Conceptual Artifacts

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Iapetus
Posts: 402
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Conceptual Artifacts

Post by Iapetus »

Reply to Fanman:

I suppose it comes down - as it does so frequently - to definitions. I shall therefore throw in mine, for what it is worth. I see the use of the term, ‘beauty’, as an expression of strong emotional response to a stimulus. I do not see it as intrinsic to the entity itself, but to its perception. Since the response is a personal one, it is difficult to measure or to make comparisons between people, though we can certainly attempt to do so.

I have difficulty in grasping your interpretation of the term. In your last paragraph, you state, "I think that 'ultimate beauty' may exist", yet later you write, "I don't think that a fixed ultimate aesthetic beauty exists". Does this mean that you regard ‘aesthetic beauty’ as different and separate from some other form of beauty which you have not defined? Does one have access to ‘ultimate beauty’ but not the other? Do you regard the ‘beauty’ as intrinsic to the entity or to the perceiver? What might ‘ultimate beauty’ look or feel like? Do you have criteria which might help to define ‘ultimate’? In what way does benevolence contribute to a concept of ‘ultimate’? It is not clear to me where, exactly, you are going with this argument.

-- Updated 02 Aug 2016, 21:07 to add the following --

Reply to Dan 1985:

Einstein had quite a lot to say about perception and relativity and extraordinarily accurate predictions have been made on the basis of his observations. We understand to some considerable degree how and why we perceive rainbows and mirages. The variety in your list is interesting but there does not appear (?) to be much which is contentious. I do, however, have some questions about the structure of your list.

Visual artifacts
Why do you restrict your observations to the visual? What about things that go bump in the night? Tingling sensations when we are scared? Strong associations of smells with youthful remembrances? Some people on this thread seem to think that a perception of beauty extends beyond the visual. Why not sensual artifacts rather than simply visual ones ?

Cognitive artifacts
It strikes me that this list depends hugely on your interpretation of phenomena. For example, in terms of memory, how can we determine whether or not it is false ? Can we ever regard it as true ? To a limited degree, we can test parts of it against observation but only to a very limited degree. The example begs a more complex discussion about the nature of truth. The same can be said for your ‘Illusion of Objectivity’. You have constructed your ‘Pseudo-realities’ as a series of prohibitions, which seems to me to be inconsistent with the rest of your structure.

Conceptual artifacts

I can’t see how the items in your list necessarily contribute to an understanding of the world. I can see, for example, how habit may help us to accommodate complex ideas but I don’t see how it leads to understanding. The major debate about free will is usually related to whether or not it exists. The same goes for God or other ‘higher powers’. To assume that these things contribute to an understanding of the world is therefore … an assumption, which needs to be demonstrated.

You may have a line of argument in which one element leads to the next to useful effect but I am afraid that I can’t see it.

That is not to say that there are no routes to understanding. One route, in which I have some confidence, is that of scientific enquiry. A question is posed as a hypothesis. Observations are made which are appropriate to examining this hypothesis. These observations are then examined in relation to the original hypothesis, which is then accepted or rejected according to agreed protocols. If the hypothesis is rejected, then another is sought which may produce a closer fit with observations. The aim is always to produce the closest correspondence between observation and explanation. We cannot talk about truth because we never have the whole picture. There are always new things to discover.

This route to enquiry encompasses all of the items on your list. If scientific enquiry cannot determine whether or not God exists – and I can’t think of any other process which can – then it can at least examine claims to manifestations of God or other supernatural entities. Furthermore, it offers a route in which predictions can be made and tested. This, I think, is our best way of approaching ‘truth’.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Conceptual Artifacts

Post by Fanman »

Iapetus,
I suppose it comes down - as it does so frequently - to definitions. I shall therefore throw in mine, for what it is worth. I see the use of the term, ‘beauty’, as an expression of strong emotional response to a stimulus. I do not see it as intrinsic to the entity itself, but to its perception. Since the response is a personal one, it is difficult to measure or to make comparisons between people, though we can certainly attempt to do so.

I think that you're right in what you say here "beauty" is a quality which is recognised by the perception of individuals, and perceptions can differ from person to person – meaning that the perception of beauty is based upon the interpretation of the individual. The phrase "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" comes to mind (that said, I would add the caveat that the perception of beauty can be shared). I also think that your definition of beauty is correct. However, I think that beauty can be intrinsic to the entity, due to fact that the entity can be recognised / perceived as being beautiful. For example, a finely cut, glittering emerald like this...

Image

...would generally be considered by people as being beautiful. Whereas a mound of dry-dirt like this...

Image

...would not generally be considered as being beautiful. Indeed, one could argue that they cannot be compared in terms of beauty. There's a difference between the intrinsic qualities / attributes of these two entities which cause one to be perceived as beautiful and the other to be perceived as not beautiful. Those differences in qualities / attributes are intrinsic to the entities themselves, and they directly effect how the entities are perceived.
I have difficulty in grasping your interpretation of the term. In your last paragraph, you state, "I think that 'ultimate beauty' may exist", yet later you write, "I don't think that a fixed ultimate aesthetic beauty exists". Does this mean that you regard ‘aesthetic beauty’ as different and separate from some other form of beauty which you have not defined? Does one have access to ‘ultimate beauty’ but not the other? Do you regard the ‘beauty’ as intrinsic to the entity or to the perceiver? What might ‘ultimate beauty’ look or feel like? Do you have criteria which might help to define ‘ultimate’? In what way does benevolence contribute to a concept of ‘ultimate’? It is not clear to me where, exactly, you are going with this argument.

