Art or Science?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Art or Science?
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Art or Science?
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Art or Science?
Male and female lead.
The creative leaps of philosophy come from a big-picture imagination, but then the germinal idea must be developed, reconciled with observation, organized and articulated, all of which is uninspired, necessary drudgery.
The great concepts of science go though the same phases.
Great art needs a dozen moments of divine inspiration and a lifetime of learning the craft.
Neither is any good without the other.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Art or Science?
Of course, without the knowledge to bring rigour and refinement to his imaginative leaps, he'd just be another forum member :)For Einstein, insight did not come from logic or mathematics. It came, as it does for artists, from intuition and inspiration. As he told one friend, "When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come close to the conclusion that the gift of imagination has meant more to me than any talent for absorbing absolute knowledge." Elaborating, he added, "All great achievements of science must start from intuitive knowledge. I believe in intuition and inspiration.... At times I feel certain I am right while not knowing the reason." Thus, his famous statement that, for creative work in science, "Imagination is more important than knowledge" (Calaprice, 2000, 22, 287, 10).
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Art or Science?
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: Art or Science?
StayCurious wrote: ↑February 20th, 2018, 5:34 pm Should philosophy be considered an art or a science?
All sciences are feeder branches on the tree of philosophy!!
Science can be artfully done, but that is rare.
Philosophy is an art, and if not artfully original, the 'philosopher' is no more than a bot/drone (philosophologist). Philosophy incorporates all means of Knowing and artfully, originally, synthesizes the results in original theories.
Hence so few philosophers in existence, and less all the time.
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Art or Science?
-
- Posts: 27
- Joined: January 11th, 2018, 6:34 pm
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Art or Science?
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: Art or Science?
Nonsense!
If you avoided words like "all" or "always", etc... you would fall into less error.
Not that your notion is not true, at times.
Intuition, spontaneous intuition, has nothing to do with the rickety train of thought/ego ("pattern manipulation").
It is simply the genius, the answer, all at once, fully formed.
I don't 'manipulate patterns' when I carve a piece of branch, or throw a bowl from a lump of clay. There is no original 'pattern' to manipulate. Once I make a pattern, perhaps.
Yes, you are correct in all but in your use of the thoughtless term "all". That, in itself, refutes your assertion.
Without it, your assertion is quite valid. *__-
- jerlands
- Posts: 431
- Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm
Re: Art or Science?
You're contradicting yourself. Art brings forth the potential that lies within the medium. Clay as an art medium has limited potential but clay as a substrate for life seems to be unlimited. All forms of matter have their original patterns embedded.
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Art or Science?
-
- Posts: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Art or Science?
-
- Posts: 27
- Joined: January 11th, 2018, 6:34 pm
Re: Art or Science?
My perspective is less that we are confronting and external world and more that since we are apart of this organism of a universe, we "look inwards" with science. Our skin is a medium through which the "external" confronts the "internal" but the two are merely two sides of the same coin. Just as negative and positive are though to be polar opposites, they're still fundamentally one magnet, similarly just as life polarizes itself into Self experience and Other experience, it can all be perceived as one.Jan Sand wrote: ↑February 25th, 2018, 3:33 pm As an artist who has had a good deal of science in my education and general life interest I consider the two so closely aligned that I have accepted that they are pretty much the same thing. The human mind is the functioning dynamic of the brain and the brain functions to create what we know of the exterior from the clues fed to it from its sensor system which is a series of continuous impulses. It has to be pretty good at guessing or none of us would survive but nevertheless we all make mistakes, some of which are called optical illusions. But some of these mistakes are extremely useful. Such as looking at a photo or a painting and mistaking it for reality. Leonardo DaVinci was obviously both a scientist and an artist because they are obviously not that different. Science always makes artistic guesses as to the reality of observations and when more observations arrive undermining previous guesses, new artistic guesses advance science because the new guesses have to be modified. Art works the same way in abstracting from nature and representing thought in creative models as does theoretical mathematics.They all work to integrate theoretical abstracts of observation into useful and interesting patterns.
Although I do believe that science can be incorporated INTO art, does that necessarily make them the same thing? For instance, I can appreciate Leo's BEAUTIFUL scientific and his discoveries about the nature of the body and consciousness, but would that be considered both art and science?
I can see how one could argue that science is an art. Do you think that science is approached with more of a inquisitive and explorative attitude and art with a expressive intent, or do you believe they can most fundamentally be used interchangeably?
-
- Posts: 27
- Joined: January 11th, 2018, 6:34 pm
Re: Art or Science?
Is an unspoken poem not still art? I believe the intent of ones perception, expressive or inquisitive, is one of many miniscule concepts that establish themselves towards a direction of approaching either art or science, which both use different philosophies in order to reach their goals.Atreyu wrote: ↑February 26th, 2018, 8:03 pmPhilosophy is more art than science. It's definitely not science, because it doesn't deal with theories, only reasonable ideas. It's not exact and precise enough to be science.StayCurious wrote: ↑February 20th, 2018, 5:34 pm Should philosophy be considered an art or a science? I was recently listening to an Alan Watts lecture were he defined science simply as "accurate description" which requires rigorous precision and calculable elimination of variables, which is not possible in philosophy the way it is in Chemistry and Mathematics, using contamination-proof rooms and limited variables.
Is the mind too variable for all things to be considered, or are we fundamentally driven by basic needs and desires which can be simply calculated?
However, it's not properly art either. Art is doing, not thinking...
Scientific philosophies are methodical and done in a manner as to be reconstructable, whereas art in itself has neither of these bounds, which I find more closely aligned with the nature of philosophy than anything else.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023