In a message dated 7/29/12 2:22:56 PM, [email protected] writes:
> Why "Make the users describe the notions behind their noises. Get them to > see how psychoactive, how hallucinatory, words are, especially that > deluding > figment "IS"." ? Why not try and understand what they are getting at, from > their viewpoint? > Because the best way to do what you call "understand" their viewpoint is to ask them to describe their notions behind key words. And it's often the best way to get them to see how fuzzy/ambiguous/confused their own notions are. You weren't on the list during one of its most memorable episodes: The attempt by a marvelously arrogant guy to "define 'art'" based on his absolute surety he "understood" what "art" "IS". After two weeks or so of internet firefighting, it became clear that others, especially the eminently respectable aesthetician Benedetto Croce, called 'art' some entities that the guy wouldn't call 'art'. E.g. Croce believed that a poet walking on a beach could compose a poem in his head, or composers could create symphonies in their heads a la Mozart and Prokofief, even that a painter could imagine a visual composition -- all of which, said Croce, should be called "works of art" even though they were never "committed to paper". The arrogant guy said, no, they aren't "works of art". Are! Aren't! Are! Eventually it became clear to the that all he was doing was insisting that others use the word 'art' the way he did, that what was at issue was a matter of CALLING and not IS-ING". His whole premise that "art" IS a certain mind-independent entity, imploded, and he quit the forum. It may seem obvious to you that someone who comes to the table asking "What is a miracle?" is already convinced that miracles "are", but, believe it, the form of the question can fool most people. "What is an essence?" will send one "thinker" after another scurrying off to find out what it is, without ever considering whether it IS at all.
