Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 The Hierarchy of Perspectives:

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchy of Perspectives: Sun Oct 02, 2011 12:46 am

[quote="phoneutria"]
Quote :
Aesthetic judgements are positive (perceptions of good),
or ugly, unpleasant to look at, etc.
Quote :

while moral judgements are negative (perceptions of evil).
Or good. The good person as opposed to someone more neutral. Good is not simply the absence of evil, in most descriptions, there is a positive, generally active element. Though some believe in a good nature prior to action also.

Quote :
In the perception of beauty, the judgement is based on the character of the immediate experience. When you look at an object and find it beautiful, your thought is not in how you can use it. In contrast, judgement of moral worth is always associated with possible benefits
. Wouldn't it be disadvantages rather than benefits if morals are about negative qualities? And this is not to catch you out, but rather to point out how natural it is to see morals in positives.
Quote :

Remember the (moral) tale of the ants and the cricket? The ants worked hard all summer while all the cricket did was sing. When winter came, the ants had food and shelter, and the cricket died of cold and hunger. The concern of moral is not to have pleasure, it is to avoid suffering.
That may be the moral and the quality the ants exhibit may be considered a positive moral trait by some, to me it seems simply a practical trait and a necessary one. IOW an evil person is not less evil for planning their winter food sources poorly. Especially if they end up shooting people to ransack their pantries.


Quote :
Meanwhile, we do not have a necessity or an obligation to feel pleasure.
If I did not feel pleasure I would have died a long time ago. I would withered, gotten sick and faded out, if not having been more active and conscious in deciding to die. I am exagerating. I would have died. A life without pleasure is a very hard thing to create, even for the very poor and abused. We find some pleasure in very basic inadequate things if that is all we have.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchy of Perspectives: Sun Oct 02, 2011 4:14 pm

phoneutria wrote:


If you read the first few chapters of any book on aesthetics, you will see the author make a distinction between aesthetics and moral, as they are very close and not knowing the difference between them causes the confusion that you are experiencing.

So you're relying on sources which you aren't even referencing...? And these sources are supposed to prove to me what beauty is and is not?

[laughs]

Will do.

Quote :
Aesthetic judgements are positive (perceptions of good), while moral judgements are negative (perceptions of evil).

I can therefore find something aesthetically pleasing but not judge it morally....

Ding-ding....bullshit argument #1.


Quote :
In the perception of beauty, the judgement is based on the character of the immediate experience. When you look at an object and find it beautiful, your thought is not in how you can use it. In contrast, judgement of moral worth is always associated with possible benefits.

Again, you're saying beauty and morality absolutely do not mix...

Yet, it is completely possible for something beautiful to be practical & useful, and for anyone to think that it is both beautiful and useful....in the 'immediate experience'.

Quote :
Remember the (moral) tale of the ants and the cricket? The ants worked hard all summer while all the cricket did was sing. When winter came, the ants had food and shelter, and the cricket died of cold and hunger. The concern of moral is not to have pleasure, it is to avoid suffering. Meanwhile, we do not have a necessity or an obligation to feel pleasure.

So where is morality missing pleasure, or pleasure missing morality? Something that is moral can be pleasurable and something that is pleasurable can be moral...

It is possible to seek both pleasure & morality for the same ends.

Bullshit argument #2.

Quote :
The implications of being alive are such that when facing the real possibility of cold, hunger, disease, death, you can't help but think that the quest for beauty/pleasure is vain. Pleasure is thus saved for when we have done enough to rest our minds about these possibilities.

The ants didn't whistle while they worked? ;]

Why must there be a disconnect? How is this indisputable fact?

Quote :
Based on that, you should probably be able to see how beauty can be an indication of the happiness of a society.

No...not even close.

Quote :
I'll preemptively add that you may perceive a function in beauty because we desire it, and thus we are willing to go through a certain amount of effort to achieve it. But in t his sense, it is not beauty you are concerned with, it is with a form of currency.
An artist does not make a painting or a sculpture that is somewhat beautiful to sell at a certain cost, and another that is more beautiful to sell for a higher cost. Every time he is engaged in the creation of beauty, he is attempting to excel. The value of the piece is only a consequence of this dedication placed in excelling in the art.

