Category: Uncategorized

Tolstoy presents that for art to be considered art, it must be felt by more than just the artist, it should be felt by many people. The more “infectious” the art is (the more universally felt it is) the better the art is. Art must also be sincere, the artist had to have made the art in earnest.

The 3 standards given were that 1) that the feeling is transmitted. 2) that the feeling is clear. 3) that the artist is sincere.

If the standards are met, then the work is considered art. The degree to which the standards are met define the quality of the artwork.

I think this test does a good job of defining art. I think it adds an objective quality to the definition, while still being subjective.

Comedy=BAD Tragedy=GOOD

From what I can gather, Aristotle thinks Comedy is for the simple man, and tragedy is for the intelligent person. Tragedy is imitation of action, it is logical and real. Comedy ludicrous and does not paint a realistic picture.

Aristotle finds that poetry and tragedy are very similar. They are both good and paint realistic pictures. They both are for the “higher” man and are more intelligent.

Aristotle believes that art in general is good. Tragedy is logical, and poetry portrays the world more universally than history does. Poetry delves into the human condition and psychology, whereas history portrays the accounts and facts of what happened.

I think Aristotle sees art in a way more aligned to my own thinking. He sees art as necessary and human, contradictory to Plato’s ideas that art is bad, full stop.

The beds in the world are the physical beds that have been made by the carpenter. The idea of a bed is exactly that: the idea, the form, the concept. Plato creates the hierarchy of God, the maker of the bed, and the artist. The artist does not make the actual physical beds, he only paints images of it. God made the ideal first bed, the maker of beds makes the physical image of it, and the painter only makes images. The painter does not make physical, reality beds. Plato suggests that only simple people can be deceived by the art, or children. I don’t agree with this. I think art can be really deceptive and real looking, no matter who sees it and perceives it. I don’t think it matters

The Cave Allegory

I don’t think there is much of a correlation between the prisoners and movie goers. While its true that fiction can be an escape for many people, I think it’s fair to say that most people can discern between fiction and reality. The world would be more ideal in some fictional universes but the idea that movie goers or media consumers could be also seen as prisoners in Plato’s cave seems a stretch to me. The only way I could see it is if we go with the thought of we are all prisoners to media and fiction, needing to see their worlds and updating ourselves on their stories, but again, I think most people can discern between fantasy and reality. While media and fiction are very prevalent in our world, the amount of influence media celebrities and false information is usually distinct enough to be able to say “that is fiction”, and if not, enough people can discern the difference to hopefully sway the tide. There are always exceptions to the rule, the people who believe in the fantasy stories and lies, but on the most part the population, I think, they swiftly bring in the dose of reality.

The physical world is not a constant. Because of sensation and perception differences each person faces, nothing is exactly concrete. No one sees the color blue the same way, the trees look different to each person. Temperature, sound, color, texture, taste, and smell are all subjective. Reality is subjective, so I guess the physical world is not “reality”, but more a subjective interpretation of events and stimuli. I think it’s really cold right now but my friend thinks it’s really hot. Temperature is a reality, but it’s a subjective interpretation, so yes, since the physical world is a subjective experience, it is not a “reality”.

“But if the belief has been accepted on insufficient
evidence, the pleasure is a stolen one. Not only does it deceive ourselves by giving us a sense of power which
we do not really possess, but it is sinful, because it is stolen in defiance of our duty to mankind” (William Clifford)

1.Man seeks power

2.That power can be based on deception

C:Then that power is sinful

I think that this argument is valid because each argument follows directly into the conclusion. Each sentence is about power

However, I don’t think this is sound. I don’t think everyone seeks power. Clifford even says previously that some power is based on sound evidence, in which case the power is fine, “pleasurable” even.

His thesis overall is about seeking out the right, sound, evidence. Analyzing the reasons and evidence given makes you question everything, which is a good thing, to think critically.

I think Clifford makes one fallacy: generalization. He assumes all men seek power, which I don’t think to be true.