Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy because it deals with a universal topic that affects all men. It would not be a branch of philosophy if it were a special science like math or physics or history.
Surely that can’t be all there is to it. Sex and nutrition, for instance (among many other things), are universal needs of all men, yet philosophy doesn’t deal with them. And one could very well argue that math, history and physics (especially physics) “deal with a universal topic that affects all men.” Of course, physics and other special sciences were considered part of philosophy until about a couple of centuries ago, until they began to become more specialized. But why not call aesthetics a special science now, as well, like other special sciences within the humanities like history or psychology? (Not that I disagree with your conclusion, as you can tell from my previous post—just trying to give you a Socratic nudge to hone your argument.)
Philosophy is about a conceptual consciousness dealing with reality. Sex and nutrition are not so much about consciousness as the body, so there is little to say on those subjects to justify an entire field of sub-field of philosophy. Aesthetics is definitely all about consciousness.
Of course philosophies deal with man’s sexual nature and what and how we consume by way of food and drink.
Yeah, I must be missing something, because I’ve never heard of a philosophy that addresses itself to the question of “what and how we consume by way of food and drink.” The last time I checked, the science that deals with principles of nutrition was, well, nutritional science. Ethics can tell you that you should eat food and not poison, but it can’t tell you which is which.
Philosophy does have some interesting things to say about sex, but there isn’t a whole branch of philosophy devoted to the subject, like aesthetics. That’s the context of this discussion.
Do I have to review the … yes, I do. Sigh.
Philosophy is about a conceptual consciousness dealing with reality. Sex and nutrition are not so much about consciousness as the body, so there is little to say on those subjects to justify an entire field of sub-field of philosophy. Aesthetics is definitely all about consciousness.
Okay, now you’re whittling it down a bit, but…sex is about the body and not consciousness? Really? I strongly urge you to re-read the Dagny-Galt sex scene.
And what about other special sciences in the humanities that are unequivocally about consciousness, such as psychology? Your argument about why aesthetics is properly a branch of philosophy would still have to include those as well, and is thus too broad.
The task of evaluating the processes of man’s subconscious is the province of psychology. Psychology does not regard its subject morally, but medically—i.e., from the aspect of health or malfunction (with cognitive competence as the proper standard of health).
Philosophy is about what is under conscious, volitional control which excludes the subconscious. Next?
Surely that can’t be all there is to it. Sex and nutrition, for instance (among many other things), are universal needs of all men, yet philosophy doesn’t deal with them.
This is the statement you made that I responded to. You did not say you required a philosophy that touched on nothing but these things- which would be silly anyway.
I can tell you right off that Stoicism for example often talks about food, wine, their proper places and context within our lives as well as sex. In fact I can’t think of any mainstream philosophy that does not deal with both these issues. Objectivism, assuming you’ve read Rand’s non fiction has much to say on sex and love and touches somewhat on how we take care of our bodies. Hedonism of course, is famous for its notions on the proper place of sex and consumables.
I think the confusion I have is with considering it a branch of philosophy rather than an application of it.
For example, I read the Art of Fiction. In it, Ayn Rand criticizes a number of pieces of literature. It seemed, though, that the literature she criticized, and indeed all art, reflects on the philosophy behind it. The style seemed more like an application of philosophy rather than a part of philosophy itself, much in the same way that you could (and should) apply the Objectivist philosophy to work in other fields, such as economics or science and so on.
Philosophy by itself cannot satisfy man’s need of philosophy. Man requires the union of the two: philosophy and art, the broad identifications and their concrete embodiment.
Art is a concretization of metaphysics. Art brings man’s concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allows him to grasp them directly, as if they were percepts.
Regardless of the specific philosophy a man holds, the art they relate to reaffirms the view they have come to hold. Perhaps as a justification for accepting mediocrity, or, after setting the soul on fire - providing the fuel to keep it from ever going out: art resonates with the sense of life one holds and either harmonizes when in alignment, or discords to identify a breach between the viewers sense of life and the artist’s metephysical/epistemological value judgements.
On a side note: Having recently started to read Ominous Parallels again, and once again seeing A Christmas Carol, the influence of Charles Dickens (or perhaps Hollywood) by Immanuel Kant is almost too stark for a mere 56 years. The lines, as Scrooge addresses his nephews wife for forgiveness because of having eyes, therefore unable to see, ears, therefore unable to hear - as well as other references throughout appear to have been taylored around an exposure, as well as acceptance of these principles.
I think the confusion I have is with considering it a branch of philosophy rather than an application of it.
For example, I read the Art of Fiction. In it, Ayn Rand criticizes a number of pieces of literature. It seemed, though, that the literature she criticized, and indeed all art, reflects on the philosophy behind it. The style seemed more like an application of philosophy rather than a part of philosophy itself, much in the same way that you could (and should) apply the Objectivist philosophy to work in other fields, such as economics or science and so on.
You can apply philosophy to science in order achieve a non-contradictory identification of matter and energy. You can apply philosophy to economics to achieve a non-contradictory identification of material values, including a theory of differences between how things are and how things should be valued.
You can apply philosophy to art to achieve — what? What is the non-philosophical purpose of art?
You can apply philosophy to science in order achieve a non-contradictory identification of matter and energy. You can apply philosophy to economics to achieve a non-contradictory identification of material values, including a theory of differences between how things are and how things should be valued.
You can apply philosophy to art to achieve — what? What is the non-philosophical purpose of art?
One could consider aesthetics as the branch sibling of politics, namely that each embody applying the ethics - aesthetics to the personal or the individual [as Rand put it, the ‘technology of the soul’], and politics, properly, as to the aggregate of individuals…
Just to clarify my vote, I think art is of less importance in regards to the other branches of philosophy because it is a derivative of those other branches.
That’s how I feel also. Although it basically encompasses my entire life thus far, but my opinions and decisions made when choosing or making art are reflections of my overall philosophy which resides in those other branches. It’s a fairly blatant facet of expression of one’s world view and inner thoughts.
That’s how I feel also. Although it basically encompasses my entire life thus far, but my opinions and decisions made when choosing or making art are reflections of my overall philosophy which resides in those other branches. It’s a fairly blatant facet of expression of one’s world view and inner thoughts.
I think that the Objectivist Esthetics is as important as the other branches of Objectivism. Rand was an artist first, and a philosopher second, and she recognized the power of art to model-build and bring man’s “widest abstractions” into his “immediate, perceptual awareness.”
I think the power of art and the importance of aesthetics is affirmed by the fact that Rand’s art is much more effective and influential than her non-fictional writings, as well as the non-fictional writings of all of her followers combined.
Additionally, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the Objectivist Esthetics is derivative of the other branches, but that Objectivism began with Rand’s aesthetic “sense of life” or view of existence. It played a significant part in the development of the entire philosophy.
I think the power of art and the importance of aesthetics is affirmed by the fact that Rand’s art is much more effective and influential than her non-fictional writings, as well as the non-fictional writings of all of her followers combined.
I’ve read a few of your thoughts on art, J, and mine are nearly antithetical. However, I think that’s actually extraordinarily apt and true.