So now you're saying an artist never creates something beautiful for the purpose of selling it at a high cost? .....

Delusion: it's not a toilet fairy....
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchy of Perspectives: Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:25 pm

Aesthetic values and moral values are different, but not mutually exclusive.
With that in mind, it is obvious that something beautiful can also be useful. That does not mean that the usefulness is in its beauty or that beauty serves any other purpose than to be beautiful.

Thus, you do not have a point.

BTW I am referencing my own knowledge from reading over the years. If you would like a book recomendation, I can give you one.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchy of Perspectives: Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:56 pm

[quote="Kovacs"]
phoneutria wrote:

Quote :
Aesthetic judgements are positive (perceptions of good),
or ugly, unpleasant to look at, etc.
Quote :

while moral judgements are negative (perceptions of evil).
Or good. The good person as opposed to someone more neutral. Good is not simply the absence of evil, in most descriptions, there is a positive, generally active element. Though some believe in a good nature prior to action also.

I suppose I could have been more clear.
Aestethics and morals both measure values as good or bad. The difference between them being that aestethics focus on obtaining pleasure (positive), while morals foculs on avoiding suffering (negative).

[Quote]Wouldn't it be disadvantages rather than benefits if morals are about negative qualities? And this is not to catch you out, but rather to point out how natural it is to see morals in positives.
[quote]

See the above clarification.

Quote :
That may be the moral and the quality the ants exhibit may be considered a positive moral trait by some, to me it seems simply a practical trait and a necessary one. IOW an evil person is not less evil for planning their winter food sources poorly. Especially if they end up shooting people to ransack their pantries.

The cricket in this story is amoral because he is portraid as lazy. He prefered to indulge himself during the summer instead of helping in the necessary work.

I'm sure that there is evil people out there who care deeply for their mothers. I don't understand why you think that a person cannot demostrate at times amoral, and at times moral traits.

.
Quote :
If I did not feel pleasure I would have died a long time ago. I would withered, gotten sick and faded out, if not having been more active and conscious in deciding to die. I am exagerating. I would have died. A life without pleasure is a very hard thing to create, even for the very poor and abused. We find some pleasure in very basic inadequate things if that is all we have.

It is true that a life without pleasure is hardly worth living. This must be why nature made it so easy for us to obtain all those yummy endorphines and oxytoxins that we want so bad. In fact neutral state (not feeling hungry, not feeling dirty, not having something obstructing your airways) in which you are just sitting in the dark and breathing, can already be seen as pleasant. That neutral state is the moral good.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchy of Perspectives: Sun Oct 02, 2011 11:44 pm

phoneutria wrote:
Aesthetic values and moral values are different, but not mutually exclusive.

Then stop trying to make it look that way...

Aesthetics can have moral value.

End of.

Quote :
With that in mind, it is obvious that something beautiful can also be useful. That does not mean that the usefulness is in its beauty or that beauty serves any other purpose than to be beautiful.

And what if it does?

Then it blows your argument out of the water, and beauty is not necessarily beautiful on its own...
It is very possible for utility to give beauty its credence...



Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchy of Perspectives: Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:19 am

Poison IV wrote:
phoneutria wrote:
Aesthetic values and moral values are different, but not mutually exclusive.

Then stop trying to make it look that way...

Then stop trying to make it look like they are the same.

Quote :
With that in mind, it is obvious that something beautiful can also be useful. That does not mean that the usefulness is in its beauty or that beauty serves any other purpose than to be beautiful.

And what if it does?

Then it blows your argument out of the water[/quote]

Explain how. It seems you just granted my point with your insolent "what if it does?".

Quote :
... and beauty is not necessarily beautiful on its own...
It is very possible for utility to give beauty its credence...

Is it?
I am waiting for an affirmation that comes with a proof.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchy of Perspectives: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:50 am

phoneutria wrote:
Then stop trying to make it look like they are the same.

You can't turn it around; the burden of proof lies with you. In order for your argument to work, you must prove that there is an absolute separation, my job is to show you that this is not always the case...


