (as correct as the person might be about > pointing out the > spelling or grammatical error)? > Geoff C > > >From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: Reification and "ART" > >Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 07:54:31 -0800 (PST) > > > >New rule! You can't verify art philosophy by > analogies to sporting events > >which are, above all, entertainment, and are refereed > with that uppermost > >in mind. In art philosophy, each and ever word, comma, > term, must be fully > >explained with respect to the meaning the author wants > the reader to > >imitate. > >WC > > > > > >--- On Wed, 11/5/08, GEOFF CREALOCK > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > From: GEOFF CREALOCK > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: Re: Reification and "ART" > > > To: [email protected] > > > Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2008, 1:01 PM > > > Cheerskep: I occasionally watch hockey on tv. It > is the > > > referee's job to > > > keep play within rules. Without the referee, > chaos might > > > result. On the > > > other hand, referees seem to recognize that > scrupulous > > > calling of every > > > possible misdemeanour would drastically slow up > the game. > > > So, although some > > > behaviour is not really within the rules, they > let it go > > > for the sake of the > > > fans watching. > > > I suppose that there should be a penalty for > reifying. > > > However, maybe > > > occasionally it could be overlooked (in spite of > its being > > > 'against the > > > rules"). > > > Geoff C > > > > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Reply-To: [email protected] > > > >To: [email protected] > > > >Subject: Re: "Certainty" AND > "ART" > > > >Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 12:32:57 EST > > > > > > > >In a message dated 11/2/08 12:33:46 PM, > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > > > > > > > >"Cheerskep: Perhaps, for the purposes of > this > > > discussion: what notions > > > >might > > > >be associated with the notion "art" > in your, > > > or many persons, minds, "what > > > >is > > > >art?" might be understood as: "what > notions > > > might be associated with the > > > >notion "art"." > > > > > > > >When people ask, "What is X?" they > are asking > > > one of two different kinds of > > > >questions that can loosely be characterized > with this > > > phrasing: "What do > > > >you > > > >personally call X?" and "What is > the actual > > > entity that we are referring to > > > >when > > > >we say 'X'?" > > > > > > > >At the core of the notion behind the second > kind of > > > question is the > > > >assumption that the alleged > "referent" > > > exists. > > > > > > > >Often the alleged referent is concrete and > directly > > > observable enough to > > > >persuade us to accept the question as > serviceably > > > reasonable: "What's that > > > >bright > > > >object in the sky?" "What's > that > > > elaborate-looking machine over there in > > > >the > > > >corner?" "What's this lump > under my skin > > > here?" > > > > > > > >And sometimes both parties are aware the > > > "entity" is notional: "What's > your > > > >idea of justice?" "What do you > have in mind > > > when you say 'aesthetic'?" > > > >"What's your notion of a good > vacation?" > > > > > > > >Trouble is, the form of those questions often > morphs > > > from "What's your idea > > > >of justice?" to "What is > justice?" A > > > corollary form is, "Is X in fact a Y?" > > > > > > > >And the trouble with that form is, it tends > to make the > > > mind "reify" -- > > > >assume the thing is a "real", > non-mental > > > entity. > > > > > > > >Thus what began as a request for a > description of what > > > someone has in mind > > > >becomes a hunt for the assumed > mind-independent entity: > > > > > > > >"What is sin, miracles, destiny, good > luck, the > > > "sacredness" of "holy" > > > >ground, curses, God's grace..."
