Wittgenstein & Aesthetics
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2022
- A few introductory clips about the later Wittgenstein in the context of 20th century art that are from a program on aesthetics and the philosophy of art in a series on great ideas in philosophy.
#philosophy #wittgenstein #aesthetics
This photo (thumbnail) of Luddy genuinely creeps me out 🫣
Same 😂
Perfect vid length
The music and the visuals… this was great to watch
@@Epiousios18 A Philosophy Simp, is still a Simp. Stop Simping.
More like this (and longer)
In which book is this Wittgenstein’s mention in 1:01?
Well ... that was edifying.
To me it seems like Wittgenstein makes an interesting/valid point (as usual) and then others take the concept too far. My "gut" reaction through the video went from "interested" to progressively more dismissive.
How can you talk about 'apples' and 'oranges', if things do not have essences?
No one said that things do not have essence. The point is that there is no such things as "fruit" in general, but each particular entity that we refer as "apple" (this particular kind of "fruit") or "orange" (idem). The same happens with "people": there is no such thing as "the people of Europe", for exemple, but only every human being in particular.
Did they get Anthony Hopkins to give voice to Wittgenstein for this?
Spot on.
Who is this narrator? I’ve heard her voice before in sci-fi movies
If a spoon is whatever I call a spoon then nothing is really a spoon. Similarly, if Art is whatever we call art, then nothing is actually Art.
Yeah, I don't think that Wittgenstein would ever actually suggest that literally anything can count as a spoon or art, or that they can simply be whatever we call them. That's not right. There may not be any underlying essence or nature that is shared in common by all spoons or all works of art, but that doesn’t mean that the concept can be applied to anything and everything, or whatever we call by such a name. So you’re right. A concept has to exclude some things in order to genuinely be a concept at all begin with.
@@Philosophy_Overdose Could not agree more, Wittgenstein's family resemblances seems to imply the opposite of the claim that there are no forms IMHO. That said I am not an expert on Wittgenstein's philosophy.
The thumbnail is Wittgenstein when he smells that ZaZa in public
😎
I believe that true art is when there is no identification of art.
exactly
person - So, throwing up a kebab is true art, but Michelangelo isn't?
ty
*Laughs in tomato*
Then Tommy Pynchy sez …. revere the grotesque!
This era will soon be over; it has become cliché and boring. Wittgensteins theory cannot be perfectly transcribed into aesthetics, nor vice versa.
You do realise that aesthetics is an ultimate expression of human culture regardless of technical details and is also the intangible part of culture humans can most effectively grasp. How is something intangible going to ever disappear? Go write a philosophy book or something.
@@Max_Le_Groom I mean the era of the "avant-garde", if I'm understanding you correctly. The "post-avant-garde" is inevitable. The thing is, and is stated in the video, the avant-garde is hinged upon a constant reliance upon "questioning" the "standard norms"-- yet where we currently find ourselves in-- the 21st century-- is a time where said norms are gone or quickly disappearing. As an example, pop culture has already taken hyper-sexuality-- the trademark of avant-garde aesthetics -- for itself. The Beatles used musique concrète; it turned out to be indistinguishable from anything the 'serious composers' were doing; thus further demonstrating that the music is an Act rather than itself.
Where to go then?
@@matiasalvarezfranks6935 Listen to Revolution 9. And my question was not meant to be answered, least of all meant to be interpreted by yourself as some artistic teleology. "Where to go?" is not a vision of some future grand artistic -ism. And it does not matter if musique concrete now simply has "some more" tools in its already far too big of a set. The essence of it still smells of sterility; of dry, academic rooms where music of this kind is now held.
@@matiasalvarezfranks6935 Could you then refer me to the "New" Musique Concrète? I have listened to Henry, Schaeffer, Maderna, etc, and it has brought me to this conclusion, essentially based on the latter half of the 20th century's trends. In that case, Revolution 9 is indeed very similar, that cannot be argued. Yet as of right now, it seems to me like you are just making vague platitudes about how the "New music" is so much different, based on ultra-specific criteria that is in itself indistinguishable from the "old", which goes back to my point. Something further to my point is that such style has evidently not made it beyond the academic hallways or past the 'Old-educated-music-professor' criterion if I, who is already familiar with such, has not even heard of it.
HAHAHA SIT IN THE MILK