The turn has come to read this dialogue, which is supposed to be one of the most essential of the Plato dialgoues.
It goes roughly like this - Socrates meets as a young man the older, more famous philosophers Zenon and Parmenides and starts talking roughly about sets. Aidemantos later recites the dialogue.
The Dialogue is about diversity and whether objects can be correctly sorted into classes. And whether something can be perceived as "one", that is single and not containing parts.
---------------------------
Well, I think that if you got a fairly "humane" way of thinking instead of a logical one, this dialogue might be good and informative but most of all really BORING. Endless discussions whether something has a upside and downside or not. As a computer person, the question of instances and classes can be easily recognized in the discussions. If you are the kind of guy who likes to argue about things into the smallest detail you will love it, I suppose. It got the taste of analytical philosophy.
måndag 23 november 2015
tisdag 28 juli 2015
Plato - Phaedros
The Republic is the only one of Plato's dialogues I had read, and it was one of the first original writings in philosophy I read, perhaps six years ago. I am re-reading the Republic now, but I felt the urge to read some other dialogue as well. I got the second part of "writings" on my library and have now read Phaedrus as the first.
Homophobia does not seem to have been too widespread in old Athens. Phaedrus is on the surface a discussion on whether a younger man should accept an older man as a partner if the older really loves or not. Phaedrus, a young, apparently handsome young man and Socrates sits under a tree outside Athens on a hot day, and discusses a speech on the subject by Lykias.
Phaedros eagerly reads out the speech. a speech that roughly promotes that a young man should take a lover who does not love Him. Roughly because the one who loves is going to be jealous. And urges Socrates to agree that it is a good speech.
Socrates disagrees, and makes a speech of his own which in short says that a relationship can be quite magical with a partner who loves you.
However, it is not this with love or not love is Socrates main thing. There is more - how are you going to make a good speech? And to have a speech written down is pretty much not what the doctor prescribes, according to Socrates. The thing is, when you are going to convince - you need to understand what the subject is all about, even if you want to over-exaggerate, or bend the truth a little. To, well, lie a little, you must have grip on what is really right.
-------
All to true, on meetings you have attended, classes you took at university. One part of being a successful lobbyist, you got to do your homework. But well, no big eye openers in this dialogue, apart from a rather interesting glance into doings in Athens at the time.
söndag 28 juni 2015
Art, why?
I just read the first articles in philosophy now issue 108 that has art as the signature topic for this issue.
My first immediate question - why do philosophers bother about art(and about aestetics in general). The world goes around, people live their lives with or without art. It seems rather uninteresting to care so much for something that useless. Or? Let´s see what they have to say:
In the editorial Grant Bartley starts with the paradigm shift where Marcel Duchamp changed the attitude of looking at art as something beautiful to mean just like anything an artist produces.
Art also changed usage, from being something that cultivated "taste" to more look on the world in new ways.
Tracing art history from romanticism via modernism to post-modernism one can try to see what comes after, supposedly by looking at the state of the art of art. Maybe, as the author Bartley suggests, there will be a shift to pluralism, to accept all kind of values?
Finally, in the editorial, the question, what is good art is asked. After some discussions- What is good is defined by the individual. By you and me.
In the lead article Vargas Gomez discusses "art as an encounter". Or rather, how is the subjectivity of the artwork to be seen from a painters and a viewer point of view.
While art in later days have been more accessible to all Vargas sees a "loss of perspective on art". He argues that to really appreciate a painting you have to understand the "values" that comes with the painting. Or rather, the values the observer has will be mixed with the values the artist weaves into the artwok.
Now what is those "values"? For a starter, the artist always have a purpose even if just randomly splatting some ink on a canvas. What the artist produces is something subjective, not like an engineer that produces a mobile phone (maybe). It is the "spiritual value" of the painter that is weaved into the artwork.
Now, for the viewer it is the task to understand these values, the "unique spirituality" of the painter behind the artwork being viewed. And maybe, the community as a whole will have to find it´s own sprirituality to find the proper place for art in society. An openness to the artists spirituality and the viewers own spirituality is the name of the game to get a sense of fulfilment.
--------------
Well, the articles kind of presupposes that art is something to care about. Translating directly from swedish, walking around in museums or galleries is for the "cultural elite". You know, Upper class ladies that protested against USA in Vietnam in ´68. A little exaggerated, a middle class guy like me can really appreciate Musee d´Orsay. But for sure, even the commoners gets confronted with movies, music, architecture. But do we really "try to find the values" of those kind of artworks? Well, maybe. I watched, for maybe the 15th time the brilliant animated movie "Anastasia" together with my now 16 years old daughter, a father-daughter thing we have together. And for sure, there is values there. That the czar is kind of the good guy, that Rasputin was the cause of his downfall. That people starved during the czar regime is not mentioned at all. A view that kind of clashes with the semi-communistic swedish view that we and maybe our community shares. Yes, maybe it enriches us to try to appreciate art to see the world.
Maybe I have started to see some kind of point in caring about art philosophically. But I prefer reading a book or an article, I think.
My first immediate question - why do philosophers bother about art(and about aestetics in general). The world goes around, people live their lives with or without art. It seems rather uninteresting to care so much for something that useless. Or? Let´s see what they have to say:
In the editorial Grant Bartley starts with the paradigm shift where Marcel Duchamp changed the attitude of looking at art as something beautiful to mean just like anything an artist produces.
Art also changed usage, from being something that cultivated "taste" to more look on the world in new ways.
Tracing art history from romanticism via modernism to post-modernism one can try to see what comes after, supposedly by looking at the state of the art of art. Maybe, as the author Bartley suggests, there will be a shift to pluralism, to accept all kind of values?
Finally, in the editorial, the question, what is good art is asked. After some discussions- What is good is defined by the individual. By you and me.
In the lead article Vargas Gomez discusses "art as an encounter". Or rather, how is the subjectivity of the artwork to be seen from a painters and a viewer point of view.
While art in later days have been more accessible to all Vargas sees a "loss of perspective on art". He argues that to really appreciate a painting you have to understand the "values" that comes with the painting. Or rather, the values the observer has will be mixed with the values the artist weaves into the artwok.
Now what is those "values"? For a starter, the artist always have a purpose even if just randomly splatting some ink on a canvas. What the artist produces is something subjective, not like an engineer that produces a mobile phone (maybe). It is the "spiritual value" of the painter that is weaved into the artwork.
Now, for the viewer it is the task to understand these values, the "unique spirituality" of the painter behind the artwork being viewed. And maybe, the community as a whole will have to find it´s own sprirituality to find the proper place for art in society. An openness to the artists spirituality and the viewers own spirituality is the name of the game to get a sense of fulfilment.
--------------
Well, the articles kind of presupposes that art is something to care about. Translating directly from swedish, walking around in museums or galleries is for the "cultural elite". You know, Upper class ladies that protested against USA in Vietnam in ´68. A little exaggerated, a middle class guy like me can really appreciate Musee d´Orsay. But for sure, even the commoners gets confronted with movies, music, architecture. But do we really "try to find the values" of those kind of artworks? Well, maybe. I watched, for maybe the 15th time the brilliant animated movie "Anastasia" together with my now 16 years old daughter, a father-daughter thing we have together. And for sure, there is values there. That the czar is kind of the good guy, that Rasputin was the cause of his downfall. That people starved during the czar regime is not mentioned at all. A view that kind of clashes with the semi-communistic swedish view that we and maybe our community shares. Yes, maybe it enriches us to try to appreciate art to see the world.
Maybe I have started to see some kind of point in caring about art philosophically. But I prefer reading a book or an article, I think.
söndag 14 juni 2015
Listened to "Creativity unleashed" on "Philosopher's Zone"
The Radio show "Philosopher's zone" from Australia do have some interesting topics sometimes, and the programs are quite enjoyable. This morning, I heard a radio show on creativity.
Street Art, Tagging, bombing is by some people considered something bad, and I suppose in most countries it's actually prohibited. But this was the angle the program choosed as an angle to discuss creativity.
First, however, a more general philosophical discussion was made on Creativity, starting with Nietzsche's discussions on the "Dionysian" VS the "Appolonian". Where the Dionysian is considered to be more the artistic, inspirational part of the world, and the Appolonian is the logical, concrete part. Taking parallell from ancient Greec dramas, Nietzsche concludes that it is a mix of the both that is needed for a successful drama. Or life.
The discussion continues with an interview with a university philosopher Rodrigues in Phenomenology from Perth, who argues that the Rational, Dualistic way to look upon the world (Me in here, the world outside) can be challenged by considering the self as a part of the world, challenging the Cogito, ergo sum by Descartes. The world was there before us, we are in it, and we can modify it. The self has to be biased with the world, so to speak, in an orderly mixture.
Finally, the Street Art topic is discussed, Eggleston, head for some street art project in Australia discusses the ways to look upon spaces within the cities, the way they change, the way they are perceived, not just as buildings and streets, but also the way everything appears. And she argues that it is in the change, eg by making different art projects as well as redesigning the cities as such by architects that the city gets life.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/
---------------------------------
Now, what do I think about this? Well, It's easy to say that it is good that people should be creative, realize their inner selfs and so. But then, why don't most people write books or make paintings?
Who does? Quite broadly, Idlers. People who don't have a life story of "work". You are brought up, poor or relatively wealthy, but with your parents firmly in a background of being employees or housewifes. The story of your life is either to get a job or first study and then get a job. (Until the 80's, the story for a woman could also be to take care of a family. Not so any longer in Sweden). To make a life possible. Doing that, and later getting a family will take most of your energy, so even if you have some artistic talent, that's something you dont do.
While people from "good families" do, even if they are rather short on money tries to answer the question "how do I want to live my life" rather than "what will I do for a living". Most, at least Swedish authors or artists (and Academical Philosophers) do come from a non-job background. Street artists, Taggers and bombers? Are they rich, from good famililes? No - but they are Idle for other reasons.
There is another story then "Rich VS Poor", namely "working VS not-working". The Rich and the poor VS the guys in the middle so to speak. And the working class and the middle class is not supposed to write books, they are supposed to work.
Having said that - of course you should not consider yourself a "victim" if you are born to "work" but have artistic talents. But the journey will be much harder, maybe especially towards yourself, since you are brought up thinking things like "art" is a pastime, at most.
So the challenge, as I see it, is to encourage also the working classes to ask "what do I want to do with my life".
Street Art, Tagging, bombing is by some people considered something bad, and I suppose in most countries it's actually prohibited. But this was the angle the program choosed as an angle to discuss creativity.
First, however, a more general philosophical discussion was made on Creativity, starting with Nietzsche's discussions on the "Dionysian" VS the "Appolonian". Where the Dionysian is considered to be more the artistic, inspirational part of the world, and the Appolonian is the logical, concrete part. Taking parallell from ancient Greec dramas, Nietzsche concludes that it is a mix of the both that is needed for a successful drama. Or life.
The discussion continues with an interview with a university philosopher Rodrigues in Phenomenology from Perth, who argues that the Rational, Dualistic way to look upon the world (Me in here, the world outside) can be challenged by considering the self as a part of the world, challenging the Cogito, ergo sum by Descartes. The world was there before us, we are in it, and we can modify it. The self has to be biased with the world, so to speak, in an orderly mixture.
Finally, the Street Art topic is discussed, Eggleston, head for some street art project in Australia discusses the ways to look upon spaces within the cities, the way they change, the way they are perceived, not just as buildings and streets, but also the way everything appears. And she argues that it is in the change, eg by making different art projects as well as redesigning the cities as such by architects that the city gets life.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/
---------------------------------
Now, what do I think about this? Well, It's easy to say that it is good that people should be creative, realize their inner selfs and so. But then, why don't most people write books or make paintings?
Who does? Quite broadly, Idlers. People who don't have a life story of "work". You are brought up, poor or relatively wealthy, but with your parents firmly in a background of being employees or housewifes. The story of your life is either to get a job or first study and then get a job. (Until the 80's, the story for a woman could also be to take care of a family. Not so any longer in Sweden). To make a life possible. Doing that, and later getting a family will take most of your energy, so even if you have some artistic talent, that's something you dont do.
While people from "good families" do, even if they are rather short on money tries to answer the question "how do I want to live my life" rather than "what will I do for a living". Most, at least Swedish authors or artists (and Academical Philosophers) do come from a non-job background. Street artists, Taggers and bombers? Are they rich, from good famililes? No - but they are Idle for other reasons.
There is another story then "Rich VS Poor", namely "working VS not-working". The Rich and the poor VS the guys in the middle so to speak. And the working class and the middle class is not supposed to write books, they are supposed to work.
Having said that - of course you should not consider yourself a "victim" if you are born to "work" but have artistic talents. But the journey will be much harder, maybe especially towards yourself, since you are brought up thinking things like "art" is a pastime, at most.
So the challenge, as I see it, is to encourage also the working classes to ask "what do I want to do with my life".
First post in new blog!
In this blog my main goal is to summarize what I read and hear when I, as an amateur in the correct sene of the word, am trying to learn philosophy. I did not study philosophy at school, I got interested in philosophy rather "late in life", and have a day time job doing completely different things (computer engineering).
I am from Sweden, living in the University town of Uppsala. I went to a evening time course on "history of ideas" in Uppsala University in 2008, after that my interest in philosophy awakened! Having initally read general works and history of philosophy, I have now read quite a lot of original works by some of the "big guns" of philosophy. "Sein und Zeit" by Heidegger is the toughest one so far... Lately, I have read quite a lot Political Philosophy, most notably Rawls "A theory of Justice" and "Anarchy, State and Utopia" by Nozick. I do listen to a lot of philosophical Radio programs from different countries, subscribe for philosophical magazines, take part in philosophical forums on the web and I do have some contact with the Academical Philosophers at Uppsala university.
I am from Sweden, living in the University town of Uppsala. I went to a evening time course on "history of ideas" in Uppsala University in 2008, after that my interest in philosophy awakened! Having initally read general works and history of philosophy, I have now read quite a lot of original works by some of the "big guns" of philosophy. "Sein und Zeit" by Heidegger is the toughest one so far... Lately, I have read quite a lot Political Philosophy, most notably Rawls "A theory of Justice" and "Anarchy, State and Utopia" by Nozick. I do listen to a lot of philosophical Radio programs from different countries, subscribe for philosophical magazines, take part in philosophical forums on the web and I do have some contact with the Academical Philosophers at Uppsala university.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)