The philosophy thread general discussion

Yeah, Rationalism struck me what that the Romanticists thought the Enlightenment was. All logic, no emotion, willing to solve the Cold Equation through technology without considering the drawbacks.

Edited by MorningStar1337 on May 10th 2024 at 11:31:35 AM

Also, would be helpful to know what the risk of each risk is, as in chance of each happening.

I'd imagine Less Wrong-style Ultra-Rationalism essentially emerged in reaction to Romanticist strawmans, ironically perhaps becoming one itself.

I will say any ideology that emphasizes rationalism needs to come with the caveat that what it means to be rational is in and of itself a subjective. What we believe in, we call "common sense"; what others believe in, we call "ideology".

On an unrelated note, I'm wondering if there's a term for a concept that I've thought of a few times but wasn't sure if there's a term for. It's related to the Blunt "Yes" trope as well as Poe's Law, but basically it's a failure of Reductio Ad Absurdum.

Basically, when you argue with someone and claim that their position is equivalent to a position you consider absurd (and expect them to as well). However, it turns out that your opponent actually does accept the absurd position as well.

A good example, and what got me thinking about this topic:

• A long while back it was argued here that commercial art still is art. The example given was that the Sistine Chapel was made for-profit. Obviously, it's absurd to say that the Sistine Chapel is not art, so clearly for-profit art is art.

• I recently read a story someone told of an extremely pretentious art teacher that they had who argued that for-profit art is not art under any circumstances. In fact, apparently they even did claim that the Sistine Chapel was not art for that reason.

Another hypothetical example might be "Godwinning Hitler": Arguing that a person's position is dangerously similar to that of the Nazis, against an opponent that is consciously a Neo-Nazi.

I would use the term "Absurdism" for "Someone embraces a position you'd normally use as a Reductio Ad Absurdism hypothetical", but that name's already taken.

I could use the term "Poe" in reference to "Poe's Law" but I'm not sure if that's precisely correct. "Slope-Rider" or "Sloperism" also comes to mind.

Given the examples you have listed: the Sistine Chapel ceiling not being "art" and applying Godwin's Law to the beliefs of an actual neo-Nazi, this is exactly Poe's Law in action.

There is no parody of an idea so extreme that it cannot be confused for the real thing. Corollary: there is no parody of an idea so extreme that you can't find someone who actually believes it.

Edited by Fighteer on May 13th 2024 at 9:30:40 AM

Considering almost all well known art was made for-profit — artists like to be able to eat, after all — that narrow definition would disqualify a lot of art as art.

Heck, for all we know early humans made cave drawings in exchange for extra food or furs from their neighbors.

Edited by M84 on May 13th 2024 at 8:41:43 PM

The idea of art as "unfettered creative expression" is nice and all, but it falls short of real life by an order of magnitude because artists have to pay the bills like everyone else. I would say that this idealization is mirrored in "amateur" sporting organizations like the Olympics and the NCAA, which bar participants from receiving compensation (directly, at least).

Honestly, it's kind of a disgusting attitude even when it's not being used to justify artists starving or athletes effectively being unpaid labor for their schools and/or nations.

Edited by Fighteer on May 13th 2024 at 5:06:23 AM

It also limits a lot of artwork to people who are already independently wealthy. Making artwork the domain of the upper class.

Incidentally, I found that on some page where people were giving examples of "things a professor did that made me quit the class". So, yeah.

The teacher's position is not merely pretentious, I'd actually say it's best understood through the lens of pretentiousness:

In essence, a lot of artistic snobbery can be traced back to opinions on fans and creators rather than the work itself. The "Classics" are works with "respectable" consumers and creators. Thus, a work that everyone wants to have read, even by people who don't want to read it.

Now it's probably a bit crass to speculate on a specific individual based one random-ass post, but lemme modify this to "speculation on the type of person who would agree with the teacher":

This position would likely signify someone who has a particularly toxic variation of a Bourgeoise Bohemian mindset. Someone who's able to pursue art for its own sake as a luxury (and wants everyone to know), and also sees themselves as the only free-thinking individuals in a world of drones.

No expert on art, but it does seem to me that things like the Mc Donald's logo belong in a different category than the Sistine Chapel.

It's easy to take any two things and put them in separate categories, but if we expand from that starting point, we very quickly find uncomfortable contradictions. It's much the same problem that got Pluto demoted to a "dwarf planet" in astronomy.

