Philosophy and Art

So megalomaniac people produce even more megalomaniac people.

But when and how will this story end?

Ummmm… philosophy is an art.

The globalistic phase will end in this or in the next century, I guess, and before its end there will be a lot of terror attacks, a lot of civil wars, wars with atom bomb explosions and other disasters.

The fact is that philosophy and art are not the same, regardless whether one of them is subordianted or superordinated to the other.

Category error.

You are wrong.

Philosophy and art are not the same. Faust, you are wrong.

let us think about this…

philosophy can be art, it just isn’t right now…

for example, we consider works of fiction, words put together,
as art, so philosophy as words put together can be art, at least
theoretically…

why philosophy hasn’t been art is because philosophers have followed
such bad writers as Kant and Hegel and haven’t followed such
good writers as Nietzsche or Camus… both of whom have written
“philosophical” works of art…

it is both the language used and format used that has prevented philosophy
from being art…both of which comes from not trying to turn philosophy
into art… if we follow Kant or Hegel we can never have philosophy
as art…

Philosophy should sing and dance as Nietzsche thought it should, but that
comes with an understanding that philosophy is not about creating systems
or logic chopping or following Spinoza in creating a book with axioms and
corollaries and this follows this…philosophy can be art if it is about
who we are and what is possible for the human to be or to become…
we can be or we can work on becoming…I believe it is more important
that we strive to becoming and not just to be…and our philosophy should
reflect that and thus becomes art…“Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance”
is art as is the book, “Sophie’s world”

Philosophy can be and ought to be Art… as we know art… it just
takes some effort and imagination for it to do so…

Edit: another philosophical book is “The Razor’s Edge”

Kropotkin

Philosophers are bad artists, artists are bad philosophers. Is that what you mean actually?

Kant and Hegel were good philosophers, if not the best philosophers of all times, whereas Nietzsche and Camus were bad philosophers, especially Camus, but good philosophic artists.

If that is what you mean, then I agree.

Camus was alive. As alive as Sisyphus. Philosophy was alive in him.

K: have you actually read Kant or Hegel, they are both terrible artists AND
terrible philosophers… whereas I believe both Nietzsche and Camus were
better artist AND better philosophers… both Kant and Hegel wrote crap
disguised as philosophy and no one could tell because of the language
they both used which hid their crap under unending deluge of meaningless
words like spirit…

Kropotkin

Philosphy does not ought to be art.

I have read Kant and Hegel more intensively than you, because I have read them in their original language German. Yes, it is sometimes difficult to read them, especially Hegel, but that just does not make them “terrible philosophers”. That is just what a philosopher does not need to be: an artist. And an artist does not need to be a philosopher. That is just what I am saying.

If you want to read art, then read art.

You do not know their original language.

You are writing nonsense.

Have you not read what I replied?

If you prefer art, then be honest and just say it.

By the way:
Have you ever read mathematics books?
Have you ever read logic books?

Isn’t it basically the same discussion about a pseudo dualistic problem here on ILP: “Logic versus Ethics”, “Rationality versus Irrationality”, “Kant or Hegel versus Schopenhauer or Nietzsche” … and so on and so forth? To me, these dualisms are pseudo dualisms, not like real dualisms, for instance: “Ideality versus Reality”, “Subjectivity versus Objectivity”.

And a further example: “Spirit versus Nature”.

Couldn’t we subsume the both dualisms “Spirit versus Nature” and “Ideality versus Reality” under one dualism?

I would not.

And if I did, I would subsume both under the dualism “Subjectivity versus Objectivity”.

Arminius wrote:

Are you speaking exclusively of painted canvases and sculptures when you use the term artists?

Would you also include writers and poets within Art? Theirs is also Art.

Philosophers might make bad artists insofar as an artist’s canvas or sculpture goes since it does take a lot of talent to do what a good or great artist does …some might not even be able to color within the lines…

BUT I might suggest that the artist himself; namely, the one who is also the writer or poet, along with the painter of canvases, might also be a good philosopher.

Would you agree that an artist is one who does or tries to show the reality of life in both the concrete and the abstract?
The one who reaches below the surface of things to reveal what nature is and does and defines truth and meaning.
The one who shows us, gives us another interpretation or perception insofar as how we can look at something?

Isn’t this ALSO what the philosopher does, Arminius?
But perhaps some are just not capable of seeing how both can flow through and harmonize with each other.

As I have already said, writers and poets are artists too.

Artists do not always and/or not entirely show the reality (think of certain surrealists for exxample), but they actually should.

Philosophers and artists have similarities, as I have already said too, but they are not the same.