Sorry, Boris. I can't take seriously you comment that Pinker is naive. And I can't just accept your statement that you have studied all the issues and don''t need to say anything more than to declare your opinion, as if it is irrefutable. I think we have nothing more to discuss.
WC ----- Original Message ---- From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, December 31, 2010 11:58:27 AM Subject: Re: "Is today's [art?] irrelevant?" "But who really knows if morality comes after or before? Is it the byproduct or is it the cause? Or both in some "feedback" situations?" Morality is product of adaptation. To state opposite is naive. Steven Pinker does not understand that our instincts are result of a selection of a useful. Even some murder could be useful for society as a whole. It is reality; even often unpleasant. Your questioning the fundamental structure of my reasoning is in fundamental structure in your reasoning lacking impartiality when looking at science and mechanisms of the development of an organic world, particularly higher Mammals. You can question my conclusions, but be sure, if I make a statement it is based on impartial serious studies and thinking and not ego driven. For me, the subject is too interesting to be negligent. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: "Is today's [art?] irrelevant?" Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 17:25:32 -0800 (PST) When you say byproduct you imply that morality comes after the "process of societal evolution". But who really knows if morality comes after or before? Is it the byproduct or is it the cause? Or both in some "feedback" situations? Some researchers like Steven Pinker talk about the "moral instinct" as if it is primary to adaptation. Also, why can't we take anything seriously unless certain presumed conditions apply? I think we can be serious about anything at all, any concept, any chaos, and irrationality any idea, anything, just as we can be joking about anything. What's to stop us? What preconditions are necessary? Your sentence is just a common expression, a filler, to push by means of a bias what you assume is societally sanctioned and proved. It's like saying, "You can't be serious about that!" But that's a fake expression in terms of making a factual statement about concepts. There are no determined causal links between society, evolution, adaptation, and "taking seriously". You could put those words in any order and not affect the condition of each. And none, alone or in any order, have any restraint of our taklng them seriously, or not." Again, I question the fundamental structure of your reasoning beyond their initial sense. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 6:22:10 PM Subject: Re: "Is today's [art?] irrelevant?" If we can't take seriously that morality is byproduct of process of societal formation - its evolution, than we can't take anything seriously what follows mechanisms of adaptation. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: "Is today's [art?] irrelevant?" Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 13:04:19 -0800 (PST) Your comment is OK but it can't be taken seriously as a philosophical position that withstands analysis. For instance, there are many cases where a moral act would fulfills your aim "to preserve human society" but is considered harmful by others, or even does harm others while helping one or a few. In addition, what distinguishes the abstract term society from the individual? We know society refers to a collective group or culture that has some traits or values in common but what of the concrete reality of an individual person who may honestly, thoughtfully, be at odds with those societal values? Clearly, we have an abundance of examples at hand that hang on the dilemma of "preserving human society" according to some abstract values and preserving the "individual" benefits, or moral good. Commonly, serving one, ill suits the other. As for art preserving the human society by means of offering delight I am of course in agreement to the extent that some easily agreed to cases are evident. But what of those other agreed upon examples of great art that neither don't seem to preserve human society though symbols nor offer any delight? Does a morbid crucifixion scene offer delight? How does a battle scene with all its gruesome detail preserve human life? I suppose there are better examples than these to be found everywhere, not to mention those examples where destruction of an enemy's life is glorified as art. This vexing issue that puts the pleasure of the senses on one side and the implied content of the subject on the other side -- sometimes in agreement but often not -- has been at the center of aesthetics debate for a long time. The art for art's sake concept, the formalist view -- tried to settle the issue by claiming that the properties of form, like line, color, etc., can delight the mind, and ought to in great art even if the subject and content is repulsive or immoral in nature. But then the same advocates of the art for art's sake concept like to claim a difficult and mysterious embodiment of content in form because if there is no necessary relationship of the two in the artwork, then why try to put them together? Why not just center on delighting the senses or, separately, saying something that repulses the moral mind? Finally, you want to join the abstraction of "society" with the equally abstract notions of "preserving humans" and "delight" and implications that these abstractions constitute some form of content and morality. It can be very vague once we go past the everyday use of the terms and subject them to scrutiny. And then, to cap it all off with a completely odd expression, you say "to me" asserting your individual authority as the trump card, so to speak, contradicting your claim that "preserving society" is the goal. How can that be a goal if its validity depends on an individual's opinion? What if "society" disagrees? Troubling, troubling. Everyday -- folk philosophy -- expressions of belief and received opinions get us through casual conversations, I suppose, but they rarely (I except Montaigne and Mark Twain) survive the first seriously analytical critique. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 10:47:04 AM Subject: Re: "Is today's [art?] irrelevant?" Moral, for me, is any human action that helps to preserve human society. I think art plays this role by giving us mental and physiological state of delight. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: "Is today's [art?] irrelevant?" Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 17:05:09 -0800 (PST) I don't know what spiritual means. It's a word that can't stand alone but requires a developed theory and whatever theory is proposed also lacks a theory. I think Kant meant moral as a substitute for spiritual and he excludes the moral from the category of the aesthetic. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]
