Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Philosophy of Art


The Beautiful and the Sublime
Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten
·         “…the purpose of art is to produce beauty, defined in terms of the ordered relationship between the parts of a whole. The point of beauty is to give pleasure and arouse desire.”
·         “the finest beauty is to be found in nature, and therefore the highest aim of art is to imitate nature”
·         Sensual art – human form and perfection of nature
Hume
·         Art gives pleasure and satisfaction to the soul. Pleasure and pain constitute the essence of beauty and deformity.
·         Standard of taste + aesthetic judgments à ascertaining which features of art were most highly pleasing to qualified and impartial connoisseurs
Edmund Burke
·         “The sublime, as well as the beautiful, can be the aim of art: a feeling of beauty is a form of love without desire, and to feel something as sublime is to feel astonishment without fear.”
·         Sublime: “of high moral, aesthetic, intellectual, or spiritual value; inspiring deep veneration, awe, or uplifting emotion because of its beauty, grandeur, or immensity.” (Dictionary.com)
·         The sublime à must destroy to create
·         Derives from need for social contact, self-preservation, and instinct to propagate the race
Kant
·         “Taste is the faculty of judging of an object or a method of representing it by an entirely disinterested satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The object of such satisfaction is called beautiful.”
o   Sensual delight = gratification
o   Disinterested enjoyment = pleasingness
·         “What gratifies a person is called pleasurable; what merely pleases him is called beautiful; what he values is called good.”
·         Judgments of value are related to purpose
·         Beauty is subjective, not universal
·         Beautiful objects exhibit “purposiveness without purpose” à relative importance to individuals, subjective interpretations of beauty
o   Free beauty = nature, natural things, life
o   Derivative beauty = art, interpretations of life and nature  
·         Production of beauty is the purpose of art 

Surrender

"If you surrendered to the air, you could ride it." - Song of Solomon 


The Road goes ever on and on
     Down from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
     And I must follow, if I can,
Pursuing it with eager feet,
     Until it joins some larger way
Where many paths and errands meet.
     And whither then? I cannot say.

- J.R.R. Tolkien  


All that is gold does not glitter,
     Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
     Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
     A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
     The crownless again shall be king.

- J.R.R. Tolkien 





Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Significant Songs


Adam’s Song by Blink-182 + A Better Place, A Better Time by Streetlight Manifesto
            At the beginning of my high school years I felt entirely isolated. I did not fit in with anyone I tried to hang out with; I fought my shy nature to test the social waters and eventually my hope dwindled as I was unable to establish bonds. Convinced I was destined to be the strange child that wanders the hallways during lunch and never to share my feelings, I turned towards certain music that encompassed my feelings of ever-lasting isolation. It was primarily Adam’s Song and A Better Place, A Better Time that spoke to me. The magnificent thing about music was its ability to forge a connection with me that seemed impossible with my peers. These songs spoke to me as the confidant I lacked about the depression I repressed in my other encounters. I learned that I was not alone. Still at times, I return to these songs for advice and as a reminder of my imperfect, but wonderful existence. Beauty is what I am able to connect to and take away from: this is my personal aesthetic. Adam’s Song and A Better Place, A Better Time are beautiful to me because every time I hear them, I have a release of tension. I am able to look at life in broader lenses, giving me perspective. I understand the isolation Adam felt, but I have found such beauties in this world that ending my existence seems an impossibly cruel punishment that I have not deserved. A Better Place, A Better Time has helped show me that there are those in my life willing to help me when hope fades and depression sets in. I will never again be alone.

Rest Of My Life by SOJA
            I truly listened to the lyrics of this song while in the parking lot of a McDonald’s with one of my best friends. We talked from midnight to four in the morning about anything and everything over a couple of peppermint hot chocolates. My senior year has been the most fulfilling year of my life and I owe that entirely to the friends I have made. At last I have found my people. My people are the ones who will accept each facet of my personality as I have or will accept theirs’. Faced with the inevitable graduation, I have realized the truth of the matter that, “If I could spend the rest of my life with my people, I would do it over and over again.” I will make every second of our friendship the most meaningful and memorable because we do not have the rest of our lives. Life continues but for the moment, I will not focus on the rest of my life, I will simply focus on this moment. Once again my sense of beauty stems from the ability to connect and impart wisdom. This song has shared with me the truth of great friends and has presented a sentiment that I hold very dear to me, “If I could spend the rest of my life with my people, I would do it over and over again.” 

Thursday, December 22, 2011

We are the Golden-Hearted



I sit here and venture the why,
The where and the what,
Who are we really, and how.

We are the Golden-Hearted.

We originate from particle matter,
Though too infinitesimal to perceive,
Too expansive to comprehend.
We are creations of the universe
With its endlessly flowing darkened abyss. 
We have grown, developed, evolved,
For centuries into these imperfect beings,
With these imperfect bodies
And these imperfect minds.
There is no question of our flaws.

The drive, the motivation, the explanation.
Power, said Nietzsche.
Wealth, said Marx.
Faith, said Kierkegaard.
Connection, said Hegel.

