Conversation

Replying to
After saying I'm not going to comment, I can't help but mention this paragraph of Singer's. I think it's a sign of something wrong in the foundations. I won't try to say why, yet - I have ~a thousand or so words of notes on the trouble, but don't have clear understanding yet..
Image
10
43
Replying to
I really resonate with this, and don't really understand my reaction - maybe a vast oversimplification would be to say - it's like he's optimizing for life, but removing the entire purpose of life.
2
12
Replying to
Yeah. There's a _lot_ of apologies for this: justification of having kids, for art, for eating ice cream, but it's always special pleading, in tension with doing the right thing. It's super-interesting. But there's something missing.
1
5
Replying to and
It seems as if art is the cuckoo child of life, the artist being an intelligent control agent that falls in love with its representations and forgetting their instrumentality for the purposes of regulating its interaction with the universe. This mode does certainly exist!
1
13
The purpose of art seems to be the capturing of conscious states, which seem intrinsically important to the artist. Artists who do not see that as instrumental to the edification of an audience can be very pure and beautiful, but practically dysfunctional human beings.
1
6
Yet art does serve a purpose: it allows us to develop a shared reflection of our outer and inner conditions. Museums help us to understand and reflect our culture and civilization, and so do opera and literature.
1
11