L
LegoGE1947
Guest
How about Buddha D—it!
- Status
H
HardRockGTR
Guest
P
POJIUJH
Guest
The clear genius being in man who trains them.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
**bs
Art can be used to make idols and false gods, as well as statues of Saints, so art in itself doesn’t prove the existence of God. It’s a gift, a tool man can use for good or for bad. **
Yes, art can be twisted from good to bad. The good art proves the existence of God. But the bad art proves the existence of the Devil.
Art can be used to make idols and false gods, as well as statues of Saints, so art in itself doesn’t prove the existence of God. It’s a gift, a tool man can use for good or for bad. **
Yes, art can be twisted from good to bad. The good art proves the existence of God. But the bad art proves the existence of the Devil.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
**Qouleth
No, not Mozart. He is too simple and trite- music for the right hand.**
Heretic!
No, not Mozart. He is too simple and trite- music for the right hand.**
Heretic!
C
Contarini
Guest
Agreed.**Qouleth
No, not Mozart. He is too simple and trite- music for the right hand.**
Heretic!
I’m now willing to grant (after years of pressure from my wife) that Bach is more profound than Mozart. But Mozart has the divine gift of melody to a greater extent than Bach. I don’t think that’s trite at all.
I won my wife over to appreciate the depth and profundity of Mozart with the finale of Don Giovanni (the part where he’s being dragged into hell, not the song everyone sings afterward, of course).
Edwin
R
raikou
Guest
O Lord my God, When I in awesome wonder,
Consider all the worlds Thy Hands have made;
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
Thy power throughout the universe displayed.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art.
Consider all the worlds Thy Hands have made;
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
Thy power throughout the universe displayed.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art.
H
HardRockGTR
Guest
In a linked article it says that elephants in the wild have the tendency to doodle in the sand.
This article seems to suggest that certain birds arrange their nests in “artistic” ways.
It’s also important to define art as a philosophical context, because it could mean anything otherwise.
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
I asked Art and he said “I dunno!”
P
POJIUJH
Guest
Exactly right. My dog also digs sand solely because he likes the feel of it on his paws. I also used to smash play-doh together and turn it into interesting shapes when I was young, not because I was attempting to express myself through an artistic medium, just because I liked smashing the stuff and squishing it in my hands.
If in the future the common way of art was to squish and smash playdoh, if they saw a picture of me they might mistake me for an entrepreneur.
There are so many definitions of art that I put it down to the artists themselves, when a person can’t define what it is they are obsessed with it usually means that they have overblown it in their minds beyond reason.
I say it’s fairly easy, and that it is best defined as a form of semi-creation (creating something out of pre-existing things), formed in a way to bear witness to some truth. When a person goes crazy on a canvas, I can’t call that art for the same reason I couldn’t call the playdoh that fell out of my hands art.
But I digress!
In The Everlasting Man he started from the fact that ancient art proved that man was different from the animals because his drawings showed that he was aware of himself and of them. They expressed by implication that he possessed a philosophical mind, and he argued that the idea of big, dull, stupid caveman was a popular myth whereas we have more solid evidence to say that he was no different at all to modern man.
I think G.K. would agree that an animal can dig a stick into muck or dig a hole in sand, or a human (of any age) could squish muck and hammer two bits of clay together, but that humanity alone has the gift of creation - only finitely. That it really expresses the truth to the words that we are made in the image of the Infinite One that created us.
L
LegoGE1947
Guest
I have never seen an animal driving an excavator or dump truck or work on scaffolding with hammer and nails.
H
HardRockGTR
Guest
Hold on, I’ll have to stop you there.
Other animals have, to certain level, shown what appears to be self-awareness through the mirror test. Of course, it’s not foolproof, but it’s interesting to watch a magpie, dolphin, elephant or ape look at its reflection, only for it to notice a spot of paint on its forehead, put there by the testers, and subsequently wipe it off themselves and not off the reflection.
All that said, humans tend to fail the mirror test until they’re about 18 months old.
I’m not arguing that God doesn’t exist, rather, I’m arguing that art doesn’t prove God, and I myself am an artist (a musical composer, to be precise).
P
POJIUJH
Guest
The existence of anything proves the existence of God (an uncaused cause), the ability of man to create art only adds character the creater, if we work purely from the ground up.
