Is philosophy an art form?

[Sculptor1]

This thread is empty words unless you are prepared to off in place a running definition of art.
Of course this definition is likely to be guided by the way we all want to answer the question.

We all know, in general, everyday terms, what art is. That definition, vague and wooly though it is, is sufficient for this discussion, no?

Art can be defined extremely narrowly and very widely to include most of human activity - or at least some aspects of ALL human activity.

Exactly. There is art - specifically: creativity - at the heart of science, its complement. [ Where do the ideas for those cleverly planned and executed experiments come from? Creative scientists, that's who.] And there is art in philosophy too, and in most human endeavours, as far as I can see....

"Vague and Wooly" enough to answer the thread question either YES or NO, and thus invalidating anything anyone says in the the thread.

[Pattern-chaser]

We all know, in general, everyday terms, what art is. That definition, vague and wooly though it is, is sufficient for this discussion, no?

[...]

Exactly. There is art - specifically: creativity - at the heart of science, its complement. [ Where do the ideas for those cleverly planned and executed experiments come from? Creative scientists, that's who.] And there is art in philosophy too, and in most human endeavours, as far as I can see....

"Vague and Wooly" enough to answer the thread question either YES or NO, and thus invalidating anything anyone says in the the thread.

I think the thread title is slightly unclear, in that way. Is philosohpy an art form? Surely, yes. Is philosophy exclusively an art form? No, it is many other things too. Isn't this a fairly obvious connclusion to reach? Thus there is no definitive answer to the thread title, I don't think.

[Thomyum2]

Certainly my original post was not made with the intention of arriving at a 'yes' or 'no' answer to the question, but rather because I find the question and its discussion to be of interest. And yes, I agree that we could define 'art' in different ways and thereby arrive at a different answers.

But what I find interesting is that it strikes me that the works of philosophers resemble works of art more so than they do works of science, and that has led me to wonder, as I originally said, if philosophy is actually creating ways of thinking, rather than discovering insights. Fields of study in universities have traditionally been generically classified into the "Arts and Sciences", which suggests, to me at least, a duality between fields that are creative versus fields that are explanatory. Philosophy almost seems to be one that tries to be scientific because it seeks answers to questions, but I wonder if it is more appropriately looked at as a creative endeavor.

For example, if you study music, you come to understand that composers like Bach and Beethoven actually shaped the way music was subsequently written. Most of the music we hear or listen to even today has structural and harmonic elements that can be traced back to innovations that these individuals introduced - their musical inventions have become integrated into our wider musical culture and are a part of the fabric of our lives even though we may not conscious be able to identify them as such. And I sense that a similar thing happens with philosophy, and as I've begun to study philosophy, I've begun to identify ways of thinking that can be similarly traced back to, for example, Plato or Aristotle. I'll find myself pursuing a line of thought about a topic, or I'll be listening to a discussion, and I'll say to myself that's actually a Platonic idea. The thing is, a person making the statement may have no idea that it's a Platonic idea they're proposing, just as someone listening to a pop song on the radio may have no idea that a particular chord sequence was invented by a particular composer. So I wonder, again, do the great works of philosophy actually create and shape the way we think about ourselves and the universe we inhabit in a similar way?

[Sculptor1]

Certainly my original post was not made with the intention of arriving at a 'yes' or 'no' answer to the question, but rather because I find the question and its discussion to be of interest. And yes, I agree that we could define 'art' in different ways and thereby arrive at a different answers.

I'm so obviously NOT asking for a yes or no.

There are two ways this thread could go.
1) Say what you mean by art, then ask your question. You will get a range of perspectives about Philosophy based on a clear definition of art. And I think this is what you want to understand.
2) Invite people to chose a yes direction or a no direction, and they shall offer their own version of art to allow it to squeeze into the space left for their pov of philosophy.

I was simply suggesting that you probably think of art in a certain way which makes you think that some aspect of philosophy fit that more or less. But unless you state that view of art you are not really asking a question at all.

[Sculptor1]

For example, if you study music, you come to understand that composers like Bach and Beethoven actually shaped the way music was subsequently written.

If this is the question.
I think you mistake the impact of both music and philosphy.
Whilst it is true that Beethoven ( a composer I consider peerless), established for all time the form of the symphony, and gave us music that shall last in perpetuity; he did not have a great impact on a wide population. Only a tiny minority of the population would have ever heard ANY of his music until the 20thC.

As for philosophy. I do not think it directs or evolves our way of thinking. It's role is more of a commentator for much the same reason; a minority activity. Philosophy is a reflector more than a director.
It is more like history, and I think the comparison you have made with music in this context does not make it an art.
For me the ART of philosophy, just as the ART of music is in the practice ,and the engagement, even to the quotidian. Art is not art because of it historical significance.

[Sculptor1]

So I wonder, again, do the great works of philosophy actually create and shape the way we think about ourselves and the universe we inhabit in a similar way?

They do both. But in the social field, philosophy is all about reflecting what is going on. on an individual basis it might well effect how we see the world, but for most readers they tend to select the works that most match their mode of thought. The details of the works they read might tweak that, or provide some arguments to support their viewpoints, but it rare to allow philosophy to challenge very deeply except over a long period of study.

Art is vested in the direct interaction between an observer and the object of art; more importantly between the artist and their materials. The latter, where art is created. This is in direct conflict with the aims of philosophy. Philosophy is pointless if you can just make **** up as you go along; whereas in art that brings the best dividends!

[Jklint]

So I wonder, again, do the great works of philosophy actually create and shape the way we think about ourselves and the universe we inhabit in a similar way?

I think the great works of philosophy are becoming more archival since their effectiveness is not nearly as compelling as it used to be. The universe we inhabit is no-longer determined by anyone's philosophy which continues to interpret our existence in a too centralized manner, i.e., anthropically. Any philosophy now created is mostly commentary based on what the science from biology to string theory reveals.

Great art conversely remains timeless; it doesn't age because every instance of it is unique. You can't upgrade Mozart or Michelangelo. Works of genius remain mysterious most often even to its creator.

[Palumboism]

But to the original point, this idea really took root for me when I encountered Wittgenstein famous statement in the Tractatus that "philosophy is not a theory but an activity." I've come to agree with this statement sincerely, and to understand that philosophy really is more like an activity that we participate in which produces, not learning, but rather the opportunity to share self-awareness, thought and understanding, which is more than an aesthetic experience that it is one of concrete learning. It is a living art, which has to be practiced in order to come alive, in the same way that music and the other fine arts are.

I believe Gilles Deleuze described philosophy as the art of concept creating in his book what is Philosophy.

[Angel Trismegistus]

All human activity, conscientiously undertaken, involves both a science and an art, knowledge and feeling. Philosophy is no exception.

[value]

But to the original point, this idea really took root for me when I encountered Wittgenstein famous statement in the Tractatus that "philosophy is not a theory but an activity." I've come to agree with this statement sincerely, and to understand that philosophy really is more like an activity that we participate in which produces, not learning, but rather the opportunity to share self-awareness, thought and understanding, which is more than an aesthetic experience that it is one of concrete learning. It is a living art, which has to be practiced in order to come alive, in the same way that music and the other fine arts are.

Beautifully said.

My consideration would be however: any activity of a human can be considered an art in the face of the quality 'human performance'.

The concept 'an art' can be applied to any human activity by which that activity achieves a positive qualitative differentiator.

So I ask your thoughts, could philosophy be more accurately described as a form of art? Are we mistaken to think that philosophy is a way to knowledge or right answers about the world, but perhaps instead is more of a means of expression of thought, a way to communicate to others of who were are and how we understand the world? Wouldn't it be better to look at the great masters of philosophy not as people making attempts to arrive at some ultimate goal of perfect knowledge, or as being 'right' or 'wrong' in what they said, but rather to celebrate them as people who were great creators and left us with works of beauty that each express in a special way their own unique experiences of the world?

Aristotle considered a state of philosophical contemplation (eudaimonia) to be the greatest virtue in human life which would amount to an 'eternal quest for good' from which value (assigned meaning) follows.

The categorization art seems to be inappropriate for philosophy although it might be considered a valid label as it is for any other human activity in the face of 'human performance' as a quality.

Philosophy can be the origin of art from a theoretical or reason perspective. Whatever the true origin of true art might be, philosophy would be a means to touch the essence of that aspect with theory and reason which would be unique to philosophy.

[Vagueabsolute]

At one point in my life, i suffered from a rough existential crisis and depression. What i felt then, exploring these grand and internal issues was horrid, but it was also philosophy.
When i was at my lowest i wrote this short interpretation of my own situation;

“In between science and art i find myself laughing, as My lungs fill upp with My own blood”.

What I’m getting at is the prospect of philosophy lying somewhere between science and art.