Venerabilis Inceptor wrote:Is an appreciation of beauty a necessary condition for wisdom? Is it impossible to be wise, or indeed a lover of wisdom, without appreciating beauty through engagement with art?If so, then one could perhaps argue that...
One could not argue anything; undefined variables are not valid premises. Those were questions, not statements.
If so, then one could perhaps argue that some engagement in art, as a critical discourse about what is, and is not, beautiful, is required in order to be a philosopher.
That simply doesn't work.
"Beauty" is completely relative in every sense so trying to base some kind of requirement on an something that is impossible to objectively define to begin with would eliminate everyone. You can't quantify something that can't be defined to begin with, nor base any kind of system on it. It is an infinite variable.
That is, that someone with no interest in art, thus characterised, has no business professing themselves to be a lover of wisdom.
That doesn't work either and constitutes an Essentializing Fallacy with it's implied claim that: "Art-lovers are more qualified to be philosophers than non-Art-lovers." This is an empty claim that no proof can refute.
Such an account of art could, perhaps, be cashed out in broadly Aristotelian terms. For example, if beauty were taken as the greater sum of pleasure and excellence, then various contemporary cultural institutions -- music, film, games, etc. -- could serve to encourage people to evaluate their values, and develop their skills, in relation to the attainment of beauty.
Again, you are trying to quantify something that is undefinable (eg. beauty) objectively. But, regardless, let's take your arbitrary definition that "Beauty = the greater sum of excellence and pleasure". The greater sum for whom? The majority? Even if you could get a majority vote, any claim of 'objective truth' would constitute a the Argument from Consensus fallacy and, therefore, be invalid. See?
On this account, those who either produce or consume the arts in order to critically evaluate value, or develop ar?te, would have met a necessary condition for being a philosopher -- whilst those who do not, would not have.
And what would be the fate of those who did not meet the criteria? Perhaps enforced lobotomies to prevent people from being able to use their brains? Maybe permanent exile a'la Brave New World? Or maybe just good old fashioned gas chambers like other totalitarian societies have used? -- Because once you start setting limits on who is allowed to philosophize and who is allowed to create and define "art", you've manufactured a totalitarian system.
Another question: How are you planning on convincing the masses that the title of 'Philosopher' should be held in such high esteem? At gunpoint? A mass advertising campaign? Subliminal messages? -- I ask this because that official position does not exist in any country on Earth as of this time. Creating global pan-societal changes on this scale would require something massive unless you were willing to let your plan gestate under several centuries of constant pressure and subtle manipulation.
Does this sound plausible?
George Orwell would probably think so.
No man is an island, but if you tie a bunch of dead guys together they make a pretty good raft.
Source: http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7795&p=114848
vanna white michael robinson joe paterno memorial service taco bell breakfast menu ener1 national chocolate cake day epstein
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.