/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14494959]

which philosopher has the best conception of aesthetics

[Anonymous No.14494963]

Hands down Schopenhauer

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14494975]

Wouldn’t one look to artists for such opinions?

[Anonymous No.14494980]

>>14494963
i just read "essays and aphorisms: on aesthetics" today and it was a very good read. which other books should I read

[Anonymous No.14494988]

>>14494963
fpbp

[Anonymous No.14495002]

>>14494975
Yes and Schopenhauer's aesthetics is by far approved by most brilliant artists such as the musicians:
>Johannes Brahms
>Antonín Dvorák
>Gustav Mahler
>Hans Pfitzner
>Sergei Prokofiev
>Nikolay Rimsky-Korsakoff
>Arnold Schönberg
>Richard Wagner

and literary figures:
>Charles Baudelaire
>Samuel Beckett
>Thomas Bernhard
Jorge Luis Borges
>Jacob Burckhardt
>Joseph Conrad
>André Gide
>George Gissing
>Franz Grillparzer
>Thomas Hardy
>Gerhardt Hauptmann
>Friedrich Hebbel
>Hugo von Hoffmansthal
>Joris Karl Huysmans
>Ernst Jünger
>Karl Kraus
>D. H. Lawrence
>Joaquim Maria Machado de Assis
>Stephane Mallarmé
>Thomas Mann
>Guy de Maupassant
>Herman Melville
>Robert Musil
>Edgar Allan Poe
>Marcel Proust
>Arno Schmidt
>August Strindberg
>Italo Svevo
>Leo Tolstoy
>Ivan Turgenev
>Frank Wedekind
>W. B. Yeats
>Emile Zola
Obviously he's the superior philosopher in this regard.

>inb4 sauce
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/

[Anonymous No.14495007]

>>14494980
The World as Will and Representation is his main work. Part 3 of the book mainly deals with aesthetics but really you should read the whole thing.

[Anonymous No.14495108]

>>14495007
can i read 3 first?

[Anonymous No.14495167]

>>14495002
>Hans Pfitzner

[Anonymous No.14495240]

>>14495002
He has literally nothing useful to say.

[Anonymous No.14495523]

Aesthetics are obviously subjective, so Hume wins that one as well. We can choose some criteria that we value and criticize art based on them, but in terms of metaesthetics all of the grandiose philosophical projects about objective beauty are nonsense. I

[Anonymous No.14495553]

Schopenhauer's aesthetics is both corny moralism and based on his indefensible irrational metaphysics of the cosmic will. First off you cannot plausibly reduce beauty to denial of life or compassionate behavior. A negative attitude to life may very well be ugly, and a great story may have an egoistic antihero as protagonist, so his analysis is obviously biased to support his metaphysical system. And of course the idea that in aesthetics we can experience a temporary liberation from the cosmic will is just him playing with his imagination since he has no good grounds for his extravagant speculations.

[Anonymous No.14495555]

schopenhauer, absolutely, as other anon has noted. whitehead, william james, and dewey are also pretty great for infusing aesthetics into the everyday with their empiricism. gregory batesons posthumous work angels fear is a pretty great work on ecological aesthetics and the need for biological science to have an aesthetic sensitivity

[Anonymous No.14495557]

>>14494975
But artists lie!

[Anonymous No.14495561]

Schiller

[Anonymous No.14495568]

>>14495555
All of these authors disagree with each other, do you just not care about truth and recommend the authors who you find interesting?

[Anonymous No.14495579]

>>14495568
i dont think philosophy deals with truths as the sciences do. philosophy resembles artistic production more than scientific propositions to me

[Anonymous No.14495615]

>>14495240
>useful
>aesthetics
kill all anglos

[Anonymous No.14495617]

>>14495568
>truth
aesthetics is a superb pleb filter also:
>>14495615

[Anonymous No.14495624]

>>14495579
If philosophy is bullshit then why even read it? Schopenhauer for example wrote what he wrote about aesthetics because he thought he was right. I think Schopenhauer would be appalled if he knew that people are going to recommend reading his books because they are interesting even though it's all bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14495633]

>>14495561
Based

[Anonymous No.14495634]

>>14495617
Plebeian is how I would describe the inability to discern knowledge from ignorance

[Anonymous No.14495642]

Nietzsche without a doubt

[Anonymous No.14495654]

>>14495615
We are talking about aesthetic THEORY, of course it has to be "useful", which in this context means adequately addressing the subject matter.

[Anonymous No.14495658]

>>14495642
Nietzsche doesn't even have an aesthetic theory

[Anonymous No.14495670]

>>14495658
This lmao

Kant is where aesthetics began (well Baumgarten, desu) and died (rightfully). It is not possible to resuscitate what has long been dead.

[Anonymous No.14495674]

>>14495670
Deleuze’s aesthetics are far more bombproof than Kant’s

[Anonymous No.14495677]

>>14494975
You don't look at the practitioners of a science or craft for the philosophy of the science. You don't go to any living being for a definition of life.

[Anonymous No.14495954]

>>14494963
This, Baudrillard, Nietzsche, and Adorno.

[Anonymous No.14495958]

>>14495658
>what is Birth of Tragedy
>what is Case of Wagner
You literally havent read him then.

[Anonymous No.14495960]

>>14495670
fellow retard alert

[Anonymous No.14496187]

>>14495624
funny that, considering schopenhauer himself states that all his aesthetic philosophy cannot really be proven in any way (especially his philosophy on music). no truth =/= bullshit

it just means we need a new way of measuring philosophy

[Anonymous No.14496244]

>>14495958
The case of Wagner is Nietzsche shitting on Wagner, he doesn't provide a theory of aesthetics. As for the birth of tragedy it has stuff like the distinction between Apollonian and Dionysian but even that is more broad than aesthetics, it refers to cultural tendencies. Nietzsche talks about aesthetics here and there but he doesn't have an aesthetic theory.

[Anonymous No.14496347]

>>14496187
>no truth =/= bullshit
That's literally what bullshit is, a falsehood.
>it just means we need a new way of measuring philosophy
No it doesn't. Schopenhauer developed his aesthetic theory because he thought he could provide actual insight to the topic. If his theory is false we should reject it, not find new ways to appreciate it. No one says that we should find new ways to appreciate the flat earth theory because it is shit as a model of the earth. It is really weird to me how many Continentals are keen on defending philosophies they themselves don't they believe in, as if they see them as cultural artifacts or something.

[Anonymous No.14496380]

>>14496347
>If his theory is false we should reject it, not find new ways to appreciate it.
Behold, the Eternal Anglo!

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14496383]

>>14495557
What do you think aesthetics are?

>>14495677
You want a critic. A philosopher critic.
In that case you do want the practitioner. The one who does your favourite style. Because philosophers have no style.

[Anonymous No.14496404]

>>14496383
are you baiting or just a complete retard?

[Anonymous No.14496472]

>>14496347
then stop reading philosophy at all because no philosophy works with brute truth or falsity. philosophy is not science - brute use of the law of the excluded middle will not do. philosophical systems co-exist as if stratigraphically organised - we do not have progress in the same way scientific studies do where, for example, oxygen theory completely displaces phlogiston theory. schopenhauer's aesthetics co-exists with platos, with kant's, with nietzsche's, with schleiermacher's. keep your brutish law of the excluded middle - you will never be able to make sense of the history of philosophy and will keep deluding yourself trying to scientifically answer terminal philosophical problems.

[Anonymous No.14496479]

>>14496380
Yeah we should also find new ways to appreciate the flat earth model and alchemy instead of rejecting them as failed theories, everyone who disagrees is le Eternal Anglo haha great argument comrade.

[Anonymous No.14496496]

>>14494959
Alfred North Whitehead

[Anonymous No.14496497]

>>14496479
flat earth model is a non-sequitor - we are speaking of philosophy here and not science. philosophy does not concern itself with extensional reference like science, we are concerned with intension, sense, and concepts. and yes, alchemy should be appreciated, not as a way to do things today, but as a practice that lead us to and made possible proper scientific practice.

[Anonymous No.14496518]

>>14496244
Finished it two days ago. Literally in the first section he gives the “first principle of my aesthetics,” not to mention how fucking easy it is to pull an aesthetic account out of any of N’s texts, let alone the two most explicit texts on art (CW, Kaufmann trans. 157). You’re just shit at googling anon. I don’t even want to entertain the possibility that you have read CW and just suck at critical reading/thinking/posting/etc. And dismissing his early aesthetic theory as “broad” is pretty fucking stupid as well given just how repetitive he is about the distinction in terms of praxis.