Dear Hegel, I do concur.
Connections are the life and blood
Of that internal drive,
Until death, eternal.  

I sat there watching him, incomplete,
He twisted around and our eyes met.
Don’t we all wait for that moment?
Through our gaze was understanding,
A connection long awaited,
Impossible to find.
Dare I say, I fell from that dark abyss,
The particles of the universe reformed
And I was reborn, finally, I was here.
Dare I say, I found love?
I was living, presently, and forever after.

Experiences find meaning in the
Connections, bonds, the ties we make.
We must find an ideology, a belief,
A concept, a person, a group that
We understand; the link must be made,
Lest we disintegrate into particles
Of the universe, never truly having lived,
For there would be nothing holding us here.
Connections ground us, keep us stable.
They keep us human.

We are the Golden-Hearted,
Shining, a marvelous effect from
The center of our imperfect chests.
We are here and we are living. 

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Basis for The Republic


Justice has the following characteristics:  
1.      Happiness: As Socrates established when rebuking Thrasymachus’ proposal of justice, justice inevitably leads to happiness because he states “the just mind and the just man will have a good life” (Book I, 353e) and “the man who has a good life is prosperous and happy.” (Book I, 353e) Therefore, doing right allows a man to lead a good life and be happy with it.
Unity: Socrates states that injustice leads to disunity of purpose because when people commit wrongdoings within a group, the end result is enmity and anarchy. “But if they treat each other justly, there will be unity and purpose and friendly feeling among them,” (Book I, 351d) says Socrates.
Strength: Following his belief that justice creates unity, Socrates argues justice creates strength of the individual and society. He argues that an unjust group is incapable of any common action, thus the group is weak, and the individual becomes weak because he is preoccupied by the group’s internal strife.
Wisdom: Socrates states, “…intelligence is good, lack of it bad.” (Book I, 349e) Socrates establishes that a man with professional knowledge is wise and a wise man is good and a good man does not compete with his fellows, only with his opposite. Thus, Socrates illustrates that the just are wise.
Excellence: The mind, like any other thing, has a function and the ability to operate well or badly. Therefore, like any other thing, the mind has a “peculiar excellence” (Book I, 353e). Socrates states that justice is the excellence of the mind while injustice is the mind’s defect. Socrates values excellence on par with wisdom and justice.
Peace: Socrates criticizes Polemarchus’ definition of justice and in the process emphasizes that it is “not the function of the just man to harm either his friends or anyone else.” (Book I, 335d) Therefore, just men do not harm others which highlights that Socrates believes justice requires peace.

2.      After establishing that justice, like medicine, is a skill, Socrates continues that justice is the “skill that enables us to help and injure one’s friends and enemies.” (Book I, 332b) Socrates questions when justice is useful in society, which Polemarchus consequently answers when things are to be kept safe. Socrates turns this statement around by establishing those “good at keeping a thing will be good at stealing it.” (Book I, 333c) Thus, Socrates tackles Polemarchus’ initial assumption that justice is a matter of giving every man his due by proposing justice is a kind of stealing even though it is used to help a friend and harm an enemy. Furthermore, Socrates, after having Polemarchus agree that we ought to give both our friends and our enemies their due, argues that doing good for your friends and harm to your enemies is difficult without knowing the meaning of friends and enemies. There are those who seem honest when they actually are not, and thus it is possible for men to “injure their friends, who in their eyes are bad, and help their enemies, who are good.” (Book I, 334e) Changing the definition of friends and enemies to those who seem and are respectively good and evil, Socrates changes the definition of justice to doing good for friends who are good, and harm to enemies who are evil. Socrates then argues that harming creates a man more unjust and just men will not use their justice to make others unjust and therefore just and good men do not harm others, even enemies, but the opposite. Polemarchus’ position is defeated at this point because Socrates questioned the very meaning of friends and enemies, justice, and the purpose of a just man, to which Polemarchus had no objections.
         I do agree that these admissions lead Polemarchus to doubt his own position and thus are fatal to his previous position. I do agree with Socrates’ conclusion that the function of a good and just man is to help, not harm. Also, I do not agree that justice is a type of skill; instead, I believe justice is dependent upon one’s actions and their moral implications within a society. Following, I do not believe that justice can be improved upon like a skill for one’s actions are determined by one’s own morals, which can change but not be improved upon.

