Karma

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Karma

#301  Postby NineOneFour » Apr 03, 2014 4:50 am

CharlieM wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:Charlie : science investigates phenomena but has nothing to say about
the nature of truth because that is a question for philosophy or religion

I don't think that any of you who have responded to the end of this post have understood what I'm saying. It could very well be that, due to the way I worded things, I haven't made my point clearly enough. I'll try to clarify.

Science tries to find laws to apply to phenomena. Take the combined gas law. With everything else being held constant the pressure in a gas is proportional to the temperature and inversely proportional to the volume. ie, to take one instance, if everything including the temperature remains constant, when the volume decreases the pressure increases. Now this law is true for everyone, an individual cannot say, "I do not want to follow that law, I want to follow the law where pressure is proportional to volume.

On the other hand a person's religion, for it to have any true meaning, must come from within, and not be applied from without like scientific laws. If it is imposed from without as in a state religion then it has very little meaning. this is why I don't agree with people going round the doors trying to persuade people to join their religion.

In other words an individual should be free to follow their own choice in whichever religion or philosophy of life that they deem appropriate. But its meaningless to say that an individual should be free to make up their own personal scientific law.

surreptitious57 wrote:Is art the middle ground between science and religion ? According to Russell it is actually philosophy
Science references what can be objectively determined while religion references what can not and
philosophy is stuck somewhere between the two trying to be as objective as the former but mostly
being as subjective as the latter and that is because most ideas can not be subject to falsification


IMO you can juxtapose science, religion, philosophy, art and anything else in any way you wish, but you will need to justify why you have given them this relationship and others should be able to see your reasoning and judge it accordingly. The reason why I think art is a middle ground between religion and science is that art originates from within the individual who expresses herself or himself in some outward fashion. And most artists would like their work to be available to all.

Science should apply to all, religion should apply to the individual and art is an individual expressing his or her individuality to all.


Is this some kind of performance art of which I am currently unaware?
Citizen of the (future) People's Social Democratic Republic of Cascadia.
cascadianow.org

For help managing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), go here. I am able to manage it, and so can you.
User avatar
NineOneFour
 
Name: Yes, I'm an asshole.
Posts: 20906
Age: 51
Male

Country: Cascadia
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Karma

#302  Postby CharlieM » Apr 03, 2014 5:08 am

hackenslash wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
Knowledge
...It is thus an irony of proper scientific method that one must doubt even when correct, in the hopes that this practice will lead to greater convergence on the truth in general.


Err, the word in question was 'science'. If you're going to engage in the fallacious argument from popularity known as argumentum ad lexicum you should at least be sufficiently rigorous to commit the fallacy using the correct fucking word.

You're nitpicking. Have you read the piece, "Science as Truth", written by Peter Atkins, physical chemist, author, formerly Professor of Chemistry, Lincoln College, Oxford.

Here is a reading of it:



I certainly don't hold the same views as Peter Atkins, but he touches on something that I was trying to get across. Here are some quotes from the video:
Alhough some may snipe and others carp there can be no denying that science is the best procedure yet discovered for exposing fundamental truths about the world... truth invariably prevails in science...it (science) is trans-national, trans-cultural, and trans-racial. There is not a Japanese science, a Malawian science, a Slavonic science. There is no Christian science worth the name, no Islamic science and no Hindu science. There is no aristocratic science, no working-class science. What respectable science there is knows no frontiers, no country, faith or class.


Science is the same for all people.

hackenslash wrote:
Is it equally true to say that the earth revolves round the sun, the sun revolves round the earth and the earth is stationary?


Hmmm, whether to go with the 'physics above your pay-grade' response or to cite the fallacy of the complex question, or maybe some other in the range of equally valid answers. Decisions, decisions...

I think I'll choose...

Yes.

If science is not a search for the truth then it should hold that any of these positions is equally valid.


Why?

Because if scientists were not looking for that which is most true, ie fits the data better, then they wouldn't find which was most true.

hackenslash wrote:
Why do scientists accept the first statement as being correct but not the second and third?