What I’m referring to isn’t psychological awareness, it’s the unique awareness that humanity alone has, or to sum it up quickly “man is aware of himself being aware of himself”. Some animals have the same or greater brain power and intellect (in a sense of the word) to young children, yet young children are also able to think philosophically and prove it through speech, art and expression whereas animals just don’t have this ability.
Think of it, if it’s impressive that a man can teach an elephant to memorise where abouts to score one line in relation to another on a blank canvass, what would it say about the One who gave mankind the actual ability of creation (only finite).
H
HardRockGTR
Guest
The existence of anything proves, as you say, an uncaused cause, which to Christians is Yahweh, to Muslims is Allah, to Hindus is Brahman, to non-religious individuals can be a quantum subspace which allows for fluctuations that can result in the birth of a universe, to pantheists is the universe itself, and so on.
The existence of anything proves the existence of God (an uncaused cause), the ability of man to create art only adds character the creater, if we work purely from the ground up.
It’s undeniable that a first cause exists or had once existed (or, we adopt infinitism); however, it’s not certain let alone obvious that this first cause is a personal God, let alone the Christian God (there are other arguments for that). One thing I like about William Craig is that he doesn’t put forward the Christian God in his arguments; rather, his God is more vague and only has a few properties, which change depending on the argument. In your linked article, the only aspect that is attributed to God is creation. Because of this, the problem of God’s existence or inexistence is slowly solved by attacking specific parts of said problem rather than attacking it head-on, all at once.
I highly doubt not being able to express thoughts means one cannot have such thoughts. A newborn or a heavily handicapped person cannot express thoughts, but it’s not to say they don’t have them. Animals, on the other hand, can enjoy certain foods or certain games and can communicate it with humans by not eating food they dislike an not playing games they dislike.
As a matter of fact, perhaps animals wind up being more philosophical than humans, because they don’t have libraries, or word to mouth, or the internet, to learn about philosophy, and would hypothetically have to do it all themselves.
As I’ve said, animals have artistic tendencies in nature. I feel that the existence of art isn’t a good way to prove God’s existence. There are better arguments for it. Rather, it could be proof that man is a brilliant and advanced species.
P
POJIUJH
Guest
I’m sorry I have to snip this so much, but I have to charitably correct your understanding on these points.
The philosophical wealth on what we can know about this Uncaused Cause, based on observation of the natural world as well as plain natural reason, might be more substantial thank you think. To give an example of this (which also relates to art as well) we ourselves are a product of this Uncaused Cause. Since we are individual, living, personal beings, the Uncaused Cause cannot be lesser than we are, since we are a product of It and you cannot give what you do not have, it must be at least what we are, but much more likely greater (like the Trinity, a good example that other faiths don’t share).
Anything that exists will ultimately be, in some way or another, a reflection of the nature of the Uncaused Cause. Art isn’t put forward as a proof very often, because it’s the logic of causality attached to art that works as a proof, but art itself like I said, has the extra benefit in that tells us about the creator. So in the same sense we can say that the existence of art acts as both a proof and a biography of the Creator.
Beauty, intellect, personality and the ability of expression must be a property of something which is a maximally great
Pax!
A persons understanding can be closer or further from reality, as in the case of us, Muslims or Hindus, but a difference of idea doesn’t say that all are incorrect. The idea of a quantum subspace is also something purely taken on faith, but that too, just like pantheism, runs foul of the logic you would find with causality. Unless the universe or a quantum subspace possessed the qualities that are expected from something that must be maximally great, we would have to admit that they too must have a cause that is greater than them.
There is a small error here, a first cause is different in definition to an Uncaused Cause, an Uncaused Cause cannot cease to exist as everything is dependent upon the existence of it, instead, it is existence itself. If the Uncaused Cause where to cease to exist (breaking logic, but just to make a point) everything else would cease to exist too.
The philosophical wealth on what we can know about this Uncaused Cause, based on observation of the natural world as well as plain natural reason, might be more substantial thank you think. To give an example of this (which also relates to art as well) we ourselves are a product of this Uncaused Cause. Since we are individual, living, personal beings, the Uncaused Cause cannot be lesser than we are, since we are a product of It and you cannot give what you do not have, it must be at least what we are, but much more likely greater (like the Trinity, a good example that other faiths don’t share).
