Yes most of "the demands of intellectual rigor are essentially limited to logic" and knowledge. There is long list of "facts based on observation and measurement" can be established regarding paintings, poetry, musical performances and such" plus emotional and intuitive potentials. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Rational Discussion and aesthetic quality Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:37:11 GMT
What do the rest of you think of William's manifesto? Do you all agree that "the demands of intellectual rigor are essentially limited to logic." ? What kind of "facts based on observation and measurement" can be established regarding paintings, poetry, musical performances and such? Is the beauty of a drawing or melody one such fact? This is a fine opportunity for you lurkers out there to de-cloak and address some basic questions about aesthetics. ............................................................................. ............................................................................. .. >I hate carrying on with my disagreements with Miller. But my great failing is to be drawn to the fire as a moth to the flame. Aesthetics is a field of inquiry in philosophy and the philosophy of art. It has a tradition and a body of literature. It is discussed for the sake of finding common ground on particular questions. If Miller wants to redefine the field so narrowly that there is absolutely nothing to discuss except to pass around unexamined personal opinions then he is opting for a mode of discourse that could be exercised with grunts and not words. I find it humorous that he makes a universal claim for something that he insists is totally individual. How can "all people" be obliged to do something that he insists is the prerogative of each person's perception? Agreement on intellectual views is not conformity in the usual sense because conformity implies agreement in the absence of inquiry, as, for example, when people conform to laws they neither question nor think about but simply enfold into their behavior. I think the proper word would be consensus, which implies that agreement is obtained among a group while individual differences are respected. The demands of intellectual rigor are essentially limited to logic. Logic is essential to reaching an objective view of anything, whether or not the content of the argument is true or false. Then facts based on observation and measurement are examined for their truth or falsity and in this area there is room for contentious dissent. Some facts may be wrongly observed or measured, some may irrelevant, some may be unknown or change in the course of being observed or measured. Contrary to Miller's comment, scientific facts are not established by authority but by observation and experiment. The scientific method provides a check on authority. Nothing is settled in science simply because of authority. We've all heard of scientists' "new discoveries" in science that are not accepted because the experiments and observations that led to them cannot de duplicated by others, Again, that's a check on authority, no matter who it is. Again, facts do not rest on authority in our scientific era. In the past, facts did rest solely on authority and power. Granted that aesthetics is not science, not yet, and granted that opinion and personal experience plays a huge role in aesthetic judgment, so far as we know from comparison to other types of experience. But in aesthetic discourse, elementary logic is still required to enable people to follow arguments and attention to what others have said on the aesthetic topic at hand is prudent. So far, Miller has never been able to tell us what his aesthetic subjectivity is. He is only interested in negating what others have offered, finally finding unassailable refuge in his requirement that all aesthetic judgment is individual, and therefore non-communicable at all. If you say you have a treasure hidden in your closet but no one can see it and you refuse to describe it or to enable others to value it in any way how do you "prove" that you have the treasure at all? Ironically, unknowingly, Miller is taking a postmodern position, that art is anything at all, maybe even nothing. Lots of contemporary "art" aims to question whether or not art can exist, not only in historical terms regarding quality and object-hood, but in experiential terms, both individually and socially. It's sort of like the god question. If god exists, the option that he does not exist is necessary. ____________________________________________________________ Click to get the coolest ring tones on your phone, fast and easy http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxTAa9yUZCJiJZe70Xpjuak5T ynNNtT2hPxJEG25DZr7L0vzgSp1ZG/