Do they do that? Really?

Can you name any scientist who thinks that the earth is stationary or that the sun revolves round the earth? I seem to remember another thread where a certain person was vilified for saying that he believed in one of these statements.

hackenslash wrote:
From the University of Georgia
...no human has observed the solar system and seen the earth traveling in an orbit around the sun. It's just a theory, if a nearly inescapable one.

In that sense, most scientists will concede that, although they seek Truth, they don't know or generate Truth.


Nice! Cite a source that describes orbital mechanics with the precise phrase 'it's just a theory' and then work out what your prize will be for guessing into which orifice you can insert that.

Honestly, I couldn't write comedy like that.

University of Georgia
It is the flagship university of the state of Georgia. The university is ranked 20th overall among all public national universities in the current 2014 U.S. News & World Report rankings and consistently ranks within the top 200 universities worldwide across numerous publications. UGA is classified as a 'Research University/Very High Activity', according to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching


hackenslash wrote:
Do you not agree that science is always looking for that which accords with reality and if something is shown not to accord with reality then it is rejected?


Surely I've answered that already?

Not in any meaningful way.
CharlieM
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Karma

#303  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 03, 2014 5:41 am

CharlieM wrote:
Science is the same for all people.


To people who haven't mastered any science, it's just another word, and scientifically-illiterate individuals quote mine from scientific commentaries, invest the word with special significance to them, and string together what they think of as scientific 'facts' into grand conspiracy theories about the 'ordering' of the world. Sound familiar?

CharlieM wrote:Because if scientists were not looking for that which is most true, ie fits the data better, then they wouldn't find which was most true.


Scientifically-illiterate individuals underestimate the distinction between the data and the interpretation given to the theory that summarises the data. A more general theory summarises more data, but that says nothing about the 'truth' of it, which you'd have to be marking according to some metaphysical theory of 'reality'. Listen to the Hack, Charlie, and learn.

Laboratory gases behave ideally at the Boyle temperature, which varies, depending on the composition of the gas you're studying. Do you think that means the ideal gas law has any 'truth' in it? All it means is that the attractive and repulsive forces between gas particles have added up in some sort of temporary balance. Dipoles, Charlie. Learn about them, but don't ask us what electric charge is in 'reality'.

CharlieM wrote:I certainly don't hold the same views as Peter Atkins...


And that's mainly because the views of Peter Atkins are informed in ways you can't imagine, and your views are informed by emotion, giving the world your feeble renderings of popular commentary on scientific theory into bad poetry, such as "Science is the same for all people." Think about it, Charlie: What a fucking useless deployment of the word 'same', given the moronic subjectivity of your commentaries about science.

CharlieM wrote:Can you name any scientist who thinks that the earth is stationary or that the sun revolves round the earth?


What's your definition of 'scientist', Charlie? Some guy with a Ph.D. and specialised expertise? Someone wearing a lab coat? The way the publishing company refers to Peter Atkins in its advertising copy?
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29557
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Karma

#304  Postby CharlieM » Apr 03, 2014 2:53 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
Science is the same for all people.


To people who haven't mastered any science, it's just another word, and scientifically-illiterate individuals quote mine from scientific commentaries, invest the word with special significance to them, and string together what they think of as scientific 'facts' into grand conspiracy theories about the 'ordering' of the world. Sound familiar?

CharlieM wrote:Because if scientists were not looking for that which is most true, ie fits the data better, then they wouldn't find which was most true.


Scientifically-illiterate individuals underestimate the distinction between the data and the interpretation given to the theory that summarises the data. A more general theory summarises more data, but that says nothing about the 'truth' of it, which you'd have to be marking according to some metaphysical theory of 'reality'. Listen to the Hack, Charlie, and learn.

Laboratory gases behave ideally at the Boyle temperature, which varies, depending on the composition of the gas you're studying. Do you think that means the ideal gas law has any 'truth' in it? All it means is that the attractive and repulsive forces between gas particles have added up in some sort of temporary balance. Dipoles, Charlie. Learn about them, but don't ask us what electric charge is in 'reality'.