Anything that exists will ultimately be, in some way or another, a reflection of the nature of the Uncaused Cause. Art isn’t put forward as a proof very often, because it’s the logic of causality attached to art that works as a proof, but art itself like I said, has the extra benefit in that tells us about the creator. So in the same sense we can say that the existence of art acts as both a proof and a biography of the Creator.
Beauty, intellect, personality and the ability of expression must be a property of something which is a maximally great
Indeed, but if animals are able to create art, which is itself an expression, then we should see philosophical thoughts being expressed. If they make movements that look like art but that lack expression then we would have to say that they aren’t quite able to create art. The car is there but it has no petrol, so to speak.
And I’m sorry again for spacing these quotes in a sort of haphazard way being short of time, but your last sentence is exactly right, only it can be held that art itself shows man to be even more brilliant.
Pax!
H
HardRockGTR
Guest
It’s appreciated!
Of course. But if God of the bible (or the Avesta, or the Vedas, and so on) is infinitely great, then it’s not too much of a stretch to assume infinitism (that is, for there not to be a first cause, and that all causes have causes ad infinitum) to also be plausible. Personally, I’m not an infinitist as I have a handful of reasons not to be (such as the immaterial, abstractual, mathematically potential and non-tangible aspects of infinity as William Lane Craig uses it, as well as Kant’s argument that states an infinitely old universe would require an infinite amount of days to arrive to today). Because of this, I cannot say God is infinite as that would be contradictory. Instead, as you say, God is maximal.
Pantheism is the belief that everything that exists, as a whole, is the maximally greatest being that exists (and from there, the only being that exists). A slightly different approach, panentheism, is the belief that God contains the universe but transcends it. In fact, Christianity is perhaps the only major panentheistic religion, as God is both immanent and transcendental. This is not true for Judaism, Islam or Bahai Faith, which assert that God is wholly transcendental.
As for the quantum subspace, it is a matter discussed in theoretical physics, which is a fairly young branch in science that even theoretical physicists themselves have difficulty grasping concretely. I’m not a scientist so I could have erroneous claims when talking about it, so I’ll humbly admit that this is where I must stop assuming I know what I’m talking about. That said, it’s a scientific approach to universal birth and as such has scientific foundation to it. Science and philosophy/theology are a risky but often necessary mix, although science has had historically erroneously accepted theories such as phlogiston or geocentrism, so we can assume it to be plausibly wrong in this philosophical discussion. Because of this, I’ll agree with you that, in some way or another, this also is taken on faith, just like denying solipsism requires faith.
H
HardRockGTR
Guest
I’m not sure I understand the difference, but I meant it in that sense; that the first cause is uncaused, because of its inherently ‘different’ nature.
Definitely. This is also why we couldn’t possibly comprehend God as we couldn’t possess God in our finite minds. The anthropic principle holds that all life observing the universe proves that the universe must be capable of sustaining life capable of observing it. Looking at it this way kind of gives weight to the pantheists, in my opinion, as I doubt we’ll ever fully comprehend or know the universe. I don’t identify as a pantheist, however.
Of course, as is all non-necessary being. Beauty, however, like aesthetics in general, is abstract, and, as all concepts, is a necessary being.
God, or the uncaused cause, would theoretically be the only non-abstract necessary being that exists.
Until we get inside the animal’s mind, however, we won’t know for sure. And even then, there are 8.7 million animal species currently extant on Earth. And who knows, maybe even fungi, prokaryotes and plants have a certain level of consciousness that may allow a sliver of philosophy or appreciation.
True, but allow me to offer this as a rebuttal: if my dog dislikes a certain type of food or a certain game, he will not eat said food or play said game. The dog has tastes (or, as the adage states, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”; a staple of aesthetic thought) and as such, has reason not to eat the food or play the game.
Really, what is philosophy, anyway? If you think about it, it’s necessary to properly define it first.
Cheers!
P
POJIUJH
Guest
Yes you’re right. I thought that is what you meant, it was only that you mentioned that it possibly once existed and not anymore that I wanted to correct, just in case you were adding it up different than the way I had read you.
Yep indeed! To go one step even further, we know for certain that the universe itself is sustained by something else. What is even more amazing when you think of it, is that everything in the universe is made up of dead, assembled matter, moving in a mechanical way. Everything except us, who can chose to act against any animal instinct in us. Everything acts according to it’s function, but we alone have the ability to go against ours. This must mean that we were made by something greater than the universe since nothing else has this function, even animals.