Quote :


Explain how. It seems you just granted my point with your insolent "what if it does?".

Repetitious inquiry, reply below...


Quote :

Is it?
I am waiting for an affirmation that comes with a proof.

Sexual selection is a very easy one. Much of what we consider attractive is because it is healthy, and offers us potential mating advantages...

What is 'unhealthy' we consider ugly.

Phi or Golden Ratio is an example...

When a face is aligned and proportionately even, this means that a person has better immunity than someone who has an uneven face. What is pleasing to the eye is often not just 'spontaneous' or pretty on the outside. It has very significant properties which are of great value to us....

Golden Ratio all throughout 'beautiful' architecture...

http://www.goldennumber.net/goldsect.htm
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchy of Perspectives: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:20 pm

Beauty often has its roots in evolutionary usefulness. Poison has the better of you on this one, dearest pho.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchy of Perspectives: Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:19 pm

But evolutionary usefulness has no weight in aesthetic considerations.
The moment you consider function, you leave the realm of aesthetics.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchy of Perspectives: Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:47 am

Well, broadly speaking: we can perhaps wring from the history of aesthetics two primary concerns. First, the content of the art-object as art-object; and second, the art-object in relation to its audience -- that is, it's effect. Insofar as we think art in the second sense, the impetus behind its effect may very well be of concern to us. Insofar as that impetus grows out of an evolutionary utility -- which I want to suggest is often the case --, we may indeed consider function without leaving the realm of aesthetics. To this extent, I cannot help but disagree with you, phon.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchy of Perspectives: Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:18 am

Poison IV wrote:

False :p

Beauty can have plenty of function, and can be very rational, as well as having little or nothing to do with freedom. It's a value judgement based on whatever you want it to be, so trying to give it fundamental qualities is just asking for failure :p

Yes, there are many shared universal standards for what the ideal of beauty is, but after finding meaning in its consensus there is nothing left to attribute to one definition.

Something that might be relevant to this:

On that other board, I posted a long standing belief with me that the true beauty of beauty lied in its ability to assert the non-functional in the face of the functional. I soon got assailed by IV who argued I was wrong because there are functional forms of beauty and that she was opposed to universal descriptions of Beauty. I conceded, because 1, it seemed right in some vague sense and, 2, I was equally opposed to any universal descriptions of beauty. Plus that, the girl is hot.

That night at work, I began to ask the question that seemed inevitable: what form of beauty is actually functional? The first thing I came to was my father who, frustrated by not being able to sell his art, decided to make his art functional by making grandfather clocks with all these ornate carvings. And everyone he made, he sold. The thing was, the thing that was functional, in a practical sense, was the clock itself. It was what told time. The same thing could be done with a clock you might buy at walmart. The carvings themselves were only functional to the extent that they made the clock more appealing to the senses.

And that's just it: beauty is only functional to the extent that it does appeal to the senses. Beyond that, it has no practical function. And it is indifferent to the uses it is put to.

We could, of course, turn to the dialectical opposite of beauty, ugliness, and argue that the ugliness of spoiled food has the function of repelling us from eating it. But that same function could be fulfilled by watching others get sick by eating it. In other words, the ugliness of the food, much like the beauty of my father's clocks, is actually superfluous to the actual practical function.

Frank Lloyd Wright may have made beautiful buildings. But the beauty of them is ultimately non-functional in the face of what they actually do. The same thing could be achieved with a big box.

Sorry, sweetheart. At the same time, I sympathise with your desire to resist a universal standard of Beauty. It is the lack of one that, ultimately, allows us to express our autonomy through it. But I don't think my point makes a universal standard necessary.

The lack of one is what allows Camus to argue that all arguments for beauty are, ultimately, arguments for freedom.

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchy of Perspectives: Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:40 am

Poison IV wrote:


... In order for your argument to work, you must prove that there is an absolute separation, my job is to show you that this is not always the case...

If you think that this is what this discussion is about, you have tree options: read the thread again, continue to post knowing there will be no reply, or leave.