I'll try to be clear here. Yes, I think that there are different types / forms of beauty. Beauty can also be expressed in the form of actions like kindness, charity, selflessness or compassion. Hence, I regard aesthetic beauty as a different type / form of beauty – yet it exists under the umbrella of things or circumstances that can be described as being beautiful, due to the way in which we perceive beauty and cognitively relate to it / interpret "things" as being beautiful. 'Ultimate beauty,' I would define as beauty that affects us so profoundly, that it causes an intensely strong emotional response from us. This is why I say it may exist, as I'm not saying for definite that it does, just speculating. There are some examples of beauty that have more of an emotional affect on us than others – such as bringing us to tears and causing other emotionally expressive reactions. Like the example I gave of the soldiers, who in mid-battle decided to stop fighting to celebrate Christmas with one another. For me, that is an expression of 'ultimate beauty,' for the reasons of what had to be overcome in order for that circumstance to happen. I think that the term 'ultimate' defines the power of the expression of beauty. Not ultimate in that it cannot be surpassed, but ultimate in the sense that I haven't perceived an act of beauty as beautiful as that - something more beautiful may of course occur, which would then become the 'ultimate beauty' in the sense I referred to. I accept that the term 'ultimate beauty' is "fuzzy." I think that benevolence contributes to the term 'ultimate' in this context, because of the amount or the scale of beautiful outcomes that can occur as a result of benevolence, i.e., new friendships, greater respect, humanitarianism etc... If you consider the synonyms of "benevolence" I think that you'll understand what I mean (if you don't already). If my arguments have a goal, its to make valid points. I can only hope that I've done so in some way, clearly and successfully.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
User avatar
Dan_1985
Posts: 98
Joined: February 2nd, 2016, 10:06 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nagarjuna
Location: China

Re: Conceptual Artifacts

Post by Dan_1985 »

Iapetus wrote:Reply to Dan 1985:
Einstein had quite a lot to say about perception and relativity and extraordinarily accurate predictions have been made on the basis of his observations. We understand to some considerable degree how and why we perceive rainbows and mirages. The variety in your list is interesting but there does not appear (?) to be much which is contentious. I do, however, have some questions about the structure of your list.

...

This route to enquiry encompasses all of the items on your list. If scientific enquiry cannot determine whether or not God exists – and I can’t think of any other process which can – then it can at least examine claims to manifestations of God or other supernatural entities. Furthermore, it offers a route in which predictions can be made and tested. This, I think, is our best way of approaching ‘truth’.
Thank you so much for this response and feedback. I think I will change "Visual Artifacts" to "Sensory Artifacts". Perhaps you're right, maybe it is just about truth.

The scientific method is a great approach, but does it apply to what happens inside the mind with regards to how we regard our own perception? I think we need a way to relate to our own perception, not just 'prove' or 'disprove' the existence of God and other phenomena.

* Sofas 'feel' comfortable and babes 'look' beautiful, but while they themselves do not actually possess these qualities we live and act as if they do.
* We come to all sorts of conclusions about each other and about events based on incomplete information, later to find out we were wrong, though it 'seems' that we are right.
* Are things really the way they appear?

The word 'artifact' is similar to the word 'artificial' and a lot of our experience of the world seems to be very much so.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13820
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Conceptual Artifacts

Post by Belinda »

Are things really the way they appear?
The way they appear to whom? To religious nutcases? To established scientists? To chimpanzees? To you? To me? To the next person to post to philosophyclub?
Socialist
User avatar
Dan_1985
Posts: 98
Joined: February 2nd, 2016, 10:06 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nagarjuna
Location: China

Re: Conceptual Artifacts

Post by Dan_1985 »

Belinda wrote:
Are things really the way they appear?
The way they appear to whom? To religious nutcases? To established scientists? To chimpanzees? To you? To me? To the next person to post to philosophyclub?
The way they appear to us (humans). I can't speak of how things appear to animals, but I assume they lack the faculty capable of seeing through the appearance of the world, of analyzing the nature of their experience. However, humans do have this faculty, though in varying degrees.

Great question. It's got me thinking.

Speaking for myself, the end-user experiences that I have are mixed with concepts, feelings, judgement, assumptions, and so on, all of which are my own additions. So the final, end-user experience that my consciousness seems to experience is one partially created by myself within my own mind during the process of it all. This is the reason why I'm exploring the term 'artifact' (or 'fabrication'). Important questions thus emerge:

1) How much of my experience and relation to the world is my own fabrication?
2) Which fabrications could and/or should be done away with?

As I recall you (Belinda) mentioning in a previous thread, total physicalism and total mentalism are both not viable world-views. While it seems that there must be a world of some sort 'out there', it seems to lack any absolute truth - though this does not mean that there is no relative truth. E.g., the chimp is able to relate to his experience in order to find food.

So, I don't think the point is about 'absolute' truth, as I'd argue there is no such thing and I'm sure you would, too. Nor is the point about 'relative' truth as that just comes down to the procedural removal of opposing positions. The point is how we can become more aware of our fabrications and relate to the world more, for a lack of any better word, 'purely'.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13820
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Conceptual Artifacts

Post by Belinda »

Dan_1985 wrote:
So, I don't think the point is about 'absolute' truth, as I'd argue there is no such thing and I'm sure you would, too. Nor is the point about 'relative' truth as that just comes down to the procedural removal of opposing positions. The point is how we can become more aware of our fabrications and relate to the world more, for a lack of any better word, 'purely'.
I agree that that is the point," how we can relate to the world more ".

I'm reminded of something LuckyR wrote, today I think, in another thread, about how what matters is not what we think about our own personal allegiances, but what we do about them. I do agree with Lucky in this connection.

I think that what we do about relating to the world begins with simply accepting that each individual has a different perception from each and every other individual. From this point we go on to struggle for supremacy as a matter of course. This is what we are doing in philosophy club. I am sort of agreeing with you and with Lucky and forming a temporary allegiance with both you and Lucky. From this point someone else might enter the fray and object, or join with me. Thus, the useful dialectic of thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

We are all hotfoot after that cunning fox, Truth, who will always elude us hunters. However the chase is what humans do, and I trust should do. During the chase the 'civilised' conduct is to avoid violence against each other and against our natural environment, and obey moral laws. At this moment in time it seems to me that that is a perfectly good intention and need not be rescinded.
Socialist
Iapetus
Posts: 402
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Conceptual Artifacts

Post by Iapetus »

Reply to Fanman:

Hi Fanman,
Sorry for the delay but we are on holiday/vacation with an extremely unreliable internet connection and we are out and about for most of the day and evening. I have no wifi connection at the moment, so I am writing this from memory of your post.
Our conversation seems to be embarking in a direction slightly away from the original post and it might appear to be a lot of fuss over very little. If you feel the conversation is not worth the effort then please feel free to say so and I would have no problem with that.