CharlieM wrote:I certainly don't hold the same views as Peter Atkins...


And that's mainly because the views of Peter Atkins are informed in ways you can't imagine, and your views are informed by emotion, giving the world your feeble renderings of popular commentary on scientific theory into bad poetry, such as "Science is the same for all people." Think about it, Charlie: What a fucking useless deployment of the word 'same', given the moronic subjectivity of your commentaries about science.

CharlieM wrote:Can you name any scientist who thinks that the earth is stationary or that the sun revolves round the earth?


What's your definition of 'scientist', Charlie? Some guy with a Ph.D. and specialised expertise? Someone wearing a lab coat? The way the publishing company refers to Peter Atkins in its advertising copy?


You are philsophizing science out of all proportion. If Peter Atkins came on to Ratskep and posted, "truth invariably prevails in science", would you argue with him and imply that he doesn't know what he's talking about? Have you criticized Jerry Coyne for calling his book and website, "Why Evolution is True"?

Can you give me a straight answer to this question: Under adiabatic conditions when the volume of a gas is reduced its pressure and temperature increases, true or false?

You say my views are "informed by emotion", but I am not the one using colourful, emotional language and displaying feelings such as contempt.

Did you watch the video I posted. Do you not see that the discoveries of science remain the same no matter who reveals them? When an Englishman discovered the law of gravity an Indian could not turn round and say,"That's fine for you over there on your little island but that doesn't apply to us here in the east"

I'm amazed that I should be here defending science against someone who sees himself as a rational skeptic! You seem to think that reality is some Kantian "thing in itself" that is behind nature and is forever without our grasp. You are dealing in metaphysics more than I am.
CharlieM
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Karma

#305  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 03, 2014 3:25 pm

CharlieM wrote:You are philsophizing science out of all proportion. If Peter Atkins came on to Ratskep and posted, "truth invariably prevails in science", would you argue with him and imply that he doesn't know what he's talking about?


Has he done that? No? Then that's enough about that.

CharlieM wrote:Have you criticized Jerry Coyne for calling his book and website, "Why Evolution is True"?


Jerry Coyne is on your radar because you're sensitive to what Jerry Coyne says. Cry me a river.

CharlieM wrote:Can you give me a straight answer to this question: Under adiabatic conditions when the volume of a gas is reduced its pressure and temperature increases, true or false?


Actually, Charlie, when you reduce the volume of a gas adiabatically, some of it might liquefy. What problem do you want to solve? Ever look at a phase diagram? Now's your chance.

CharlieM wrote:You say my views are "informed by emotion", but I am not the one using colourful, emotional language and displaying feelings such as contempt.


Do you have a problem with my contempt? Cry me a river.

CharlieM wrote:Did you watch the video I posted. Do you not see that the discoveries of science remain the same no matter who reveals them? When an Englishman discovered the law of gravity an Indian could not turn round and say,"That's fine for you over there on your little island but that doesn't apply to us here in the east"


A German jew working as a patent clerk in Berne settled the Englishman's hash just a little bit farther. Think there's a stopping point? Where is it?
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29557
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Karma

#306  Postby CharlieM » Apr 03, 2014 8:04 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
CharlieM wrote:You are philsophizing science out of all proportion. If Peter Atkins came on to Ratskep and posted, "truth invariably prevails in science", would you argue with him and imply that he doesn't know what he's talking about?


Has he done that? No? Then that's enough about that.

So science is a method of finding truth then?

Cito di Pense wrote:
CharlieM wrote:Have you criticized Jerry Coyne for calling his book and website, "Why Evolution is True"?


Jerry Coyne is on your radar because you're sensitive to what Jerry Coyne says. Cry me a river.

That doesn't answer my question. Do you think he warrants criticism for the above?

Cito di Pense wrote:
CharlieM wrote:Can you give me a straight answer to this question: Under adiabatic conditions when the volume of a gas is reduced its pressure and temperature increases, true or false?


