To fully understand the Aesthetic Duty it is important to understand what Beauty is, since understanding this leads to the central reason for the Aesthetic Duty.
Beauty is, above everything else, undefinable. What is beautiful to me may not be to the next person. Our relationship with beauty is very much a subjective thing. The important thing is why. Why do you find something beautiful when the next person does not?
Take a work of art as an example. It is possible to break it down into subject matter, the use of colour and shade, the way that the brush stroke captures a scene. It is possible to de-construct the final piece into its constituent parts. But in doing this we do not get to understand why something is beautiful to us. We also do not understand why it is beautiful to us but to someone else it is not.
There is no absolute Form of beauty, in the Platonic sense. There is not some overarching Form from which all beauty is distilled particular examples of. If this was the case then everyone would find the same things beautiful.
Beauty is very much a subjective thing, a very individual reaction to something. No matter the rationale that we place on it, the reaction is personal to ourselves.
The reason for the individualistic reaction to something is because the reaction in question is very much an emotional one. When we find something beautiful we are actually having an emotional response to the thing in question - whether it be a person, an occasion, a work of art.
Emotions are very much a private thing, something which is personal to us. We may share similar emotional responses with other people, but the actual emotional response is very much individual and personal. No two people will have the same exact emotional response to something. We may have a similar broad-category emotional response (like being happy) but the actual response will be different.
When we say something is beautiful we are having a positive emotional response to something, as opposed to a negative/ugly response.
And this is the key to the Aesthetic Duty. Positive emotions are better than negative ones. When we have positive emotions we feel good, as opposed to feeling bad from negative emotions.
It is better to feel good than it is to feel bad. Positive emotions can put a spring in our step, can make our world seem brighter, can give us a positive outlook upon life.
If this is the effect of positive responses to things then it follows that it is important to surround yourself with beauty. Whether it is things, people, places, sounds, smells is unimportant. The important thing is that we are exposed to things that give us positive responses.
Surrounding ourselves with beautiful things means surrounding ourselves with things that give us positive emotions, which in turn make us feel good within.
Sometimes we must be exposed to negative emotions. An everyday example could be our working life. Presuming that we do not get a positive reaction from our working life, then it is important to try and turn it into one. This might be something which we enjoy about our work. It might be something which we can add to the working day which helps us endure the negative. Whatever it is, if we can identify the positive response we can help combat the negative.
The Aesthetic Duty is, therefore, to surround our lives with beautiful things, the things can give us positive emotional responses, which will make us feel good within. It is too easy to put up with the negatives and the things that make us feel bad within. In embracing the beautiful things we can combat this. We can strive to survive the negatives and live a life full of good things. Where possible we need to remove the negative, ugly things in our lives and replace them with beautiful things. Where we cannot do this we must try and find the hidden beauty within it so to try and make the ugly experience as beautiful as possible.
In removing the ugly things from our lives we can start to live a life where we feel good within, rather than having to put up with lives were we feel bad.
Showing posts with label thoughts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label thoughts. Show all posts
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
Sunday, 22 November 2009
Return from the rabbit hole
So we have embraced the only Truth that all we can know is that we think, and in doing so we have fallen down the nihilist rabbit hole. How can we function if we can know nothing else but this single truth?
The only way back out of the rabbit hole is through trust. If we continue to deny everything as an illusion then there is no return. We are stuck in a situation where all we can really know is that we think since everything else our senses provide us with can be denied.
We must take, in essence and for lack of better terminology, a leap of faith. We have to trust what our senses tell us. If something looks like a rock, feels like a rock, and smells like a rock then we got to be able to trust that it actually is a rock.
This same level of trust in our senses is what allows us to function in Society. All we can know is our own thoughts and what our senses present us with. We cannot know the thoughts of another. In this way, the Other is closed to us.
But if we cannot know the thoughts of the Other then what can we know of them? This comes from what our senses present us with, what we can deduct from the information gathers. We may not know what the Other is thinking but from their actions we can deduct.
This requires trust. Trust that the actions of the Other, that what the Other is presenting to our senses, is what they are thinking. We deduce from our senses and the information gathered.
But this can only function if the trust is there. We trust the Other to act in a way that is consistent with their thoughts. If the Other acts contrary to these thoughts, and we discover that they are acting contrary to their thoughts, then the trust goes.
When the trust goes, when we start to doubt the Other, then the basis of Civil Society starts to break down. It breaks down because we are left in a situation where only our thoughts can be trusted. We cannot rely on our senses to deduct since their is no trust in the Other. The Other may well be deliberately deceiving our senses. The Other could be trying to make us doubt what we know.
Without the trust that the Other is acting in up-most good faith toward us, that the Other is being honest in the information that they provide us with, we cannot interact with them. We must always remain of the opinion that they are not being honest with us, we cannot have any trust that their actions and their thoughts are in synch.
Just as we must trust our senses so too we must be able to trust the Other. But when we cannot trust the Other then they truly become closed to us, they become unknowable.
To return from the rabbit hole of nihilism we must have trust, because without trust it is impossible to function within the world in general, and within society specifically. With trust in our senses we can honestly hope to deduce true information about the world around us. But we can only deduce correctly if the information presented by the sense is indeed honest information.
We must have trust in our senses, and trust in the Other, because without either we will never leave the nice rabbit hole of our own thought.
The only way back out of the rabbit hole is through trust. If we continue to deny everything as an illusion then there is no return. We are stuck in a situation where all we can really know is that we think since everything else our senses provide us with can be denied.
We must take, in essence and for lack of better terminology, a leap of faith. We have to trust what our senses tell us. If something looks like a rock, feels like a rock, and smells like a rock then we got to be able to trust that it actually is a rock.
This same level of trust in our senses is what allows us to function in Society. All we can know is our own thoughts and what our senses present us with. We cannot know the thoughts of another. In this way, the Other is closed to us.
But if we cannot know the thoughts of the Other then what can we know of them? This comes from what our senses present us with, what we can deduct from the information gathers. We may not know what the Other is thinking but from their actions we can deduct.
This requires trust. Trust that the actions of the Other, that what the Other is presenting to our senses, is what they are thinking. We deduce from our senses and the information gathered.
But this can only function if the trust is there. We trust the Other to act in a way that is consistent with their thoughts. If the Other acts contrary to these thoughts, and we discover that they are acting contrary to their thoughts, then the trust goes.
When the trust goes, when we start to doubt the Other, then the basis of Civil Society starts to break down. It breaks down because we are left in a situation where only our thoughts can be trusted. We cannot rely on our senses to deduct since their is no trust in the Other. The Other may well be deliberately deceiving our senses. The Other could be trying to make us doubt what we know.
Without the trust that the Other is acting in up-most good faith toward us, that the Other is being honest in the information that they provide us with, we cannot interact with them. We must always remain of the opinion that they are not being honest with us, we cannot have any trust that their actions and their thoughts are in synch.
Just as we must trust our senses so too we must be able to trust the Other. But when we cannot trust the Other then they truly become closed to us, they become unknowable.
To return from the rabbit hole of nihilism we must have trust, because without trust it is impossible to function within the world in general, and within society specifically. With trust in our senses we can honestly hope to deduce true information about the world around us. But we can only deduce correctly if the information presented by the sense is indeed honest information.
We must have trust in our senses, and trust in the Other, because without either we will never leave the nice rabbit hole of our own thought.
Saturday, 21 November 2009
The only knowable Truth.
In the classic thought experiment of Rene Descartes it is argued, through the use of a Grand Deceiver, that the only thing that we can truly know is that we think. I think, therefore I am. Everything else can be denied as being the work of the Grand Deceiver. The only thing that we cannot deny is that we think.
This is indeed very true. As individuals, all we can know is ourselves and nothing else. Our experiences with the world around us is through our senses, on which we rely to function in the world. We have five in total and through the information we gather from these senses we interpret the world that we inhabit.
But how much can we rely upon these senses? We might have a condition like colour blindness which means that we will doubt certain information that our sight presents us with. We might be deaf, at which point we gain no information from our hearing at all. In these cases, we discount the information (or lack of it) and compensate accordingly.
But what if we do not have such a deficiency in our senses? What if we feel we are able to rely upon them? What happens if we are told that what our senses are telling us is wrong?
This is a difficult position to be in. If we are told that one of our senses is giving wrong information then we can fall back onto medical science to have it checked. Could it not be that there is a deficiency in that sense that we do not know about? This will lead us into a situation where we can correct the information from this sense in future situations.
The situation is more complicated when we are told that in a situation two of our senses have failed us. Our senses are, in essence, independent of each other. Each one gives us different information, from which we build our picture of the world. If one of these senses fails us in a given situation then we have the other four to rely upon. But if two of the five fails us then what then?
How is it possible to function in the world when we cannot rely upon these two senses that, up to that point, we have always been able to rely upon? We have never had cause to doubt them before. They have always provided us with reliable information up to that point. Or have they?
And this is the problem. Doubt. Doubting of the information that we have received. If we cannot rely upon this information then where are we? We are back where we started. All we can know is that we think and that is it. We cannot rely upon anything else since our senses may well be deceiving us.
We know that we think, and that is all. We can only know our own thoughts and nothing else. Everything else can be denied. Nothing else can be trusted to be true.
The only truth in the world is that we think. Everything else is just interpretation. An opinion. A viewpoint. Nothing more.
No matter what happens in our lives, we must always be truly alone. It is the only thing that can be known. The only thing that can be held to be true.
I think, therefore I am, and nothing more.
This is indeed very true. As individuals, all we can know is ourselves and nothing else. Our experiences with the world around us is through our senses, on which we rely to function in the world. We have five in total and through the information we gather from these senses we interpret the world that we inhabit.
But how much can we rely upon these senses? We might have a condition like colour blindness which means that we will doubt certain information that our sight presents us with. We might be deaf, at which point we gain no information from our hearing at all. In these cases, we discount the information (or lack of it) and compensate accordingly.
But what if we do not have such a deficiency in our senses? What if we feel we are able to rely upon them? What happens if we are told that what our senses are telling us is wrong?
This is a difficult position to be in. If we are told that one of our senses is giving wrong information then we can fall back onto medical science to have it checked. Could it not be that there is a deficiency in that sense that we do not know about? This will lead us into a situation where we can correct the information from this sense in future situations.
The situation is more complicated when we are told that in a situation two of our senses have failed us. Our senses are, in essence, independent of each other. Each one gives us different information, from which we build our picture of the world. If one of these senses fails us in a given situation then we have the other four to rely upon. But if two of the five fails us then what then?
How is it possible to function in the world when we cannot rely upon these two senses that, up to that point, we have always been able to rely upon? We have never had cause to doubt them before. They have always provided us with reliable information up to that point. Or have they?
And this is the problem. Doubt. Doubting of the information that we have received. If we cannot rely upon this information then where are we? We are back where we started. All we can know is that we think and that is it. We cannot rely upon anything else since our senses may well be deceiving us.
We know that we think, and that is all. We can only know our own thoughts and nothing else. Everything else can be denied. Nothing else can be trusted to be true.
The only truth in the world is that we think. Everything else is just interpretation. An opinion. A viewpoint. Nothing more.
No matter what happens in our lives, we must always be truly alone. It is the only thing that can be known. The only thing that can be held to be true.
I think, therefore I am, and nothing more.
Friday, 20 November 2009
Everything old is new again
There seems to be a trend these days in the world of TV to reinvent/reboot/re-imagine the classic shows of old for a modern audience. This usually means a more glossy portrayal with better production values and effects. This also usually meets with cries that our childhoods are being raped and that the premise of the original series is being betrayed.
A good example of where this as been done well would be the recent Battlestar Galactica series. Visually, this series outstripped the original series. But in addition to this was the way it approached the story. Instead of the standalone/double-parters of the the original narrative there was an over-arching story arc. The new BSG was very much an ongoing saga, a journey following the rag tag fugitive fleet's quest to find Earth. I personally found it to be a very rewarding series.
A good example of where old and new collides would be the new Doctor Who. It is very much more stylish. The original format as been ditched in favour of stand alone episodes that form an overarching narrative which pays of with the finale. However, opinion is very much split. There are those who hate the Nu Who because it is not the old. There are those who are just fans of Nu Who and cannot stand the "slowness" of the four-part episode format of old.
For me, my heart will always belong to old Who because it was the programme of my childhood. I grew up with it. However, I can still enjoy Nu Who for what it is - which is very much entertainment. I find the episodes a joy to watch, including those that are traditionally panned by "fandom" (then again, I also enjoy Time and the Rani so what do I know).
When I look at the debate that rages within Whodom over the new series I sometimes think that some people are missing the point. For me, Nu Who is not written for me. I am not the target audience. Nu Who is targeted to the 10 years old of today, just as classic Who was targeted to the 10 year olds of my generation. I feel lucky that I am able to enjoy it for what it is. I find it entertaining. But I also remember that it is the modern generation, the 10 year olds of today, who it belongs to.
It is just the same with the other revivals. Knight Rider, 90210, Melrose Place, the new V. These are all shows for a new audience, and they are not for the audience of old. I think this is why I like the term re-imagining to describe them. They are taking the original premise and giving it a new spin, a modern spin, for hopefully a new audience to enjoy.
Now, I am concerned with this at the moment for a reason. I firmly believe in what I have said. These re-imaginings are not written with me in mind. Yes, I enjoyed the originals but these new shows are for the present generation, and I hope that they will enjoy their version of the shows as much as I enjoyed the originals.
However, there is something that I have waiting for me to watch. It is a series that as been re-imagined. It is a TV show that the words iconic, cult, and classic were made for. I am talking about Prisoner. The original was just a thing of beauty, and if you have not seen it then I heartedly recommend it. It is thought provoking. Actually, it is very thought provoking. I also consider it to be perfection in itself. I cannot understand why there was a need for it to be re-imagined.
So, I very much expect that when I watch it at some point this week I am going to be screaming at the screen that my childhood as been raped. I do not have high hopes for the "televisual event". I cannot see how it can live up to the original in any way, shape, or form. But, I am going to give it a go. I might be surprised. It might actually capture the essence of the original. It might capture the spirit and soul. I really hope that it does and that I am proved wrong. But if not I must remember that it is a new show, for a new audience,just using a premise from a TV show that I enjoyed in my youth.
A good example of where this as been done well would be the recent Battlestar Galactica series. Visually, this series outstripped the original series. But in addition to this was the way it approached the story. Instead of the standalone/double-parters of the the original narrative there was an over-arching story arc. The new BSG was very much an ongoing saga, a journey following the rag tag fugitive fleet's quest to find Earth. I personally found it to be a very rewarding series.
A good example of where old and new collides would be the new Doctor Who. It is very much more stylish. The original format as been ditched in favour of stand alone episodes that form an overarching narrative which pays of with the finale. However, opinion is very much split. There are those who hate the Nu Who because it is not the old. There are those who are just fans of Nu Who and cannot stand the "slowness" of the four-part episode format of old.
For me, my heart will always belong to old Who because it was the programme of my childhood. I grew up with it. However, I can still enjoy Nu Who for what it is - which is very much entertainment. I find the episodes a joy to watch, including those that are traditionally panned by "fandom" (then again, I also enjoy Time and the Rani so what do I know).
When I look at the debate that rages within Whodom over the new series I sometimes think that some people are missing the point. For me, Nu Who is not written for me. I am not the target audience. Nu Who is targeted to the 10 years old of today, just as classic Who was targeted to the 10 year olds of my generation. I feel lucky that I am able to enjoy it for what it is. I find it entertaining. But I also remember that it is the modern generation, the 10 year olds of today, who it belongs to.
It is just the same with the other revivals. Knight Rider, 90210, Melrose Place, the new V. These are all shows for a new audience, and they are not for the audience of old. I think this is why I like the term re-imagining to describe them. They are taking the original premise and giving it a new spin, a modern spin, for hopefully a new audience to enjoy.
Now, I am concerned with this at the moment for a reason. I firmly believe in what I have said. These re-imaginings are not written with me in mind. Yes, I enjoyed the originals but these new shows are for the present generation, and I hope that they will enjoy their version of the shows as much as I enjoyed the originals.
However, there is something that I have waiting for me to watch. It is a series that as been re-imagined. It is a TV show that the words iconic, cult, and classic were made for. I am talking about Prisoner. The original was just a thing of beauty, and if you have not seen it then I heartedly recommend it. It is thought provoking. Actually, it is very thought provoking. I also consider it to be perfection in itself. I cannot understand why there was a need for it to be re-imagined.
So, I very much expect that when I watch it at some point this week I am going to be screaming at the screen that my childhood as been raped. I do not have high hopes for the "televisual event". I cannot see how it can live up to the original in any way, shape, or form. But, I am going to give it a go. I might be surprised. It might actually capture the essence of the original. It might capture the spirit and soul. I really hope that it does and that I am proved wrong. But if not I must remember that it is a new show, for a new audience,just using a premise from a TV show that I enjoyed in my youth.
Sunday, 25 October 2009
Regrets? I've had a few.
Whilst with some friends recently, the topic of conversation turned to the old party favourite "regrets". Do you have anything that you regret and would go back in time to fix?
Since then I have been thinking about this question.
Like everyone, I naturally have some regrets. It is only human to have situations and events which you regret happen. My regrets are usually about the actions of other people towards me, and the situations that have been created as a result. My regrets are mainly about the fact that I was not able to avoid the situations and the fall out that followed them.
However, I do not think that there is anything I regret in my life that I would wish to go back in time and change.
I have always believed that we are the sum of all the decisions and choices we have made in our lives. A leads to B leads to C leads to D. Everything that as happened, every decision we have made, as led us to where we are today.
Sure, I could change B so that it does not lead to C, but the roller coaster of that change in the chain of events would mean that I would not be in the place that I am now.
People can fixate on the past, especially when their regrets are concerned with their own particular actions. If only they had not done X. If only they had chosen Y. All the blame for the present is placed on an action in the past. It becomes, almost, an obsession. Constantly looking back and wishing that things were different.
The problem with this is that in focusing on the past we let the future pass us by. Instead to concentrating on where we are going we insist on living where we have been. Sure, we might have made a bad decision which as led us to a place where we would rather not be but unless we take ownership of our past and move on with our life then things will never progress.
I have always been a "move on" sort of person. When something happens it is usually a case of "okay, what next?". I try not to dwell. I just accept and return to living my life. If something as happened which as put me in a bad place then my focus is on how I will change this situation, rather than focusing on what as led me to the bad place.
I am reminded of someone I once knew. He was not sure about a relationship he was in and he asked my advice on what to do. Now, when it comes to the matters of the heart I have always believed that it is important to give something time. After all, relationships do take time and effort. So this was the advice that I gave - to give it time.
The relationship did not work out unfortunately, and due to his actions towards the end of the relationship he did lose credibility. It was definitely not how I would have handled it. However, rather than moving on he obsessed on what had caused the loss of credibility. And the thing he obsessed on was the advice I had given to him, advice that he chose to follow.
It all came to a head many years later when, after some alcohol had been consumed, he told me why he did not like me. And it was all because I gave him the advice to give it time.
Do I regret giving the advice? With hindsight yes. If I had known that it would ruin a potentially good friendship then I would have not given it. For me, advice is just another way of looking at something. If you take advice then that is your choice. If I had known that I would be blamed for giving the advice then I would not have given it.
I suppose that the reason why this incident comes to mind is because it highlights the two things I was talking about. The person in question was not prepared to take ownership of their decision, preferring to blame someone else for the decision that he made. He did not take ownership of his past. The person also did not "move on" from it. Instead, he chose to dwell on a bad mistake and blamed everything upon it.
It is only when we move on from the past that we can take steps to fix the mistakes that we have made. Sometimes the mistakes cannot be fixed, and the situations that we find ourselves in cannot be rectified. It is times like this that we need to say "what's next?" and move on.
Only when we draw a line under something can we consign it to the past rather than have it dominate the present, like a mill stone round our necks, and hold us back. Only when we take ownership of our past can we concentrate on the future, rather than on what might have been. It is only when we accept that we are the accumulation of all our choices and decisions that we can more forward.
The past is not something to dwell on, something to obsess over. The past is there to aid us in the future. They say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The past is there to be learnt from and that is all. The past, when we have taken ownership of it, informs us when faced with similar situations in the future.
Do I have regrets? Yes I do.
Would I go back in time and change them? No, since I am who I am and where I am because of all the decisions that I have made. I am the sum of all my past - both for better and for worse.
Will I make the same mistakes in the future? I hope not but only time will tell.
Now, what's next?
Since then I have been thinking about this question.
Like everyone, I naturally have some regrets. It is only human to have situations and events which you regret happen. My regrets are usually about the actions of other people towards me, and the situations that have been created as a result. My regrets are mainly about the fact that I was not able to avoid the situations and the fall out that followed them.
However, I do not think that there is anything I regret in my life that I would wish to go back in time and change.
I have always believed that we are the sum of all the decisions and choices we have made in our lives. A leads to B leads to C leads to D. Everything that as happened, every decision we have made, as led us to where we are today.
Sure, I could change B so that it does not lead to C, but the roller coaster of that change in the chain of events would mean that I would not be in the place that I am now.
People can fixate on the past, especially when their regrets are concerned with their own particular actions. If only they had not done X. If only they had chosen Y. All the blame for the present is placed on an action in the past. It becomes, almost, an obsession. Constantly looking back and wishing that things were different.
The problem with this is that in focusing on the past we let the future pass us by. Instead to concentrating on where we are going we insist on living where we have been. Sure, we might have made a bad decision which as led us to a place where we would rather not be but unless we take ownership of our past and move on with our life then things will never progress.
I have always been a "move on" sort of person. When something happens it is usually a case of "okay, what next?". I try not to dwell. I just accept and return to living my life. If something as happened which as put me in a bad place then my focus is on how I will change this situation, rather than focusing on what as led me to the bad place.
I am reminded of someone I once knew. He was not sure about a relationship he was in and he asked my advice on what to do. Now, when it comes to the matters of the heart I have always believed that it is important to give something time. After all, relationships do take time and effort. So this was the advice that I gave - to give it time.
The relationship did not work out unfortunately, and due to his actions towards the end of the relationship he did lose credibility. It was definitely not how I would have handled it. However, rather than moving on he obsessed on what had caused the loss of credibility. And the thing he obsessed on was the advice I had given to him, advice that he chose to follow.
It all came to a head many years later when, after some alcohol had been consumed, he told me why he did not like me. And it was all because I gave him the advice to give it time.
Do I regret giving the advice? With hindsight yes. If I had known that it would ruin a potentially good friendship then I would have not given it. For me, advice is just another way of looking at something. If you take advice then that is your choice. If I had known that I would be blamed for giving the advice then I would not have given it.
I suppose that the reason why this incident comes to mind is because it highlights the two things I was talking about. The person in question was not prepared to take ownership of their decision, preferring to blame someone else for the decision that he made. He did not take ownership of his past. The person also did not "move on" from it. Instead, he chose to dwell on a bad mistake and blamed everything upon it.
It is only when we move on from the past that we can take steps to fix the mistakes that we have made. Sometimes the mistakes cannot be fixed, and the situations that we find ourselves in cannot be rectified. It is times like this that we need to say "what's next?" and move on.
Only when we draw a line under something can we consign it to the past rather than have it dominate the present, like a mill stone round our necks, and hold us back. Only when we take ownership of our past can we concentrate on the future, rather than on what might have been. It is only when we accept that we are the accumulation of all our choices and decisions that we can more forward.
The past is not something to dwell on, something to obsess over. The past is there to aid us in the future. They say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The past is there to be learnt from and that is all. The past, when we have taken ownership of it, informs us when faced with similar situations in the future.
Do I have regrets? Yes I do.
Would I go back in time and change them? No, since I am who I am and where I am because of all the decisions that I have made. I am the sum of all my past - both for better and for worse.
Will I make the same mistakes in the future? I hope not but only time will tell.
Now, what's next?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