I want to take you up on your suggestion that beauty might be intrinsic to an entity. You accept that it is related to perception so I need to discover what other factors you think are involved and your two new examples – the emerald and the pile of dirt - may be helpful in this respect. I collect minerals and fossils. I appreciate them from many points of view. I am not sure that I would call your emerald beautiful. The heart shape puts me off. I really don’t like it. I love the colour and the reflective facets certainly have an attraction though, personally, I would prefer the emerald in its raw state. Which aspect of the emerald do you think has an intrinsic beauty attached to it ? If it is the heart shape, then I can’t agree. If it is the fact that it is cut and polished, then I don’t necessarily agree. If it is the colour then, well, there is an infinite range of colour gradations which could equally be regarded as beautiful. As for the pile of ‘dirt’, it is illustrated at a different scale from the gemstone. If we looked at it closely – through a microscope for example – might we not find beauty there? It could, for example, be a pile of raw zircons. Could the perception change with scale? If so, then where is the intrinsic quality ?

In terms of whether beauty resides in aesthetic quality or elsewhere, then I seem to remember you saying that one is nested within another. How so ? Do you have a detailed breakdown of this ? How does that result in one having access to ‘ultimate beauty’ but not another ? I thought you were very vague about the use of the term, ‘ultimate’. You seem to regard it as meaning ‘very strong’. But, if we are refering to emotional responses, then that is precisely what I intended by the word, ‘beauty’. Do you intend no more from ‘ultimate’ than that ? I always thought that ‘ultimate’ meant something along the lines of could not be improved; if not perfect then as close as anything can be to it. Do you think that beauty can be classified in such a way ? Should we talk about ‘slightly beautiful’, or ‘very very beautiful’? How would you judge one person’s emotional response in relation to another? How would you know that an ‘ultimate’ has been reached? Please help me out.

-- Updated 04 Aug 2016, 16:39 to add the following --

Reply to Dan 1985:

Thanks for your response, Dan.
The scientific method is a great approach, but does it apply to what happens inside the mind with regards to how we regard our own perception ? I think we need to relate to our own perception, not just ‘prove’ or ‘disprove’ the existence of God an other phenomena.
I agree that we need to relate to our own perception and I think that it is very important that we do so. We can certainly attempt to do this through philosophical discussion and we may come up with interesting ideas and suggestions. They will, however, be anecdotal and, because of the nature of the beast, subject to personal perception. That does not stop them from being interesting but, if you wanted to test them in some more objective manner, then that is where science can make a contribution. Perception studies is one of the branches of science. It has established various protocols for setting up enquiries and testing results through prediction and so on. Such protocols could never establish whether or not God exists because such a proposition is not falsifiable. The point is that nothing else could do so either; ontological discussions attempt to do so but they invariably founder on their premises. A scientific approach is the best we have. It certainly has weaknesses - in finding things which are testable and in applying the procedures - but I can’t think of any approach which is more rigorous. I cannot see science as separate from philosophy. It depends on speculation to get it started, it examines propositions and it makes testable predictions.
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Conceptual Artifacts

Post by Fanman »

Iapetus,

No problem. I hope that you're having a great holiday, enjoying plenty of “beautiful” sunsets :) . I think that there are some interesting points for discussion, so I'll continue on - I'll try to be clear.
I want to take you up on your suggestion that beauty might be intrinsic to an entity. You accept that it is related to perception so I need to discover what other factors you think are involved and your two new examples – the emerald and the pile of dirt - may be helpful in this respect. I collect minerals and fossils. I appreciate them from many points of view. I am not sure that I would call your emerald beautiful. The heart shape puts me off. I really don’t like it. I love the colour and the reflective facets certainly have an attraction though, personally, I would prefer the emerald in its raw state. Which aspect of the emerald do you think has an intrinsic beauty attached to it ? If it is the heart shape, then I can’t agree. If it is the fact that it is cut and polished, then I don’t necessarily agree. If it is the colour then, well, there is an infinite range of colour gradations which could equally be regarded as beautiful. As for the pile of ‘dirt’, it is illustrated at a different scale from the gemstone. If we looked at it closely – through a microscope for example – might we not find beauty there? It could, for example, be a pile of raw zircons. Could the perception change with scale? If so, then where is the intrinsic quality ?
I think that when we perceive an entity as being beautiful, it is both due to how we perceive the entity and the intrinsic qualities that the entity has. As, if the entity did not possess those certain “beautiful” qualities, we would not perceive the entity as being beautiful - aesthetically speaking, qualities such as the shape, colour, style, design, brightness etc., of the entity [I would like to add that these are just my thoughts on the matter, I'm not claiming that beauty is intrinsic to entities as a fact]. In relation to the emerald – it's intrinsic qualities would be as you've stated above (the colour and the reflective facets). I don't really like the heart of the shape of the emerald either, but I thought that it would be appealing on a broad scale. I also like the colour and reflective facets, and I think that those intrinsic qualities contribute to it being beautiful or “attach” the perception of beauty to it. I chose the emerald as an example of something beautiful, because I thought it had qualities that could be perceived as being beautiful. I considered that it would not only be beautiful to my perception, but that others would also find it beautiful due to it's qualities. I agree that the pile of dirt could seem beautiful if perceived at the microscopic level, therefore the (or my) perception of beauty could/can change with scale, which is an interesting point.
In terms of whether beauty resides in aesthetic quality or elsewhere, then I seem to remember you saying that one is nested within another. How so ? Do you have a detailed breakdown of this ? How does that result in one having access to ‘ultimate beauty’ but not another ? I thought you were very vague about the use of the term, ‘ultimate’. You seem to regard it as meaning ‘very strong’. But, if we are refering to emotional responses, then that is precisely what I intended by the word, ‘beauty’. Do you intend no more from ‘ultimate’ than that ? I always thought that ‘ultimate’ meant something along the lines of could not be improved; if not perfect then as close as anything can be to it. Do you think that beauty can be classified in such a way ? Should we talk about ‘slightly beautiful’, or ‘very very beautiful’? How would you judge one person’s emotional response in relation to another? How would you know that an ‘ultimate’ has been reached? Please help me out.

I don't properly understand your first sentence, perhaps you could simplify/clarify your question for me? With regards to my use of the term “ultimate,” I use it in the sense of experiencing beauty that had not yet been surpassed, or the most beautiful thing I have ever experienced to date - not in the sense that a particular experience of beauty is incapable of being surpassed. I think that the term 'ultimate' is a “fuzzy” or uncharacteristic way of quantifying/classifying beauty, but the gist of it can be understood if well explained - the terms “extremely beautiful” or “extraordinarily beautiful” could be used in order to convey a similar meaning (although the term 'ultimate' would seem to put such a form of beauty in a class of it's own). I think that relative emotional responses can be 'judged' in terms ranging from a “weak emotional response” to an “extreme emotional response” as a result of perceiving something beautiful. A weak emotional response to something beautiful might be a smile or verbal comment; whereas an extreme emotional response might constitute bursting into a flood of tears. I don't think its possible to know if an 'ultimate' emotional response has been reached or even if a emotional response can be classified as being 'ultimate,' as these are perception based measurements and I think both we agree that perception can differ from person to person.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Iapetus
Posts: 402
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Conceptual Artifacts

Post by Iapetus »

Reply to Fanman :

We’re in Brittany. There are glorious sunsets when the rainclouds lift sufficiently to see them. The roadside borders are a mass of wonderful colours. Because of the rain. But it’s all beautiful.

Talking of which, I am going to continue to try to pin you down on what makes something intrinsically beautiful. You seem to be telling me that the heart shape of the emerald is part of its intrinsic beauty but you know that I don’t like it and you suggest that you are not particularly enamoured. If the heart shape is not held in great favour by the two people discussing this element, then how can its beauty be considered intrinsic? I simply cannot understand what you mean. If you are saying that any element of an entity can be considered intrinsic to its beauty, then can that not apply to any element of any entity, since different people can find beauty in almost anything ? In which case, is there nothing distinctive about intrinsic elements of beauty ? If everything is intrinsic to everything, then what is the point of talking about it ? If there is something distinctively instrinsic, then what is it ?

I chose the emerald as an example of something beautiful, because I thought it had qualities that could be perceived as being beautiful. I considered that it would not only be beautiful to my perception, but that others would also find it beautiful due to it's qualities.



You talk about qualities and have even listed a few. But you have already said that one of them you don’t particularly like and you have said nothing about how they contribute as something specifically intrinsic to beauty. Swarovski glass has reflective facets very similar to emeralds or diamonds. I loathe Swarovski glass. If the reflective facets of the emerald are part of its intrinsic beauty, then are the reflective facets of the Swarovski glass part of its hideousness ? How did that happen? I think diamonds can be beautiful, but when they surround a watch face I think they are tacky. They make me think of Donald Trump. Are their individual qualities intrinsically beautiful or not?

I respond positively to beautiful faces. But those faces are extremely unlikely to be the same as those to which you would respond. If the beauty is intrinsic as you say, then why do people respond so differently? Because almost everything conceivable has ‘qualities’, does it follow that those ‘qualities’, which are certainly judged differently by different people, contribute in a specific instrinsic way? I might find beauty in your pile of dirt. If the pile of dirt has intrinsically beautiful properties, then why is that not apparent to everybody?

I am sorry about confusing you when I talked about aesthetic beauty being nested but I was working from memory. Now I have the quote:

Hence, I regard aesthetic beauty as a different type / form of beauty – yet it exists under the umbrella of things or circumstances that can be described as being beautiful, due to the way in which we perceive beauty and cognitively relate to it / interpret "things" as being beautiful.



You write about aesthetic beauty as ‘under the umbrella’ of beauty. That strikes me as saying that it is a subset. Whatever; what I was asking was why or how you could apply the term, ‘ultimate’, to the ‘top level’ term - beauty - but not to the next level down - aesthetic beauty.

With regards to my use of the term “ultimate,” I use it in the sense of experiencing beauty that had not yet been surpassed, or the most beautiful thing I have ever experienced to date - not in the sense that a particular experience of beauty is incapable of being surpassed.



When I look up ’ultimate’ I find definitions such as, ‘the best achievable or imaginable of its kind’, or ‘being the best or most extreme example of its kind’. But you don’t seem to be using the term in this sense. You seem to be relating it only to your particular experiences and to your current limits. To draw a parallel; if I managed to break my personal best and run 100 metres in 15 seconds (highly unlikely), I could call that an ultimate run. I don’t think that corresponds to most ideas of ultimate. I think that, if you use the term, ‘ultimate’, then you should use it in the sense that most people would understand. That was one of the sources of my confusion.

I think that the term 'ultimate' is a “fuzzy” or uncharacteristic way of quantifying/classifying beauty, but the gist of it can be understood if well explained - the terms “extremely beautiful” or “extraordinarily beautiful” could be used in order to convey a similar meaning (although the term 'ultimate' would seem to put such a form of beauty in a class of it's own).



‘Ultimate’ has specific meanings which don’t have to be fuzzy. If you want it to mean ‘extremely beautiful’, then why don’t you use, ‘extremely beautiful’ ? If you really think that ‘ultimate’ refers to a class of its own, then surely you should specify the characteristics of that class.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13820
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Conceptual Artifacts

Post by Belinda »

The debate between Fanman and Iapetus hinges upon lack of definition of what is the form of for instance the emerald and what is its meaning.