Actually, Charlie, when you reduce the volume of a gas adiabatically, some of it might liquefy. What problem do you want to solve? Ever look at a phase diagram? Now's your chance.

I'm not trying to solve any problem. I asked you a straight question. I thought that a phase change was always accompanied by an exchange of energy, but even assuming what you say is true it isn't relevant to the question I asked. I note your reluctance to answer straight questions. I am asking what happens to the gas while it remains a gas, does its pressure and temperature increase?

Cito di Pense wrote:
CharlieM wrote:You say my views are "informed by emotion", but I am not the one using colourful, emotional language and displaying feelings such as contempt.


Do you have a problem with my contempt? Cry me a river.

Why would I have a problem with your contempt? Your contemp is your affair and no one elses.

Cito di Pense wrote:

A German jew working as a patent clerk in Berne settled the Englishman's hash just a little bit farther. Think there's a stopping point? Where is it?


I would say that Newton's law still applies. Einstein only refined it for certain circumstances. You used a similar argument about water. When I said That it was a fact that it consisted of hydrogen and oxygen I wasn't saying that this was the whole story about water. You seemed to think I was saying this. If I said that I was a man, this would be true, but it does not exhaust the description of what I am.
CharlieM
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Karma

#307  Postby CharlieM » Apr 04, 2014 10:53 pm

Regina wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
Regina wrote:
CharlieM wrote: Science should apply to all, religion should apply to the individual and art is an individual expressing his or her individuality to all.

If that's what art is then most of what we call art does not belong in that category.


In what way is art not an outward expression of inward creativity? Why do artists have exhibitions, musician concerts, and so on?

First off, what's "creativity"?

Creativity is the act of bringing something novel into existence, something which uaually develops from the spark of an idea, is built upon and comes to expression outwardly.

Regina wrote:Secondly, you did say "individuality", which is not synonymous with creativity. An artist expressing his/her "individuality" (whatever that might be) is a modern concept.

Yes, I agree its a modern concept. Individuals have far more freedom to express themselves in our modern Western culture than ever before. Compare this with the anacronous set up in North Korea where its rumoured men are being told to get Kim Jong-un haircuts. We are entering the age of the individual which would be great were it not for the fact that we are also entering an age where our every move is being watched and monitored.

Regina wrote:You think van Eyck expressed his "individuality" when he painted the Gent altarpiece?
PS: Artists have exhibitions because they need to pay the rent, just like you and I.

Its interesting that you picked an artist from a period when the Italian Renaissance was setting in. The separation of science, art and religion is a modern phenomenon. These distinct spheres only emerged after the renaissance. In fact the renaissance foreshadowed the beginning of this separation. Seats of learning very often had their source in religious institutions (the university closest to where I live was founded by a bishop) and the themes that artists portrayed in their works moved on from the religious to more worldly subjects. Leorardo da Vinci was both a scientist and an artist. And Goethe, Like da Vinci, was an artist/scientist.

So to answer your question van Eyck did not express his individuality so distinctly as van Gogh, Picasso or Jackson Pollock.

Regarding exhibitions, money does come into it just as money plays its part in science with things like the competition for grants and the publication of popular science books. And as for religion, everyone knows about the wealth of the Catholic Church. But I know amateur artists who hold exhibitions and sell their work. Its not receiving payment that gives them the thrill, its knowing that buyers like the work enough to hand over their cash to aquire it.
CharlieM
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Karma

#308  Postby Regina » Apr 05, 2014 10:45 am

CharlieM wrote:
Regina wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
Regina wrote:
If that's what art is then most of what we call art does not belong in that category.


In what way is art not an outward expression of inward creativity? Why do artists have exhibitions, musician concerts, and so on?

First off, what's "creativity"?

Creativity is the act of bringing something novel into existence, something which uaually develops from the spark of an idea, is built upon and comes to expression outwardly.

Regina wrote:Secondly, you did say "individuality", which is not synonymous with creativity. An artist expressing his/her "individuality" (whatever that might be) is a modern concept.

