Purposefulness without purpose
ronny_magic
'Purposefulness without purpose'?
And what is he referring to?
--
ronny_magic ICQ: 82601633
Yes, really him.
Robert ASF.
>Where does Kant use the phrase:
CRJ
>'Purposefulness without purpose'?
Got to love the jargon!
>And what is he referring to?
Art in the specific.
In general he means a heck of a lot more.
Just Thought I Should Mention It
ronny_magic
fundamentally unsound:
>>And what is he referring to?
>
> Art in the specific.
> In general he means a heck of a lot more.
Could you give a brief outline of what constitutes 'a heck of a lot
more'?
Would a tree in winter be an example of something that has
Purposefulness without purpose?
Robert ASF.
>fundamentally unsound:
That is so true!
>>>And what is he referring to?
>>
>> Art in the specific.
>> In general he means a heck of a lot more.
>
>Could you give a brief outline of what constitutes 'a heck of a lot
>more'?
Why i could write a book ... oh wait *I* did write a book on it...
>Would a tree in winter be an example of something that has
>Purposefulness without purpose?
It might if it was in some way offered as an artistic event.
Let us begin with art. Art has no purpose. It is not going to feed
you, win a war or anything really. It is nice to look at but artistic
value is merely in the mind. Take a painting. It cost say 100$ in
supplies. Takes 4 hours to paint. So add in another 100$ for time. Yet if
you do it right, it could sell for millions. What then is it value? Think
of Picaso's Sunflowers (I think it was Picaso...) It sold for 20 million
dollars. His cost to paint it was no where near that much. What value does
the thing have? it is a painting of sunflowers. I can take a picture for
you of them during the summer for free... Yet the painting, without a
purpose has value, in this case 20 million $. That value must be
associated with something else besides the purpose, hence a painting is
purposefulness (Value) without having a purpose.
IOW the value is something that is not necessary intrinsic to the
object but to the act. We may further see the act as the artist's veiw of
the subject, in this case a bunch of flowers, which are hardly the most
unusal object. Heck Warhal (sp?) did a painting of a soup can worth
millions as well. I can buy the real thing for less then a dollar. His
painting of it is worth millions?
So the original object flowers or soup cans are not the value. The
material to create the painting is not the value. What then is the value?
The value would rest in the action of the painter in that they
judged the worth of beauty to be this painting. They are saying to the
veiwer that this is what the beautiful should look like. They have made a
judge of aestetics and offered their judgement to the world. The world has
in both examples agreed with the judgement and found it to be valuable.
(My version would be dogs playing cards...)
Now this issue can be extended to a heck of a lot more. Take
political rhetoric, not usually seen as an art form, however it can be
seen as purposefulness without purpose. Rhetoric is merely words that are
empty of facts yet have the appearence of purposefulness to motivate the
crowds. So that the people will be moved to take certain actions or
support measures. ie that they agree with the judgement of the speaker.
Artistic measures are not simply found in art per se. They have
extensions beyond artists. Have you every heard of politics described as a
play? Theater? Drama? Well Kant had. He used that example to illustrate
the notion of politics in artistic forms. The play can be divided into
parts. First we have the audience, you and i watching the actors ie
politicians move about the stage ie the real world be it Washington,
Ottawa, London or Kabul. We can see the actors act out their parts. Some
are better at the art then others. What is key is that people, ie you and
i in the audience are effected by the play. Some are good and some are bad
right? We like or hate the play. In real terms we agree with the policy or
disagree with it. But just as the artist offer to the world their
judgement of beauty in our example of the paintings, so too do politicians
offer their judgement of the world by crafting policies. We the
spectators must then decide for ourselves if we support their judgements
or disagree with them.
Dieter Kiel
<ronny...@h0tmail.deletethis.com> wrote:
>Where does Kant use the phrase:
>
>'Purposefulness without purpose'?
"Zweckmäßigkeit ohne Zweck"
is translated in:
"finality apart from an end"
>And what is he referring to?
See COJ
§§ 10, 15, 22, 24, and 42
ronny_magic
fundamentally unsound:
>>You wouldn't like "Robert ASF." <ra_f...@alcor.concordia.ca>, sir. He's
>>fundamentally unsound:
>
> That is so true!
That's just my default reply text, nothing personal!
> Why i could write a book ... oh wait *I* did write a book on it...
Really?
> Just Thought I Should Mention It
Thanks for the lengthy and interesting reply, I can't really offer any criticism
as aesthetics is *not* my area.
By the way, it was Van Gough who painted the sunflowers.
Robert ASF.
snip
>>>You wouldn't like "Robert ASF." <ra_f...@alcor.concordia.ca>, sir. He's
>>>fundamentally unsound:
>>
>> That is so true!
>
>That's just my default reply text, nothing personal!
:-)
Still it is true!
>> Why i could write a book ... oh wait *I* did write a book on it...
>
>Really?
It is called the possibility of Judgement
>> Just Thought I Should Mention It
>
>Thanks for the lengthy and interesting reply, I can't really offer any criticism
>as aesthetics is *not* my area.
Actually it is not mine either. The only one that i know is Kant's
and that is because it is needed for his political theory.
>By the way, it was Van Gough who painted the sunflowers.
As has been pointed out to me in an email, i know nothing about
art history. I plead guilty. When doing history, we had to open our course
to the art historians but they would never open their courses for us. Not
even an intro course. So i have never taken a single course on the
subject.
Wordsmith
> Where does Kant use the phrase:
>
> 'Purposefulness without purpose'?
Why does it remind me of something Heraclitus would say?
Wordsmith :)