[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by m1rr0r dash

perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the scientific method denies the validity of aesthetic judgements.

..the only kant i've read is the prolegomena... but one of these days, i'll get deeper into it...

it doesn't DENY them, it's totally unrelated to them.

jeezus johnson, what a mishmash.

[Rob Instigator]

Camus can do, but Sartre is Smartre

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by m1rr0r dash

when i said i haven't read kant, i mean my unconscious already knows all of kant's writings and i have no need to go and purchase a stack of paper to find anything out about it... i just got the prolegomena cause i liked the cover...

priceless

[atari 2600]

well, Scooby-Doo can doo-doo, but Jimmy Carter is smarter.

where's that homer hippie?

oh there he is

 

oh, too slow

[m1rr0r dash]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

it doesn't DENY them, it's totally unrelated to them.

jeezus johnson, what a mishmash.

mish-mash?

catachresis

 

kat-a-kree'-sis Gk. “misuse” abusio figure of abuse, abusion

 

The use of a word in a context that differs from its proper application.
This figure is generally considered a vice; however, Quintilian defends its use as a way by which one adapts existing terms to applications where a proper term does not exist.

[!@#$%!]

mishmash. mishmash. mishmash.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by m1rr0r dash

mish-mash?

catachresis

 

kat-a-kree'-sis Gk. “misuse” abusio figure of abuse, abusion

 

The use of a word in a context that differs from its proper application.
This figure is generally considered a vice; however, Quintilian defends its use as a way by which one adapts existing terms to applications where a proper term does not exist.

You'll like this one - I was, for about 2 months, using the word Catachresis when I actually meant catechism. A linguistic irony Lacan himself would've been proud of, methinks.

[atari 2600]

Bart's right, let's none of us "have a cow."

 

[foxforce5]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

The mind is holographic. the brain is set up holographically, in some sense. there have been studies done on lizard, where they take out their brains, and then put half of the brain back in, and the lizard can function at 90-98% capacity, even though it is missing half of it's physical brain. they ahve also emptied out lizard's skulls, BLENDED their brains in a blender, and poured the blended brain matter back into the lizards, and the lizards FUNCTIONED at around 35-40% capacity. Incredible!

Some lizards. I only got 15% capacity back on mine, shouldn't have used ice crush, but, De-Lish!

[m1rr0r dash]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

mishmash. mishmash. mishmash.

come on, man. that's my academic "get out of jail free" card. theoretically (rhetorically) it shoud win every argument.

[m1rr0r dash]

in theory communism works...

 

[Glice]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

my advice...don't bother with kant. everything you need to know about kant can be found in will durant haha.

oh...he's going on about aesthetics in that one, Glice? that could be interesting i suppose.

treat us to a few good words from it...maybe?

From §33 "Second peculiarity of the judgment of Taste.

[...] If a man, iin the first place, does not find a building, a prospect, or a poem beautiful, a hundred voices all highly praising it will not force his inmost agreement. He may indeed feign that it pleases him in order that he may not be regarded as devoid of taste; he may even begin to doubt whether he has formed his taste on a knowledge of a sufficient number of objects of a certain kind (just as one, who believes that he recognisses in the distance as a forest, something which all others regard as a town, doubts the judgment of his own sight). But he clearly sees that the agreement of others gives no valid proof of the judgment about beauty. Others might perhaps see and observe for him; and what many have seen in one way, although he believes that he has seen it differently, might serve him as an adequate ground of proof of a theoretical and consequently logical judgment. But that a thing has pleased others could never serve as the basis of an aesthetical judgment. A judgment of others which is unfavouable to ours may indeed rightly make us scrutinise our own with care, but it can never convince us of its incorrectness. There is therefore no empirical ground of proof which would force a judgment of taste upon anyone. "

[Rob Instigator]

and that is because BEAUTY LIES IN THE EYE

as the lovely kim gordon sez


taste/aesthetics/value judgements, are all purely personal, just as much a result of nature as of nurture.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

and that is because BEAUTY LIES IN THE EYE

as the lovely kim gordon sez


taste/aesthetics/value judgements, are all purely personal, just as much a result of nature as of nurture.

VERY WELL DONE at reaching a conclusion based on having read ONE paragraph of a VERY LONG BOOK.

