I would say that those can belong in visual arts and some sort of constructive art.
Art or Science?
-
- Posts: 27
- Joined: January 11th, 2018, 6:34 pm
Re: Art or Science?
-
- Posts: 27
- Joined: January 11th, 2018, 6:34 pm
Re: Art or Science?
In both, creative imagination is a boat from which one departs from one conclusion (or a set of conclusions), arrives at another conclusion (or a set of conclusions), and makes connections if he so desires.
-
- Posts: 27
- Joined: January 11th, 2018, 6:34 pm
Re: Art or Science?
I agree that philosophy should be one artfully, but that today it unfortuately seems that many Western philosophers would like to sail under the title of "scientists" so that they may be deemed credible, for the West is loosing more and more trust in artists and philosophers and the scientists are gaining authority with our exponential technological expanse.Namelesss wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 10:41 pmStayCurious 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.
I believe that science does not need art, but if to be done most effectively ought to be done with creative thinking, which may result in what was first seen as scientific data to be simultaneously seen as a work of art just as a excellently constructed building could be considered a work of art from the creative perspective of a builder, making it no more one than the other.
While science and art do seem very much so intertwined, do you see any differences one could use to distinguish one from the other, be it intent, perception, or other?
-
- Posts: 27
- Joined: January 11th, 2018, 6:34 pm
Re: Art or Science?
Sorry for the few typos. I get carried away in what I'm typing and forget to proof read sometimesStayCurious wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2018, 6:36 pmMy 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: 658
- Joined: September 10th, 2017, 11:57 am
Re: Art or Science?
Informing Pattern
Words first arrived on cave walls in France and Spain,
Shaped as animals, aurochs and deer.
Symbolic prey, sorceries of hunt. It is presumed
Those dark halls echoed speech to resound, invoke
That magic imagery to permit it to be spoken.
The skills to inscribe a graceful line can be rare.
But a tone pronounced, a whistle or a hiss, a soft scream
To modulate into a pictured dream
Is easier to represent with a scribbled line or two.
Thus, alphabets appeared, or so it seems.
The mind cannot gobble entirety in full play.
It must find a way to grasp fragments to hook the whole.
A patch of blue can be an entire sky or the sea.
We think in particles to create a lion from a growl
A pack of hungry wolves transform from a howl.
An ancient dynasty can materialize out of a fragment
Of a fragment of incised stone, a dinosaur from a bone.
Mathematics masters entire universes into constants and unknowns.
Linguistic abstracts speak to configure the what of which and how
Can utter a then or when or, most surprisingly, a now,
Produces levers for the mind to grasp, manipulate any task,
And piece by piece release an integration that can reach and touch a galaxy
To extend a searching finger to its center breach of time and space.
So do these artifacts of abstracts resolve within our brain
The multiples of untouchables, unjumble imperceptibles to obtain
Relevance to elements, untie the why to splinter the arcane.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Art or Science?
A story of how clarity was achieved
By our peers from a worldview native
A rich creation you've conceived.
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: Art or Science?
Sure. Science is all intellectual. It deals with ideas, particularly ideas that can be formulated as theories.StayCurious wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2018, 6:59 pm While science and art do seem very much so intertwined, do you see any differences one could use to distinguish one from the other, be it intent, perception, or other?
Art is primarily emotional, although it is also "intellectual". It is ideas expressed via emotion, rather than via thought and theory.
Or, as a great teacher once put it, 'Art is like a textbook, but it is a textbook that can only be "read" via the emotions, via feelings.'
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: Art or Science?
"Schizophrenia; the fragmentation of that which is One!"StayCurious wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2018, 6:59 pm While science and art do seem very much so intertwined, do you see any differences one could use to distinguish one from the other, be it intent, perception, or other?
Thought/duality is what fragments and creates 'contrast' that 'this' can be distinguished from 'that'.
The Reality is One!
It is easy to fragment, to define, to distinguish, to discriminate, to limit... that is why we are here, that the Universe/God/Self can be Self Aware!
But Reality is not fragmented as we perceive it to be. To 'believe' in the fragmentation is insanity!
Drawing distinctions are done all the time, everyone does it.
But;
"The Tao is the leveler of all things!"
The 'Middle Way' is equidistant from all Perspectives, the 'chrono-synclastic infundibulum', where all 'apparent' opposites/distinctions are resolved;
"Every kind of partial and transitory disequilibrium must perforce contribute towards the great equilibrium of the whole.." - Rene' Guenon
Science examines fragments, then fragments the fragments to examine! (Doing it's part that ALL is Known!)
Enlightenment/unconditional Love assimilates all apparent 'fragments' into the One! (Knowing All! *__- )
- jerlands
- Posts: 431
- Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm
Re: Art or Science?