Yes, I agree its a modern concept. Individuals have far more freedom to express themselves in our modern Western culture than ever before. Compare this with the anacronous set up in North Korea where its rumoured men are being told to get Kim Jong-un haircuts. We are entering the age of the individual which would be great were it not for the fact that we are also entering an age where our every move is being watched and monitored.

Regina wrote:You think van Eyck expressed his "individuality" when he painted the Gent altarpiece?
PS: Artists have exhibitions because they need to pay the rent, just like you and I.

Its interesting that you picked an artist from a period when the Italian Renaissance was setting in. The separation of science, art and religion is a modern phenomenon. These distinct spheres only emerged after the renaissance. In fact the renaissance foreshadowed the beginning of this separation. Seats of learning very often had their source in religious institutions (the university closest to where I live was founded by a bishop) and the themes that artists portrayed in their works moved on from the religious to more worldly subjects. Leorardo da Vinci was both a scientist and an artist. And Goethe, Like da Vinci, was an artist/scientist.

So to answer your question van Eyck did not express his individuality so distinctly as van Gogh, Picasso or Jackson Pollock.

Regarding exhibitions, money does come into it just as money plays its part in science with things like the competition for grants and the publication of popular science books. And as for religion, everyone knows about the wealth of the Catholic Church. But I know amateur artists who hold exhibitions and sell their work. Its not receiving payment that gives them the thrill, its knowing that buyers like the work enough to hand over their cash to aquire it.

Thanks for the lecture. I was totally unaware of all lof that. Poor old Johnny, a lesser artist than Jack and Vince, apparently.
How about a nameless 12th century craftsman who produced numerous versions of, let's say, the Madonna as Sedes Sapientiae according to the specifications his customers ?
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15627
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Karma

#309  Postby CharlieM » Apr 05, 2014 12:58 pm

Regina wrote:Thanks for the lecture. I was totally unaware of all lof that. Poor old Johnny, a lesser artist than Jack and Vince, apparently.
How about a nameless 12th century craftsman who produced numerous versions of, let's say, the Madonna as Sedes Sapientiae according to the specifications his customers ?


I wasn't giving you a lecture. I was putting my thoughts across for anyone to read. This is not a private conversation.

I consider van Eyck to be far superior to Pollock in his craft. Don't confuse expressing individuality with being a skillful artist. In the days of the old masters they had to go through strict training to achieve the level of expertise they demonstrated. In today's art colleges usually the emphasis is on the pupils expressing their creativity at the expence of teaching them skillful use of the medium.
CharlieM
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Karma

#310  Postby Arjan Dirkse » Apr 05, 2014 1:59 pm

Like most of the famous abstract painters, Pollock could paint figuratively very well, but that was just not where his interested lied.
Arjan Dirkse
 
Posts: 1743
Male

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Karma

#311  Postby Regina » Apr 05, 2014 3:03 pm

CharlieM wrote:
Regina wrote:Thanks for the lecture. I was totally unaware of all lof that. Poor old Johnny, a lesser artist than Jack and Vince, apparently.
How about a nameless 12th century craftsman who produced numerous versions of, let's say, the Madonna as Sedes Sapientiae according to the specifications his customers ?


I wasn't giving you a lecture. I was putting my thoughts across for anyone to read. This is not a private conversation.

I consider van Eyck to be far superior to Pollock in his craft. Don't confuse expressing individuality with being a skillful artist. In the days of the old masters they had to go through strict training to achieve the level of expertise they demonstrated. In today's art colleges usually the emphasis is on the pupils expressing their creativity at the expence of teaching them skillful use of the medium.

I'm only interested in your definition of art.
CharlieM wrote: Science should apply to all, religion should apply to the individual and art is an individual expressing his or her individuality to all.

Scores of who you apparently consider artists were nothing of the kind (following your definition) as they did not express their individuality (whatever that is).
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15627
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Karma

#312  Postby CharlieM » Apr 05, 2014 3:30 pm

Arjan Dirkse wrote:Like most of the famous abstract painters, Pollock could paint figuratively very well, but that was just not where his interested lied.