Why do you demand a proof of separation right after I said that they are not mutually exclusive? Are you interested in no more than sticking to your misconception of what the conversation between me and tark was about?

Quote :

Sexual selection is a very easy one. Much of what we consider attractive is because it is healthy, and offers us potential mating advantages...

What is 'unhealthy' we consider ugly.

Phi or Golden Ratio is an example...

When a face is aligned and proportionately even, this means that a person has better immunity than someone who has an uneven face. What is pleasing to the eye is often not just 'spontaneous' or pretty on the outside. It has very significant properties which are of great value to us....

Golden Ratio all throughout 'beautiful' architecture...

http://www.goldennumber.net/goldsect.htm

This isn't what I want. You said that beauty is not necessarily beautiful on its own. Then, you gave an example of beauty and function coexisting, which we already discussed.
I want you to try to demonstrate an aesthetic judgement based on a moral value.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchy of Perspectives: Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:37 am

without-music wrote:
Well, broadly speaking: we can perhaps wring from the history of aesthetics two primary concerns. First, the content of the art-object as art-object; and second, the art-object in relation to its audience -- that is, it's effect. Insofar as we think art in the second sense, the impetus behind its effect may very well be of concern to us. Insofar as that impetus grows out of an evolutionary utility -- which I want to suggest is often the case --, we may indeed consider function without leaving the realm of aesthetics. To this extent, I cannot help but disagree with you, phon.

I am a lot more inclined to discuss this with your charming self than with our petite petulant prodigy over here.

I would be very reluctant to give credit to anyone who would propose that any of our emotional responses do not have origin in evolutionary utility.
I can't proceed from that, to your proposal that we may consider function without leaving the realm of aesthetics, because when contemplating something that is beautiful, considerations on the impetus presiding that judgement are irrelevant, and may even be detrimental to the contemplation.

Consider this scenario.
I am an artist, and I have become completely fascinated with the image of a woman.
I want to look at this woman from every possible angle, I want to see her naked, I want to absorb every nuance of her image, because she is the inspiration for my art.
Now, if the observations of our heavily moral culture fall upon me, that being the considerations of worth and function, and where the physical beauty of a person is always correlated with its reproductive function, I may very well be taken for a lesbian.

For me to indulge the purely aesthetic experience of contemplating the beauty of a woman, I must bear the consequence of a morally negative judgement from other members of my society.

Aesthetics must be separated from morals to work. You must not think of function.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchy of Perspectives: Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:23 am

Quote :
[...] when contemplating something that is beautiful, considerations on the impetus presiding that judgement are irrelevant, and may even be detrimental to the contemplation.
Ah, understood. I imagined you were trying to argue that no such impetus exists at all. This is my fault, of course: I didn't actually read through the entire thread; it seemed like little more than petty argument. Whether or not we can consider the origins of our judgments without leaving the realm of aesthetics isn't of so much concern to me so long as we both agree such origins do in fact exist. To this extent, we're really just arguing semantics now. Unless there's something deeply significant that I'm missing, I'll end here.

Carry on.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchy of Perspectives: Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:26 am

phoneutria wrote:


Aesthetics must be separated from morals to work. You must not think of function.

This is why you're retarded What a Face

No offense.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchy of Perspectives: Sun Oct 09, 2011 6:49 am

How cute. Just like my little niece again.

How does that conversation go um...

No YOU are retarded!

No, YOU are!

And then I pinch her cheeks.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchy of Perspectives: Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:59 pm

Kids say the darnest things...
That can be horrifyingly blunt ;]
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchy of Perspectives: Sat Oct 29, 2011 5:49 pm

Poison IV wrote:
Kids say the darnest things...
That can be horrifyingly blunt ;]

Sweetheart, if not for the first time, let me again apologize for my intitial reaction to you

(the wierd nature of the board disorientated me
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: The Hierarchy of Perspectives:

Back to top Go down
 
The Hierarchy of Perspectives:
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2
 Similar topics
-
» News last moon of Eid: tomorrow's gala sees the unity of the horizon, and the completion of several of the multiplicity of perspectives see 08/19/2012 AD - 12:29 AM

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: