reading idiot philosophers talking about art and aesthetics.  A fucking waste of time.

I never stop repeating myself.

Something can be judged a work of it art if its arguments are rendered with an idiosyncratic subtlety beyond what is necessary to communicate its ideas, and which may even oppose them, but which so colors our perceptions that we can not separate the sensibility from the idea without feeling a loss. 

Subtlety beyond necessity but not without purpose.

Art is made by loving something so much you see it honestly or hating something so much you see it in its complexity. 

What makes it more complex again is that theologians and legal scholars are literary critics. The rule of law is the rule of words and their interpretation. Both exist to ensure against the rule of "reason".

Still fucking basic.