Yes I don't doubt he was a very talented figurative painter, and I take your point. What I should have said was that I suspect van Eyck was superior to Pollock but this does not mean that Pollock was in any way a bad artist. I don't really know enough about Pollock to confirm my suspicions.

This reminds me of a comedy sketch that some UK members might remember. The comedian walked on carrying a painting and a violin. He said something like, "I have here a Rembrandt and a Stradivarius. Unfortunately Rembrandt wasn't very good at making violins and Stardivarius was a rubbish painter" :lol:
CharlieM
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Karma

#313  Postby CharlieM » Apr 06, 2014 1:20 am

Regina wrote:I'm only interested in your definition of art.
CharlieM wrote: Science should apply to all, religion should apply to the individual and art is an individual expressing his or her individuality to all.

Scores of who you apparently consider artists were nothing of the kind (following your definition) as they did not express their individuality (whatever that is).

I'd like to try to clarify the points I have been trying to make.

Science is a subject that we deals with through thinking. We think about a triangle. The definition of a tringle doesn't change depending on who is doing the thinking, it is universal.

Religion, our philosophy of life, morality, involves our acts of will. We can say that we believe in the equality of the individual, but it is meaningless unless we understand what we mean by "equality". Obviously not everyone is equal physically or mentally. So by equality, we may mean that everyone should be treated equally no matter what their physical attributes, race, sex and so on. Now a person may decide that for them this is an ideal. In order to live by this ideal they will have to examine their own personal thoughts and actions, understand where they are falling short of this ideal and by an act of will change their ways. Each person is individually responsible for following their own ideals.

In the past there was no such thing as science, art and religion as separate pusuits. The leaders and the rule-makers told everyone else what to think, what to believe and how they were to act.

Today science should not depend on authority, or personal belief, but on objective facts. One's philosophy of life should not depend on authority, it should depend on the freedom of each individual to pursue his or her personal beliefs. Nobody has the right to tell anyone else what they should believe.

Art is the process where individuals express their feelings through the medium of their choice. If a variety of artists were each commisioned to produce a piece of work on the same subject then every piece would be different, possibly wildly different. Each piece would be out in the world as an objective entity, but each would bear the stamp of the individual who produced it.

To summarize:
science, thinking, the objective world;
religion, the will, our inner life;
art, feeling, expressing the inner in outward form.
CharlieM
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Karma

#314  Postby the_5th_ape » Apr 06, 2014 8:34 am

steampunkgirl wrote:Does anyone believe in karma?

Yes


Honestly "I don't know". I just like Buddha for some reason. So I hate to answer "no" to your question
Thanking God for sparing you in a natural disaster is like
sending a thank-you note to a serial killer for stabbing the family next door

Question: If you could live forever, would you and why? Best Answer
User avatar
the_5th_ape
 
Posts: 3530
Male

Print view this post

Re: Karma

#315  Postby Regina » Apr 06, 2014 10:16 am

CharlieM wrote:
Regina wrote:I'm only interested in your definition of art.
CharlieM wrote: Science should apply to all, religion should apply to the individual and art is an individual expressing his or her individuality to all.

Scores of who you apparently consider artists were nothing of the kind (following your definition) as they did not express their individuality (whatever that is).

I'd like to try to clarify the points I have been trying to make.

Science is a subject that we deals with through thinking. We think about a triangle. The definition of a tringle doesn't change depending on who is doing the thinking, it is universal.

Religion, our philosophy of life, morality, involves our acts of will. We can say that we believe in the equality of the individual, but it is meaningless unless we understand what we mean by "equality". Obviously not everyone is equal physically or mentally. So by equality, we may mean that everyone should be treated equally no matter what their physical attributes, race, sex and so on. Now a person may decide that for them this is an ideal. In order to live by this ideal they will have to examine their own personal thoughts and actions, understand where they are falling short of this ideal and by an act of will change their ways. Each person is individually responsible for following their own ideals.

In the past there was no such thing as science, art and religion as separate pusuits. The leaders and the rule-makers told everyone else what to think, what to believe and how they were to act.