Yep Indeed!
But it is possible to get inside the animals mind, we do that by observation. The only creature we know on Earth that definitely has a rational mind is man, if other creatures had a rational mind like us we ought to notice the same things in them. For instance if we went to another planet to look for rational lifeforms, two things we would expect to find would be art (in the definition I gave a while ago, a created expression of some immortal truth), followed by books - which all contain some kind of philosophical thought, even if it’s terrible.
Animals are able to express themselves too, it’s just that what they express isn’t rational thought. They have souls too, only what is called sensitive souls. They are able to feel happiness, excitement, affection, even pain and they express these, but if they were rational like we are then we would need to assume that they are massive liars that will trick us every time we are in their presence and observe them. But I don’t think that’s right!
I was talking more about expression here. If animals are able to draw, but their drawing amounts to nothing, we would say that they are able to draw but don’t have the capacity to fill it with expression other than an act of movement out of boredom, like a car that has wheels and an engine but amounts to nothing since it has no fuel. It’s really the expression of some truth along with the ability to draw that creates art.
But to say, beauty is objective, our likes and dislikes are subjective. We can’t really change what we like or don’t like, but we can still appreciate beauty. I really don’t like the look of a Ferrari Enzo and wouldn’t drive one even if I was a billionaire, but I can still say that it is a more beautiful car than my 2003 Toyota Yaris, which I prefer. I don’t like Van Gogh’s paintings very much, but I can still appreciate that it is beautiful art.
You should try and pick up Gk Chesterton’s The Immortal Man if you can, it’s very good. I think it’s pretty cheap on kindle if you happen to have one. I think I will get reading it again now that we’re talking about it!
I might not get around my computer for a while now, so good luck to you in case I don’t get back to you.
H
HardRockGTR
Guest
Ah, okay, I see.
I’m going to go into theoretical physics again (so don’t quote me on this if I’m wrong), but if I’m not mistaken, elemental particles behave as if they have a conscience, “choosing” their paths.
I don’t see why you object to animals having the capability to go against their functions; I see quite the opposite, unless I misunderstood your definition of ‘function’.
We could also be the only currently advanced species; give the Earth another million years and we might encounter non-Homo primates with these capabilities.
Also, it’s important to define ‘rational’ here. A newborn child probably hasn’t yet developed rational thought. However, a dog that nearly drowns as a puppy and is saved at the last moment will rationally avoid water. I would know, my childhood dog was like that.
Symbiotic relationships rely entirely on logical action and inaction; you have some species of bird that live in symbiosis with certain crocodiles. The crock catches a prey, eats it, and the birds clean up its teeth. These birds gain a meal by cleaning the crocodile’s mouth. The crock could eat these birds, but chooses not to, because his teeth would remain dirty, and he would no longer have the birds to clean up his teeth anymore.
I’m not sure whether books are necessary - they could have a different manner of communicating their thoughts. I also doubt ALL their books will contain philosophical thought. I doubt you could argue that a children’s book about a kitten who goes to the beach is philosophical.
As for your definition, it seems rather restrictive, as there have been paintings of invented creatures and beings, and music and dance are expressive, but don’t have any “truth” value to them. Again, what may be construed as art for us may not be the same for other life forms and vice-versa.
I’m not sure I understand this. If they don’t have the ability to express certain things, they won’t; that doesn’t mean they don’t possess the ability to perceive or think these things. I don’t have the ability to fly, but that doesn’t mean I can’t think of myself flying.
Animals can dance, sing, draw, and decorate.
I just noticed something though… how does proving that only humans are capable of art relate to there being a God anyway? Bats are the only mammals capable of flying, so does that mean God gave them that ability too?
Beauty is another thing that needs defining. Because of this, beauty is a concept that cannot be calculated without some bias, and relies on the reaction of an observer with respect to the artwork observed.
I can think that ugliness has its own beauty. Does that make ugliness beautiful by default or is everything beautiful?
Thanks, likewiseYou should try and pick up Gk Chesterton’s The Immortal Man if you can, it’s very good. I think it’s pretty cheap on kindle if you happen to have one. I think I will get reading it again now that we’re talking about it!
I might not get around my computer for a while now, so good luck to you in case I don’t get back to you.
D
daler
Guest
I have always felt like a really Good Sunset does…
- Status