The emerald has several attributes. Shape, cut, size, colour, reflectiveness and those constitute its form (besides other formal attributes such as hardness etc, that I'm not aware of). Is Fanman saying that there are qualities of form that can be abstracted from an artefact's meaning and which are universally beautiful?

Iapetus in Brittany conceives the wayside flowers to be beautiful. Perhaps there was a past time when wayside flowers signified an unproductive wasteland and wayside flowers did not mean beauty but potential back breaking work.

Iapetus values authenticity in beauty. Is an original Van Gogh always better than a fake or a copy? I submit that this is like asking if an artefact is a happening or if it it is a permanent thing.

As a happening, like a musical performance, the definitive Van Gogh might be a different artefact from the authentic Van Gogh.

I gather that Iapetus's aversion to Swarovski crystals is all about their meaning which depends upon lack of authenticity, and not at all about the forms of Swarovski crystals.

If a Swarovski crystal ever got to be compared with a medieval uncut and lack-lustre diamond I guess that Iapetus would admit that the artificial crystal sparkled better.
Socialist
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Conceptual Artifacts

Post by Fanman »

Iapetus,

I do hope that the weather improves where you are :) .
Talking of which, I am going to continue to try to pin you down on what makes something intrinsically beautiful. You seem to be telling me that the heart shape of the emerald is part of its intrinsic beauty but you know that I don’t like it and you suggest that you are not particularly enamoured. If the heart shape is not held in great favour by the two people discussing this element, then how can its beauty be considered intrinsic? I simply cannot understand what you mean. If you are saying that any element of an entity can be considered intrinsic to its beauty, then can that not apply to any element of any entity, since different people can find beauty in almost anything ? In which case, is there nothing distinctive about intrinsic elements of beauty ? If everything is intrinsic to everything, then what is the point of talking about it ? If there is something distinctively instrinsic, then what is it ?

As we agree, the heart shape of the emerald may not be considered/perceived as beautiful, but it has other intrinsic qualities that are considered/perceived as beautiful (I think that we've mentioned and agreed upon a couple of them). Basically, what I'm thinking, is that in order to perceive an entity as beautiful, it must have some intrinsic qualities that cause it to be perceived as beautiful. I think we agree that beauty is a matter of perception or influenced by perception, but since we're able to share/agree upon perceptions of what is beautiful – what we're perceiving as beautiful must have some intrinsic qualities which cause us to do so. If beauty was purely a matter of individual perception, how are we able to design/create entities which can be considered beautiful by other people as well as ourselves? When designing entities such as a painting or statue, the designer includes intrinsic qualities in what they're creating, so that it can be perceived as being beautiful by others. Furthermore, there are certain intrinsic qualities that we find beautiful, such as a certain shape, arrangement of colours, style etc. We perceive such entities as beautiful due the effect that they have on our perception, therefore they must possess some quality that causes them to have the effect of being perceived as beautiful. I think that some entities have distinctive elements of beauty, such as the snow leopard's fur, or the high amount of light that a diamond refracts. These qualities are intrinsic, and I think can be considered or perceived as beautiful. All that said, I am willing to accept that I may be wrong in my arguements about entities having intrinsic beautiful qualities.
You talk about qualities and have even listed a few. But you have already said that one of them you don’t particularly like and you have said nothing about how they contribute as something specifically intrinsic to beauty. Swarovski glass has reflective facets very similar to emeralds or diamonds. I loathe Swarovski glass. If the reflective facets of the emerald are part of its intrinsic beauty, then are the reflective facets of the Swarovski glass part of its hideousness ? How did that happen? I think diamonds can be beautiful, but when they surround a watch face I think they are tacky. They make me think of Donald Trump. Are their individual qualities intrinsically beautiful or not?

I think I mentioned that the colour and facets of the emerald contribute to it's beauty, they're it's intrinsic qualities. I think that your example of you loathing the reflective facets of Swarovski glass, in comparison to liking the facets of the emerald, demonstrate that beauty is influenced by (or is a matter of) perception - this would be an example of your personal tastes. There may be some other factors which cause you to loathe the Swarovski glass. You may find it tacky as you do with diamonds on a watch face? Other people may find those qualities beautiful, which again demonstrates that beauty is perception-based. I'm not arguing that beauty isn't perception-based, I just think that what is being perceived as beautiful, has intrinsic beautiful qualities. Those qualities may not be perceived by all people as being beautiful, but the fact that they can be and are perceived as beautiful (even the Swarovki glass) means that they have some intrinsic qualities which cause them to be perceived as beautiful (my apologies if I'm repeating myself here).
I respond positively to beautiful faces. But those faces are extremely unlikely to be the same as those to which you would respond. If the beauty is intrinsic as you say, then why do people respond so differently? Because almost everything conceivable has ‘qualities’, does it follow that those ‘qualities’, which are certainly judged differently by different people, contribute in a specific instrinsic way? I might find beauty in your pile of dirt. If the pile of dirt has intrinsically beautiful properties, then why is that not apparent to everybody?

I think that how we respond to beauty is both due to our individual perceptions of beauty and the intrinsic qualities of what we perceive as beautiful. Hence, we may or may not share the same perspective of what constitutes a beautiful face. Models, are generally accepted as being beautiful. They may not all be considered as beautiful due to our individual perceptions, but they have intrinsic qualities which caused them to be selected as models, such as slim or muscular physiques, high-cheek bones, straight-noses or pouting lips. They have qualities which are definitive of models, qualities that are considered/perceived as beautiful. I think that 'qualities' do contribute in a specific intrinsic way, the way that they interact with our perception. The pile of dirt could be perceived as beautiful, it may have intrinsic qualities that are perceived as beautiful, but generally speaking I don't think that a pile of dirt is considered as beautiful. I would say that the reason why it's beauty isn't apparent to everybody – is because it doesn't possess elements that are 'generally' associated with beauty. But as you said, if perceived at the microscopic level, that perception could change.
You write about aesthetic beauty as ‘under the umbrella’ of beauty. That strikes me as saying that it is a subset. Whatever; what I was asking was why or how you could apply the term, ‘ultimate’, to the ‘top level’ term - beauty - but not to the next level down - aesthetic beauty.
I don't think that the term 'ultimate' can be applied to aesthetic beauty, because aesthetic beauty can be superseded. What is held as the 'ultimate' aesthetic beauty today, may be surpassed by something more aesthetically beautiful tomorrow. I think that the same can be said for any type/form of beauty, so perhaps my using of the term 'ultimate' to define beauty is inappropriate. Using the appropriate terms such as “unsurpassed beauty” or “extreme beauty” I think would be more fitting, as 'ultimate' implies that there is a beauty which is incapable of being surpassed.
When I look up ’ultimate’ I find definitions such as, ‘the best achievable or imaginable of its kind’, or ‘being the best or most extreme example of its kind’. But you don’t seem to be using the term in this sense. You seem to be relating it only to your particular experiences and to your current limits. To draw a parallel; if I managed to break my personal best and run 100 metres in 15 seconds (highly unlikely), I could call that an ultimate run. I don’t think that corresponds to most ideas of ultimate. I think that, if you use the term, ‘ultimate’, then you should use it in the sense that most people would understand. That was one of the sources of my confusion.

Agreed. I think my use of the term 'ultimate' to define beauty was incorrect or inappropriate. I think you've demonstrated that, but in my defence, I was speculating (that's a good time for 100 metres by the way).
‘Ultimate’ has specific meanings which don’t have to be fuzzy. If you want it to mean ‘extremely beautiful’, then why don’t you use, ‘extremely beautiful’ ? If you really think that ‘ultimate’ refers to a class of its own, then surely you should specify the characteristics of that class.

Agreed. Although I can't help but think that there's some way the term 'ultimate' can be used appropriately to define beauty – like the moment an expecting mother first sees the first child she's given birth to, but this could perhaps be called “extreme beauty.” Perhaps the term 'ultimate beauty,' could be used as a colloquialism or slang? Hence something like: “That girl is the ultimate beauty.” I can see that catching on with the youth of today.

-- Updated August 5th, 2016, 12:01 pm to add the following --

Belinda,
The emerald has several attributes. Shape, cut, size, colour, reflectiveness and those constitute its form (besides other formal attributes such as hardness etc, that I'm not aware of). Is Fanman saying that there are qualities of form that can be abstracted from an artefact's meaning and which are universally beautiful?
No, I'm not saying that. I think that claiming an artefact has qualities of it's form which are universally beautiful would be incorrect. Due to there being people who may not perceive the qualities of an artefact as beautiful. I think its possible that a large number of people or even the majority of people may perceive that an artefact is beautiful due to the qualities which comprise it's form. Meaning that an artefact may be perceived as very or extremely beautiful, but in order for an artefact to be universally beautiful, I think that all people would have to perceive it as beautiful - without any exceptions.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
Iapetus
Posts: 402
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Conceptual Artifacts

Post by Iapetus »

Reply to Belinda:

You pick up on some interesting points, Belinda.

You are right to point out that the emerald has several attributes but I think you probably understate the case. I think I could argue that it may have an infinite number or attributes, depending on how we want to regard the gem. For all these attributes to be intrinsically beautiful is an interesting proposition. I certainly admire the wayside flowers and think they are beautiful. I have never seen hydrangeas in such abundance. I suppose I ‘value’ them, though I am not sure exactly what that involves. I certainly wouldn’t want them destroyed. These flowers are certainly not ‘accidental’; many of them have been deliberately planted and maintained and I certainly appreciate and value the work that has gone into doing that.

I am not sure what, precisely, you mean by ‘authenticity’. I have no objection to the deliberate planting of the flowers. I don’t suppose they arrived there entirely ‘naturally’, so the combinations may not be entirely ‘authentic’. It doesn’t trouble me. I keep bonsais. I don’t suppose they are entirely ‘authentic’ trees or, at least, I have heard that said of them. Much as I admire Van Goch, I would hate to own one of his works because to do so would involve either illegal means or the outlay of an obscene amount of money which could be better diverted elsewhere. I would be perfectly satisfied with a good copy. I don’t think that authenticity is necessarily high on my priorities.

I am not sure why I dislike Swarovski so much. I have probably exaggerated a bit to make the point because the individual cut class crystals are certainly attractive enough. It is just that, when they get put together to ‘decorate’ or to make animal shapes, for example, it seems to me that more is less. It might be psychological; I really can’t say. I don’t know if I would be able to distinguish cut glass from diamonds; I haven’t handled enough diamonds. I collect crystals, though always in their raw state. I go once a year to a large mineral and fossil fair in Alsace and I take 250 euros for spends. I lust over many beautiful minerals which go for silly money but I feel slightly guilty about the money I do lay out.

-- Updated 05 Aug 2016, 21:05 to add the following --

Reply to Fanman:

We had a lovely day in Roscoff, a nearby port. Thanks for your wishes.

If beauty was purely a matter of individual perception, how are we able to design/create entities which can be considered beautiful by other people as well as ourselves?



I think you are asking a philosophical question to which there isn’t a single obvious answer, though there are many possibilities. One is that many artists say that they create what pleases them and they are happy enough if it also pleases others. That may or may not bring in sufficient money. They may go for a ‘suck it and see’ option; find out what sells and repeat the formula. This may be an economic response to which beauty may not be at the forefront. In any case, it is not always obvious ‘beauty’ which sells. Duchamp may have been shocked to be told that his work was beautiful. His preference was for his work to be interesting. Then there is the obvious point that what one person finds beautiful another finds abhorrent. Kandinsky is loved by some and loathed by others. Tracey Emin. Grunewald.

Furthermore, there are certain intrinsic qualities that we find beautiful, such as a certain shape, arrangement of colours, style etc. We perceive such entities as beautiful due the effect that they have on our perception, therefore they must possess some quality that causes them to have the effect of being perceived as beautiful. I think that some entities have distinctive elements of beauty, such as the snow leopard's fur, or the high amount of light that a diamond refracts. These qualities are intrinsic, and I think can be considered or perceived as beautiful.