Today science should not depend on authority, or personal belief, but on objective facts. One's philosophy of life should not depend on authority, it should depend on the freedom of each individual to pursue his or her personal beliefs. Nobody has the right to tell anyone else what they should believe.

Art is the process where individuals express their feelings through the medium of their choice. If a variety of artists were each commisioned to produce a piece of work on the same subject then every piece would be different, possibly wildly different. Each piece would be out in the world as an objective entity, but each would bear the stamp of the individual who produced it.

To summarize:
science, thinking, the objective world;
religion, the will, our inner life;
art, feeling, expressing the inner in outward form.

I got that the first time round. To repeat: scores of artist did not express "the inner" in their oeuvre, so they were not artists according to your definition. Individual differences in the execution of the same subject don't necessarily have anything to do with "the inner".
What do you think would happen if we both wrote the same text?
What would happen if we both cooked the same meal?
Knitted the same scarf? Etc, etc. Would you put the inevitable differences down to expressing "the inner"? What is that anyway?
It's hard to understand for modern people that there were times when "the inner" and the "individual" were completely irrelevant in art.
Last edited by Regina on Apr 06, 2014 12:34 pm, edited 3 times in total.
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15627
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Karma

#316  Postby campermon » Apr 06, 2014 11:25 am

CharlieM wrote: The definition of a tringle doesn't change depending on who is doing the thinking, it is universal.


just out of interest; what is the definition?

:beer:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17437
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Karma

#317  Postby Nicko » Apr 06, 2014 12:24 pm

CharlieM wrote:I certainly don't hold the same views as Peter Atkins, but he touches on something that I was trying to get across. Here are some quotes from the video:
Alhough some may snipe and others carp there can be no denying that science is the best procedure yet discovered for exposing fundamental truths about the world... truth invariably prevails in science...it (science) is trans-national, trans-cultural, and trans-racial. There is not a Japanese science, a Malawian science, a Slavonic science. There is no Christian science worth the name, no Islamic science and no Hindu science. There is no aristocratic science, no working-class science. What respectable science there is knows no frontiers, no country, faith or class.


Science is the same for all people.


I would certainly agree with what I think the intent of that passage is.

Here's where I think it goes wrong.

Science does not, nor does it claim to, "expose fundamental truths" about the world. What it does is examine observed phenomena and try to come up with models that explain what is going on that can withstand robust attempts at refutation. The result are provisional theories that appear to describe the phenomena.

This "expose fundamental truths" caper is a bit beyond the remit of a bunch of jumped-up ground apes.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8641
Age: 44
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Karma

#318  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 06, 2014 12:32 pm

campermon wrote:
CharlieM wrote: The definition of a tringle doesn't change depending on who is doing the thinking, it is universal.


just out of interest; what is the definition?

:beer:


A tringle? It's a potato chip with three sharp corners, useful for stabbing to death a bowl of onion dip.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29557
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Karma

#319  Postby CharlieM » Apr 06, 2014 8:23 pm

Regina wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
Regina wrote:I'm only interested in your definition of art.
CharlieM wrote: Science should apply to all, religion should apply to the individual and art is an individual expressing his or her individuality to all.

Scores of who you apparently consider artists were nothing of the kind (following your definition) as they did not express their individuality (whatever that is).

I'd like to try to clarify the points I have been trying to make.

Science is a subject that we deals with through thinking. We think about a triangle. The definition of a tringle doesn't change depending on who is doing the thinking, it is universal.

Religion, our philosophy of life, morality, involves our acts of will. We can say that we believe in the equality of the individual, but it is meaningless unless we understand what we mean by "equality". Obviously not everyone is equal physically or mentally. So by equality, we may mean that everyone should be treated equally no matter what their physical attributes, race, sex and so on. Now a person may decide that for them this is an ideal. In order to live by this ideal they will have to examine their own personal thoughts and actions, understand where they are falling short of this ideal and by an act of will change their ways. Each person is individually responsible for following their own ideals.

In the past there was no such thing as science, art and religion as separate pusuits. The leaders and the rule-makers told everyone else what to think, what to believe and how they were to act.

Today science should not depend on authority, or personal belief, but on objective facts. One's philosophy of life should not depend on authority, it should depend on the freedom of each individual to pursue his or her personal beliefs. Nobody has the right to tell anyone else what they should believe.

Art is the process where individuals express their feelings through the medium of their choice. If a variety of artists were each commisioned to produce a piece of work on the same subject then every piece would be different, possibly wildly different. Each piece would be out in the world as an objective entity, but each would bear the stamp of the individual who produced it.

To summarize:
science, thinking, the objective world;
religion, the will, our inner life;
art, feeling, expressing the inner in outward form.

I got that the first time round. To repeat: scores of artist did not express "the inner" in their oeuvre, so they were not artists according to your definition.

I have never defined "art" or "artist". I have said what I think art is, but it is not meant to be an exhaustive description. Art is a means by which artists express their inner feelings.

Everyone desires to express their inner feelings when they try to produce a work of art. It might not work very well due to various obstacles such as the technical ability of the artist, or their lack of enthusiasm for the subject (in which case they are not so much creating a work of art as carrying out a given chore). Why do you think van Gogh destroyed so much of his own work? Because he felt that his creation did not express what he was trying to convey. The outer reality of this finished work did not match up to the inner feelings that he was trying to portray.

Regina wrote:Individual differences in the execution of the same subject don't necessarily have anything to do with "the inner".

You say, "don't necessarily", which would imply that some differences do come from within. Going back to my example of various artists producing a piece on the same subject. Some might paint in oils or watercolour, some might sculpt, some write a poem or compose a piece of music. This would all depend on where the individual artists passion lay. And regarding the painters, one might feel that colours were the most important element, another line and shapes. One might try to make the image match the subject as closely as possible another give an impressionistic image. Their inner feelings will have a great deal to do with the finished product.

Regina wrote:What do you think would happen if we both wrote the same text?
What would happen if we both cooked the same meal?
Knitted the same scarf? Etc, etc. Would you put the inevitable differences down to expressing "the inner"? What is that anyway?

If we both wrote the same text, if we were only concerned with the content, that would be copying and not art. But if the handwriting was studied regarless of the actual content then that would be a different story. There is much that can be gleaned from a person about his or her handwriting. Following a recipe or a knitting pattern is as much art as is painting by numbers.

To give you an idea of what I mean by expressing inner feelings, look at nature. Pull the leaf of a plant or the leg of a spider and you won't get any indication of their inner feelings. Do the same thing with a bird and it will certainly make its inner feelings known in the form of sound. No other being can feel the bird's pain, but, from its calls, other beings can certainly understand that it is in pain.

Art is similar only the artist is making a conscious decision to create an external object which accords with what she/he feels. And by object I mean sculpture, poem, piece of music or whatever the artist produces. Unlike the activities of scientists who try to eliminate as far as possible emotions and human point of view, artists want the opposite, they do wish to convey emotion. We can tell the way Roger Waters feels about war and autocratic authority by the lyrics he writes. Waters' work is extremely personal and it is obvious that he has been affected deeply by past events in his life.

Some of his words:
Forward he cried from the rear
and the front rank died.
And the general sat and the lines on the map
moved from side to side.


And if that isn't personal enough:

And no-one survived from the Royal Fusiliers, Company "C"
They were all left behind, most of them dead - the rest of them dying
And that's how the High Command took my Daddy from me

He is expressing his inner feelings in words and music.

Regina wrote:It's hard to understand for modern people that there were times when "the inner" and the "individual" were completely irrelevant in art.

And I have never disagreed with that.
CharlieM
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Karma

#320  Postby CharlieM » Apr 06, 2014 8:30 pm

campermon wrote:
CharlieM wrote: The definition of a tringle doesn't change depending on who is doing the thinking, it is universal.


just out of interest; what is the definition?

:beer:

Well anyone can find the definition of a triangle from the internet. As for a tringle, its as Cito says,...i think :think: ..maybe :dunno:
CharlieM
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest