Argument Blog - Page 3

On August 29 2008 05:13 Kletus wrote:


And I'm quite sure that you'd move your leg but a fraction to the left, you would find that it would cease to be peed upon.

On August 29 2008 05:36 Makhno wrote:


I disagree. I don't see art as something that trancsends time and place to the level that it becomes close to supernatural, as I interpret your understanding of it (though I may have misunderstood your view of art itself). I see art as something thought- and feeling provoking, a thing that almost forces a reaction from the viewer. It can sometimes be so moving for the individual that they value it above basically everything else. But I still think it's something physical, made by man for man, which provokes a physical response which can be understood by humans.

As for value, my argument is that you can establish some sort of physical value, the appreciation of mankind and the general value given by man, both now and then. This however is only material. But the sort of inner value, the higher sense of value, I don't think exists, not for art and not for anything.

On August 29 2008 07:03 BanZu wrote:

Now if you two are done bickering I would like open an invitation for all to an afternoon of tea and crumpets and perhaps followed by a friendly game of croquet.

On August 29 2008 07:01 Falcynn wrote:
Yes yes yes yes yes, BUT my leg was here first.

On August 29 2008 07:36 travis wrote:
nothing transcends time

On August 29 2008 07:45 Falcynn wrote:


Damn it, I thought we were going to finish this first T.T

On August 29 2008 07:58 travis wrote:
Isn't everything we talk about from a human being's perspective?

In what way can something transcend time?

On August 29 2008 07:17 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


Art's value isn't physical though. Nobody (that actually tries and understand appreciate art, basically I am discluding thoughs that buy art for purely superficial purposes and would buy a lump of poop if someone told them it was amazing) buys art for the space it fills but rather what it represents and evokes. That worth, that value is not physical and cannot be grasped as its experience is unique and independent to each person. This of course is getting into the debate as to whether or not you believe people can experience an emotion exactly the same way. I argue they cannot. In fact each time someone feels sadness or happiness that feeling is unique to previous or future feelings as well. That is how I reason that art's "value" and worth transcends time.. the fact that emotions do the same and art is an emotional provateur means they are one in the same, relatively speaking.

Your point on inner value is interesting. While I agree, quantifying it is impossible I think to argue it doesn't exist is a folly. People (as I have said) have died for art, sacrificed much more than material worth to obtain certain pieces of art. To say they did it in every case without inner value is incorrect I would argue.

On August 29 2008 05:21 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


We agree on "young contemporary" art except that you misunderstood me: All art is potentially "young" in my opinion. Mere human beings do no determine whether or not art is great or amazing. Art transcends time and place so that their value can articifically be labeled by people of that current time.. but its actual value and worth is undetermined. People have died for art, wars have been fought and societies burried.. how do you place a value on that art? You cannot. That is my argument.

On August 29 2008 06:56 travis wrote:
why do all neuroscientists conveniently ignore the fact that there is no logical reason as to why anyone should experience anything.

actually, pretty much all empiricists (like everyone in the west and most in the east) have this same flaw. even new-age philosophers(and most from the past) seem to have this flaw, those who claim they are pursuing truth. and when you bring it up they ignore that you even made a point, they say that science will explain it, in the future. that they are getting closer to explaining how experience happens via matter. meanwhile they ignore the question of why it would ever happen in the first place. why is this?

On August 29 2008 07:01 travis wrote:
Why is it that so very few people are interested in knowing what they are. Shouldn't this be the most important question you can answer before you die?


Why is it that so many people follow a religion they don't even understand, even when it states that for that lack of understanding they will spend eternity in hell. Are they unable to bring theirself to think of anything outside their attachments and desires for 10 fucking minutes to find out how retarded their beliefs are?

On August 29 2008 07:17 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


Art's value isn't physical though. Nobody (that actually tries and understand appreciate art, basically I am discluding thoughs that buy art for purely superficial purposes and would buy a lump of poop if someone told them it was amazing) buys art for the space it fills but rather what it represents and evokes. That worth, that value is not physical and cannot be grasped as its experience is unique and independent to each person. This of course is getting into the debate as to whether or not you believe people can experience an emotion exactly the same way. I argue they cannot. In fact each time someone feels sadness or happiness that feeling is unique to previous or future feelings as well. That is how I reason that art's "value" and worth transcends time.. the fact that emotions do the same and art is an emotional provateur means they are one in the same, relatively speaking.

Your point on inner value is interesting. While I agree, quantifying it is impossible I think to argue it doesn't exist is a folly. People (as I have said) have died for art, sacrificed much more than material worth to obtain certain pieces of art. To say they did it in every case without inner value is incorrect I would argue.

On August 29 2008 11:37 zulu_nation8 wrote:


Because doing philosophy, or anything from experience traps you into a hole that no one can get out of. So after Heidegger came in and said we should start from our everyday actions instead of the mind itself, philosophy got a lot easier and everyone is happy.

If you start from the mind and your own private experiences you can never look me in the face with logical reasoning

and tell me you are directly interacting with the world and that you are not a transcendental subject yourself.