William: You raise many points with few words.
Let me respond to some of them.
Am I sneering? I have almost no credentials in philosophy and none in
creativity. On what basis then would I look down on others on the list?
What I say is weak for a philosophical statement: My limited awareness of
Socrates certainly involves his purported interactions with students or
opponents. I understand that it was his wont to raise questions, rather than
providing answers. If it's good enough for such a philosopher, could it be
good enough for me? Not that I have anything equivalent to offer; I do have
lots to learn.
If you are really asking me a question, I tend to feel invited to respond. I
have some misgivings that you are conveying something to me, not really
asking me a question. My response to the nature of philosophy question is
that I suspect there are a number of aspects, one of which I gather may be
making distinctions. If science is of any value in understanding a
discipline, I would guess that there is some description involved, rules
articulated, procedures advocated, comparisons and differences established.
I "ought" to use "ought": it's a professional tenet that obligations are
self-ascribed. You can suggest or demand that I "ought": it's up to me if I
feel compelled. If there are conditions attached to participation on the
list, I would suggest that they be established. Persons could then elect to
abide by the conditions, or not. I'm not aware of conditions of the list
(although I do gather that it has happened that someone has been asked to
leave).
I'm not clear about what may count/be recognized as relevant to
philosophy/aesthetics. It appears that individuals' perceptions of museums,
types of art and manners of participating on the list are all fair game for
comment.
I do appreciate the references to books which members have found
stimulating/illuminating. I have started reading "Descartes Error" in hopes
of participating on the list in a more informed manner.
Geoff C
From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Reification and "ART"
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:16:29 -0800 (PST)
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'?"
> > > >