Unfortunately, your conclusion is wrong, and you're ACTUALLY asserting your own opinion which is by no means represented by Kant.

[atari 2600]

I think Kant does say that beauty is subjective, but he differentiates beauty from the sublime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanue...tic_philosophy
Kant was one of the first philosophers to develop and integrate aesthetic theory into a unified and comprehensive philosophical system, utilizing ideas that played an integral role throughout his philosophy.[47]
In the chapter "Analytic of the Beautiful" of the Critique of Judgment, Kant states that beauty is not a property of an artwork or natural phenomenon, but is instead a consciousness of the pleasure which attends the 'free-play' of the imagination and the understanding. Even though it appears that we are using reason to decide that which is beautiful, the judgment is not a cognitive judgment,[48] "and is consequently not logical, but aesthetical" (§ 1). A pure judgement of taste is in fact subjective insofar as it refers to the emotional response of the subject and is based upon nothing but esteem for an object itself: it is a disinterested pleasure, and we feel that pure judgements of taste, i.e. judgements of beauty, lay claim to universal validity (§§20–22). It is important to note that this universal validity is not derived from a determinate concept of beauty but from common sense. Kant also believed that a judgement of taste shares characteristics engaged in a moral judgement: both are disinterested, and we hold them to be universal. In the chapter "Analytic of the Sublime" Kant identifies the sublime as an aesthetic quality which, like beauty, is subjective, but unlike beauty refers to an indeterminate relationship between the faculties of the imagination and of reason, and shares the character of moral judgments in the use of reason. The feeling of the sublime, itself comprised of two distinct modes (the mathematical sublime and the dynamical sublime), describe two subjective moments both of which concern the relationship of the faculty of the imagination to reason. The mathematical sublime is situated in the failure of the imagination to comprehend natural objects which appear boundless and formless, or which appear "absolutely great" (§ 23–25). This imaginative failure is then recuperated through the pleasure taken in reason's assertion of the concept of infinity. In this move the faculty of reason proves itself superior to our fallible sensible self (§§ 25–26). In the dynamical sublime there is the sense of annihilation of the sensible self as the imagination tries to comprehend a vast might. This power of nature threatens us but through the resistance of reason to such sensible annihilation, the subject feels a pleasure and a sense of the human moral vocation. This appreciation of moral feeling through exposure to the sublime helps to develop moral character.
---
It's crazy how he gets into sub-categories of the sublime with his "mathematical" and "dynamical" sublime.

This is one wild sentence from the entry above:
This imaginative failure is then recuperated through the pleasure taken in reason's assertion of the concept of infinity.

[m1rr0r dash]

...des gouts et des colours, on ne discute pas.

[Glice]

Well, quite.

Lo siento, no entiendo.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by Glice

VERY WELL DONE at reaching a conclusion based on having read ONE paragraph of a VERY LONG BOOK.

Unfortunately, your conclusion is wrong, and you're ACTUALLY asserting your own opinion which is by no means represented by Kant.

all I did was post a personal observation regarding the inability to achieve consensus as to what is :beauty" and what is not "beauty."

chills!

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

my advice...don't bother with kant. everything you need to know about kant can be found in will durant haha.

oh...he's going on about aesthetics in that one, Glice? that could be interesting i suppose.

treat us to a few good words from it...maybe?

Originally Posted by Glice

From §33 "Second peculiarity of the judgment of Taste.

[...] If a man, iin the first place, does not find a building, a prospect, or a poem beautiful, a hundred voices all highly praising it will not force his inmost agreement. He may indeed feign that it pleases him in order that he may not be regarded as devoid of taste; he may even begin to doubt whether he has formed his taste on a knowledge of a sufficient number of objects of a certain kind (just as one, who believes that he recognisses in the distance as a forest, something which all others regard as a town, doubts the judgment of his own sight). But he clearly sees that the agreement of others gives no valid proof of the judgment about beauty. Others might perhaps see and observe for him; and what many have seen in one way, although he believes that he has seen it differently, might serve him as an adequate ground of proof of a theoretical and consequently logical judgment. But that a thing has pleased others could never serve as the basis of an aesthetical judgment. A judgment of others which is unfavouable to ours may indeed rightly make us scrutinise our own with care, but it can never convince us of its incorrectness. There is therefore no empirical ground of proof which would force a judgment of taste upon anyone. "

PWND

well done, sir..