The categories are useful, but they are highly subjective and create conflicts if we take them too literally.

Indeed. How about that?

Edited by Fighteer on May 13th 2024 at 5:15:31 AM

Much like art itself.

Certainly, there are entire art movements that are basically a conversation about 'what is art?'

Another issue is that the definition of "Art" is often equated with the definition of "Good Art". Or rather, we use the term "Not Art" to mean "Bad Art".

Now, something like the Mc Donald's logo, it's obviously a pretty different type of art than the Sistine Chapel.

I would actually argue that the Mc Donald's Logo is technically art in its most basic form, and is specifically akin to a nation's flag or a coat of arms. It's a symbol used to convey a store's allegiance to the Mc Donald's Corporation, as well as notify others of its presence and purpose.

It's not necessarily deep art but it is the basic idea of art distilled to its essence.

I'd argue the Teacher's argument about commercial art (as in, art that an artist did for money) commits the fallacy of treating basic egoism and sincerity as necessarily mutually exclusive.

For example, a guy who sets up a burger stand and sells food is not necessarily apathetic to people's hunger just because he doesn't give the food away for free, at least not if he's charging fair prices. The simple fact that he's making it possible to buy food means he's addressing the problem of hunger.

I'd also argue the person commissioning art can be considered partly responsible for the art itself, a co-artist if you will. Also an artist can have freedoms even while working within rules, the choices that they made in the "how" of things is artistic expression.

Commercial art isn't defined as the artist making it for money. Artists make money all the time. Commercial art is art that is expected to make the client money—in other words, it's commissioned explicitly as a tool for facilitating commerce.

Oh, I misused the term earlier.

The Professor in what I heard before was arguing that art can't be for-profit at all if it is to be considered "real art". This included her stating that the Sistine Chapel was not art because it was made for money.

Edited by Protagonist506 on May 13th 2024 at 8:36:40 AM

That's silly. Makes me wonder where they found him. Interestingly, commercial art does go a long way back, historically. I would suppose the oldest form were the signs they used to hang above craftsmen's shops in Medieval Europe. Tavern signs, that sort of thing.

If calligraphy is art, it was practiced for a long time for pay.

Edited by Fighteer on May 13th 2024 at 11:36:36 AM

Well yes, but would you classify a contract lettered by a calligrapher as "art"? (And if so, would a lawyer composing the text of that contract also be making "art"?)

Edited by Smeagol17 on May 14th 2024 at 2:56:21 PM

So is the notion of pot-boiler and the negative connotation with it, also built on the same idea of "true art" isn't commercial?

One of the most disturbing things about the multiple ongoing conflicts is how millions of people can be so easily dehumanized. One of my greatest fears is that same thing happening to the people I know.

I've been thinking a lot about the history of liberalism, especially in Europe. It seems there was a lot of pushback against it, with only gradual reforms and emancipation of serga throughout the 19th century. Something similar happened in parallel in Japan , when the Samurai class lost their privileges during the Meiji reformation. I wonder just how old our modern concept of person hood is.

Edit: A new Philosophy Tube episode is up: https://youtu.be/QVilpxowsUQ?si=RBGgOKsDLpWD10cx Skipping to 32 minutes in, Abby actually describes what I am talking about as 'Abjectification'

Edited by Xopher001 on May 17th 2024 at 11:13:42 AM

Personally I think a lot of people really take for granted how completely different morality was not very long ago. We all know even in the 20th century in the US there were still lobotomies, racial segregation and people not sure if the Holocaust was really that big of a problem but when you really sit down and actually think about the fact that any of that shit made sense to people it's weird. Like you had a good chance of being able to sit down with somebody you knew and they'd go over all the reasons they think special black people drinking fountains is a rational thing to do.

And of course a lot of people think western society is above it now, it's not. Doing those old crimes is considered unimaginably evil but very similar things to different people is still a heated subject. Funding military dictatorships and shit in South America is treated as this mild annoyance of consumption, there's people that think Ukrainians "deserve it" and a lot of cruelty in legal systems is considered acceptable if you can do it in response to the right crimes.

Edited by unregisteredaccount on May 18th 2024 at 1:45:27 AM

It's all about the rivalry between in-groups and outgroups.