Thursday, March 27, 2014

Why did Quine become a logician and not a lawyer?/The Pot Kettle Problem
Mohan Matthen
The pleasure we take in beauty must have been shaped by evolution — but what adaptive advantage did it give us?"
The last sentence from my comment, with a minor repair
An[y] aesthetic is the material or formal manifestation of an ethic. To ask why one is to ask why the other.
A biologist might ask why we philosophize and not simply function, but a philosopher asking why we make art is like a theologian asking why we read fiction.

The level of assumption, the arrogance and stupidity (there's nothing else to call it at this point)  are mind-bending.

Beauty is the manifestation of desired or desirable order, and the means of coming to terms with the existence of orders beyond our control. It's the form in material or language of an idea, not as illustration but by manifestation and therefore through experience. That's why art -or anything read in terms of art- is not reducible or translatable, and why Anglo-American philosophy has such a hard time with it, since philosophy is defined as fully translatable language related to mathematics. If you can't translate Mallarmé or replicate perfectly Matthen's Oxbridge Anglo-Indian mannerisms, or Olivier's or Gielgud's performances of Hamlet then universalism becomes no more than generalization.

Technocracy in the imaginations of technocrats is founded on the association of universalism with idealism. As a functional model it's founded on the principle of mediocrity.

repeatsrepeatsrepeats

No comments: