Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

aesthetic knowledge

drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 8:42:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 8:33:19 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
What is better, scientific knowledge or aesthetic knowledge?

Better in what sense?
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 8:47:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 8:42:44 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/7/2012 8:33:19 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
What is better, scientific knowledge or aesthetic knowledge?

Better in what sense?

Whatever sense it might be better in.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 8:49:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 8:47:48 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
At 5/7/2012 8:42:44 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/7/2012 8:33:19 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
What is better, scientific knowledge or aesthetic knowledge?

Better in what sense?

Whatever sense it might be better in.

...

That description doesn't beget a useful answer. There are circumstances in which scienctific knowledge would be better and circumstances in which aesthetic knowledge would be better.

What are you looking for, exactly?
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 9:09:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 8:49:25 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/7/2012 8:47:48 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
At 5/7/2012 8:42:44 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/7/2012 8:33:19 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
What is better, scientific knowledge or aesthetic knowledge?

Better in what sense?

Whatever sense it might be better in.

...

That description doesn't beget a useful answer. There are circumstances in which scienctific knowledge would be better and circumstances in which aesthetic knowledge would be better.

What are you looking for, exactly?

Which circumstances science is better and which circumstances aesthetic is better.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 9:16:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 9:09:42 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
At 5/7/2012 8:49:25 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/7/2012 8:47:48 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
At 5/7/2012 8:42:44 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/7/2012 8:33:19 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
What is better, scientific knowledge or aesthetic knowledge?

Better in what sense?

Whatever sense it might be better in.

...

That description doesn't beget a useful answer. There are circumstances in which scienctific knowledge would be better and circumstances in which aesthetic knowledge would be better.

What are you looking for, exactly?

Which circumstances science is better and which circumstances aesthetic is better.

Scientific knowledge is better for advancing fields of science.
Aesthetic knowledge is better for advancing fields of aesthetics.

Like I said, the question is trivial unless you want to pick some specific area in which the utility of each is actually in dispute. I'm not sure that such an area exists.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 9:17:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Aesthetic knowledge is functional for communication only.

Scientific knowledge is functional for understanding and maneuvering reality.
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 9:21:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 9:16:30 AM, drafterman wrote:
Scientific knowledge is better for advancing fields of science.
Aesthetic knowledge is better for advancing fields of aesthetics.

Like I said, the question is trivial unless you want to pick some specific area in which the utility of each is actually in dispute. I'm not sure that such an area exists.

What are the corollaries of advancing fields of science and what are the corollaries of advancing fields of aesthetics?

Given that information, which, to you, is better; if you had a choice to keep scientific or aesthetic knowledge, which would you choose?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 9:34:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 9:21:44 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
At 5/7/2012 9:16:30 AM, drafterman wrote:
Scientific knowledge is better for advancing fields of science.
Aesthetic knowledge is better for advancing fields of aesthetics.

Like I said, the question is trivial unless you want to pick some specific area in which the utility of each is actually in dispute. I'm not sure that such an area exists.

What are the corollaries of advancing fields of science and what are the corollaries of advancing fields of aesthetics?

What.. like all of them? HellifIknow.


Given that information, which, to you, is better; if you had a choice to keep scientific or aesthetic knowledge, which would you choose?

Scientific, I guess.
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 9:48:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 9:17:41 AM, Ren wrote:
Aesthetic knowledge is functional for communication only.

Scientific knowledge is functional for understanding and maneuvering reality.

I definitely have to disagree with the first statement. The function of aesthetic knowledge is knowing. The function of aesthetic expression is communication.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 9:51:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 9:48:28 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
At 5/7/2012 9:17:41 AM, Ren wrote:
Aesthetic knowledge is functional for communication only.

Scientific knowledge is functional for understanding and maneuvering reality.

I definitely have to disagree with the first statement. The function of aesthetic knowledge is knowing. The function of aesthetic expression is communication.

The functional of all knowledge is knowing, really. But, the reasoning behind knowing anything is to apply that knowledge. The application of aesthetic knowledge is aesthetic communication.

So, you accrue aesthetic knowledge for the purpose of communication.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 10:08:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 9:51:07 AM, Ren wrote:
At 5/7/2012 9:48:28 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
At 5/7/2012 9:17:41 AM, Ren wrote:
Aesthetic knowledge is functional for communication only.

Scientific knowledge is functional for understanding and maneuvering reality.

I definitely have to disagree with the first statement. The function of aesthetic knowledge is knowing. The function of aesthetic expression is communication.

The functional of all knowledge is knowing, really. But, the reasoning behind knowing anything is to apply that knowledge. The application of aesthetic knowledge is aesthetic communication.

So, you accrue aesthetic knowledge for the purpose of communication.

The Problem with the question is that ALL that is names science is not the same.

Just like philosophy, they have incorperated the same name, when they need to be Loudly seperated.

There is Rational philososphy, which deals with epistemology, science, logic math, philsophy of mind, this progress.

And there is believe or Opinion based philosophy, such as post-modernism or exitentialism, contintinal, or theology.

Metphysics is kinda in the middle. I could argue that its mostly BS>

These never make progress its just one idealogy vs the next.

Its sad because then people confuse them, but the first is practical( and really important). the second just causes wars. And activist(the irrational violent ones)

Science is the same, some is bullsh!t, especially that of social scientist. If people really knew the methods they use they would freak.

Aesthetic knowledge is associative knowledge. what sound good, or what looks good. Its more of being a person who likes and know what most people like. An artist or musician, we be a canditade for aethetic knowledge. But the distinction is weak at best. personaly I would ditch it. I would argue that there is only one type for knowledge.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 12:33:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't think it's proper really to separate the two in function. The ability to gain, use, and synthesize scientific knowledge--the experience of learning and sharing, in other words--is, as I understand it, a profound aesthetic experience. Aesthetics validates much of what we--or I, at least--do. There is something beautiful about knowledge. Even a theory is wrong at the fundamental level, I derive aesthetic value from its sophistication and my comprehension of its complexity. I enjoy what I guess I would call "pure experience". I think it derives from this weird separation between the subject of experience and the objective knowledge we claim to therefrom derive. There is, I think, a critical difference between looking at a beautiful sunset and giving a scientific account of precisely what's going on. "I think this is beautiful" is a far cry from "Well, the sun's light is further away, and is interacting with more particles to blend red and blue light to achieve the purple" or whatever the scientific explanation is.

We have even made a linguistic move to try and "scientize" aesthetics by attributing value to the object, rather than the experience. Rather than saying by default "I find this to be beautiful", we say "This is beautiful", as if the beauty rests, as an objective quality to be analyzed, somehow in the object.

Moreover, aesthetic experience, in the form of curiosity and wonder, often motivates scientific discovery. When I look up at the night sky, see the stars, contemplate the vastness of our universe, consider the possibility of other universes, and place myself as a miniscule entity in the context of it all, the sense of awe that strikes me at that moment is precisely what makes me--and perhaps many, if not all cosmologists and their kin--want to learn everything I can about the world around me.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 1:43:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 8:33:19 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
What is better, scientific knowledge or aesthetic knowledge?

Science in Latin means "knowledge" so what you ask is redundant.

It is wrong to even ask that question because to separate them is a mistake. Knowledge is knowledge. There is knowledge of the natural world and how it works and there is knowledge of aesthetics and the ability to comprehend and therefore appreciate beauty, music, art, and all things aesthetic.

.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 6:18:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 1:43:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/7/2012 8:33:19 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
What is better, scientific knowledge or aesthetic knowledge?

Science in Latin means "knowledge" so what you ask is redundant.

Sure, but in English, when we say "science", we generally mean http://oxforddictionaries.com...

Moreover, science, here, refers to a system of knowledge that differs explicitly from aesthetic knowledge in how it comes to claim something can be 'known'. Understanding in a scientific sense is something that is based upon empirically and logically valid processes. These processes are akin to providing a theorem for something as it is understood on a cerebral, logical level.

An aesthetic truth is not the same by any means. Understanding, in an aesthetic sense, is entirely intuitive and that in such a way that it cannot and is not explained in terms of logic or necessarily empirical means; the intuited beauty of something cannot be reduced to the logical analyses of atomic pieces.

I find this distinction extremely important.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 7:03:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 12:33:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I don't think it's proper really to separate the two in function. The ability to gain, use, and synthesize scientific knowledge--the experience of learning and sharing, in other words--is, as I understand it, a profound aesthetic experience. Aesthetics validates much of what we--or I, at least--do. There is something beautiful about knowledge. Even a theory is wrong at the fundamental level, I derive aesthetic value from its sophistication and my comprehension of its complexity. I enjoy what I guess I would call "pure experience". I think it derives from this weird separation between the subject of experience and the objective knowledge we claim to therefrom derive. There is, I think, a critical difference between looking at a beautiful sunset and giving a scientific account of precisely what's going on. "I think this is beautiful" is a far cry from "Well, the sun's light is further away, and is interacting with more particles to blend red and blue light to achieve the purple" or whatever the scientific explanation is.

We have even made a linguistic move to try and "scientize" aesthetics by attributing value to the object, rather than the experience. Rather than saying by default "I find this to be beautiful", we say "This is beautiful", as if the beauty rests, as an objective quality to be analyzed, somehow in the object.

