I believe that, when the phrase "The art of ____ing" is used, it refers to the proper process by which something should be done. Therefore, if someone were to masterfully complete a quest in a videogame, you would say "That was the art of video-gaming" because they have performed at an exceptional level. The art of eating is, however, something you can't truly perform at an exceptional level at, so perhaps the term is interdisciplinary and refers to the proper table manners, conversation, consumption and digestion of food, etc. Much like the art of eating, the art of video-gaming could be subdivided into time of completion, points earned, upgrades attained, secrets unlocked, etc. If there's any aesthetic influences in the saying, then surely they would relate to the fact that each "art of _____ing" is convoluted and interdisciplinary, with few closed concepts that could fit into the form that everyone would unanimously agree with. Aside from its similar confusion as aesthetic definitions are debated, I don't think the phrase has any relation to aesthetic judgement, but perhaps utility or proper performance.
Q - What is the "art of aesthetic judgement"?
Friday, December 16, 2011
What keeps a man alive?
In reviewing the lyrics from the second of three finales from the Threepenny Opera, it's very easy to see lots of moral/philosophical influences and topics within the message of the story. The school's recent production of the musical in early October gave me the interest and knowledge about the storyline and music to analyze the content, and above all else, this song seems to have more moralistic implications, rather then the psychological or sociological implications in the other songs in the show. The lyrics of the version we did are as follows:
"We listen to the sentimental preachers,
Who try to teach the world a better way.
But they forget that men are hungry creatures,
First give us breakfast, then we'll start the day.
They all imagine peace and plenty everywhere,
Contentment from the cradle to the grave.
It's a utopia, and one we'd love to share,
But you must feed us, then we'll all behave.
These moral absolutes, are hard to follow,
Just give us something tangible to swallow."
Spoken: "But what keeps a man alive?"
"What keeps a man alive, it's his compulsion, to steal and
cheat and kick his fellow man in the face.
We have to eat the shit, without revulsion, and
turn our backs, upon the human race.
You have to kill your neighbor to survive.
It's selfishness that keeps a man alive.
The preachers see a woman in the doorway,
'let's save this wretched creature from her shame.'
Okay, we'll change our lives, we'll do it your way,
First you must feed us, then we'll play the game.
We end up as a wife or a chambermaid,
And either way we're treated as a slave.
It's not surprising that we'd rather we were paid,
First you must feed us, then we'll all behave.
"We listen to the sentimental preachers,
Who try to teach the world a better way.
But they forget that men are hungry creatures,
First give us breakfast, then we'll start the day.
They all imagine peace and plenty everywhere,
Contentment from the cradle to the grave.
It's a utopia, and one we'd love to share,
But you must feed us, then we'll all behave.
These moral absolutes, are hard to follow,
Just give us something tangible to swallow."
Spoken: "But what keeps a man alive?"
"What keeps a man alive, it's his compulsion, to steal and
cheat and kick his fellow man in the face.
We have to eat the shit, without revulsion, and
turn our backs, upon the human race.
You have to kill your neighbor to survive.
It's selfishness that keeps a man alive.
The preachers see a woman in the doorway,
'let's save this wretched creature from her shame.'
Okay, we'll change our lives, we'll do it your way,
First you must feed us, then we'll play the game.
We end up as a wife or a chambermaid,
And either way we're treated as a slave.
It's not surprising that we'd rather we were paid,
First you must feed us, then we'll all behave.
These moral absolutes, are hard to follow,
Just give us something tangible to swallow."
Spoken: "But what keeps a man alive?"
"What keeps a man alive, it's his compulsion, to steal and
cheat and kick his fellow man in the face.
We have to eat the shit, without revulsion, and
turn our backs, upon the human race.
You have to kill your neighbor to survive.
It's selfishness that keeps a man alive."
This song clearly defines the point that selfishness is what keeps a man alive, and the act of "killing your neighbor" is an act of selfishness so you will be "fed more." The underlying implications of the song lyrics suggest that much of it is metaphorical for economic and social situations as well. Men are greedy for money and power, and must "kill" off the competition. We have to "eat the shit" or start out at the bottom the the ladder and take people's problems with us openly, but at the same time know that, through selfishness, we must "turn our backs upon the human race" and think of only ourselves. Our compulsion to steal, cheat, and kick our fellow man is part of our selfishness and power-hungry dispositions. Keeping in mind that this song is written in a sense of describing 19th century london from a German perspective, there are certain sociocultural implications as well, but for the most part, this philosophy of what keeps a man alive is applicable to most any society in most any time.
