tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post2181436660428995776..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Art and meta-artEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34716603762699399812010-09-22T17:53:25.991-07:002010-09-22T17:53:25.991-07:00Anonymous,
I was just kidding.
I'd try to a...Anonymous,<br /><br />I was just kidding. <br /><br />I'd try to answer your question myself but I'm not the brightest crayon in the box of philosophically themed crayons (Thomistic tan, materialistic mauve, etc.) myself. <br /><br />I'm sure one of the friendlies around here will help you out.Roy IVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15463605944132111455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50923554914635443442010-09-22T14:02:14.695-07:002010-09-22T14:02:14.695-07:00Sorry about that.
I do know how to google the defi...Sorry about that.<br />I do know how to google the definition of rational.<br />It's just that it seems to be referenced as a position that a materialist/naturalist would dispute.<br />And that's what I'm not getting.<br />Why a materialist would dispute a "rationalist" view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41062843351353027852010-09-22T12:23:35.911-07:002010-09-22T12:23:35.911-07:00Anonymous,
I'd suggest a quick Google search....Anonymous,<br /><br />I'd suggest a quick Google search. Asking Edward Feser to define "rational" is like asking Leonardo da Vinci to draw a stick figure.Roy IVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15463605944132111455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76142181026823528862010-09-22T12:21:37.560-07:002010-09-22T12:21:37.560-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Roy IVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15463605944132111455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83218030658718122282010-09-21T17:03:01.245-07:002010-09-21T17:03:01.245-07:00Prof Feser sorry for putting this here.
But could ...Prof Feser sorry for putting this here.<br />But could anyone help me understand what is meant by "rational" in philosophy?<br />I usually see it as being a different perspective of viewing the world. <br /><br />thank youAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68631302177099477952010-09-21T16:15:00.788-07:002010-09-21T16:15:00.788-07:00Musical taste is like taste in food - you can'...Musical taste is like taste in food - you can't really help what you like.<br /><br />Arguing for or against someone else's musical choice is like arguing for or against broccoli - pointless!Daniel Smithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48615667550095916332010-09-21T09:32:07.430-07:002010-09-21T09:32:07.430-07:00Ed, you have a pretty good point.
How does a pe...Ed, you have a pretty good point. <br /><br />How does a person tell whether Monk is on <i> this </i> side of the line, while <i> Coleman </i> is on the other? Does the answer lie in the their music's effect on the aesthetic sense? If so, how do we find the <i> right </i> aesthetic sense? That is, if to me Monk's music seems to have the plenitude overwhelm the order, and for you Monk's music seems to have more than enough order for the plenitude, (assuming that the judgment rests on the music's effect on the aesthetic sense) then either one of us has a defective sense, or there is no judging because it is all subjective. <br /><br />If, on the other hand, the basis for the conclusion is an intellectual appreciation for the <i> things in the music </i> which are able to affect the aesthetic sense, then an intellectual argument can (and should) be made for the differences. Does this make sense? Is the problem that we don't have a common language for an intellectual discussion of (a) the elements of the music, with relation to (b) the way those elements bring about aesthetic sense effects, that makes it virtually impossible to discuss the matter successfully?Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82147270887101112312010-09-21T05:29:09.645-07:002010-09-21T05:29:09.645-07:00Outstanding post, Ed - but then, what else would I...Outstanding post, Ed - but then, what else would I expect?<br /><br />I happen to love Eliot and Joyce (Schoenberg not so much). But as you point out, what they were doing only "needed" to be done once - indeed, could only be done once. Hence the sense I always get from the other modernists who followed these few giants that they were merely repeating something that had already been fully said, thereby wasting their (and our) time.<br /><br />>> There is something faintly absurd, indeed perverse, in the making of such navel-gazing the theme of art.<br /><br />The word you're looking for here is "decadent".Melmoth the Wandererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15130512701199083736noreply@blogger.com