3.      Thrasymachus held firm that the pursuit of self-interest or injustice pays better than justice does. Following, Socrates established that the “just man does not compete with his like, but only his unlike, while the unjust man competes with both like and unlike.” (Book I, 349d-e) Socrates then followed with the precise definition of a professional man that the professional, good, and just man does not compete with his fellows, however, an unjust and ignorant man without intelligence competes with his those like and unlike him. Thus, Socrates undermines Thrasymachus’ statement that injustice is wise and excellent, while justice is the opposite. Socrates’ criticism of this point was rather weak because he drew from assumptions; after all, who is to say that the just and wise man does not compete with his fellows to be better at the job than others. Students, for example, go through a competitive process at medical school in order to become doctors. Students who put more work and effort in the job often become doctors and those who do not put effort into their work do not become doctors. Therefore, students must compete, even if by doing so they are working to benefit the patients. I do not think there is anything bad or unwise about competition, in fact, competition drives professional workers to do their jobs better. Competition is not the sign of the bad and ignorant as long as all rules are followed and it does not turn malicious.
          Socrates further argued Thrasymachus’ point by giving the example of a society, group, or army. In the case of injustice, men within the group would be causing wrongdoings to each other and therefore fostering disunity and weakness. Thus, he follows that in order to have unity and effective joint action between men, the men of the group must act justly towards each other. This section of Socrates’ criticism is enjoyably concise and accurate and therefore is effective in tearing down Thrasymachus’ view that injustice is a sign of strength. Thrasymachus stated that injustice is a sign of strength in the case of the individual, but Socrates applied injustice to a society and illustrated how impractical it is for all people within a group to act unjustly. Thus, justice is actually the sign of a strong society. I agree with Socrates’ criticism of this point, however, I wish he addressed injustice on the individual level as that was Thrasymachus’ original point. Personally, I think justice cannot be applied to the individual because the definition and maintenance of justice must be decided upon and enforced by a society. Justice, were it applied only to the individual, would be subjective and arbitrary and thus lead to disunity within a society. Also, I do not think it was necessary to mention the gods are just and therefore friends of the just men.
          Socrates’ final criticism of Thrasymachus’ point that injustice pays better than justice was that the just man is actually happier than the unjust man. Socrates began defining the function of a thing and used this to define the function of the mind. The mind’s function is life and the mind has its own specific excellence. Socrates used the agreement that “just was the particular excellence of the mind and injustice its defect” (Book I, 354e) to assume the “just mind and just man will have a good life, and the unjust a bad life.” (Book I, 354e) Since it never pays to be miserable, Socrates concludes that injustice never pays better than justice. In this way, Socrates dismembers Thrasymachus’ belief that the unjust man lives better than the just man. Personally, I believe that justice will make me happier than injustice, but who is to generalize this is the case for all humans? Some people surely take pleasure in doing others harm. Tyrants, to reiterate Thrasymachus’ belief, take pleasure in their wealth and power that is gained from taking from the people of the state. I do not think justice has anything to do with happiness and I think it is impossible to generalize just acts make people happier than unjust ones.

4.      I do not fully agree with Glaucon and Adeimantus. Glaucon, using the example of the invisibility ring, stated that both a just and unjust man would steal, murder, or seduce whenever it pleased them to do so if they had no fear of detection. I do agree that laws restrict what a man does and lead him to act more justly out of fear of punishment; however, I believe some people genuinely feel bad about committing unjust acts and their consciences will overpower the want to gain or harm. Socrates would favor my assertion that the heart of the just man stems from his good conscience not at the fear of punishment. I also agree that injustice pays better than justice in the extreme cases within these specific societies provided by Glaucon. Isolation and detest from a society when the man has done nothing unjust proves to me that the society is unjust and therefore a revolution should occur. Justice, as I see it, can only exist in a society; it is the generally agreed upon moral right and this is enforced by laws to restrict unjust acts. The moral rights stem from the people’s consciences. Without the concept of justice in a society, anarchy would ensue, and on this point I agree with Glaucon.
           I thus disagree with Adeimantus’ criticism of justice that people must have pure intentions in order to be just, because all the essentially matters is external actions because justice only lives in a society. Injustice should be punished and justice should be rewarded in order to have a successful society, Socrates would argue. Injustice applies to unjust acts, for if a man has unjust intentions but nothing shows externally of them, then it does not harm anyone and thus cannot be punished. Justice, similarly, applies to just acts, for if a man has just intentions but has actions deemed unjust by the society, then the man must be punished. If a man acts justly because he wishes to bolster his good reputation then I deem that perfectly acceptable. If a man acts justly because he genuinely wishes the betterment of others and in no way the betterment of himself, then I deem that acceptable although unbelievable. Just acts always seem to better oneself and Socrates would agree with me because it was he who stated “it never pays to be miserable, but to be happy.” (Book I, 354a) Thus, Socrates concurs that living a just life benefits the just man because it makes him happy and humans strive for happiness in life. The intentions lying underneath just acts are not relevant and thus I disagree with Adeimantus criticism of justice. 

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Blank Paper

A blank piece of paper embodies the whole world, every here and now, the complete history of the universe. Every piece of history culminated in the creation of this one piece of paper. Every object has an eternal history since the beginning of the universe since the particles that create the piece of paper were once particles of a star. There are many heres and nows at this moment because every object is the manifestation of all the heres and nows of present moments.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Hegelian Philosophy and the Web

The internet creates a connectivity between everyone's thoughts at any moment. For instance, when I tweet and search tweets, I am connecting with all the other people across the globe that are feeling similar to me at any given moment. This relates to how Hegel saw the phenomenology of the spirit because the internet is essentially the spirit that connects all human thought.