Is there a difference between philosophy and the arts?
Philosophy is peddled by charlatans, it has no artistic merit whatsoever.
Undergraduates will disagree.
Philosophy is a word that describes everything epic and cool that only I understand because I have a measured IQ of 240.
Philosophy invented science and medicine and any philosopher could easily cure cancer or create quantum computers but they don't even try because they have more important things to do like discuss the virtue of epistemically demarcated ontology and noncognitive morality.
Could you imagine a world without philosophers?
How would you get to school in the morning if it weren't for the hermeneutics of transcendent metaphysical permutations?
You'd surely be dead by then.
Philosophy is highly important and is a sign of severe intelligence but only I understand it because it is very esoteric and altruistic.
Inb4 scientists disagree based on intransigent jealousy due to their unsuperior minds and lesser powerful intellects to mine.
>>8056483
this..... so much this.....
>>8056483
I agree :)
>>8056469
This seems to contradict itself.
An idiot would disagree.
>>8056469
Artsfag here
My first year of university I got straight As in all my arts courses (cinema, english, drama, art history) and a B in philosophy. So I would say yes.
>>8056483
philosophers BTFO
>>8056464
Everything produced by people is art. However this art varies in terms of its usefulness, reliability, or dependability, it's all just art.
>>8056878
>Everything produced by people is art.
Cute. I know you won't provide us a definition of art or any evidence that this is the case.
>>8056878
>decides to define art
>defines art as literally everything
abject sophistry
>>8056464
Art merely expresses the truth whilst philosophy allows to understand it
Art in the institutional sense, that is, art that is shown in museums, does seem to be very similar to philosophy in the 20th century and onwards, in that each is relentlessly meta and self-investigatory. They just seem to engage in that discourse in different mediums.
>>8056887
I just gave you a definition of art. Art is any product of people. Be it their shit, bridges, languages, bodies, languages, or whatever else, all stuff produced by people is art. Again, it varies in usefulness, dependability, and reliability, but it's all just art.
>>8056924
>thinks repeating himself is convincing
First of all, this argument is disingenuous, because you don't actually believe that turds are art, you've never experienced them as art and you don't think of them as art. It's also inconsistent because a definition that encompasses everything specifies nothing. "Everything is art" is what you say when you actually want to avoid talking about art, ergo, non-definition.
>>8056952
What's not to understand about my definition of art?
I do believe that shit is art. I don't think it's very useful, but some Japanese people sure seem to.
>>8056952
His definition is solid. He limited his definition to all products of people. For example, innately, mountains are not art, for example. However, when people look at mountains and see them in their brain, that picture is art. A painting of those mountains is also art. The word mountain is art. But mountains are not art. Any product (or by product) of people is art. It isn't a definition that's related to intention.
>>8056969
We aren't saying your definition of art is incomprehensible, we're saying it's facile.
And no, you don't believe that shit is art.
>>8056952
turds are art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit
>>8056993
What's facile about it? Art is not complex.
>>8056993
>art is produced by people
>therefore everything produced by people is art
Not only is this bad logic, it isn't even honest.
For such an radically humanistic conception of "art" (everything produced by people), it ironically ignores totally the actual experience of art.
100% autism.
You're like a blind man telling us that everything is sound.
>>8056995
I don't need to believe that shit is art or that art is shit for it to be such.
>>8057015
maybe you better like it this way: everything produced by men can be art
>>8057020
So you're an art cuck.
>>8057015
And what is the experience of art? Varying emotions and ideas felt and considered at varying degrees? What is the cause for the varience? The art. Art differs, but that isn't complicated. And more, it's unrelated to the soundness of my definition. It's very simple logic.
>>8057036
Psychologist actually.
>>8057032
Not really; it's even more meaningless than before.
If everything "can" be experienced as art then why not dispense with the notion that it has to be produced, or indeed, that it even must exist? That is after all the conclusion at which you wish to arrive.
>>8057032
Not can be art, but is art. My defintion answers the question what art IS, not what it can BE. These are different questions.
>>8057052
you are actually saying nothing
>>8057060
did you check this link? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit
I was cctually think of this while writing. Anything can be art if you look it in the right perspective, some things are more obvious, others need a proper frame
>>8057117
*actually thinking of
sry for bad grammar, non-english eurofag here
>>8057052
You could easily argue that art is never actually produced and thus doesn't exist objectively. That wouldn't matter however because art can only exist subjectively.
>>8056483
>>projecting your worthlessness to the world on a Cambodian tapestry image board
Marx absolutely destroyed Stirner and pointed out his contradictions
>>8057783
So no one should ever make jokes, especially about philosophy, because they're insecure and not you?
That totally makes sense.
You, and all the other philosophy jags, are literally just fanboys and not philosophers at all.
This is why your culture is dead/shit.
You're about as comprehensive/critical of the authors you idolise as juggalos are of ICP.
What a fucking joke you might as well join a cult.
