That would imply that the scope of meaningful relevance in any philosophical consideration is limited to a scope that is repeatable of nature, is that correct?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2023, 12:26 pm Value!
Yes. To your first question, philosophically, Fromm's work corresponds well with pragmatism (the practicing of Love). In that sense, Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics—such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science—are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes. Specifically, being more familiar with William James, his philosophical view of radical empiricism captures the problems for philosophy:
The concept 'radical empiricism' is interesting since you seem to indicate that William James meant something different with it than the term seems to indicate at first appearance.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2023, 12:26 pmRadical empiricism, or Immediate Empiricism in Dewey's words, wants to give a place to meaning and value instead of explaining them away as subjective additions to a world of whizzing atoms.
William James gives an interesting example of this philosophical shortcoming:
Hence, the Metaphysics associated with experience, that experience being Love, can be thought of as:
Radical empiricism is a philosophical doctrine put forth by William James. It asserts that experience includes both particulars and relations between those particulars, and that therefore both deserve a place in our explanations. In concrete terms: Any philosophical worldview is flawed if it stops at the physical level and fails to explain how meaning, values and intentionality can arise from that.
James put forth the doctrine because he thought ordinary empiricism, inspired by the advances in physical science, has or had the tendency to emphasize 'whirling particles' at the expense of the bigger picture: connections, causality, meaning. Both elements, James claims, are equally present in experience and both need to be accounted for.
The observation that our adherence to science seems to put us in a quandary is not exclusive to James.
Why did William James use the term 'radical' as opposed to 'ordinary empiricism' to refer to a concept that includes meaning?
However still, in my opinion, a relation presupposes something that cannot be of a nature of a relation. Would Love be a product or manifestation after that aspect or would it originate from within? If within, would it correspond with radical empiricism?
I personally would question the concept empiricism itself since it depends on what is repeatable of nature while what fundamentally underlays the world doesn't seem to be of such a nature.
I wonder what the reply of GEmorton would be with regard that is even said by Bertrand Russell with regard the term 'meaning'.3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2023, 12:26 pmFor example, Bertrand Russell notes the paradox in his Analysis of Matter (1927): we appeal to ordinary perception to arrive at our physical theories, yet those same theories seem to undermine that everyday perception, which is rich in meaning.
What is the basis for the claim that Love (with capital L as you used it) would have universal meaning and purpose?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2023, 12:26 pmJames’s “radical empiricism” is distinct from his “pure experience” metaphysics. It is never precisely defined in the Essays, and is best explicated by a passage from The Meaning of Truth where James states that radical empiricism consists of a postulate, a statement of fact, and a conclusion.
Ad so to your first point, (and mine) philosophical pragmatism seeks to connect theory to practice. In ethics it can seem natural to interpret this as recommending that normative notions be reduced to practical utility.
One of many questions then, could relate to objects, and the faith that we hold knowing the object will somehow satisfy some human universal, intrinsic need for meaning and purpose. Afterall, Love has universal meaning and purpose.
Did Arthur Schopenhauer write that quote about music? If so, why did he write Music [or Love] (Love with a capital L)?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2023, 12:26 pmTo this end, and to my earlier point about Schopenhauer being one of the few who attempted a metaphysical explanation of love and music, it can be said the following are interchangeable experiences:
" Music [or Love] is as immediate an objectification and copy of the whole will as the world itself is, indeed as the Ideas are, the multiplied phenomenon of which constitutes the world of individual things. Therefore, music is by no means like the other arts, namely a copy of the Ideas, but a copy of the will itself, the objectivity of which are the Ideas. For this reason, the effect of music is so very much more powerful and penetrating than is that of the other arts, for these other arts speak only of the shadow, but music of the essence.
If will Will fundamentally underlays the world, how can it be copied?
What does he even mean with his writing when he writes that what he refers to is inexpressible and inexplicable?3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2023, 12:26 pmThe inexpressible depth of all music, by virtue of which it floats past us as a paradise quite familiar and yet eternally remote and is so easy to understand and yet so inexplicable, is due to the fact that it reproduces all the emotions of our innermost being, but entirely without reality and remote from its pain. In the same way, the seriousness essential to it and wholly excluding the ludicrous from its direct and peculiar province is to be explained from the fact that its object is not the representation, in regard to which deception and ridiculousness alone are possible, but that this object is directly the will; and this is essentially the most serious of all things, as being that on which all depends."[/i]
Perhaps we can work through that first question first(?).
The fact that an aspect cannot be said should be no basis for a qualitative differentiator when it concerns art in my opinion.
*Emmanuel Levinas: The Saying and the Said
I do not think that I agree with the quote. What makes music special in my opinion compared to other art might be that the nature of how humans experience music can enable them to find a spiritual home in it which - as the quote indicates - relieves them from subjective suffering and pain because the essence of happiness is found externally in the living home produced by music. However, the factor that enables such an experience is applicable to any art in my opinion. Perhaps it can be found in the simplest pattern. Perhaps it is the simple happiness of existence itself.