Thought is not duality but rather thought is the perception of duality. Thought arises out of comparative analysis and is that which fixes in our minds the relation. sota like tying a knot..Namelesss wrote: ↑March 5th, 2018, 10:22 pm"Schizophrenia; the fragmentation of that which is One!"StayCurious wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2018, 6:59 pm While science and art do seem very much so intertwined, do you see any differences one could use to distinguish one from the other, be it intent, perception, or other?
Thought/duality is what fragments and creates 'contrast' that 'this' can be distinguished from 'that'.
The Reality is One!
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Art or Science?
OP:
Should Ornithology be considered to be a blue tit or a wagtail?Should philosophy be considered an art or a science?
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: Art or Science?
Yes, of course thought is as you (we) suggest, in the perception of 'thought/ego', duality is perceived.
Duality only exists in/as thought..
Without thought there is no duality to be perceived.
'Comparative analysis' arises out of the duality/context of thought, not the other way around.Thought arises out of comparative analysis and is that which fixes in our minds the relation. sota like tying a knot..
Actually, 'thought/ego' does not 'arise' out of anything, it already exists to be perceived.
To perceive 'comparative analysis' is to perceive thought. One and the same.
Without the duality of thought, there is nothing to 'compare' with, no context, no contrast.
- jerlands
- Posts: 431
- Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm
Re: Art or Science?
Is this fair then? We have Self and we have the Other (that which lies outside of Self.) It is that potential in difference that arises the wind we think of as thought (or so it seems to me.) I agree that as long as there is a difference between Self and the Other there is duality and so the struggle seems to be true perception of the Other to entertain Self, or is it the true perception of Self to entertain the Other?Namelesss wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 7:29 pm
Yes, of course thought is as you (we) suggest, in the perception of 'thought/ego', duality is perceived.
Duality only exists in/as thought..
Without thought there is no duality to be perceived.
'Comparative analysis' arises out of the duality/context of thought, not the other way around.Thought arises out of comparative analysis and is that which fixes in our minds the relation. sota like tying a knot..
Actually, 'thought/ego' does not 'arise' out of anything, it already exists to be perceived.
To perceive 'comparative analysis' is to perceive thought. One and the same.
Without the duality of thought, there is nothing to 'compare' with, no context, no contrast.
Entertain: to hold within.
.
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: Art or Science?
"Entertain: to hold within", to assimilate!jerlands wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 8:04 pmIs this fair then? We have Self and we have the Other (that which lies outside of Self.) It is that potential in difference that arises the wind we think of as thought (or so it seems to me.) I agree that as long as there is a difference between Self and the Other there is duality and so the struggle seems to be true perception of the Other to entertain Self, or is it the true perception of Self to entertain the Other?Namelesss wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 7:29 pm Yes, of course thought is as you (we) suggest, in the perception of 'thought/ego', duality is perceived.
Duality only exists in/as thought..
Without thought there is no duality to be perceived.
'Comparative analysis' arises out of the duality/context of thought, not the other way around.
Actually, 'thought/ego' does not 'arise' out of anything, it already exists to be perceived.
To perceive 'comparative analysis' is to perceive thought. One and the same.
Without the duality of thought, there is nothing to 'compare' with, no context, no contrast.
Entertain: to hold within.
When the dualistic boundaries of Our egoic/thought 'selves' vanish in the Enlightenment of unconditional Love, one can be said to be assimilated (enter-tained) into the Whole.
- jerlands
- Posts: 431
- Joined: December 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm
Re: Art or Science?
Assimilate may be more apt and I might not disagree with your final assessment however here's the situation... You and me, and that duality is what creates this exchange of thought that has arisen. Thought may have had something to do with the initial creation of duality but in our earthly situation thought is either the unifying or separating force that arises from any interaction. correct?Namelesss wrote: ↑March 7th, 2018, 8:43 am"Entertain: to hold within", to assimilate!jerlands wrote: ↑March 6th, 2018, 8:04 pm
Is this fair then? We have Self and we have the Other (that which lies outside of Self.) It is that potential in difference that arises the wind we think of as thought (or so it seems to me.) I agree that as long as there is a difference between Self and the Other there is duality and so the struggle seems to be true perception of the Other to entertain Self, or is it the true perception of Self to entertain the Other?
Entertain: to hold within.
When the dualistic boundaries of Our egoic/thought 'selves' vanish in the Enlightenment of unconditional Love, one can be said to be assimilated (enter-tained) into the Whole.
- QuarterMaster69
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: March 3rd, 2018, 6:57 pm
Re: Art or Science?
All the great philosophical questions have already been answered by science and art.
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