sesquipedalianThaumaturge Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I like your point about the importance of depicting human flaws in art so that we’re able to learn from them. Even if Plato is right wanting logic to dominate emotion, seeing nuanced depictions of realistic human experience and the emotions it evokes in art can help us better understand our own feelings so that we can control them and make more reasoned decisions.
If there really isn’t any evidence for or against the physical world being real, which position do you think we should take? It seems like most of us act under the assumption that it is real, but would someone be justified in believing that the material world is false and therefore has no value and acting accordingly?
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
sesquipedalianThaumaturgesays:Edit
I doubt Plato would recognize any critique of Christianity, and it’s hard to know what he would think of it if he did. His ideas have certainly been quite important to Christian philosophy. Also, the movie’s Realists seem to believe in the ultimate reality of the physical world, which he would certainly oppose.
sesquipedalianThaumaturgesays:
I imagine he would recognize humor as a legitimate emotion which art can transmit between people, but he would probably see a lot of comedy as just trying to provoke a laugh for other reasons and therefore not really art. Hard to say though.
I agree with your point that it’s important to consider whether a work of art benefits people instead of just focusing on clearness and sincerity and so on, and I actually think Tolstoy might agree too. He is careful to qualify that all his points about infectiousness are about how we should judge art “independently of its subject matter,” and he ends the excerpt that we read by asking how this subject matter should be judged. I would imagine that on that question he would care whether the art’s subject is beneficial to the viewer, and so this benefit would matter to his overall appraisal of a work.
I’m not sure what Tolstoy would think of the banana or its eating, but in my opinion both are undoubtedly art. A significant amount of thought and intentionality went into their creation, and they effectively evoke unusual and intellectually provocative emotions in the viewer. That may not be enough for Tolstoy to call them art, but it certainly is for me.
sesquipedalianThaumaturge says:Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I entirely agree that the video is wonderful, and I think some of its power comes from the fact that the emotion it’s transmitting is more unusual and individual than just happiness. The people depicted are finding unexpected joy and connection despite the socially created awkwardness of their situation. For me at least, what that conveys is happiness, yes, but also wonder at the ability of humans to care for one another even when no relationship already exists between them. Aside from the video’s effectiveness in conveying that emotion, I think the feeling itself is the kind of unifying message Tolstoy would particularly appreciate.
sesquipedalianThaumaturge says:Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I think MacIntyre would say that even if you’ve changed completely over time, the fact of that change is essential to your identity. In the same way that a protagonist’s humble origins make their rise to heroism meaningful, the different version of you in the past is what allows you to have taken the journey of change that makes you who you are today. In MacIntyre’s view, that story of personal evolution *is* your identity.
sesquipedalianThaumaturgesays:Your comment is awaiting moderation.
In terms of whether the things one perceives in a dream are really “fake,” I think that Descartes’ argument is that despite seeing something in a dream potentially being experientially identical to seeing it in the real world, that perception doesn’t actually correspond to a real object. Thus, we can’t trust that our waking perceptions are any more real than the similarly convincing ones we experience while dreaming.
I think Frankfurt’s definition of a person hinges more on the ability to have second-order volitions than on the freedom to have those volitions effectively shape one’s first order desires. A being with second-order volitions, who is thus a person, can still lack freedom of the will. Frankfurt’s standard example of this is the drug addict who wants to not want to take the drug, making them a person, but cannot effectively translate this desire into action because of the strength of their first-order desire to take the drug.
Your example of the person who commits suicide to escape perpetual beating is interesting because I think it can demonstrate the critical ingredient that MacIntyre argues is necessary for suicide: perceived meaninglessness. If the person being constantly beaten sees that situation as meaningful somehow in the context of their life story, they are willing to endure it. For instance, they might see it as a hardship which must be endured in the service of some important goal. The existential confusion that can lead to suicide come when the person cannot see any larger purpose for their suffering.
sesquipedalianThaumaturgeYour comment is awaiting moderation.
Well, if the emotion the painter was trying to convey was wonder at an impressive work of art then your emotional reaction is a better recognition of the painting’s value than any analysis, in Tolstoy’s view.
sesquipedalianThaumaturgeYour comment is awaiting moderation.
I agree with you that expression on its own can make something art, even if the feeling being expressed isn’t transmitted to the viewer. It would be strange if a great work of art could be rendered not-art if no one looked at it or no who did felt what its creator wanted them to feel.
SESQUIPEDALIANTHAUMATURGEREPLY
I really like your point about how trying to craft a “better” version of your life’s narrative can lead to cutting off necessary parts of it. One might interpret MacIntyre’s argument as implying that we should intentionally shape our live stories to be more meaningful, but I think your approach of accepting all the different aspects of your narrative and seeing the meaning they already have is much better.
sesquipedalianThaumaturgesays:
I think Aristotle’s preference for tragedy has less to do with thinking that it is more logical or prestigious, and more with seeing as a better avenue for catharsis. He believes that art’s value is in helping people express and process powerful emotions in a controlled setting, and in his view comedy does not really perform this function while tragedy does.
Existence: What Does It Mean? Does It Mean Things? Let's Find Out! 