Moreover, aesthetic experience, in the form of curiosity and wonder, often motivates scientific discovery. When I look up at the night sky, see the stars, contemplate the vastness of our universe, consider the possibility of other universes, and place myself as a miniscule entity in the context of it all, the sense of awe that strikes me at that moment is precisely what makes me--and perhaps many, if not all cosmologists and their kin--want to learn everything I can about the world around me.

The Fool: if you are responding to me, I think there is only one type of knowledge.You sound like you know what you are talking about. But I Don't think you defined anything in particular. To broad, and vague to have any rational meaning. aka its not something you can discuss and make any kind of conclusive decision on. I wouldn't call knowledge. but types of emotive intuition or motivation rather.. I would reserve knowledge for that which can formulize predictions.

You sound like a good person to exchange Ideas. I am lonely here.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 10:16:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 1:43:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It is wrong to even ask that question because to separate them is a mistake. Knowledge is knowledge.

I don't really understand this sentiment. Why can't we speak of knowledge as disparate epistemic formations? To me this signals some sort of misconception of 'knowledge' in general.

Knowledge is essentially a 'technology' of consciousness, or at the very least, one of man's primary devices. If a person claims to know that the Earth is spherical, but admits he knows this only by some divine revelation, we would be wrong to accept this claim as a scientific claim. That isn't to say that the proposition isn't true, only that scientific knowledge doesn't present us with just propositions, it presents propositions that presuppose some activity and are supplemented with some demonstrated conceptual and empirical cohesion; that "truth" varies in meaning, as epistemic forms vary.

From these epistemic formations burgeon conceptual forms that are distinct and unique. From the mythic consciousness, we might get the mutually exclusive yet utterly symbiotic forms germane to the diegesis: good and evil, man and nature, etc. There is no ontologically-given, ready-made world of objects with which the mythic mind discords with in representation. Epistemic formations work retroactively to make ever greater distinctions or unities by their own devices; the ontological character of the world is given to consciousness by the agency of the epistemic formation itself.

What I'm getting at is that epistemic-formations are essentially 'ways of perceiving' that are completely irreducible and utterly distinct. What my question implies is they are not all created equal.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 11:11:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 7:03:02 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 5/8/2012 12:33:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I don't think it's proper really to separate the two in function. The ability to gain, use, and synthesize scientific knowledge--the experience of learning and sharing, in other words--is, as I understand it, a profound aesthetic experience. Aesthetics validates much of what we--or I, at least--do. There is something beautiful about knowledge. Even if a theory is wrong at the fundamental level, I derive aesthetic value from its sophistication and my comprehension of its complexity. I enjoy what I guess I would call "pure experience". I think it derives from this weird separation between the subject of experience and the objective knowledge we claim to therefrom derive. There is, I think, a critical difference between looking at a beautiful sunset and giving a scientific account of precisely what's going on. "I think this is beautiful" is a far cry from "Well, the sun's light is further away, and is interacting with more particles to blend red and blue light to achieve the purple" or whatever the scientific explanation is.

We have even made a linguistic move to try and "scientize" aesthetics by attributing value to the object, rather than the experience. Rather than saying by default "I find this to be beautiful", we say "This is beautiful", as if the beauty rests, as an objective quality to be analyzed, somehow in the object.

Moreover, aesthetic experience, in the form of curiosity and wonder, often motivates scientific discovery. When I look up at the night sky, see the stars, contemplate the vastness of our universe, consider the possibility of other universes, and place myself as a miniscule entity in the context of it all, the sense of awe that strikes me at that moment is precisely what makes me--and perhaps many, if not all cosmologists and their kin--want to learn everything I can about the world around me.

The Fool: if you are responding to me, I think there is only one type of knowledge.You sound like you know what you are talking about. But I Don't think you defined anything in particular. To broad, and vague to have any rational meaning. aka its not something you can discuss and make any kind of conclusive decision on. I wouldn't call knowledge. but types of emotive intuition or motivation rather.. I would reserve knowledge for that which can formulize predictions.

First: I was not responding to you in particular, but I am more than happy to bounce ideas off of you.

Second: What have I left undefined? I suspect it is a stretch to say that my comments are "too broad and vague to have any rational meaning"; however, if there has been some misunderstanding on your part--or miscommunication on mine--I am willing to clarify.

Third: My claim is precisely that the comparative question of "aesthetic knowledge" against "scientific knowledge" relies on this fracture between what we actually experience, which is the subject of aesthetic knowledge, and the objective claims that we can make about that experience, which is scientific knowledge. If I strike the cue ball in such a way that I send every ball into a pocket, I would certainly attribute aesthetic value to that experience; however, there is, as I indicated, a fracture between this experience and the scientific analysis that we could formulate after the fact, which would probably include things about physics, the angle of the shot, the material of the table, etc.

You sound like a good person to exchange Ideas. I am lonely here.

Fair enough.