I thought you agreed that the shape of the emerald which you specifically selected wasn’t particularly beautiful. Some may find it so but we don’t. We could call almost any fact about the emerald an attribute or a quality. The same goes for any other object or entity. Is green an intrinsic attribute of beauty? Why not any other colour? If the gem was blue instead of green we would call it a sapphire. If it was yellowy-green we would call it a tourmaline; if red a ruby (none of that is strictly true but I hope you get my point). There is an endless spectrum of colours. If we think the entity is beautiful, then does that mean that all the attributes are instrinsically beautiful? If we think it is ugly, does that mean that all the attributes are instrinsically ugly? If two people have contrasting views, does that mean that half the attributes are beautiful and half are ugly ? I think that is a hard call.

Yes, my view of Swarovski glass is a matter of perception and I can’t entirely explain it. I think differently about it from other people and that is entirely my point. The facets are intrinsic to the cut glass, as they are to the emerald. That explains how they reflect light, amongst other things. But the facets have one effect on me with the emerald and something very different with the glass. It has nothing to do with their instrinsic beauty, blandness or anything else. It has everything to do with the context in which I view them. Which is my personal perception.

Models, are generally accepted as being beautiful. They may not all be considered as beautiful due to our individual perceptions, but they have intrinsic qualities which caused them to be selected as models, such as slim or muscular physiques, high-cheek bones, straight-noses or pouting lips. They have qualities which are definitive of models, qualities that are considered/perceived as beautiful. I think that 'qualities' do contribute in a specific intrinsic way, the way that they interact with our perception.



Models are selected to do a job, which is selling clothes. That is why they tend to be tall and thin, so that the clothes hang well. Aesthetic qualities are also selected, usually by those proficient in knowing what sells. These may or may not conform to classical conventions. But fashion, by its nature, changes. What is regarded as beautiful in one generation may be rejected in another, or even sooner. Lean/lissom or hunky/curvy. The attributes remain the same but how they are regarded and selected my well change. The attribute may be regarded as ‘intrinsically’ beautiful by one individual or generation or not by another. What has changed is the perception, not the attribute. Having said that, specific ‘beautiful’ attributes can certainly be enhanced, for example by cosmetics. Animals can be bred to look more beautiful. But the ‘qualities’ selected are determined by perception. King Charles spaniels were once very popular and widely regarded as beautiful but are regarded far less so now.

Am I right in thinking that we need not pursue ‘ultimate’ any further ?
Fanman
Posts: 3258
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: Conceptual Artifacts

Post by Fanman »

Iapetus,
We had a lovely day in Roscoff, a nearby port. Thanks for your wishes.
You're welcome :) .
I think you are asking a philosophical question to which there isn’t a single obvious answer, though there are many possibilities. One is that many artists say that they create what pleases them and they are happy enough if it also pleases others. That may or may not bring in sufficient money. They may go for a ‘suck it and see’ option; find out what sells and repeat the formula. This may be an economic response to which beauty may not be at the forefront. In any case, it is not always obvious ‘beauty’ which sells. Duchamp may have been shocked to be told that his work was beautiful. His preference was for his work to be interesting. Then there is the obvious point that what one person finds beautiful another finds abhorrent. Kandinsky is loved by some and loathed by others. Tracey Emin. Grunewald.
Agreed. Upon reflection, I think my question could be an OP. As you say, there isn't a single obvious answer, but I find yours to be agreeable. I think that earning money is definitely a consideration of the artist's mindset when working. They create art on the basis of “mass-appeal,” but in order to do this – they should have an understanding of what sells. Beauty does sell, so with this in mind they may seek to create something that is "maximally beautiful," and in doing so may forsake there own ideas and perceptions of what constitutes beauty, in favour of the type of beauty that sells, beauty as according to current trends. However, as you say, its not always obvious or popular beauty that sells or is lauded. As an example, I think that The Mona Lisa is exquisite in terms of it's raw quality, but the actual scene of the painting I find quite dull and dreary. To be honest, I can't even look at it for too long as it tends to give me the creeps. It has beautiful qualities, but to my perception I wouldn't consider it to be "obviously" beautiful – although I doubt that many would perceive that it's quality as a painting isn't exquisite, hence it's legendary status. I think this demonstrates that we are able to appreciate the intrinsic qualities of an entity, even if we don't find the entity holistically beautiful. We can appreciate and discern the subtle intrinsic qualities.
I thought you agreed that the shape of the emerald which you specifically selected wasn’t particularly beautiful. Some may find it so but we don’t. We could call almost any fact about the emerald an attribute or a quality. The same goes for any other object or entity. Is green an intrinsic attribute of beauty? Why not any other colour? If the gem was blue instead of green we would call it a sapphire. If it was yellowy-green we would call it a tourmaline; if red a ruby (none of that is strictly true but I hope you get my point). There is an endless spectrum of colours. If we think the entity is beautiful, then does that mean that all the attributes are instrinsically beautiful? If we think it is ugly, does that mean that all the attributes are instrinsically ugly? If two people have contrasting views, does that mean that half the attributes are beautiful and half are ugly ? I think that is a hard call.
I do agree with you regarding the shape of the emerald, I'm not aware that I've said anything to contradict my agreement? I understand your point in relation to colour, I don't think that colour is particularly an attribute of beauty in the strictest sense. But when combined with other attributes, colour does become an attribute of beauty. Perhaps if we're talking about gold or silver items, then colour is the primary attribute which contributes to, or constitutes the beauty of an entity? I think that we can perceive that an entity is beautiful, even if we don't perceive all of it's intrinsic qualities as being beautiful – in the sense that we can appreciate the beauty of the different aspects/qualities of an entity. If we perceive an entity as "ugly," then we probably perceive that some, many or all of it's intrinsic qualities are "ugly." Much like the pile of dirt, holistically we may not find it attractive, but I think that it may have some intrinsic qualities that would be perceived as beautiful if perceived on the microscopic-scale (as you said).
Yes, my view of Swarovski glass is a matter of perception and I can’t entirely explain it. I think differently about it from other people and that is entirely my point. The facets are intrinsic to the cut glass, as they are to the emerald. That explains how they reflect light, amongst other things. But the facets have one effect on me with the emerald and something very different with the glass. It has nothing to do with their instrinsic beauty, blandness or anything else. It has everything to do with the context in which I view them. Which is my personal perception.
I think this is an account of how perception can influence the contexts in which we perceive beauty. I used to like diamonds alot, and I regularly saved up money to purchase them (even though spending the money on diamonds used to leave me in conscientious turmoil). I couldn't bear cubic zirconia, I found it to be cheap and tacky, so I'd rather wear no jewllery than wear cubic zirconia. At face value, you can't really tell the difference if the setting of the jewellery containing the stones is of high enough quality, but cubic zircona just felt like, well, dirt to me. They're similar to diamonds when made into jewellery, but I just felt a lot better about myself when wearing diamonds - I felt that I was wearing something of quality and beauty, but cubic zironia I just perceived worthless. I'm a lot older now, and I've since sold on my diamonds (I had a few studs and a ring). I had my favourite stud (costing £500) made into a pendant as a present for my mother. Now, I don't mind wearing cubic zirconia, if in a beautiful/quality setting as you can't really tell the difference, but at that time, my personal tastes heavily influenced my perception of beauty. My point being, even if an entity has similar intrinsic qualities to another entity that we perceive as beautiful, our personal perception may cause us to consider the entity as being “ugly.” Cubic zirconia has some similar qualities to diamonds, but I didn't find them particularly beautiful – whereas I cherished owning diamonds.
Models are selected to do a job, which is selling clothes. That is why they tend to be tall and thin, so that the clothes hang well. Aesthetic qualities are also selected, usually by those proficient in knowing what sells. These may or may not conform to classical conventions. But fashion, by its nature, changes. What is regarded as beautiful in one generation may be rejected in another, or even sooner. Lean/lissom or hunky/curvy. The attributes remain the same but how they are regarded and selected my well change. The attribute may be regarded as ‘intrinsically’ beautiful by one individual or generation or not by another. What has changed is the perception, not the attribute. Having said that, specific ‘beautiful’ attributes can certainly be enhanced, for example by cosmetics. Animals can be bred to look more beautiful. But the ‘qualities’ selected are determined by perception. King Charles spaniels were once very popular and widely regarded as beautiful but are regarded far less so now.