[Anonymous No.14496524]

>>14496244
Imagine pretending to misread one of N’s most explicit, positive accounts. Jesus Christ, this board doesn’t read.

[Anonymous No.14496528]

>>14496404
In my experience with the dyke, it's nearly always both

[Anonymous No.14496541]

>>14496383
Aesthetics is the philosophy of art. The innuendo was that artists tend to have an idealistic perspective on things, including art, believing in objective beauty and stuff like that.

[Anonymous No.14496616]

>>14496472
"Brute use of the law of the excluded middle", somehow I am not surprised that you are not a huge fan of sound reasoning. What does "Schopenhauer's aesthetics co-exist with Plato's" even mean? Plato thinks that beauty derives from the Form of the Good, and he is either right or wrong about that. If he is right it is possible for the human soul to reunite with the Forms after we die, if it's wrong we just die and it's over.

[Anonymous No.14496645]

>>14496497
What the fuck are you even talking about, you just delivered a word salad. Schopenhauer intended his aesthetics to be an objective account of the beautiful, and he either succeeds or he fails, the end.

[Anonymous No.14496699]

>>14496616
to ask if a philosophy is "right" is to say literally nothing. again, you said earlier that schopenhauer asserts his aesthetic theory because he thinks it is insightful - i agree! is it insightful because its true? fuck no. it is better to ask - what does it do? how does it work? insight =/= truth. schopenhauer's aesthetics co-exists with plato's because plato's hasn't been refuted in any way. we continue to use plato's theories. it has not been refuted in the way that oxygen theory refutes phlogiston theory - phlogiston theory does not continue to co-exist with oxygen theory. it has become defunct. that doesn't happen with philosophy - every philosophy co-exists in a grandiose compossibility. parmenides and heraclitus can co-exist and continue to bring new insight to our problems despite being fragmented theories from thousands of years ago. is this a matter of truth or falsity? no!
in any case, sounds like you have not read schopenhauer at all if you are condused how schopenhauers aesthetics co-exist with plato's - schopenhauer literally explicitly uses plato's Forms as the basis of his aesthetic theory lol. your analytic "sound reasoning" has never brought a satisfying conclusion to any philosophical problem - instead you bring back old theories in a thinly veiled guise since you blindly see things in terms of binary truth and falsity and simply ignore a rich history of compossible insight

[Anonymous No.14496715]

>>14496645
god help me you fools will never be able to make sense of the DEVELOPMENT of knowledge with your binary demarcations. you put words into schopenhauer's mouth - he knew that his aesthetics was speculative and could not be proved. he would scoff at you

[Anonymous No.14496722]

>>14496518
I have read both, but I don't remember if I finished The Birth of Tragedy. And no, he does not have an aesthetic theory. Making some comments about aesthetics is not the same as building a coherent aesthetic theory. And.since you are the one who brought up Nietzsche, why don't you elaborate on what his aesthetic theory is? For someone who accuses others of not having read him I sure hope you aren't just posturing.

[Anonymous No.14496727]

>>14496645
tfw extension and intension are big words too confusing!!! i thought you were an analytic - these are frege's terms

[Anonymous No.14496728]

>>14496524
Great contribution to the thread, thanks anon

[Anonymous No.14496924]

>>14496699
>schopenhauer's aesthetics co-exists with plato's because plato's hasn't been refuted in any way.
I can refute Plato's theory of Forms right now. If Universals exist outside of the things that instantiate them, we are led to the implausible result that eg. the age of John exists outside of him. It also makes no sense to say that the Form of the airplane existed in the Realm of the Forms even before airplanes got invented. And it cannot give a coherent account of how we are able to know the forms if they exist outside space and time, nor it is even intelligible how something could exist outside of space and time in the first place. Hence, the theory of Forms is full of holes and should be rejected as implausible. And if the Forms don't exist, the Form of the good doesn't exist either and Plato's aesthetics are false. Easy. I don't know from where you got this idea that you cannot effectively use argumentation in philosophy to attack or defend theories, but it is absolutely not the case. And keep in mind that both Plato and Schopenhauer agree with me on this.
>in any case, sounds like you have not read schopenhauer at all if you are condused how schopenhauers aesthetics co-exist with plato's - schopenhauer literally explicitly uses plato's Forms as the basis of his aesthetic theory lol.
You are the one who hasn't read him if you think Plato's and Schopenhauer's theories regarding the Forms are more or less the same. Schopenhauer's Forms aren't even an account of Universals, he introduces them for completely different reasons.
>you bring back old theories in a thinly veiled guise
What theory have I brought back in a thinly veiled guise, be specific in your accusations.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14496937]

>>14496541
>>14496404
I was implying philosophers aren’t reliable. Critics are all they are and everyone is a critic

[Anonymous No.14496997]

>>14496715
On the opposite, the notion of the development of knowledge presupposes the distinction between truth and falsity. If the distinction does not hold, there can only be a change of opinions but not knowledge, let alone development of knowledge. You fail at logic 101.
>you put words into schopenhauer's mouth - he knew that his aesthetics was speculative and could not be proved. he would scoff at you.
He explicitly argues for it in the World as Will and Representation, so he thought it was at least plausible, if still speculative in nature. He wouldn't write the book if he thought his theory was just bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14497032]

Would like to see some Nietzsche and Schop quotes from this back and forth.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14497043]

“Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought.”
― Matsuo Basho

[Anonymous No.14497081]

>>14496727
So you are basically making the claim that philosophy should just be concerned with the analysis of concepts and shouldn't construct any positive ontology or epistemology. Not even hardcore empiricists like Ayer and Quine would agree with that, but in any case philosophers like Schopenhauer were very much in the business of describing an external reality, and he either succeeded or failed at that. If he failed I don't see much use for eg. his aesthetic theory, it's interesting but that's about it.

[Anonymous No.14497128]

>>14495674
What did Deleuze said about aesthetics?

[Anonymous No.14497136]

>>14497032
Here's two from Schopenhauer
"…aesthetic pleasure in the beautiful consists, to a large extent, in the fact that, when we enter the state of pure contemplation, we are raised for the moment above all willing, above all desires and cares; we are, so to speak, rid of ourselves." (The World as Will and Representation, Vol. I, § 68)

"Perhaps the reason why common objects in still life seem so transfigured and generally everything painted appears in a supernatural light is that we then no longer look at things in the flux of time and in the connection of cause and effect …. On the contrary, we are snatched out of that eternal flux of all things and removed into a dead and silent eternity. In its individuality the thing itself was determined by time and by the [causal] conditions of the understanding; here we see this connection abolished and only the Platonic Idea is left." (Manuscript Remains, Vol. I, § 80)

>>14496924
He didn't say the same, he said they co-exist.

[Anonymous No.14497137]

>>14496937
Most philosophers aren't reliable, but they are good ones. Hume is a good example, making a convincing case of aesthetics being a matter of subjective stimuli of pleasure rather than the perception of "beauty" in the objects. But I guess as a reader of Nietzsche you may be more accustomed to philosophers who destroy without offering much of a coherent alternative hehehe

[Anonymous No.14497150]

>>14497136
He said that Schopenhauer used Plato's theory of Forms in his metaphysics

[Anonymous No.14497215]

>>14497150
His aesthetics. And he did, so his theory is bullshit. Case solved, I guess

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14497230]

>>14497137
I construct my own, so I don’t mind the sledgehammers

[Anonymous No.14497278]

>>14497215
But they are very different, Schopenhauer doesn't even have the Form of the Good which is the basis of Plato's system.

[Anonymous No.14497282]

>>14497230
>I construct my own
>Being so delusional
You just ape the three books you have read

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14497294]

>>14497282
I “ape” thirty+ books and counting, just like any of your philosopher critics.
I have a book of Hume’s. Might read his thoughts for fun now. Takk.

[Anonymous No.14497353]

>>14497294
>thirty+ books
>thinking that's a lot
Maybe if you are twenty years old

[Anonymous No.14497364]

>>14494959
Gaston Bachelard

[Anonymous No.14497376]

Goonan

"We shape the environment and our environment shapes us. The environment contributes to the aesthetic of physical existence, which influences our aesthetic perception and mind. Some aesthetics are better than others. Human beings create the aesthetic of cities, buildings, land, and existence. The aesthetic must be created with intelligence and planning. Its construction must get rid of artificiality and distraction. The distraction is a distraction from nature, and from the fact that we live in a universe in which we do not know everything and are not in absolute control. Artificiality creates this distraction. The environment should not convey that humanity has taken over Earth, but is rather a part of Earth.

The ideal creation of an environment and infrastructure is one in which our entire concrete/asphalt jungle we call civilization is undone. How this environment will play out and function in the whole of society can be found in the sections on economics and technology. Technology has completely and seemingly irreversibly changed the infrastructure, aesthetic, and existence of the environment and community. It has completely and seemingly irreversibly annihilated a natural and wonder inspiring environment and life. The industrialization of our world must be undone. Cities must be recreated to be small, functional, conducive to community, and intertwined with nature, with structures made of “natural materials” that create an aesthetic that invokes naturalness. Our current environment evokes constriction, isolation, a separation from nature, a separation from one another, excessive industriousness, an acceleration of day-to-day life, confusion, artificiality, and powerlessness. What we physically create and see as our environment reflects our internal selves as a society. The environment doesn’t mean just outside either. What we see and use within our homes and workplaces must also be an aesthetic free from excessive artificiality and should be “of nature”, meaning we should strive to purchase things of nature that are made in a “natural way” (tying this in with the economics section: made from self-actualizing craftsmen who use scaled down production with natural raw materials)...

[Anonymous No.14497381]

A human-created disorderly and chaotic environment creates a disorderly, chaotic, and destructive mind. Examples of disorderly, artificial, and distractive contributions are large advertisements and logos (especially from corporations), street signs, concrete, dirtiness/trash, and infrastructural decay. An aesthetic of too much order is also detrimental to the mind and society, and reflects a poor and misguided attempt in complete control to compensate for existing in not complete control. The aesthetic and environment does not have to be excessively planned or thought out to the extreme, this results in an aesthetic that is too artificial. Artificial order or artificial disorder are both destructive, what we need is the order/disorder of nature, a connection with nature, and using nature in a scaled down manner for our needs. The best aesthetic minimalizes the dominion of humanity over nature and infuses humanity with nature."

[Anonymous No.14497390]

>>14494959
Me

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14497395]

>>14497353
>Muh dick

[Anonymous No.14497405]

The one that invented nelf pussies.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14497445]

>>14497405
Negative elongation factor Pussies?

[Anonymous No.14497475]

>>14497445
Do you think you're being funny, butterfly?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14497523]

>>14497475
I’m amusing myself as I enquire
On caffeine atm. How are you?

[Anonymous No.14497539]

>>14497523
I'm reading a book by a guy that I think wanted to write an introductory book about philosophy for normies but is so autistic that he made it more convoluted than just reading an academic work.

[Anonymous No.14497581]

>>14497395
wtf?
People like you are the reason I don't bother with politics anymore. Fucking retard

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14497592]

>>14495002
Prokofiev composed operas and choral music. Didn't he know Schopenhauer was opposed to that?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14497608]

>>14497581
>wtf
Everything is about volume and size with you guys. I’ve read more than three books to develop my aesthetics. What’s this to do with politics?

>>14497539
And I should get back to my Wabi Sabi book. Don’t waste too much time on bad books.
Enjoy your day

[WECANLIVELIKEKINGS !!zJ4VNW1/Yjp No.14497610]

>>14497581
Don't be mean to fairer sex, anon.

[Anonymous No.14497735]

>>14496699
>um ackshyually there’s no such thing as truth
holy cringe

[Anonymous No.14498060]

>>14495108
No

[Anonymous No.14498508]

>>14494959
Deleuze

[Anonymous No.14499786]

>>14494959
b for based

[Anonymous No.14500647]

>>14496997
It was clear after two posts that said anon is not thinking rationally. Why insist?

[Anonymous No.14500654]

Leibniz.
Bolzano is quite good too.

[Anonymous No.14500875]

>>14494963
Copenhauer didn't even lift.

Mishima.