Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ender · 04-09-2002, 08:41 AM

I'm all and none of the above. I am majoring in philosophy & am working as a graphic artist in the industry to pay the bills.

For your information, Walrus, you do not run this thread. You could at least contribute by answering my questions directly instead of highfaulting and laying down the law.

for the third time, and hopefully the last time: What do you mean by a priori?

I will tell you what I think it means in the academic sense- as opposed to the spurrious way it's been tossed around lately.

a priori and a posteriori terms have to do with an epistemological framework. In other words, they are tools of knowledge. A priori, literally, means "from what is prior" and posteriori, "from what is posterior." 2,300 years ago Aristotle laid out the foundations- A is prior to B in nature if & only if B could not exist w/o A, or A is prior to B in knowledge if & only if we cannot know B w/o knowing A. Furthermore, Aristotle thought it was possible to argue a causal relationship with a syllogism where the cause was the middle term. In order to know something in the context of what is priori is to understand it in the context of a demonstrable causal relationship. OTOH, to know from what is posteriori involves no such demonstration because the knowledge is inductive, not deductive.

Leibniz was the next great thinker to clean up the leftovers. He thought in order to know reality a posteriori is to know it from what is actually located in the world via the senses or the effects of reality in experience. To know reality a priori is to understand it "by exposing the cause or the possible generation of the definite thing" (Nouveaux Essais, Book III, Ch. 3). With this tortured exposition Leibniz made a distinction between "truths a posteriori, or of fact" & "truths a priori,. Or of reason" (Nouveaux Essais, Book IV, Chapter 9). He thought a priori truths were demonstrable because they were based on identical propositions, whereas a posteriori truths were 'true' only through experience. This is the same distinction Kant kept in his Critique and the same definition applied in academic philosophy nowadays - a distinction between the empirical and the nonempirical, and Kant added that a priori truths were necessary while a posteriori truths were contingent.

There is no such a priori notion of an subconscious/unconscious/whatever unfalsifiable Freudian concept you've got up your sleeve that might facilitate your search for a causal explanation of creativity.

You ask me for my "theory" - i ask you why not try phenomenology as opposed to a scientific explanation?

~Speaker 4 the Death of God~

((ubb code))

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]

WJ · 04-09-2002, 10:07 AM

Wiggin!

Please, calm down...you seem angry. I think you may have answered my question, though.

If we are discussing the cognitive sciences, then empirical analysis (psychology) is more germain to the issues of creativity that we are discussing. Though I think it is interesting your discussion of synthetic apriori propositional logic, I don't think it applies to what we are trying to discover/uncover; unless, you are simply critiqing the 'method' by which we are seeking answers (?). The central, fundamental questions of where and how novel creativity enters the conscious mind is what I thought the discussion was about. (Kim?)

Now, if you want to build a bridge between epistomological apriori 'knowledge' about the nature of the creative process viz. conscious existence, please use your tools as you have presented them. So far, in that regard, I can't see the point you are trying to make (other than some sort of issue w/God).

Since you are having a hard time with the application of apriori viz. creativity I'll try, again, to answer your question without the use of analogy. Apriori is without experience.

Now, that said, what follows for you, is how shall we proceed to examine the central question of how and why creativity occurs in the conscious mind? You seem to think phenomenology is the prefferred approach or method. I don't disagree with you, however, can you explain or provide an example of this experience you are alluding to?

Am I getting closer to how you want to approach this?

Walrus

Ender · 04-09-2002, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Walrus: Please, calm down...you seem angry. I think you may have answered my question, though.

Why should I calm down? I think best when I�m furious and my passions at a high level.

Quote:

Walrus: If we are discussing the cognitive sciences, then empirical analysis (psychology) is more germain to the issues of creativity that we are discussing.

Which is a wrong-headed attempt IMHO.

Quote:

Walrus: Though I think it is interesting your discussion of synthetic apriori propositional logic,

I haven�t even gotten into synthetic a priori prepositional logic. Where did you get that? Did you even read anything I wrote?

Quote:

Walrus: I don't think it applies to what we are trying to discover/uncover; unless, you are simply critiqing the 'method' by which we are seeking answers (?).

It sure does not apply because you are violating an �ethics of words� by tossing around definite philosophical terms out of context. So I�m calling you on your haphazard, lassiez-faire way with words.

Quote:

Walrus: The central, fundamental questions of where and how novel creativity enters the conscious mind is what I thought the discussion was about. (Kim?)

If you subscribe to determinism, you�ll find what you wanted to see- a neat and tidy causal explanation for a certain chemical process that explains nothing.

Quote:

Walrus: Now, if you want to build a bridge between epistomological apriori 'knowledge' about the nature of the creative process viz. conscious existence, please use your tools as you have presented them.

I�m not making any bridges between the generic epistemological framework and an empirical picture of the brain. You are.

Quote:

Walrus: So far, in that regard, I can't see the point you are trying to make (other than some sort of issue w/God).

I remember you ran away the last time you tried that pseudo pop psychology <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000136" target="_blank">here.</a>

Quote:

Walrus: Since you are having a hard time with the application of apriori viz. creativity I'll try, again, to answer your question without the use of analogy. Apriori is without experience.

It stinks of theistic dualism somewhere here. Your picture is basically this: A priori (subconscious, w/o experience) bridges the a posteriori (awareness, w/experience) and your problem is how to elucidate this �bridge.� Descartes, anyone? Anyone?

Quote:

Walrus: Now, that said, what follows for you, is how shall we proceed to examine the central question of how and why creativity occurs in the conscious mind? You seem to think phenomenology is the prefferred approach or method. I don't disagree with you, however, can you explain or provide an example of this experience you are alluding to? Am I getting closer to how you want to approach this?

Doing research might be a good bet: the polish phenomenologist Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka spent a lot of time on the problems of human creativity & life. Lukasz Plesnar deals with the theory of film with the phenomenological method, as do Waclaw Osadnik and Kluszynski. Here is a link full of <a href="http://www.comu.ucl.ac.be/Doctorants/Goubet/english/biblio.htm" target="_blank">phenomenologists well-versed in aesthetics.</a>

~WiGGiN~

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]

WJ · 04-10-2002, 04:23 AM

Yikes!

(Let us know when you are ready to debate without all that emotional baggage stuff.)

Speaking of emotion, as a musician, I too tend to use it [emotion] for expressional purposes. (Of course, we all get angry from time to time, which is certainly a normal thing relative to sentience.) However, in your view, could it be a good thing?

For instance, you were real angry. In your job as graphic designer, is there a way one could channel that energy in creating something novel?

Thoughts?

Walrus

slacker · 04-10-2002, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ender:


My point is that there is no such a priori predetermining explanation that defines creativity. Everything in art is ad hoc, after the fact, and contingent upon the subjectivity of the artist.

~WiGGiN~

I'd like to think that (non-lyrical) music is different from the other arts because it is more of a pure expression of the will of the artist (it is the artists pure subjective will). With sculpture, painting, poetry,et al you color the artists expression with your own experience. However, some music ("good" music) hits us at a fundamental level, perhaps innate or animalistic, that gives it a universality than any no other art could posess.

slacker

---
For those interested in philosophic writings, Nietzsche wrote a book called "The Birth of Tragedy" that praises music as the only pure, and therefore, the best art.
(for what its worth, he later refuted it and condemned his own book!)

Ender · 04-10-2002, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by slacker:I'd like to think that (non-lyrical) music is different from the other arts because it is more of a pure expression of the will of the artist (it is the artists pure subjective will). With sculpture, painting, poetry,et al you color the artists expression with your own experience. However, some music ("good" music) hits us at a fundamental level, perhaps innate or animalistic, that gives it a universality than any no other art could posess. slacker

Schopenhauer would be proud of your endorsement of his aesthetic theory- he praises music and elevates it above all the other arts.

~WiGGiN~

Ender · 04-10-2002, 08:03 PM

Slacker

How do you differentiate between the "pure subjective will" of the artist and the "expression of the artist's experience"?

Without further clarification these phrases are synonymous- both refer to the same "thing," consciousness- and as it stands, the claim is an equivocation.

~WiGGiN~

WJ · 04-11-2002, 08:57 AM

Wiggin!

Speaking of Schopenhauer, what do you suppose he meant when he said (from Art and Existence):

"Hence it arises that our imagination is so easily excited by music, and now seeks to give form to that invisible yet actively moved spirit-world which speaks to us directly, and cloth it with flesh and blood, [embody it]."

What does he mean by "spirit-world"?

Walrus

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]

Ender · 04-11-2002, 10:37 AM

It would help if you provided the context that phrase you selected.

But going with what i know about Schopenhauer and his philosophy, i would take that "spirit-world" to mean the irrational, universal Will.

Schopenhauer was an atheist and did not believe in anything supernatural except that he interpreted the 'noumena' of Kantian metaphysics as the Will.

~WiGGiN~

WJ · 04-11-2002, 11:40 AM

Wiggin!

Miracles can happen; I may actually find agreement with you here. (It is taken from the world as will and idea.)

"But going with what i know about Schopenhauer and his philosophy, i would take that "spirit-world" to mean the irrational, universal Will.'

Does it follow that the spirit comprises our will? And if so, how do we/he/you know it is irrational? And how does this relate to the will to enjoy music?

You are probably not equiped to answer those types of existential questions [as many of us are not] , so i'll give you an easier quote from Rand:

"The fundamental difference between music and the other arts lies in the fact that music is experienced as if it reversed man's normal psycho-epistemological process. The other arts create a physical object (i.e., an object perceived by man's senses, be it a book or a painting) and the psycho-epistemological process goes from the perception of the object to the conceptual grasp of its meaning, to an appraisal in terms of one's basic values, to a consequent emotion. The pattern is: from perception--to conceptual understanding--to appraisal--to emotion. The pattern of the process involved in music is: from perception--to emotion--to appraisal--to conceptual understanding. Music is experienced as if it had the power to reach man's emotions directly."--Ayn Rand

Philosphical question to Wiggin: How does the spirit/will drive the emotional need to create and enjoy music?

I await your response

Walrus

04-09-2002, 08:41 AM	#31
Ender Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Lusitania Colony Posts: 658	I'm all and none of the above. I am majoring in philosophy & am working as a graphic artist in the industry to pay the bills. For your information, Walrus, you do not run this thread. You could at least contribute by answering my questions directly instead of highfaulting and laying down the law. for the third time, and hopefully the last time: What do you mean by a priori? I will tell you what I think it means in the academic sense- as opposed to the spurrious way it's been tossed around lately. a priori and a posteriori terms have to do with an epistemological framework. In other words, they are tools of knowledge. A priori, literally, means "from what is prior" and posteriori, "from what is posterior." 2,300 years ago Aristotle laid out the foundations- A is prior to B in nature if & only if B could not exist w/o A, or A is prior to B in knowledge if & only if we cannot know B w/o knowing A. Furthermore, Aristotle thought it was possible to argue a causal relationship with a syllogism where the cause was the middle term. In order to know something in the context of what is priori is to understand it in the context of a demonstrable causal relationship. OTOH, to know from what is posteriori involves no such demonstration because the knowledge is inductive, not deductive. Leibniz was the next great thinker to clean up the leftovers. He thought in order to know reality a posteriori is to know it from what is actually located in the world via the senses or the effects of reality in experience. To know reality a priori is to understand it "by exposing the cause or the possible generation of the definite thing" (Nouveaux Essais, Book III, Ch. 3). With this tortured exposition Leibniz made a distinction between "truths a posteriori, or of fact" & "truths a priori,. Or of reason" (Nouveaux Essais, Book IV, Chapter 9). He thought a priori truths were demonstrable because they were based on identical propositions, whereas a posteriori truths were 'true' only through experience. This is the same distinction Kant kept in his Critique and the same definition applied in academic philosophy nowadays - a distinction between the empirical and the nonempirical, and Kant added that a priori truths were necessary while a posteriori truths were contingent. There is no such a priori notion of an subconscious/unconscious/whatever unfalsifiable Freudian concept you've got up your sleeve that might facilitate your search for a causal explanation of creativity. You ask me for my "theory" - i ask you why not try phenomenology as opposed to a scientific explanation? ~Speaker 4 the Death of God~ ((ubb code)) [ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

04-11-2002, 08:57 AM	#38
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Wiggin! Speaking of Schopenhauer, what do you suppose he meant when he said (from Art and Existence): "Hence it arises that our imagination is so easily excited by music, and now seeks to give form to that invisible yet actively moved spirit-world which speaks to us directly, and cloth it with flesh and blood, [embody it]." What does he mean by "spirit-world"? Walrus [ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-09-2002, 10:07 AM	#32
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Wiggin! Please, calm down...you seem angry. I think you may have answered my question, though. If we are discussing the cognitive sciences, then empirical analysis (psychology) is more germain to the issues of creativity that we are discussing. Though I think it is interesting your discussion of synthetic apriori propositional logic, I don't think it applies to what we are trying to discover/uncover; unless, you are simply critiqing the 'method' by which we are seeking answers (?). The central, fundamental questions of where and how novel creativity enters the conscious mind is what I thought the discussion was about. (Kim?) Now, if you want to build a bridge between epistomological apriori 'knowledge' about the nature of the creative process viz. conscious existence, please use your tools as you have presented them. So far, in that regard, I can't see the point you are trying to make (other than some sort of issue w/God). Since you are having a hard time with the application of apriori viz. creativity I'll try, again, to answer your question without the use of analogy. Apriori is without experience. Now, that said, what follows for you, is how shall we proceed to examine the central question of how and why creativity occurs in the conscious mind? You seem to think phenomenology is the prefferred approach or method. I don't disagree with you, however, can you explain or provide an example of this experience you are alluding to? Am I getting closer to how you want to approach this? Walrus

04-10-2002, 04:23 AM	#34
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Yikes! (Let us know when you are ready to debate without all that emotional baggage stuff.) Speaking of emotion, as a musician, I too tend to use it [emotion] for expressional purposes. (Of course, we all get angry from time to time, which is certainly a normal thing relative to sentience.) However, in your view, could it be a good thing? For instance, you were real angry. In your job as graphic designer, is there a way one could channel that energy in creating something novel? Thoughts? Walrus

04-10-2002, 08:03 PM	#37
Ender Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Lusitania Colony Posts: 658	Slacker How do you differentiate between the "pure subjective will" of the artist and the "expression of the artist's experience"? Without further clarification these phrases are synonymous- both refer to the same "thing," consciousness- and as it stands, the claim is an equivocation. ~WiGGiN~

04-11-2002, 10:37 AM	#39
Ender Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Lusitania Colony Posts: 658	It would help if you provided the context that phrase you selected. But going with what i know about Schopenhauer and his philosophy, i would take that "spirit-world" to mean the irrational, universal Will. Schopenhauer was an atheist and did not believe in anything supernatural except that he interpreted the 'noumena' of Kantian metaphysics as the Will. ~WiGGiN~

04-11-2002, 11:40 AM	#40
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Wiggin! Miracles can happen; I may actually find agreement with you here. (It is taken from the world as will and idea.) "But going with what i know about Schopenhauer and his philosophy, i would take that "spirit-world" to mean the irrational, universal Will.' Does it follow that the spirit comprises our will? And if so, how do we/he/you know it is irrational? And how does this relate to the will to enjoy music? You are probably not equiped to answer those types of existential questions [as many of us are not] , so i'll give you an easier quote from Rand: "The fundamental difference between music and the other arts lies in the fact that music is experienced as if it reversed man's normal psycho-epistemological process. The other arts create a physical object (i.e., an object perceived by man's senses, be it a book or a painting) and the psycho-epistemological process goes from the perception of the object to the conceptual grasp of its meaning, to an appraisal in terms of one's basic values, to a consequent emotion. The pattern is: from perception--to conceptual understanding--to appraisal--to emotion. The pattern of the process involved in music is: from perception--to emotion--to appraisal--to conceptual understanding. Music is experienced as if it had the power to reach man's emotions directly."--Ayn Rand Philosphical question to Wiggin: How does the spirit/will drive the emotional need to create and enjoy music? I await your response Walrus

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.