Q - Do you agree that the world is plagued with selfishness and disregard for the "fellow man"?
A Moral Decision?
The government and the FDA have control over cigarette packages, and are mandating that all cigarette packages be covered at least 20% by pictures displaying corpses, cancerous lungs, tracheotomy holes, and infants in incubators. This is a federal move that, if passed, will be enacted in September of 2012. The images are being used as visual reminders of the dangers involved with smoking, as well as to display ways for people to quit (typically including a hotline number on the package for help with quitting). However, Federal judge Richard Leon says that this is unfair, and I agree with him.
Although the message needs to get across that smoking is dangerous, it doesn't need to be displayed in a way that will make cigarette boxes a horrifying sight. It's people's right to smoke, and even after knowing the statistics on how smoking causes cancer and death, few people make the choice to quit. This is their right, and it should not be plagued with pictures that make the squeamish gag and others downright disturbed. Although these images are a great tool to deter the youth of the nation from smoking, they are what I'd consider to be morally wrong. There are ways to get the message across without using such graphic, expensive means (the expenses from the law will, of course, be put up to cigarette manufacturers). One of these ways has been around for almost half a century, the surgeon general's warning, printed on all cigarette packages since 1965. Some people thought that this wasn't enough, and elected to put forth those grotesque pictures to fortify the cons of smoking.
Smoking is a big issue because, just as people 18+ have the right to smoke, people of any age who wish to be in a smoke free environment also have the right to not be bothered by clouds of nicotine. Many restrictions have been put on the smoking end, repressing the amount of smokers and the areas they can smoke in. Huge taxes have even been put on cigarettes, in some cases making them nearly twice as expensive as they would normally be without tax. And yet, further restrictions are being placed on smokers, aiming to slap their worst-scenario future on the box and completely limit the manufacturer's space to get their own message across. But where have the restrictions been placed on the other end, the end of non-smokers?
The moral implications thereof certainly don't match up. Perhaps because smoking is hazardous to your health is why it's being limited so much. Yet if it's a right, then why aren't their at least some laws protecting smokers from the opposition in the health field and the federal government?
My questiona to you are these:
1. Is it morally wrong for the FDA to mandate grotesque pictures to be put on cigarette packages?
2. Is it fair to smokers, non-smokers, and cigarette manufacturers to require so much of the cigarette package to be covered by anti-smoking propaganda?
Although the message needs to get across that smoking is dangerous, it doesn't need to be displayed in a way that will make cigarette boxes a horrifying sight. It's people's right to smoke, and even after knowing the statistics on how smoking causes cancer and death, few people make the choice to quit. This is their right, and it should not be plagued with pictures that make the squeamish gag and others downright disturbed. Although these images are a great tool to deter the youth of the nation from smoking, they are what I'd consider to be morally wrong. There are ways to get the message across without using such graphic, expensive means (the expenses from the law will, of course, be put up to cigarette manufacturers). One of these ways has been around for almost half a century, the surgeon general's warning, printed on all cigarette packages since 1965. Some people thought that this wasn't enough, and elected to put forth those grotesque pictures to fortify the cons of smoking.
Smoking is a big issue because, just as people 18+ have the right to smoke, people of any age who wish to be in a smoke free environment also have the right to not be bothered by clouds of nicotine. Many restrictions have been put on the smoking end, repressing the amount of smokers and the areas they can smoke in. Huge taxes have even been put on cigarettes, in some cases making them nearly twice as expensive as they would normally be without tax. And yet, further restrictions are being placed on smokers, aiming to slap their worst-scenario future on the box and completely limit the manufacturer's space to get their own message across. But where have the restrictions been placed on the other end, the end of non-smokers?
The moral implications thereof certainly don't match up. Perhaps because smoking is hazardous to your health is why it's being limited so much. Yet if it's a right, then why aren't their at least some laws protecting smokers from the opposition in the health field and the federal government?
My questiona to you are these:
1. Is it morally wrong for the FDA to mandate grotesque pictures to be put on cigarette packages?
2. Is it fair to smokers, non-smokers, and cigarette manufacturers to require so much of the cigarette package to be covered by anti-smoking propaganda?