Agreed. Perception seems to be the factor that determines beauty. I still think that beauty may be intrinsic to what is being perceived, but I can't at this time really think of any reasons for why this may be the case, other than I've already stated. I think the fact that we can share perceptions of beauty in an entity implies that beauty may be intrinsic to entities. There's an interesting recent story claiming that according to science Amber Heard has the most beautiful face in the world (it can be viewed here). It would seem from the report that the 'beautiful' intrinsic qualities of her face were the cause of this conclusion. Personally, I think that her face is beautiful, but I don't think it's the most beautiful face in the world – that belonged to my first girlfriend :). I don't think that many would find Amanda Heard's face "ugly," though.
Am I right in thinking that we need not pursue ‘ultimate’ any further ?
Correct. I think your arguments in relation to that subject were demonstrative in proving that 'ultimate beauty' is not a valid terminology.
Theists believe, agnostics ponder and atheists analyse. A little bit of each should get us the right answer.
User avatar
Dan_1985
Posts: 98
Joined: February 2nd, 2016, 10:06 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nagarjuna
Location: China

Re: Conceptual Artifacts

Post by Dan_1985 »

I'm enjoying the discussion of beauty and can't help notice the use of the word 'intrinsic'.
in·trin·sic
belonging naturally; essential.
"access to the arts is intrinsic to a high quality of life"
synonyms: inherent, innate, inborn, inbred, congenital, connate, natural;
So does beauty exist naturally (i.e., not superimposed by a perception) or essentially (i.e., in an inseparable manner in which the object could not exist without)?

I don't think so.

Iapetus rightfully, I think, says that all people need to perceive beauty in order for it to be more than mere subjective experience. And I do not think that not finding a person who would claim to perceive ugliness in a heart-shape would prove that said beauty is an intrinsic, essential quality of the object.

I think beauty is one of the best examples of how we, humans, perceive our own minds. It seems that beauty exists externally as a characteristic of a given object, but it is, to me, very clearly a mere superimposition, a perceptual artifact.

I mean, have you not seen that Seinfeld episode in which Jerry's girlfriend is only always beautiful when they sit in the booth at the back of the coffee shop? :P

@Belinda : What do you mean by 'alliances'?
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13820
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Conceptual Artifacts

Post by Belinda »

Sorry, Dan, I don't remember what I meant by "alliances" because I cannot place the context in which I wrote it.

Fanman's denial that some qualities are universally and intrinsically beautiful interests me, and possibly is a more fruitful discussion topic than the difference between form and meaning, or between authentic and definitive.

I think that I remember that some clever ancient Greeks thought that there was a golden section such that it was an intrinsically and universally beautiful form.



There's a common mathematical ratio found in nature that can be used to create pleasing, natural looking compositions in your design work. We call it the Golden Ratio, although it's also known as the Golden Mean, The Golden Section, or the Greek letter Phi. Whether you're an illustrator, art director or graphic designer, it's well worth considering the Golden Ratio on any project.

In this article, we'll explain what it is, how you can use it, and point to some great resources for further inspiration and study...

What is the Golden Ratio?

Closely related to the Fibonacci Sequence (which you may remember from either your school mathematics lessons or Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code), the Golden Ratio describes the perfectly symmetrical relationship between two proportions.

Approximately equal to a 1:1.61 ratio, the Golden Ratio can be illustrated using a Golden Rectangle: a large rectangle consisting of a square (with sides equal in length to the shortest length of the rectangle) and a smaller rectangle.


Iapetus, I cannot separate the personal meaning that Brittany has for me from the bare bones of its form. I wouldn't want to either. It's a magical place!
Socialist
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021