Saturday, December 10, 2011
A Philosophical View of the Water Shortage
We are currently experiencing a water shortage in North Adams, and the entire town is without water. This leads to no showers, drinking water, laundry, flushing toilets, clean dishes, etc. I'm trying to figure out, however, whether this is a blessing or a curse. Sure, we are down and out of many "necessities" of life, and the sanitation levels are quickly dropping campus wide. However, compared to a third-world country, say, in central Africa, this is no detrimental issue. They've been living for months, even years, with those shortages, as well as shortages in food, shelter, and protection from diseases. If we step back and look at the luxuries we have in life, we can realize that the things we've temporarily lost are technically privileges, not rights. Therefore, in order to properly assess the situation, we should consider how necessary that of which we have lost is compared to that of which the third-world-country inhabitants have never had.
Do you view this as a blessing or a curse?
Do you view this as a blessing or a curse?
Response to Jacob Wheeler
I have been considering how Walton's theories tie into Aesthetics for a while, and I finally concluded much of what you all concluded; Walton presumes that art is fictional, and aesthetic responses cannot contain true emotional content. I would certainly argue that Walton's theory depreciates the value of art (if true of course), attempting to drive a wedge in aesthetic theory. Much of aesthetics relates to the communicated emotions or aesthetic responses between the artist and the observer, using the art as the medium. However, in Walton's theory, since the art is only as real as the materials it is made of (and not it's representational of perceptual content), then the art is fictional, and little to nothing is communicated.
Accepting the principle that we must play "make-believe" during a movie is arguably not deliberate. Sure, plenty of people will subconsciously allow themselves to be absorbed by the material, somewhere down the line forgetting that the content is superficial, allowing them to have true emotional reactions. This is deliberate. But in the case we argued that a little child views a scary movie, they do not deliberately make the decision to "make-believe" (and therefore experience true emotional responses) because they themselves cannot distinguish that the movie's content is false from the beginning. Childhood naivete allows them to have true emotional responses without deliberately playing into Walton's game.
Do you think that Walton's theory holds true when adolescence is considered?
Accepting the principle that we must play "make-believe" during a movie is arguably not deliberate. Sure, plenty of people will subconsciously allow themselves to be absorbed by the material, somewhere down the line forgetting that the content is superficial, allowing them to have true emotional reactions. This is deliberate. But in the case we argued that a little child views a scary movie, they do not deliberately make the decision to "make-believe" (and therefore experience true emotional responses) because they themselves cannot distinguish that the movie's content is false from the beginning. Childhood naivete allows them to have true emotional responses without deliberately playing into Walton's game.
Do you think that Walton's theory holds true when adolescence is considered?
Thursday, December 8, 2011
The Philosophy of Guns
In light of the recent news of the Student and Faculty Firearm referendum results and the recent events on the Virginia Tech Campus, I would like to elucidate my position on guns.
Guns, are corrupt because of this reason: They are used simultaneously for good and evil.
Why is this? Two reasons I can compile.
1: Guns are used by humans, and humans can be either evil or good with their intentions.
2: Human intentions can change very quickly, and the original intention of using the gun upon the medium of receiving it may not correlate with the intentions when used.
Should the campus police be armed, since we know their original intentions are good?
Guns, are corrupt because of this reason: They are used simultaneously for good and evil.
Why is this? Two reasons I can compile.
1: Guns are used by humans, and humans can be either evil or good with their intentions.
2: Human intentions can change very quickly, and the original intention of using the gun upon the medium of receiving it may not correlate with the intentions when used.
Should the campus police be armed, since we know their original intentions are good?
Saturday, December 3, 2011
The philosophy of laziness
I often wonder to myself what the moral principles behind laziness are. Just a moment ago, I was sitting on a bench waiting for the elevator, and as I waited, the bench and I became one. I couldn't get up except with the extreme motivation to hurry up and be on time. I often wonder to myself if we all undergo moral struggles in our head relating to the lack of physical movement for the enjoyment of rest. I personally weigh the situations in my head, but never come to a true conclusion until I realize I have to scrap what I'm thinking and just get up. But I want to hear from you all; is there some philosophical explanation for the laziness we all experience?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)